****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (1 Viewer)

[CrossEyed]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

no, I meant that the bible doesn't require you to stretch the bounds of logic. surely you don't believe that? I mean, the gospel (i think long version of Mark) states that 500 people rose from the dead and started wandering the streets of Jerusalem after Jesus died. Now, that was obviously added into the text later to help the whole son of god movement, but, nevertheless, it certainly requires a substantial stretching of the boundaries of logic, no? People can't actually rise from the dead. Unless it is in the Thriller video.

What in the world are you talking about. 500 people resurrected??? You must be reading a different bible.

Because 3 resurrections stretches the bounds of logic much less than 500.

If God created life, a resurrection is a snap. Regardless zoo nation made stuff up and posted it as fact. You're going to have a hard time making fun of Christians for their belief in resurrections. It's a core belief that few have any issues with.

If you can stretch the bounds of logic to believe in 3 resurrections, why not 500? Or a 1000?PS - can you decipher your God's message on said creation? No one seems to be able to get a good grip on his meaning of the word "day."

Just because people disagree doesn't mean that no one has a good grip on the meaning.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

That's the sad thing. If it was just little kids and backwardsass country folk that believed in this hoopla I really wouldn't care. It baffles me how educated adults can disregard all logic and reasoning. Not to mention trying to foist it on everyone else.

Maybe they think you have disregarded logic too?Get off your high horse and respect peoples views and understand that while you have beliefs and are entitled to them, others have different beliefs. You are one of those atheists that is just as dogmatic and blinded as the biggest fundies out there.

Then they don't have a very good grasp on logic.

 

[Bonzai]

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!).

What percentage of the population understands the science of global warming?I think most people accept global warming on the say-so of people they trust. That raises the question of who trusts whom and why, and I think that question is sufficiently complex to be interesting. I don't think the answer is simply that liberals trust people based on scientific or academic credentials while conservatives trust people based on ideology (although there may be a hint of truth in that).

Both trust people based on ideology. One's ideology is more scientific, the other's more religious/traditional.

One of the great problems is the varyong definition of "science" over time. The word today doesn't mean what it meant 200 years ago, or even 60 years ago. Wiki covers this decently, imo. The same shift or word meaning is an undermining bias when discussing evolution or marriage as well; as each has his own definition or variation of meaning.Shifting word meanings are often driven by philosphy and ideology, often resulting in confusion and bias-driven debate, often when each "opposing" party earnestly desires to find truth.

I think you're making this more complicated than it really is.

 

[Mario Kart]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

 

[Marvin]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

That's the sad thing. If it was just little kids and backwardsass country folk that believed in this hoopla I really wouldn't care. It baffles me how educated adults can disregard all logic and reasoning. Not to mention trying to foist it on everyone else.

Maybe they think you have disregarded logic too?Get off your high horse and respect peoples views and understand that while you have beliefs and are entitled to them, others have different beliefs. You are one of those atheists that is just as dogmatic and blinded as the biggest fundies out there.

Sorry no dogma here. Haven't been dogmatic and blinded since I was a believer. If criticizing people that believe in fairy tales, mythology, and supernatural flim-flam means on up on a high horse so be it. I'd rather be there than down with all of the horse-####.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Not really. It's just an alternate rendering of the word. It takes far more scientific gymnastics to try and insinuate that the entire universe is 6,000 years old.

If God were creating the universe, why would God's days be limited to 24 hours? Does God live on earth? Are his days measured by the rotation of the earth? Obviously not.

Day in this instance is understood by many to mean a period of time. A day to God wouldn't equal a day to a human.

Exactly correct.

Which kind of implicates the authors of the bible as full of crap... right?Or did God screw up?

Or he put in such a fashion the readers could connect with, understand, and move on from.

So you understand what he meant by days? Was it literal? If not, exactly how long do you understand him to mean? When you connected and moved on.. what was your understanding? Why would a perfect being communicate a period of not days using "days"? Seems like it would be easier to connect, understand, and move on from a message that means what it says?

Gods day. And it's not worth parsing.

 

[jdoggydogg]

The reason that people get believe in fairies and goblins is the innate terror at the thought of non-existence. Since we're all made from the same stuff that the cosmos is made from, and since everything in the universe is recycled, it could be argued that living on for all eternity is scientifically accurate. Beyond that, it's all iron age mythology.

We all eventually decay to nothing? Well, except that "nothing" means something different to a physicist then merely "nothing".ETA: And just because the authors of the books of the bibles had infantile and childish interpretations of God and the world around them, doesn't mean they weren't inspired by God to write those books. We are just doing a disservice to God when we tag him with that nonsensical grasp and try to push that ignorance as having equal footing to even a bad 21st century understanding of the universe.

How can you be inspired by something that doesn't exist?

 

[zoonation]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

no, I meant that the bible doesn't require you to stretch the bounds of logic. surely you don't believe that? I mean, the gospel (i think long version of Mark) states that 500 people rose from the dead and started wandering the streets of Jerusalem after Jesus died. Now, that was obviously added into the text later to help the whole son of god movement, but, nevertheless, it certainly requires a substantial stretching of the boundaries of logic, no? People can't actually rise from the dead. Unless it is in the Thriller video.

What in the world are you talking about. 500 people resurrected??? You must be reading a different bible.

Because 3 resurrections stretches the bounds of logic much less than 500.

If God created life, a resurrection is a snap. Regardless zoo nation made stuff up and posted it as fact. You're going to have a hard time making fun of Christians for their belief in resurrections. It's a core belief that few have any issues with.

Matthew 27:52-53"and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." my bad. 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus. that event didn't really make a splash in secular journalism though, which is surprising.

 

[matuski]

Not really. It's just an alternate rendering of the word. It takes far more scientific gymnastics to try and insinuate that the entire universe is 6,000 years old.

If God were creating the universe, why would God's days be limited to 24 hours? Does God live on earth? Are his days measured by the rotation of the earth? Obviously not.

Day in this instance is understood by many to mean a period of time. A day to God wouldn't equal a day to a human.

Exactly correct.

Which kind of implicates the authors of the bible as full of crap... right?Or did God screw up?

Or he put in such a fashion the readers could connect with, understand, and move on from.

So you understand what he meant by days? Was it literal? If not, exactly how long do you understand him to mean? When you connected and moved on.. what was your understanding? Why would a perfect being communicate a period of not days using "days"? Seems like it would be easier to connect, understand, and move on from a message that means what it says?

Gods day. And it's not worth parsing.

You said you connected and understood it. Your words. If you want to move the goal post to "God's Day", then please explain that.I'm not asking you to break down or "parse" some law of physics, only to explain what your God means by a three letter word. I have purposely skipped the tough line of questioning (how), and simply asked for clarification on one single word... and we have a complete break down in your ability to do so, you are absolutely stumped. Not just you, NOBODY can tell me what the freaking word "day" means to your God.

Yet again, the book is exposed by the most basic of critical questioning.

 

[MasterofOrion]

The "transitional whale fossils" are not as CLEAR as you might think. You could also argue that evolutionist were so eager to find a whale/mammal fossil that they were willing to grasp at straws to prove that the fossil is what they say it is. I've read plenty about the supposed whale with legs. I find the evidence pretty lacking, personally.

They are quite clear. There are several fossils found of whales with everything from vestigial legs to well formed. It isn't like evolutionists made up these fossils and where they were found in the fossil record. If you find it lacking it means that you went in wanting to find it lacking. Grasping at straws and moving the goal posts are what the creationists do - as you just did yourself.

names of the fossils please?

Here is something to get you started even though I know it won't make any bit of difference.Whale article

The guy that wrote it developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium (which was a major modification of evolutionary theory at the time). I know there have been some other fossils discovered within the last 5 years or so - but why spend the time tracking them down when I know you are just going to link some Creationist site claiming these really aren't transitional fossils (that whole moving of the goal post bit)?

Punctuated equilibrium (P.E.) causes more problems for the evolution theory than it solves. P.E,. states that evolution happens all at once in discrete intervals. It truth it is indistinguishable from a God event. I call it an information spike which is very quantifiable. BTW most biologist do not believe P.E.

 

[matuski]

The "transitional whale fossils" are not as CLEAR as you might think. You could also argue that evolutionist were so eager to find a whale/mammal fossil that they were willing to grasp at straws to prove that the fossil is what they say it is. I've read plenty about the supposed whale with legs. I find the evidence pretty lacking, personally.

They are quite clear. There are several fossils found of whales with everything from vestigial legs to well formed. It isn't like evolutionists made up these fossils and where they were found in the fossil record. If you find it lacking it means that you went in wanting to find it lacking. Grasping at straws and moving the goal posts are what the creationists do - as you just did yourself.

names of the fossils please?

Here is something to get you started even though I know it won't make any bit of difference.Whale article

The guy that wrote it developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium (which was a major modification of evolutionary theory at the time). I know there have been some other fossils discovered within the last 5 years or so - but why spend the time tracking them down when I know you are just going to link some Creationist site claiming these really aren't transitional fossils (that whole moving of the goal post bit)?

Punctuated equilibrium (P.E.) causes more problems for the evolution theory than it solves. P.E,. states that evolution happens all at once in discrete intervals. It truth it is indistinguishable from a God event. I call it an information spike which is very quantifiable. BTW most biologist do not believe P.E.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." (Gould 1983)

You are always welcome here golddigger!

 

[sn0mm1s]

Punctuated equilibrium (P.E.) causes more problems for the evolution theory than it solves. P.E,. states that evolution happens all at once in discrete intervals. It truth it is indistinguishable from a God event. I call it an information spike which is very quantifiable. BTW most biologist do not believe P.E.

No, it doesn't. P.E. merely states that given the right circumstances evolution can happen rapidly (on a geological time scale). It doesn't change or invalidate any other portion of the theory. Gradualism is just as valid a means of evolution. BTW most biologists do believe in P.E. and gradualism - they aren't mutually exclusive.It also has nothing to do with God or a "God event" that is just something you make up to try discredit the theory by injecting religious terminology.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Just because people are liars doesn't make the Bible the problem.

No idea what this means.

Your claim that "People have been using the Bible to justify their ######tery for centuries" is an indictment of people, not the Bible. The logic you are displaying is the same used by people who blame Ozzy Osbourne songs for teen suicides.

Not the same thing at all. Ozzy doesn't claim that his songs are the Truth as described by an omniscient, all powerful, perfect God and that if you don't accept this Truth you spend an eternity in hell. Ozzy's songs are for entertainment - not a belief system or road map as to how to live one's life.

 

[shader]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

That's the sad thing. If it was just little kids and backwardsass country folk that believed in this hoopla I really wouldn't care. It baffles me how educated adults can disregard all logic and reasoning. Not to mention trying to foist it on everyone else.

Maybe they think you have disregarded logic too?Get off your high horse and respect peoples views and understand that while you have beliefs and are entitled to them, others have different beliefs. You are one of those atheists that is just as dogmatic and blinded as the biggest fundies out there.

Then they don't have a very good grasp on logic.

I disagree

 

[shader]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

 

[shader]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

no, I meant that the bible doesn't require you to stretch the bounds of logic. surely you don't believe that? I mean, the gospel (i think long version of Mark) states that 500 people rose from the dead and started wandering the streets of Jerusalem after Jesus died. Now, that was obviously added into the text later to help the whole son of god movement, but, nevertheless, it certainly requires a substantial stretching of the boundaries of logic, no? People can't actually rise from the dead. Unless it is in the Thriller video.

What in the world are you talking about. 500 people resurrected??? You must be reading a different bible.

Because 3 resurrections stretches the bounds of logic much less than 500.

If God created life, a resurrection is a snap. Regardless zoo nation made stuff up and posted it as fact. You're going to have a hard time making fun of Christians for their belief in resurrections. It's a core belief that few have any issues with.

Matthew 27:52-53"and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." my bad. 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus. that event didn't really make a splash in secular journalism though, which is surprising.

Oh sure, it didn't make a splash..Except for all the people who saw it and wrote about it. But they don't count!

 

[shader]

The "transitional whale fossils" are not as CLEAR as you might think. You could also argue that evolutionist were so eager to find a whale/mammal fossil that they were willing to grasp at straws to prove that the fossil is what they say it is. I've read plenty about the supposed whale with legs. I find the evidence pretty lacking, personally.

They are quite clear. There are several fossils found of whales with everything from vestigial legs to well formed. It isn't like evolutionists made up these fossils and where they were found in the fossil record. If you find it lacking it means that you went in wanting to find it lacking. Grasping at straws and moving the goal posts are what the creationists do - as you just did yourself.

names of the fossils please?

Here is something to get you started even though I know it won't make any bit of difference.Whale article

The guy that wrote it developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium (which was a major modification of evolutionary theory at the time). I know there have been some other fossils discovered within the last 5 years or so - but why spend the time tracking them down when I know you are just going to link some Creationist site claiming these really aren't transitional fossils (that whole moving of the goal post bit)?

Punctuated equilibrium (P.E.) causes more problems for the evolution theory than it solves. P.E,. states that evolution happens all at once in discrete intervals. It truth it is indistinguishable from a God event. I call it an information spike which is very quantifiable. BTW most biologist do not believe P.E.

Yeah trying to invoke the authority of Gould because he created the theory of punctuated equilibrium does nothing to impress me. That's a ridiculous theory made because the fossil record didn't make sense. "Well guys, stuff just started appearing really quickly, so obviously evolution must happen really quickly at times".

 

[wikkidpissah]

Punctuated equilibrium (P.E.) causes more problems for the evolution theory than it solves. P.E,. states that evolution happens all at once in discrete intervals. It truth it is indistinguishable from a God event. I call it an information spike which is very quantifiable. BTW most biologist do not believe P.E.

Not the same thing at all. Ozzy doesn't claim that his songs are the Truth as described by an omniscient, all powerful, perfect God and that if you don't accept this Truth you spend an eternity in hell. Ozzy's songs are for entertainment - not a belief system or road map as to how to live one's life.

Yeesh, do you work this hard when your kids defend Santa? Their bwue bwankie has magic powers - pat em on the head or send em to bed. The only possible reason to defend the literal truth of a 2000yo agrarian text is identity issues (not that we dont have our own) and discussing it with them on a adult basis gives them precisely what they want - legitimization of the palpability of self-defining fairy stories. Arguing the biology of unicorns is foolish on both sides.

 

[shader]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

no, I meant that the bible doesn't require you to stretch the bounds of logic. surely you don't believe that? I mean, the gospel (i think long version of Mark) states that 500 people rose from the dead and started wandering the streets of Jerusalem after Jesus died. Now, that was obviously added into the text later to help the whole son of god movement, but, nevertheless, it certainly requires a substantial stretching of the boundaries of logic, no? People can't actually rise from the dead. Unless it is in the Thriller video.

What in the world are you talking about. 500 people resurrected??? You must be reading a different bible.

Because 3 resurrections stretches the bounds of logic much less than 500.

If God created life, a resurrection is a snap. Regardless zoo nation made stuff up and posted it as fact. You're going to have a hard time making fun of Christians for their belief in resurrections. It's a core belief that few have any issues with.

If you can stretch the bounds of logic to believe in 3 resurrections, why not 500? Or a 1000?PS - can you decipher your God's message on said creation? No one seems to be able to get a good grip on his meaning of the word "day."

I never said 500 or 1000 or 10000000000000 resurrections would be out of the power of God. A completely inaccurate picture of what the bible says was posted in a way to mock the bible, and I merely pointed it out.And yes, I've presented my thoughts on the word day. It's not my fault that others disagree. Me and Crosseyed may disagree on that, but that doesn't necessarily mean we are both wrong.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

That's the sad thing. If it was just little kids and backwardsass country folk that believed in this hoopla I really wouldn't care. It baffles me how educated adults can disregard all logic and reasoning. Not to mention trying to foist it on everyone else.

Maybe they think you have disregarded logic too?Get off your high horse and respect peoples views and understand that while you have beliefs and are entitled to them, others have different beliefs. You are one of those atheists that is just as dogmatic and blinded as the biggest fundies out there.

I don't really see an issue with anyone believing in - and promoting - God. Plenty of scientists believe in God or some other higher power. Believing and pushing Creationism? Horrifying levels of stupidity. I'm not sure when the religious lunatics started making this such a big deal but it needs to be stopped and openly ridiculed. Anyone who values education and intelligence should be absolutely disgusted and alarmed by the Creationism movement. I don't know why fighting against creationism became one in the same with attacking religion in the eyes of the nutjobs but they're not the same thing. Sure, they often go hand in hand but they are definitely two different issues.

 

[timschochet]

It seems to me that one of the points that Nye is making is that even when evolution is taught, it is more than often (at least 60% of the time) taught cautiously- teachers don't want to stress it, for fear of backlash from angry parents.

What can we do about this?

 

[fsword]

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!).

What percentage of the population understands the science of global warming?I think most people accept global warming on the say-so of people they trust. That raises the question of who trusts whom and why, and I think that question is sufficiently complex to be interesting. I don't think the answer is simply that liberals trust people based on scientific or academic credentials while conservatives trust people based on ideology (although there may be a hint of truth in that).

Both trust people based on ideology. One's ideology is more scientific, the other's more religious/traditional.

One of the great problems is the varyong definition of "science" over time. The word today doesn't mean what it meant 200 years ago, or even 60 years ago. Wiki covers this decently, imo. The same shift or word meaning is an undermining bias when discussing evolution or marriage as well; as each has his own definition or variation of meaning.Shifting word meanings are often driven by philosphy and ideology, often resulting in confusion and bias-driven debate, often when each "opposing" party earnestly desires to find truth.

I think you're making this more complicated than it really is.

Perhaps, but look at all the different perspectives of evolution discussed here, with posters talking past each other. Some use the term interchangably with abiogenesis, some for adaptation, etc..... The same can be seen in teh discussions regarding what a day is in Genesis. Humans can be complicated.

 

[Mario Kart]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

Are you disputing it? Seems pretty logical to me, and others. Why people? Why Earth? Why here? Pretty simple to understand that things always were and attempting to explain otherwise is futile.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the universe has always been here, but I don't know that it qualifies as a theory. What observation would falsify it?

 

[Marvin]

Punctuated equilibrium (P.E.) causes more problems for the evolution theory than it solves. P.E,. states that evolution happens all at once in discrete intervals. It truth it is indistinguishable from a God event. I call it an information spike which is very quantifiable. BTW most biologist do not believe P.E.

Not the same thing at all. Ozzy doesn't claim that his songs are the Truth as described by an omniscient, all powerful, perfect God and that if you don't accept this Truth you spend an eternity in hell. Ozzy's songs are for entertainment - not a belief system or road map as to how to live one's life.

Yeesh, do you work this hard when your kids defend Santa? Their bwue bwankie has magic powers - pat em on the head or send em to bed. The only possible reason to defend the literal truth of a 2000yo agrarian text is identity issues (not that we dont have our own) and discussing it with them on a adult basis gives them precisely what they want - legitimization of the palpability of self-defining fairy stories. Arguing the biology of unicorns is foolish on both sides.

If lies and misinformation go unchecked they soon become "the truth". sn0mm1s is doing great work here.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Punctuated equilibrium (P.E.) causes more problems for the evolution theory than it solves. P.E,. states that evolution happens all at once in discrete intervals. It truth it is indistinguishable from a God event. I call it an information spike which is very quantifiable. BTW most biologist do not believe P.E.

No, it doesn't. P.E. merely states that given the right circumstances evolution can happen rapidly (on a geological time scale). It doesn't change or invalidate any other portion of the theory. Gradualism is just as valid a means of evolution. BTW most biologists do believe in P.E. and gradualism - they aren't mutually exclusive.It also has nothing to do with God or a "God event" that is just something you make up to try discredit the theory by injecting religious terminology.

Wrong. Gradualism <> P.E. When Gould introduced P.E. it was stating that the fossil record does not support gradualism. In truth the fossil record does not support gradualism which Gould more or less admitted.The God event is when you obtain a massive entropy spike which mathematically, or statistically, is impossible for all practical purposes. Which makes the event indistinguishable from a God event or a miracle.

 

[Todd Andrews]

This is the new GOP platform for 2012.

 

[MasterofOrion]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

Problem with that universe has always been is that nobody believes it. For one thing the universe is winding down based on entropy. To wind down it has to be wound up (creation event).

 

[wikkidpissah]

Punctuated equilibrium (P.E.) causes more problems for the evolution theory than it solves. P.E,. states that evolution happens all at once in discrete intervals. It truth it is indistinguishable from a God event. I call it an information spike which is very quantifiable. BTW most biologist do not believe P.E.

Not the same thing at all. Ozzy doesn't claim that his songs are the Truth as described by an omniscient, all powerful, perfect God and that if you don't accept this Truth you spend an eternity in hell. Ozzy's songs are for entertainment - not a belief system or road map as to how to live one's life.

Yeesh, do you work this hard when your kids defend Santa? Their bwue bwankie has magic powers - pat em on the head or send em to bed. The only possible reason to defend the literal truth of a 2000yo agrarian text is identity issues (not that we dont have our own) and discussing it with them on a adult basis gives them precisely what they want - legitimization of the palpability of self-defining fairy stories. Arguing the biology of unicorns is foolish on both sides.

If lies and misinformation go unchecked they soon become "the truth". sn0mm1s is doing great work here.

oh, i agree with him wholeheartedly, but doesnt trying to be reasonable with the willfully unreasonable - especially about the specifics of that point of unreasonability & not the motivation behind it - validate the deluded in a way that works more to perpetuate than diffuse the mania?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

Problem with that universe has always been is that nobody believes it. For one thing the universe is winding down based on entropy. To wind down it has to be wound up (creation event).

The same way there needs to be a creation event for there to be a god, right?

 

[The Football Freak]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the universe has always been here, but I don't know that it qualifies as a theory. What observation would falsify it?

I've often wondered how the universe could have always been here since we are actually in the now. If there was an infinite amount of time behind us, how could we have reached this point in time?

 

[Captain Quinoa]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

no, I meant that the bible doesn't require you to stretch the bounds of logic. surely you don't believe that? I mean, the gospel (i think long version of Mark) states that 500 people rose from the dead and started wandering the streets of Jerusalem after Jesus died. Now, that was obviously added into the text later to help the whole son of god movement, but, nevertheless, it certainly requires a substantial stretching of the boundaries of logic, no? People can't actually rise from the dead. Unless it is in the Thriller video.

What in the world are you talking about. 500 people resurrected??? You must be reading a different bible.

Because 3 resurrections stretches the bounds of logic much less than 500.

If God created life, a resurrection is a snap. Regardless zoo nation made stuff up and posted it as fact. You're going to have a hard time making fun of Christians for their belief in resurrections. It's a core belief that few have any issues with.

Matthew 27:52-53"and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." my bad. 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus. that event didn't really make a splash in secular journalism though, which is surprising.

Oh sure, it didn't make a splash..Except for all the people who saw it and wrote about it. But they don't count!

I didn't see anything about it on the twitters.

 

[shader]

Punctuated equilibrium (P.E.) causes more problems for the evolution theory than it solves. P.E,. states that evolution happens all at once in discrete intervals. It truth it is indistinguishable from a God event. I call it an information spike which is very quantifiable. BTW most biologist do not believe P.E.

Not the same thing at all. Ozzy doesn't claim that his songs are the Truth as described by an omniscient, all powerful, perfect God and that if you don't accept this Truth you spend an eternity in hell. Ozzy's songs are for entertainment - not a belief system or road map as to how to live one's life.

Yeesh, do you work this hard when your kids defend Santa? Their bwue bwankie has magic powers - pat em on the head or send em to bed. The only possible reason to defend the literal truth of a 2000yo agrarian text is identity issues (not that we dont have our own) and discussing it with them on a adult basis gives them precisely what they want - legitimization of the palpability of self-defining fairy stories. Arguing the biology of unicorns is foolish on both sides.

If lies and misinformation go unchecked they soon become "the truth". sn0mm1s is doing great work here.

I haven't seen him post a single interesting thing.

 

[Marvin]

Punctuated equilibrium (P.E.) causes more problems for the evolution theory than it solves. P.E,. states that evolution happens all at once in discrete intervals. It truth it is indistinguishable from a God event. I call it an information spike which is very quantifiable.

BTW most biologist do not believe P.E.

No, it doesn't. P.E. merely states that given the right circumstances evolution can happen rapidly (on a geological time scale). It doesn't change or invalidate any other portion of the theory. Gradualism is just as valid a means of evolution. BTW most biologists do believe in P.E. and gradualism - they aren't mutually exclusive.

It also has nothing to do with God or a "God event" that is just something you make up to try discredit the theory by injecting religious terminology.

Wrong. Gradualism <> P.E. When Gould introduced P.E. it was stating that the fossil record does not support gradualism. In truth the fossil record does not support gradualism which Gould more or less admitted.The God event is when you obtain a massive entropy spike which mathematically, or statistically, is impossible for all practical purposes. Which makes the event indistinguishable from a God event or a miracle.

You're killing me

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Wrong. Gradualism <> P.E. When Gould introduced P.E. it was stating that the fossil record does not support gradualism. In truth the fossil record does not support gradualism which Gould more or less admitted.

Maybe you can defend this view, but it should be noted that it's not the consensus view among biologists or paleontologists. From Wikipedia:
Early in his career, Gould and Niles Eldredge developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, in which evolutionary change occurs relatively rapidly, alternating with longer periods of relative evolutionary stability.[2] According to Gould, punctuated equilibrium revised a key pillar "in the central logic of Darwinian theory".[5] Some evolutionary biologists have argued that while punctuated equilibrium was "of great interest to biology",[19] it merely modified neo-Darwinism in a manner that was fully compatible with what had been known before.[20] Others, however, emphasized its theoretical novelty, and argued that evolutionary stasis had been "unexpected by most evolutionary biologists" and "had a major impact on paleontology and evolutionary biology".[21]

Indeed, other biologists have strongly criticized Gould for mischaracterizing mainstream evolutionary theory in order to make his own contributions seem more novel than they really were.

 

[shader]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

That's the sad thing. If it was just little kids and backwardsass country folk that believed in this hoopla I really wouldn't care. It baffles me how educated adults can disregard all logic and reasoning. Not to mention trying to foist it on everyone else.

Maybe they think you have disregarded logic too?Get off your high horse and respect peoples views and understand that while you have beliefs and are entitled to them, others have different beliefs. You are one of those atheists that is just as dogmatic and blinded as the biggest fundies out there.

I don't really see an issue with anyone believing in - and promoting - God. Plenty of scientists believe in God or some other higher power. Believing and pushing Creationism? Horrifying levels of stupidity. I'm not sure when the religious lunatics started making this such a big deal but it needs to be stopped and openly ridiculed. Anyone who values education and intelligence should be absolutely disgusted and alarmed by the Creationism movement. I don't know why fighting against creationism became one in the same with attacking religion in the eyes of the nutjobs but they're not the same thing. Sure, they often go hand in hand but they are definitely two different issues.

Well I guess it depends on what you define as Creationism. Typically creationism is associated with a 6,000 year earth, and I agree that kind of view and agenda is not helpful.I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really? Certain aspects of evolution are important, but how important is it to modern science that a bunch of cells floating in primordial goo evolved to humans? To me that is more important to people on a personal level.

I'd rather kids be taught math, and physical sciences, such as physics and chemistry. Those should be the focuses.

Too often I see atheists and agnostics broadly act as if evolution is this huge part of science, when in reality, I don't believe thats the case. Give me the science that designs airplanes, rockets, helps us go to Mars, etc. You can keep the science that analyzes skull fragments and then gets writers of science journals to design fanciful artist depictions of what they THINK the animal MAY have looked like. Is that a branch of science? Sure. But it's not a branch I have any interest in.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Wrong. Gradualism <> P.E. When Gould introduced P.E. it was stating that the fossil record does not support gradualism. In truth the fossil record does not support gradualism which Gould more or less admitted.

The God event is when you obtain a massive entropy spike which mathematically, or statistically, is impossible for all practical purposes. Which makes the event indistinguishable from a God event or a miracle.

The fossil record supports both. There are instances of gradual changes in a species over millions of years (such as the whale fossils) and periods of rapid change. Hell, with plants, we have seen speciation events in a single generation. The bolded is just gibberish that has no basis and means absolutely nothing.

 

[matuski]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

no, I meant that the bible doesn't require you to stretch the bounds of logic. surely you don't believe that? I mean, the gospel (i think long version of Mark) states that 500 people rose from the dead and started wandering the streets of Jerusalem after Jesus died. Now, that was obviously added into the text later to help the whole son of god movement, but, nevertheless, it certainly requires a substantial stretching of the boundaries of logic, no? People can't actually rise from the dead. Unless it is in the Thriller video.

What in the world are you talking about. 500 people resurrected??? You must be reading a different bible.

Because 3 resurrections stretches the bounds of logic much less than 500.

If God created life, a resurrection is a snap. Regardless zoo nation made stuff up and posted it as fact. You're going to have a hard time making fun of Christians for their belief in resurrections. It's a core belief that few have any issues with.

Matthew 27:52-53"and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." my bad. 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus. that event didn't really make a splash in secular journalism though, which is surprising.

Oh sure, it didn't make a splash..Except for all the people who saw it and wrote about it. But they don't count!

Could you list a few people in this world who you would believe when they claim they witnessed a dead man/ghost walking around, after an angel moved the stone off his grave?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the universe has always been here, but I don't know that it qualifies as a theory. What observation would falsify it?

I've often wondered how the universe could have always been here since we are actually in the now. If there was an infinite amount of time behind us, how could we have reached this point in time?

There's some discussion of that issue in an earlier thread.

 

[Marvin]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

That's the sad thing. If it was just little kids and backwardsass country folk that believed in this hoopla I really wouldn't care. It baffles me how educated adults can disregard all logic and reasoning. Not to mention trying to foist it on everyone else.

Maybe they think you have disregarded logic too?Get off your high horse and respect peoples views and understand that while you have beliefs and are entitled to them, others have different beliefs. You are one of those atheists that is just as dogmatic and blinded as the biggest fundies out there.

I don't really see an issue with anyone believing in - and promoting - God. Plenty of scientists believe in God or some other higher power. Believing and pushing Creationism? Horrifying levels of stupidity. I'm not sure when the religious lunatics started making this such a big deal but it needs to be stopped and openly ridiculed. Anyone who values education and intelligence should be absolutely disgusted and alarmed by the Creationism movement. I don't know why fighting against creationism became one in the same with attacking religion in the eyes of the nutjobs but they're not the same thing. Sure, they often go hand in hand but they are definitely two different issues.

Well I guess it depends on what you define as Creationism. Typically creationism is associated with a 6,000 year earth, and I agree that kind of view and agenda is not helpful.I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really? Certain aspects of evolution are important, but how important is it to modern science that a bunch of cells floating in primordial goo evolved to humans? To me that is more important to people on a personal level.

I'd rather kids be taught math, and physical sciences, such as physics and chemistry. Those should be the focuses.

Too often I see atheists and agnostics broadly act as if evolution is this huge part of science, when in reality, I don't believe thats the case. Give me the science that designs airplanes, rockets, helps us go to Mars, etc. You can keep the science that analyzes skull fragments and then gets writers of science journals to design fanciful artist depictions of what they THINK the animal MAY have looked like. Is that a branch of science? Sure. But it's not a branch I have any interest in.

Kids are taught those things. You don't believe they should be taught Biology because of your own personal misunderstanding of evolution? You do realize that once upon a time the fields of physics, astrophysics, and aeronautics were misunderstood and challenged just like evolution is today?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really?

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." — Theodosius DobzhanskySome more good quotes from the prominent Russian biologist while we're at it:"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way." — Theodosius Dobzhansky"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness." — Theodosius Dobzhansky

 

[sn0mm1s]

Well I guess it depends on what you define as Creationism. Typically creationism is associated with a 6,000 year earth, and I agree that kind of view and agenda is not helpful.

I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really? Certain aspects of evolution are important, but how important is it to modern science that a bunch of cells floating in primordial goo evolved to humans? To me that is more important to people on a personal level.

I'd rather kids be taught math, and physical sciences, such as physics and chemistry. Those should be the focuses.

Too often I see atheists and agnostics broadly act as if evolution is this huge part of science, when in reality, I don't believe thats the case. Give me the science that designs airplanes, rockets, helps us go to Mars, etc. You can keep the science that analyzes skull fragments and then gets writers of science journals to design fanciful artist depictions of what they THINK the animal MAY have looked like. Is that a branch of science? Sure. But it's not a branch I have any interest in.

Genetics, medicine, agriculture, and virtually any other subject dealing with living organisms uses all or part of evolutionary theory. The thing is Creationists don't care about that - they only care when it challenges their dogma that Adam was made from clay and Eve was made from his rib.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really? Certain aspects of evolution are important, but how important is it to modern science that a bunch of cells floating in primordial goo evolved to humans? To me that is more important to people on a personal level.

I'd rather kids be taught math, and physical sciences, such as physics and chemistry. Those should be the focuses.

Too often I see atheists and agnostics broadly act as if evolution is this huge part of science, when in reality, I don't believe thats the case. Give me the science that designs airplanes, rockets, helps us go to Mars, etc. You can keep the science that analyzes skull fragments and then gets writers of science journals to design fanciful artist depictions of what they THINK the animal MAY have looked like. Is that a branch of science? Sure. But it's not a branch I have any interest in.

I completely disagree with that last part. Physics and chemistry are both borderline-useless even for highly-educated people. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, can be communicated in ordinary prose and gives people a better understanding of the world they live in. I'd far prefer that students study things like this than grinding out stuff like F = MA or balancing chemical equations.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Consider the medical practices 2,000 years ago. And yet, we're to believe these people understood the origin of the species?

 

[zoonation]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

no, I meant that the bible doesn't require you to stretch the bounds of logic. surely you don't believe that? I mean, the gospel (i think long version of Mark) states that 500 people rose from the dead and started wandering the streets of Jerusalem after Jesus died. Now, that was obviously added into the text later to help the whole son of god movement, but, nevertheless, it certainly requires a substantial stretching of the boundaries of logic, no? People can't actually rise from the dead. Unless it is in the Thriller video.

What in the world are you talking about. 500 people resurrected??? You must be reading a different bible.

Because 3 resurrections stretches the bounds of logic much less than 500.

If God created life, a resurrection is a snap. Regardless zoo nation made stuff up and posted it as fact. You're going to have a hard time making fun of Christians for their belief in resurrections. It's a core belief that few have any issues with.

Matthew 27:52-53"and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." my bad. 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus. that event didn't really make a splash in secular journalism though, which is surprising.

Oh sure, it didn't make a splash..Except for all the people who saw it and wrote about it. But they don't count!

Who are all these people?

 

[MasterofOrion]

Wrong. Gradualism <> P.E. When Gould introduced P.E. it was stating that the fossil record does not support gradualism. In truth the fossil record does not support gradualism which Gould more or less admitted.

Maybe you can defend this view, but it should be noted that it's not the consensus view among biologists or paleontologists. From Wikipedia:
Early in his career, Gould and Niles Eldredge developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, in which evolutionary change occurs relatively rapidly, alternating with longer periods of relative evolutionary stability.[2] According to Gould, punctuated equilibrium revised a key pillar "in the central logic of Darwinian theory".[5] Some evolutionary biologists have argued that while punctuated equilibrium was "of great interest to biology",[19] it merely modified neo-Darwinism in a manner that was fully compatible with what had been known before.[20] Others, however, emphasized its theoretical novelty, and argued that evolutionary stasis had been "unexpected by most evolutionary biologists" and "had a major impact on paleontology and evolutionary biology".[21]

Indeed, other biologists have strongly criticized Gould for mischaracterizing mainstream evolutionary theory in order to make his own contributions seem more novel than they really were.

This is really out dated. Modern Evolutionary synthesis (neo-Darwinism of NDT) has mostly been disproved . But to your point. Look at tenet 2.Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).



P.E. is rapid evolutionary change. Gradual <> rapid. I guess my defense is definition.

My question MT what is evolution? What theory to you stand by: Neo Darwin, Modern Evolution Theory, Horizontal gene transfer, retro virus's, epigenetics...

 

[MasterofOrion]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

That's the sad thing. If it was just little kids and backwardsass country folk that believed in this hoopla I really wouldn't care. It baffles me how educated adults can disregard all logic and reasoning. Not to mention trying to foist it on everyone else.

Maybe they think you have disregarded logic too?Get off your high horse and respect peoples views and understand that while you have beliefs and are entitled to them, others have different beliefs. You are one of those atheists that is just as dogmatic and blinded as the biggest fundies out there.

I don't really see an issue with anyone believing in - and promoting - God. Plenty of scientists believe in God or some other higher power. Believing and pushing Creationism? Horrifying levels of stupidity. I'm not sure when the religious lunatics started making this such a big deal but it needs to be stopped and openly ridiculed. Anyone who values education and intelligence should be absolutely disgusted and alarmed by the Creationism movement. I don't know why fighting against creationism became one in the same with attacking religion in the eyes of the nutjobs but they're not the same thing. Sure, they often go hand in hand but they are definitely two different issues.

Most people believe in creation event. Scientist call it Big Bang. An event where all energy and mass was created out of well... nothing. So why is God being a creator any more stupid than believing the universe came from nothing?

 

[MasterofOrion]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

Problem with that universe has always been is that nobody believes it. For one thing the universe is winding down based on entropy. To wind down it has to be wound up (creation event).

The same way there needs to be a creation event for there to be a god, right?

No. The theory of causation is that one thing causes another. The only way to break the theory of causation is that something has to be eternal - either God or the Universe. So which is eternal, the universe or God? I think it is easy to show the Universe had a beginning scientifically.

 

[sn0mm1s]

This is really out dated. Modern Evolutionary synthesis (neo-Darwinism of NDT) has mostly been disproved . But to your point. Look at tenet 2.

Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).



P.E. is rapid evolutionary change. Gradual <> rapid. I guess my defense is definition.

My question MT what is evolution? What theory to you stand by: Neo Darwin, Modern Evolution Theory, Horizontal gene transfer, retro virus's, epigenetics...

I think you need to read a little further down the page. Perhaps the section entitled "Further Advances".

 

[MasterofOrion]

This is really out dated. Modern Evolutionary synthesis (neo-Darwinism of NDT) has mostly been disproved . But to your point. Look at tenet 2.

Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).



P.E. is rapid evolutionary change. Gradual <> rapid. I guess my defense is definition.

My question MT what is evolution? What theory to you stand by: Neo Darwin, Modern Evolution Theory, Horizontal gene transfer, retro virus's, epigenetics...

I think you need to read a little further down the page. Perhaps the section entitled "Further Advances".

Like what?