Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

reply to post by thesearchfortruth


Wait a minute. "The USA has a bunch of people who don't believe in evolution. The rest of the world all does (which is untrue, actually) The USA is also the leader of technological development. The rest of the world stinks at it. Therefore, we need the USA to be like the rest of the world and start believing in evolution."

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Nye here, especially on his idea that belief in evolution will be mainstream in a few hundred years. Worldwide, religious fundamentalists have a tendency to have lots of kids. They're better fitted to outbreed the rest of the population.

Hello guys,

I think we can rely on our children, at least for a little bit.
My 4yo daughter told me some days ago that the sandman isn't real. "okay", I said, "who told you so?", because I was curious if someone at the kindergarten played the educationer. "No one, I figured it out myself. Because I have never seen him before nighttime, I got sleepy on my own."

My work is done. Nothing left to do there

You might guess what she thinks about "god", "religion" and such - we are quite a secular family.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
The science in the bible started being proven with the invention of the electron microscope and period table of elements.

OK...this I gotta hear.

How did the electron microscope and the periodic table prove that the bible was "scientific".

Do tell.

I wonder if people will ever realize that science is not a democracy and the truth is not decided by the majority. You do not get to vote on the truth.

reply to post by Endorra


I said christiannism because here, in the US and Canada, the majority is christianism.

Of course, as you point out, every other religions are targets of Rothschild too, but in their respective countries.

The only thing I can say is, how about we just don't teach children anything that isn't a proven fact? How about religion is taught outside of school only, and the only science that gets taught is chemistry, biology, and the mathematical physics, at least that way if they were to become scientists, they could use the mathematical tools they learned from school to try and figure things out for themselves, rather than just taking theories which are basically "true until proven wrong."

I'm all for science, because it actually can bother it's ass to at least try and figure things out, but we shouldn't just accept a theory until it is debunked, that would be the way of the flat-Earthers.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Endorra

 

I said christiannism because here, in the US and Canada, the majority is christianism.

Of course, as you point out, every other religions are targets of Rothschild too, but in their respective countries.

Nope, that is not what I pointed out. I am pointing out that every other religion is a target of Christianity.
Interesting to note that Christians and the Rothchilds share an agenda?
I can only confirm what the Christians do.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


You really have to quit posting pseudo-scientific nonsense

I mean, are you ever fact checking the stuff you read? Because it sure doesn't seem that way.

Let me give you an example of something you quoted:

The book lists the strangeness of the Moon, which includes the fact that it does not have a solid core like every other planetary object.

Now, aside from the FACT that there are literally dozens of moons around other planets that are similar to our moon, there's another little fact that shows what nonsense the article you posted is:

Like Earth, the moon has a solid inner core and a liquid outer layer. The moon also has a mushy, semi-liquid layer around that.

The study supports the commonly held theory that the moon formed after a large object smashed into Earth about four billion years ago, creating a cloud of debris that gradually coalesced into our satellite companion.

LINK

Titan too for example is VERY similar...

So please, before you blindly believe pseudo-scientific sources and dumb down ATS readers in the process, at least spend a few minutes fact checking your posts

OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE MATTERS!!

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by nixie_nox

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by Ironclad
I remember a while ago I was in a museum looking at Dinosaur fossils when a creationist school group came through.

I remember the teachers explaining to the children that these giant monsters were walking the earth just a few hundred years ago with the native australians and the other mega-fauna (must have been pretty croweded out on those open planes).

Funny that the Aboriginals have no memory passed down from their ancestors or in cave paintings of such beastsa walking amongst them (with the exeption of mega-Fauna).

I remember asking the lecturer where he studied and what qualifications he had and the reply was masters degree in bible science...

This is an actual academic form of study for this day and age?

So it isn't just aAmerica where this primitive view of the world exists.

What some of our children (our future leaders) are being taught is just frightening..!!

edit on 8/28/2012 by Ironclad because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/28/2012 by Ironclad because: (no reason given)

Your not that smart or correct
This is an image of a dinosaur painted by Australian Aboriginals

www.answersingenesis.org...

Bunyips were described as well. Looking remarkably like dinosaurs
But hey I guess you know EVERYTHING
creation.com...

Everybody is wrong but you cant be. Any recording of something you cant see on Wikipedia is fake
www.cryptozoology.com...
Where did you study?

That is it! I am absolutely going to stop believing in evolution because an aboriginie drew a Sinclair!!

Whatever was I thinking?

You debunk wikipedia but someone's cave drawing gives you all the answers. No wonder you are so lost.

The first one, Sinclair:

First off, a plesiosaurus is not a dinosaur, it is a sauropterygian.

The drawings that are shown, are not anatomically possible, because an animal of that size, would not be able to pump enough blood to the head and back. It couldn't exist.

Third, plesiosurs fossils have been found in Austrailia. Not that hard for an old guy smoking something out there to see the fossil and make a story out of it.

Fourth, the actual story of Yarru is about a large snake, not a plesiosaurus.

Last, how do you know that some anxious creationists, like the neurotics on this board, didn't paint it and go, see???


Do yourself a favor and stay away from creationist websites.

And before anyone brings out the platypus, the fossilized hat or the fossilized boot, or the footprints in Utah, they have all be debunked. Save yourself some time.

Deep but dumb
A big dinosaur can not possibly get enough oxygen in to its body through its small nostrils... according to science....so effectively..... no big dinosaurs ever existed.

Also you have heard of fossilised hats and boots, fossilisation does not have to take millions of years

HAHAHAHAHA

did I call it or did I call it?

My response on page 10:

And before anyone brings out the platypus, the fossilized hat or the fossilized boot, or the footprints in Utah, they have all be debunked. Save yourself some time.

The boot and hat are not fossilazation. It is a nice mineral coating. A mineral shell so to speak.
Fossilization is the replacing of the remains with rock or mineral.

As for dinosaur noses, I don't know where you got that idea from. Since soft tissue has never been found, the size of the nose would of been a guess.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


The issue isnt so much the data itself. Things are quite obviously patterned in a certain way with at least some semblance to consistency, or else even the process of science would be a moot point. We even see similar patterns when we look into things like cymatics.

So, we know these patterns exist solely on the basis that they manifest. It is in our interpretation that things get subjective. And this inevitably leads to subjective interpretation which will always be based in bias. What you present is not indicative of anything other than the patterns and data themselves. We can, and do, make inferences off of that data but that is where inherent limitations come into play.

The data you present can pretty easily be interpreted another way, is what I am saying. There is definitely the possibility you are correct, but only in so far as the human perspective can understand the presented data. This is a limitation that can not be pushed aside, only worked with and understood.

Originally posted by domasio
The only thing I can say is, how about we just don't teach children anything that isn't a proven fact?

The issue is that "proven fact" is entirely subject to change. Evolution, with the exception of having little to no evidence of transpeciation, is as much of a "proven fact" as things like biology and chemistry.

Instead of teaching children our current limited interpretation of the data as "fact," I feel we should instead be teaching them how to explore it themselves. This applies across the board from religion to school. Perhaps in the lower grades (1-9 or so), we focus on teaching them how to apply things like the scientific method and come to their own conclusions about many things, which is then reviewed by the rest of the classroom who also operate on the basis of the scientific method. They always have the internet as well. Then, as they get older and have been trained to properly question and understand the limitations of interpretation through their own experience, we can start introducing them to "what we currently know."

It seems to me that doing it the other way around is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. They are unlikely to question the foundation of their education learned in earlier years, so I feel it might be better to have that foundation be the scientific method itself instead of indoctrination into inherently limited interpretations that the method has yielded. Even if they do question it currently, the scientific method will rarely be used, and we will generally just take an "anti" stance that has no basis outside of our own reactionary bias and will jump to conclusions based on no evidence, or only the evidence we want to see. This is likely a result of not teaching our children the inherent flaws in interpretation, and they do not have the opportunity to learn it from experience. We see this either/or scenario play out every day, in every arena, including in this thread.

As it currently stands, the scientific method is introduced (at best) in high school, and rarely sees the light of day outside of the science courses. But I do feel it is the best method of exploration and learning that we currently have and has much wider application.

Originally posted by aardvark888
reply to post by pajoly

 

The Torah is part of God's word. The koran, however is not the word of God, but the writings of a false prophet/pedophile/murderer. How could we take those writings with anything more than a grain of salt?

I'm sure they make the same claim the other way around

Just thought I'd add a wrench in this discussion.

Science is relative to human understanding of the world - it is not a 100% understanding of everything in the universe, and it keeps evolving in and of itself. For how long did scientists believe that the atom was an indivisible particle?

Religion contains information that is relative to the understanding of leadership and the behaviour of the populace in general - no, I do not expect to see the story of evolution in religious texts - your constitution is based on ideas that are taken from religious sources. So - I'm not sure how science and religion are in dispute with each other. Where is the proof of this? Just look at the number of times the word "justice" appears in the bible.

There are those that see the value of the lessons of morality in religion. Are they provable? If many people witnessing to the ideas behind science makes science provable, then so does many people believing in religious tenets make the book credible.

The book was written at a time when the other sciences didn't exist in such enormous detail. It is the science of running an efficient and continuously working society, if you will - mixed in with the lessons learnt from historical evidence of such efficacy. It is also one of the oldest documents (collection of texts on the subject) on the planet - which is a testimony to its importance to the populace.

Is God a provable scientific notion - absolutely. The idea that you can divide particles further and further and search for reasons beyond what is simply externally visible, is evidence that there are layers beneath what is visible that contain the properties that are observed - the question of where the properties start and stop has still not been answered. Intelligent design is clear - unless you can argue that you aren't intelligent. Science didn't put these things in place - it is only uncovering what was already there.

If science can argue provability - then so can the concept of intelligent design be provable - you can't search for unintelligible designs - or can you?

I too do not think it is appropriate for children either. Obviously Creationism is a literal interpretation of writings that are many, many centuries old, and obviously were the work of men, not divine intervention. I believe in God, and even the Christian form of God, but anyone who does his research, or actually just thinks critically for themselves will realize that this was all the work of men. The Bible I mean. Some of what they wrote may have happened, but the majority of it is nothing more than personal opinion. Everyone has their opinions, and it is when those who are very opinionated get things wrong that they start screwing things up by unknowingly spreading disinfo. This is why people need to learn to look at things from both sides all the time.

Creationism doesn't jibe with what is physically possible in this Universe. It's that simple. God, if he did the things written about in the Bible, would have done so by staying within the laws He created for the Universe. We know that dinosaurs weren't on the Ark, and that they didn't live at the same time as humans. It IS that simple. Creationism is just plain wrong. If history is any indication, religion does nothing to advance peace on Earth, and instead causes much destruction and persecution. Science, on the other hand, betters our lives every decade or so, and has made most of our achievements as a species possible.

Therefore children need to understand science as it will become even more important if we advance further, and teaching Creationism at home or school, while trying to teach Evolution, which is based on observation and science, is only going to confuse these children, and set them back in terms of our species cranking out new scientists. And each new generation of scientists have even more to learn that their predecessors, as scientific knowledge increases exponentially. This is why specialization has become so prominent.

reply to post by Murgatroid


anyone who treats science in this manner is a fool who does not understand the process. There is proven science, Laws, and unproven science, theories.

The proven science is the science which can be validated over and over by anyone and drives most of our technology, it needs no faith as it is obviously true in as much as I'm using the internet and a computer to type this message to you. to say it is a lie is to say your very existence is a lie.

The unproven or unprovable science, theories, are the things which are known to have possible flaws or may even be altogether wrong, it isn't a lie but it's not meant to be blindly accepted. Things like the big bang theory which is simply the most probable idea about the birth of the universe at this time, no one has said it is absolute thats why it's theory and not law. should a way to undoubtedly verify it by anyone come along and it proves true only then would it become scientific law. If some other explanation that seemed more plausible or even provable came along that would no doubt become the leading theory and as with all theories if more information is gained which alters the structure of the theory the scientific view of all things relative also changes accordingly. Theories evolve until undeniable proof is found in them then and only then will they become scientific law and then it is not merely accepted as a general reference or on blind faith but because it is absolutely known to be true just as much as we absolutely know that water is in fact wet!

Those who make statements such as yours do not understand science or the distinction between the terms theory and law, I hope I have clarified this for you and you now understand that not one true scientist accepts a theory as fact on blind faith but only uses the theory as the best understood general reference in areas of knowledge where there are no absolute facts as nothing has yet been proven and decidedly called a scientific law.

Anyone who calls themselves a scientist while stating a theory as fact is lying about being a scientist no matter how many degrees they have!

Originally posted by pajoly

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Bill Nye is a tool. There is science in the Holy Bible, you folks just do not know what you are looking at. The science in the bible started being proven with the invention of the electron microscope and period table of elements.

If what you say is true, would you then accept that there is "science" in the Torah? The Koran? Or would it just happen that the book you value happens to coincidentally be the one with the science?
.

Do you know a little, and that little you are showing as bigger than what it is? The Torah is the first half of the Christian Bible. Things about science in the Bible:

1: The earth is round
2:The earth has ozone
3:The earth went through a global change.
4:The earth has diverse populations of evolved linguistics.
5:Orion and Pleiades are mentioned as stars.
6: Pyramids and towers were achievable through their technology at the time.
7:The sea level changed.

Now about the Quran, interesting science facts in there. Did you know the Quran says the earth is flat, the sun sets in a pool of water, sperm is created in the spine, to tell who a baby's father is, if the woman comes first it will look like her and if the man comes first it will look like him. Did you know it also says Mohammed rode a donkey to the moon and split the moon with a sword?

Here is a famous debate from Islamic TV

You just have to read the Torah to learn those things, and every Christian has when they read the OT.


BTW, this guy is the "Expert" and says no doctor has discovered how the eye works. So all those ophthalmologists better give back their degrees.

reply to post by WarminIndy

1: The earth is round
2:The earth has ozone
3:The earth went through a global change.
4:The earth has diverse populations of evolved linguistics.
5:Orion and Pleiades are mentioned as stars.
6: Pyramids and towers were achievable through their technology at the time.
7:The sea level changed.

1) The Greeks knew that even before the bible was written...and they proved it through science. Aside from that, the bible also states that you can see the entire world standing on a mountain...which is impossible if the earth is round.

2) Where does it mention ozone?

3) Change is observable...and the bible isn't the first document to depict change.

4) Different languages...wow...anyone who travels can figure that one out

5) Orion and Pleiades are mentioned as stars...And again...the Greeks named way more.

6) Of course they were achievable...what's your point?

7) Sea level change can be observed...so why does that amaze you? The bible also states a global flood happened, which we know for a fact is complete nonsense.

In short, not all that impressive

Oh, and that eye "expert" clearly hasn't even read the basic Wiki article about the eye: LINK

As for the Koran...yeah, tons of crazy stuff. But no crazier than talking snakes, global floods, people surviving inside whales, humans just popping up in their current form, ...

reply to post by Endorra


Yes, that is true. But which of these two agenda will you choose?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

1: The earth is round
2:The earth has ozone
3:The earth went through a global change.
4:The earth has diverse populations of evolved linguistics.
5:Orion and Pleiades are mentioned as stars.
6: Pyramids and towers were achievable through their technology at the time.
7:The sea level changed.

1) The Greeks knew that even before the bible was written...and they proved it through science. Aside from that, the bible also states that you can see the entire world standing on a mountain...which is impossible if the earth is round.

2) Where does it mention ozone?

3) Change is observable...and the bible isn't the first document to depict change.

4) Different languages...wow...anyone who travels can figure that one out

5) Orion and Pleiades are mentioned as stars...And again...the Greeks named way more.

6) Of course they were achievable...what's your point?

7) Sea level change can be observed...so why does that amaze you? The bible also states a global flood happened, which we know for a fact is complete nonsense.

In short, not all that impressive

Oh, and that eye "expert" clearly hasn't even read the basic Wiki article about the eye: LINK

edit on 29-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

When was the Bible written? You must be thinking of when the individual books were compiled into one acceptable singular book.

Genesis as we know it, and the Five Books of Moses were transcribed by Amos during the Babylonian captivity. He did not write them, he merely transcribed them into modern Hebrew script. Much of what the Hebrews introduced as science was found in Babylonian and Chaldean culture. We know the Chaldeans had a scientific understanding of the world and universe.

But because the Greeks also had this understanding, it does not disqualify the Bible at all. I never stated the Bible was the only source of scientific facts, I merely stated that it contains those things. That would seem to put it into agreement with other cultures. The only thing different is the origin of man and the Creator.

Maybe it is the terminology of the Bible you misunderstand. In that case, you should research science and the Bible.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Of course there's some science in the bible because people were able to observe stuff (or copy it from other texts). But at the same time there are HUNDREDS of cases where the bible (and Koran, etc.) are factually incorrect.

reply to post by Laced713

Originally posted by Laced713
anyone who treats science in this manner is a fool who does not understand the process.

Those 19 little blue stars say different.

Like I said, Science IS a LIE...

I choose to believe the truth.