Bill Nye the Science Guy says creationism not good for kids

Reuters ^ | August 28, 2012 | Lily Kuo

[Alamo-Girl]

Not at all. Evidently you are taking this personally.

For example, I deplore abortion but I do hate the people I know - family and friends - who do not share my view. And I do not hate the women who have had abortions. Indeed, I pray for them for if they eventually realize that they willfully and often for personal convenience, ended a life, they will be inconsolable.

[tacticalogic]

Not at all. Evidently you are taking this personally.

I just took the statements at face value.

[metmom]

IOW, God cannot ever be seen "directly," but only through His effects.... But the "humanists" evidently refuse to look.

Likewise, evolution has never been seen directly but (allegedly, according to the evos/humanists) through it's effects. All based on circumstantial and forensic evidence and extrapolation.

Interesting that the so-called objective scientists are willing to use one method themselves and yet condemn others for using the exact same method.

There's a word for that.......

[metmom]

You make it sound as if a theory being unchallenged for 150 years is an historic anamoly.

The ToE has not been unchallenged for 150. the evo supporters just wish it were so and therefore claim it leading the gullible to believe that is the case.

The problem is that ToE supporters blow off any challenge as being unscientific by default. The challenges are dismissed off hand.

However, their considering that there is no valid scientific challenge to the ToE does not make it so.

[metmom]

Biologists had already defined what life was well before ToE.

Really? And that would be what?

I've challenged evos plenty of times to define life and had no takers.

Perhaps you could take the challenge.

[bert]

Mostly, we learned not to listen to creo fools

[tacticalogic]

The ToE has not been unchallenged for 150. the evo supporters just wish it were so and therefore claim it leading the gullible to believe that is the case.

Telepathy?

[tacticalogic]

I’m glad you’re feeling better.

[metmom]

And here I ignorantly thought that since there hasn’t been scientific debate about the fact of evolution for 160 years .....

And therein lies your problem. You think that the ToE has remained unchallenged for 160 years.

It has not and your failure to recognize or acknowledge it IS due to ignorance.

[metmom]

Why so negative? That they give it a name means they aknowlege that it exists.

Do you believe in Bigfoot, too?

[tacticalogic]

Do you believe in Bigfoot, too?

I'm glad you're feeling better.

[tacticalogic]

Do you believe in Bigfoot, too?

I'm glad you're feeling better.

[metmom]

Neither do they listen to the physicists, who have a much better handle on hard science than biologists do.

[whattajoke]

And therein lies your problem. You think that the ToE has remained unchallenged for 160 years.

All hypotheses are "challenged." All scientific theories are "challenged." Do you think that when Wallace and Darwin independently recognized the basics tenets of evolution and began publishing their findings that they weren't "challenged?!"

Of COURSE they were! And that's the most ironic part about the lunacy of creationists. This stuff has been "challenged" on many grounds for 160 years and yet it still survives as the single most elegant and persuasive explanation for the diversity of life anyone has ever put forth.

Heck, I have to laugh everytime a new creationist meme is dreamt up - because all that comes of it is further study of that meme and often a paper results. Things that didn't have a rich field of study before creationists latched on to them now do: Evolution of sight, echolocation, vitamin C in primates, avain-reptilian shared ancestry, etc. It's always exciting when creationists find another "gap" for the actual scientists to close.

So in that sense, sure it's "challenged." The theory of relativity has been challenged repeatedly (and updated accordingly). The FACT of evolution has never been credibly challenged. The THEORY of how it works (ie, the mechanisms) has. Innumerable times. Which is a GOOD thing.

YOUR brand of "challenging," from an anti-science "Goddidit" puddle, however, hardly provides anything worth exploring.

It has not and your failure to recognize or acknowledge it IS due to ignorance.

So we're good now?

[metmom]

If you’re happy being ignorant, who am I to argue?

[whattajoke]

If you’re happy being ignorant, who am I to argue?

Fascinating dissonance.

[CottShop]

not only that metmom- but htese scientists have to REJECT direct evidence that shows that evolution is a biological mathematical, chemical and time sensitive impossibility- and put all their faith in a process that simply defies logic- they have to wave their hands and state ‘well we don’t have to discuss the abiogenisis’ as though that isn’t a crucial step in their allegations that life began from chemicals? Dirty chemicals at that- Their ‘Will if this had happened, then this could have happened provided so and so was inplace first, and provided nature suppressed such and such’ is the epitome of hypocrisy when they then turn aroudn and claim Christians beleive in fairy tales because they beleive in an intelligent designer

[YHAOS]

Interesting

Has Mr. Nye yet proposed that the children of Christians (especially the so-called "Crevos") be removed from their homes if they are not taught by their parents that Evoluton "proves" that God does not exist?

[longtermmemmory]

bill nye so weird not even disney wanted him.

[whattajoke]

What’s a “dirty chemical?”