Bill Nye To Debate Creationist At Creation Museum February 4th (1 Viewer)

[tonydead]

What evidence do you have? (I only ask questions 3 times before I have to assume you don't have any)

I've already answered this question in this thread, I only answer questions once before I realize you're either stupid or not paying attention.

Saying things are too complex therefore they must be made by God is not evidence. And it's stupid. You've got the biggest gap there is to fill, besides your head.

 

[DrJ]

What evidence do you have? (I only ask questions 3 times before I have to assume you don't have any)

I've already answered this question in this thread, I only answer questions once before I realize you're either stupid or not paying attention.

Saying things are too complex therefore they must be made by God is not evidence. And it's stupid. You've got the biggest gap there is to fill, besides your head.

Saying things are made up of a small number of elements isn't evidence either. All we've got is that there was no life at some point in time and then there was life. That's the entirety of our evidence.

 

[DrJ]

And in terms of evolution all we've got is the population of animals in the past is different than the population today, though they share many similarities. We also know that changes can be passed through genetic code and a creatures ability to survive is influenced by their environment. That's about it. We suppose this could be enough to turn a fish into a bird, but no one has seen anything remotely similar actually happen.

 

[tonydead]

And in terms of evolution all we've got is the population of animals in the past is different than the population today, though they share many similarities. We also know that changes can be passed through genetic code and a creatures ability to survive is influenced by their environment. That's about it. We suppose this could be enough to turn a fish into a bird, but no one has seen anything remotely similar actually happen.

Again, would you like me to post some links or send you some books so you learn about what you are talking about? (per my new rules you only get one more chance)

 

[DrJ]

And in terms of evolution all we've got is the population of animals in the past is different than the population today, though they share many similarities. We also know that changes can be passed through genetic code and a creatures ability to survive is influenced by their environment. That's about it. We suppose this could be enough to turn a fish into a bird, but no one has seen anything remotely similar actually happen.

Again, would you like me to post some links or send you some books so you learn about what you are talking about? (per my new rules you only get one more chance)

I don't care what you do.

 

[cstu]

200 years ago: if we give an infinite amount of scientists an infinite amount of time, one of them should be able to discover a mechanism to create over 20 million species of life from one. Otherwise it's pretty likely God did it.

YOU'RE FISHING.

We're still waiting on this one. Unless they managed to create some new species in a lab...

We didn't need a lab and we have done it - it's called Canis familiaris (or as you might know it, the domestic dog). Dogs were originally a different species - the gray wolf (Canis lupus) - which we domesticated and turned into a new species.

No, they're a subspecies. They're no more a different species than white and black people are a different species. You'd think you guys would have examples that aren't horrible and wrong if this is so evident.

Animals can be different species even if they can interbreed.

Human DNA is 99.99% similar while wolves and dogs are 99.80% similar. However, humans are also about 99% similar to chimps and bonobos.

Are you going to disagree that llamas and camels are separate species? Because those have been bred to produce camas, which themselves can reproduce and are a new species themselves.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

And in terms of evolution all we've got is the population of animals in the past is different than the population today, though they share many similarities. We also know that changes can be passed through genetic code and a creatures ability to survive is influenced by their environment. That's about it. We suppose this could be enough to turn a fish into a bird, but no one has seen anything remotely similar actually happen.

 

[DrJ]

200 years ago: if we give an infinite amount of scientists an infinite amount of time, one of them should be able to discover a mechanism to create over 20 million species of life from one. Otherwise it's pretty likely God did it.

YOU'RE FISHING.

We're still waiting on this one. Unless they managed to create some new species in a lab...

We didn't need a lab and we have done it - it's called Canis familiaris (or as you might know it, the domestic dog). Dogs were originally a different species - the gray wolf (Canis lupus) - which we domesticated and turned into a new species.

No, they're a subspecies. They're no more a different species than white and black people are a different species. You'd think you guys would have examples that aren't horrible and wrong if this is so evident.

Animals can be different species even if they can interbreed.

Human DNA is 99.99% similar while wolves and dogs are 99.80% similar. However, humans are also about 99% similar to chimps and bonobos.

None of that changes the fact that dogs are a subspecies of wolf, not a separate species.

 

[tonydead]

And in terms of evolution all we've got is the population of animals in the past is different than the population today, though they share many similarities. We also know that changes can be passed through genetic code and a creatures ability to survive is influenced by their environment. That's about it. We suppose this could be enough to turn a fish into a bird, but no one has seen anything remotely similar actually happen.

Again, would you like me to post some links or send you some books so you learn about what you are talking about? (per my new rules you only get one more chance)

I don't care what you do.

That's nice, but, the question was really focused on you. (last chance)

 

[DrJ]

And in terms of evolution all we've got is the population of animals in the past is different than the population today, though they share many similarities. We also know that changes can be passed through genetic code and a creatures ability to survive is influenced by their environment. That's about it. We suppose this could be enough to turn a fish into a bird, but no one has seen anything remotely similar actually happen.

Again, would you like me to post some links or send you some books so you learn about what you are talking about? (per my new rules you only get one more chance)

I don't care what you do.

That's nice, but, the question was really focused on you. (last chance)

I still don't care what you do.

 

[tonydead]

And in terms of evolution all we've got is the population of animals in the past is different than the population today, though they share many similarities. We also know that changes can be passed through genetic code and a creatures ability to survive is influenced by their environment. That's about it. We suppose this could be enough to turn a fish into a bird, but no one has seen anything remotely similar actually happen.

Again, would you like me to post some links or send you some books so you learn about what you are talking about? (per my new rules you only get one more chance)

I don't care what you do.

That's nice, but, the question was really focused on you. (last chance)

I still don't care what you do.

So what you are saying is we have no proof and you refuse to read any of it.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

And in terms of evolution all we've got is the population of animals in the past is different than the population today, though they share many similarities. We also know that changes can be passed through genetic code and a creatures ability to survive is influenced by their environment. That's about it. We suppose this could be enough to turn a fish into a bird, but no one has seen anything remotely similar actually happen.

Check and mate, son.

 

[DrJ]

And in terms of evolution all we've got is the population of animals in the past is different than the population today, though they share many similarities. We also know that changes can be passed through genetic code and a creatures ability to survive is influenced by their environment. That's about it. We suppose this could be enough to turn a fish into a bird, but no one has seen anything remotely similar actually happen.

Again, would you like me to post some links or send you some books so you learn about what you are talking about? (per my new rules you only get one more chance)

I don't care what you do.

That's nice, but, the question was really focused on you. (last chance)

I still don't care what you do.

So what you are saying is we have no proof and you refuse to read any of it.

No, I'm quite clearly saying that I don't care what you do.

 

[tonydead]

So what you are saying is we have no proof and you refuse to read any of it.

No, I'm quite clearly saying that I don't care what you do.

I wasn't asking a question.

 

[DrJ]

And in terms of evolution all we've got is the population of animals in the past is different than the population today, though they share many similarities. We also know that changes can be passed through genetic code and a creatures ability to survive is influenced by their environment. That's about it. We suppose this could be enough to turn a fish into a bird, but no one has seen anything remotely similar actually happen.

Check and mate, son.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

200 years ago: if we give an infinite amount of scientists an infinite amount of time, one of them should be able to discover a mechanism to create over 20 million species of life from one. Otherwise it's pretty likely God did it.

YOU'RE FISHING.

We're still waiting on this one. Unless they managed to create some new species in a lab...

We didn't need a lab and we have done it - it's called Canis familiaris (or as you might know it, the domestic dog). Dogs were originally a different species - the gray wolf (Canis lupus) - which we domesticated and turned into a new species.

No, they're a subspecies. They're no more a different species than white and black people are a different species. You'd think you guys would have examples that aren't horrible and wrong if this is so evident.

Animals can be different species even if they can interbreed.

Human DNA is 99.99% similar while wolves and dogs are 99.80% similar. However, humans are also about 99% similar to chimps and bonobos.

None of that changes the fact that dogs are a subspecies of wolf, not a separate species.

They are different species, Darwin.

 

[DrJ]

So what you are saying is we have no proof and you refuse to read any of it.

No, I'm quite clearly saying that I don't care what you do.

I wasn't asking a question.

I wasn't answering one either.

 

[DrJ]

200 years ago: if we give an infinite amount of scientists an infinite amount of time, one of them should be able to discover a mechanism to create over 20 million species of life from one. Otherwise it's pretty likely God did it.

YOU'RE FISHING.

We're still waiting on this one. Unless they managed to create some new species in a lab...

We didn't need a lab and we have done it - it's called Canis familiaris (or as you might know it, the domestic dog). Dogs were originally a different species - the gray wolf (Canis lupus) - which we domesticated and turned into a new species.

No, they're a subspecies. They're no more a different species than white and black people are a different species. You'd think you guys would have examples that aren't horrible and wrong if this is so evident.

Animals can be different species even if they can interbreed.

Human DNA is 99.99% similar while wolves and dogs are 99.80% similar. However, humans are also about 99% similar to chimps and bonobos.

None of that changes the fact that dogs are a subspecies of wolf, not a separate species.

They are different species, Darwin.

Red x.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

 

[Homer J Simpson]

200 years ago: if we give an infinite amount of scientists an infinite amount of time, one of them should be able to discover a mechanism to create over 20 million species of life from one. Otherwise it's pretty likely God did it.

YOU'RE FISHING.

We're still waiting on this one. Unless they managed to create some new species in a lab...

We didn't need a lab and we have done it - it's called Canis familiaris (or as you might know it, the domestic dog). Dogs were originally a different species - the gray wolf (Canis lupus) - which we domesticated and turned into a new species.

No, they're a subspecies. They're no more a different species than white and black people are a different species. You'd think you guys would have examples that aren't horrible and wrong if this is so evident.

Animals can be different species even if they can interbreed.

Human DNA is 99.99% similar while wolves and dogs are 99.80% similar. However, humans are also about 99% similar to chimps and bonobos.

None of that changes the fact that dogs are a subspecies of wolf, not a separate species.

They are different species, Darwin.

Red x.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

I stand corrected.

Literally posted the first link that came up...I guess I should have done some research. Perhaps others (ahem) could learn from my mistake.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

And in terms of evolution all we've got is the population of animals in the past is different than the population today, though they share many similarities. We also know that changes can be passed through genetic code and a creatures ability to survive is influenced by their environment. That's about it. We suppose this could be enough to turn a fish into a bird, but no one has seen anything remotely similar actually happen.

Check and mate, son.

BOOM

 

[urbanhack]

And in terms of evolution all we've got is the population of animals in the past is different than the population today, though they share many similarities. We also know that changes can be passed through genetic code and a creatures ability to survive is influenced by their environment. That's about it. We suppose this could be enough to turn a fish into a bird, but no one has seen anything remotely similar actually happen.

 

[DrJ]

200 years ago: if we give an infinite amount of scientists an infinite amount of time, one of them should be able to discover a mechanism to create over 20 million species of life from one. Otherwise it's pretty likely God did it.

YOU'RE FISHING.

We're still waiting on this one. Unless they managed to create some new species in a lab...

We didn't need a lab and we have done it - it's called Canis familiaris (or as you might know it, the domestic dog). Dogs were originally a different species - the gray wolf (Canis lupus) - which we domesticated and turned into a new species.

No, they're a subspecies. They're no more a different species than white and black people are a different species. You'd think you guys would have examples that aren't horrible and wrong if this is so evident.

Animals can be different species even if they can interbreed.

Human DNA is 99.99% similar while wolves and dogs are 99.80% similar. However, humans are also about 99% similar to chimps and bonobos.

None of that changes the fact that dogs are a subspecies of wolf, not a separate species.

They are different species, Darwin.

Red x.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

I stand corrected.

Literally posted the first link that came up...I guess I should have done some research. Perhaps others (ahem) could learn from my mistake.

Yeah, there sure seem to be a lot of uneducated "science types" in this thread.

 

[CBusAlex]

Is DrJ trying to hit literally every single point from MT's post about how creationists don't understand evolution?

 

[Scoresman]

200 years ago: if we give an infinite amount of scientists an infinite amount of time, one of them should be able to discover a mechanism to create over 20 million species of life from one. Otherwise it's pretty likely God did it.

YOU'RE FISHING.

We're still waiting on this one. Unless they managed to create some new species in a lab...

We didn't need a lab and we have done it - it's called Canis familiaris (or as you might know it, the domestic dog). Dogs were originally a different species - the gray wolf (Canis lupus) - which we domesticated and turned into a new species.

No, they're a subspecies. They're no more a different species than white and black people are a different species. You'd think you guys would have examples that aren't horrible and wrong if this is so evident.

Animals can be different species even if they can interbreed.

Human DNA is 99.99% similar while wolves and dogs are 99.80% similar. However, humans are also about 99% similar to chimps and bonobos.

None of that changes the fact that dogs are a subspecies of wolf, not a separate species.

They are different species, Darwin.

Red x.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

I stand corrected.

Literally posted the first link that came up...I guess I should have done some research. Perhaps others (ahem) could learn from my mistake.

Yeah, there sure seem to be a lot of uneducated "science types" in this thread.

no, there's only one. wouldn't call him a "science type" though.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

You fish with a pole, not a sledgehammer.

 

[Zow]

I love the irony of this guy arguing with"dr" in his name. Can't be real, gotta be fishing.

 

[DrJ]

We're still waiting on this one. Unless they managed to create some new species in a lab...

We didn't need a lab and we have done it - it's called Canis familiaris (or as you might know it, the domestic dog). Dogs were originally a different species - the gray wolf (Canis lupus) - which we domesticated and turned into a new species.

No, they're a subspecies. They're no more a different species than white and black people are a different species. You'd think you guys would have examples that aren't horrible and wrong if this is so evident.

Animals can be different species even if they can interbreed.

Human DNA is 99.99% similar while wolves and dogs are 99.80% similar. However, humans are also about 99% similar to chimps and bonobos.

None of that changes the fact that dogs are a subspecies of wolf, not a separate species.

They are different species, Darwin.

Red x.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

I stand corrected.

Literally posted the first link that came up...I guess I should have done some research. Perhaps others (ahem) could learn from my mistake.

Yeah, there sure seem to be a lot of uneducated "science types" in this thread.

no, there's only one. wouldn't call him a "science type" though.

Really strange how you guys push your religion.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

You fish with a pole, not a sledgehammer.

Still funny though. And there's a few in the boat.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

If they could just create a cross breed of snake, pig and fish think of the money I'd save on plumber visits.

 

[matuski]

If they could just create a cross breed of snake, pig and fish think of the money I'd save on plumber visits.

I knew you were Mr. Cross.

 

[Sweet J]

Science and religion should not be at odds.

If you believe that god created man, then god created scientists.

Right. If you think that God created the universe, then you ought to note that He created an intelligible universe. He obviously doesn't have any problems with us understanding how it works.

Some aspects of the universe, such as quantum mechanics, may be intelligible to the best human minds. Other aspects, such as the popularity of Mylie Cyrus, remain an impossible mystery.

You obviously have not appropriately educated yourself. Please watch the video for "Party in the USA" (so infectious!) and "Wrecking Ball," check out the recent Vogue-Germany spread, and check back in.

 

[BoltzNBrew]

Honestly, 6000 years old? They found 800,000 year old footprints in the UK that resemble HUMAN footprints. But we weren't there to witness the footprints being made so they don't exist right?

 

[DrJ]

Honestly, 6000 years old? They found 800,000 year old footprints in the UK that resemble HUMAN footprints. But we weren't there to witness the footprints being made so they don't exist right?

The flood did strange things to the fossil and geological records, those footprints only seem to be 800,000 years old.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Honestly, 6000 years old? They found 800,000 year old footprints in the UK that resemble HUMAN footprints. But we weren't there to witness the footprints being made so they don't exist right?

The flood did strange things to the fossil and geological records, those footprints only seem to be 800,000 years old.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I think the footprints are also when Jesus carried you.

 

[ummich10]

Let's say for the sake of argument that all scientific/naturalistic explanations are off the table. How are we to determine which supernatural explanation is the correct explanation for how the world and humans were created? Simply having faith in one or another is not enough, I want to objectively know, as much as possible, how we arrived at where we are.

 

[DrJ]

Let's say for the sake of argument that all scientific/naturalistic explanations are off the table. How are we to determine which supernatural explanation is the correct explanation for how the world and humans were created? Simply having faith in one or another is not enough, I want to objectively know, as much as possible, how we arrived at where we are.

By and large Christians have won decisively in battle. This clearly demonstrates that God is on their side.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Let's say for the sake of argument that all scientific/naturalistic explanations are off the table. How are we to determine which supernatural explanation is the correct explanation for how the world and humans were created? Simply having faith in one or another is not enough, I want to objectively know, as much as possible, how we arrived at where we are.

By and large Christians have won decisively in battle. This clearly demonstrates that God is on their side.

This comment needs a giant hawk screech.

 

[fatness]

Honestly, 6000 years old? They found 800,000 year old footprints in the UK that resemble HUMAN footprints. But we weren't there to witness the footprints being made so they don't exist right?

They aren't his great-grandfather's so they don't count.

 

[ummich10]

Let's say for the sake of argument that all scientific/naturalistic explanations are off the table. How are we to determine which supernatural explanation is the correct explanation for how the world and humans were created? Simply having faith in one or another is not enough, I want to objectively know, as much as possible, how we arrived at where we are.

By and large Christians have won decisively in battle. This clearly demonstrates that God is on their side.

Which battle are you referring to?

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Let's say for the sake of argument that all scientific/naturalistic explanations are off the table. How are we to determine which supernatural explanation is the correct explanation for how the world and humans were created? Simply having faith in one or another is not enough, I want to objectively know, as much as possible, how we arrived at where we are.

By and large Christians have won decisively in battle. This clearly demonstrates that God is on their side.

Do you have some kind of fishing playbook you use? I mean, the hits just keep on coming.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Let's say for the sake of argument that all scientific/naturalistic explanations are off the table. How are we to determine which supernatural explanation is the correct explanation for how the world and humans were created? Simply having faith in one or another is not enough, I want to objectively know, as much as possible, how we arrived at where we are.

By and large Christians have won decisively in battle. This clearly demonstrates that God is on their side.

Do you have some kind of fishing playbook you use? I mean, the hits just keep on coming.

Yeah, this can't be real.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

To be honest, I find the Christians with a pat easy answer to this to be the most unauthentic. It's not an easy question. I'm a Christian, and I find the fact that 2 year old suffer with leukemia to be incredibly devastating, and I don't have an easy answer for it.

A friend of my family has a not quite 2 year old with leukemia who has been told to go home and enjoy the last two weeks to two month of his life. While I can theologize an answer to it, it doesn't feel very honest.

 

[ummich10]

I'm just wondering how people determine one supernatural claim from another. Until someone can prove to me otherwise, the idea that we all came from a cosmic, golden egg is just as good as any other idea.

What's everyone's favorite creation myth? Since science doesn't have any evidence to back up its claims, any supernatural claim is just as good as any other since they can't be ruled out.

 

[Otis]

Lol at "debate"

 

[Eephus]

Julius Erving has issued a cease and desist order

 

[IC FBGCav]

BTW with Adam and Eve people.........how about the incest issue?

 

[DrJ]

Let's say for the sake of argument that all scientific/naturalistic explanations are off the table. How are we to determine which supernatural explanation is the correct explanation for how the world and humans were created? Simply having faith in one or another is not enough, I want to objectively know, as much as possible, how we arrived at where we are.

By and large Christians have won decisively in battle. This clearly demonstrates that God is on their side.

Which battle are you referring to?

The vast majority of them since Christianity came to be and shed light on the truth. That's why they control most of the fertile land, most of the world's wealth, etc. Because God chose them.

 

[DrJ]

BTW with Adam and Eve people.........how about the incest issue?

What's the issue?

 

[IC FBGCav]

BTW with Adam and Eve people.........how about the incest issue?

What's the issue?

Incest...bible is against that right?