Creationist Debate Stalls South Carolina State Fossil Bill

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: gippers
Not all creationists believe the 6,000 year theory. Genesis should not be taken so literally. Evolution is still a theory. I believe that God created our world and that various creation stories are often misinterpreted and taken too literal. The Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution do not contradict a creator, they just contradict people's interpretation of the creation story.

All they need to say is that geological years may not be the same as biblical years.

Then they just need to admit that the Bible is a book of myths and stories from a time when mankind was struggling to explain the world around them.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
As for Bruno . . . oh wait I answered that already and it sure as hell was not as a martyr for science. Well, maybe if you don't have a clue what science is . . . eherm ribit.

You got message wrong. Point was not to show Bruno as scientist, but to show religion as force against science, which for example with Bruno killed him because of his view did not represent views of religion, the same one that later acknowledge for being wrong all along. Question is not if Bruno is martyr, but what else religion is wrong about, but by blind faith is still pushing.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
In the following episode concerning the PREDICTION of the period of celestial of celestial bodies Tyson repeatedly refers to the matter as a Prophesy.

This verbiage is intentional and likely used to confuse the viewers into thinking of science in a religious/ spiritual sense.

prophecy
www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of PROPHECY

1: an inspired utterance of a prophet
2: the function or vocation of a prophet; specifically : the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose
3: a prediction of something to come

prophesy
www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of PROPHESY

transitive verb
1: to utter by or as if by divine inspiration
2: to predict with assurance or on the basis of mystic knowledge

As opposed to the more accurate term;
predict
www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of PREDICT

transitive verb
: to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason

They intentionally use the term prophesy as troll bait while disregarding the more accurate term that actually implies the scientific method was being used.

They made it simple for folks who don't even know what 'theory' means in science. You see, not everyone is capable of thinking for themselves and Dr. Tyson uses vocabulary based on majority of public. As prophecy also means '3: a prediction of something to come', he is not wrong at all. Prophecy is not just trademark for religion, is it?

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
Furthermore the shows fails to acknowledge women in the same magnitude as the original Cosmos which is exclusionary to women whom have made major contributions to the field. Don't give me the BS about other minorities as if you actually looked up the ethnicity of the other scientists mentioned (hint: it wouldn't support your case).

Really, have you seen last episode?

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
There are many more, but you are really just trolling because you like how the show personifies science as a victim who has triumphed over its bullies.

-FBB

Not really, only troll here is... well we all know...

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
PS
Bears do not hunt in packs . . . right at the beginning of the most recent episode . . . . what a joke

Episode 8 continues evoking the Biblical imagery when comparing sunlight to the 'mana from Heaven.' Before this they use imagery of setting their homes among the stars before the Earth is consumed by the Sun. This is clearly a reference to Obadiah 1:4 ;
www.biblestudytools.com...

Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down , saith the LORD.

The show is simply troll bait for the illiterate. It presents itself as some scientific odyssey while focusing on Biblical imagery and misleading historical pretenses.

To put it in manner which I think you would understand, Star Wars, it uses not rational thought but embraces emotional manipulation like the practitioners of the dark side. It is weak sauce, robin.

Ouch... really? And here you confused Lakota myth of origin of Pleiades with real bear not hunting in packs. You see, many things in rest of mythology, including Biblical texts make no sense in real life, and Dr. Tyson is showing that in the way everyone can understand, even my 8 year old who watched that episode and apparently better comprehended episode than you. This show is also meant as supportive material for schools and science, and this works perfectly well.

Except your high bias toward Dr. Tyson and troll, I don't see much here to debate...

originally posted by: benrl
Philosophy, and Religion, should take a side seat to Science.

In education, they need to only take place as Sociology classes, no more.

"Creationist" Who argue these points, hardly understand their own theology, let alone science concepts.

and everybody wants to know why atheists want religion out of government.....maybe south Carolina can start burning witches like they did here in America back in the 1600's

a reply to: SuperFrog

You are embarrassing to listen to. Go ahead and pretend that having a dream and going off to preach it while never engaging in the scientific method or anything like it is science.

As for Tyson's verbiage, I thought this was supposed to be a science show. The majority of folks do not use prophecy and prediction synonymously, as can be seen in just about all scientific literature or literature in general for that matter.

Have I seen the last episode? . . you mean episode 8 which is about 3 women which I provided quotes and details from . . . yes, yes I have watched that episode . . . reading comprehension obviously is not important to you if you can defend anything that bashes a certain religion, which is behavior very similar to a bigot.
www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

My point about the Lakota is that it has absolutely nothing to do with science while being incredibly fictional and yet it was treated seriously by the production team.

I get the impression that you have absolutely no experience with any sort of science if you think this is "supportive material" for school.

A science show should not focus such an enormous amount of time basing religious thought then turn around and present science itself in a religious manner. So far the show has established martyrs for science, prophecies, and often uses quotes equating itself to the Biblical figure of the adversary. Pathetic.

Because, well . . . logic.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Forgive me. FriedBabelBroccoli but you seem to describe yourself perfectly in that definition. You are big on definitions, I've noticed this...

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoliYou are embarrassing to listen to. Go ahead and pretend that having a dream and going off to preach it while never engaging in the scientific method or anything like it is science.

No ONE, again - NO ONE including Dr. Tyson has said that Bruno used scientific method - except you. (Jon Stewart face when he pretend to be surprised ) On contrary, Dr. Tyson actually has said that Bruno got it right by pure luck and had NO EVIDENCE at all to support his claims. Never the less, that was reason good enough for him to be executed, because what he believed was not in tone with authorities of the time.

It is getting to point where it is not anymore funny that you read what you like to see, not what is written, as this is something I have already said earlier in this discussion.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoliAs for Tyson's verbiage, I thought this was supposed to be a science show. The majority of folks do not use prophecy and prediction synonymously, as can be seen in just about all scientific literature or literature in general for that matter.

Scientific show with targeted audience including churchgoers and religious folks. Should he make it hard enough that only those in field can follow it? Why do you think that makes sense?

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
Have I seen the last episode? . . you mean episode 8 which is about 3 women which I provided quotes and details from . . . yes, yes I have watched that episode . . . reading comprehension obviously is not important to you if you can defend anything that bashes a certain religion, which is behavior very similar to a bigot.
www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Your definition clearly describes your opinion of Dr. Tyson.
There is no religion I like, so you are a bit off with your claims... not surprised at all...

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoliMy point about the Lakota is that it has absolutely nothing to do with science while being incredibly fictional and yet it was treated seriously by the production team.

Actually it does, shows belief system, how wrong it was. Also shows capabilities of human mind to explain something that is beyond its understanding at the time. Stories were great introduction to what followed.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoliI get the impression that you have absolutely no experience with any sort of science if you think this is "supportive material" for school.

Explain why this is not good material for school, and keep in mind, many of kids that see this through schools might have been brainwashed over weekend... This show is not good, but GREAT supportive material for schools.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoliA science show should not focus such an enormous amount of time basing religious thought then turn around and present science itself in a religious manner. So far the show has established martyrs for science, prophecies, and often uses quotes equating itself to the Biblical figure of the adversary. Pathetic.

I am sorry that show is a bit late for you... You clearly can't see anything because of your bias.

Tyson is giving kids something to think about, teaching them to question everything and showing them how progress depends on people making new discoveries. There can't be new discoveries if we think that we have answers to all questions...

Please stop with ad-hominem, if possible. I know it is hard, but would be nicer for discussion.

a reply to: SuperFrog

How do I know this is not good material for educating people on science? I currently have a BS (also known as a Bachelor's of Science) in consumer behavior (aka psychology of how to manipulate people to buy into whatever you want to sell them) and will have completed my BS of Electrical Engineering by the end of next summer.

I challenge you to go into an actual professor of the science and ask what they think of the show.

But I have seen the post history of Returnofthesonof nothing and the others here and know that you don't actually care so much about science and progress so much as you hate a certain religion and will do/say almost anything in support of that.

You just go round and round spewing the same rhetoric like its your mantra, so I will leave you to it. In the mean time I will be with the adults who actually understand science. I do get a good laugh when you try and say it is good to use Biblical imagery to teach science to those who may be religious, but then fail to acknowledge they are presenting themselves as the Satan . . . oh good stuff.

-FBB

I thought this thread was about fossils and why a bill announcing a state fossil was stalled by creationists. Young earth creationists, that is.

eh?

originally posted by: amazing
I thought this thread was about fossils and why a bill announcing a state fossil was stalled by creationists. Young earth creationists, that is.

eh?

Yeah, I OP mentioned the Cosmos and I disagreed that it was a good show for teaching science and the crowd erupted.

It is retarded to force a name like that on a fossil, but at the same time an 8 year girl probably does not give a hoot about the argument between a small group of YEC's and Atheists. The politicians just love it for the attention.

-FBB

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

originally posted by: amazing
I thought this thread was about fossils and why a bill announcing a state fossil was stalled by creationists. Young earth creationists, that is.

eh?

Yeah, I OP mentioned the Cosmos and I disagreed that it was a good show for teaching science and the crowd erupted.

It is retarded to force a name like that on a fossil, but at the same time an 8 year girl probably does not give a hoot about the argument between a small group of YEC's and Atheists. The politicians just love it for the attention.

-FBB

What's your thoughts on the fossil? Why bad name? Is naming a state fossil a bad thing? Fossils really are science, right?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Funny how the original bill is the least controversial of all the proposals but was the one to spark the controversy.

I need a Jean-Luc Picard facepalm meme image here for sure.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: SuperFrog
You just go round and round spewing the same rhetoric like its your mantra, so I will leave you to it. In the mean time I will be with the adults who actually understand science. I do get a good laugh when you try and say it is good to use Biblical imagery to teach science to those who may be religious, but then fail to acknowledge they are presenting themselves as the Satan . . . oh good stuff.

-FBB

Only person going in circles and not knowing what else to do would be you, which is shame for someone who has BS and is working on another one. I was hopping that college of today would teach also interpersonal communications and possibly some science in scientific degree... Come on, now you worried that Dr. Tyson is presenting himself as Satanist?! In his (and science world) such a thing does not exist, so don't worry.

From what I see mostly from media and internet, all science professors (except small minority who are first religious than professors) are praising both - new series as well work of Dr. Tyson.

I believe your reaction is only based on your personal bias and possibly a bit prejudice toward Dr. Tyson. In any case, it would help further discussion if you clearly say why you see current series as insult to religion.

Carl Sagan in his original series was talking about evolution theory and guess what, his show at the time was not cut on air as today's cosmos was. A lot has change and this show should help and IS HELPING science community.

I know, I have 2 kids who watched it, and they both loved it. (even one of them is very young - he is interested in stars)

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

originally posted by: amazing
I thought this thread was about fossils and why a bill announcing a state fossil was stalled by creationists. Young earth creationists, that is.

eh?

Yeah, I OP mentioned the Cosmos and I disagreed that it was a good show for teaching science and the crowd erupted.

It is retarded to force a name like that on a fossil, but at the same time an 8 year girl probably does not give a hoot about the argument between a small group of YEC's and Atheists. The politicians just love it for the attention.

-FBB

What's your thoughts on the fossil? Why bad name? Is naming a state fossil a bad thing? Fossils really are science, right?

Maybe you didn't read the source article provided by the OP, so here is what I am talking about;

The original text of the bill simply read: "The woolly mammoth is designated as the official state fossil of South Carolina." In its most recent iteration, which was shot down in a vote on April 9, the bill had been amended to read as follows:

"The Columbian Mammoth, which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field, is designated as the official State Fossil of South Carolina and must be officially referred to as the 'Columbian Mammoth', which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field."

There are lots and lots of fossils, or are you trying to insinuate something else?

Fossils are not science . . . they are inanimate objects formed of the remains of dead animals. Again are you trying to insinuate something?

The article is about people throwing a fit over what to call the fossil in the bill . . .

-FBB

a reply to: SuperFrog

Oh original . . . real original.

Deny everything, make up popular opinions and present them as truth , then insinuate racial prejudice

. . . . .

Annnnnnnndddddd finally hide behind your children.

It is like you read a public relations handbook and then made this post.


How about you provide some evidence to back up anything you said. That means actual scientists raving about how great the show is now that it has been out. I am sure you will at least post something from Bill Nye, that's an easy place for you to start. You are merely demonstrating you have not been able to learn anything from the show with your consistent failure to provide evidence to support anything you are saying.

-FBB

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: SuperFrog

Oh original . . . real original.

Deny everything, make up popular opinions and present them as truth , then insinuate racial prejudice

What are you talking about? Where did I mention 'racial' prejudice?

You really have nothing new to say and at the moment you are unable to pick something to hold against so called popular belief witch we all call 'science'. Next sentence is best example of this:

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
Annnnnnnndddddd finally hide behind your children.

Seriously?

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
It is like you read a public relations handbook and then made this post.

No, it is called netiquette. Don't offend your opponent nor try to use ad-hominem in discussion. It is actually quite easy, you should try it sometimes.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
How about you provide some evidence to back up anything you said. That means actual scientists raving about how great the show is now that it has been out. I am sure you will at least post something from Bill Nye, that's an easy place for you to start. You are merely demonstrating you have not been able to learn anything from the show with your consistent failure to provide evidence to support anything you are saying.
-FBB

You seriously need supporting evidence that scientific circles are supporting Dr. Tyson's remake of Cosmos, while creationist, religious groups and supporters of intelligent design are asking for 'airtime' on new series and are objecting from first episode? Just look at your posts. I am sure that sooner or later you will give us real reason you object, even we all already know. Here, just for example couple of links from both sides:

Creationists Demand Airtime On Neil deGrasse Tyson's 'Cosmos'

Watch out, “Cosmos”! The Holy Inquisition is not happy with you

“If you start using your scripture, your religious text as a source of your science, that’s where you run into problems, and there is no example of someone reading their scripture and saying ‘I have a prediction about the world that no one knows yet because this gave me insight let’s go test this prediction and have that theory turn out to be correct,’” - Tyson

‘Cosmos’ TV Host Says Scripture Isn’t a Scientific Source: ‘Enlightened Religious People…Don’t Try to Use the Bible as a Textbook’

It is easy to get overwelmed by religious people reaction, but here are some scientist reviews of series:

The new Cosmos: Standing Up in the Milky Way

Dr. Lawrence Krauss wrote column even before watching it: The new Cosmos reboot marks a promising new era for science

You see, scientist are supporting Dr. Tyson because opportunities like this are rare, and with 8.5 million users (not counting those who view series on the web - and only talking about USA viewers) show is a success. Let's not forget that HUGE thanks goes to Seth MacFarlane who also donated all notes of Dr. Sagan witch he purchased for rather high price to Library of Congress.

Now let's do little experiment and conclude that only people who have a problem with new cosmos are those who still believe in God and are unable to separate from their religion and science. According to Dr. Tyson, there is ~ 7% of those among top scientist in USA.




And to get back to topic - should politic and religion mix with science? We all know that those do not mix very well, and that proposed change to wording is just comical and to some extent sad example of how uneducated state officials are. Don't you think that this is something to worry?

a reply to: SuperFrog

Wow . . . hahaha what a total BS artist.

From your article about scientists "supporting" the new show; The New 'Cosmos' Reboot Marks a Promising New Era for Science
www.thedailybeast.com...

First, a disclaimer. I haven’t seen the new Cosmos. Second, Neil deGrasse Tyson, the host, is a friend of mine. This is therefore not a review of the program or of Neil’s presentation in it.

You literally cannot get past your bitterness towards religious thought. Your argument that scientists are supporting the show involved you posting a video from NDT talking about how he know what everyone thinks. Finally you link to a bunch anti-YEC nonsense. I never supported the YEC's, I said this was a crap show and people involved in the sciences are generally very disappointed with it.

You can't even stick to one point and must continually revert to bashing a religion when I was talking about the actual presentation of science.

It gets old and I am not about to waste any more time on it.

Sorry kiddo.

-FBB

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: SuperFrog

Wow . . . hahaha what a total BS artist.

From your article about scientists "supporting" the new show; The New 'Cosmos' Reboot Marks a Promising New Era for Science
www.thedailybeast.com...

First, a disclaimer. I haven’t seen the new Cosmos. Second, Neil deGrasse Tyson, the host, is a friend of mine. This is therefore not a review of the program or of Neil’s presentation in it.

You literally cannot get past your bitterness towards religious thought. Your argument that scientists are supporting the show involved you posting a video from NDT talking about how he know what everyone thinks. Finally you link to a bunch anti-YEC nonsense. I never supported the YEC's, I said this was a crap show and people involved in the sciences are generally very disappointed with it.

You can't even stick to one point and must continually revert to bashing a religion when I was talking about the actual presentation of science.

It gets old and I am not about to waste any more time on it.

Sorry kiddo.

-FBB

Firstly, I have said 'Dr. Lawrence Krauss wrote column even before watching it', so no, I did not try hide that, just pointing out that there is trust between scientists and Dr. Tyson. As for 'sciences are generally very disappointed with it.', except religious groups that got upset with show, there is no supposed 'outcry' among scientist.

Of course this has to do everything with religion, from your bias toward science show, as well those fossils making stupid changes to request of an eight year old girl.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: SuperFrog

Wow . . . hahaha what a total BS artist.

From your article about scientists "supporting" the new show; The New 'Cosmos' Reboot Marks a Promising New Era for Science
www.thedailybeast.com...

First, a disclaimer. I haven’t seen the new Cosmos. Second, Neil deGrasse Tyson, the host, is a friend of mine. This is therefore not a review of the program or of Neil’s presentation in it.

You literally cannot get past your bitterness towards religious thought. Your argument that scientists are supporting the show involved you posting a video from NDT talking about how he know what everyone thinks. Finally you link to a bunch anti-YEC nonsense. I never supported the YEC's, I said this was a crap show and people involved in the sciences are generally very disappointed with it.

You can't even stick to one point and must continually revert to bashing a religion when I was talking about the actual presentation of science.

It gets old and I am not about to waste any more time on it.

Sorry kiddo.

-FBB

Firstly, I have said 'Dr. Lawrence Krauss wrote column even before watching it', so no, I did not try hide that, just pointing out that there is trust between scientists and Dr. Tyson. As for 'sciences are generally very disappointed with it.', except religious groups that got upset with show, there is no supposed 'outcry' among scientist.

Of course this has to do everything with religion, from your bias toward science show, as well those fossils making stupid changes to request of an eight year old girl.

Do you not realize that you are citing an individual who never watched the show but is friends with the star as evidence that Cosmos is a good science show.

I never said you did not cite the guy.

I was making a point of what a frail source it is.

Ha! Your posts would be funny if they weren't so sad.

-FBB