Bill Nye the Science Guy says creationism not good for kids

Reuters ^ | August 28, 2012 | Lily Kuo

[tpanther]

If it's correct scientifically, that should be sufficient for the purpose of a discussion of the science of it.

Betty Boop was correct scientifically, not Darwinism. But way to give it the good old college try!

[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"?

More germain to the discussion, better exposure of what's really going on here. Re-read betty boop's fine points if you must.

[tacticalogic]

Betty Boop was correct scientifically, not Darwinism. But way to give it the good old college try!

If that's all you've got, we'll just let it rest there.

[tacticalogic]

More germain to the discussion, better exposure of what's really going on here. Re-read betty boop's fine points if you must.

I think betty is entirely capable of determining what questions are germain to her own discussions, and asking them.

You are of course, free to disagree.

[tpanther]

Using lawsuits as a metric? Wow.

Yeah, wow, liberalism on parade. It's the only way liberals can get their agenda's, in this case Darwinism, accepted. And you seriously thought somehow science was gonna be off-limits? Objective?

Just...

WOW!

[tacticalogic]

I kind of expected that it would be recognized that you can file all the lawsuits you want, and you can't trust a metric that lets you manufacture your own evidence.

Maybe that was too much to hope for.......

[whattajoke]

And here I ignorantly thought that since there hasn’t been scientific debate about the fact of evolution for 160 years that even Free Republic had caught up.

I guess not.

[MarDav]

“...fact of evolution...”

There’s your problem, right there.

[whattajoke]

No. Not at all.

I know you, and many others here disagree, but that doesn’t change a thing.

[tpanther]

It’s all Darwinism has, and why don’t you people rest when you’re shown the multiple flaws?

[tpanther]

I kind of expected that it would be recognized that you can file all the lawsuits you want, and you can't trust a metric that lets you manufacture your own evidence. Maybe that was too much to hope for.......,

Darwinism.

There, finished it for you.

[MarDav]

If we are going to do a careful reading of scripture, God made man after His image and likeness. It does not say He ushered in a process that led, ultimately, to a creation that, through said process, resulted in a creature after His image and likeness (What kind of God would do such a thing? Which gives Him the greater glory?) The Pre-Fall notion that God implemented a system of evolutionary forces diminishes God and requires a “reading into” His word things that are not directly suggested by it.

The “Post-Fall” scenario is equally confounding. After God created all things...sin entered the world (through the disobedience of His creatures). This brought into effect the “force” (death) that counters God’s intention for His creation (life.) If the biblical principle of sin and sin’s consequence is true, then how can one conclude that God had put into effect a system that, now tainted by the flaw of sin, would result in an ever-improving, ever-evolving creation that exceeds what He originally brought into existence? Once more, God is diminished.

These things are spiritually discerned, as are all things pertaining to life and godliness, and only by faith can they be understood.

[tacticalogic]

There, finished it for you.

That's the objective.

[MarDav]

Facts are facts...except when they aren’t. You can’t change the fact that evolution is not fact. It’s theory.

[Agamemnon]

Did your theology teach you that?

I am informed not only by my theology.

I am also informed in this present discussion by your stark inability to hold up your side of the debate.

FReegards!

[tacticalogic]

If you were doing that well, I don’t think you’d be having to resort to personal attacks.

[whattajoke]

You can’t change the fact that evolution is not fact. It’s theory.

This again? I appreciate your interest. As such, I'll indulge you, even though you've surely read this before. Here is a nice, short and very clear explanation about the fact - and theory - of evolution.

If you are disinclined to click on that, here are the most relevant paragraphs:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

Yes. While I absolutely know that you, and many others here, simply cannot accept that evolution is as accepted at heliocentrism, germs-cause-disease, the earths crust is made up of plates, etc, it IS. And has been for over a century.

We still have plenty of people who disbelieve heliocentrism. They would argue that "it's only a theory." They may even point to a Bronze Age religious text as "proof."

And they'd be just as wrong as creationists.

[Agamemnon]

And here I ignorantly thought ...

Ignorant thought is what is expected of those that espouse evolutionary dogma.

So glad to see you acknowledge the ignorance of your thought processes right up front and with your first posting to this thread.

... the fact of evolution ...

... a "fact," which you simply do not have, and no evolutionist who was ever acquainted even casually with the scientific method would ever claim as fact. Chalk that up to yet one more ignorant posting form you.

... Free Republic had caught up.

More correctly, FreeRepublic has caught on to the posers, and continues to distinguish itself apart from the Darwin Central retreads such as yourself, "Paradox," "tactalogic," et. al, who try to impress readers with conservatism they parrot for convenience, but in reality is something quite foreign to their collective world-view.

[Agamemnon]

If you were doing that well, I don’t think you’d be having to resort to personal attacks.

Playing the victim card are we now?

Do your self-inflicted wounds some how taste better to you, just because you are the only one who will lick them?

You Darwinist liberals are all the same.

[Agamemnon]

Well written and well-reasoned, MarDav!

FReegards!