Sea Duck
Footballguy
And how many people on the right use the "real" percentage to discredit genetic homosexuality?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter wazoo11
- Start date
the moops
Footballguy
A tiny fraction compared to those on the right who deny evolution and the like.You are better than this MT. Of course there are crazy fringe folk on both side of the aisle. Nobody is denying that. But denying evolution and climate change is a prerequisite of the conservative movement. Believing in a greater than 5% gay population and the other things you mentioned, while perhaps strictly liberal ideas, are not put forth as core left beliefs.
Ursa M
Footballguy
1. Yes.2. N/A.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
No.Highly scientific answer.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Nice of you to admit you are a dumb enabling moron apologist.
As soon as TA enters a thread, the average IQ goes down by 10 points. On the other hand, whenever he starts one, the first poster after that, raises the IQ level.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
That almost sounds like science.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Of course a scientist is going to say that.
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
Another Intelligent Design site weighs in on Bill Nye.
Bill Nye, host of the 1990s "Bill Nye the Science Guy" children's show, makes a plea for evolution in this new video clip. Nye explains that evolution deniers are not scientifically literate and have no future:
Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place.
… Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution. I mean, here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant starsthat are just like our star but they're at a different point in their lifecycle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent.
And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
It is not so much that the evidence proves evolution but that it disproves creationism. As Nye explains, evidence such as the fossils, radioactivity and distant stars leaves evolution deniers with massive inconsistencies. Such rejection of science leaves one unable to pursue any kind of technical career. Nye is moving quickly and there is much that he leaves unspoken. But listen carefully and you will understand the message.
Bill Nye, host of the 1990s "Bill Nye the Science Guy" children's show, makes a plea for evolution in this new video clip. Nye explains that evolution deniers are not scientifically literate and have no future:
Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place.
… Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution. I mean, here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant starsthat are just like our star but they're at a different point in their lifecycle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent.
And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
It is not so much that the evidence proves evolution but that it disproves creationism. As Nye explains, evidence such as the fossils, radioactivity and distant stars leaves evolution deniers with massive inconsistencies. Such rejection of science leaves one unable to pursue any kind of technical career. Nye is moving quickly and there is much that he leaves unspoken. But listen carefully and you will understand the message.
Last edited by a moderator:
I get it!
<br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(224, 224, 224); "><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(224, 224, 224);
It all makes sense to me now!
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
One more Intelligent design site weighs in.
As anyone who follows the Internet debate over evolution probably already knows, Bill Nye the Science Guy recently posted a
attacking those who he says "deny evolution." This is not the first time Nye, a popular educator and entertainer, has done this. But the media love Nye's flame war, posting headlines like "Bill Nye Slams Creationism" (CNN) or "Bill Nye 'The Science Guy' Hits Evolution Deniers" (ABC News). In a bizarre coincidence, the headlines competed with other Internet buzz over rumors (thankfully false) that Nye had passed away.Nye's most recent comments are noteworthy because he articulates the intolerant position of many evolutionists towards skeptics. He tries to scapegoat Darwin-skeptics for many problems in society in order to justify taking away people's freedom to teach kids about challenges to evolution.
The scapegoating begins when Nye says, "When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it [evolution], that holds everybody back." He says that those who "deny evolution" have a worldview that "becomes crazy."
Nye then defines scientific literacy as demanding acceptance of evolution, and would remove from parents the freedom to teach their kids about problems with evolution:
And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
Of course, engineers don't use unguided evolution to build things -- they use intelligent design. And intelligent design is pretty useful in advancing scientific knowledge. Also, one recalls that engineers often find that nature, which supposedly wasn't designed, works better than our designed technology. But never mind all that. The point here is to highlight Nye's argument for intolerance, which has three parts: (1) Accepting evolution is the definition of scientific literacy, (2) People who "deny evolution" hinder the progress of society, and therefore (3) Parents should not teach their kids to doubt evolution. It's unfortunate that Nye is so intolerant that he would discourage parents from teaching their kids about their own beliefs, whatever they may be.Since Nye cares so much about kids, would he prevent kids from learning about the Altenberg 16, a group of leading scientists who convened in Austria in 2008 to discuss shortcomings in the neo-Darwinian paradigm? Should kids not know about Thomas Nagel, a leading atheist philosopher who just wrote a book arguing that "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False"? Should kids not understand that just two months ago a leading scientist in the journal Nature stated that new discoveries about RNA are "are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree"?
What's concerning is that Nye represents an increasingly prevalent view among materialists -- one that is fundamentally opposed to freedom of expression for skeptics of Darwinian evolution. And I'm not just talking about the standard NCSE-style intolerance towards teaching about scientific views in schools that challenge Darwinism. I'm talking about Nye's unwillingness to endorse parents rights to inculcate in their own children their doubts about Darwin. It's scary to think what the world would look like if these people had their way. Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm.
Perhaps Bill Nye has some catching up to do, both in his scientific understanding of evolution, and his commitment to liberal values like freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and parental rights
As anyone who follows the Internet debate over evolution probably already knows, Bill Nye the Science Guy recently posted a
attacking those who he says "deny evolution." This is not the first time Nye, a popular educator and entertainer, has done this. But the media love Nye's flame war, posting headlines like "Bill Nye Slams Creationism" (CNN) or "Bill Nye 'The Science Guy' Hits Evolution Deniers" (ABC News). In a bizarre coincidence, the headlines competed with other Internet buzz over rumors (thankfully false) that Nye had passed away.Nye's most recent comments are noteworthy because he articulates the intolerant position of many evolutionists towards skeptics. He tries to scapegoat Darwin-skeptics for many problems in society in order to justify taking away people's freedom to teach kids about challenges to evolution.
The scapegoating begins when Nye says, "When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it [evolution], that holds everybody back." He says that those who "deny evolution" have a worldview that "becomes crazy."
Nye then defines scientific literacy as demanding acceptance of evolution, and would remove from parents the freedom to teach their kids about problems with evolution:
And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
Of course, engineers don't use unguided evolution to build things -- they use intelligent design. And intelligent design is pretty useful in advancing scientific knowledge. Also, one recalls that engineers often find that nature, which supposedly wasn't designed, works better than our designed technology. But never mind all that. The point here is to highlight Nye's argument for intolerance, which has three parts: (1) Accepting evolution is the definition of scientific literacy, (2) People who "deny evolution" hinder the progress of society, and therefore (3) Parents should not teach their kids to doubt evolution. It's unfortunate that Nye is so intolerant that he would discourage parents from teaching their kids about their own beliefs, whatever they may be.Since Nye cares so much about kids, would he prevent kids from learning about the Altenberg 16, a group of leading scientists who convened in Austria in 2008 to discuss shortcomings in the neo-Darwinian paradigm? Should kids not know about Thomas Nagel, a leading atheist philosopher who just wrote a book arguing that "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False"? Should kids not understand that just two months ago a leading scientist in the journal Nature stated that new discoveries about RNA are "are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree"?
What's concerning is that Nye represents an increasingly prevalent view among materialists -- one that is fundamentally opposed to freedom of expression for skeptics of Darwinian evolution. And I'm not just talking about the standard NCSE-style intolerance towards teaching about scientific views in schools that challenge Darwinism. I'm talking about Nye's unwillingness to endorse parents rights to inculcate in their own children their doubts about Darwin. It's scary to think what the world would look like if these people had their way. Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm.
Perhaps Bill Nye has some catching up to do, both in his scientific understanding of evolution, and his commitment to liberal values like freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and parental rights
Dinkle Heimer
Footballguy
Alright then.
Radio Free Homer
Footballguy
Why are they so intolerant of our spreading ignorance?!?! 
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Keep up the good fight, Moo. So sad. So, so, sad.
Wrighteous Ray
Footballguy
I disagree with this pretty strongly. I think liberals are just more apt to trust egghead professors explaining complex stuff they don't understand. I think it's less about "trees v. oil" and more about who is viewed as a credible authority.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Maurile, I'm starting to think you work for a big media outlet with all this false equivalency stuff. Are there doofuses and ignorant people everywhere? Sure.
But one party has practically made ignorance a requirement to win elected office (no evolution, no climate change, magical ######s, gay is a lifestyle, etc) and has written that ignorance into official declarations of the party's positions. It's not the same thing.
But one party has practically made ignorance a requirement to win elected office (no evolution, no climate change, magical ######s, gay is a lifestyle, etc) and has written that ignorance into official declarations of the party's positions. It's not the same thing.
The Commish
Footballguy
There is PLENTY of ignorance running rampant through Washington. It knows no party lines. The only difference is that the GOP puts theirs on display in their words and their actions. The dems are at least "smart" enough to not put it in writing.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Seriously? People are actually quoting intelligent design idiots in here to prove their point? Nye is right. Evolution is the most tested theory ever. It has passed tests that weren't dreamed of when the theory came to be. This idea that it is somehow in doubt or dispute is ridiculous. And by the way despite what one of those brilliant creationists said plenty of engineering is the result of trial and error. Idiot.
And MT is better than the false equivalency crap he is spewing here as well. Very disappointing.
And MT is better than the false equivalency crap he is spewing here as well. Very disappointing.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Agreed. I gave a nod to that with the doofuses comment.And I'm not saying Dems are never in the position that Republicans are today. There have been times when Democrats have collectively lost their minds, to win as a Democratic politician meant that you had to embrace some loopy stuff, and the party's platform reflected plenty of ignorance.
Now isn't one of those times however.
The problem with the science side of the debate is that while much is proven by science on those issues, most of it is grossly overstated to belittle the other side. 1. No evolution. I am not sure that is too many people's position. Most acknowledge evolution is true, but many believe that intelligent design played a role also.2. No Climate change. Most conservatives believe the climate has warmed and the science proves that pretty conclusively. What hasn't been proven is how much of a role man has played. Is it 5 percent or 95 percent? 3. Gay is a lifestyle. If you really understand the only proof out there (twin studies), you would realize that genetics only seems to have an influence, there is room for many outside factors to play a significant role. Again, we have very little science to base what percentage of a role genetics plays. It is definitely not 100 percent or even that close to it.The problem with your position and Bill Nye's is that it is over the top rhetoric which relies on distorting the other side's position. The are lots of great scientists and engineers and doctors out there who are not in line with the left wing absolutest positions on these issues which in fact is more political than scientific.
Wrighteous Ray
Footballguy
Yeah, it seems like the Republican attitudes on climate change, and to a lesser extent evolution, just don't have anything close to comparable on the other side of the aisle in terms of deviance from scientific consensus and widespread support within the party. Probably if we disregard those two issues the parties aren't that different in terms of how "anti-science" they are.
Oh there are. For instance, the fetus is just a clump of cells and not a separate being.
Wrighteous Ray
Footballguy
Being a "clump of cells" and a "separate being" aren't mutually exclusive. I don't think there's much disagreement about fetal development between pro-choicers and pro-lifers. They just weigh different considerations differently. That's not a scientific question.
lol
It is a scientific question. It's your body, it is just a clump of cells.....all that rhetoric goes against the scientific fact that a fetus is a separate being. The fetus is not just a clump of cells, it is a developing human being, a separate living being from the mother. The rhetoric goes against scientific known facts. IMHO, it is a far worse position scientifically than any of those who question man's role in global warming or the possibility in a greater force being somehow involved in creation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Topes
Footballguy
Anyone who doesn’t believe that inanimate matter spontaneously generated highly complex information and the associated functionally-integrated machinery, and that random errors turned a primordial cell into you, is stupid, doesn’t know how science works, and will never have a substantial enough understanding of science to become a productive engineer.
Wrighteous Ray
Footballguy
I've never heard a pro-choicer say that it's a clump of dog cells. I've never heard one deny that a fetus would probably develop into a baby if it's not terminated. You're making stuff up.
I did not say a clump of dog cells. Dog was inserted in place of 'of' by my iPhone and I quickly corrected it.
Wrighteous Ray
Footballguy
Damn I thought I had you there.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
I see the problem here.
shader
Footballguy
There is a lot of rhetoric in evolution, I agree with you.For instance when NCCommish says above "evolution is the most tested theory in the history of science", what is he talking about? What does "evolution" mean in that context? Is it proven that animals evolve, mutate and change? Yes. Obviously. We can see that happen all around us. Does the same standard of proof exist that shows a primitive cell evolving to a human? Not even close.Just as the young earthers do creationists a huge injustice with their over-the-top beliefs, I think that evolutionists mis-state their position greatly when they take nylon-eating bacteria or peppered moths as some sort of concrete evidence for the entire overall theory.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill Nye is a tool. There are fringe elements of society everywhere and there have been since the dawn of time. I can assure you that science is taught in schools and also that evolution is pretty easy to teach in a religious school only unless you are on the team of the far, far right fundamentalists.
I love how libs like to take the fringe and use it to characterize the whole party as representatives...good stuff.
If anything, kids nowadays do not understand science because they are too freaking lazy to investigate anything, let alone study it, not because some nutjob is brainwashing them into thinking that science isn't real.
I love how libs like to take the fringe and use it to characterize the whole party as representatives...good stuff.
If anything, kids nowadays do not understand science because they are too freaking lazy to investigate anything, let alone study it, not because some nutjob is brainwashing them into thinking that science isn't real.
The Commish
Footballguy
And this is one of the common things that jon_mx should have mentioned as well. When folks think about "evolution" they are generally thinking of the macro version. I know few people that don't believe people, animals, plants, etc etc evolve at a micro level. Folks tend to protest evolution as the creation of the universe and that will never be resolved because there's no way for us to understand what things were like before and after the "big bang".
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Yeeeeeeee HA!
matuski
Footballguy
Is there any evidence or logic that would possibly allow you to exclude our species from all other taxonomy?Do you actually think evolution is true.... except for humans?
matuski
Footballguy
The fact that this is even in an issue in this country is a sign of the real downhill trajectory we are on. The fact that people vote for people who are creationists and there is enough of them to win is just speeding up the demise.
It is one the USA's great embarrassments imho
It is one the USA's great embarrassments imho
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
USA! USA! USA!
PrinceofDarkness
Footballguy
But when parents teach Biblical literalism are they encouraging investigation and intellectual curiousity? Or does it encourage intellectually lazy dogma? The point I have made to my children again and again is to "question everything", which, in my opinion, is the most valuable lesson I can teach them.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
They are teaching Biblical literalism
No way to know beyond that what else they are encouraging.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinkle Heimer
Footballguy
This. Humans effecting climate change really isn't an issue of debate anymore amongst climatologists. Those who believe it still is, almost certainly have been manipulated by a non-science based political agenda.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is an issue? Because Bill Nye the science guy made it one? lol......
pantagrapher
Footballguy
It's a sign of how craven MT's view of global warming is that he has to accuse liberals of believing in it not for the obvious reason (science!), but for the caricature of liberal thought reason (they hate big business!).
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
It is a theory, not a fact.
CrossEyed
Footballguy
Nye's is such an uninformed argument. The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists. I'm not sure how one is automatically disqualified in every scientific field because they happen to take the Bible at face value.
Dumb argument.
Dumb argument.
