Aug 29 - Bill Nye The Science Guy Rips On American's Who Teach Creationism To Children

Off topic

I'm not usually a spelling/grammar hoe, but why do you continue to spell "rely" as "relie"? Spellcheck turned off? [pic]

so ur telling me that world is only 6000 years old, adam and eve populated the world while in a mystical garden, that theres no evidence, satan planted dinosaur fossils and early humanoid remains to test the faith of christians? and the list goes on. alot of the !! creationists come up with doesnt even exist in the Bible, yet they claim its legitimate.

humans need oxygen to breathe if u think im[..]uming then hold ur breath

Rely looked weird to me when I typed it. [pic]


And spellcheck catches spelling mistakes, not grammer errors. [pic]

The only thing I claim is that God is the creator. It's funny how you're trying to use a fringe to disprove everything. I can also use fringes in science to discredit the whole thing too. Doesn't mean it is not valid.

I believe we were all created by God. I believe evolution is apart of God's design. So one can believe in creationism and evolution at the same damn time.


Why does it always have to be a case of, "I'm right and you're wrong?" The universe is so much more complicated than what one single theory can explain at this time. So why not tie in multiple theories that don't negate one another?

I believe we were all created by God. I believe evolution is apart of God's design. So one can believe in creationism and evolution at the same damn time.


Why does it always have to be a case of, "I'm right and you're wrong?" The universe is so much more complicated than what one single theory can explain at this time. So why not tie in multiple theories that don't negate one another?

if u think thats the fringe of the creationist community, then ur naive









[pic][pic][pic] and what fringes in science can you use to discredit science as a whole?

...except evolution can be explained without a supernatural entity guiding it. The nuts and bolts of the universe can be explained without a supernatural entity guiding it. The supernatural (souls, spirits, magic, etc.) are simply superfluous; not needed and not applicable.

Just face it - you believe in god because, psychologically, you can't accept a meaningless universe. It's too painful for you. God is your defense mechanism.

How is it so unreal that the bible failed to mention dinosaurs and their extinction. .

You do know that creationist believe that dinosaurs NEVER existed right.. [pic]

I'm naive but you have yet to answer any of the simple questions I have posed. Come on Mr. Logical thinker, you can't even tell me what scientific facts do not rely upon[..]umptions? There's people that believe in parallel dimensions with no proof. People who believe in panspermia. People who have even "found" correlation between race and intelligence to uphold their own racist beliefs. But science doesn't have a fringe right? Everything in science is absolute truths?

[pic]

[pic]

see it's moronic posts like this that prove inconclusively that athiests dont know the 1st thing about the Bible and/or haven't read it with understanding...

ur foolish. first of all i address ur initial question hella times, secondly, ur argument doesnt even make sense, because you're arguing about scientists who believe in stuff like parallel universes, but that does notthing to discredit science as a whole, so wtf are u talking about? not all science is recognized as absolute truth, i never sed that, but u have been saying that no science is factual which is idiotic as hell, of course not all science is based in fact, but that doesnt mean the total opposite is true

Well I missed you address of my question so could you please answer it again. What scientific facts do no rely on[..]umptions?

And how does my argument does not make sense? I'm using your train of thought. Using people who believe in something without any proof to discredit the whole. Isn't that what you're doing? Anybody that believe that God created the universe is a creationist. Not everybody who believes in God believes Satan planted dinosaur bones and things like that. You're trying to use a small group to characterize the whole. I never said science isn't factual. I said it relies on[..]umptions. Science call their[..]umptions logical reasoning while people who believe in God call it faith. Having a fancy name for it doesn't change the fact that you can't prove it to be 100% true.

ok firstly i think, we're had a misunderstanding, my initial arguement was aimed at those wild creationists who want creationism to be taught in schools and DO believe in all the crazy stuff i listed earlier, so thats clear

now the second part HOW THE FACT is faith and science the same thinng? thats BS.

Faith, i cant see it, experience it, feel it, but somehow i kno its there

Science, for example with wind, sure i cant see it, but i can feel it, test it and breath it, i need it to survive, how is that an[..]umption, since ive tested this millions of times and got the same consistent results?

in science, thoeries can be based on[..]umption, but once u TEST it and proof it, its factual, meanwhile in religion, ppl just have FAITH in something with no investigation based on someones word and live their WHOLE on that word, which has bee translated and reinterpreted and manipulated for 1000s of years

[pic]

I never said science and faith are the samething. I said they both have gaps that cannot be fully explained by human methods. You think when I say science rely on[..]umptions, that I'm talking about hypotheses. That is not the case. Go read many of the laws in science. Most of them make the[..]umptions that the conditions experienced on Earth are valid throughout the universe. Now, we can't explore every universe and galaxy and test the conditions can we? Even at it's core, science relies on[..]umptions that can't be proven. Yes, you can test things in science. It doesn't prove it to be truth. It just proves that under CERTAIN CONDITIONS, this is the expected behavior. How does science explain unexpected behavior? It throws it out and calls it an anomaly. Do you know how many scientific laws have been proven untrue, even after exhaustive testing has supported it for many years? See Newton's Laws of Motion and Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Who's to say the same scientific laws that here today, wont be proven untrue in the future?

And it's funny you talk about manipulation as if science is free from it. I guess you never heard of Gregor Mendel. Why is it that nobody has been able to reproduce his results? Why is it that people think he "cooked" his results just like many other scientists of the time? People manipulate science to fit their views also. You know how many scientific studies upheld the view that black people should be treated like animal because they are genetically inferior?

But hey, religion is the only thing subject to errors and manipulation from man, right?

[pic]

funny you say that since, God, is supposed to perfect and omnipotent, yet all ur faith lies in rickety[..] evidence, meanwhile science is much more consistent

however i will agree with you, that we currently have no way of knowing if these conditions exist throughout the entire universe