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

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Maybe I'm not up on what they're currently teaching...

You're not.

So the science on the origins of life has actually advanced past a bunch of wild theories?

They aren't wild at all. They're reasoned thoughts based on the evidence.

By the same standard that the belief in God is supported by evidence, I suppose.

No.

Yes. Both offer explanations on how organic matter became life without anything concrete to actually substantiate them.

So ridiculous.

 

[DrJ]

Maybe I'm not up on what they're currently teaching...

You're not.

So the science on the origins of life has actually advanced past a bunch of wild theories?

They aren't wild at all. They're reasoned thoughts based on the evidence.

By the same standard that the belief in God is supported by evidence, I suppose.

No.

Yes. Both offer explanations on how organic matter became life without anything concrete to actually substantiate them.

So ridiculous.

Not sure why as there are plenty of scientists that believe in a God and intelligent design.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

 

[DrJ]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

 

[timschochet]

Maybe I'm not up on what they're currently teaching...

You're not.

So the science on the origins of life has actually advanced past a bunch of wild theories?

They aren't wild at all. They're reasoned thoughts based on the evidence.

By the same standard that the belief in God is supported by evidence, I suppose.

No.

Yes. Both offer explanations on how organic matter became life without anything concrete to actually substantiate them.

So ridiculous.

Not sure why as there are plenty of scientists that believe in a God and intelligent design.

You need to be careful of your terms here. All theists believe in intelligent design by definition. However, the people that use the term "Intelligent Design" these days attempt to use it as an alternative to evolution. The vast majority of theistic scientists believe that evolution is HOW God designed life, not as an alternative.

 

[Mister Martie]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Honestly, this is one of the dumbest statements in board history.

 

[timschochet]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

What evidence supports the existence of God?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

What evidence supports the existence of God?

Sunsets.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You need to be careful of your terms here. All theists believe in intelligent design by definition. However, the people that use the term "Intelligent Design" these days attempt to use it as an alternative to evolution. The vast majority of theistic scientists believe that evolution is HOW God designed life, not as an alternative.

This is correct. I know quite a few academic scientists who are theists. None, to my knowledge, is a creationist in the sense that people ordinarily use that term.

 

[timschochet]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

What evidence supports the existence of God?

Sunsets.

The tide goes in, the tide comes out.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

What evidence supports the existence of God?

Sunsets.

The tide goes in, the tide comes out.

Lava proves that hell exists.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

What evidence supports the existence of God?

Sunsets.

HomerJ's capacity for the funny.

 

[fatness]

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Kids, don't drop out of school.

 

[cstu]

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

I don't understand how that really matters. If God made the universe and the original lifeform it doesn't disprove evolution.

This is the 4th time I've posted this for a creationist to comment on, but I doubt I'll get anyone to do so:

What Darwin Never Knew

 

[DrJ]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

What evidence supports the existence of God?

Life.

 

[tonydead]

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Well there is the origin of species that is scientific proof of how organisms have evolved, very differently than what Genisis says. The big bang has a lot of evidence that life originated from a single spot. The evidence of how easily life takes form and evolves , sometimes under harsh conditions points to the fact that it might not take much to start life. I could go on.

What evidence do you got?

 

[jon_mx]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

What evidence supports the existence of God?

Boobs. /thread

 

[DrJ]

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Well there is the origin of species that is scientific proof of how organisms have evolved, very differently than what Genisis says. The big bang has a lot of evidence that life originated from a single spot. The evidence of how easily life takes form and evolves , sometimes under harsh conditions points to the fact that it might not take much to start life. I could go on.

What evidence do you got?

The most simple organism is ridiculously complex and it's uncertain that it could have formed by random chance under any circumstance.

 

[tonydead]

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Well there is the origin of species that is scientific proof of how organisms have evolved, very differently than what Genisis says. The big bang has a lot of evidence that life originated from a single spot. The evidence of how easily life takes form and evolves , sometimes under harsh conditions points to the fact that it might not take much to start life. I could go on.

What evidence do you got?

The most simple organism is ridiculously complex and it's uncertain that it could have formed by random chance under any circumstance.

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Well there is the origin of species that is scientific proof of how organisms have evolved, very differently than what Genisis says. The big bang has a lot of evidence that life originated from a single spot. The evidence of how easily life takes form and evolves , sometimes under harsh conditions points to the fact that it might not take much to start life. I could go on.

What evidence do you got?

The most simple organism is ridiculously complex and it's uncertain that it could have formed by random chance under any circumstance.

No its not. That's why they call it a SIMPLE organism. See that. Its right there in the name.

 

[DrJ]

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Well there is the origin of species that is scientific proof of how organisms have evolved, very differently than what Genisis says. The big bang has a lot of evidence that life originated from a single spot. The evidence of how easily life takes form and evolves , sometimes under harsh conditions points to the fact that it might not take much to start life. I could go on.

What evidence do you got?

The most simple organism is ridiculously complex and it's uncertain that it could have formed by random chance under any circumstance.

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Well there is the origin of species that is scientific proof of how organisms have evolved, very differently than what Genisis says. The big bang has a lot of evidence that life originated from a single spot. The evidence of how easily life takes form and evolves , sometimes under harsh conditions points to the fact that it might not take much to start life. I could go on.

What evidence do you got?

The most simple organism is ridiculously complex and it's uncertain that it could have formed by random chance under any circumstance.

No its not. That's why they call it a SIMPLE organism. See that. Its right there in the name.

Simple in terms of organisms. Not simple in terms of a collection of matter.

 

[DrJ]

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

I don't understand how that really matters. If God made the universe and the original lifeform it doesn't disprove evolution.

This is the 4th time I've posted this for a creationist to comment on, but I doubt I'll get anyone to do so:

What Darwin Never Knew

Maybe because it's two hours long...

 

[DrJ]

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

I don't understand how that really matters. If God made the universe and the original lifeform it doesn't disprove evolution.

This is the 4th time I've posted this for a creationist to comment on, but I doubt I'll get anyone to do so:

What Darwin Never Knew

Oh, and as for your original point, it would definitely give God a place in schools. Maybe just not in the evolution chapter. Although, it would probably be hard to discuss the evolution of life without talking about God creating life in the first place and giving it the capacity to evolve.

 

[tonydead]

Simple in terms of organisms. Not simple in terms of a collection of matter.

No, they're not made up by very many elements either.

 

[eurotrashman]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

What evidence supports the existence of God?

Life.

Have another toke.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Honestly, this is one of the dumbest statements in board history.

Amen.

Wait, ahhh damn.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Science being unable to explain every corner of the universe has nothing to do with proving god. I don't even know where you're going with this.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Not sure why as there are plenty of scientists that believe in a God and intelligent design

Define plenty? 12?

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Science being unable to explain every corner of the universe has nothing to do with proving god. I don't even know where you're going with this.

That's my favorite part.

 

[DrJ]

Simple in terms of organisms. Not simple in terms of a collection of matter.

No, they're not made up by very many elements either.

Sure, the works of Shakespeare only use a few letters as well. Which is why an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters... I love faith based science.

 

[DrJ]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Science being unable to explain every corner of the universe has nothing to do with proving god. I don't even know where you're going with this.

If we give an infinite number of scientists an infinite amount of time, one of them should be able to discover a mechanism to create life out of a bunch of organic matter. Otherwise it's pretty likely that God did it.

 

[joffer]

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.

 

[DrJ]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Science being unable to explain every corner of the universe has nothing to do with proving god. I don't even know where you're going with this.

If we give an infinite number of scientists an infinite amount of time, one of them should be able to discover a mechanism to create life out of a bunch of organic matter. Otherwise it's pretty likely that God did it.

And when we follow this logic, every day that science fails to prove how life got here is further evidence of the existence of God.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Simple in terms of organisms. Not simple in terms of a collection of matter.

No, they're not made up by very many elements either.

Sure, the works of Shakespeare only use a few letters as well. Which is why an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters... I love faith based science.

That you equate religious faith with evidence-based theories says a lot about your objectivity.

 

[DrJ]

Simple in terms of organisms. Not simple in terms of a collection of matter.

No, they're not made up by very many elements either.

Sure, the works of Shakespeare only use a few letters as well. Which is why an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters... I love faith based science.

That you equate religious faith with evidence-based theories says a lot about your objectivity.

evidence-based.

 

[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...

 

[babydemon90]

As a few scientists have pointed out, it's not a coincidence that the majority of those who doubt global warming are religious Christians. This goes beyond a conservative philosophy which rejects any idea that might result in bigger government. Rather, the root of this denial may be a refusal to believe that God would allow the Earth to be threatened in such a way (or, conversely, that we are all doomed anyhow because that's Gods will.)

Climate change explains some things in Revelation.

no, it doesn't.

 

[DrJ]

See, the cool thing about evolution is that in a few million years humans are going to have way cooler pets. I personally want a flying raccoon or snake or something.

 

[DrJ]

As a few scientists have pointed out, it's not a coincidence that the majority of those who doubt global warming are religious Christians. This goes beyond a conservative philosophy which rejects any idea that might result in bigger government. Rather, the root of this denial may be a refusal to believe that God would allow the Earth to be threatened in such a way (or, conversely, that we are all doomed anyhow because that's Gods will.)

Climate change explains some things in Revelation.

no, it doesn't.

Global warming is an opportunity. See, evolution really kicks into high gear after an extinction level event. It's going to be a way longer time before we have flying monitors and squirrel-fish if we just sit around and wait.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

As a few scientists have pointed out, it's not a coincidence that the majority of those who doubt global warming are religious Christians. This goes beyond a conservative philosophy which rejects any idea that might result in bigger government. Rather, the root of this denial may be a refusal to believe that God would allow the Earth to be threatened in such a way (or, conversely, that we are all doomed anyhow because that's Gods will.)

Climate change explains some things in Revelation.

no, it doesn't.

Global warming is an opportunity. See, evolution really kicks into high gear after an extinction level event. It's going to be a way longer time before we have flying monitors and squirrel-fish if we just sit around and wait.

I thought you guys felt all of this developed in 6K years?

 

[timschochet]

Not sure why as there are plenty of scientists that believe in a God and intelligent design

Define plenty? 12?

I didn't write that.

 

[larry_boy_44]

how did this get to 10 pages? It was at 1 yesterday!

 

[DrJ]

As a few scientists have pointed out, it's not a coincidence that the majority of those who doubt global warming are religious Christians. This goes beyond a conservative philosophy which rejects any idea that might result in bigger government. Rather, the root of this denial may be a refusal to believe that God would allow the Earth to be threatened in such a way (or, conversely, that we are all doomed anyhow because that's Gods will.)

Climate change explains some things in Revelation.

no, it doesn't.

Global warming is an opportunity. See, evolution really kicks into high gear after an extinction level event. It's going to be a way longer time before we have flying monitors and squirrel-fish if we just sit around and wait.

I thought you guys felt all of this developed in 6K years?

Well, I'm not a creationist, but I guess this guy is claiming everything could have come from Noah and a pair of dogs. You figure the flood is the extinction level event that we need to kick evolution into high gear, and it all makes sense.

 

[joffer]

how did this get to 10 pages? It was at 1 yesterday!

No one mentioned dragons

 

[Scoresman]

Man I don't even know which post to quote. DrJ, literally everything you have typed about science is wrong.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

As a few scientists have pointed out, it's not a coincidence that the majority of those who doubt global warming are religious Christians. This goes beyond a conservative philosophy which rejects any idea that might result in bigger government. Rather, the root of this denial may be a refusal to believe that God would allow the Earth to be threatened in such a way (or, conversely, that we are all doomed anyhow because that's Gods will.)

Climate change explains some things in Revelation.

no, it doesn't.

Global warming is an opportunity. See, evolution really kicks into high gear after an extinction level event. It's going to be a way longer time before we have flying monitors and squirrel-fish if we just sit around and wait.

I thought you guys felt all of this developed in 6K years?

Well, I'm not a creationist, but I guess this guy is claiming everything could have come from Noah and a pair of dogs. You figure the flood is the extinction level event that we need to kick evolution into high gear, and it all makes sense.

Yes, perfect. If Stan Lee were god.

 

[proninja]

Man I don't even know which post to quote. DrJ, literally everything you have typed about science is wrong.

He says it with a lot of confidence though

 

[Zow]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Shirley, you can't be serious.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Shirley, you can't be serious.

He is almost alien with his concepts on any subject matter.

 

[proninja]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

There are no theories on the origins of life. There are, however, hypotheses on the origins of life. It's a pretty important difference.

 

[DrJ]

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

Where's the evidence to support the existence of god? The huge preponderance of evidence completely disproves an interventionist god.

What's the evidence to support the theories on how organic matter became life outside of the knowledge that point A and B are entirely disconnected and that gap requires some explanation?

Just to clarify, you're saying that anything science can't prove is proof of god?

No, I'm suggesting that the same amount of evidence exists to support the existence of god vs the theories on the origins of life that are presented as scientific explanations.

There are no theories on the origins of life. There are, however, hypotheses on the origins of life. It's a pretty important difference.

Then why do they always call them theories?