Bill Nye critcizes GOP, parents teaching creationism

I already posted a response a few posts back.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=383186&p=1064476613#post1064476613

 

You made no response. Your response is what is called a non answer. You tried to morph the issue from the OP where Nye said parents shouldn't be allowed to teach their kids creation to schools because you don't want to touch that hot potato.

 

I'm saying I don't know. But I find it funny that you chose to argue against intelligent design by pointing to things we ourselves do with our own creations. We reuse old code. We create evolving programs.

If you want to know what intelligent design looks like you need only look at our own creation.

 

Did Nye say that it should be illegal for parents to teach their kids to believe Creationism? Use your head...he's talking about parents condoning this kind of teaching and logic dictates that it would apply to teaching it at all being a disservice, in ANY venue. Not rocket science here. You morphed what Nye said..when did he use the word "allow" when he spoke of the parents? He didn't!.

 

Where's the intelligence in designing a creation that can bite the inside of it's own face while eating?

 

yet again, we're not talking about creationism in public schools. even Nye isn't talking about that. He is not talking about creationism in public schools, he is talking about creationism being taught privately.

Now please, stay on topic!

 

The topic is Nye disagrees with kid being taught creationism as a science, I agree with him. Nothing left to say.

 

That's some funny (*)(*)(*)(*) right there, I don't care who you are!
(did that earlier today, OUCH)

 

Well, enlightened people know different. So continue with your myth if you wish.

 

We actually had not so distant Age of Enlightenment...

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment) is the era in Western philosophy, intellectual, scientific and cultural life, centered upon the 18th century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source for legitimacy and authority.

The "Enlightenment" was not a single movement or school of thought, for these philosophies were often mutually contradictory or divergent. The Enlightenment was less a set of ideas than it was a set of values. At its core was a critical questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals, and a strong belief in rationality and science.

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Age_of_Enlightenment.html

 

And the pendulum swung the other way and much of science became irrational. See m-theory.

 

Oh this is sad, you believe enlightenment can only happen during a period named that?

 

No, but I believe that the Enlightmenment came before the assigning of a name to it and that rational and deep thinking inellectuals were expanding past a realm of thinking left over fom the dark ages.

 

Do you now, I think they still realized there is a spiritual realm not explainable by physical science, well the truly intelligent ones anyway.

 

There is NOTHING intelligent about believing in something that has no evidence of existing in any way.

It is the same thing as if a person said to you...HEY! There is a 300 foot tall Pink Elephant behind that building!

You can't see behind that building from where you are currently standing...but you can move and check it out but the person say's to you...."NO! NO! It is all about FAITH!"

Well I have FAITH that there is no 300 foot high pink elephant! LOL!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Like the multiverse which Nye actually believes in.

 

The Multiverse at actual EVIDENCE that it exists.

Both hysical and Mathematical as well the best evidence of all....EXISTING PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS.....which are the current 100 and 1000 Quibit Quantum Computers....which used the Many Worlds and Multiversal Theory Models to be developed.

AboveAlpha

 

Oh bull(*)(*)(*)(*) there is no physical evidence or mathematical evidence for the multiverse. It is an invention of arrogant people who refuse to admit that they are wrong.

I'm not someone you can make empty statements to and hope they hold up. >>>MOD EDIT Flame Removed<<<

 

NOT B.S.!!

VERY REAL!

How do you think you get EM Spectrum Frequency?

How do you think a QUIBIT works? Look it up....QUIBIT

Why do you think Observation locks in Value and Function?

Why do you think QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT EXISTS???

What model do you think they used to develop Quantum Computers?

The Many Worlds and Multiversal Theories!!!

Reading is FUN!!!

Try it some times.

AboveAlpha

 

Spirituality is not dominated by people that take the bible literally or for that matter not dominated by people that put faith in the bible at all.

Intelligent folks are aware of the personal nature of how individuals define spirituality.

 

Oh please explain it to us this is going to be (*)(*)(*)(*)ing funny.

 

>>>MOD EDIT Quoted Post and Reply Deleted<<<

I already explained.

You simply have absolutely no idea about what I am talking about.

AboveAlpha

 

Exactly. No one can answer that, at least not presently. But even if you think (or it's eventually proven by whatever means) that SOMETHING outside of this spacetime universe "created" it, it doesn't necessarily follow that "buybullgawd" did it. For myself, I think quantum physics shows clearly that the behavior of our universe is calculated, and not actualized (though 99.99999% of the time it APPEARS actualized), and such a thing MUST be an artificial construct. But even if I or others can eventually "prove" that (to the extent that any scientific notion can be "proved"), it says NOTHING about who or what constructed it.

 

None of the hypotheses can be scientifically proved, (Big Bang - Creation - YoMammaDunDidIt). Science must rely on the best forensic evidences and postulate the probability to form the best theory of the event. Falsifying hypotheses related to a specific speculation eliminates that idea. To date, I have read nothing that falsifies the Biblical Creation. I have been debating this for decades but have yet to have a single bit of evidence presented that falsifies Biblical Creation, other than "nuh-uhh" and your god sucks, which of course is kindergarten playground stuff.

Science has yet to find any evidence of something coming into existence from nothing. More accurately, something from nothing is most likely impossible. The often used theory for the Big Bang is the apparent movement of the galaxies from a hypothetical pinpoint. This has been proved false by simply measuring electromagnetic energy in all of space surrounding the planet. An energy burst, like a Big Bang from one point should show evidence of higher levels of electromagnetic energy closer to the 'period at the end of this sentence' origin. It doesn't.

 

The only reason you don't see these things is because you choose not to. Almost everyone else in this debate can see them just fine.