Bill Nye: Teaching kids creationism undermines both them and the U.S.

[.FLAP.JACK.DAN.]

[QUOTE=Chaohord;37425207]he sounds like he's gotten so old :([/QUOTE]

He's only 57 years old.

[DainBramageStud]

[QUOTE=dude709;37435176]1) when Jesus died on the cross he did away with the sacrifice/stoning parts of the law it didn't change the fact that homosexuality etc are wrong it just changed how christians are to deal with these things which is now with kindness and not lethal force.[/quote]

can you tell me how me being gay is "wrong" and what i can do to rectify this situation

[quote]2)there is as much evidence for creationism/intelligent design if you are willing to see it (do not be afraid to try me).[/QUOTE]

where

[PvtCupcakes]

blah blah i didn't come to abolish the law something something fulfill it.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." -Jebus

[dude709]

Actin a protein is made up of according to this [url]http://www.pnas.org/content/70/9/2687.full.pdf[/url] almost 400 amino acids there are 20 amino acids (give or take a couple) the probability of this protein being formed as a result of chance is 20^374 which is too big for my calculator to handle.

[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]

Actin a protein is made up of according to this [url]http://www.pnas.org/content/70/9/2687.full.pdf[/url] almost 400 amino acids there are 20 amino acids (give or take a couple) the probability of this protein being formed as a result of chance is 20^374 which is too big for my calculator to handle. one peice of evidence for ya

[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]

and against homosexuality 1 corinthians 6:7-11 7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. [url]http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%201%20corinthians%206:7-11&version=NIV[/url]

[ASmellyOgre]

[QUOTE=dude709;37435443]Actin a protein is made up of according to this [url]http://www.pnas.org/content/70/9/2687.full.pdf[/url] almost 400 amino acids there are 20 amino acids (give or take a couple) the probability of this protein being formed as a result of chance is 20^374 which is too big for my calculator to handle.

[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]

Actin a protein is made up of according to this [url]http://www.pnas.org/content/70/9/2687.full.pdf[/url] almost 400 amino acids there are 20 amino acids (give or take a couple) the probability of this protein being formed as a result of chance is 20^374 which is too big for my calculator to handle. one peice of evidence for ya

[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]

and against homosexuality 1 corinthians 6:7-11 7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. [url]http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%201%20corinthians%206:7-11&version=NIV[/url][/QUOTE]

That's great and all, but evolution isn't purely random chance and that biblical quote has nothing to do with any of this (also, you're almost certainly a troll).

[King Tiger]

[QUOTE=sedarahC;37425075]There is nothing wrong with [B]parents[/B] teaching them it, just teach them the alternatives too and let them make their own decisions.[/QUOTE]

Would you present your children with two views of 2 + 2? On one hand, the correct answer is 4. But there's an alternative that equal 6! So shouldn't you present children with all the alternatives?

[dude709]

the quote was in response to a reply to a post and if evolution is not all chance doesnt that mean that someone/something had to have guided it?

[1legmidget]

[QUOTE=dude709;37435443]Actin a protein is made up of according to this [url]http://www.pnas.org/content/70/9/2687.full.pdf[/url] almost 400 amino acids there are 20 amino acids (give or take a couple) the probability of this protein being formed as a result of chance is 20^374 which is too big for my calculator to handle.

[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]

Actin a protein is made up of according to this [url]http://www.pnas.org/content/70/9/2687.full.pdf[/url] almost 400 amino acids there are 20 amino acids (give or take a couple) the probability of this protein being formed as a result of chance is 20^374 which is too big for my calculator to handle. one peice of evidence for ya[/QUOTE]

As a biochemist, I think some things need to be said.

First of all, all 400 of those amino acids are not necessary for the functionality of this particular type of actin. The fact that actin is as complicated as it is, and the fact that there are multiple versions of actin across different species is evidence of actin being the result of years of random mutation/variation followed by nonrandom selection.

Secondly, show me your fucking math for your probability.

Third, regarding these statements:

[QUOTE]1) when Jesus died on the cross he did away with the sacrifice/stoning parts of the law it didn't change the fact that homosexuality etc are wrong it just changed how christians are to deal with these things which is now with kindness and not lethal force.
2)there is as much evidence for creationism/intelligent design if you are willing to see it (do not be afraid to try me).[/QUOTE]

Demonstrate empirically how homosexuality is wrong while simultaneously coming up with a better explanation for all of the psychological, sociological, and biological evidence we have suggesting the opposite. To get you started, here's the APA's FAQ on human sexuality and gender identity:

[URL="http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx#"]http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx#[/URL]

As for your evidence, I ask you to come up with three papers put out by a legitimate journal or institution that can come up with a better explanation for the formation of human chromosome 2. See parts of the proposed evolutionary model from the following sources:

[url]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/215/4539/1525[/url]
[url]http://www.springerlink.com/content/v7511kn212157472/?MUD=MP[/url]
[url]http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051[/url]

[dude709]

good night to you all i think i shall retire

[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]

nothing to do with the last post acyually ill stay

[1legmidget]

[QUOTE=dude709;37435654]the quote was in response to a reply to a post and if evolution is not all chance doesnt that mean that someone/something had to have guided it?[/QUOTE]

The environmental conditions said population is living in combined with the behaviors of the population lead to changes in the frequency of certain genes.

Mutations are random.

Selection is nonrandom.

[dude709]

[QUOTE=1legmidget;37435667]As a biochemist, I think some things need to be said.

First of all, all 400 of those amino acids are not necessary for the functionality of this particular type of actin. The fact that actin is as complicated as it is, and the fact that there are multiple versions of actin across different species is evidence of actin being the result of years of random mutation/variation followed by nonrandom selection.

Secondly, show me your fucking math for your probability.

Third, regarding these statements:

Demonstrate empirically how homosexuality is wrong while simultaneously coming up with a better explanation for all of the psychological, sociological, and biological evidence we have suggesting the opposite. To get you started, here's the APA's FAQ on human sexuality and gender identity:

[URL="http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx#"]http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx#[/URL]

i'm not saying there is not some form of attraction here and i cannot explain it being 17 all i know is that the bible says it is wrong.

As for your evidence, I ask you to come up with three papers put out by a legitimate journal or institution that can come up with a better explanation for the formation of human chromosome 2. See parts of the proposed evolutionary model from the following sources:

[url]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/215/4539/1525[/url]
[url]http://www.springerlink.com/content/v7511kn212157472/?MUD=MP[/url]
[url]http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051[/url][/QUOTE]

all i can tell from these is that humans have some DNA in common with apes which could be because we(apes and humans) both inhabit somewhat similar (albeit not very) environs. at this i bid adieu as my laptop is almost out of power.

[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=dude709;37435855]all i can tell from these is that humans have some DNA in common with apes which could be because we(apes and humans) both inhabit somewhat similar (albeit not very) environs. at this i bid adieu as my laptop is almost out of power.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx#[/url]

i'm not saying there is not some form of attraction here and i cannot explain it being 17 all i know is that the bible says it is wrong.

[King Tiger]

Evolution is real, i got no evidence.

Oh my comp is running out of power I gotta go cya!

[1legmidget]

[QUOTE=dude709;37435855]all i can tell from these is that humans have some DNA in common with apes which could be because we(apes and humans) both inhabit somewhat similar (albeit not very) environs. at this i bid adieu as my laptop is almost out of power.

[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]

[url]http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx#[/url]

i'm not saying there is not some form of attraction here and i cannot explain it being 17 all i know is that the bible says it is wrong.[/QUOTE]

If you can't understand it or explain it, then don't make claims about it being wrong. If you can't explain your counter claim, don't even bother. Saying "the bible says it is wrong" is not an answer. Demonstrate precisely where it says its wrong, how its wrong, and demonstrate how it is a reliable source of information. You have to be able to include the opposing data we have, or demonstrate how it is unreliable in your model.

The general scientific consensus is that homosexuality is not a choice, it is not detrimental to individuals or to society, and that such behavior(see this article for the scientific definition of [URL="http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/wkoenig/wicker/NB4340/definingbehavior.pdf"]behavior[/URL]) has been observed in many species.

[Megafan]

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37435905]Evolution is real, i got no evidence.

Oh my comp is running out of power I gotta go cya![/QUOTE]

It's like a hit and run of stupidity.

[Madman_Andre]

[QUOTE=sedarahC;37425075]There is nothing wrong with [B]parents[/B] teaching them it, just teach them the alternatives too and let them make their own decisions.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, what parts of the video did you miss? All of it?

[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=Retardation;37425165]Its funny because if someone like Richard Dawkins said the same thing this thread would be flooded with posts saying what an intolerant asshole he is.[/QUOTE]

Dawkins lack eloquence and tact.

Bill Nye would look at a Creationist and simply look at him/her disapprovingly. Richard Dawkins on the other hand would probably call him/her a retard and an idiot for believing in what they do.

[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=Megafan;37436079]It's like a hit and run of stupidity.[/QUOTE]

Really really [I][B]really [/B][/I]tempted to post that whole screed to FSTDT.

[Alice]

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;37436103]Dawkins lack eloquence and tact.

Bill Nye would look at a Creationist and simply look at him/her disapprovingly. Richard Dawkins on the other hand would probably call him/her a retard and an idiot for believing in what they do.[/QUOTE]
That's essentially what I said. Except apparently my way of saying it was somehow unacceptable...

[Smartlord]

[QUOTE=Onyx3173;37436448]That's essentially what I said. Except apparently my way of saying it was somehow unacceptable...[/QUOTE]

Because it lacked eloquence and tact as well.

[Megafan]

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;37436103]Dawkins lack eloquence and tact.

Bill Nye would look at a Creationist and simply look at him/her disapprovingly. Richard Dawkins on the other hand would probably call him/her a retard and an idiot for believing in what they do.[/QUOTE]
Maybe I'm just naive, but I can't imagine Dawkins actually calling someone a retard.

[Col. Buggernuts]

[QUOTE=Megafan;37436548]Maybe I'm just naive, but I can't imagine Dawkins actually calling someone a retard.[/QUOTE]I've never heard him talk to someone like that (calling them a moron directly rather than tackling false beliefs). He's blunt as a sledgehammer and not afraid to have a go at religion, but doesn't go out of his way to insult people just for the hell of it.

Most of the time, it seems people saying Richard Dawkins is some sort of Tourette's-infested verbal diarrhoea cannon directed at innocent little Christian families are in the same category of wastes of oxygen as those that post in religion debates just to tell everyone how superior they are for not being religious or atheist. Rest seem to think religion should be free from criticism or some shit.

[Coldmute]

[QUOTE=Megafan;37436548]Maybe I'm just naive, but I can't imagine Dawkins actually calling someone a retard.[/QUOTE]Yeah, not really his style. Like I said, he's not an asshole, he's just unabashed and blunt.

[Køleskab]

This is what i've been saying for two goddamn years now and all i got was 800+ boxes and people using be as some paragon for arrogant stupidity.

Dumbshits should quit holding everyone back and be socially shunned from work involving actual thinking. Politics, science, teaching... Anything besides pulling levers and watching a screen for random red dots, really.

[editline]28th August 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;37436787]Yeah, not really his style. Like I said, he's not an asshole, he's just unabashed and blunt.[/QUOTE]

Which is good, since dancing around the issue often ends up in someone trolling it off the rails with bible quotes or pointing to their presidents genuine Hawaii birth certificate and alleging that he's a kenyan muslim born in hell.

Being stupid and ignorant is no problem. Being stupid and ignorant in a position where you can spread it is bad. That's politician, priest, teacher. This is also mostly achieved with troll tactics like YELLING BIBLE QUOTES AT LITTLE KIDS.

[Intenso]

see, I don't get why religious folk can't integrate evolution into their beliefs

they tend to get all butthurt when it is even brought up, they get offended that you'd even compare humans to "monkeys" and all that, but really... what is it about it that is so wrong? What if God kickstarted evolution? What if the world being created in seven days is really just a metaphor for 14 billion years?

But that's not what the bible says, and we have to interpret the bible literally, so. Evolution is obviously incorrect.

[Hail Satan]

[QUOTE=Jocken300;37428274]Sorry, but you're wrong. The US has never been a Christian nation. Its very founders consisted of atheists and agnostics, and they were very strict with keeping religion out of government. The reason "under God" is in the pledge of allegiance is simple: it was added in long afterwards, much like "In God we trust" was added in long afterwards during the cold war scare.[/QUOTE]

in god we trust dates back to the civil war, under god dates back to the cold war.

[Beans]

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;37436103]
Bill Nye would look at a Creationist and simply look at him/her disapprovingly. Richard Dawkins on the other hand would probably call him/her a retard and an idiot for believing in what they do.
[/QUOTE]

Why does everyone say this? If you actually look at Dawkins in his talks with creationists and theists, he handles it much better than any of us would.

[Jurikuer]

Call me crazy but I believe science and religion exist hand in hand. One explains how things work, the other gives people something to believe in when there are no answers to be found. Why live life in fear of death when you can have faith that some day you will be in a better place (or worse place depending how you lived or how death works). And these beliefs, this faith does not interrupt the progression of science. It doesn't cancel it out. Because one day, we just might become advanced enough to find evidence that God does exist, or an entity such as him/her exists.

To summarize. Science and Religion don't have to butt heads, because neither prove the other wrong.

You can't say Science proves Religion wrong, because it doesn't. The only evidence is the lack of evidence. But time has a funny way of erasing everything.

[Coldmute]

[QUOTE=Jurikuer;37438299]Call me crazy but I believe science and religion exist hand in hand. One explains how things work, the other gives people something to believe in when there are no answers to be found. Why live life in fear of death when you can have faith that some day you will be in a better place (or worse place depending how you lived or how death works). And these beliefs, this faith does not interrupt the progression of science. It doesn't cancel it out. Because one day, we just might become advanced enough to find evidence that God does exist, or an entity such as him/her exists.

To summarize. Science and Religion don't have to butt heads, because neither prove the other wrong.

You can't say Science proves Religion wrong, because it doesn't. The only evidence is the lack of evidence. But time has a funny way of erasing everything.[/QUOTE]Science is based on evidence and experimentation. Religion is based on belief in the absence of any such things, believing for the sake of believing. The two are inherently opposing ideas. And I hate the idea that Religion cannot be proven wrong, its such a cheap ploy as a way to deflect criticism.

[1legmidget]

[QUOTE=Jurikuer;37438299]Call me crazy but I believe science and religion exist hand in hand. One explains how things work, the other gives people something to believe in when there are no answers to be found. Why live life in fear of death when you can have faith that some day you will be in a better place (or worse place depending how you lived or how death works). And these beliefs, this faith does not interrupt the progression of science. It doesn't cancel it out. Because one day, we just might become advanced enough to find evidence that God does exist, or an entity such as him/her exists.

To summarize. Science and Religion don't have to butt heads, because neither prove the other wrong.

You can't say Science proves Religion wrong, because it doesn't. The only evidence is the lack of evidence. But time has a funny way of erasing everything.[/QUOTE]

The issue isn't whether science disproves religion in its totality. The issue is that when religion makes claims about the natural world those claims can be proven false, and are repeatedly.

"Faith" in spite of scientific progress absolutely interrupts the progression of science. Look at hESC research, look at all the people running around thinking that gender identity or sexual orientation is a choice. Look at all the schools teaching ID/creationism. Look at the people claiming climate change is impossible because the earth isn't old enough or that the earth is some sort of perfect creation. [URL="http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Eye-Opening_Highlights_From_a_Creationist_Science_Textbook"]Look at this science textbook being given to children.[/URL]

[B]Look at all the people pushing for the formation of public policy that isn't based on the empirical evidence we have on all of these subjects.[/B]

If your religion makes claims about the natural world and you want to use those claims or belief in those claims to influence the lives of others, you better have some empirical evidence to back it up. If you retreat to "you can't prove me wrong", you forfeit the argument.

[B]Not only do you have to come up with a model that can make better predictions than the scientifically proposed models, you have to either integrate their data into your model, or demonstrate how it is invalid. Your model has to explain all the observed phenomena better than their model. Until that point is reached, your proposed model is considered invalid.[/B]

[redhaven]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;37427615]Actually, in countries like England and France, the Church and State were practically opponents, not combined theocracies.[/QUOTE]
England is a Caesaropapism where the secular king rules the Church of England.

France was your typical Catholic country where the state had a close relationship with the Church (and prosecutes heretics like the Huguenots). Which is why the French revolutionaries hates the clergy because they are part of the Ancien Regime.

[Megafan]

[QUOTE=Furioso;37437094]see, I don't get why religious folk can't integrate evolution into their beliefs

they tend to get all butthurt when it is even brought up, they get offended that you'd even compare humans to "monkeys" and all that, but really... what is it about it that is so wrong? What if God kickstarted evolution? What if the world being created in seven days is really just a metaphor for 14 billion years?

But that's not what the bible says, and we have to interpret the bible literally, so. Evolution is obviously incorrect.[/QUOTE]

We've addressed this already. Deciding that god must have done evolution if it conflicts with your previous beliefs doesn't make them any less unsupported by evidence or fact.

The claim that 'God kickstarted evolution' is only slightly less unprovable and unsupported than 'God created all organisms in their present form several thousand years ago'. Like I said, is there anybody who looks at that excuse (one that's come to prevalence pretty recently, it seems), and sees anything other than an [I]incredibly convenient[/I] side-step of their holy book, really only allowing for some Theists to act above it all because they believe in 'more science' than their peers?

[Bobie]

[QUOTE=dude709;37435654]the quote was in response to a reply to a post and if evolution is not all chance doesnt that mean that someone/something had to have guided it?[/QUOTE]

everything in the universe up until now has been chance you idiot