Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

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.


The first scientific fact in the bible is that the sun revolves around the Earth.
The stuff you just mentioned, not so sure I see any of that.
I do know it was wrong from the get-go though.




posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   


Hitler believed in murder and genocide. He wasn't a Christian - he was taught by catholics


Catholicism is part of Christianity. Seeing ridiculous statements like this explains why people have the ridiculous beliefs they do.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by RoboticNomad
 


Nye might not have said specifically to refrain from creationsim, but he did say, "It holds us back". This would imply that the belief of creationism is inherently inferior and increasingly out of date. The wording around a topic can be just as much a barrier to something as barring it outright. Additionally, it is this idea of "holding us back" that concerns me. Placing the guilt on a group of people or a belief system has detrimental effects in many regards, and we've seen this throughout history. If I had to guess, it is Nye's type of mentality that will set the stage for justified persecution in the name of supposed rationality, more than likely aimed at one single group.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Yes, some science is just perception. However that can only be said for the study of evolution, quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity theories, Biology and Chemistry are sciences that are factual, and most of physics is factual and proven.

As for evolution et al, these may not be proven, but they are called theories because they are accepted as extremely probable until it is proven otherwise, and the scientists that come up with the theories do everything they can to debunk their own theories. So for science and religion, science at least tries to prove itself wrong, and that is more than religion will ever do.

Double-Slit experiment, there is one way to say we may have disproven an objective reality, light is a wave when unobserved with data, yet when the same experiment is carried out under close observation, light is a particle, and this experiment was re-done years later under finely honed conditions with a control subject and "blind" conditions, making the experiment almost completely infallible, yet light still behaved this way. This would suggest that the universe may be a subjective reality rather than objective, but either way, it has no room for an Abrahamic God, but if there is a creator, it will be one that is much saner and kinder than that in the Muslim, Jewish and Christian faiths, and if it is not, then it doesn't deserve worship.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


Seeing statements such as yours shows you have not delved deep enough into what you want to try to defend. Selectivity in analysis is hardly ever a good thing.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Heres an idea. How about we teach children that FACTS about what we know and let THEM think for THEMSELVES and have them come up with they re OWN independent opinion on how everything came to be? That would seem logical wouldn't it? There's no need to teach Creationism or Darwinism or intelligent design or anything for that matter. All of those ideologies are biased and I look at them basically as propaganda. People need to stop trying to force there own Ideologies down they re children's throats. Its just going to teach them to believe what ever some one tells them. Its time we become thinkers and not followers. I haven't personally seen enough concrete evidence to form a meaningful hypothesis on the subject matter but I have my entire life ahead of me to figure it out for my self.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DarkKnight76
 





Lonewolf: WOW! This is the first I have ever heard an electron microscope and the periodic table in the bible. Care to offer any proof of that?


I said there was science in the bible, most people do not know what they are looking at though. The science hidden in the bible began to be proven with the invention of the electron microscope and periodic table of elements.

For instance, we know today that everything on earth came from stardust. If you look at the composition of the human body, every element in the human body is found in the earth (dust), from the iron in our blood, to the calcium in our bones and the water comprising our cells and trace amounts of other elements all found in the earth.

Well 3500 years ago before science was ever invented, Yahweh told Moses man was made from the dust (elements) of the earth. This fact wasn't proven until we had the technology (electron microscope and periodic table of elements). So we have proof right there of Yah's advanced foreknowledge. He obviously exists, Moses didn't pull this knowledge out of his ass, Yah told him all this when Moses was on Mt. Sinai.

There are gems like this all in the book.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 


Truly freethinkers do not make the best workers and would eat into the profits of established corporations. I doubt itll happen.

Plus, you would have to get people to cooperate with other people of differing viewpoints, this is harmful to the whole "divide and conquer" tactic which allows for easy manipulation. It is deeply embedded into the culture, worldwide. The effectiveness of which can be witnessed in this thread, as well as many others.

I agree though. I would just also add to equip them with the tools to be able to properly question even the "facts" that are presented.
edit on 28-8-2012 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 





I would like to know that you are judging God's version of creation with reason and not just because you've been taught to hate. So, please, tell me what you think we teach about creation and we'll see how much you know.


God's version?

Your God's version of creation really doesn't make any sense at all. If you want more on that, see my thread The Problem With God.

I like this creation version the best. It's from the Rig Vedas, that were supposedly given to humanity by the "gods."


Rig Veda 10:129.
Who really knows, and who can swear,
How creation came, when or where!
Even gods came after creation’s day,
Who really knows, who can truly say
When and how did creation start?
Did He do it? Or did He not?
Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
Or perhaps, not even He.


The "Gods" came after creation? Hmm, was that guy from the Old Testament an impostor?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

NO Genetics has provided us with insights in to genetics. Evolution is a separate faith science. Evolution has not provided us with insight into genetics
Evolution has nothing to do with genetics.



The power of a scientific theory is fuelled by its predictive power and verification of predictions provide the important and necessary support in the testing of a theory. The theory of evolution has provided such predictions.[63] Four examples are:

Genetic information must be transmitted in a molecular way that will be almost exact but permit slight changes. Since this prediction was made, biologists have discovered the existence of DNA, which has a mutation rate of roughly 10−9 per nucleotide per cell division; this provides just such a mechanism.[64]

Some DNA sequences are shared by very different organisms. It has been predicted by the theory of evolution that the differences in such DNA sequences between two organisms should roughly resemble both the biological difference between them according to their anatomy and the time that had passed since these two organisms have separated in the course of evolution, as seen in fossil evidence. The rate of accumulating such changes should be low for some sequences, namely those that code for critical RNA or proteins, and high for others that code for less critical RNA or proteins; but for every specific sequence, the rate of change should be roughly constant over time. These results have been experimentally confirmed. Two examples are DNA sequences coding for rRNA, which is highly conserved, and DNA sequences coding for fibrinopeptides (amino acid chains that are discarded during the formation of fibrin), which are highly non-conserved.[64]

Prior to 2004, paleontologists had found fossils of amphibians with necks, ears, and four legs, in rock no older than 365 million years old. In rocks more than 385 million years old they could only find fish, without these amphibian characteristics. Evolutionary theory predicted that since amphibians evolved from fish, an intermediate form should be found in rock dated between 365 and 385 million years ago. Such an intermediate form should have many fish-like characteristics, conserved from 385 million years ago or more, but also have many amphibian characteristics as well. In 2004, an expedition to islands in the Canadian arctic searching specifically for this fossil form in rocks that were 375 million years old discovered fossils of Tiktaalik.[65]

Richard Lenski observed that some strains of E. coli evolved a complex new ability, the ability to metabolize citrate, after tens of thousands of generations.[66][58] The evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne commented saying, "the thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events. That's just what creationists say can't happen."[66]


Source


A crazy religious believer started scientific study of genetics; Gregor Mendel. Not evolution. Crazy crackpot thing to say.


Appreciate your passion, but I didn't say evolution brought about genetics, but evolution and genetics are certainly not seperate topics. They are deeply connected. Evolution is driven by genetic variation. We have evidence that demonstrates that genes vary and mutate. Evolution would predict this occurance.

Our evidence for creationism is defined by a lack of information. IE ... we do not know exactly how life began and evolution does not explain it ergo there must be a creator.


Evolution is a faith, a religion. It should be explored and tested,right or wrong. Thats is what science does, as should creationism.

Science has no patron.


Explain where I'm wrong if you like. It's why I'm here.

From my point of view, Darwin's theory has been built and worked on. Has creationism changed significantly in the last 2000 years or created any predictions that have brought about human knowledge? I'm not sure I can answer that one, but if you have insight I'd be pleased for you to share it. I believe evolution is tested constantly, more so than other theories simply because it impacts religions. Sometimes I wish religious people would pour the same resources into a cure for cancer or starting a new manned space mission.

I'd disagree that science should (in general) be exploring religions. Other than forwarding athiest agenda (which if athiest scientists want to do they can do) it is a pointless debate. I'm yet to see a positive prediction from creationism other than the prediction that humans will never 100% understand their world but that's like predicting we will never find God. Both things seem rather obvious and safe predictions.

If people want to argue that a God created everything that's fine, but it is philosophy. It is not science until it meets criteria for investigation.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
Science deals with what is, what can be observed, and what can be tested.


Science has just as much in common with the truth as does Religion.

Science, just like Religion, has been railroaded and turned into one HUGE lie...

• Major aspects of history and science are withheld from humankind in order to subjugate the masses.

• Science is nothing but deception, fraud, and the deliberate suppression of facts.

• Scientific knowledge is stifled and then twisted to fit the science they want the people to believe.

• Any scientific discoveries that don’t fit accepted theories are covered-up and hidden away.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Banananananana
 


I'll concede that his comment might be a bit harsh towards creationism, but the rest of his statements still stand. Kids should still learn about evolution, even if they also learn about the alternatives too. Stopping the teaching of evolution would truly hold us back because it would take away a chance for kids to decided for themselves.

Also the persecution thing is a bit silly. No one group would just be persecuted. Some clash head to head a bit and mock each other, but it will more than likely not go much more than that. Especially since it sounds like your talking about the persecution of religious groups that just so happens to make up a large majority of the country.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


What are your thoughts on the big bang theory, which is based in mathematical philosophy?

How do we investigate it or observe it directly and not just through models?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by Pinke
 


What are your thoughts on the big bang theory, which is based in mathematical philosophy?

How do we investigate it or observe it directly and not just through models?


Redshift and the Doppler effect. You are directly observing the expansion of the universe. Technically all you have to do is look up at the night sky.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by RoboticNomad
 


I agree with you that kids should be taught evolution, just not in the manner as it is currently practiced, which tends to be a seemingly absolute that is dogmatic in itself. I just feel evolution and creationism should be taught side by side, but from a philisophical context rather than scientific fact. You mentioned that not teaching evolution would hold back kid's abilities to form their own opinion in that subject, and I agree, but I am also curious as to whether you believe that not teaching evolution will "hold us back" in any other regards.

As for my statement on persecution, perhaps that was a bit out of place given the nature of the thread, but if you would like I can also clarify and better illustrate what I meant. Regardless, I do think that the increasing dichotomy between "new world" rationalism and "old world" dogmatism will play a heavy role in the future.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
There's no need to teach Creationism or Darwinism or intelligent design or anything for that matter. All of those ideologies are biased and I look at them basically as propaganda.

The truth is never biased, only LIES are biased.

Evolutionism versus Creationism...

Only ONE is correct.

Both can be wrong, but only ONE can be right.

Atheists will defend Darwin to the death because Darwinism must be true for Divine Creation to be false.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Banananananana
reply to post by RoboticNomad
 


I agree with you that kids should be taught evolution, just not in the manner as it is currently practiced, which tends to be a seemingly absolute that is dogmatic in itself. I just feel evolution and creationism should be taught side by side, but from a philisophical context rather than scientific fact. You mentioned that not teaching evolution would hold back kid's abilities to form their own opinion in that subject, and I agree, but I am also curious as to whether you believe that not teaching evolution will "hold us back" in any other regards.

As for my statement on persecution, perhaps that was a bit out of place given the nature of the thread, but if you would like I can also clarify and better illustrate what I meant. Regardless, I do think that the increasing dichotomy between "new world" rationalism and "old world" dogmatism will play a heavy role in the future.


Keep religious items in the religious studies of school, we have separate school-lessons for that. Evolution is biology, as it is science. I would laugh at the teachers of my children should they ever present creationism as an equal to evolution. Then I would proceed to tear down their beliefs, would ridicule them in every media present and finally would demand fines on the base of separation of state and religion in public schools.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Raelsatu
 

Intelligent Design was a concept designed by those who are NOT INTELLIGENT! Evolution stopped being a THEORY for some time now and Intelligent Design...and I have read that book...is beyond STUPID! It has not one concept that has any scientific basis of thought.
Split Infinity



Sorry your logic isn't following through... AT ALL. I never heard of or read that book; I use the term in the context that there's a good possibility design is inherent in this existence. To promulgate that idea is not "unintelligent" or irrational by any standard; to say it's not of scientific basis is also just as asinine.

I suppose when we begin creating sentient AI, they're design would have been by "evolution" and "chance". YES they were born of evolution; technological evolution. But evolution does not exclude intelligent design... to say otherwise is close-minded & just as dogmatic as any cultist!



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
There's no need to teach Creationism or Darwinism or intelligent design or anything for that matter. All of those ideologies are biased and I look at them basically as propaganda.

The truth is never biased, only LIES are biased.



Both can be wrong, but only ONE can be right.

Atheists will defend Darwin to the death because Darwinism must be true for Divine Creation to be false.



You just contradicted your self. if both can be wrong then why does Darwinism have to be true for creationism to be wrong? Do you remember proofs from school? If A then B. If B then C. There for if A then C. Try doing that with what you just said. And they both can be right how do you know a omnipotent being didn't create microbes and then they evolved into complex life? There.s just to many variables to say either way. If you want to believe something go right ahead I wont judge you.
edit on 28-8-2012 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-8-2012 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


The evolution of humans is as religious as religions. If you fail to understand that simple point there is no use speaking to you with an open mind as yours already seems shut.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join