Pollux
Member
Variety is the spice of life.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children
- Thread starter MThanded
- Start date
- Status
Glad god needs like 50 thousand of everything.
He can be any of those things, all of them or none of them. Some may even claim He is three kinds of things all at once despite this sounding a little crazy. Again you attempt to limit the magic man in the sky and this is folly. He is magic and I can make Him anything I need Him(or Her or It) to be. Something limitless cannot ever be reductionist. And please, attempting to limit Him by the words chosen to describe Him ignores a long history of 'god' being co-opted to mean just about anything.
Sanky Panky
Banned
Log4Girlz said:
Different hypothesis for plausible ancestors may be good storytelling, and gets you some research funding, but I'm not expecting any breakthroughs that can't be achieved via focusing on their current genetic make-up, organs, etc. Not expecting any breakthroughs at all actually.
Hurr hurr did we skip to the part already where you call everybody else ignorant? I do know how taxonomy works, so no point in nitpicking semantics. The thousands genera of birds can be studied as that, birds. My only argument is that discovering a dinosaur with feather-like coating doesn't do much in advancing our understanding of birds, their genomes, ecosystem, etc.
Yes, the study of DNA helps in all those fields. Debates over ancestry are a trivial aspect to understanding how DNA works.
This is not the first time you jump into a discussion and completely misuse scientific terms which mean very precise things. This is science, not literature, so no, it's not just "nitpicking semantics". If you start use scientific terms completely randomly, no one with a solid scientific education will take you seriously.
If you don't know the difference between a genus and a clade, I doubt you know much about evolution, how it works and how it is useful for far more than classifying animals into different boxes, which is useful but rather artificial ayway.
No, the study of the evolution of organisms helps, which is entirely dependent on the ToE and thus perfectly related to ancestry, and not just "how DNA works". They're two completely different things. You can perfectly know how a virus replicates and integrates a host's genomes or not down to the most precise molecular events, but that doesn't tell you anything regarding its actual evolution and predictions we can make. For this, you need models derived from evolutionary studies, because they take into account genetics, compensations, and selection pressure.
The study of animals does not begin and end solely with its current state. Science asks questions about origin as well. Why do birds have feathered wings and not webbed membranes like pterasaurs or bats? The clue is in its ancestry, where it came from.
Btw, birds are dinosaurs.
Sanky Panky
Banned
Just say it if you don't want to address my points. Your inference is laughable about my knowledge of evolution, because I refered to the bird genus instead of the "thousands of bird genera." I guess the first thing you guys do is try to paint anybody with a critical view with a broad stroke.
Again, studying selective pressures in the environment is useful for population studies, but everything else you stated is viewed in the context of how DNA works. I will once again state that I don't think humanity is being held back if some people don't agree with the origin of genes and organisms.
In fact, it can be argued that viewing genes in the context of ancestry has even limited the progress in the field. For a long time, the belief was held that many genes are traces of our ancestors without any function. Thankfully, progress has been made beyond that, and we discover more and more that those have actual functions.
I simply disagree with Nye that humanity is being held back.
Again plausible stories are a fun read, and a good brain excercise, but they are bound to yield little practical results vs biological studies of current birds.
Until further notice, for all intents and purposes, birds are birds.
likedamaster
Member
He won't be saying that in the next life. What a disaster... teaching what he can't prove himself, a contradiction of his own teaching, only to find out creationism is exactly how the world started(from scriptures). Yeah, but the children can't know this. It's... not appropriate.
The whole premise to his argument is a lie. Not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in tectonic plate movement. I don't believe it and work in a health profession and i really don't care who does and doesn't. I certainly don't ask my clients.....so whatever.
Omegasquash
Member
Prove to me that there's a next life. It's rhetorical, since I don't expect a person-on-the-internet to do what no one else has been able to do, but hopefully it gets the message across.
Are you a chiropractor? Because that would explain everything.
Nurse.
EmCeeGramr
Member
So you don't believe in modern antibiotics?
Pollux
Member
ADD?
Your points? Which points? You just make a broad statement that evolutionary science is useless, because who cares if birds are dinosaurs or whatever. And yes, again, this shows that you don't know the difference between a genus and a clade, which is a very basic concept in taxonomy.
Your constant random use of scientific terms is quite disturbing, because no one with a basic understanding of how stuff works would drops gems like
And many others. Dropping scientific words here and there in what boils down to utterly uneducated statements doesn't change a thing. It's still absolute gibberish. If you want to use scientific terms, use them correctly.
This is not the bible. You can't cheery-pick what's cool and what's not to fit your particular bias. If you refute the evolutionary theory for the origin of species, then you can't understand and accept its applications. Which I'm sure you do unless you're not having food and refuse any vaccines and medicinal drugs.
Maybe you should read this. It's open access. Have fun.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1752-4571/issues
No idea what you're actually talking about here, because as usual you don't give any example. Still, pseudogenes are a reality.
There's your notice. It was given, oh, just a few decades ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theropoda
You have to realise that this kind of statement is like saying "Until further notice, humans are humans, not mammals." or "turtles are turtles, not reptiles".
I don't even know how to answer this lol
What others things don't you believe in?
So many things. But evolution was like the least of my concerns when going through school.
You know what MRSA is, correct?
Does the sun revolve around the earth?
Yes. I understand resistance, i understand mutations and i treat them as such.
How do you understand these things and yet reject evolution?
Why should i agree with a theory that i find fault in. I passed through it, I understood what they were trying to sell to me and moved on. I found more interesting things in science that i wanted to do. If a another person finds evolution as his cup of tea then all the best. My accepting of it did not in any way compromise my understanding of the life sciences.
Right. The only theory with any evidence backing it up. What's the alternative Emwitus? You a creationist? That has no fault?
I also work in healthcare, and you would be surprised at how many people don't believe in the scientific principals they were taught in school. It tends to draw a very conservative crowd, and while the undergrad science requirements are rigorous, the professional courses are more focused on how the human body works rather than how it was developed.
Many of my colleagues don't believe in evolution, despite dealing with drug-resistant bacteria on a daily basis. They don't consider that to be evolution, probably because they still believe in the definition of evolution as taught to them by their angry preacher rather than the one they should have learned in Bio 101. The only way you could prove evolution to them is if some species just gave birth to another species, which is impossible. The entire fossil record isn't evidence to them for some reason.
Honestly, I get the feeling that most of these people don't really care that much. They just believe what they were taught. It's easier that way, all of their friends and family believe the same thing, and that's good enough. It doesn't affect their daily lives and they just aren't curious enough to really look into it.
But you accept and understand the basic engine that drives it, and I suspect you don't reject genetics. So what fault in evolution do you find?
Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
Sho_Nuff82
Member
I think on a more basic science level, anyone with an appreciation for bacteriology or virology who doesn't believe in evolution would be a very poor scientist indeed. The field of recombinant DNA technology arose out of exploiting evolutionarily conserved methods of gene transfer, such as restriction endonucleases.
Clinicians are so far removed from basic science I would agree that it probably doesn't matter what you believe,
unless you're one of the medical "professionals" who refuse to distribute birth control to your patients.
Its always one of two things
Plain ignorance or willful ignorance. There is no good reason a rational adult should not believe in evolution if they fully understand the concept.
I believe in a God creating everything. I don't believe in evolution...plain and simple. We could go into the semantics of it all but we both know how those go. My point? My acceptance of evolution had no bearing on my taking up of science as a career path. Nor do i think it should on anyone.
You find fault in a theory, the only theory with evidence backing it up, which is adopted by any scientist worth their salt and refuse to believe in it but "SOME DUDE DID IT AND I AIN'T EVEN GOT PROOF" is good enough for you? Suit yourself then.
If you take up a profession like bacteriology or Virology then sure...evolution would play a large part in the specific angle of research you would carry but in no way would it prevent you from taking up that area if anything you would have more question than an evolutionist but i digress.
Kano on the Phone
Member
Denying sound, accepted science damn well should affect you taking up science. That's like saying that being a homeopath shouldn't preclude you from taking up a career in actual medicine.
Thing is, there is nothing to (not) believe in. It's like saying you don't believe in the postman.
Do you believe in any form of evolution or just that we didn't evolve from monkeys?
I'm not trying to be mean. Just curious that's all.
I did, I think i turned out okay. I think what some of you are failing to see is how not accepting evolution does not involve not understanding the topic.
That's nice. Shame evolution isn't as air tight a scientific theory as creation myth.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
God creating everything does not clash with the idea of evolutionary biology. I've reconciled that long ago.
I find that Kenneth Miller is the most knowledgeable and well-spoken man on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_Darwin's_God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_a_Theory
I think what people find distressing is that in dismissing the mountains of evidence for evolutionary biology, you are selectively applying the scientific method to observable phenomena. You are rejecting decades of data simply because you choose to. You don't see why that's a frightening prospect for people in the medical field? Or how that kind of attitude can easily lead to the hand-waving of any empirical data whenever it presents a morally inconvenient line of thought?
krameriffic
Member
People also lived for thousands of years without the internet, or air conditioning, or sedentary civilization. We can better ourselves with knowledge. What can be said for ignorance?
"1500 years ago everybody knew the earth was the center of the universe, 500 years ago everybody knew the earth was flat and 15 minutes ago you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
WorriedCitizen
Member
I don't get it. Why would anyone study something that he thinks is utter nonsense?
That's like me becoming an astrologist or a homeopath for a living. My whole work life would end up being an elaborate lie to myself and the people who i deal with professionaly.
I must admit those look like interesting reads. Will check out later. I should add that i don't believe the world is 6000 years old.Also, i have no idea why that came to be a staple associated with the bible since i do not see a single place in it where it's clearly put out as being 6000 years old.
So according to you, if i think evolution is a part of science that is "nonsense"....I should just drop biology? How much of this stuff do you think we learn in school....unless your a grad student..
Yeah, I mean, its non-sense. With no evidence backing it up at all. Like the bible. Oh no wait, sorry its got huge mountains of evidence supporting it along with like, oh the whole scientific community.
I mean, if the whole scientific community believes in scientific non-sense then what does that mean?
You are in denial. It is not nonsense. You either do not fully comprehend it or are brushing it away so that it does not conflict with your faith.
Then there is Theistic evolution there are plenty of scientist out there who do not buy the current theory of evolution and they have their reasonings. This doesn't automatically hinder you work in field of science.
WorriedCitizen
Member
Yes i think you should because obviously you're not actualy interested in how it works.
Carl Sagan up in this!
"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'"
I'm sure Emwitus believes in a god who is so powerful and amazing that he wouldn't stoop to the level of using an amazingly complex and beautiful natural process to make things, and prefers instead to wave his hands and say magic words.
Well, someone shoulda let me know earlier..too late now.
Well that beats that scientific nonsense! Science is so backwards. Not as progressive as religion.
- Status