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

[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.

Shirley, you can't be serious.

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

Aliens are wicked smart since they've evolved far enough to master cosmic travel.

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

Is this the thread where creotards try to do science?

 

[jdoggydogg]

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.

Yeah, I messed that up. Wrong dude.

 

[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

Maybe because it's two hours long...

Two hours learning about science...why would a creationist ever want to do that?

 

[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:

You mean scientific hypotheses disguised as theories.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

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:

 

[ummich10]

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

I can't argue with this. I think I just became a believer.

 

[igbomb]

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

I'm not a Creationist, but posting a two hour video and then harping on the fact that no one is giving you their thoughts on it is a little silly.

Either summarize the video for folks or find a five minute clip.

 

[tonydead]

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...

They already have. And we can clone stuff too. Its almost like were playing god. O

 

[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...

They already have. And we can clone stuff too. Its almost like were playing god. O

Sounds kind of supernatural. Get back to me when they observe them diverging by natural mechanisms.

 

[tonydead]

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...

They already have. And we can clone stuff too. Its almost like were playing god. O

Sounds kind of supernatural. Get back to me when they observe them diverging by natural mechanisms.

I'm back. All natural mechanisms. Would you like me to link to the study so you can learn what you're talking about?Do you know what sounds kind of supernatural to me?

 

[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...

They already have. And we can clone stuff too. Its almost like were playing god. O

Sounds kind of supernatural. Get back to me when they observe them diverging by natural mechanisms.

Ahhh, the "I didn't see it, so it didn't happen" argument. Good one.

 

[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

I can't argue with this. I think I just became a believer.

Now doubt. Every time I have a pair being rubbed in my face, I think to myself,'There is a God! '

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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...

They already have. And we can clone stuff too. Its almost like were playing god. O

Sounds kind of supernatural. Get back to me when they observe them diverging by natural mechanisms.

Ahhh, the "I didn't see it, so it didn't happen" argument. Good one.

We can never be certain it happened naturally if we don't observe it actually happening naturally.

 

[fatness]

We can never be certain it happened naturally if we don't observe it actually happening naturally.

Were you born?

 

[DrJ]

We can never be certain it happened naturally if we don't observe it actually happening naturally.

Were you born?

Historical documentation would be sufficient.

 

[fatness]

We can never be certain it happened naturally if we don't observe it actually happening naturally.

Were you born?

Historical documentation would be sufficient.

What is historical documentation?

 

[DrJ]

We can never be certain it happened naturally if we don't observe it actually happening naturally.

Were you born?

Historical documentation would be sufficient.

What is historical documentation?

A term in the English language.

 

[tonydead]

Are you going to answer my questions? Are you going to refer to any evidence for your side, or, just demand more from us?

 

[tonydead]

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.

Or just shorter and longer dachshunds.

 

[fatness]

We can never be certain it happened naturally if we don't observe it actually happening naturally.

Were you born?

Historical documentation would be sufficient.

What is historical documentation?

A term in the English language.

I didn't think you would answer that one. You accept evidence of some things you did not observe, but not others.

Was your great-grandfather born?

 

[DrJ]

Are you going to answer my questions? Are you going to refer to any evidence for your side, or, just demand more from us?

You've posted a question?

 

[DrJ]

We can never be certain it happened naturally if we don't observe it actually happening naturally.

Were you born?

Historical documentation would be sufficient.

What is historical documentation?

A term in the English language.

I didn't think you would answer that one. You accept evidence of some things you did not observe, but not others.

Was your great-grandfather born?

What are you blathering about?

 

[fatness]

We can never be certain it happened naturally if we don't observe it actually happening naturally.

Were you born?

Historical documentation would be sufficient.

What is historical documentation?

A term in the English language.

I didn't think you would answer that one. You accept evidence of some things you did not observe, but not others.

Was your great-grandfather born?

What are you blathering about?

About your great-grandfather being born without you seeing it happen.

 

[tonydead]

Note to self about my

Are you going to answer my questions? Are you going to refer to any evidence for your side, or, just demand more from us?

You've posted a question?

Two in post #511. I slow down for you if that helps.

 

[DrJ]

We can never be certain it happened naturally if we don't observe it actually happening naturally.

Were you born?

Historical documentation would be sufficient.

What is historical documentation?

A term in the English language.

I didn't think you would answer that one. You accept evidence of some things you did not observe, but not others.

Was your great-grandfather born?

What are you blathering about?

About your great-grandfather being born without you seeing it happen.

There's historical documentation, and I know people that did observe him.

 

[tonydead]

Note to self about my working theory of backwards evolution: Don't let Dr J near the cloning machine.

 

[DrJ]

Note to self about my

Are you going to answer my questions? Are you going to refer to any evidence for your side, or, just demand more from us?

You've posted a question?

Two in post #511. I slow down for you if that helps.

Rhetorical questions aren't meant to be answered.

 

[fatness]

We can never be certain it happened naturally if we don't observe it actually happening naturally.

Were you born?

Historical documentation would be sufficient.

What is historical documentation?

A term in the English language.

I didn't think you would answer that one. You accept evidence of some things you did not observe, but not others.

Was your great-grandfather born?

What are you blathering about?

About your great-grandfather being born without you seeing it happen.

There's historical documentation, and I know people that did observe him.

So you accept evidence of some things you didn't observe, but not other things.

Was your great grandfather's great grandmother born?

 

[joffer]

 

[DrJ]

We can never be certain it happened naturally if we don't observe it actually happening naturally.

Were you born?

Historical documentation would be sufficient.

What is historical documentation?

A term in the English language.

I didn't think you would answer that one. You accept evidence of some things you did not observe, but not others.

Was your great-grandfather born?

What are you blathering about?

About your great-grandfather being born without you seeing it happen.

There's historical documentation, and I know people that did observe him.

So you accept evidence of some things you didn't observe, but not other things.

Was your great grandfather's great grandmother born?

Right, historical documentation is sufficient. This was a pretty big circle to get us back to square 1.

 

[igbomb]

No doubt.

Obtuse half-answers or answering questions with questions is just to rile people up. Either that or DrJ is a lot dumber than I had him pegged.

 

[fatness]

Right, historical documentation is sufficient. This was a pretty big circle to get us back to square 1.

Let's see the historical documentation that your great grandfather's great grandmother was born. You didn't witness it, and you haven't convinced me to believe in something you or I didn't see.

 

[DrJ]

Isn't one of the rules of science that something needs to be reproducible? Calling anything in this discussion science is a pretty big joke.

 

[tonydead]

Note to self about my

Are you going to answer my questions? Are you going to refer to any evidence for your side, or, just demand more from us?

You've posted a question?

Two in post #511. I slow down for you if that helps.

Rhetorical questions aren't meant to be answered.

Of course not, but, they are intended to make a point and further the debate. The point which you choose to ignore.

 

[DrJ]

Right, historical documentation is sufficient. This was a pretty big circle to get us back to square 1.

Let's see the historical documentation that your great grandfather's great grandmother was born. You didn't witness it, and you haven't convinced me to believe in something you or I didn't see.

I've witnessed several births, that isn't some big mystery.

 

[Scoresman]

Isn't one of the rules of science that something needs to be reproducible? Calling anything in this discussion science is a pretty big joke.

just your posts on science.

 

[DrJ]

No doubt.

Obtuse half-answers or answering questions with questions is just to rile people up. Either that or DrJ is a lot dumber than I had him pegged.

Well, it is funny to watch a bunch of dimwits trying to discuss "science" like they have some sort of clue.

 

[tonydead]

Isn't one of the rules of science that something needs to be reproducible? Calling anything in this discussion science is a pretty big joke.

No. That's just one method.

Well, it is funny to watch a bunch of dimwits trying to discuss "science" like they have some sort of clue.

 

[Scoresman]

No doubt.

Obtuse half-answers or answering questions with questions is just to rile people up. Either that or DrJ is a lot dumber than I had him pegged.

Well, it is funny to watch a bunch of dimwits trying to discuss "science" like they have some sort of clue.

I completely agree!

 

[DrJ]

Isn't one of the rules of science that something needs to be reproducible? Calling anything in this discussion science is a pretty big joke.

No. That's just one method.

Well, it is funny to watch a bunch of dimwits trying to discuss "science" like they have some sort of clue.

Oh yeah, the other one is to just make a bunch of stuff up to fill in gaps and call it science.

 

[tonydead]

Isn't one of the rules of science that something needs to be reproducible? Calling anything in this discussion science is a pretty big joke.

No. That's just one method.

Well, it is funny to watch a bunch of dimwits trying to discuss "science" like they have some sort of clue.

Oh yeah, the other one is to just make a bunch of stuff up to fill in gaps and call it science.

We execute people in this country based on evidence. Without an eye witness we never know exactly what happened every second during a murder. But, in most cases we have a pretty good idea. Most of this evidence is done by science.

 

[DrJ]

Isn't one of the rules of science that something needs to be reproducible? Calling anything in this discussion science is a pretty big joke.

No. That's just one method.

Well, it is funny to watch a bunch of dimwits trying to discuss "science" like they have some sort of clue.

Oh yeah, the other one is to just make a bunch of stuff up to fill in gaps and call it science.

We execute people in this country based on evidence. Without an eye witness we never know exactly what happened every second during a murder. But, in most cases we have a pretty good idea. Most of this evidence is done by science.

Science of the reproducible variety, of course.

 

[tonydead]

Oh yeah, the other one is to just make a bunch of stuff up to fill in gaps and call it science.

We execute people in this country based on evidence. Without an eye witness we never know exactly what happened every second during a murder. But, in most cases we have a pretty good idea. Most of this evidence is done by science.

Science of the reproducible variety, of course.

Some, but, the most damning evidence today is genetic.

 

[tonydead]

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

 

[fatness]

Right, historical documentation is sufficient. This was a pretty big circle to get us back to square 1.

Let's see the historical documentation that your great grandfather's great grandmother was born. You didn't witness it, and you haven't convinced me to believe in something you or I didn't see.

I've witnessed several births, that isn't some big mystery.

There's evidence of births 7000 years ago. And further back.

 

[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.

 

[DrJ]

Right, historical documentation is sufficient. This was a pretty big circle to get us back to square 1.

Let's see the historical documentation that your great grandfather's great grandmother was born. You didn't witness it, and you haven't convinced me to believe in something you or I didn't see.

I've witnessed several births, that isn't some big mystery.

There's evidence of births 7000 years ago. And further back.

Right, so I have little doubt that humans exist and give birth. This has been very thoroughly demonstrated.