Bill Nye On Creationism

[Eos]

We needed that pic earlier.

Considering their views haven't changed spontaneously I am sure it still applies.

[VerrKol]

http://dailycurrant.com/2012/08/30/b...lenges-debate/

As entertaining as that is, it's satire. I didn't catch that at first. I wish it were true :(

[Eos]

As entertaining as that is, it's satire. I didn't catch that at first. I wish it were true :(

Yeah him saying half of that would be right up there with Mr Rogers having done so, but still funny.

[Corn]

Yeah him saying half of that would be right up there with Mr Rogers having done so, but still funny.

Mr. Rogers you say?




#11

[Eos]

Mr. Rogers you say?

Already knew that one. And they admit he's wholesome to the point of grotesque.

[CrazyForDex]

You say you don't interact with foreigners much, then tell us you've seen people you see all the time do more stupid things than the people you hardly see.
Your reasoning is impeccable. There must be more Americans that are stupid than anyone else because you've seen more of them. I don't know how anyone could find that ignorant at all.

Holy s'hit dude, are you looking for an argument or do you just lack reading comprehension? I neither said that there were more stupid Americans than foreigners nor did I say that there are not stupid foreigners out there. It wouldn't be reasonable for me to comment on people with whom I do not interact. You know what, you're right. I should've said that there are some stupid Americans and also stupid foreigners. Let me just throw all those foreigners that I don't interact with into one group and label them as stupid. That's not ignorant. Your reasoning is impeccable.

Everyone thinks everyone else is stupid besides him/herself, including stupid people. You can't just blatantly exclude yourself and arrogantly presume I'M SMARTER THAN MY FELLOW AMERICANS while also being an American.

Lol. I never said I was or was not stupid and I wasn't trying to "arrogantly presume" that I was smarter than all my fellow Americans. My intelligence does not matter in this discussion, I am talking about parts of the American public, not CrazyForDex vs. The American Public. Just because I find some of their opinions retarded and don't understand why they lack a brain stem doesn't mean that I feel I am smarter than every single American. Why the f'uck would anyone openly say "Well some Americans are stupid, but I'm a moron so it's alright." I'm so sorry I find some people in my country stupid.

I guess it just ticks me off that CrazyForDex is proclaiming that Americans are dumb because like honestly, we're not that stupid. We have our fair share of dumb people but it's hugely overestimated because dumb people get more media attention than smart people.

You know what Corn, what ticks me off is that I said a simple statement and you blew it out of proportion. I guess it is wrong of me to mention that we have stupid people in our country. A country is only as smart as the group of its least intelligent citizens, those that are left behind by the education system. Likewise, a fleet is only as fast as its slowest ship. When we have people go on the news and say dumbs'hit things, it makes us all look stupid. Why do you think America is disliked by the international community? Because there is a decent percentage of the population who is dumb as a sack of potatoes. (Also our foreign policy decisions, but that's another matter).

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on things and mine just happens to be that there are a lot of stupid people in the United States. There are also a lot of smart people in the United States. I happen to be in college right now and there are plently of smart people, but there are also plently of stupid people.

[Corn]

Then why would you state a simple argument? I mean EVERYWHERE there's smart and dumb people.

Maybe I assumed too much. I do that too much for my own good. I'm going to leave this thread now, since I think we can both agree we both have lack of communication skills.

[Satellite]

IQ is completely meaningless above 100. It's a test to see if you're retarded. Getting anything higher than full marks just means you're good at taking IQ tests.

Meaningless? FYI. The people with highest IQs in the world certainly are good at things outside IQ test too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...#slide=1435178

[Eos]

Meaningless? FYI. The people with highest IQs in the world certainly are good at things outside IQ test too.

I do love the fact that two of those examples demonstrate that IQ is nothing more than a raw indication of potential at best, and doesn't indicate actual capacity or interest in applying it to anything generally regarded as genius-worthy.

[Aircalibur]

Well, you can be brilliant but still lazy.

[FenixR]

So who said they can be even smarter people that nobody even knows they exist? The Media?

I agree with Eos that IQ could merely shown potential of the people, but what they want to do with that potential in the end its their own decision (Or in some cases, the parents decision when they are young i guess)

[KhainiWest]

@Chameleonic;

If you come in calling everyone naive for actual factual evidence of our heritage, only to say to "look closely" in a very ambiguous/arrogant manner, then you get the result of people laughing/mocking you. It's even more disappointing that you walk away thinking you're the bigger man when push comes to show, you were simply talking out of your ass, clearly.

Then again if this is how you present your argument's, it's no wonder

this

R.I.P. Chameleonic4 one of GMS's most legitimate players, wrongfully banned by Nexon on Monday, 15 March 2010, 9:10:02 PM
Nexon does not care if it bans innocent players, as 10 closed Tickets can attest.

Note looking at the fact's this statement is false, no citations necessary, you just have to look closely to the facts

happened.

Edit:He probably read this LMAO
http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

Trex a vegetarian, okay.

[iamflip]

I sense that @Chameleonic has been reading too much into Assassins Creed...

Also, who ever said that Bill Nye was dead? The last time I saw him was in an episode of Stargate Atlantis:

[Dusk]

Meaningless? FYI. The people with highest IQs in the world certainly are good at things outside IQ test too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...#slide=1435178

There are plenty of people with lower IQs that might be considered smarter than those in that list.

[Sardines]

I'm pretty sure Genesis 2:7 has a very different take on how man came into existence when compared to the theory of evolution. I really find it hard for Christians to find any middle ground between the two as they are two vastly different explanations of the process in how man ultimately came into being.

Nye is the best.

I AM THREE DAYS LATE TO THIS TOPIC. ASDFAWEFSFWEFWFE

[Eos]

I'm pretty sure Genesis 2:7 has a very different take on how man came into existence when compared to the theory of evolution. I really find it hard for Christians to find any middle ground between the two as they are two vastly different explanations of the process in how man ultimately came into being.

Not at all like their own Genesis having two completely different versions of events ( Genesis 1:1-3:24 vs Genesis 2), which truly is the greatest irony of your entire reply.

[Sardines]

Not at all like their own Genesis having two completely different versions of events ( Genesis 1:1-3:24 vs Genesis 2), which truly is the greatest irony of your entire reply.

Sorry, could you elaborate. I don't quite grasp the statement in its entirety. >.<

Much obliged in advance.

[Eos]

Sorry, could you elaborate. I don't quite grasp the statement in its entirety. >.<

Much obliged in advance.

You stated Christians would have a hard time reconciling the difference between their creation story and evolution as two distinct concepts.

The Book of Genesis itself has two contradicting creation stories in it, ref. If the average Christian has no issue with that little fact from their own book adding in a third one should be effortless. What's one more mutually exclusive story when you already have two? They can just accept all three on faith.

[Alloy]

To anyone not believing evolution.

Before the earth was proven round, the same thing happened.

You should doubt too that the earth is round, and most likely flat. Like our ancestors did. It's what makes more sense.

But if you did that, you'd be someone without any intention to improve your knowledge, and an annoyance to whoever wants to make people think by themselves. And that, Chamaleonic, is the kind of person people see in you. Sadly, the name for that is an insult. So naming it would get me an infraction. But yes. Consider that.

[WayOfTime]

I am very dissapointed in how this "debate" is being handled. I can not even call this a debate, because there doesn't seem to be any reasonable arguments trying to dispute any facts or fiction.

First of all, I want to comment on the original video. I was quite disheartened when Bill Nye came out and basically said, (and unfortunately, it is not far off the mark) that all Creationists are scientifically illiterate and can thus not vote effectively, or even have any sort of reason. I am scientifically literate (I am in Engineering Physics: hard not to be in a program like that), have a very good grade standing, and I am also a Creationist. It is very offencive to me that Bill Nye would use his wide-reaching status and influence that he has on children and pretty much do the one thing that he blames us of doing: that there is only one real truth, and anything else is a complete lie. By using his platform like this, I can still say that I respect him as a scientist, but I have lost respect for him as a man.

Moving on to some of the other comments in this forum (I won't point out specific comments, but there would be no point seeing as everyone here seems to have the same opinion). There are many people here saying that Christians should get their own facts straight before trying to debate with other "scientifically literate" people. The fact is that our faith (and many of the other faiths, with the possible and real exception of fundamentalists and Catholics) leaves us open to interperate the holy book that we are given, and to decide within it how much of it we should believe. Keep in mind that it was written millenia ago, and that at that time it was geared towards the people of that time. Therefore, when reading something from centuries ago, we should take things with a grain of salt, and things like "an eye for an eye" should be talked about as if looking at the overall meaning, and not just the literal translation (Wow! The Bible is a translation? Who would have thunk it!) So with that in mind, it means that there is a general direction that our faith teaches us to follow, but the specifics of it are up to interpretation.

Now, I really have to point out Satellite's comment about the fossils, and saying that to dispute evolution is akin to saying that they think all fossils are fake. Now, I shall open with one word: seriously? Those that dispute evolution do not necessarily believe that all evidence supporting it is simply herrecy (I do hope I am spelling that correctly: don't get much opportunity to use it). I personally think that there is cause to believe in micro-evolution, that natural selection does occur, but I think that people who blindly believe that we have all evolved from bacteria looong ago are just as bad as the people who believe that the world is only 6000 years old: there are bound to be people on both sides, and I think that both theories are patently rediculous, but at least our side has a reason to think that, which goes back to my part of the Bible being geared towards people from a long time ago: for them, since there wasn't as much time in their life, a day meant a lot to them, and the story of the 7 days of Creation held a special part to them (Sunday, the Sabbath, was when the people rested, and when God "rested."). Once again, everything is open to interpretation, and the people who ask for proof about evolution are not asking about the stuff like if an alligator sees a chicken, but more so about what happened at the very beginning. Unless you had a time machine and either looked for the Big Bang and the evolution of the bacteria, or God's hand creating the universe, I think all that anyone can have on the subject of billions of years ago (or however long it was) is faith that the people who are telling us the answers are right.

This post is getting long, and I'd like to see if a reasonable debate can follow, so I'll just relate how I, as a protestant Christian, see how the world was created.

I believe that the world was created, designed by God's (or a Deity, depending on how you feel) hand. No, I don't think it was done in 6 days, but over time and through constant work he finally created a world in it's primitive prime: a variety of animals, in the sea, land, and air. Included in this he made a sentient life form, which is us (though I am sure some you you are doubting the "sentient" part of that sentance every day). Now, through many years, He guided us to write about the past, and the present (and the future) and many of those books were combined into one book, which was in turn used to guide others on their own path. It doesn't contain the inner workings of the universe, because that is for us to discover on our own: can any of you say that you would have as much today if you knew everything there was to know? I'd think you would get bored.

Anyways, for all I know some degree of evolution is true, but I believe that there is also some degree of Creationism that is also true. For Bill to say that, "I am right, and you are wrong, simply because I am smart," kind of shows how he can not see any middle ground at all. Debate! Don't just blindly follow a path. And, if you have kids, make sure that they know both sides of the story, so that they can decide what is right: if you only tell them one, they won't be able to form their own opinions, and threads like this may take form of one-sided "debates."