You had some good points in the Bill Nye video recently. The Creation Museum have responded with their own video http://videosift.com/video/Scientists-from-the-Creation-Museum-respond-to-Bill-Nye

You had some good points in the Bill Nye video recently. The Creation Museum have responded with their own video http://videosift.com/video/Scientists-from-the-Creation-Museum-respond-to-Bill-Nye

You posted the Bill Nye video recently. The Creation Museum has responded with their own video http://videosift.com/video/Scientists-from-the-Creation-Museum-respond-to-Bill-Nye

>> ^shinyblurry:

"Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it."
Steven Pinker,
Professor of Psychology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA., "How the Mind Works," [1997]

You love this quote, don't you? I searched for it on google and fuck me if the first page or two isn't almost all you regurgitating this at every opportunity.

Now, here's the thing. You haven't read this book. Because if you had, you would have seen the next line.

"Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it. Thankfully, the evidence is overwhelming. I don't just mean evidence that life evolved (which is way beyond reasonable doubt, creationists notwithstanding), but that it evolved by natural selection."

But hey, let's ignore that bit. Let's live in shinys fantasy delusional that there isn't an almost overwhelming preponderance of data backing up evolution. Pinker would still be right. Why? Because there are no valid competing scientific theories. Literally. That's it. It's the only game in town. No-one has come even remotely close to explaining the diversity of life on this planet without evolution.

Intelligent design is not a theory. It fails almost every criteria.

So seriously, enough with the bullshit.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm not really convinced that you understand the subject matter well enough to refute me, and what I've written so far is really just a superficial commentary on the underlying technical problems of these theories. I would also note that it is intellectual honesty that compels us to understand something before we pass judgment on it, and if you are going to call the creationist model "obvious nonsense" before understanding it, not only is that intellectually dishonest, but also willfully ignorant, which doesn't really seem to support the tone of your post.


Oh sweet irony, I'm being called wilfully ignorant by a young-earther.

I'm not going to refute you. I don't need to; @BicycleRepairMan has already done an excellent job of it.

Besides, you might want to learn to read; I didn't call creationism obvious nonsense, I called "flood geology" obvious nonsense. Creationism isn't even nonsense, it's just bullshit. It's a fairy story and believing it is the very definition of wilful ignorance.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

@shinyblurry, just stop. When you bring up such obvious nonsense as "flood geology", it makes it really hard to take you seriously.
Honestly I'm not even going to bother to refute this bullshit (although it's trivially easy to do so), but then again, I'm not going to prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist either.


I'm not really convinced that you understand the subject matter well enough to refute me, and what I've written so far is really just a superficial commentary on the underlying technical problems of these theories. I would also note that it is intellectual honesty that compels us to understand something before we pass judgment on it, and if you are going to call the creationist model "obvious nonsense" before understanding it, not only is that intellectually dishonest, but also willfully ignorant, which doesn't really seem to support the tone of your post.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that it was a bit of an assumption to say that decay was constant, lets just linger with that idea for a second. We see some decay happen, and we assume its contant backwards in time. well what would be the alternative? Well, a non-constant decay, of course. The problem is just that we have no information, that is, no evidence, that the rate of decay has ever, or even can, change. Worse still, since there is no evidence, we cant say how the rate has changed. Is it decaying slower and slower, (which would imply a younger universe) or faster and faster (which would imply an even older universe) or does it fluctuate wildly? There is of course no way to tell, except to concede that there is no evidence for any of these three scenarios. According you Young Earth Creationists, the earth is something like 6-12000 years old, which would mean a MASSIVE, impossibly weird and complicated, and seemingly undetectable deceleration in the rate of decay of all known elements. Worse still, in order for the math to work out, all the different elements would decelerate at different rates, for some, again, inexplicable reason. And again, without this being detected by todays best scientists.

Are these the worst scientists then?

http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/decay-detector-gives-solar-flare-alert/

You should be careful not to let yourself become blinded by conventional wisdom. Why shouldn't you suspect that decay rates could change? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


Talk about making assumptions, about having faith All in order to make a magic book remain magic.

Oh well.

It doesn't sound like you read my comment. I changed my mind, not in spite of the evidence, but because of it. I was perfectly fine with being a theistic evolutionist.


But of course, thats just be beginning, because it just so happens that the assumption we made (that the rate of decay is constant) lines up pretty damn nicely with other known facts about the universe, like how big it is, what stars are made of, how massive they are how long they have burned, how the whole universe is expanding, how tectonic plates move, how animals evolved,

Yes, you're right, it lines up just fine with all of the other giant assumptions that have been made about how the Universe was formed, because they are all predicated on the basal assumption of deep time, and conversely, they are all used to support that assumption of deep time. It's quite a racket they have going, where the evidence is interpreted by the conclusion. Last time I checked that wasn't science.

how fossils were buried by Satan to fool us all laid down in order over the eons, genetic diversity and the relationships and relatedness of all living things.

Do you know the geologic column doesn't actually exist in reality? It doesn't sound like you do, if you think it's all laid down in a neat little order like you see in the text book. The truth is, the geologic column is entirely theoretical. You don't find it anywhere on Earth. What you do find is various layers here and there, and what they assume is that layer a is the same as layer b if they find the same fossils in them. The depths you see in the various layers of the column does not reflect reality. You can find Cambrian fossils 10 feet down in some areas, so if you went by physical depth, you can say in some instances Cambrian was planted last and not first. The amount of circular reasoning employed to describe the geologic column is astounding.

Another question is, do you understand flood geology? Please read what we actually believe before you criticize it:

http://creationwiki.org/Flood_geology


It all pans out pretty fucking nicely to an emerging picture of a universe thats 13.72 billion years old, and an earth that is about 4.6 billion years old.

But I guess all these aligning scientific facts make the baby jesus sad and must be ignored, or at least made out by believers to be "based on faith" (The very thing that, by definition, underpins the entire worldview of a believer!) So that they can dismiss it because its just faith. Oh the irony, it burns.

As I said to someone else, if you're already committed to materialist explanations, it doesn't sound like a big leap. To someone who isn't so committed, it is a bigger leap than it might appear to you. I was willing to reinterpret my understanding of Gods word for what science had to say, and still am, but not for a mountain of circumstantial evidence and a just-so story to tie it all together.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan

To the creationist who spent a lot of time writing up his beliefs. Yes, it does take a "leap of faith" to accept current scientific theory.

I appreciate that you can admit it. After investigating the issue, I decided the leap was too great if it was between that and Gods word. I'm sure that seems funny to you, but have you considered the philosophical implications? If you are already committed to naturalistic materialism, like most atheists, of course you are going to believe there *has* to be a materialist explanation, therefore the circumstantial evidence I cited is going to look a lot more persausive than it actually is. You might even admit that it is not proof of anything, but surely it is pointing in the right direction. You can see the issue a lot more objectively if you are not automatically committed to materialist explanations.

However, science never claims to be 100% correct unlike the teachings of most religious fundamentalists. Most time in science is proving current theories wrong, and adapting our scientific model to fit new theories. That is the strength of science. So if you can't accept the current theory, great! Come up with some other PROOF for our existence instead of buying into a cult that has no proof.

What you're doing here is creating a false dichotomy between science and religion. I don't have to choose one or the other. Science has nothing to say on the question on whether God exists. It may conflict with the bible on certain issues, but as I wrote above, I didn't change my mind because of what the bible said as true. I directly said I was willing to modify my understanding of biblical truth if scientific theories conflicted with it. The actual reason I changed my mind was because of a lack of evidence.

As far as whether there is evidence for Christianity, there is quite a bit. Some of the most compelling, I think, is fulfilled prophecy. However, God gives revelation to those who are seeking Him. Only God can reveal Himself to you.

They have assumptions based on a 2000 year old fairy tale, and the feeling "in their heart" that is it true. For me I need more repeatable/accurate proof than that to accept a theory.

I don't expect you to believe in God without any proof beyond personal testimony. As I said, God reveals Himself to those who diligently seek Him.

Sure, in all of recorded history, we look at C12 decay rates and they have been accurate, but instead of coming up with repeatable proof on why C12 isn't accurate, let's just instead assume that they are completely wrong. Looking at just the proof human fossils, the theory of evolution writes a more clear picture to me of the origin of our species than the origin of our species as described in a book. Supposedly, this book is somehow considered divine knowledge by some. Even though, it was written long before we had any understanding of virii, bacteria, or the microbiological world. Doesn't sound very divine or all knowing to me. It was the best explanation that a primitive people had to explain and live in the world around them. Which modern science and culture should be long past.

It's interesting then that the Israelites completely ignored the science of their time and were inspired to invent hand washing and quarantine procedures which, when followed, kept people from getting sick. It was almost as if an all-knowing God knew about germs and gave His people understanding which helped them avoid infection. These things were "discovered" by science thousands of years later. Had people been following Gods rules of sanitation that entire time, millions of lives would have been saved. Far from primitive, they were ahead of their time by millenia.

If it is the bible we're talking about, if you live in today's government, you already accept certain elements as out-dated and irrelevant. Unless you still stone people for adultery, worshipers of other religions, or disobeying their parents. Or if you think that the animal should be stoned in a bestiality case. Or you think that someone looking at a woman menstruating will cause your eyes to bleed. I've hope you've "grown up" from those archaic beliefs. Why is species origin any different?

Have you ever read the bible? Do you understand the differences between the Old and New covenants?

What I normally tell creationists and other anti-science viewpoints, is that if you don't believe in science, don't believe in medical science either. Stay in a church praying to your creator when you get sick or need modern medicine to improve your chances of survival. I'm sure your creator will save you...

As I said, I believe in science. What I don't believe in is the theory of deep time, or evolution by universal common descent.

>> ^Ferazel

>> ^qfan:

Side note: Being well respected doesn't mean his views are truth.

Agreed. On the other hand, the unassailable mountains of evidence for evolution means his views (at least on evolution) are truth. Or at least as much as it's possible to have any scientific "truth".


>> ^qfan:

Though yes, perfectly fine to have an opinion. I'm not disputing that.
What's in dispute is that he's telling parents not to share their beliefs with their own children. So we're not only telling creationists they can't share their views publicly in school, we also tell them that they can't share their views in private with their own children. It's extraordinarily dangerous thinking in the free world. These are private people who wish to raise their children with their own values. Bill is publicly preaching to parents (unlike those parents who are privately teaching their children) not to share what they believe in, all the while saying "When you're in love you want to tell the world about it." The man is amazingly hypocritical and sadly without an ounce of realisation about it.

He's not saying parents can't tell their children about creationism, he's saying they shouldn't. You can dance around the issue all you want, and believe in creationism, the tooth fairy or santa claus, but there comes a time when you have to grow up and accept reality. Right now, there's no debate about evolution, simply because there is no valid competing scientific theory that even comes close to matching the evidence. That I have to even spell this out is pretty sad.

>> ^qfan:

He says "We need scientifically literate people...". The thousands of scientists that believe in creation are also literate in science, even in the evolutionary aspects, except they choose not to believe in evolutionary theory. Science is a method. Nothing more, nothing less. Creationists aren't ignoring science at all, they are ignoring evolutionary theory.

There might be "thousands of scientists that believe in creation", but they represent a tiny percentage of the overall scientific community and almost none of them work in relevant fields. You wouldn't ask a plumber about aeronautical engineering, so don't ask a physicist about biology.

And if you ignore evolutionary theory, you are ignoring the science of biology. You are cherry-picking which evidence you accept because it doesn't fit your world view.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says "We need engineers, people that build stuff, solve problems...". The example of Wernher Von Braun puts this point to rest.

I have already conceded that you do not need to understand evolutionary biology to build rockets.

>> ^qfan:

You're confusing a lot of things here. First you say he ignored an area (evolution) that conflicted with his belief "because it didn't affect his work", then go on to say "You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution".

If you're going to quote me, at least do me the courtesy of doing it fully and in context. What I said was:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution though, given it's the backbone of a lot of medical research.


I meant that Von Braun benefited from the study of evolution in the same way that every other human in the developed world did, through better medicines. It didn't really affect his work, but it did affect his life.


>> ^qfan:

Von Braun, "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design,” “It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/656/1

So what? He was wrong about evolution. Big deal. Newton was one of the greatest minds of all time and he got time wrong. Science marches on, and I'm confident that Von Braun if he had the time and inclination to really study it, would eventually have accepted the facts of evolution. And if he still chose to ignore the evidence because it didn't fit his world-view, well, that's sad, but it changes nothing about the truth of evolution.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says that denial of evolution is unique to the US (which is already a very questionable statement in itself), then goes on to say that the US is the most technologically advanced nation (with a grudging acceptance that Japan might be slightly ahead). Again, another questionable statement and slightly elitist I might add So if denial of evolution is holding the US back, why is it the most technologically advanced? You could word it another way... denial of evolution and technological advancement do not correlate with one another.


It's not unique to the U.S., but it's more prevalent than any other developed nation. What he's saying is that the U.S. should know better.

Denial of evolution in and of itself is bad, but it's symptomatic of the larger issues of anti-intellectualism and non-rational thought. The people who made the U.S. the most technologically advanced nation are not the same people that believe in a talking snake.

Besides, he's talking about potential. Maybe somewhere in the bible belt the next Alexander Fleming is having their future taken away from them because they are being lied to (intentionally or not) by their parents and/or preachers.

>> ^shinyblurry:

...


Well, Jesus told me that evolution is true and the bible contains absolutely nothing that wasn't known to humans living in the middle-east 2000 years ago.

So, YMMV.

>> ^qfan:
I guess my first question to Bill would be, who are you to tell people how to raise their children, if what they are doing is fine by the law?

I'm sure his answer would be "I'm not telling people how to raise their children, I'm giving my very valid view on children and religion because the man on TV asked me to."

>> ^qfan:

I guess my first question to Bill would be, who are you to tell people how to raise their children, if what they are doing is fine by the law?

Well, aside from being a well-respected science educator, he's also a private person and thus entitled to an opinion. The same way that religious people seem to think they should be able to tell other people not only how to raise their children, but what their children should be taught in science class.

Bill is entitled to his opinion, the religious are entitled to theirs and we are entitled to judge them for their opinions.

>> ^qfan:

The second question would be, do you have any proof that believing in creation always leads people not to think innovatively?
Wernher von Braun was a Biblical creationist and one of the original rocket scientists, even working [edit: chief architect] on the Saturn V which took the recently deceased Neil Armstrong to the moon.

If Von Braun had believed in a biblical theory of "intelligent falling" instead of gravity, his rockets wouldn't have gotten far. If he had actually studied the science, his conclusion might have been very different, but there's not a lot of call for evolutionary science when designing rockets, so he basically ignored an area of science that conflicted with his belief system because it didn't affect his work. You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution though, given it's the backbone of a lot of medical research.

Yes, yes it is.
>> ^shinyblurry:
No, it's not because I believe the bible.

Our current #1 vid, of which I am justly proud made it:

http://videosift.com/video/Bill-Nye-Creationism-Is-Not-Appropriate-For-Children

The Sift still gots it, baby. The Sift still gots it.

>> ^bobknight33:

In the sense that Evolution is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.
>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.



Look, if you're gonna troll, can you at least attempt to do it with something approaching originality? I know that wit, style, or class are way to much to hope for, but the least you could do is make up your own unfunny bullshit.

Christ, you're pathetic.