‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye says religious-based dismissal of evolution endangers US science

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The man known to a generation of Americans as “The Science Guy” is condemning efforts by some Christian groups to cast doubts on evolution and lawmakers who want to bring the Bible into science classrooms.

Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer and star of the popular 1990s TV show “Bill Nye The Science Guy,” has waded into the evolution debate with an online video that urges parents not to pass their religious-based doubts about evolution on to their children.

Christians who view the stories of the Old Testament as historical fact have come to be known as creationists, and many argue that the world was created by God just a few thousand years ago.

“The Earth is not 6,000 or 10,000 years old,” Nye said in an interview with The Associated Press. “It’s not. And if that conflicts with your beliefs, I strongly feel you should question your beliefs.”

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/science-guy-bill-nye-says-religious-based-dismissal-of-evolution-endangers-us-science/2012/09/24/3c5fe4ae-061e-11e2-9eea-333857f6a7bd_story.html

Bill Nye is right. Religion just hasn't worked out to well.
Attachments:

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye says religious-based
> dismissal of evolution endangers US science
>
> LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The man known to a generation
> of Americans as “The Science Guy” is
> condemning efforts by some Christian groups to
> cast doubts on evolution and lawmakers who want to
> bring the Bible into science classrooms.
>
> Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer and star of the
> popular 1990s TV show “Bill Nye The Science
> Guy,” has waded into the evolution debate with
> an online video that urges parents not to pass
> their religious-based doubts about evolution on to
> their children.
>
> Christians who view the stories of the Old
> Testament as historical fact have come to be known
> as creationists, and many argue that the world was
> created by God just a few thousand years ago.
>
> “The Earth is not 6,000 or 10,000 years old,”
> Nye said in an interview with The Associated
> Press. “It’s not. And if that conflicts with
> your beliefs, I strongly feel you should question
> your beliefs.”

Why does Bill Nye hate America?

Difficult to discuss reason with unreasonable people. This will fall on deaf ears to it's targeted audience.

BIll Nye should name the religious groups who deny evolution. Without doing so, he is casting a wide net that lets dummies like the Meeper and Numbers justify their inaccurate generalizations and castigations. I realize that they are both weak minded fools with very little self worth, but these idiots misuse and misquote men of science in the same fashion that men of religion misuse and misquote religious texts. This makes both sides look foolish.

@fmr

Did you read the article?

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @fmr
>
> Did you read the article?


Yes. So, which specific religious groups/sects is Mr. Nye referring to? Catholics? Baptists? Mormons? Lutherans? Presbyterians? Episcopalians? Greek Orthodox? His vagueness allows everyone with a beef against religion to lump them all together. Do you not find that troubling? It isn't a very intellectual or responsible way to do things.

Is it true that Liberty University has on display excavated dinosaur bones that are stated to be just 3000 years old?

fmr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BIll Nye should name the religious groups who deny
> evolution.

Maybe it would be easier for you to name one that accepts evolution.


> without doing so, he is casting a wide
> net that lets dummies like the Meeper and Numbers
> justify their inaccurate generalizations and
> castigations.

Examples, please?


> I realize that they are both weak
> minded fools with very little self worth, but
> these idiots misuse and misquote men of science in
> the same fashion that men of religion misuse and
> misquote religious texts.

Examples of me ever misquoting a man of science, please?


> This makes both sides
> look foolish.


No, there is fact and fiction. One explanation is plausible and realistic, the other is not. One has a plethora of proof and information to back it up, the other has none.

You love trolling this forum and pretending to be "an atheist", but you don't fool anyone. You're a christian apologist who simply can't stand when someone posts anything negative about christianity.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fmr Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BIll Nye should name the religious groups who
> deny
> > evolution.
>
> Maybe it would be easier for you to name one that
> accepts evolution.

There are many, including catholics and most mainstream protestants. There are literally too many to mention. But, hey, why concern yourself with facts?

> > without doing so, he is casting a wide
> > net that lets dummies like the Meeper and
> Numbers
> > justify their inaccurate generalizations and
> > castigations.
>
> Examples, please?

This thread is just one.

> > I realize that they are both weak
> > minded fools with very little self worth, but
> > these idiots misuse and misquote men of science
> in
> > the same fashion that men of religion misuse
> and
> > misquote religious texts.
>
> Examples of me ever misquoting a man of science,
> please?

You are using Dr. Nye's broad generalization to apply your own myopic viewpoint. That is neither scientific or logical.

> > This makes both sides
> > look foolish.
>
>
> No, there is fact and fiction. One explanation is
> plausible and realistic, the other is not. One has
> a plethora of proof and information to back it up,
> the other has none.

And there are intersecting lines where reasonable people can disagree. You refuse to acknowledge those occurrences and remain unreasonable. In that sense, you are no different than those that mock your ardent atheism.

> You love trolling this forum and pretending to be
> "an atheist", but you don't fool anyone. You're a
> christian apologist who simply can't stand when
> someone posts anything negative about
> christianity.


I have never claimed to currently be an atheist. When I mock you, it is trolling, when you mock others, what is that? In reality you deserve to be mocked as any idiot evangelical. I am no christian apologist. I am simply not as close minded as you.

Oh, and you did it again. You lumped all of christianity into the same boat despite the fact that many christians accept evolution. I understand why you do it. As a zealot atheist, it is much easier to convince others that your viewpoint is correct if you can paint all those that oppose you as unreasonable fools. In doing so, however, your unreasonable foolishness is exposed.

fmr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > @fmr
> >
> > Did you read the article?
>
>
> Yes. So, which specific religious groups/sects is
> Mr. Nye referring to? Catholics? Baptists?
> Mormons? Lutherans? Presbyterians? Episcopalians?
> Greek Orthodox? His vagueness allows everyone
> with a beef against religion to lump them all
> together. Do you not find that troubling? It
> isn't a very intellectual or responsible way to do
> things.

From the article:

"Nye, 56, also decried efforts in recent years by lawmakers and school boards in some states to present Bible stories as an alternative to evolution in public schools. Tennessee passed a law earlier this year that protects teachers who let students criticize evolution and other scientific theories. That echoes a Louisiana law passed in 2008 that allows teachers to introduce supplemental teaching materials in science classes."

How is that not specific enough? Do you want actual names of lawmakers and the groups that sponsored that legislation in this article?

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fmr Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ito Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > @fmr
> > >
> > > Did you read the article?
> >
> >
> > Yes. So, which specific religious groups/sects
> is
> > Mr. Nye referring to? Catholics? Baptists?
> > Mormons? Lutherans? Presbyterians?
> Episcopalians?
> > Greek Orthodox? His vagueness allows everyone
> > with a beef against religion to lump them all
> > together. Do you not find that troubling? It
> > isn't a very intellectual or responsible way to
> do
> > things.
>
> From the article:
>
> "Nye, 56, also decried efforts in recent years by
> lawmakers and school boards in some states to
> present Bible stories as an alternative to
> evolution in public schools. Tennessee passed a
> law earlier this year that protects teachers who
> let students criticize evolution and other
> scientific theories. That echoes a Louisiana law
> passed in 2008 that allows teachers to introduce
> supplemental teaching materials in science
> classes."
>
> How is that not specific enough?

Which sect is listed there as denying evolution? I don't see a single one.

> Do you want
> actual names of lawmakers and the groups that
> sponsored that legislation in this article?


I never asked for any lawmakers. That is easy enough to find. I think it would be appropriate to name which sects deny evolution. It is intellectualy dishonest not to do so.

@fmr

I swear, do I have to read the article to you line-by-line? There are even groups who are protesting his video quoted in the article:

"It drew the ire of the creationism group Answers in Genesis, which built a biblically based Creation Museum in Kentucky that teaches the stories of the Old Testament and has attracted headlines for its assertion that dinosaurs roamed alongside Adam and Eve."

"The group produced a response video featuring two scientists who say the Bible has the true account of Earth’s origins, and that “children should be exposed to both ideas concerning our past.”

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @fmr
>
> I swear, do I have to read the article to you
> line-by-line? There are even groups who are
> protesting his video quoted in the article:
>
> "It drew the ire of the creationism group Answers
> in Genesis, which built a biblically based
> Creation Museum in Kentucky that teaches the
> stories of the Old Testament and has attracted
> headlines for its assertion that dinosaurs roamed
> alongside Adam and Eve."
>
> "The group produced a response video featuring two
> scientists who say the Bible has the true account
> of Earth’s origins, and that “children should
> be exposed to both ideas concerning our past.”


Maybe you should reread it. You haven't answered the very simple question I asked.

fmr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> There are many, including catholics and most
> mainstream protestants. There are literally too
> many to mention. But, hey, why concern yourself
> with facts?

You can't believe the new testament, without accepting the old testament. If you accept the old testament, you're accepting the Adam and Eve story, which is incompatible with evolution.
I'm aware that some catholics admit to accepting evolution, but how can they without changing the entire doctrine?


> You are using Dr. Nye's broad generalization to
> apply your own myopic viewpoint. That is neither
> scientific or logical.

It wasn't a broad generalization, but there is a large constituency that he was referring to.


> And there are intersecting lines where reasonable
> people can disagree. You refuse to acknowledge
> those occurrences and remain unreasonable. In
> that sense, you are no different than those that
> mock your ardent atheism.

Where evolution is concerned, there are no intersecting lines, at least not in the scientific community.


> I have never claimed to currently be an atheist.

LOL!! Uh huh. You're always the "rational atheist" who thinks every other atheist but you is a "militant atheist".


> When I mock you, it is trolling, when you mock
> others, what is that? In reality you deserve to
> be mocked as any idiot evangelical.

You don't mock me. You simply respond with jibberish and nonsense, never facts or counterpoints because you don't have any.



< I am no christian apologist. I am simply not as close
> minded as you.

Yes, you are. You're one of the anonymous trolls here that lamely attacks those of us that comment on or post articles, videos, etc.. regarding religious stories


> Oh, and you did it again. You lumped all of
> christianity into the same boat despite the fact
> that many christians accept evolution. I
> understand why you do it. As a zealot atheist, it
> is much easier to convince others that your
> viewpoint is correct if you can paint all those
> that oppose you as unreasonable fools. In doing
> so, however, your unreasonable foolishness is
> exposed.

You just exposed yourself again as the troll I thought you were by using your favorite "zealot" response.
Please, pick up a book about evolution and learn what it's all about, then make your comments about it. Clearly you know nothing about it now.

This kinda puts things in perspective. Regardless of where you stand politically or religiously, it makes you think.
Attachments:

@fmr

Your question as to what sect (you should say denomination by the way) denies evolution is an irrelevant one. The point of the article is that "religious groups" are trying to inject religion into science classes in our schools, particularly in the teaching of evolution.

The complaint is not that established churches are doing this, but groups. These groups who want to insert "intelligent design" as an alternative theory are self-named in the article itself.

Its bad enough that people can deny factual evidence of evolution, but are you trying to deny that the deniers do not exist as well?

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye says religious-based
> dismissal of evolution endangers US science
>
> LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The man known to a generation
> of Americans as “The Science Guy” is
> condemning efforts by some Christian groups to
> cast doubts on evolution and lawmakers who want to
> bring the Bible into science classrooms.
>
> Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer and star of the
> popular 1990s TV show “Bill Nye The Science
> Guy,” has waded into the evolution debate with
> an online video that urges parents not to pass
> their religious-based doubts about evolution on to
> their children.
>
> Christians who view the stories of the Old
> Testament as historical fact have come to be known
> as creationists, and many argue that the world was
> created by God just a few thousand years ago.
>
> “The Earth is not 6,000 or 10,000 years old,”
> Nye said in an interview with The Associated
> Press. “It’s not. And if that conflicts with
> your beliefs, I strongly feel you should question
> your beliefs.”
>
> More:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-scie
> nce/science-guy-bill-nye-says-religious-based-dism
> issal-of-evolution-endangers-us-science/2012/09/24
> /3c5fe4ae-061e-11e2-9eea-333857f6a7bd_story.html


Funny, he attacks Christians, but not Muslims and their faith and views, which align with the Old Testament that God created the Earth. Bill Nye is a typical liberal pussy. Too ascared of the rabid Muslims so he attacks the peaceful Christians. P.U.S.S.Y.

I swear wasn't there a thread on children's lack of reading comprehension a little bit ago?

We are doomed. No wonder why we are ranked 16th in the world in science and 25th in math.

Here is some "creationist" science from a Grade 4 Creationist text book.
This is pornography (has no socially redeeming value).
It is not science.

Wake up people!
Attachments:

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe it would be easier for you to name one that
> accepts evolution.
>

What do you mean by evolution? Macro-evolution? Micro-evolution? Which one shithead? Almost all major religions believe in the latter. The Unitarians for 1 believe in the former. Also, the reincarnation belief system of the major Eastern religions are evolutionary, although they believe the evolution is also spiritual. You're an uninformed fool Numbers.



Numbers wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No, there is fact and fiction. One explanation is
> plausible and realistic, the other is not. One has
> a plethora of proof and information to back it up,
> the other has none.
>
> You love trolling this forum and pretending to be
> "an atheist", but you don't fool anyone. You're a
> christian apologist who simply can't stand when
> someone posts anything negative about
> christianity.


Yes there is fact and fiction. However, you then immediately pollute that truth with your OPINION of what is plausible and realistic and what is not based on your own warped, misguided, uninformed biases. Prove the Bible wrong. Just one instance will do. It's 2000 years old at the latest additions and probably 1000 years older in the earlier parts. At least something should be provable to be incorrect by now don't you think? Well, don't ya Moron?

There's something wrong with Intelligent Design - it makes God look really, really bad in both the intelligence and design departments. My God is better than that.
Attachments:

Uncle Ream Us Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Funny, he attacks Christians, but not Muslims and
> their faith and views, which align with the Old
> Testament that God created the Earth. Bill Nye is
> a typical liberal pussy. Too ascared of the rabid
> Muslims so he attacks the peaceful Christians.
> P.U.S.S.Y.


Bill Nye's main audience is children. I'm sure the network has implored him to not publicly expose Islam for the fraud that he knows it is. Perhaps if/when he departs from the role of "The Science Guy", he'll say what's really on his mind about Islam.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You can't believe the new testament, without
> accepting the old testament. If you accept the old
> testament, you're accepting the Adam and Eve
> story, which is incompatible with evolution.
> I'm aware that some catholics admit to accepting
> evolution, but how can they without changing the
> entire doctrine?

Many denominations (thank you Ito) accept evolution. It is not for me (or you) to tell them how to accept evolution and how it conforms with their doctrine. First you want to convert them to atheists, now you want to tell them how and why they should believe? If you weren't an atheist, I'd say you have a bit of a god complex. As for some catholics, that is a another slight by you. I may be mistaken, but I believe the church has sanctioned evolution.


> It wasn't a broad generalization, but there is a
> large constituency that he was referring to.

It was, but neither you nor he are willing to name a denomination/sect/congregation. Why is that? Because if you did, it would show that your generalizations are unfounded and unreasonable.


> Where evolution is concerned, there are no
> intersecting lines, at least not in the scientific
> community.

Only if you limit the scientific community to those that think like you. As we have demonstrated, your mind is very unscientific and illogical in the manner it assumes facts not to be presented and employing numerous logical fallacies.

> LOL!! Uh huh. You're always the "rational atheist"
> who thinks every other atheist but you is a
> "militant atheist".

No, you would be mistaken. I suggest you re-read your previous rants on the matter. There are very few rational atheists. In fact, I really can't think of any.

> You don't mock me. You simply respond with
> jibberish and nonsense, never facts or
> counterpoints because you don't have any.

None that you are willing to admit to. If it doesn't fit with your preconceived notion, you reject it immediately even though it is logic staring you in your face. I get it, you are as weak minded as a theist and do not like to have your belief system questioned and mocked. It is a self defense mechanism you employ by ignoring facts and logic. Most weak minded people employ similar tactics.

> Yes, you are. You're one of the anonymous trolls
> here that lamely attacks those of us that comment
> on or post articles, videos, etc.. regarding
> religious stories

You do the same, yet you are not a troll? Simply because you are registered does not mean you are not a troll. Your snippy and sniveling comments indicate how attached you are to your atheism.

> You just exposed yourself again as the troll I
> thought you were by using your favorite "zealot"
> response.

I exposed myself? Was I attempting to hide or something? As for the zealot comment, if the shoe fits.......

> Please, pick up a book about evolution and learn
> what it's all about, then make your comments about
> it. Clearly you know nothing about it now.

I am very well versed in the theory of evolution. I accept it and believe much more is to be discovered concerning it. I know you think you won by proclaiming I know nothing of evolution. However, it is just a red herring as this conversation has not been about the theory of evolution itself. Rather, it has been about the acceptance of it by certain religious groups and the fact that simpletons like you employ broad burshed tactics to paint all theists as opponents of evolution.

You can employ as many logical fallacies as you like, but all they do is serve to show everyone that you have run out of defensible positions and ideas - if you ever had any.

The point about Muslims in this context is also irrelevant. Christian groups are the ones trying to insert religious text into classroom discussions of science. One does not need to include Muslims in the criticism because they are not the ones advocating the changes.

Just the facts...
Attachments:

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point about Muslims in this context is also
> irrelevant. Christian groups are the ones trying
> to insert religious text into classroom
> discussions of science. One does not need to
> include Muslims in the criticism because they are
> not the ones advocating the changes.


No, it proves Bill Nye, like all you liberals is a pussy. The first people the Muslims are going to kill if they ever are successful are you liberals. The fact that you can't understand that shows the thickness of your skulls. Why a mechanical engineer thinks he's some kind of expert on biology and you libs raise him up as your spokesman is also laughable.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @fmr
>
> Your question as to what sect (you should say
> denomination by the way) denies evolution is an
> irrelevant one. The point of the article is that
> "religious groups" are trying to inject religion
> into science classes in our schools, particularly
> in the teaching of evolution.

And I am asking which ones. This isn't that hard.

> The complaint is not that established churches are
> doing this, but groups. These groups who want to
> insert "intelligent design" as an alternative
> theory are self-named in the article itself.

And to whihc denominations do these groups belong?

> Its bad enough that people can deny factual
> evidence of evolution, but are you trying to deny
> that the deniers do not exist as well?

No. Indicate whihc post even comes close to that? A little further down (now above this post) you talk about reading comprehension. You may need a refresner. For instance, when I ask you which religious groups are doing this, it isn't an answer if you reply with religious groups in quotations.

It also isn't a sign of strong reading comprehension skills if you blatently make an illogical conclusion that is way off the mark from anything I said?

Part of the scientific method is to question, which is what I have been doing here. In fact, they are pretty simple questions. For some reason you have attempted to respond to them with "answers" that don't answer the questions asked.

Uncle Ream Us Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What do you mean by evolution? Macro-evolution?
> Micro-evolution? Which one shithead? Almost all
> major religions believe in the latter. The
> Unitarians for 1 believe in the former. Also, the
> reincarnation belief system of the major Eastern
> religions are evolutionary, although they believe
> the evolution is also spiritual. You're an
> uninformed fool Numbers.

LOL! The Unitarians? Okay, here's another one, the Blue Oyster Cult. I'm pretty sure they believe in evolution either.




> Yes there is fact and fiction. However, you then
> immediately pollute that truth with your OPINION
> of what is plausible and realistic and what is not
> based on your own warped, misguided, uninformed
> biases.

..and you DON"T believe evolution is plausible and realistic? What's your explanation?


> Prove the Bible wrong. Just one instance
> will do. It's 2000 years old at the latest
> additions and probably 1000 years older in the
> earlier parts. At least something should be
> provable to be incorrect by now don't you think?
> Well, don't ya Moron?

Are you serious? You'd like me to point out untruths in the bible? How many, because that could take a few pages.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2012 03:52PM by Numbers.

Bill Nye & Science Rocks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just the facts...


And this proves the Bible wrong how? Where's the archeological missing links? Where's anything in the fossil records to disprove the Bible? You got nothing.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I swear wasn't there a thread on children's lack
> of reading comprehension a little bit ago?
>
> We are doomed. No wonder why we are ranked 16th in
> the world in science and 25th in math.


What does reading comprehension have to do with math and science? We are doomed if people are making those connections. All logical reasoning skills seemed to have escaped you.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uncle Ream Us Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > What do you mean by evolution? Macro-evolution?
>
> > Micro-evolution? Which one shithead? Almost
> all
> > major religions believe in the latter. The
> > Unitarians for 1 believe in the former. Also,
> the
> > reincarnation belief system of the major
> Eastern
> > religions are evolutionary, although they
> believe
> > the evolution is also spiritual. You're an
> > uninformed fool Numbers.
>
> LOL! The Unitarians? Okay, here's another one, the
> Blue Oyster Cult. I'm pretty sure they believe in
> evolution either.
>
>
>
>
> > Yes there is fact and fiction. However, you
> then
> > immediately pollute that truth with your
> OPINION
> > of what is plausible and realistic and what is
> not
> > based on your own warped, misguided, uninformed
> > biases.
>
> ..and you DON"T believe evolution is plausible and
> realistic? What's your explanation?
>
>
> > Prove the Bible wrong. Just one instance
> > will do. It's 2000 years old at the latest
> > additions and probably 1000 years older in the
> > earlier parts. At least something should be
> > provable to be incorrect by now don't you think?
>
> > Well, don't ya Moron?
>
> Are you serious? You'd like me to point out
> untruths in the bible? How many, because that
> could take a few pages.


Give us one asshole. That's all I'm asking. Blah, blah, blah. Crickets. I guess your Google ain't working fast enough to find anything huh?

Uncle Ream Us Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill Nye & Science Rocks Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just the facts...
>
>
> And this proves the Bible wrong how? Where's the
> archeological missing links? Where's anything in
> the fossil records to disprove the Bible? You got
> nothing.


Oh dear, here we go with the Creationist's missing links argument.
I shouldn't have to explain this to any adult, but there may always be "missing links" in fossil records. Fossils require a lot of time, money and effort to find. They don't just pop out the ground and we're fortunate to have the ones we have. However, even if there were 0 fossil records, there is more than enough DNA evidence to support evolution.

Dear Uncle ReamAss - you can blabber all day long but the simple fact is...
Attachments:

For those of you just tuning in, I'll give a summary of this thread:

Bill Nye says that Christian groups are trying to undermine the teaching of evolution in school by casting doubts on the theory because of religious reasons.

fmr questions the validity of this claim by questioning what sects have endorsed this teaching (which is irrelevant). Christian groups are, one of which has produced their own competing video and a museum on the subject.

Uncle Ream Us joins the conversation saying that Bill Nye is disingenuous because Muslim groups believe in the same nonsense. This too is irrelevant because Muslim groups are not the ones who are trying to change the teaching of science in schools.

Now we have gotten into a discussion as to whether evolution should be the only theory be taught in schools and now Uncle Ream Us is going to tell us that it shouldn't. Isn't this just proving Bill Nye's criticism?

Uncle Ream Us Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Give us one asshole. That's all I'm asking.
> Blah, blah, blah. Crickets. I guess your Google
> ain't working fast enough to find anything huh?

1) Well, lets start with the beginning, Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

We now know this can't be true, because we can discern the age of the universe versus the age of the Earth. The Universe is approximately 14 billion years old while the Earth is only about 4.5 billion years old.

Do you dispute this? Explain.


2) 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

This implies the the Earth was created before the Sun. Didn't happen that way. What about all the stars? No light from them either?


Do I need to go on? All of chapter 1 of Genesis is absurd and each line can be easily proved wrong.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fmr questions the validity of this claim by
> questioning what sects have endorsed this teaching
> (which is irrelevant). Christian groups are, one
> of which has produced their own competing video
> and a museum on the subject.

No, Ito, once again your reading comprehension skills fail you. At which point did I question the validity of the claim? Before you try and find it, I will give you the answer - I didn't deny its validity at all. What you call irrelevant is the crux of the matter. I said it was irresponsible of Dr. Nye to paint all Christians with the same broad brush which is what he does when he uses the term "some Christians." How am I supposed to discern whihc Christians are the idiots denying evolution? It is as if I said "some gray dogs" will attack you and kill you for no reason whatsoever. Wouldn't it be useful information to have a few more specifics?

How this continues to allude you is mind boggling.

fmr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I said it
> was irresponsible of Dr. Nye to paint all
> Christians with the same broad brush which is what
> he does when he uses the term "some Christians."
> How am I supposed to discern whihc Christians are
> the idiots denying evolution?

You are supposed to discern which Christians by seeing those Christians who are denying evolution. Get it?

Bill Nye is right and has a big set of balls standing up to the religious crackpots trying to take over our schools with bullshit religion and fake science.
Attachments:

fmr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I said it was irresponsible of Dr. Nye to paint all
> Christians with the same broad brush which is what
> he does when he uses the term "some Christians."
> How am I supposed to discern whihc Christians are
> the idiots denying evolution?

Why does it matter to you? Did you expect him to list every "sect" of religious groups to make a simple point about science in schools?
How would this have made it easier for you to accept?

Besides, he wasn't addressing those that accept evolution anyway. He was referring to those that don't and want to impose their doctrine on innocent children. Why can't you understand this?

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fmr Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I said it
> > was irresponsible of Dr. Nye to paint all
> > Christians with the same broad brush which is
> what
> > he does when he uses the term "some Christians."
>
> > How am I supposed to discern whihc Christians
> are
> > the idiots denying evolution?
>
> You are supposed to discern which Christians by
> seeing those Christians who are denying evolution.
> Get it?


It is you who still doesn't get it. I swear it is as if you just don't want to get it.

Bill Nye clearly has empirical evidence of which Christians deny evolution. Otherwise, he wouldn't make the statement. Tell me which ones. Is it part of the scientific method to obscure pertinent facts. Why make it so unclear?

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fmr Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I said it was irresponsible of Dr. Nye to paint
> all
> > Christians with the same broad brush which is
> what
> > he does when he uses the term "some Christians."
>
> > How am I supposed to discern whihc Christians
> are
> > the idiots denying evolution?
>
> Why does it matter to you? Did you expect him to
> list every "sect" of religious groups to make a
> simple point about science in schools?

Numbers, we've established that you are pretty illogical and this post is a continuation of that idiocy.

Why doesn't it matter to you? Because then you can continue your characterization of all Christians as evolution denyers. Do you see why it matters? It also isn't just a simple point. Dr. Nye's intention was to have Christians viewed as evolution denyers.

> How would this have made it easier for you to
> accept?

When did I not accept it?

> Besides, he wasn't addressing those that accept
> evolution anyway. He was referring to those that
> don't and want to impose their doctrine on
> innocent children. Why can't you understand this?

Who are "they" though? Do you not like being fully informed? What kind of mindless dolt are you? Is ignorance really bliss? I guess to you it is.

Okay.
Attachments:

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay.


Oh no, you called me a troll again. Your inadequacy is duly noted. Get off to your support group now.

This is the way things play out for mankind and religion. It is called evolution.
Attachments:

fmr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes. So, which specific religious groups/sects is
> Mr. Nye referring to? Catholics? Baptists?
> Mormons? Lutherans?

He's referring to Republican Christians.

Let's just do a side by side fact based comparison of the two competing theories in this thread for one second. You decide.
Attachments:

Now let's take a look at some outcomes based analysis on God'r role in our lives
Attachments:

And let's think about what an important role science has actually played in our evolution despite all that the church has done to stop science
Attachments:

Now lets take a look at some actual quotes from our founding fathers on the role they envisioned for religion in the America they created
Attachments:

Let's take today's religious candidates and their beliefs and put that in a scientific policy context
Attachments:

Let's put evolution and religion into an overall framework of getting smarter and more scientifically advanced over time
Attachments:

Let's think logically about society's need for morality and decouple it from religion, not science
Attachments:

REligion
eVOLUTION
I used to wonder where we came from.
Now I'm more concerned where we are going

Monkey see, Monkey dodo

.
Attachments:

For kissing a jews ass

LOL. Satan is tongue-fucking Jesus' man pussy.

fmr - Who gives a rat's ass who is trying to interject religion into the schools? It's irrelevant. People are and you can't deny it. It's offensive not only to many of us (Catholic here, BTW) but to the founding fathers of this country.

At least the tone of this discourse was reasonably civil until Uncle Ream Us jumped in. Anyone whose most intelligent comment is "you are a pussy" has no need to comment further. We know where you're coming from. And you're a pretty good argument against evolution.

Nobody has to die and no cities have to burn because of that image.

Which is exactly why we need to ditch religion from science and education.

Keep it at church and keep it at an acceptable level.

Better yet - tax it.
Attachments:

@Tasty, Thank You, and No Respect - don't you have homework to do? If you don't, you should have.

fmr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I said it
> was irresponsible of Dr. Nye to paint all
> Christians with the same broad brush which is what
> he does when he uses the term "some Christians."
> How am I supposed to discern whihc Christians are
> the idiots denying evolution? It is as if I said
> "some gray dogs" will attack you and kill you for
> no reason whatsoever. Wouldn't it be useful
> information to have a few more specifics?

So, if you say scientific community, I should immediately demand you list EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST SINGULARLY? That is some fucked up logic and a perfect example of a "defense mechanism" - on your part.

to whomever invented/discovered alcohol. Elixir of gods. Monkeys ferment berries.
But I need a drink...

Send in the Clowns Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fmr - Who gives a rat's ass who is trying to
> interject religion into the schools? It's
> irrelevant. People are and you can't deny it. It's
> offensive not only to many of us (Catholic here,
> BTW) but to the founding fathers of this country.

As a catholic, I would think that you would not want to be accused of this sort of activity. Are you not a christian? According to Dr. Nye, you and your denomination may be engaging in this activity. But, because the catholic church has accepted evolution it is unlikely. That is why I believe Dr. Nye should clarify the statement.

P_P_P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fmr Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I said it
> > was irresponsible of Dr. Nye to paint all
> > Christians with the same broad brush which is
> what
> > he does when he uses the term "some Christians."
>
> > How am I supposed to discern whihc Christians
> are
> > the idiots denying evolution? It is as if I
> said
> > "some gray dogs" will attack you and kill you
> for
> > no reason whatsoever. Wouldn't it be useful
> > information to have a few more specifics?
>
> So, if you say scientific community, I should
> immediately demand you list EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST
> SINGULARLY? That is some fucked up logic and a
> perfect example of a "defense mechanism" - on your
> part.

Have you been taking logic lessons from Numbers?

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uncle Ream Us Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Give us one asshole. That's all I'm asking.
> > Blah, blah, blah. Crickets. I guess your
> Google
> > ain't working fast enough to find anything huh?
>
> 1) Well, lets start with the beginning, Genesis
> 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and
> the earth.
>
> We now know this can't be true, because we can
> discern the age of the universe versus the age of
> the Earth. The Universe is approximately 14
> billion years old while the Earth is only about
> 4.5 billion years old.
>
> Do you dispute this? Explain.
>
>
> 2) 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void;
> and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And
> the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
> waters.
>
> This implies the the Earth was created before the
> Sun. Didn't happen that way. What about all the
> stars? No light from them either?
>
>
> Do I need to go on? All of chapter 1 of Genesis is
> absurd and each line can be easily proved wrong.

We have no idead how old the universe is. We can extrapolate based on the current theories of the speed of light and the distance we believe objects to be and the theory that the universe is expanding. However, science no longer believes that the universe is expanding uniformly or even that it is always expanding. It now appears that parts of the universe are expanding and other parts are contracting. You THEORY is just that.

"Implies". I said prove it wrong dickhead. None of your asshat implications or assumptions.

FAIL.....

.
Attachments:

fmr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P_P_P Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > fmr Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I said it
> > > was irresponsible of Dr. Nye to paint all
> > > Christians with the same broad brush which is
> > what
> > > he does when he uses the term "some
> Christians."
> >
> > > How am I supposed to discern whihc Christians
> > are
> > > the idiots denying evolution? It is as if I
> > said
> > > "some gray dogs" will attack you and kill you
> > for
> > > no reason whatsoever. Wouldn't it be useful
> > > information to have a few more specifics?
> >
> > So, if you say scientific community, I should
> > immediately demand you list EVERY SINGLE
> SCIENTIST
> > SINGULARLY? That is some fucked up logic and a
> > perfect example of a "defense mechanism" - on
> your
> > part.
>
> Have you been taking logic lessons from Numbers?


No, logic stands on its own...and you have no grasp of the concept. You ask for others to specifically point out which of the gazillions of different christian religious groups or the argument is lessened = bullshit. Playing dumb and chasing a tangent that is irrelevant just derides the basic points of the discussion - which is what you are choosing to do, over actually presenting any evidence pro or con on either side. It is like a kid saying "Why?" after every answer is spoon-fed to them just to be a pain in the ass.

The sad truth is that if anyone asked you to prove ANYTHING in the religious texts is true or factual, well you would have NOTHING. Whereas science can produce so much evidence that can be applied, or presented, in real life and NOW - TODAY and TOMORROW - showing ALL religious texts to be just fairy tales.

An example:

All the world uses Math as a universal language -
ALL of the world would agree that 2+2=4
Only in religion would someone argue that 2+2=grapes and actually believe it, while it lacks any basis, factual support or reason IRL.

Uncle Ream Us Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> However, science no longer believes
> that the universe is expanding uniformly or even
> that it is always expanding. It now appears that
> parts of the universe are expanding and other
> parts are contracting. You THEORY is just that.
>
> "Implies". I said prove it wrong dickhead. None
> of your asshat implications or assumptions.
>
> FAIL.....

This, sadly, is an example of how we are not teaching our students (and citizens) about science.

In the same way that the tragedy of not teaching evolution in schools means that children would subsequently not understand all the biological sciences related to this 150+ year old theory, children are obviously not being taught about astronomy and the universe as well.

Here's what you have missed:

1916 Einstein's Theory of General Relativity shows that space is curved and distorted by mass and time.

1920s - Observations by Edwin Hubble and other astronomers proved aspects of General Relativity that predicted the universe is expanding. At that time, it was postulated that this expansion was at a constant rate, the Hubble Constant.

1950s Radio astronomers found background radiation which is believed to be the remnants of the Big Bang.

1970s First black holes, long predicted by quantum theory were found.

Recent revelations:

Not only is the universe expanding, the Nobel Prize for Physics last year was awarded to scientists who observed that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate that is even faster than the Hubble Constant at ever further distances in 1998.

The current search by our orbiting telescopes is for "dark matter" and "dark energy" which has been predicted by current theories to account for the difference between the Hubble Constant and observations.

So, not only is the Universe not expanding and contracting in various places, it is expanding at an ever increasing rate.

If you read through the discoveries of the 20th Century, you will find that not only were objects predicted by science long before they were discovered based on scientific thought and observations here on Earth, but you also find that scientists are willing to abandon and reformulate theory based on observation. This is science. It's peer-reviewed, observable and has the ability to be duplicated through other experiments (or disproved).

Your dismissal of over 100 years of astronomy and physics by just saying "we don't really know" is to piss on the greatest minds our species has ever known and some of the greatest scientific accomplishments of the United States (Hubble telescope, Manhattan Project, Moon landings, etc.)

(*note: for those of you who would wish to refine my summary, please feel free. I was just trying to provide a child's summary of over a century of science in a post and I don't feel like looking up all this data for all the dates, names and data.)

Forget all this science mumbo jumbo. Pray to God to help you to understand his simple message to you--in love he wants to redeem you from the power of Satan and sin. This word is nigh unto you. You can be saved and safe today. You do not have to wait until tomorrow. You do not have to wait for a preacher. God cares for us and he is an ever present help in the time of trouble. If you are not saved, you are in big trouble. God loves the souls that he made--even though we have done wickedly. God so loved this wicked world that he sent his all-powerful Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to shed his blood and die for the remission (forgiveness) of the sins of the world. But the Lord Jesus Christ did not remain dead, he rose from the dead on the third day and stands ready right now to save your soul. Believest thou this? Repent of your sins and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ--his death, his burial, his resurrection, his blood that was shed for your sins, his word, his power, his love for you.

Isaiah 55:6-7 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Are you ready to know God? Are you ready to be saved from your sins? Are you ready to REPENT? That means change. Making a change from the devilish way of living to following Jesus wherever he may lead you. I can tell you right now that he will lead you OUT of the dance hall club. He will lead you OUT of the crack house. He will lead you OUT of your current life and INTO GLORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But you have to count the cost. Are you ready to live the life of one of the despised ones? I wouldn't trade it for ANYTHING IN THE WORLD! AND I MEAN IT! I began my ascent out of the abyss almost two decades ago and I am still following on to know my Lord! It has been an EXHILARATING journey! I'M ON MY WAY NOW AND, BLESS GOD, HALLELUJAH, I'M ALMOST TWENTY YEARS CLOSER TO SEEING JESUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PRAISE HIM ALL YE SAINTS! PRAISE HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe in a higher power, but not the play-book written by the humans with all their "interpretations" and going from one language to another...

I think the real test of a person is to abandon the "Book" and find a way to connect on your own - NOT for any promised reward, which is all religious people are really doing...kind of a who can brown-nose the most competition.

And it is always amazing how religious people forget that the majority of all death due to wars has been in the name of one god or another. Crusades, persecutions, genocide, mutilation, treating women as animals and it goes on and on.....

Who create SIN? Was that an "intelligent design" flaw? Suffering is somehow the fault of the suffering - a little fishy.

Knowledge, apple and snake - oh yeah, it all makes sense now.

Ku7Fw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> has been in the name of one god or another.
> Crusades, persecutions, genocide, mutilation,
> treating women as animals and it goes on and
> on.....


I'm sure most of the 'wars' were based on purely human interests. Territory, food supplies, trade routes, land, tribalism, racism, gluttony, political gain, fear, etc.

Religion was just an excuse they used to act like animals.