Bill Nye the Science Guy says creationism not good for kids

Reuters ^ | August 28, 2012 | Lily Kuo

[YHAOS]

Giggle.

"After all what good is a ROLEX to a monkey?.. Maybe as entertainment.. "

Classic.

[betty boop]

Since the biologists can’t do their job, should we fire them all?

I guess I can't ignore you on this point a second time.

So here's my answer:

NO!!!

I don't want to fire biologists. I only hope and pray they can "buy a clue," timely.

[tacticalogic]

I don't want to fire biologists. I only hope and pray they can "buy a clue," timely.

Why wait for them. Can't you just show them how it should be done?

[metmom]

If you don’t want to be confused, you need to stop listening to those biased,God haters who distort the truth of the word of God

Where in Scripture does it state that there’s such a thing as magic to begin with?

And what’s the constant problem evos have with the thought that a snake could “talk”?

And since when does perfection demand no free will? What does perfection have to do with making choices?

[CottShop]

[[Science seems to like darkness..]]

Aint that the truth- Awhile back I was looking into the claims of ‘evolution before our very eyes’ in regards to Eukoroytes and ? (can’t remember the other species at the moment- maybe it was prokaroytes- but it was claimed the one invaded the iother, and the host becAme so RELIANT O NTHE PRESENCE OF THE OTHER OVER TIME TRHAT the one was evolving into the other) and teachers and scientists KNEW the truth about the issue, but kept everyone, even the kids in schools, whom they were ‘teaching’ science to, in the dark abotu the actual truth- letting everyoen continue believing that the one species had invade another and ‘eventually evovled into the other and that it was ‘witnessed and recorded and evolution was happenign before our eyes-’-

However, when the TRUTH came to LIGHT- science books had to finally admit that it was nothign but a symbiotic relationship between the two species and not one species evolving into the other- It was a tough humble pie for them to eat- but they had to because they had invested so much into the cover-up because it was their ‘earliest examples’ of evolution which could ‘still be witnessed’ according to them- The LIGHT really bothered them quite a bit with the original authors vehemently denying what most of the rest of the scientific comunity was forced into admitting- (that and the ‘vestigial organs’ hypothesis which later proved innacurate too after light was shed o nthe subject despite the evolutionsits cocnerted efforts to keep peopel i nthe dark about hte truth)

[Texas Songwriter]

And my short reply is, YES, a thought is generated via aspects located in spacetime, thus it must have some linkage to the spacetime coordinate system in order to be created. BUT, our current conceptualizations of dimensions space and time and life and spirit are so weak that we are unable to 'dream of reality' beyond our sensing patterns. If a thought exists inside The Universe God created, then a thought has some aspect variability relationship to the dimensions which God created to define that Created Universe. [Now for the longer ramble, if you wish to tune out at this point.]

Yours is a question of location. The physicalist believes everything that exists is fundamentally matter, most likely, elementary particles whether points of potentiality, centers of mass/energy, units of spatially extended. All abstract entities fail to meet this test. For example thought, logic, reason, rational thought, numbers, consciousness, the fact that there are other minds than my own, ethical truths, aesthetic judgements, truth, beauty, justice - all products of mental events or expressed as a mental event - fail to meet the test of extension of spatiotemporality. They are not 'made' of the material which complell the physicalists ontology...but nothing meets that test. Physicalists have no way of explaining the appearance of irreducible, genuinely mental properties in the cosmos. Jaegwon Kim,(highly published philospher and strict physicalist) stated that his fellow phsicalist "must simply admit the irreality of the mental and that natualism exacts a steep price and cannot be had on the cheap." If feigning anesthesia - denying consciousness construed along common sense lines is real - is the price to be paid to retain naturalism then the price is too high. Fortunantly,, the theistic arguement from consciousness reminds us that it is a price that does not to be paid.

The dualist must admit the the causal connection to the brain and mental events. Physical events and properties do not hold true for mental events. One's thoughts, feelings of pain, or sensory experiences do not have weight. Brain functions are the result of biochemical and electrical activities. Mental events do not have such physical qualia. Likewise memories are not stored in the brain, but are stored in the mind, yet the causal connection with the brain is irrefutable.

I do not think I was much help in answering your question. I guess my point is that any abstract entity and mind have no physical quality and are therefore do not extend spatiotemporally.

[CottShop]

[[ethical truths,]]

Lemme just quickly add “Universal Ethical Truths”, and the reason we know them to be universal is because peopel raised in wholly hedonistic societies, who later became Christians, tell of always knowign that what they were doing in regards to living hedonistically, was somehow wrong and they simply kept doing it because ‘everyone did it’ but that they never felt right about it-

This suggests that a universal moral code is present- regardless of whether a particular osiciety has ‘learned to suppress is’ i ntheir own minds or not- they may like to say ‘Well, in our society, noone beleives that is wrong to do such and such’ but in reality, they are simply just tryign to justify their lust and their decisions to deny that a universal moral code exists- but it does- no matter how fiercely they deny it-

[Texas Songwriter]

The Moral Law is univeral. You are preaching to the choir. I agree completely with you. I commend a book on Moral Law entitled “Things We Can’t Not Know” by J. Budziszewski. It explains much about Romans 1:18 and following through Romans 2 (entire chapter). The Moral Law is undeniable.

[CottShop]

onem ore point- Dawkins woiuld argue that the universal moral code is nothign more than a virus- contracted be being sneezed upon by other infected people- no really- he did suggest this- He calsl it the ‘God Gene/Virus’ or somethign to that effect- it’s his desperate attempt to poo poo the idea of a iniversal moral code because if there’s a universal moral code, then there msut be a universal moral code Giver

[[fail to meet the test of extension of spatiotemporality.]]

Does it fail to meet it IF there are ‘alternate universes’ where we exist i nthe future at the same tiem we exist i nthe here and now here? (note- I don’t beleive i nthe ‘other dimenskions’ hypothesis- but it’s kinda fascinating ot think about)

[CottShop]

[[The Moral Law is univeral. You are preaching to the choir]]

Didn’t mean to sound liek I was preaching- I was just throwing that out there to suggest that somethign can be universal and exist in both space and time- (I think lol- After all, The Holy Spirit IS doing the prodding and convicting, encourqaaging, etc etc, and as we know, the Holy Spirit isn’t bound by space or time-

[MHGinTN]

I wasn't actually asking a question. I have worked out a cosmology that satisfies my own rational thoughts. It is along the lines of dimensions created by God, which intertwine when a threshold of development is reached. Four dimensions I would identify so far, are Space, Time, Life Force, and Spirit. I conceptualize Time as a volume, but we are curiously made such that we sense the physical via a linear temporal perspective, probably because we were made to have a planar temporal rationality as living creatures.

Thoughts related in/to/with/upon spacetime via the chemistry of the brain, but the reality of a thought is not bound by the linear temporal perspective with which we are familiar, so we categorize a thought as an abstraction from spacetime. But I don't believe it is an abstraction, it just exists as a very different spatio-temporal phenomenon than what we have heretofore conceptualized.

IF lifeforce is a dimension--like Space and Time are dimensions--then some variability of that dimension has more fundamental support for a thought than space or time, perhaps even no space, but some variable expression of dimension Time, else there would be no storage which could be retrieved via the brain of the physical body.

I used to be a fairly good Chess player. As I could play a full game in my head, without a board in front of me, even if my opponent was using a board, the reality of the pieces changing positions was an ongoing phenomenon, much the way memorizing openings was building a file bank for use in tournament play. Thoughts are real, they can be stored and retrieved. They may not have spatial quality, but they definitely have temporal quality ... my retrieval mechanism ain't what it used to be. ;^) Have a pleasant evening and thanks for the exchanges.

[whattajoke]

Deaf ears here, I know, but...

Where in Scripture does it state that there’s such a thing as magic to begin with?

Followed by:

And what’s the constant problem evos have with the thought that a snake could “talk”?

Sums up pretty much the entire fundamentalist (insert religion here) position quite nicely. Thanks, metmom, you nailed it.

[hosepipe]

About evolution.. I have a story to tell you...

It was a long stormy night.. Ooops bad start...
(Restart).. If you have ever been to say New York City..

There are people there operating on the level of APES...
Posturing, makeing noises, mimicking Bonobo apes.. (Rappers)
and followers of Rappers... very low level intelligence.. and lifestyle..

Then you have your folks a little higher on the human scale..
Let’s call them democrats for lack of a better term...
Working like slaves to feed parasitic politicians... and followers..
And are happy about it... Not Apes but barely..

Then you have your republicans for lack of a better term...
Happy to receive givernment largess but feel guilty for it...
They are parasites as well but hate themselves for it....
But would never give back a givernment check...

There are a couple more categories but this is enough
for we are talking about evolution.. concurrent evolution..
All of these folks and more have been around for thousands of years..
Maybe multiple tens of thousands of years.. or longer..

I see no need to go cave man hunting when you have perfect
examples right before your eyes.. Unless your trying to sell something..
Evolution “scientists” are trying to sell you something... “A YARN”..
We have cave men right among us I can take you and you a show you...
and Cave Women too.. cave babies, cave singers and dancers.. even
Tribal Shamans but they are mostly in the University’s..

Its really all about the Yarn you are willing to “ingest”...
Some spit others swallow... Which Yarn have you swallowed?.. or chewed on?...
This is merely a “scientific” inquiry... you understand..

Pipe......

[metmom]

Did you ever hear of parrots?

Or budgerigars?

Or mynas?

Cockatoos?

Now, about that magic part......

Why is it that scientists believe in magic and Christians don’t?

Who’s the ignorant one there?

[whattajoke]

Did you ever hear of parrots?

Bird, not snake.

Or budgerigars?

Bird, not snake. Lives in Australia, not wherever Eve tread in the garden.

Or mynas?

Bird, not snake. Lived only in India/southern Asia until introduced elsewhere but not, ironically, wherever Eve tread in the Garden (central/north Africa or Middle East).

Cockatoos?

See: parrots, above.

It should also be noted that these incredible animals do not have the ability to tempt human beings to do something against their wishes. They are also birds, not snakes. The mental gymnastics you are forcing here are really getting out of hand.

Why is it that scientists believe in magic and Christians don’t?

"Magic," as it's usually defined, involves supernaturalism or paranormalism. I accept neither in any way, shape or form as there is no evidence of either. I'm certain the large majority of scientists agree with me on this point. I have no idea where you get these ideas, but they are incorrect.

[MHGinTN]

Weigh a thought for us, smartass. Check the volume of a dream, genius. Measure the length of desire, insulting asshat. Your strained effort to exclude reveals your less than intelligent agenda, fool.

[whattajoke]

Weigh a thought for us

While we do often use the phrase, "heavy thoughts," there is no way to measure the mass or weight of "thoughts." However, I'm confident in saying thoughts have no weight or mass.

Check the volume of a dream

I don't know if you want to measure the unit volume or the number of decibels of a dream. I'm confident in saying dreams have no measurable volume as a unit of size, despite the colloquialism that some people "dream big." Your inability parse cutesy paradigms and mathematical measurement makes me sad.

However, dreams often do cause people to mumble, talk or even shout. This range is about 30Db to maybe 75Db for especially loud dreamers.

Measure the length of desire

The average length of a human male's erect desire is between 5 and 6 inches, depending on your measurement technique. If that's not what you meant, and you were trying to be poetic because we often say "she has a lot of desire," then your inability to parse euphemism from what can actually be measured in a meaningful way makes me sad.

smartass... asshat... fool

Slanders the sentient adult who believes, apparently, that snakes can hold conversations with humans. What WON'T you folks believe?!

[MHGinTN]

Wandered in here from Darwin Central did ya? Pick up after yourself, fool, you’re dropping straw and herring all over the place.

[whattajoke]

fool

And a fine day to you as well. Can snakes talk? Just curious.

Wandered in here from Darwin Central did ya?

Yes. I'm on a super secret agent mission. But even they don't know. Please don't tell them as I just blew my cover.

you’re dropping straw and herring all over the place

Clever phrasing - hey, I give credit where credit is due. While I completely agree this whole talking snakes thing is not completely germane to the topic and I'm partially responsible for bringing it up, another correspondent on this thread continues to argue that there was indeed at least one snake at one point in very early human history capable of convincing a human being to do something she knew she shouldn't do.

That person defended her position by asking me if I've ever heard of four types of birds proficient in mimicry. I responded that snakes are not, in fact, birds. Do you disagree?

She also suggested that scientists "believe in magic." I responded that "magic" is something that involves thing for which there is no evidence, so no, the large majority of scientists do not "belive in magic," other than as an often entertaining artform that utilizes particular ways our brains operate.

You picked up the cause and challenged me to perform measurements on various aspects of mammalian brain functions. I answered your questions as best I could.

And now you're upset. Why is that?

[MHGinTN]

An actually intelligent human would have realized that I referred to aspects of some non-brain phenomena, like the reality of a thought registered in some where/when not measured in brain chemistry. But you’re not nearly as intelligent as you would pretend to be, merely a quipster of dubious identity. We’ve had fools like you around here before, like Le Grand, who was also a poseur like you. Do you have other names registered with Freerepublic to fall back upon, when your current identity is zotted?