Scientist Bill Nye Hammers Anti-Evolution Republicans: ‘Betrays the Best Use of Our Brains’
Image source: MSNBC
Scientist Bill Nye again hammered those who don’t believe in evolution, saying to do so “betrays the best use of our brains.”
The “Science Guy’s” comment came in response to two House Republicans’ recent remarks against evolution: Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, who ignited controversy in August when he said victims of “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant, said he doesn’t see evolution “even as a matter of science,” and Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) dismissed evolution and the Big Bang theory as “lies straight from the pit of hell.” Both congressmen sit on the House science committee.
“Evolution was discovered, it’s not something people made up,” Nye said on MSNBC Saturday. “It was discovered and the evidence for it is astonishing, it’s overwhelming.”
He said the technology behind smoke detectors helps explain that the Earth is more like 4.5 billion years old, as opposed to 6,000 to 10,000 years old, as some believe.
“That’s science, those are facts,” he said. “You can’t just close your eyes and make them not true.”
Nye also dismissed a past comment from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) who said there was disagreement about evolution within the science community, saying “there’s no controversy among scientists.”
“This is always a troubling thing,” Nye said. “Our ancestors have made these discoveries, this is the best idea humans have ever had…this way that we understand the world around us and our place in it. And to set aside those discoveries arbitrarily betrays the best in us, it betrays the best use of our brains.”
Nye recently created a pro-evolution video titled, “Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children.” In it, he asked parents to teach their children about evolution even if not believing it themselves.
Watch below, via Mediaite:
In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.
Popular Stories
Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep? 440 Comments
Game-Changing Bombshell? There’s a Major Twist in the Story About a High School Student’s Lesbian Relationship With a Minor 383 Comments
Is the Boy Scouts’ Gay Amendment the ‘Beginning of the End’ for the Group? (Plus: Tell Us Where You Stand) 353 Comments
Church vs. State Complaint Leads City to Remove Christian Crosses on Water Tower — Now See What They’ve Been Replaced With 312 Comments
‘We Ain’t Scared of Nobody!’: New Documentary Claims to Show the KKK Thriving in Deep South 304 Comments
Faith
-
Priest Gunned Down by Italian Mobsters Now Beatified
Read More
-
Game-Changing Bombshell? There’s a Major Twist in the Story About a High School Student’s Lesbian Relationship With a Minor
383 Comments
- Is the Boy Scouts’ Gay Amendment the ‘Beginning of the End’ for the Group? (Plus: Tell Us Where You Stand) 353 Comments
-
MSNBC Hosts Martin Bashir and Chris Hayes Claim London Machete Killers Aren’t Terrorists: ‘These Are Just Murderers’
165 Comments
-
Did You Catch the Possibly Policy-Changing Ft. Hood Reference in Obama’s Terror Speech?
102 Comments
Business
-
Have You Had Scotch at a NJ TGI Friday’s Lately? You Might Have Been Drinking Rubbing Alcohol
Read More
-
Venezuelan President Blames Toilet Paper Shortage on the Rich
100 Comments
-
This Terrible Chart Shows the Change in Food Stamp Participation Over the Last 10 Years
Read More
- Disney Makes Absolutely Mortifying Photoshop Mistake Read More
-
Trey Gowdy at It Again — This Time with a Jack Bauer Reference!
121 Comments
Technology
-
LOOK: Woman Claims to Have Photographed UFO in California
119 Comments
-
Lion Named ‘Bonedigger’ and Small Dog Make Most Unlikely Companions
Read More
-
Rocket Bike Sets Land Speed Record — and Uses a Fuel You Wouldn’t Expect
Read More
-
How 3D Printing Technology Created a Special Part for Baby’s Windpipe and Saved His Life
Read More
-
6 Fascinating Spy Gadgets You’ll Probably Want (and Can Have) After Seeing
Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (562)
Bugleboy99
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:38pm“Nye … ‘Betrays the Best Use of Our Brains”
Nye has no brain. None which he uses anyway….
Report this comment
crackerone
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:57pmThe only friend he had growing up, was a pet rock.
Report this comment
13Lena
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:57pmBill Nye is a moron, if scientist can’t see it touch it or feel it then it doesn’t exists, the idiots.
Report this comment
steelpanther
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:00pmIf Nye had a brain, he might be able to see the major holes in his proof. Not to mention men like him should have became a laughing stock long ago because of their habit of inventing the missing link over and over again just to be humiliated when it turns out to be another fake. Lucy, Nebraska man and many more.
Report this comment
db321
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:13pmBill Nye and Al Gore’s hot air is causing Global Warning.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:14pmI have always been fascinated by science…..Love YHVH.
I’ve never had a problem reconciling the two. In allegory or scientific fact. But, I am aware of the time frame laid out in Genesis. If one really knows the scripture, all is explained. Take for instance, this illustration: “And God said, “Let there be light…..”, would probably look, as a very big BANG, to an observer. The bible is a letter from God to us….His POV. Science Is man’s letter to man…man’s POV.
The BIG picture in HD, compared to 8mm black & white. Unless you are bill nye, and are so arrogantly, self worshiping and spiritually color blind, you’ve sabotaged your own mind, and limited your soul.
Report this comment
RebelPatriot
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:17pmEvolution exists but yet there are still primates. Why? What happened to their evolution? During the past 5,000 years man has not evolved at all, look at the middle east.
Report this comment
Ilikepeople
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:19pmFrom out of one, Many. You don’t stand a chance to have a one world government or a one world religion. If the entire world was Atheists, just the existence of Atheists and the affect they would have would make God believers out of their off-spring, even if the word [god] didn’t exist – they would name it something else meaning the same thing. If the entire world was Muslim, there would be Muslims who think other Muslims aren’t good enough Muslims, and they would destroy each other until enough land opened somewhere for another religion to grab hold. You can’t win, there is always one winner – God.
Report this comment
Ilikepeople
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:22pmYou don’t stand a chance, just like you can’t control the way Atheists chase people back to God. You control nothing.
Report this comment
Ilikepeople
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:23pmYou don’t drive this chariot, God does.
Report this comment
ModerationIsBest
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:24pm@REBELPATRIOT
Hahaha
Oh man I really hope PattyHenry is reading these posts.
So much for “Christians not being at odds with science.”
Report this comment
gingercake
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:25pmThe only argument Nye used was “age” of the Earth. Religious people should not claim to know the age of the Earth, either. They should just say that they know that the Earth had a Creator. Arguing about age only leads to deadlock. Also, if MACRO evolution were true (one species turning into another), then the Earth would be chock full of in-between fossil failures. All we see are intact species. No in-between forms that didn’t work out. There would be billions of failure fossils, and only a few workable ones. Even Darwin himself, later in life, said that the human eye could not have come into being except all at once. Nothing would have happened gradually. Period.
Report this comment
Zekron
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:36pmJust a little light, Nye is not a Scientist, never was.
Report this comment
LIBERALSAREMORONS
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:40pmREBELPATRIOT: “Evolution exists but yet there are still primates. Why? What happened to their evolution?”
I hear this from people all the time. It comes from a lack of understanding Evolution. Evolution does not say humans evolved from Primates. Humans came from a less evolved form of humans, and primates came from a less evolved form of primates, humans did not evolve from modern primates.
Report this comment
Moment of Clarity
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:51pmBugleboy99 > crackerone > 13Lena > steelpanther > is this how a Christian speaks? Where are the forgiving, understanding, compassionate Christian voices ya’ll tell the world about? The Christian voices here are demeaning, belittling, contemptuous and scornful. Maybe you are afraid Bill Nye is right, and science challenges your dogma. There is scientific fact based on overwhelming evidence based on research and common sense vs faith, based on a book written by simple, fearful and ignorant men whose world was no larger than the horizon.
Report this comment
VoxPopuli911
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:57pmBill Nye is not a scientist … he just plays one on TV.
Report this comment
Pouncing Porcupine
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:59pmBill Nye and his ilk are like little children who cover their eyes and think you can’t see them. They are dwelling in an intellectual hiding place called Evolution.
From Wikipedia:
“The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively rapid appearance (over a period of many millions of years), around 530 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record…”
What these nitwits can’t, or won’t, acknowledge as a possibility, is that the “Cambrian explosian” was actually the LITERALLY rapid DISAPPEARANCE around 4000-5000 years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record.
Report this comment
The Giver
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:04pmIs seeing a sonogram of the developing child in the uterus science? I s seeing a heartbeat at 6 weeks gestation science? No, that is “religion” to these people who claim to embrace science.
Unfortunately for them, technology has caught up to their lies about abortion.
Stopping a heartbeat is murder. That is not religion, that is not science, that is a crime.
We don’t see the child, but it releases hormones to say”hey, I’m here!” Enough hormones to show up on a urine and blood test as a positive pregnancy test.
When you save the unborn of an animal in captivity, then it is science!
Report this comment
chalkdust
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:15pmIn fact….give me a break. There certainly is anecdotal evidence supporting the theory of evolution but it’s still just a theory. To many holes that can’t be explained yet. Still haven’t found the proverbial missing link. The way they see it is, we have 70% of the evidence to PROVE evolution and that’s close enough. But in other cases they would stick to the scientific method and demand 100%. It’s a bit egotistical. They view this very similar to global warming. At least in my life time, when there are new exciting discoveries it has only deepened the mystery.
So don’t worry believers, Nye doesn’t say anything significant here.
Report this comment
VoteBushIn12
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:16pm@13LENA
You are the moron.
@STEELPANTHER
Please identify a flaw.
@MAX JONES
You can twist the “God created light” as meaning Big Bang, but please explain the following.
Adam lived 600+ years,
snakes talked,
Woman was made from the rib of a man,
God created the earth 7000 years ago,
Or how about this,
God created the earth AND THEN created Light? Actually no. When the Big Bang occurred there was ONLY light and there was no physical matter. So that sequence alone disproves your point.
@REBELPATRIOT
What do you think Evolution is?
All Evolution is the slow changing of a species towards its environment. On a small scale, you can see the effects of evolution in the way your kids have the same eyes as you. Evolution is why you can look at someone with narrow eyes and a broad face and KNOW that they are from east asia. Blacks have darker skin than whites because the sun burns bring in Africa and more melanin was advantageous. Whites have less melanin because the cold winters up north made Vitamin D harder to come by.
We don’t look different so that racism may exist, we look different because there were EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGES associated with those parts of the world from which we hail.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
Report this comment
WhiteFang
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:22pmSome want to make this about religion and others about science. But in reality this discussion is about logic. What is logical?
Is it logical to believe in evolution? To answer that basic question, only a few question’s needs to be asked:
How did a tree come to be?
Who designed the human eye and brain interaction function?
How did a bird come to be? Were these things designed?
Evolution is suggesting ‘chance’ made it all happen, creation suggests ‘design’ produced earth and life..
Report this comment
ObamaForward_OverTheCliff
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:23pm” “Evolution was discovered, it’s not something people made up,” Nye said on MSNBC Saturday. “It was discovered and the evidence for it is astonishing, it’s overwhelming.” ”
Wow, he’s got it bad for theory-of-evolution propaganda. Get a room, will ya?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/darwin_lobbyist_1065151.html
“With students back in school now for the year, many will learn not just about the “Darwin’s Finches” icon of evolution, … They might also expect to be taught Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings. Our “Evaluation of 22 Recent Biology Textbooks and Their Use of Selected Icons of Evolution” showed that there are still multiple textbooks that use Haeckel’s inaccurate drawings.”
“The notion that Haeckel’s drawings were fraudulent …. originated with evolutionary scientists like embryologist Michael Richardson, who called them “one of the most famous fakes in biology,” or Stephen Jay Gould who said … “in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent,” Haeckel “simply copied the same figure over and over again.” Likewise, in a 1997 article titled “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” the journal Science recognized that “[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel.”
Bill Nye, the non-science guy.
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:29pmIs that really his name?
All these years I thought it was Bill DeNye….
Report this comment
WhiteFang
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:34pmDoes ‘chance’ produce a good, useful product?
What does a well constructed house reveal about it’s builder? Or did it just ‘happen’ to be there and miraculously appear by allowing a million years to pass?
Have we ever contemplated the design and functioning of our hands? Were they designed?
Report this comment
Ilikepeople
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:38pmVoteBushIn12,
Haha. The Bible isn’t as much about the way the planet earth was created, but more to do with how awareness was created in men in order to notice the planet earth in the first place. Haha, the creation of the planet is the tree of life that is hidden from men.
Report this comment
WhiteFang
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:43pmEven more basis:
Why do we breath oxygen?
How is that we can walk?
Where did ‘language’ come from?
Why can we not lose our balance when walking?
Why does our flesh heal itself when injured and bleeding?
Is design the reason for these wonderful things we take for granted?
If design is evident, then why do some reject it in favour of ‘chance’ ?
Report this comment
SUNTZU
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:57pmevolution is real and JOE BIDEN IS the missing link
Report this comment
leon II
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 5:33pmI don’t understand this story’s headline. Bill Nye isn’t a scientist. He never was and probably never will be. He’s just an entertainer that plays a scientist.
Serious.
Report this comment
toiletclogga
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 5:50pmAtheists do not like being alone in their “evolution thoughts.” This is why they have to try to drag others over to their side.
Report this comment
Kaoscontrol
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 6:10pmDon’t know if it’s true, but here’s what ChaCha says:
“In Eugene, Oregon – William Sanford “Bill” Nye, former star of the children’s show “Bill Nye the Science Guy” was arrested Monday morning on charges related to the manufacture of methamphetamine. According to the police report, Nye was charged with possession of methamphetamine, discharging a firearm within city limits and uttering a forged instrument. “
Report this comment
Fatheroftwo
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 7:20pmIs it just me or is anyone else wondering why this guy has all of a sudden popped back up on TV??? For the longest time, since his show was canned, he’s been absent and then, what, 2 months ago, there he is in the middle of two controversial issues, Global Warming and Evolution!
Smells like he’s run out of money and has sold himself to the Soros crowd!!
Report this comment
stage9
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 7:21pmScientist Bill Nye again hammered those who don’t believe in evolution, saying to do so “betrays the best use of our brains.”
It’s very telling that he didn’t say it betrays the best use of the EVIDENCE! Because with evolution there is none.
stage9
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 7:25pm10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape. Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that **** sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began, during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.
stage9
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 7:25pm8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years. DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.
stage9
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 7:26pm6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that thefolding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.
stage9
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 7:28pmEvidence for a young world:
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years.
2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.
Individualism
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 8:32pmHe is right about this. also remember his science videos when i was in grade school lol.
Report this comment
FesteAinoriba
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 8:38pmNye is a decent enough guy, but has bought into the tortuous fiction that feather wings evolved because little stumps gave legged fish an advantage, and bigger stumps became hollow bones and fins mutated into feathers … Evolutionists conveniently ignore the lack of any fossil record of these necessary transitional species and invent a complex fiction all in order to avoid a sense of accountability to a creator. The law of parsimony, also couched as Occam’s razor says that logic favors the simplest of theories rather than the complex and tortuous trains of logic that are required to swallow the fiction that complex systems suddenly appear on the scene build upon myriads of pieces which individually provided the species with an competitive disadvantage.
Everything around us is silent witness that where there is order, there is an operational intelligence. Yet many scientist, in this regard, accept with blind faith (seemingly unaware of the glaring lack of transitional species that are REQUIRED if their theory is correct) in the more complex and tortuous theory than the one prescribed by Occam’s Razor – all in order to avoid acknowledging that an ordering intelligence drives creation.
Report this comment
Non-Nobis-Domine-Sed-Nomini-Tuo-Da-Gloriam
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 9:35pmMOMENT OF CLARITY – As Christians we are called to go out and spread God’s word. The Bible and all it says is true. Although the Bible is written by Man in the literal sense, it takes a true believer in God to understand it came together through his direction. As for Christians being mean or not nice at times, it happens. We are Men and therefore the Bible says it is in our nature to sin. We do our best to do good as Christians and walk in this world seeking him. Things of this World divert us, we give in to our sin nature, we fail, we say mean things, we do things that are wrong. Often we condemn others when we are supposed to be convicting them…. meaning, to teach God’s word and do our best to profess what God taught us is right and good. We are not supposed to be judging others but unfortunately it happens. No one is perfect except God. Jesus is the only Man to ever walk this Earth and live a perfect, sin free life. None of this however is reason for Christians to stop going out and doing their best to tell the truth. The Bible is the only book to stand the test of time in it’s entirety with not one part ever being proven wrong. God’s word is true in it’s entirety and if you study the Bible you will find that God told us how old the Earth is and when he created it. It is revealed to us through Science with each new discovery and more and more it points to Intelligent Design! Praise God!
Report this comment
Non-Nobis-Domine-Sed-Nomini-Tuo-Da-Gloriam
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 9:47pmBill Nye says he would like us to teach our Kids about Evolution even though we may not believe in it??? I wonder if he would advocate those who don’t believe in Creationism to teach that to their children as well?? I’d like to know more about this so called “Evidence” he mentions in the science behind smoke detectors as proving the Earth is millions of years old?? Where would Science be today had people just listened to others when they told them what they thought was a foolish folly and “Not a good use of their Brains?” No Scientist would advocate such a thing!!! You only have to open Google and research the many Scientists in this world that say Evolution is wrong. Study after Study is causing Scientist’s to re-think the Theory of Evolution as more and more evidence points to anything but that. We had an Evolutionary Biologist speak at our Church recently, Dr. Rick Oliver. He talks about within that community Scientists are ridiculed if they go against Evolution. He talks about every time he saw evidence over the years that pointed to Intelligent Design he had to ignore it, make up details to the contrary… anything to hold true to his “Religious” belief in Evolution. Today he is a Born Again Christian and is incredible to listen to. Another such person is Russ Miller. Check out Creation Ministries. There’s lot’s more out there folks to know and learn – Bill Nye would like you all to remain ignorant of the truth.
Report this comment
Wildhorserider
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 10:38pmMy Bible says the potter makes makes beautiful vesels from a lump of clay. He also makes common unlovely vesels (toilets) from the same lump. Bill Nye your full of crap !
Report this comment
VoteBushIn12
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 1:44am@STAGE9
Cite your sources.
The fact that your ordering is messed up indicates you blindly copy and pasted this from other site (I expect no less from the intellectually stunted). Please tell us from where so we may verify it on our own.
And by “we” I of course mean the few us with functioning brains.
Report this comment
Komponist-ZAH
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 2:23am“[Komponist-ZAH] again hammered those who don’t believe in [capitalism], saying to do so ‘betrays the best use of our brains.’…
“‘That’s [economics], those are facts,’ he said. ‘You can’t just close your eyes and make them not true.’…
“‘This is always a troubling thing,’ [ZAH] said. ‘Our ancestors have made these discoveries, this is the best idea humans have ever had…this way that we understand the world around us and our place in it. And to set aside those discoveries arbitrarily betrays the best in us, it betrays the best use of our brains.’
“‘[ZAH] recently created a pro-[capitalism] video titled, ‘[Socialism] Is Not Appropriate For Children’. In it, he asked parents to teach their children about [capitalism] even if not believing it themselves.”
Much better, no?
Seriously though, evolution is “the best idea humans have ever had”?????????
Report this comment
WATER-THE-TREE
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 3:29amThey profess themselves wise yet they become fools, how can anyone believe that something as spectacular as our brains, ( at least those with them, sorry dems) was not designed, it just happened. YAEH RIGHT– just like our laptops that we post these messages with , just happened!
The THEORY of evolution is just a way for those who hate GOD to try to explain all that is without a GOD having created it.
Report this comment
WATER-THE-TREE
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 3:31amIf men came from monkeys— Why are there still monkeys???
Report this comment
WATER-THE-TREE
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 3:39amThe earth is million or billions of years old, and mankind as we know it has been here for 6000 years. Both are correct. —– There are eons of time in between verse 1 and verse 2 of the bible…. The time when a third of the angels were here on the earth, which caused the earth to become tohu and bohu by their rebellion against GOD.
Report this comment
apologies0
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 4:08am@VOTEBUSHIN12:
Just because some Christians have offered their interpretation of the Bible does not mean it is what the Bible teaches. Please understand that the Bible is NOT a scientific publication organized like the ones we have in science today.
Also, the creation account alone is so profound that it can take entire books to explain just how deep its many meanings are.
With that being said, let me attempt to answer the few claims you have said.
I believe a serious reading of the creation account in Genesis is in agreement with scientific findings.
1) [You can twist the “God created light” as meaning Big Bang] and
[God created the earth AND THEN created Light? Actually no. When the Big Bang occurred there was ONLY light and there was no physical matter. So that sequence alone disproves your point.]
Genesis 1:1-5 says:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
This first verse describes the creation of the universe and all it contains, including the earth. If there is a big bang to be read in the genesis account, it is in verse 1.
Report this comment
apologies0
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 4:08amVerse 2 then goes on to describe the earth at the moment of its creation:
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Most people here fail to understand the frame of reference. You see, Verse 2 says that the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. This here shows that the frame of reference is just above the surface of the water. This means that God Himself is present here to create everything. And therefore, when God begins “speaking” in verse 3:
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
We must understand that verse 3 does NOT claim that the sun was created or anything of the sort, but rather that the light can be seen from the earth (the frame of reference where the Spirit of God is. So what does this say so far? That when god created the earth it was dark, (thick clouds), and that when he spoke “let there be light”, light was able to pierce through the clouds and be seen from the earth for the first time. It is also understood that the light comes from the sun, a unidirectional source and that the earth is spinning on its axis, since there is evening and morning, day and night.
Report this comment
apologies0
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 4:09am@VOTEBUSHIN12:
2) [God created the earth 7000 years ago]
Nowhere does the Bible make ANY claim about the age of the earth or the universe. Again, this is the interpretation of some Christians based on their opinion of what the Bible says. Not every Christian agrees.
For instance, the 7 days in Genesis don’t have to be actual 24h periods. There are many different interpretations. I believe it could very well be 7 different ages that are divided. I believe that makes a lot of sense. Even today you would understand if I say “In the day of the dinosaurs..”, that I’m not referring to a 24h hour day period of the dinosaurs, but the age or era of the dinosaurs. Or if I say “back in the day..” I’m not referring to a single day, but a larger period of time in the past. You get my point.
The other reason some Christians come to the conclusion that the earth must be only thousands of years old is because there are genealogies mentioned in the Bible, that some Christians assume are complete genealogies. The Bible does not claim they are complete or that they mention every living human that lived and therefore, this assumption does not mean anything. You should not discredit the Bible based on the opinions of others, but rather try to read it yourself and see if it can make sense. I believe that it can and does.
Report this comment
Ragnars Repos
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 4:42amHey, Bill…most religious people had their conceptual faculties destroyed when they were very young. You might as be talking to a pile of rocks.
It would be like trying to explain a jet airplane to an indian chief of 200 years ago. The best he could come up with after the lengthiest of explanations would be, “Iron eagle!”.
Sure, the planet was “poofed” into existence by a god just thousands of years ago. Yep, that’s using your brain.
I truly want more for my fellow humans than this.
Report this comment
Reality_Bites_You_on_the_Ass
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 6:47amSTEELPANTHER, REBELPATRIOT and anyone else who thinks there are no transitional fossils or wonders why there are still monkeys now. There is no one “missing link but there have been hundreds of transitional fossils discovered. Evolution does not follow a straight line or even a family tree structure. It is more like an overgrown bush with branches in all kinds of directions leading to the millions of species we have today. A few examples include:
- Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds.
- Australopithecus afarensis had many of the same traits that modern humans, orangutans and spider monkeys share and represents an evolutionary transition between modern bipedal humans and their quadrupedal ape ancestors.
- Pakicetids represent an evolutionary transition between whales, dolphins and porpoises and the land mammals from which they descended. Ambulocetids represent the transition phase of cetacean ancestors between freshwater and marine habitat.
- Tiktaalik was a fish whose fins had wrist bones and fingers, rib bones, a mobile neck with a separate pectoral girdle, and lungs, as well as gills, scales, and fins of a fish. It is representative of the transition between non-tetrapod vertebrates and early tetrapods.
So asking why there are still monkeys is a pretty dumb question. Modern man did not evolve from monkeys. Both species descended from a common ancestor millions of years ago.
Report this comment
BrianSTC
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 8:12amBill Nye the idiot guy!
Report this comment
Leader1776
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 8:47am@13Lena
Not true. Scientists believe in many things they cannot see or feel/touch. The latest is the Higgs-Boson the “god” sub-atomic particle. They can only see the effects of the particle. Yet this was coined by the 60′s physicist as the “god particle”. Their form of faith and religion.
Report this comment
SocialistSlayer
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 9:04amNye crawl back in the heathen hole you crawled out of ! You are not a scientist but a crackpot that does children’s shows. Captain Kangaroo has more scientific knowledge than you and hes dead!
Report this comment
Thomas
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 9:04amEvolution doesn’t disprove the bible or God and it most certainly doesn’t answer all the questions.
Report this comment
Thomas
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 9:06amBill Nye is a homosexual who has an agenda.
Report this comment
Thomas
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 9:16amThe bible doesn’t say the earth is 6000 or 10000 yrs old but only theology does that. Actually the bible doesn’t go into detail but hints that the world is much older. Adam was told to replenish and repopulate the earth and not just populate it. The bible is not a world history book but is an Adamic book and is focused mostly on the sons of God ( Adam’s sons) being mixed with the other human like creatures in Genesis 6 through the daughter of the Adameem (People from the Earth (Adamah in hebrew).
Report this comment
dimitrisokolov
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 11:39amIf you believe in creation, then you are just an idiot and you are what is wrong with the GOP. You can be conservative without believing in nonsense and superstition.
Report this comment
JupiterBruce
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 1:09pmHey, Nye, the name of the book is, “THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION” Even Darwin had his doubts, the human eye and a peacocks feather. Smarting up, Dummy!
Jupiter Bruce
Report this comment
Jaycen
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 5:34pmIf the evidence is “astonishing and overwhelming”, why doesn’t he just rip out some examples?
If all of this is true, why is it a “theory” and not a “law”?
Still waiting….
Report this comment
Jaycen
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 5:41pm@VoteBushIn12
No doubt, my post will be lost in the mass….but you’re wrong when you state that “you see evolution when you notice your children have the same color eyes as you”….that’s flately not correct.
You see genetics when you notice your children have the same color eyes as you. Genetics is a very simple science that’s been around for a long time and is well proven and proveable. Test fruit flies or beans. You’ll understand it very quickly.
What genetics teaches you is that mutation (the primary driver for “evolution”) always results in a bad trait. Mutation is bad. It never results in a new, better version of the old species. It always results in a version of the old species that will probably not live to pass on its genes to future versions.
Genetics is NOT the same thing as evolution. For shame.
Report this comment
acidovorax
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 7:10pmGINGERCAKE wrote: “Even Darwin himself, later in life, said that the human eye could not have come into being except all at once. Nothing would have happened gradually. Period.”
This is either ignorance of Darwin’s writings (most probable) or outright dishonesty.
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (Darwin 1872) Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143
Report this comment
MrBoneHead
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 8:25pmBill Nye the Stupid guy! He needs some serious praying for!
Report this comment
Ovrwatch74
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 9:38pmWhy is it that there are so many people out there that have no problem believing that there is an invisible person up in the sky that has created and controls everything that goes on in our world, and evolution is not an option? The fact that some people say evolution couldn’t have happened because it’s not possible to create something from nothing. If that was the case how is it possible that god created the earth from nothing. This is mainly a resonate to the person who said that if scientist can’t see it touch it or feel it comment.
Report this comment
Puddle Duck
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 9:57pmI wonder if Nye is going to eat some crow after reading the recent release of a study by the UK that says that there has been zero global warming since 1997…I guess the “scientists” that support the hoax will ignore this report as well…..
Report this comment
VoteBushIn12
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 11:04pm@APOLOGIES0
The Bible is not a science book, yet here you are justifying its accuracy. Ready for this,
I assert:
The Bible must be infallible in order for religion to have any merit. If it is wrong about anything, then we can draw into question its validity on everything.
Claim:
If the Bible says the newly created earth was dark and God hovered above its water and created light (IE: the earth and its water was around before there was any light to shine upon it) then it must be so, for were it not so then the Bible would be wrong.
Counter Argument:
However, science knows WITHOUT A DOUBT that light came before physical matter. And, beyond that even, that Stars (physical matter that emits light) came before earth. Earth was NEVER in complete shadow. I say “without a doubt” because this was proven in labs and at Cern and can be validated, at least in part, by anyone with a Microscope and 101 level Cosmology lesson. This evidence is testable, repeatable, and verifiable in every sense of the word.
Reiteration:
We know, without doubt, that following the Big Bang there was no matter, but there was light. This counters what the Bible says.
Conclusion:
Thus, the Bible is wrong on that account. It is no longer infallible, and should be treated as such.
A caveman’s perception of the world is as useful today as the tools he used.
Report this comment
VoteBushIn12
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 11:09pm@APOLOGIES0
And per your argument about “thick clouds”, the earth was with form long before it had an atmosphere.
And, to put another nail in the coffin, the Earth had light upon it long before it ever had water. Much of Earth’s water was delivered to it via collisions with commits which collided unabated by the lack of atmosphere.
So please. Stop trying to see the early earth from today’s perspective. You’d be surprised how different a place it really was. And stop trying to justify the claims in Genesis. It’s a losing battle.
Report this comment
Chatikh
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 11:55pm@JAYCEN
“If the evidence is “astonishing and overwhelming”, why doesn’t he just rip out some examples?
If all of this is true, why is it a “theory” and not a “law”?
Still waiting….”
His job isn’t to be your biology teacher, and since if you don’t know about any of the overwhelming evidence you obviously didn’t listen to your high school biology teacher. Want this “astonishing and overwhelming” evidence? Read a science book, look online (only places with real science, I’ve seen several anti-evolution pages with absolutely horrid science, including saying two skulls belonged to the same species despite having completely different sets of teeth, which are identical across each species)
Not only that, but laws and theories in science are not what you think they are. Laws are principles that cannot be broken, at least in physics. There are biological laws but because biological systems aren’t uniform like physical systems are, there are generally a few exceptions to some laws. They do apply to the vast majority of biological systems though.
Theories are sets of ideas used to explain natural phenomenon. They are more similar to models then they are to laws or hypotheses. They always require a great deal of evidence to support them in order to be an established scientific theory. They are required to be able to stand up against intense scientific scrutiny. Evolutionary theory fits all of these descriptions.
Report this comment
Chatikh
Posted on October 16, 2012 at 12:05am@JAYCEN
“What genetics teaches you is that mutation (the primary driver for “evolution”) always results in a bad trait. Mutation is bad. It never results in a new, better version of the old species. It always results in a version of the old species that will probably not live to pass on its genes to future versions.”
Your first sentence is right. Everything else is wrong. If you can be unbiased, look up the “E. coli long-term experiment”. In an experiment involving propagating 12 independant strains that originated with a single genetically identical populations, one exceptional strain was shown to evolve a completely novel and uncertainly beneficial trait through mutation. Until this experiment, E. coli as a species was described, among other things, with the inability to absorb citrate as an energy source in oxygen environments. In this experiment, after several generations, one population was able to use the citrate in the growth medium, allowing them to have a much higher bacterial population than all the other strains on the same growth medium (definition of a beneficial trait). Since they kept specimens at regular generational intervals, they were able to prove that it arose by serial mutations, which the bacteria were able to survive with quite well until they produced the new phenotype. So all your statements are definitively proven false in one experiment. They were already considered false decades before.
Report this comment
Chatikh
Posted on October 16, 2012 at 12:19am@OBAMAFORWARD_OVERTHECLIFF
“As noted already, textbooks assessed in this review show little overall improvement since Wells’s review in 2000. The one icon that showed nontrivial improvement was Haeckel’s embryos. This is largely because many textbooks no longer use drawings of embryos, and instead use photographs. The improvement most likely stems from increased public awareness — resulting from Dr. Wells’s 2000 review and subsequent publicity — about inaccuracies in embryo drawings. Yet the average grade for textbook treatment of Haeckel’s embryos remains a D, since most textbooks still overstate vertebrate embryo similarities. In fact, there are still textbooks in use, including one published in 2010 textbook and another in 2011, that include embryo diagrams directly adapted from Haeckel’s inaccurate drawings.”
So even the people who made the study contradict you, they say modern biology books use those drawings. I do not even think they used them before as real science. I’ve never seen those drawings until non-scientists said that they were still being used. Like they say, modern books have high def photos, they don’t use drawn pictures. The rest of the same study is inherently flawed, since they criticize textbooks for using actual supporting evolutionary support. Which is like criticizing a Christian book for quoting the bible.
Report this comment
NukeHaze
Posted on October 16, 2012 at 1:29amUsed to think Nye was trying to be a Carl Sagan for kids. Turns out he has no brain because he has never seen it. Can’t believe I used to think he may have been intelligent. Being intelligent is not necessarily being wise. I bet he believes that the missing link is a professional wrestler, too. Not the missing piece to prove Darwin’s theory of (THEORY, not LAW) evolution. Why can these idiots like he and Dawkins not understand that iintelligent design admits that God is the ultimate scientist. These loons make Narcissus look like an amateur with their way and only theirs is right and their can be no being smarter or more powerful in the universe than human. The arrogance3 alone is enough to prove to me that we could not have evolved from the same pool of muck thereby disproving the theory of evolution. No way could this much conservatism and intelligence be in the same pool with that much stupidity and narcissism.
Report this comment
VoteBushIn12
Posted on October 16, 2012 at 9:21pm@NUKEHAZE
In reply to your “Evolution is a THEORY” remark. (Believe me, you’re not the first fool to think that up)
“Gravity is a theory. It is also a fact. Anyone who disagrees is invited to jump out a tenth story window.” – Dr. Richard Dawkins
The term “Theory” in science does not mean the same thing you think it means. Something only becomes a theory if it has not yet been proven WRONG. Which means, because Evolution is a theory nothing has yet to disprove it. Let me say that again… “Because Evolution is a theory, nothing has yet to disprove it”. Please read that again, I don’t want there to be any confusion over this. NOTHING HAS YET TO DISPROVE IT.
So when does theory become Law?
It doesn’t. A Law is something atomic and obvious, a theory is a collection of laws to prove a larger piece.
IE: (X + 1) is greater than X. No matter what value you give to ‘X’, (X + 1) will always be strictly greater
That is a Law.
To ask when a Theory becomes a Law is to ask how many notes a symphony needs to becomes a single note. Or how many bricks a house needs before it becomes a single brick.
(http://thehappyscientist.com/study-unit/when-does-theory-become-law)
The more you know.
Report this comment
apologies0
Posted on October 17, 2012 at 12:13am@VOTEBUSHIN12
I’m sorry your argument are plain wrong and you misunderstood my arguments.
Let me explain again:
1) When I said that the Bible is not a science book, this never implied that its contents are not true. An English literature book has plenty of accurate and truthful information to teach about English literature and is not scientific.
With that said I’ll move on to your claim:
2) Concerning the Big Bang:
I believe that the Bible supports a big bang model of creation. There are several Bible passages that refer to the universe being expanding, which supports the big bang.
Genesis clearly states that the heavens and the earth were created “in the beginning”. The Bible does not say when this happened. There is an unspecified amount of time during the beginning.
“Heaven and earth” means the entire universe (including matter, energy and time, which, btw, the statement implies that everything began at some point, including time. Science confirms this.)
We know that the sun produces light, and so it is clearly understood that the Bible’s first verse explains that it WAS indeed created in the beginning.
MORE
Report this comment
apologies0
Posted on October 17, 2012 at 12:15am@VOTEBUSHIN12:
3) Concerning the darkness: you must pay attention to the frame of reference to understand the darkness mentioned:
The Spirit of God is ON the earth right above the waters, therefore the earth could be seen as dark from the point of view of the surface. It makes no claim as to the sun existing or anything else.
You can argue two points to disprove what I am saying:
a) That the earth did not have water before the continents formed.
b) that when the atmosphere initially formed, it was transparent and that there is no way the light couldn’t have broken through.
Answer to both:
a)Now we know today from science that during the formation of the earth, gases began forming the early atmosphere, which led to the formation of water on the earth; the planet was essentially a water world before the continents ever formed by tectonic activity.
b)On the subject of the atmosphere itself, scientists are not entirely certain on whether earth’s early atmosphere was translucent or transparent. Actually, a recent scientific article published just this year has found that the early earth’s atmosphere was hazy due to methane and other organic materials present before oxygenation occurred.
(See: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n5/abs/ngeo1425.html )
Conclusion:
Based on the scientific findings so far, we cannot say for certain that the atmosphere of early earth was not initially hazy, and it simply CANNOT be concluded that the Biblical account is wrong
Report this comment
NukeHaze
Posted on October 17, 2012 at 4:06amBUSHIN2012:
I am an astrophysicist. You do not want to get into this with someone who would intellectually smack you down.
The THEORY of gravity as you say is actually a LAW. The theory of electricity becomes law when it is applied. Gravity is not how you and your little brain see it when in space where the force of gravity applied from the mass of the Earth upon near Earth objects. In space, and according to some brilliant mathematicians who were also, by the way, religious Christians such as Sir Isaac Newton and even Galileo though his interpretation of the movement of the Galilean moons of Jupiter is what got him inquisited and vanquished to isolation in a tower for stating the Earth was not the center of the universe since he observed moons orbiting Jupiter. Nevertheless, He was no pathetic aethiest Dawkins, DeGrasse (the feeble minded Pluto demoter who insists that a “planetoid does not qualify as a planet despite the accretion disk theory of the formation of the solar system) and Nye who thinks he is Carl Sagan. Even Carl Sagan admitted that there must be a greater intelligence and alluded to this idea in Cosmos and Contact. Einstein said that God the existence of God was the only logical explanation to the existence of the universe. Darwin himself even fell into this belief as his life was drawing to a close claiming that his life’s work was wasted among other things in amazement of so much he, in his narcissism, could not explain. You must listen to Alex Jones
Report this comment
NukeHaze
Posted on October 17, 2012 at 4:33amSTAGE9: you are doing a fine job with your science there and deductions citing what is taught as fact even in physics classes in college. VOTEBUSHIN12 has the capacity and job of a troll so your words are wasted on it though perhaps enlighten others reading that do not post.
VOTEBUSHIN12: the 7000 years is an analogy and comes from the adage that 1000 years is as a blink of an eye to God or a day is as a thousand years…this being an analogy, since people did not live that long, obviously the creation was in 6 steps or phases very much like an architect would coordinate the construction of a major building project. The stages do not have to be equal in length but they did indeed have to, according to the formation of the firmament, fusion in the sun, liquid water forming on the planet, light piercing through and land that separated the waters…all of this would have happened in this sequence. When the Old Testament was written for the beginning as told in third person concerning Moses and those who came before him, they would have had to be pretty good guessers in order to get the sequence of creation of a planet and livable conditions down unless it was given to them as revelation. according to you and your elitist pseudointellectual buddies, they were not smart enough in matters of science to know where they came from. Funny that Ancient Aliens argues against that and even the main quack on that show still believes in God. God is the ultimate scientist, not at odds.
Report this comment
NukeHaze
Posted on October 17, 2012 at 4:35amPicture Bill Nye with a purple suit with a bunch of question marks on it. You will never see him the same way again.
Report this comment
VoteBushIn12
Posted on October 21, 2012 at 2:21pm@APOLOGIES0
The earth was not a “Water world”. Water may account for 70-some odd-% of the exposed surface, but it’s a factional percentage of the earth’s total mass. When earth formed it was essential a giant rock. Most of its water came from meteor collisions (as I said in my previous post). That is the most accepted theory:
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/how-water-got-to-earth
Please cite yours.
@NUKEHAZE
I would LOVE to get into this with you. I’m not going to hide behind my degree to convince you (Masters of Science), I can do that with facts. Please direct me to some of your published papers Mr. Astrophysicist.
1) Sagan did not believe there was any proof to intelligent anything. He thinks the notion of God is a cop-out answer. From his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeVhkXW6BKY
2) You will never hear a scientists refer to Gravity as “Law”. Ever. There is only the theory of Gravity; the currently accepted understanding of what Gravity is. I already explained the difference between a theory and a law, please reread if you have questions.
3) Even if you think the Bible correctly records the length of time from creation to modern day you still have to explain how it got the sequence of events COMPLETELY BACKWARDS. Lets say it does describe the Bing Bang, why does it describe the earth as being dark and covered in water? Light was present long before matter and solid earth before liquid water. Explain.
I am beginning to doubt
Report this comment
Zinra
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:42pmI suppose you people also think the earth is flat. Or that some white guy in the sky snapped his fingers and “poofed” us into existence. Or that cave men are imaginary. Bill Nye isn’t the idiot, creationists and fundamentalist Christians who believe the earth is 5000 years old are the idiots.
Report this comment
PIGSWILLNEVERFLY
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:37pmNotice how he says brain not mind. The brain is just a thing. Show me where the mind is. The brain is nothing with out the mind. The mind is invisible and is consciousness. The mind contains all the unseen …the will, the emotions, the soul, and the personality. The body & brain are the temporary containers for the 5 senses and the consciousness of mind. God, the father, is divine consciousness.
Report this comment
Hiswill
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:48pmWell said! God is in us and we are in Him.
Report this comment
ModerationIsBest
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:34pmActually it’s the other way around.
Report this comment
Mahtoska
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:36pm@PIGSWILLNEVERFLY…. your response is the best I’ve read. Thoughtful, articulate and to the point. Have you had any training in apologetics? This is exactly the kind of succinct answer I’d expect to hear from Frank Turek or William Lane Craig…. Thank you.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:39pmFLYPIGS…..What you point out about scientists not being capable of spirituality, is what makes Science.
The inability of government to rely on truth and honesty in polarized society, is what makes Politics.
Both of these observations have commonality with all the other satanically inspired, humanist, namby pamby, jackwagon garbage we have been getting fed, for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
Report this comment
Curious Visitor
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:25pmExactly, show ME where the mind is if you think it exists. “Mind” is a useful philosophical term to describe the cognitive processes that allow for our inner dialogue, which is something that is evident to all of us. But from a scientific standpoint, what is a mind? We know that the physical geography of the brain reacts in predictable ways when certain stimulus are presented. We know that there is a clear link between impulses within the organic structure of the brain and the intangible thoughts, feelings and emotions that we experience.
We don’t fully understand it yet, which I know causes anxiety for people who prefer the absolute, eternal truths that religion provides, but as with all science we learn more everyday. If we do one day discover that the long held notion of a mind-body duality is false, I would hope religious people would take the time to read the journals and analyze the evidence, but I suspect, as history as shown in the cases of heliocentricity, evolution and the germ theory of disease; religious folks will find a convenient way to look the other way.
Report this comment
layosh
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 6:16pmI would even agree with you to an extens if you could stop there and not invade a territory that is beyond dualism. alas, you forget for some reason, that scientist currently consider the mind to be the software of the brain, and leave the rest of the speculation to soul-poachers. One can get rid of the dualist views easily, by considering the spiritual an epiphenomenon of the matter. Science has a lot of problems, fails often, and has bad, stupid and silly scientist; but it has a little bit of self-criticism built in it, so that it has the potential for self-correction. IF somebody comes up with a method to make soul accessible to experiments, measurements, find a way to destil it from a hapless body, believe me, science will not hasitate too much to change itself. Untill then, scientis must consider it an unproven, and disprovable hypothesis, and therefore not subject of scientific endavour. So you are fighting like Don Quihote, a mirage in your head, not the attitude of the scientist.
Report this comment
WATER-THE-TREE
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 4:02amThe mind come from the spirit that is in man, a spirit that imparts the mind to the brain. Animals do not have this spirit, that is why you cannot explain how the internet works to a squirrel.
But likewise we do not initially have the Spirit of God, and therefore cannot understand the things of God, just like the squirrel cannot understand the things of man.
Man’s problems are spiritual in nature, man can go to the moon and back but cannot love his fellow man as himself.
Report this comment
acidovorax
Posted on October 16, 2012 at 6:42pmWATER THE TREE wrote: “The mind come from the spirit that is in man, a spirit that imparts the mind to the brain.”
Claiming something doesn’t make it true. There is no evidence of a “spirit”, so there is no compelling reason to believe this claim.
Report this comment
christos
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:36pm…The Bible says only a Fool denies there is a +GOD+ ,,,heed the Prophecy Bill Nye.
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:42pmBILLY: Prove evolution and we might believe it, but it makes no difference…GOD CREATED EVERYTHING anyway. IF something EVOLVES then that’s how GOD MADE it.
NONE of you guys have EVER come close to proving that we were designed by a LOVING GOD. NOT even close!!! You didn’t “evolve” any more than the computer you sit at or the chair you sit upon. Someone had to think of it; design it; produce it. It wasn’t just dust rolling around and presto-chango! it became a computer!!
Do you know what the ONLY sin is BILLY NYE? It’s refusing to believe in GOD.
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:53pmMAKE THAT: NEVER COME CLOSE TO PROVING WE WERE NOT (operative word NOT)
(I’m still falling through space with Felix!) Wasn’t that terrific?!
Report this comment
ModerationIsBest
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:25pmAh, here you are Henry.
So much for “Most Christians not having problems with science.”
Again, like the other things I listed.
Have fun rejecting evolution and then coming to accept it and then claiming “Well this just proves how amazing God is.”
It’s a sick joke.
Report this comment
ModerationIsBest
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:30pmHenry, please stop talking about science.
Your statement of, “MAKE THAT: NEVER COME CLOSE TO PROVING WE WERE NOT (operative word NOT)”
shows how ignorant you are of anything scientific.
Your claim is the antithesis of science and inquiry.
I’d hate to see you as a scientist or have you as a prosecuting attorney on a major case.
I can just see it now.
You present your weak case to the jury and when they aren’t buying your nonsense you shout, “Has the defendant ever proven that he DIDN’T do it?!??!”
If you’re going to make a claim that we ARE created by a God, you have to have PROOF. You have zero, which is why they call what you do “faith.”
Report this comment
LIBERALSAREMORONS
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:45pm“A 2 million year old fossil of a cockroach looks exactly like the cockroach’s in his house today.”
- Completely false. There are always differences in fossils than modern equivalents. They can be small or drastic. You can show evolution to someone in a lab using something as simple as a butterfly or moth. It’s a provable science.
I see no reason at all that God couldn’t have created evolution. Evolution and religion are not at odds with each-other. Only human arrogance leads people this think they know Gods plan better than he does.
Report this comment
LeaveMeBe
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:30pm@ModerationIsBest If you’re going to make the argument that we aren’t created by God, you have to have proof. You can use science to attack any religious explanation for existence but you have neither disproved God’s existence nor his role in creation. The theory of evolution seeks to take a whole bunch of human discoveries, like viewing of the blood cells, bacteria, deciphering genetics… on and on, and combine them into a theory of the progression of life from the beginning. You can opine all you want but it doesn’t help you because you can’t disprove God, scientifically or mathematically. Creationism is just another theory and people have as much faith in it as you do evolution. You’re also hypocrite, like most creationists.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 5:07pmHey PATTY & MODERATION…
Neither of you can prove there is or isn’t a God…
Why does it matter to either of you if the other believes the opposite?…
It’s like arguing about whether or not Pulp Fiction was a good or bad movie….
or whether or not the RedSox will be good… next year.
Mushrooms taste like crap…. i dare you to prove otherwise.
Report this comment
Capt_Gregg
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 6:09pm@LLIBERALSAREMORONS
“Only human arrogance leads people this think they know Gods plan better than he does.”
WE HAVE A WINNER!
Few people, other than liberals, irk me more than those who constantly proclaim “God wants _____” or “God’s plan is _______”, etc. God does not have an 800 number that allows one to call to see what’s on his mind. (I guess one could cite prayer, but that’s a one-way conversation.) No matter what one BELIEVES, no mortal KNOWS the unknowable.
Report this comment
PIGSWILLNEVERFLY
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 7:18pm@MAHTOSKA – I don’t know who Frank Turek or Wm Lane Craig would be, but I’ll look them up and see. When ever I hear evolution I cringe. Since I was a very small child I have had an adoration for the Spirit of life, I don’t know what else to call it. The words above came partly from some lessons I learned from an Oklahoma Rancher, Les Feldick and I just put together what I believe animates our being. It’s all invisible, eternal, energy that is divinely inspired by a mind we cannot comprehend. This body is a temporary shell and so is the brain the shell for the mind. Pray for Peace, Bless U
Report this comment
ModerationIsBest
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 7:44pm@LEAVEMEBE
It is the religious who say they KNOW that we are created by a God.
As an Atheist, I am saying that I am not swayed by your non evidence.
You have yet to give ANY proof that we are created by a supernatural being, therefore I can say that based on the lack of evidence, I have no reason to think we are created by a supernatural being.
Report this comment
ModerationIsBest
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 7:45pm@EASTINFECTION
Patty claims that he KNOWS there is a God.
I say that I don’t know that there isn’t a God, but I have yet to see any evidence that there is one.
I have no problem with people being religious, it’s when the religious try to impose their nonsense on others, and want their junk science taught in school as legitimate science.
Report this comment
LeaveMeBe
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 10:55pm@ModerationIsBest
It‘s the atheists that say they KNOW that we weren’t created by God, and then offer up their own bunk science, “Theory of Evolution”, which is the ONLY EXPLANATION I WAS TAUGHT IN SCHOOL. Talk about forcing crap down peoples throat. This belief and faith in that belief guides an atheists political and moral compasses, just like a theists beliefs guide theirs. You too lack fundamental evidence that he does and you expect for someone else to have it when you don‘t and they don’t agree with you. Facts stand alone, they don’t support or diminish an argument. Evidence is the key linking fact to fact, without it we have only speculation to rely on, or as George Washington would say, “the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion”, which is all science really is. So my question to you is where is your evidence that he is wrong? Just because he has none doesn‘t make you right and just because you have none doesn’t make me right. Don’t come to me with facts and a theory trying to link them either.
Report this comment
ModerationIsBest
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 11:23pm@LEAVEMEBE
Okay now I just think you’re trolling.
Look at Harris, Dawkins and other prominent Atheists. They all say that they can’t “prove” there is no God, but they think it’s highly unlikely due to lack of evidence.
Look at me on here. I always clarify that I can’t prove there is no God, but I don’t think there is.
It’s religion that says they know there is a God, and what’s worse is that they don’t even have to prove it.
The reason creationism isn’t taught in school is because it isn’t science. Creationism, is as what someone from the crazy human/dinosaur exhibit said , “when an experiment, on the surface, seems to counter the word of God, we go with the word of God.” That isn’t science.
Being taught facts isn’t indoctrination. Having the way you view world debunked isn’t indoctrination.
Indoctrination is forcing a child to go to church. Indoctrination is teaching a child at a very young age that one book has supernatural powers. Indoctrination is forcing a 2 year old to pray at night.
Are you saying that evolution has no evidence? Are you really that dense?
There is a reason why they call religion “faith” and there is a reason why they call it “science.”
Science actually cares if it gets stuff right.
If it gets something wrong, it will change it
Scientists don’ claim to have things “revealed” to them
Scientific answers are potentially falsifiable.
Religion does none of these.
Report this comment
LeaveMeBe
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 11:59pm@ModerationIsBest
Caught me trolling, ha, what are you doing different to not be considered a “troll”?
There you go again putting up a religion as a straw man attack, as if I came at you quoting scripture or asking if you had found Jesus. I am asking if you have proven with solid evidence: Jesus was or wasn’t real; God does or doesn’t exist; Can you prove for a FACT Jesus didn’t rise to heaven like it says. Do you have solid evidence that the Bible isn’t supernatural? HA, NO! Nor do I have evidence that it is! You base all of what you spew about around a single difference that FACT/REALITY has with religion and that is the age of the earth. You can offer up no more evidence than that.
Don’t take me for a deeply “religious” person I just can’t stand atheists self righteousness lately.
Being taught genetics is one thing but to teach that we evolved without any evidence, is another. There is no evidence for evolution, no. Peer reviewed theory, mixed with a bunch of statistical data that means nothing when it comes down to the question: How can there be so much perfection in the human world in what should be, statistically speaking, based on science, a lava oozing melting pot or gas wrapped wasteland. You concentrate on one thing where as I tend to look at several.
Keep talking you keep proving my point. Science is now a religion.
Report this comment
ModerationIsBest
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 12:41am@LEAVEMEBE
“How can there be so much perfection in the human world in what should be, statistically speaking, based on science, a lava oozing melting pot or gas wrapped wasteland. ”
Well if this isn’t one of the most stupidest questions/statements ever uttered.
Perfection? Where?
It was almost as idiotic as when Dinesh said something about the universe being “fine tuned for life.”
What universe is Dinesh talking about?
What perfection in the “human life” are you talking about?
Your continued utterance of “Can you prove the Bible isn’t true” shows your ignorance.
Again, religion makes the claim that there is a God, and that the Jesus died and rose from the dead and all this other nonsense.
My stance is, “I think your evidence is idiotic, therefore I’m not accepting your argument that a God exists.”
As I said above.
Imagine you’re the prosecuting attorney in a murder trial. You tell the jury(me) your evidence, and you get a notion that I think your evidence is lacking. Does it then make sense for you to say, “Well the defendant hasn’t proven that he didn’t commit murder!”
No, it is up to you, the person who is making the claim, to prove your case. Unfortunately, as you even said above, “Nor do I have evidence that it is!”
I can’t imagine a prosecuting attorney saying, “I’m going to prove the defendant committed murder…….without evidence!”
I have tons of reasons to think that your lack of evidence proves t
Report this comment
LeaveMeBe
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 1:03am@ModerationIsBest
Why are you going all Matlock on me? Besides, this case brought nothing but speculation and character assassinations from both arguing sides. So truly the case is dismissed with the lack of evidence from either side, you not being the jury, idiot. I like how you dismissed my question so poetically as you have already calculated the odds of life even existing at all. This is what “educated” does, it dismisses that which it didn’t purchase from the properly accredited location.
Why would you even mention Dinesh, who the heck is that? I’m guessing another epic straw man FAIL.
MY stance is, “I think your evidence is idiotic, therefore I’m not accepting your argument that a God DOESN’T EXIST.”
That whole bit about the trial was ridiculous and unnecessary to the discussion. It had no input or even slight…. SIGH! …. WOW!
Report this comment
BrianSTC
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 8:24am@ModerationIsBest
There is no “evidence” for evolution. It is a THEORY. A theory that has a lot of inconsistencies. So how do you justify claiming that there is no God because of “no evidence” yet blindly accept evolution where there is the same lack of evidence.
Report this comment
themachinist239
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 11:04am@BRIANSTC, “There is no “evidence” for evolution. It is a THEORY.”
How long are ignorant creationists going to proudly display their lack of understanding of the scientific method? It’s like you think broadcasting your misconception doubles as an intelligent statement. Think evolution is just a theory? Then is cell theory and germ theory dismissable as well? Must we suspend the world’s use of modern medicine until we reevaluate its assertions?
To dismiss evolution as having “no evidence” implies that you’re pretty well read in the science behind evolution. In fact, you’re so well read that you offer an alternative explanation, disproving the theory of evolution…except you’re in reality. In reality, you offer no counter-evidence to evolution’s assertions. Evolution takes the humanoid stages left by our fossil record and tracks their small changes. Changes that are scientifically proven to have occurred as a process of natural selection. When you look at Australopithecus, an extinct hominid, you see that it was the first of it’s ancestors to develop bipedalism, or the ability to walk upright. This was about 4 million years ago. We have irrefutable evidence of this. There may be debate as to the exact time frame, but it’s clear that Australopithecus was one of many of our traceable ancestors, then died out. Do you creationists even understand how evolution works? Do you have a better explanation of this evolutionary change that utilizes the scientific me
Report this comment
LeaveMeBe
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 1:45pm@themachinist239
Typical, a group of people happen to have a different opinion on the Theory of Evolution and you throw in germ and cell theories like they have anything to do with evolution or being against evolution automatically puts you at odds with the two. You’re trying to make someone else seem ignorant by putting words in their mouth. It may help satisfy your beliefs in evolution but it doesn’t help your argument. Australopithecus existed, this we know as fact. Now where is the evidence that we evolved from Australopithecus or any of its ancestors. You too offer no counter evidence, just facts and theory trying to connect them. Do you understand how the Scientific Method works? Are you sure? It’s like you think broadcasting your misconception doubles as an intelligent statement.
Report this comment
acidovorax
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 7:02pmLEAVEMEBE wrote: “I am asking if you have proven with solid evidence: Jesus was or wasn’t real; God does or doesn’t exist; Can you prove for a FACT Jesus didn’t rise to heaven like it says. Do you have solid evidence that the Bible isn’t supernatural? HA, NO! Nor do I have evidence that it is!”
Your questions show your deficiency in logical thinking. For a proposition to be accepted it must be logically justified, not simply proposed. By your argument, the Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Thor and leprechauns are all justified concepts to accept as being real entities, since no one can POSITIVELY prove they don’t exist. But since NO EVIDENCE exists that justifies the accepting of these concepts as being real entities, we understand them to be myths.
Those who make the propositions that you state have the onus of evidence to support their claims or else others have no justification to accept their claims as true. There is NO responsibility for others to provide proof that your propositions are false, as you provide NOTHING to verify.
Report this comment
LeaveMeBe
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 9:02pm@acidovorax
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Thor and leprechauns can be traced through human literary history and proven to be false with evidence, much like proving Sherlock Holmes never existed. Your statements show your deficiency in logical thinking. I hate to keep beating this dead horse but these straw man style comments don’t fly with me and they don’t prove your intelligence. Thor on the other hand is a two faced coin and I can’t tell which side of it you’re using, super-hero or mythology.
“Those who make the propositions that you state have the onus of evidence to support their claims or else others have no justification to accept their claims as true. There is NO responsibility for others to provide proof that your propositions are false, as you provide NOTHING to verify.” <— This statement is the box you can't seem to think out of and just a more eloquent way of wording what others have already said here. I have as much evidence as evolutionists have and yet they get the waiver because of peer review.
Report this comment
Chatikh
Posted on October 16, 2012 at 12:28amProve him a fool. Show him using evidence that evolution is wrong. If you know for sure that evolution is wrong, prove it. If you can’t even do that, just show him saying something actually stupid. Until then, his far better comprehension of evolution and science in general is showing you to be the fool.
Report this comment
Chatikh
Posted on October 16, 2012 at 12:39am@PATTY_HENRY
“BILLY: Prove evolution and we might believe it, but it makes no difference…GOD CREATED EVERYTHING anyway. IF something EVOLVES then that’s how GOD MADE it.
NONE of you guys have EVER come close to proving that we were designed by a LOVING GOD. NOT even close!!! You didn’t “evolve” any more than the computer you sit at or the chair you sit upon. Someone had to think of it; design it; produce it. It wasn’t just dust rolling around and presto-chango! it became a computer!!
Do you know what the ONLY sin is BILLY NYE? It’s refusing to believe in GOD.”
Evolution is proven. The only possible explanations for the evidence are that evolution in all species occurred, or that a deity decided to create life as it is, but decided to make it LOOK like it was evolved to trick intelligent people. God could have created life anyway he wanted, but arbitrarily wanted to create fossils showing transitional fossils between different groups of life (my favorite are the raptor -> birds fossils). He arbitrarily created evidence showing that forms of life considered similar according to anatomical evidence are also considered similar by genetic, physiological, ecological evidence. He arbitrarily distributed life to make it look like there were past supercontinents: Nothofagus is a genus of trees that is distributed in the southern tip of South America, Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, New Guinea, and fossils of species in Antarctica.
Report this comment
ModerationIsBest
Posted on October 16, 2012 at 12:58am@LEAVEMEBE
If you don’t understand my trial analogy then there is nothing else I can do for you.
It is clear that an atheists position is that there isn’t sufficient evidence that a God exists and that it is illogical that the person making the claim(the prosecuting attorney) to then make the defendant PROVE they didn’t commit the crime. Again, I am NOT the defendant saying there is no God. I am the jury saying weighing your evidence.
Secondly, a case can’t be dismissed because of lack of evidence on the defendants side. It is up to the prosecuting attorney to prove their case and they can only dismiss the case because of lack of evidence.
Again, if you can’t understand a simple analogy then there’s no point in proceeding.
I also answered your question, in the form of the question.
You asked about the “perfection” of “the human life” and I asked “What perfection do you speak of?”
That’s such an odd question that I don’t even begin to know how to answer it.
What perfection do you speak of?
You mean how it looks like every other planet can’t sustain life?
How this planet that can sustain life, in a lot of places is usually too hot or too cold to sustain life comfortably?
You mean how we have naturally occurring blind spots with our vision?
You mean how we eat, drink and breathe all out of the same location, which invariably leads to people dying by choking to death?
Seriously, what perfection do you speak of?
Report this comment
LeaveMeBe
Posted on October 16, 2012 at 12:16pm@ModerationIsBest
Your trial analogy was an effort to control the conversation and distance yourself from your own statements, it was just as useless then as it is now.
Perfection:
What kind of life would exist on Earth if? its rotation on its own axis was faster or slower; its rotation around the sun was faster or slower; its tilt was more or less; its physical location was closer or further from the sun ? Take Jupiter out of the equation all together and ask yourself what kind of life would exist on earth?
Why does life procreate when procreation typically goes against self preservation? A flower and fruit tree blooms to attract bees and fruit bats, going against that which would preserve itself for the preservation of life as a whole, is this not perfection?
You choose to follow Bill Nye blindly with no evidence to prove him right or wrong and mock others because they follow, let’s say Joel Osteen, with no evidence to prove him right or wrong. This is the hypocrisy I was trying to point out.
I’m out of free time on my hands and about to go back to work so this is my last comment in this thread but I will circle back and catch any replies, never stop questioning anything no matter how logically justified it might be.
Report this comment
acidovorax
Posted on October 16, 2012 at 6:38pmLEAVEMEBE wrote: “I’m out of free time on my hands and about to go back to work so this is my last comment in this thread but I will circle back and catch any replies, never stop questioning anything no matter how logically justified it might be.”
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Here we see the utter nonsense of those who can’t reason. You argue universal skepticism, which is the realm of children…”Nuh uh, no it’s not, prove it, why, why, no it’s not” ad nauseum. Of course, you actually DON’T believe this as demonstrated by your defense of religious tenets (while trying to act impartial and objective) and the fact that NO person can live life holding nothing as true.
Report this comment
acidovorax
Posted on October 16, 2012 at 6:54pmLEAVEMEBE wrote: “Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Thor and leprechauns can be traced through human literary history and proven to be false with evidence, much like proving Sherlock Holmes never existed.”
Yet, “Yahweh” is only known through human literary history, so the same method holds for the God of Abraham.
“Thor on the other hand is a two faced coin and I can’t tell which side of it you’re using, super-hero or mythology. ”
Wow! And how are you on the fence with this? Which one is a “real entity” as I stated earlier? Which one existed?
“This statement is the box you can’t seem to think out of and just a more eloquent way of wording what others have already said here. I have as much evidence as evolutionists have and yet they get the waiver because of peer review”
We will all be waiting for you to show us.
Report this comment
TJexcite
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:35pmScientist Bill Nye Hammers Anti-Evolution Muslims; Nothing is said as he is called an Islamphobes. So he shuts up so they do not burn him in effigy and put a death fatwa on his head to please their god Allah.
And goes back to attack the easy target of Christianity.
Report this comment
christos
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:34pm…Wrong Bill Nye +JESUS+GOD+ Created every molecule there is only One Uncreated +JESUS+GOD+ why can’t you create a living cell that is not cloned,a original living cell Answer – You are not +JESUS+GOD+ you are created by +JESUS+GOD+ how much tax $$$ has been given to you that needs to be given back to the tax payers/tax reparations Build your own business & get your money grubbing imagination out of taxpayers wallets.
Report this comment
Ilikepeople
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:46pmThere is Atheists who do not care about you having your own belief in God, and then there are Atheists who want to do away with God. Yet, neither of them are the real threat, because they do not cloak themselves. The real threats are the ones who believe in God, and yet their actions they work on other people turn people away from God. Case in point, you won’t hear me call another man father.
Report this comment
Ilikepeople
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:48pmAn Atheist chases people to God, and not away from God, as much as an Obama Presidency has chased people to the Republican Party.
Report this comment
Ilikepeople
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:52pmLike I said, Atheists are the Rock the gates of hell won’t prevail against, because Atheists chase people back to God.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 5:13pmHey Christos…
forgive me for the chuckle at your expense but i was just laughing to myself as i realized what the whole “+JESUS+GOD+” thing you use means…
you’re (i think) using the plus sign(+) as a cross. that’s clever! i always thought you were writing in “google-search” language… Oy Vey.
Report this comment
txannie
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:28pmIf this is the best use of his brain then he has been short-changed. Science and God are at odds only in the mind of the small-minded.
Report this comment
KingCanon
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:27pmBill… Place an unassembled wristwatch in a can
for as long as you wish. Let me know when it
assembles itself keeping accurate time. I’ll wait!
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:46pmThat’s great KingCanon! another one I like is from RAY COMFORT … I’ll have to paraphrase, but it’s tell me how many grains of sand there are on Malibu Beach or tell me how many hairs on the head of a spider monkey… you can’t?? Why is that?? Oh! Because YOU don’t know everything?? right. That’s why you don’t know about God, probably.
The Good News is that with GOD, all you have to do is ask and very soon, if not immediately, the answer will be given to you. Try it. You’ll like it!! ;)
Report this comment
wvernon1981
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:12pmKingcan, that’s not the way evolution works.
Report this comment
Curious Visitor
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:13pmActually if you place the components of working wristwatch inside of a can, closed it, and shook it (to provide the energy needed for the combination of pieces) for an infinite amount of time, it will eventually assemble itself into a working watch. Not understanding the scale of time in question when we talk about things like evolution or the origins of the universe is one of the most widespread causes of the misunderstandings people have towards those theories.
I cringe whenever I hear somebody say “I ain’t never seen a monkey turn into a human being”. That’s simply not how it works and if you think that is what scientists are proposing than you have quite a bit of reading to do before you can enter the conversation with any reasonable deftness.
Report this comment
13th Imam
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 5:02pmYou dopes could shake that can for a million years, and NO WATCH would ever be assembled. You are what Rush calls the Moron vote
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 5:23pmIf you put a perfectly good watch in a can and shook it for a million years i bet it would “evolve” into several little pieces.
Report this comment
Curious Visitor
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 5:29pmYou’re probably right, a million years would most likely not be enough because what we would be looking for would be an astonishingly rare outcome. So if I had to wager I would go much, much, much further than “millions” of year. Luckily that’s why we use infinite time for these thought experiments.
But strictly speaking it could assemble itself on the first shake right. Now we’re talking about probability in terms our mind can’t even fathom, but it is still a number greater then zero. When you say that it is not, that the probability is zero, do you mean it? And if you believe the number to be zero, I’ll ask this: if given a galactically sized jar, with 1×10^1000000 balls in it, numbered from 1 through 1×10^1000000, and you are given one chance to stick your giant hand in and pull out a ball, what is the chance you select only the number 25? Is it zero?
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 6:27pm@CURIOUS…
i’m with you on this one….
It’s kinda like the statistical % of blacks voting for Romney= Zero(0)…. when we all know at least ONE African-American will vote for him….
It’s the million monkeys at a type-writer eventually typing Shakespeare thing…. uh,oh.. is someone gonna say i’m racist now? :(
Report this comment
13th Imam
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 6:38pmThen why don’t you take apart your Timex, start shaking and get back to us, in two million years. And take hold of your balls with the other hand. Saul Alinsky wouldn’t even take you seriously.
Report this comment
wvernon1981
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 7:43pmMost of you seem astonishingly ignorant of probability theory. There isn’t a guarantee that the watch will put itself together given an infinite amount of time but there is an increasingly large chance that it will.
Report this comment
SoNick
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 10:59am@PattyHenry
If you are going to make a point, please refrain from using charlatans like Ray (the shape of the banana proves the existence of God) Comfort as a reference. If you asked me how many grains of sand there are in Malibu, I wouldn’t be able to answer. But using the scientific method, I could observe one cubic foot of that beach, develop a model to predict, within a certain margin of error, how many grains of sand there are in total. If I was to actually count the grains of sand one by one I would probably end up within the margin of error. So we CAN count grains of sand. Or stars. Or the likelihood of finding certain fossils in certain strata, which we do all the time.
Report this comment
Mike Benton
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:19pmTo me it makes sense that god started evolution and He will keep it going until we get to a point that we totally understand the whole universe. At that point who knows…
Report this comment
The_Bell
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:17pmBill Nye the politicizing hack guy.
=======================================================
“It was discovered and the evidence for it is astonishing, it’s overwhelming.”
=======================================================
Uh, no… not even close.
Report this comment
Zipit
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:30pmYeah! But he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!!!!
Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:35pm@THE_BELL
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:17pm
Bill Nye the politicizing hack guy.
____________________________
Thats a good one.
Or how about —
Bill Nye the “your ancestors were earthworms” guy
Report this comment
DEMOCRATS.ARE.EVIL
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:38pmGadzooks! I do believe odd Mr. Nye may be the missing link they’ve been looking for. Finally…they have proof. Liberals, rejoice!
Report this comment
Ilikepeople
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:16pmIt’s going to be an interesting future, and most people will not even come close to having the ability of contemplating what took place.
Report this comment
OBAMANATIONOFDESOLATION
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:16pmFirst, if you believe in evolution, you are a racist. Because you believe that we evolve, that some races have evolved further than others and are therefore superior.
This is in contrast to creationist theory that all are created in His image and are equal.
Second, They cannot explain and therefore avoid numerous examples of irreducible complexity.
Examples would be the blood clotting mechanism, the tongue of the green winged european woodpecker, the chemistry of the bombardier beetle, life cycle of the rabbit liver fluke, the multi-year multi-generation migration of the monarch butterfly, etc…
Report this comment
layosh
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 6:25pmI think evolution tells as that we can be different and nothing else. Evolution claims that we adopt to the environment in which we function.And yes, there are people who are more adapted to live in one environment than in other. That can even be true between groups of people, groups of different races. BUT! Racism is to treat an individual differntly jsut becouse can be sorted into a group, instead of looking at the person as an individual and judging him or her by his or her own merits, judging by looking at his color of skin instead of his or her charater, morals and humanity. It has nothing to do with evolution.
Report this comment
Fred Noonan
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 11:05pmYes- The bombardier beetles would keep burning themselves up when it “evolved” to that point of its combustion chamber formation thereby eliminating the entire species to extinction. They wouldn’t exist. Just another failed fossil.
Report this comment
Reality_Bites_You_on_the_Ass
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 6:44amEvolution is not racist. Nothing in it claims to elevate one human over another. There is only one species of human on earth. Previous variations died off. All of the examples you cite can be explained with natural selection and mutation. Creatures that devolved clotting blood have a survival advantage over those that bleed to death. That is obvious.
When a bombardier beetle is threatened by a predator it swings its tail end around, and hot, noxious fluid heated to 100 °C (212 °F) is explosively released from twin combustion tubes into the face of the enemy. Various quinones are commonly produced by cells in the skin of insects to harden their skin into a cuticle. Many insects secrete quinones because they taste bad to predators. Where there are indentations in the cuticle, these vary to form little sacs that store the deterrent quinone. Where predators develop resistance to this chemical, other related chemicals such as hydroquinone develop, and in many beetles, specialized cells secrete hydroquinone from glands connected by ducts to a reservoir sac, which can be closed off by muscles to stop leakage. In some cases, hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of the metabolism of cells, is mixed in with the hydroquinone. That chemical reaction produces heat and pressure, which pushes out the discharge when the insect is attacked. Muscles stopping leakage ensure the discharge is pushed out and squirt the deterrent chemicals at an attacker. Simple, really.
Report this comment
HKS
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:15pmNow that I gotcha here, how come only some of the monkies evolved? After all we still have monkies, right.
Report this comment
smokeysmoke
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:24pmbut dident joe biden say that republicans want to put black people back into chains…. BILL… DONT STUPID PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO STATE THEIR POINT OF VIEW… thanks for saying that all republcians dont believe that the earth is 4 billion years old… that we cannot look at geology and the under ocean basalt and look at the MAGNATIC NORTH to date how old the earth is… HOW DARE YOU BILL NYE TRY TO SAY THAT BECUASE 1 PERSON SAYS SOMETHING YOU DISAGREE WITH… YOU CAN PRESENT A TOTALLY BIGGOTED OPINION ABOUT A WHOLE GROUP YOU DISAGREE WITH…. bill nye is more interested in creating a public image about conservatives, that he is about EDUCATING PEOOPLE ABOUT TRUTH AND FACTS… BILL NYE YOU ARE JUST ONE MORE SCHILL WORKING FOR THE COMMUNIST OBAMA TO TRY AND MAKE THOSE WHO ARE NOT OBAMA COMMUNISTS SEEM WEIRD… but bill,….. YOU ARE THE RACIST.. you are the biggot, YOU ARE THE PERSON THAT EVERYONE THINKS IS A MORON..
Report this comment
Curious Visitor
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 5:09pmSome of the monkeys evolved because some of the monkeys adapted well to the their environment while other did not. And to address a very common misconception, human being did not evolve from the apes that we still see today. We share a common ancestor with our closest genetic cousin, the chimpanzee; but that species is no longer around due to the superior adaptation of both human and chimp progenitors.
Report this comment
HKS
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 9:04pmNow , I just who could have made those monkeys?
Report this comment
momrules
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:13pmGod is the Creator of everything but I do believe He allowed animals to evolve to their environment wherever that may be.
Human beings on the other hand seem to be devolving instead of evolving. While our technological advances increase our moral behavior has deteriorated to the point that animals have more integrity and honor than most of us do.
Report this comment
Ilikepeople
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:20pmGod took the spirit of Man and tossed it into the earth. Jesus showed us that when he spit in the soil, then pushed it into the blind man’s eyes of eyes. Haha, there’s another planet with beings on it. Go take a walk science, you have no power.
Report this comment
GBTVFan_Non_American_Overseas
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:15pmMomRules,
I agree with you. I believe in an evolution exclusively guided by God on His creation. I think the word that suits better for me is “adaptation” of some species to their environment. I mean, without God’s hand is impossible that some bug discovers that he can create some kind of poison to kill his predators. That kind of evolution doesn’t exist. Look at the liberals, after 200 years they involve, not evolve (Sorry, I can’t resist).
If someone doesn’t believe The Earth is so old, then why don’t you go to the Grand Canyon and see by yourself a little example, not only of God’s Glory, but also of the work of nature’s forces during very long periods of time. I don´t believe we came from monkeys, but at some point, as the Bible says, God took what was here and put His Spirit on the man (Blowing to his nose). It also says that He took this little piece of land and put His garden there. So there was something different on the rest of the land. It also says in two lines that the continents were together until some point.
I’ve studied the Bible long enough (I’m not claiming that I’m expert) to know that believing The Earth is 4,5 billion years old doesn’t go against my faith. Those little details don’t matter when it comes to see what is important for us on this world to God’s eyes. If you have studied the Bible enough you know that MANY things aren’t written literally and the Bible interprets itself.
Report this comment
GBTVFan_Non_American_Overseas
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:17pmGenesis lack of tons of details, and if it’s that way is because we must focus on our own era and not so much on the past. If God sent His Son, was because was VERY important what He got to say, among other things of His last coming.
If the earth is 3 billion or just 500 million years old, would it change or lives? Does it matter to our salvation? Does it matter to what God expect from us on this earth? Does it matter to the way we must treat our brothers and sisters?
Is it important if the man evolved from monkeys and at some point God put His Spirit on him or instead The Earth evolved and at some point God put a brand new creation on it with His Spirit?…No, it is not. Our lives and duties with God and the creation will remain the same under any truth related with that era.
The whole deal is up to two main problems since this is a fallen world: 1. The recognition of God as the only and true God by the creation. 2. Living under God (Including all it means). That’s all, and that’s why Jesus will bring to Earth the Kingdom of God!
Report this comment
Twobyfour
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:42pm“If someone doesn’t believe The Earth is so old, then why don’t you go to the Grand Canyon and see by yourself a little example, not only of God’s Glory, but also of the work of nature’s forces during very long periods of time.”
Give me a 1 million terrawatt thunderbolt and I’ll show you how it’s done in 5 minutes.
Report this comment
momrules
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:44pmYou make very good points GBTV……….I think the gap theory holds a lot of value but like you I don’t think it matters too much just how old the earth might or might not be. The only thing that matters is our belief in God the Creator and in Jesus Christ our Savior. The rest just becomes an academic exercise that pits people against one another, Christians and atheists alike.
Report this comment
GBTVFan_Non_American_Overseas
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:12pm@TwoxFour
I honestly think that you know exactly what I mean, and if you know something about God is that He doesn’t do things exactly in a hurry. What I´ve read (You perfectly can disagree with me, and I won’t get engaged in some kind of theological discussion with anybody, including you, it’s just my opinion and I don’t want to change anybody’s mind, I’m just commenting about Ms. MomRules post) about Him shows me that the time of God and the speed He does things aren’t the same we handle (In fact, as person of faith His pace seems all the time very slow:)). I see perfectly viable that He takes millions of years doing His things….in the end, is only His business how He does His things. One day to God is like 1000 years for us (I don’t remember the verse)…why don’t 1 million, or 1 billion? Does it matters? Does it go against any doctrine? I honestly believe that 1 trillion years for God are like a blink for Him…. (Do you remember the deal with the weeks in the Book of Daniel?…it doesn’t mean weeks exactly, and The Book of Revelation too, and…etc). The proof we found on the earth of that long past is better intended to encourage admiration for God in our soul ratter that trying to take Him out of the equation….
Report this comment
Twobyfour
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 5:11pmI specifically addressed your assumption about Grand Canyon. I stand behind my statement that the feature could have been produced in less than one hour in toto (I probably was shooting too short with 5 minutes, probably would need closer to 20-30 minutes ). I can even provide scientific and engineering details if someone ask pretty pretty please (pending my buy schedule and availability of time)..
It does not mean I think that earth is some 6k years old. There’s ample evidence that is not the case. Just tree rings in some long-lived species up end that figure by some 4k years. But that does not mean earth is 4.6 billion years old. That figure is based on a lot of mutually self-referential assumptions. Evolutionists need that period as loong as possible, though, to have a proper deux ex machina for their edifice to work, conceptually.
As for Gods time or measurement of it. it’s a difficult problem. There is no sensible framework to translate between Gods time and our concept of time. The closest crude analogy would be that God deals in present The structuring of time into past, present and future for God is a mere matter of focus.
Report this comment
mike551
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:04pmIf you do your research you will learn this “scientist” has only one degree. A BA in mechanical engineering. Hardly qualify s him to be called a “scientist”. IMPEACH THE MUSLIM OBAMA NOW!!! GET US OUT OF THE UN!!!
Report this comment
The Gooch
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:20pmGood info. It’s disturbing how many “experts” celebrated by media have shady or laughable academic backgrounds. It appears pop culture matters more than bona fides. Go figure. Nye carries the proper ideological water; that’s all that will matter to some. I acknowledge his right to speak and have an opinion. I’m not too keen on his insistence that you MUST think like him lest we end up throwing rocks and feces at each other. These doom and gloom logic arguments are as unscientific as anyone’s version of the Great Spaghetti Monster in the Sky. I’d LOVE to hear Nye’s opinion on scientology. I’ll bet he’ll remain oddly mute on that brand of… faith.
Report this comment
Tractorboy
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:44pmMike551-Yeah but he wears a bow tie that must make him creditable? He is a fool, and a extremist, I like the last part that reads-(Nye recently created a pro-evolution video titled, “Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children.” In it, he asked parents to teach their children about evolution even if not believing it themselves)……. who the heck does this guy think he is? Everyone including Nye know of all the holes in science, just ignore those holes, and shoot your mouth off anyway, this is why he is a fool….created by God I must say, who said God doesn’t have a sense of humor?
Report this comment
crackerone
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 6:15pm@Tractorboy
Pee-wee Herman will play Bill in his early years, when they give someone taxpayer money to make a movie about this turd.
Report this comment
layosh
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 6:29pmNo diploma can give you common sense. On th eother hand, having no diplomas, does not prevent you to have common sense
Mike551, you are are expceptional.: you probaly have neither.
Report this comment
Ilikepeople
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:02pmThe funny thing about scientists is that they think they are so smart, and yet they are so dumb. They go around digging up old tombs, uncovering old extinct remnants of species, even finding still preserved ancient human brains. Eventually they are going to uncover some sort of once tragic plague.
Report this comment
wright.im
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:01pmI just recently read a book on creation science by an evolution professor who disputed everything this guy is saying. Evolutionist / environmentalist are pretty much the new communist who want to enslave the masses by their lunacy.
Report this comment
Reality_Bites_You_on_the_Ass
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 5:47amCreation science is an oxymoron. There is no science in creationism. Science requires evidence, of which there is plenty to prove evolution does exist.
Report this comment
Abraham Young
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 6:13pmThere isn’t even any science in Darwinism, so REALITY BITES doesn’t it?
Evolution is a crock of crap , for non mathematicians, who can’t calculate probability curves, who are arrogant, deceitful, vain, superstitious, anti-truth, government leeches.
It would be one thing if they had any real science to back them up, complete with experimental finding demonstrating a smidgen of viability to their “theory” which they try to redefine as fact. The evolutionary hypothesis has never been tested and proven possible, let alone actual.
But shills for government handouts, and pseudo intellectual bullcrap gets a lot of airplay, these days, and they get to have their heyday pretending that creation is a load of hot air. We know the source of their inspiration, and its lies all the way down, and all the way back up.
Report this comment
Chatikh
Posted on October 16, 2012 at 11:59am@ABRAHAM_YOUNG
Please show how it is not science. Please show how genetics and genomics aren’t real science, because the same principles, lab techniques, science, etc. that led to discovery of the exact causes of genetic diseases provide evidence for evolution. So the same “non-science” can produce one completely right result and one completely wrong result, everything else being the same? Please show that to be the case.
Please show how creationism accounts for chimpanzees who have almost the exact same genome we do. God could have created chimpanzees to have the exact same genes they do now, while at the same time putting them in a completely different order. Instead, he would have arbitrarily decide to not only have our DNA relatively identical, but all the genes are on the same chromosomes, in the same order, and the genes themselves are very similar as well.
I’m waiting for a single poster on here to show how “evolution is crap”. A single one.
And please don’t use the “watch” or “coke can” analogies. Once two coke cans or two watches can come together and create a baby watch/coke can, I’ll consider you less stupid for using those analogies.
Report this comment
The Gooch
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:00pmThe only telling factor in Nye’s continuing rant is he apparently holds the opinion you must believe as him… or else. Well, that doesn’t seem very evolved to me. He can’t just nod and smile and give those he disagrees with (and disdains) a perfunctory, “That’s nice.”? Me thinks the Science Guy will never be the Tolerant Guy.
Report this comment
smokeysmoke
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 1:59pmbill nye… thanks for showing us the PROOF, that the theory of evolution is true…
Report this comment
Ilikepeople
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 1:57pmEvolution is driven by the spirit. That’s why when Jesus split the mountains as he already has, it opened up a deep valley whereby the people dwell who accept whatever. That’s why after the forming of the U.S it was split into parties which was men doing the splitting, but then along came God to split the spiritual mountains with population increases (the same way God killed Man from the earth in Noah’s day). Then exposing the valley whereby now just plain old science and non-divine evolution is gaining traction. Therefore, if you let science define life yet again, then God will kill man from the earth yet again.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:05pmITS_JUST_TIM, have your reinvented yourself again?
Report this comment
Ilikepeople
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:09pmOh yeah one more thing. The more they take away Eunuchs, the more life as you know it will be in deep doodoo.
Report this comment
Ilikepeople
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:11pmNah, I’m sure it’s just ‘Malarkey’ I’m speaking, or at least you’ll find out when your limbs start rotting off your body.
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 4:35pmHi RJJ,
Yep… you nailed it.
Report this comment
GBTVFan_Non_American_Overseas
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 8:01pmHi Monk,
I knew that I’ve seen that kind of “posting technic” before, but I couldn’t visualize in my mind the author of it. You are both right, this is the old “Eliasim”, born again “Its_Just_Tim”, born again “I Like People”. Hi Eliasim, welcome back!….like Barry, he evolves! :)
Report this comment
TSUNAMI_22
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 1:54pmGod created the heavens and the Earth. Would it be plausible to believe that evolution is a naturally intended progression of the species?
To me, a closed-minded being would only be arrogant enough to think it could only be “creation” or “evolution” specifically.
Report this comment
SERGE_GRAYSTONE
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:43pmYes. I too, have concluded that there are a lot of closed human minds in this area. We are not alone. Even Zen warns specifically that dividing the observed world into explicit categories blocks the path to enlightenment.
Report this comment
Curious Visitor
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 5:19pmA scientist could hardly be called as such if they honestly believed the existence of God was impermissible. The idea is not to disprove God. Attempting to disprove something which, by viture of its supernatural nature defies and eludes all physical evidence, is pure folly.
The argument is rather that the supernatural should be left out of science. The goal of the scientist is to find evidence for how things happen, not simply imagine a scenario that could be believed in if one had faith.
Incidentally, this is why the God of the Gaps argument is so persuasive to some people. Even if in a far distance future science has advanced so far that we have clear pictures of the origins of the universe and a full understanding of each discreet evolutionary step thereafter, you could still simply make the claim that, “Well there is an invisible hand at every moment saying, “Yep, you do this.”" There is no way to ever refute this claim scientifically because it is by its very nature so unscientific as to be essentially meaningless to the physical world.
So if all God does is make unknowable decisions that have physical effects we can observe, but does not intervene in any other way, then his existence is quite irrelevant.
Report this comment
ezalbeht666
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 1:54pmScientist or actor who famous for playing scientist on children’s TV program.
Report this comment
stopprintn
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 1:52pmBill Nye should do his part to fight global warming by being silent.
Report this comment
RamonPreston
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 11:13pmGlobal warming is another lie.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 1:49pmBill Nye: “How dare any of you disagree with me? You are all effed in the head!”
Yep, more of the tolerant left at work here.
Report this comment
13th Imam
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 1:59pmAnd the Man-Made Global Warming PhD scientist Albert Gore( the internet creator) confirm’s that there is a consensus of ALL the worlds scientists regarding Americas the cause of the erfff turning into a charcoal briquet. Mainly SUV driving Republicans. Or as Ever Angry calls us Progressive Conservatives.
Report this comment
The Gooch
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:08pmExactly. Brings to mind the episode of South Park in which the Marklars where introduced.
Bill Nye and his marklars need to leave the other marklars to their marklar beliefs.
In other other words: Who gives a p!ss? You can’t expect the world to just spontaneously submit to your sacred cows. Hell, that takes political coercion and, sometimes, the sword.
Submit! Submit, I say!!!
Yes, that’s nice, Mr. Nye. You do realize you may just be a WEE bit crazed over this matter. There’s a fine line dividing passion from zealotry…
Believe as you will. That’s about as good as it gets… unless you wanna start bashing heads to get folks to conform. But then who will you feel superior to? Careful what you wish for, Mr. Nye….
Report this comment
ripley
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 1:46pmHe’s entitled to his opinion, even if it is wrong.
Report this comment
displaced
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 1:45pmThe bad thing about evolution is there is NO FOSSIL RECORD. Surely by now there has to be at least one fossil of some creature EVOLVING into another.
Report this comment
Exrepublisheep
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:04pmThe fossil record is not in any way, shape, or form suggestive of the idea of sudden generation of all life as it appears now, nor does it support transformationism. There is no way to look at the fossil record and interpret the evidence as pointing towards anything other than evolution — despite all the gaps in record and in our understanding, evolution and common descent are the only conclusions that are supported by the full spectrum of evidence.
This is very important when considering inferential evidence because inferential evidence can
Report this comment
smokeysmoke
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:19pmbut evolution is still a theory that needs more evidence to prove… bill nye going on cable news and trashing a whole group, becuase people think differently than bill does, and because they do not take the theory of evolution as truth… shows how BILL NYE IS A RACIST who hates conservatives… AND IS USING HIS BS PROPAGANDA to try and make the right look unintelligent… BILL NYE SHOULD NOT CALL PEOPLE DENIERS, HE SHOULD SHOW US THE PROOF so that WE CAN BELIVE WHAT HE IS SAYING…. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS BENIFICIAL, AS A WAY TO TEACH HOW LIFE MIGHT HAVE ADVANCED ON THIS EARTH, BUT WE ARE STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE THEORY, so how can bill attack others for not agreeing with his UNPROVEN SCIENCE, THAT HE SAYS IS SO OBVIOUS WE ALL NEED TO LISTEN TO HIM… what a ECO COMMUNIST
Report this comment
kevinj319
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:36pmIt is not on Bill Nye to present evidence that is readily available to you, and has been for some time. Go to a museum or something. Repeatedly asking for evidence of evolution, when there is a mountain of it already available, is like asking for evidence that water is wet or the sun is hot.
Report this comment
Dr Vel
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 2:55pm“There is no way to look at the fossil record and interpret the evidence as pointing towards anything other than evolution”
Was the sheep born stupid or did he take lessons? A 2 million year old fossil of a cockroach looks exactly like the cockroach’s in his house today. Next question is why are these leftists so adamant we respect muslim faith yet never respect the Christian faith.
Report this comment
Zekron
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 3:31pmI’m not an anti-evolution proponent, but there is a lack of transitional (evolving) fossils. Evolution is a theory, a logical theory, but lacking “smoking gun” evidence. Anyone who attacks doubters should review the scientific method, first you look at the facts, form a hypothesis, set up criteria for proving or disproving the hypothesis. Neither side has a lock on the Truth. IMHO.
Report this comment
kevinj319
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 5:10pmA plethora of “transitional” fossils have been found. We will never find every single one, for reasons that should be obvious. If you are under the impression that there are no transitional fossils, you may have been correct perhaps 40 years ago. That’s not to mention DNA mapping, which supports evolution as well.
Report this comment
Verceofreason
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 9:23pmNo fossil record?
Do you leave in a cave?
Report this comment
Zekron
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 9:28pmSorry, there are bursts of new species every 50 to 100 million years but no transitional fossils linking the species. The DNA of current life forms indicate a regressive history of prior mutation but again, no “smoking gun” evidence. Science is based on facts, not opinion, not conjecture, you can’t vote for reality, you have to prove it.
BTW, when you try to say there are transitional fossils, they are a part of a jaw or a skull. Open to opinion and not complete. Remember all of the hoaxes of the missing link.
Report this comment
Zekron
Posted on October 14, 2012 at 9:39pmVerse, you have never impressed me with your intellect. You should only comment on subjects you understand.
Report this comment
Reality_Bites_You_on_the_Ass
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 5:43amThere have been hundreds of transitional fossils found, including:
- Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds.
- Australopithecus afarensis had many of the same traits that modern humans, orangutans and spider monkeys share and represents an evolutionary transition between modern bipedal humans and their quadrupedal ape ancestors.
- Pakicetids represent an evolutionary transition between whales, dolphins and porpoises and the land mammals from which they descended. Ambulocetids represent the transition phase of cetacean ancestors between freshwater and marine habitat.
- Tiktaalik was a fish whose fins had wrist bones and fingers, rib bones, a mobile neck with a separate pectoral girdle, and lungs, as well as gills, scales, and fins of a fish. It is representative of the transition between non-tetrapod vertebrates and early tetrapods.
Report this comment
Reality_Bites_You_on_the_Ass
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 6:15am@WHITEFANG, evolutionists have always been unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. Natural selection and mutation are why the things you ask occurred. Selection is the very opposite of chance. The things you mentioned did not spontaneously appear one day. Small mutations happened in some lifeforms that were carried forward generation after generation. Those changes gave our ancestors an advantage over those that lacked those mutations. That advantage allowed them to reproduce instead of die off. Imagine a species with hemophilia and another whose blood clotted. It is easy to see how the one that clots and heals itself has a tremendous survival advantage over the one that simply bleeds to death every time it is injured. Regarding our hands, the imposable thumb is what allowed our ancestors to do things like pick fruit, grasp tree branches or use early tools. That gave them something better to do with them than to continue walking on all fours, which leads to the brain being stimulated and motor skills improving, leading to the development and use of tools.
I hope that helps to answer some of the questions you posed.
Report this comment
WashingtheBrainWashed
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 10:55amEver heard of Lucy?
Report this comment
Chatikh
Posted on October 16, 2012 at 12:13pm@DISPLACED, ZEKRON
Someone already mentioned archaeopteryx, but there are quite a few new fossils that have been found that come before and after archaeopteryx, clearly showing transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. First there are fossils of pure raptors with feathers. Then there are quite a few transitional forms that have very similar anatomy to raptors (raptor-like skull, a long bony tail, both of which modern birds lack), except showing wing-like limbs and aerodynamic feathers. Follow the progression of transitional fossils and eventually you’ll show the raptor-proto-birds lose their raptor skull replaced with a beak, they lose their teeth, and then lose their long tail.
Science will never require every single transitional fossil to empirically show evolution occurred. Science has already done that, new fossils are icing on the cake. We have paleontological, genetic, genomic, karyotypic, anatomical, physiological, ecological evidence,etc. I think we have considerably more evidence for evolution than something undisputed like the theory of relativity, but the theory of relatively doesn’t contradict stone-age beliefs. I think requiring transitional fossils for every evolutionary tradition is akin to requiring every act of God to be written down before believing in him. That obviously isn’t required for you. We have other evidence to bridge the gaps, more than you can say.
Report this comment