creationist says bill nye does not understand science?

after reading this, i could not help but laugh. of the these two, i believe bill nye by a very wide margin!

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by blackthorne


Obviously Ken Ham doesn't know what he is talking about. He wouldn't be named Bill Nye the Science Guy if he didnt know anything about science.

I grew up watching the Science guy, he was much better than, i cant remember if it was Dr. Wizard, or Mr. Wizard.....

reply to post by blackthorne

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein

I just want to slam my head on my desk after reading that.
wow.

Oooohhhh manna from heaven..

I stopped when the dopey twat said "He doesnt want the truth. It says so in the bible about guys like him."

And there you have it folks..

Religion... proof that intelligence to believe in god is not required.

reply to post by blackthorne


Nine words for Mr. Ham:

Opening Post Link

As Raw Story noted, the Australian-born pastor was citing an argument creationists often make: science can only be proven if it has been "observed."

The creationists' argument, however, fails to take into account studies showing that evolution can occur in a laboratory setting. The argument also has been roundly discredited by scientists, including Nye, who has addressed such criticisms repeatedly in the past.

"'Creation Science' is not useful, because it can make no successful predictions about nature or the universe," Nye told The Huffington Post in an email last year. "So, it is reasonable to say the expression is an oxymoron, or simply: it's not science. It has no process of observation, hypothesis, experiment, then predicted outcome. A useful theory about time and organisms would make no distinction between 'observational' and 'historical' science."

Let's get to the meat of this ...

1 - Evolution doesn't disprove God. So those who believe in God shouldn't be all uptight IF science facts point to evolution. God is God and can use any means He wishes in order to create humans, right? So creationists ... why limit God to 'it has to be Adam and Eve'??

2 - I don't know if I agree with Nye about science having to have observation, hypothesis, experiment then predicted outcome. Theoretical Physics can't predict outcomes when discussing string theory and all that heavy stuff .... it really can't. It's just widely guessing. And I consider that science.

3 - Why do people think it has to be one or the other .. creation or evolution ?? There are other ways we could have gotten here.

4 - My opinion - I don't buy evolution. I don't be creationism. I'm going for door #3 .. we were planted here at some point by outside forces. Maybe something (or someone) organic manipulated dna that was already on the planet and got things moving along ....

winofiend
I stopped when the dopey twat said "He doesnt want the truth. It says so in the bible about guys like him."

Circular logic. The bible has to be true because the bible says it's true. I don't know what it is about these organized religions. The Qu'ran kinda says the same thing. Believe it because it says to ... so it must be true.

FlyersFan
Let's get to the meat of this ...

1 - Evolution doesn't disprove God. So those who believe in God shouldn't be all uptight IF science facts point to evolution. God is God and can use any means He wishes in order to create humans, right? So creationists ... why limit God to 'it has to be Adam and Eve'??

Because Creationists use the Chritian bible that specifically does defy evolution and most of the science around it.

2 - I don't know if I agree with Nye about science having to have observation, hypothesis, experiment then predicted outcome. Theoretical Physics can't predict outcomes when discussing string theory and all that heavy stuff .... it really can't. It's just widely guessing. And I consider that science.

It is scientific research, not scientific fact you are talking about. Those are two different things. We had no idea how to replace a human heart, did that make the search for the solution not science until we found it? No, it just made it not a scientific fact until we could observe and predict it.

3 - Why do people think it has to be one or the other .. creation or evolution ?? There are other ways we could have gotten here.

Sure, unless you are talking to a Creationist which is what this article is about. According to them, there is only one way.

4 - My opinion - I don't buy evolution. I don't be creationism. I'm going for door #3 .. we were planted here at some point by outside forces. Maybe something (or someone) organic manipulated dna that was already on the planet and got things moving along ....

edit on 9/18/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

Evolution has been proven as a fact. Sorry.

mine own beliefs- i believe that the earth is billions of years old. i do believe and feel that there is a presence out there that created this earth by starting the process and then letting nature take it course. when i hear people like this, i shake my head. bless them for their beliefs and i will die for that belief.

i do reply, where are the records of the descendants of noah who traveled to asia, australia, and north and south america? how did they cross the oceans? why are there different races? only noah and his sons and their wives survived. logically, then noah had to have had an african son, an asian son, a caucasian son, etc.... and isn't incest a sin? then all of us are descended from good ole' country cousin lovin'. in order for noah to annd his family to repopulate the earth, first cousin had to get with first cousin. and there was probably some brother and sister action going on as well.

reply to post by blackthorne


I wonder, at what point in a career of pushing creationist "science" does one realize that they support the dulling of people's intellects? And how soon after they've realized their hypocrisy does a creation "scientist" decide to keep the lie going to preserve the influx of money?

The Huffinton Post's Bill Nye 'The Science Guy' Responds To Creation Museum: Creationism Is 'Not Science' is mentioned in the article the OP refers to. Nye's words in this article, unlike Ken Ham's, involve rational arguments that are free of mudslinging.

A cool picture/quote from this website:

Who cares, when he has moves like this?



At first I was like . Then I was like . Then I was like . Then, finally, I was like

Forget about the religious argument for a moment.

The development of a butterfly defies the evolution theory. An egg is laid. A caterpillar comes out. It roams around for most of its life and then eats 600% over its body weight. Closes itself into a cocoon. It then melts down into complete slime. Two weeks later a completely different insect emerges. My point is, what science tells us should take millions of years only takes two weeks with butterflies.

There is no doubt that all animals have DNA. Think of DNA as the alphabet. DNA does not create new DNA no more than the the alphabet can create new letters. The DNA information is rearranged; not created. Information cannot create new information. It can only be rearranged. Therefore, evolution is just a theory and not fact.

I say that humans have devolved. Industrialization, invention of computers and medicine has actually devolved us. We have lost many survival skills. Don't believe me? Look at all the people who died after Katrina in LA. Many people died by the lack of natural survival skills needed.

Medicine has helped in this devolving too! If the people that have eye problems did not have glasses then they would not be able to easily see to catch food or evade a predator. Therefore, eventually those genes would be weeded out of the gene pool. Medicine has allowed those genes to continue to be passed on through the generations.

Many of the health issues people have is because of the industrialization of the world. We drive instead of walk. We buy our food ready to eat instead of actually growing it. Over 80% of the jobs in the U.S. are service oriented and do not require much exercise. I am sure ya'll see my points.

I just wanted to inject some critical thinking into this thread instead of the status quo anti-religion rants.

NoSoup4U
Forget about the religious argument for a moment.

The development of a butterfly defies the evolution theory. An egg is laid. A caterpillar comes out. It roams around for most of its life and then eats 600% over its body weight. Closes itself into a cocoon. It then melts down into complete slime. Two weeks later a completely different insect emerges. My point is, what science tells us should take millions of years only takes two weeks with butterflies.

There is no doubt that all animals have DNA. Think of DNA as the alphabet. DNA does not create new DNA no more than the the alphabet can create new letters. The DNA information is rearranged; not created. Information cannot create new information. It can only be rearranged. Therefore, evolution is just a theory and not fact.

I say that humans have devolved. Industrialization, invention of computers and medicine has actually devolved us. We have lost many survival skills. Don't believe me? Look at all the people who died after Katrina in LA. Many people died by the lack of natural survival skills needed.

Medicine has helped in this devolving too! If the people that have eye problems did not have glasses then they would not be able to easily see to catch food or evade a predator. Therefore, eventually those genes would be weeded out of the gene pool. Medicine has allowed those genes to continue to be passed on through the generations.

Many of the health issues people have is because of the industrialization of the world. We drive instead of walk. We buy our food ready to eat instead of actually growing it. Over 80% of the jobs in the U.S. are service oriented and do not require much exercise. I am sure ya'll see my points.

I just wanted to inject some critical thinking into this thread instead of the status quo anti-religion rants.

You clearly don't understand what Evolutionary Theory states or the mechanisms at work. There is no such thing as "devolving". Evolution does not operate with a presupposed "goal" in mind. The issues you mentioned are still evolution and when the time comes that the environment requires those things you claim that we, as humans, have lost . . . those that can't adapt, die out. That's evolution. And, it's a fact. Evolution has and continues to happen. The "theory" is just an overreaching explanation of said "facts".

As far as metamorphisis is concerned . . . they are not different animals. It is the same animal, at different stages of development. Much like maggots to flies, or tadpoles to frogs. That is the way that organism has come to be for an optimal chance at survival . . . and it is obviously working. So, you are wrong about "defying" evolution.

I would reassess your "critical thinking" skills . . .

reply to post by blackthorne


Ken Ham is a known charlatan and criminal . . .

I don't believe he knows enough about any science to question someone else's knowledge.

reply to post by FlyersFan



I starred you, because one of your comments is just insightful gold!

The idea that evolution and creation are mutual exclusive is only upheld by zealots and halfwits, and this Ken Ham appears to fit both categories. As a man of both faith and science, it irks me greatly when people like this see fit to misrepresent God, by insisting that his people are meant to be utter clods without the merest ability to reason.

solomons path
You clearly don't understand what Evolutionary Theory states or the mechanisms at work. There is no such thing as "devolving". Evolution does not operate with a presupposed "goal" in mind. The issues you mentioned are still evolution and when the time comes that the environment requires those things you claim that we, as humans, have lost . . . those that can't adapt, die out. That's evolution. And, it's a fact. Evolution has and continues to happen. The "theory" is just an overreaching explanation of said "facts".

As far as metamorphisis is concerned . . . they are not different animals. It is the same animal, at different stages of development. Much like maggots to flies, or tadpoles to frogs. That is the way that organism has come to be for an optimal chance at survival . . . and it is obviously working. So, you are wrong about "defying" evolution.

I would reassess your "critical thinking" skills . . .

edit on 9/19/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

Actually I agree with your statement "The issues you mentioned are still evolution and when the time comes that the environment requires those things you claim that we, as humans, have lost . . . those that can't adapt, die out. That's evolution. And, it's a fact. ". I coined the wrong term; devolving.

Changes in organisms are mostly permanent changes in DNA. DNA is the information holder in all organisms. The mutations can cause one of two things; loosing information or gaining new information. Further, the changes in organisms are mostly in the loosing information section. Therefore we have evolved in a way that is based on things not created by nature but by man; abstract to natural survival skills if you will. We have evolved in a negative way.

While you are correct that it is working in our current circumstances, look to the next natural disaster for people to die by their lack of natural instincts or ability to survive without being "on the grid". Again, I think you are correct when you say that evolution is a fact. However, our evolution is negative because of industrialization, medicine and technology. The changes we have experienced over the past century are the loss of important instincts that are vital to our survival in a natural environment.

FlyersFan

winofiend
I stopped when the dopey twat said "He doesnt want the truth. It says so in the bible about guys like him."

Circular logic. The bible has to be true because the bible says it's true. I don't know what it is about these organized religions. The Qu'ran kinda says the same thing. Believe it because it says to ... so it must be true.

Actually, the Qur'an is much less reliable than the bible is as far as factual correctness.. Why? Because the Qur'an was written 200 years after the dates that was being written about, so is much less historical accuracy.. No living witnesses to any of the fantasies contained in it,.

The Bible on the other hand had witnesses to the things that Christ did, (new testament), and those things were recorded and written about only 30-60 years after they happened, many of those things were FIRST HAND accounts.. (By people of reliable character that were intrusted with these important things).. Not true with the fiction in the Qur'an..

If you have made your decision to be an Antichrist, you should know these things, but then again, if you can be that way, then knowing things doesn't matter if all the other Antichrists jump on board and go along with the daily bashing's we see here ..

reply to post by Mythos13


Ask two evolutionists to define abiogenesis and you will get two different definitions. And we don't understand science? But I have to be fair, ask two Creationists to define the Trinity and you will get two different answers. Sounds to me like humans in general don't understand creation or science. - Its one of those days /sarcasm

NoSoup4U
Forget about the religious argument for a moment.



There is no doubt that all animals have DNA. Think of DNA as the alphabet. DNA does not create new DNA no more than the the alphabet can create new letters. The DNA information is rearranged; not created. Information cannot create new information. It can only be rearranged. Therefore, evolution is just a theory and not fact.

Said rearrangement (which it's not it is transcription error which is more like a substitution) is the driving force of evolution. Further to talk to language (alphabets), you clearly know little of how a language evolves. Spellings change, look at old english, then middle english then modern, indeed look at American English vs Queens English.