It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

page: 8
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by centrifugal
 





Intuitively I would say intelligent design makes perfect sense, I am a computer programmer so I can have an appreciation for good design. My belief in intelligent design has no direct conflict with the theory of evolution.


Humans a hundred and fifty years ago believed differently.

Do we reconcile our beliefs with modern science so that they can keep making sense in context with known facts? Do we keep looking for holes to insert the unexplainable in an attempt to keep our gods alive?


Well thats assuming my belief in God is rooted in a mainstream religion. I do not belongs to any form of organized religions. There could be truth in the bible but it has been modified so many times that it just adds another variable to the argument. So I don't need to worry about looking for scientific holes to comply with my narrow world view.

Regardless though my belief in God is derived from my own intuition.


Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by centrifugal
 



The simplest solution to origins is that we were placed here as it makes the fewest assumptions. I am sure you have heard of Occam's razor. William Ockham himself believed in God.


I am not sure what you mean. Making "the fewest assumptions" to come to the conclusion that an omnipotent deity "did it" explains nothing. And is counterproductive to the core concept of science.


In this statement I am basically just suggesting that being created or placed here by someone is the simplest solution. It could mean evolution is wrong, or at least explains the the gaps in the theory. Whether the "creator" was an omni potent diety, a law of nature, an alien, or giant sphaghetti monster is not really important for that argument. Also to state William Ockham the founder of this form of reasoning also believed in a creator.

Essentially if we determine there are unexplainable anomolies(And im not saying that I know that to be the case) in the theory of evolution that means one two things. A) Evolution is wrong or B) Evolution is only part of the story and an artificial event took place.

edit on 28-8-2012 by centrifugal because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
A creationist will never answer the following questions: If species were created as are, then why is it that we don't find 100s of millions of years old fossils that are similar to contemporary species such as humans, elephants, rhinos, bears, dolphins or dogs? Why is it that the newer the fossil, the more similar it is to contemporary species, as if these lineages somehow changed over time?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
A creationist will never answer the following questions: If species were created as are, then why is it that we don't find 100s of millions of years old fossils that are similar to contemporary species such as humans, elephants, rhinos, bears, dolphins or dogs? Why is it that the newer the fossil, the more similar it is to contemporary species, as if these lineages somehow changed over time?


I've heard many answers to that argument. Again once logic is taken out of the equation a limitless number of arguments become available. It still becomes a circular argument.

Most common argument among Christians I've heard is that Satan controls the earth and he planted fossils to deceive humanity. And whether you find that argument ridiculous or plausible you are still in no position to prove/disprove it with logic.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I feel the need to inform you that the hang up you seem to have is about Abiogenesis, a science so underdeveloped that spellcheck doesn't even consider it a word. That is not evolution.

Well yes, one could insert a God into that hole. But that goes a long way to explain nothing. Its a step backward in scientific inquiry if we start explaining things as a "unexplainable".

You understand why "critical thought" about religion has nothing to do with religion itself, you are a smart man.

In a scientific discussion religion is on the low ground. You can not contest the mechanism in which God created the world. You can not write up a paper on the mechanism in which Jesus walked on water. It just is, no need to explain the intricacies, that is religion.

Its a far cry from science.

edit on 28-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)


Actually.... The hang up I tend to have is that I am among the 80% + (It's considerably HIGHER by any measured statistic we could use..but I'll err to the low side in all ways, for this thread) of the human race that IS religious to one extent or another.

The harangue of a VERY small minority who are not only without Faith but insist on tearing down, every day and every way, anyone who dare believe there is something more than their own existence to this world we see around us, gets a bit old. I laid out my points from a secular base of logic in deference to the origin and point of the thread in another religion bash..(They come a few times a day recently, it seems) Just occasionally though... It's worth dropping the little reminder that... well...

The *VAST* majority on this rock of ours do not see life as an accident or some weird coincidence of fate, and so children would be WELL SERVED to be educated on at least the EXISTENCE of the theory that the majority of human beings ascribe to, in one way or another. Denial of that for education is the gleeful and willful spreading of ignorance, not the eradication of it. Let the kids decide...and if they can't, THAT is the problem right there, not the offering of alternative views.

edit on 28-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by centrifugal
 





Regardless though my belief in God is derived from my own intuition.


Fair enough. I will not discount your intuition as a a way to subjectively view the world.




Essentially if we determine there are unexplainable anomolies(And im not saying that I know that to be the case) in the theory of evolution that means one two things. A) Evolution is wrong or B) Evolution is only part of the story and an artificial event took place.


There are, to my experience, no unexplainable anomalies. Just things that go unexplained.

I think, at this point in our discussion, we can agree to disagree about our respective points of view. Any longer and we will just keep arguing in circles. That is fun for no one.

I will, however, state that there will be holes in our understanding of the sciences. Likely, there will always be something to learn or improve upon.

That, in my opinion, is the greatest thing about science. I hope you agree.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





The *VAST* majority on this rock of ours do not see life as an accident or some weird coincidence of fate, and so children would be WELL SERVED to be educated on at least the EXISTENCE of the theory that the majority of human beings ascribe to, in one way or another.


However, one could argue, that the theory of creationism, having no objective proof, could not be counted as a scientific theory. It would be irresponsible, and indeed, misleading to put it on the same level as evolution because it is not something that has any grounding in scientific discussion.




Denial of that for education is the gleeful and willful spreading of ignorance, not the eradication of it. Let the kids decide...and if they can't, THAT is the problem right there, not the offering of alternative views.


Kids do not decide how reality works.

A kid can not decide, say, how a computer works. They can believe all they want, it doesn't change reality. And it doesn't change science.

There are plenty of brilliant people who believe in god, that is fine. But, I dont think, those people put the beliefs in the same category as scientific inquiry.

There are churches dedicated to furthering the unproven, unscientific beliefs. School is for knowledge, not faith.

We do, however, learn about various religions in school already. They are, however, not pushed as a fact or a scientific judgment.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
creation vs the catholic church iknow what is more appropriate, scumbags.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
However, one could argue, that the theory of creationism, having no objective proof, could not be counted as a scientific theory. It would be irresponsible, and indeed, misleading to put it on the same level as evolution because it is not something that has any grounding in scientific discussion.

Calling it a theory is just flat out wrong. It's not testable. It doesn't make predictions. It's just a baseless idea.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
However, one could argue, that the theory of creationism, having no objective proof, could not be counted as a scientific theory. It would be irresponsible, and indeed, misleading to put it on the same level as evolution because it is not something that has any grounding in scientific discussion.

Calling it a theory is just flat out wrong. It's not testable. It doesn't make predictions. It's just a baseless idea.


You are right, i agree. It is not a scientific theory. I would call it, at this point, an idea or an untestable hypothesis.

Either way, it is not in the same category as a scientific hypothesis or theory and, at this point, does not deserve the weight one would apply to such..



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Why do so many people want to take God out of the equation when comes to creationism and evolution... Evolution needs the finger of God for direction, it wouldn't know where to progress! Creationism and evolution run parallel with each other..
Here's a good example : Some butterflies have eyes painted on their wings to ward off predators, give the impression they're bigger than they really are.. evolution is blind and does not see, Creationism see's and direct evolution how to progress, you really can't have evolution without Creationism, they really go hand and hand!



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCL1150
Here's a good example : Some butterflies have eyes painted on their wings to ward off predators, give the impression they're bigger than they really are.. evolution is blind and does not see, Creationism see's and direct evolution how to progress, you really can't have evolution without Creationism, they really go hand and hand!

You start with a population of butterflies that shows variance in wing patterns. Generation over generation, the butterflies that have patterns more similar to eyes on their wings get caught less and thus reproduce more, increasing the frequency of "eyes on wings" trait. Natural selection is not blind.
edit on 28-8-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by MCL1150
Here's a good example : Some butterflies have eyes painted on their wings to ward off predators, give the impression they're bigger than they really are.. evolution is blind and does not see, Creationism see's and direct evolution how to progress, you really can't have evolution without Creationism, they really go hand and hand!

You start with a population of butterflies that shows variance in wing patterns. Generation over generation, the butterflies that have patterns more similar to eyes on their wings get caught less and thus reproduce more, increasing the frequency of "eyes on wings" trait. Natural selection is not blind.
edit on 28-8-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


Let me add on here.

Natural selection, by its very definition, is about what works and what does not. Whatever works, stays, what ever does not, dies out.

As a mechanism itself, it can not tell what will work and will not(Thats why so many species die out). As a process of trial and error? It is the reason humans can go to the moon and build computers and have medical science.

Evolution is far from God, but it is the closest thing to it. In my opinion, of course.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by gosseyn
reply to post by rhinoceros
 




In science, a law means that something is observed but we don't know how it works


What? Man, it's the contrary. A law in science is something proven without a doubt, like the law of gravity. A theory is something we are not sure about, like the dark matter theory or the multiverse..
edit on 27-8-2012 by gosseyn because: (no reason given)


Gravity - We know it is there, and so far it seems to be consistent, but our understanding of where it comes from is very limited. Which is why it is a law and not a theory. some scientists think that it is made up of particles called gravitons which travel at the speed of light. However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves.

Anyway - a theory can be something for which there is proof, it can be a qualified guess or just some wild idea. It all depends on the context, and the only way to really tell them apart is to look and perhaps even test the evidence or arguements backing up this theory by using it to make predictions.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 

You say evolution and I say the two could both have played roles in millions upon millions of years of life developing on this planet. We have solid history of maybe..MAYBE.. 10,000yrs of it..and that's so fragmented, calling it history is really stretching that word to the breaking point.

Short of a time machine to go back and eyeball the truth...unless you have proof beyond the same level of pure opinion based on life experience, personal judgement and education that forms the basis of my own position as well, we're rather stymied and at something of an empasse here.


Of course kids don't run everything. Thats so silly to say I'm at a loss as to where your argument here even comes from. Until recently, the skill of critical thinking and analysis of information to make sound judgement calls was part of and encouraged within the school programs in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, critical thinking skills would seem to be something specifically glossed over now in favor of spoon fed and FORCE fed indoctrination as much as anything.

When what is presented is pre-screened, pre-edited and presented to show only the view most favored by the current ruling party or Government as a whole, it's flat out indoctrination. A variety of viewpoints and respect for each that others may hold used to be equally important. Now it seems to be laughed at in favor of the official line of whatever TPTB deem the kids must and must not here....and woe be anyone to suggest schools present a balanced and even handed look at much of anything. One way, or NO way.

Poor kids....They don't even know how badly screwed they're getting here. They'd need those critical thinking skills being denied them to realize it.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Reading posts on this thread reminds me that ATS is ironically home to some of the most intellectually dishonest individuals. You would think that most here would question what the PTB try to indoctrinate society with... but it all flies out the window when dealing with Darwinian evolution

A random explosion of nothing exploding in space (which is something, where did space come from?) cannot, and will not create order. When has an explosion created anything besides destruction? When has nothing created something? You all seem so certain macroevolution exists, maybe you should look at the actual evidence. There are no transitional fossils of any type much less humans, and yet Darwinian evolution is still taught. You look at artist's renditions and bone fragments and conclude we descended from ape like creatures. There isn't a museum on the planet that has any actual proof. All we see is order, and complex organisms as far back as we go. This is what is holding science back: a belief in an unsubstantiated fairy tale, not an understanding that there is an order to the universe as designed by the Creator. The very founders of all scientific disciplines were Christians who understood that the universe was designed, and their goal was to get a glimpse of how it all worked.

What have athiest scientists done for mankind using evolution as a foundation? I'll give you a hint: It's what rocks dream about



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

It's none of his business if people of faith wish to teach their children creationism.
It doesn't hurt anyone and it's their right as parents to pass along their faith.
What alternative does he suggest? Evolution?
Evolution is a THEORY just as creationism is a THEORY.
The guy is a weeenieeee.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


"Natural selection" How does nothing know how to manipulate its environment and creatures, I guess evolution (natural selection) has eyes to see and intelligence thought patterns to evolve its environment and creatures, Wow...sounds like a God to me :-)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





Of course kids don't run everything. Thats so silly to say I'm at a loss as to where your argument here even comes from. Until recently, the skill of critical thinking and analysis of information to make sound judgement calls was part of and encouraged within the school programs in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, critical thinking skills would seem to be something specifically glossed over now in favor of spoon fed and FORCE fed indoctrination as much as anything.


I am confused as well. You said "we should let kids decide what they want to believe" I said "kids don't decide what is true and what is not". You agree with me, so I fail to see what your issue is.

You say kids are "indoctrinated" to believe what they learn in school.

We go to school to learn about facts, we are free to contest them or not believe them. You went to school, yet you believe in God. You did not learn about god in school and they did not teach you god does not exist. That is a matter a faith, not a matter of knowledge. Knowledge is what school is for, faith is what church is for.




When what is presented is pre-screened, pre-edited and presented to show only the view most favored by the current ruling party or Government as a whole, it's flat out indoctrination.


I really do not understand what you are talking about. Does the theory of how to build computers hold specific political or governmental viewpoint?



A variety of viewpoints and respect for each that others may hold used to be equally important.


Respect is different from science. Science does not not respect that which is proven wrong or that which can not be proven at all.



Poor kids....They don't even know how badly screwed they're getting here. They'd need those critical thinking skills being denied them to realize it.


Feel free to apply critical thinking skills to religion, i encourage it. Not once, when i was attending church, did my pastor say "Okay, God created everything out of nothing. Think about how he could have done it., why he did it and where he existed before it."

In religion, no one is asked to examine the claims. They are told to believe them.

In science, examination is not only encouraged, but is the whole point.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by kingofmd
 





A random explosion of nothing exploding in space (which is something, where did space come from?) cannot, and will not create order.


Please tell me which scientifically validated theory states that.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

It's none of his business if people of faith wish to teach their children creationism.
It doesn't hurt anyone and it's their right as parents to pass along their faith.
What alternative does he suggest? Evolution?
Evolution is a THEORY just as creationism is a THEORY.
The guy is a weeenieeee.

I would say that indoctrinating your children with religious belief through scare tactics causes mental illness and is in many ways equal to rape, and should be equally punishable in the court of law.

p.s. Creationism is not a theory. It's just a baseless idea. Learn the difference.




top topics



 
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join