Skip to comments.
Bill Nye the Science Guy says creationism not good for kids
Reuters ^
| August 28, 2012
| Lily Kuo
Posted on 08/28/2012 3:39:34 AM PDT by rickmichaels
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 321-329 next last
To: Paradox; betty boop; MrB; Alamo-Girl; tacticalogic; hosepipe; TXnMA; metmom; GodGunsGuts
Could you all remove me from this ersatz ping list? I have gained what I can from this discussion, thank you. Admittedly, I was the guy who called you out for exactly what you are and busted you to begin with.
And yes, on that order perhaps my cut was the deepest, but if you don't want to be pinged to this thread you'll have to tell every other "ersatz" poster to stop pinging you to this discussion as well, not just me.
Try again.
141
posted on
09/06/2012 2:23:02 PM PDT
by
Agamemnon
(Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
To: tacticalogic; betty boop; MrB; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; TXnMA; metmom; GodGunsGuts
Arent platitudes fun? Where Darwinian dogma is concerned, it would seem that you should be equipped to expound on that one better than just about any one else here.
Platitudinize for us some more, ol' tact-o-baby!
FReegards!
142
posted on
09/06/2012 2:30:48 PM PDT
by
Agamemnon
(Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
To: Agamemnon
Your offer of a flame war is declined.
143
posted on
09/06/2012 2:41:03 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: MrB; Alamo-Girl; Agamemnon; tacticalogic; Paradox; hosepipe; TXnMA; metmom; GodGunsGuts; Fichori
When you hold a materialist to consistency, no basis exists for right or wrong, nor for even simple meaning. Its a very depressing worldview to hold, if held consistently. Oh, I do agree with your statement, dear MrB!!!
Sorry for not realizing "who" was making the "random stardust" argument. Still, I think what I wrote still holds.
Whatever. It seems to me that Romans 1:20 has the final say:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
IOW, God cannot ever be seen "directly," but only through His effects....
But the "humanists" evidently refuse to look.
144
posted on
09/06/2012 3:00:35 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
To: betty boop
What I was trying to get at is the different time orders implicit in the way human beings experience time linear, serial, irreversible, expressible in "units" (such as hours or years), and inherently "local" and the non-local "time" in which universals live.... The question is about the amount of time that the theories of geocentrism and Newtonian mechanics were the accepted theories of the day. All "local" and within recorded history. I do not understand why there would be any confusion about the appropriate "order" of time involved.
145
posted on
09/06/2012 7:10:19 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic; betty boop; metmom; Alamo-Girl; MrB; Agamemnon
How long were were geocentric theory and Newtownian mechanics considered accepted theory before they were supplanted? You make it sound as if a theory being unchallenged for 150 years is an historic anamoly. It does sound like you are straining to find fault.
Actually, I have to disagree with Betty Boop here. The idea that Darwinism has been stagnant and unchanging for 150+ years. Of course she's correct scientifically, but consider:
You see, each time it's challenged or new information comes forth, liberals that support it circle the wagons and attack those that dare to disagree or even present new challenges. There's no rational scientific defense of Darwinism, but only tired used up failed liberalspeak. If anyone suggests a flaw, then their credentials are attacked. Or they get shouted down and ran off with some farcical peer review.
Case in point, what's this unchallenged for 150 years nonsense? The better question is of course: What scientific theory requires so many lawsuits to prop it up?
146
posted on
09/06/2012 8:19:17 PM PDT
by
tpanther
(Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
To: betty boop
To the extent that Darwin's theory is often depicted in the light of metaphysical naturalism as Dawkins does and not methodological naturalism (which "keeps its mind open," as explained above), it has more of the flavor of a religious creed than of a scientific theory. Or I should say, an antireligious screed.
Precisely so, dearest sister in Christ, thank you so much for your wonderful insights and those engaging excerpts!
To: tpanther
Case in point, what's this unchallenged for 150 years nonsense? The better question is of course: What scientific theory requires so many lawsuits to prop it up?
Brilliant. Thank you, dear tpanther!
To: tacticalogic
To: rickmichaels
Nye is basically saying to parents "cede the moral upbringing of your children to the state, and allow amoral, secular science to assume responsibility for programming your offspring..."
What an Unamerican, science-worshipping scumbag! Nye should be censured and repudiated for such ridiculous, asinine statements. His conceit and arrogance are truly breathtaking, as well as extremely dangerous...
150
posted on
09/06/2012 8:51:43 PM PDT
by
sargon
To: tpanther; tacticalogic; betty boop; metmom; Alamo-Girl; MrB; Agamemnon; Paradox; hosepipe; ...
"What scientific theory requires so many lawsuits to prop it up?" Ummm... Let's see... Global warming?
[Says this scientist who accepts neither -- for sound scientific reasons...] ;-)
151
posted on
09/07/2012 5:14:35 AM PDT
by
TXnMA
("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
To: Alamo-Girl
Newton describes them, but he does not explain what their origins are. Biologists had already defined what life was well before ToE. Why does failure to do it all over again render the theory flawed?
152
posted on
09/07/2012 5:27:23 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tpanther
Actually, I have to disagree with Betty Boop here. The idea that Darwinism has been stagnant and unchanging for 150+ years. Of course she's correct scientifically, but consider:If it's correct scientifically, that should be sufficient for the purpose of a discussion of the science of it.
153
posted on
09/07/2012 5:35:05 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tpanther
The better question is of course: What scientific theory requires so many lawsuits to prop it up? What is it exactly that makes that "the better question"?
154
posted on
09/07/2012 5:37:26 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: TXnMA
Excellent! Thank you for your insights, dear brother in Christ!
To: Alamo-Girl
You don’t see a “guilt by association” fallacy there?
156
posted on
09/07/2012 6:05:34 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic; betty boop; TXnMA
To the contrary, Newton's theory holds in respect to his stated presupposition of space/time - namely that they pre-exist and objects exist "in" them. To the contrary, measurements of the CMB in the 1960's forward confirm that space/time is expanding, that it doesn't pre-exist, that there was a beginning of real space and real time. The observation shows that Newton's presuppositions were false but not significant at classical levels.
Biologists had already defined what life was well before ToE.
Please produce it here, then - not just a pre-Darwin description of what life "looks like" but what life "is."
To: Alamo-Girl
To the contrary, Newton's theory holds in respect to his stated presupposition of space/time - namely that they pre-exist and objects exist "in" them.You fault Darwin for failing to address the origin of life, but give Newton a pass for a presupposion of "pre-existence", which doesn't address the origin, but merely avoids it.
158
posted on
09/07/2012 6:25:15 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic; betty boop; TXnMA
I did not say that Darwin should have addressed biogenesis or abiogenesis but rather that he should have defined - as Newton and Einstein did in their disciplines - what life "is."
To: Alamo-Girl
Can you explain why failing to do that renders the theory flawed?
160
posted on
09/07/2012 6:42:01 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 321-329 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson