Bill Nye critcizes GOP, parents teaching creationism

You finally admit that people see things through the colored glasses of their prejudiced worldview. Great, that's a start.

 

No, I admit you are intentionally blinding yourself to anything that might contradict your primitive mythology.

 

They see them through their own biased wordview lens. At least be honest about that.

 

No sir. They are looking at facts. You are looking at the inside of your blinders.

 

If Creationism is the idea that a being that looks like man, that has our same flaws, anger, vengeance, murderous ways, that will punish some in humanity forever and ever in a lake of fire, with suffering which cannot be escaped by death, then it is just too absurd to even entertain.

On the other hand, if science wants to believe that this universe, and its evolution, the manifestation of consciousness and life doesn't involve an Intelligence, that too seems to be utter absurdity.

I do not know the truth of this matter. But I can think up a more plausible idea, which like the two above cannot be proven. But for me personally, it would make more sense than either of the two above. Such an idea, would not give me security for an ego that seems to, by its very nature demand continuance, due to simple human fear.

And so the Universe, life, consciousness is the reality due to an Intelligence that is not of time, nor space, nor of matter. It has always been, and it will always be. Being timeless, it is not subject to time, space, matter. It is a dimension from which the universe manifested itself, with its observable laws. The laws themselves are an inference of this Timeless Intelligence, that is Creative. Since it is not of time, space, matter, the human brain can never comprehend it, nor can matter ever understand it. It lies outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

This is not a Thing that is involved in the universe, and its almost like once it manifested it, with its various laws in how it would work, remains in the Timeless. So it is not interfering with its manifestation, yet its manifestation has it own rules of operation, that arose at the first moment of creation, and cannot be separated from time, space, matter.

The only thing one would feel if this Intelligence was contemplated, is just simple awe, without ever being capable of understanding anything of this Timeless intelligence. While we can gain some understanding of how the manifestation works, and we can reduce it into smaller parts, extracting the parts from a totality, it is far more than just a sum of its parts. We can in part, understand some things about how it works, but will never understand completely how it works. For the brain that was manifested in this universe simply is too small, too limited.

So, if this idea can be included in creationism, then I am in that camp. But I don't think this is what is generally meant by creationism.

 

So you don't believe facts are interpreted by scientists as to what they mean? I didn't think you had any scientific background, but I thought you were smarter than that.

 

No, you've got that backwards. You are the one who is refusing to believe the scientists.

Did you lose track of which side of the discussion you are on?

 

\/ This \/ is not a claim that scientists never offer theories based on scientific evidence if they believe as you do?

 

Creationists believe that man was instantaneously created by God, based on an account in a book called the Bible. Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote various collections of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, the stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively. The resultant text, creationists feel, is the best guide to this complex and technical subject.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creationism

 

I guess it depends on what you mean by evolution. The idea that man developed from monkey's is an almost comical hypothesis (and not a well accepted one), but the underlying principle of evolution is pretty well established. The idea that life will adapt and that subsequent generations of a species will incorporate successful traits can be demonstrated it a couple ways. You can show that two different life forms can develop from a single one.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is one such demonstration. Hit the same kind of bacteria colonies with antibiotics. You'll wipe them out. Keep doing it and eventually a few bacteria will mutate to resist the antiobiotic. The bacteria with that trait will survive (barely) but so will the next generation. That trait will become stronger and more widespread in subsequent generations. Keep it up and eventually that colony will evolve to have a natural resistance to the antibiotic. It will have no effect on them. You now have two different forms of bacteria, having observable genetic differences and a common ancestry.

I agree about dinosaur fossils.



​

 

What are you even trying to say here? That science supports your young earth myth?

 

You stated that scientists never formulate opinions of the scientific evidence.

 

Utter non-sense.
Please provide a quote of me saying anything even close to that or apologize immediately for telling lies about me.

 

I did and made special little arrow symbols pointing to your quote.

 

And it's getting worse. Fewer people believe in evolution than five years ago.

 

How could even you get that out of this?