'Absolutely Wrong': Bill Nye the Science Guy Takes on Noah's Ark Exhibit

a reply to: flyingfish

Then it's just a matter of producing the scientific evidence, not assumption, theory belief
Now go fetch, take all the time you need
You need science to prove your beliefs are true if you claim science, go at em

Be scientifically literate
Show me the science, hard facts, save me from my ignorance...

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: flyingfish

Then it's just a matter of producing the scientific evidence, not assumption, theory belief
Now go fetch, take all the time you need
You need science to prove your beliefs are true if you claim science, go at em

Be scientifically literate
Show me the science, hard facts, save me from my ignorance...

you dont want to be saved from your ignorance. you are playing fetch so you can slap us down when we come back with the desired item. its a spite tactic and you have overplayed it.

the topic is "'Absolutely Wrong': Bill Nye the Science Guy Takes on Noah's Ark Exhibit"

it is not "raggedyman and why he doesnt understand the particulars of the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis"

moving on...

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, no one is mocking biblical stories, just the people who bend reality insisting they're all meant to be taken literal.

imagine a historical institute dedicated to the documentation and display of santa claus artifacts, complete with diagram of how he travels the entire world in a single night and the latest research on his hidden base in the north pole.

I see it everyday taught in schools, its called evolution
Its a fantasy with no evidence, anywhere
None

Its the scientific santa with their ducks on a string

...ok then?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

clearly the global flood and noahs ark and "a pair of every animal" didnt happen. this was bill nyes assessment, and lets be honest, we werent really waiting for his verdict anyway. its just nice to know that he agrees.

Wow children of all ages, Bill Nye is teaching you something, lets all hold hands, close our eyes and listen to the old man teach us religion of evolution
We should call him father and confess we were once stupid and didnt believe him, now we all do.
Our new high priest of our new fairy tail, evolution

Yippe

sooooooo you have no counter argument to offer. thanks for playing.

Counter argument for what, your religion

Post it up in the form of a question, I get so many stupid comments it's hardly worth reading them all

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, no one is mocking biblical stories, just the people who bend reality insisting they're all meant to be taken literal.

imagine a historical institute dedicated to the documentation and display of santa claus artifacts, complete with diagram of how he travels the entire world in a single night and the latest research on his hidden base in the north pole.

I see it everyday taught in schools, its called evolution
Its a fantasy with no evidence, anywhere
None

Its the scientific santa with their ducks on a string

...ok then?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

clearly the global flood and noahs ark and "a pair of every animal" didnt happen. this was bill nyes assessment, and lets be honest, we werent really waiting for his verdict anyway. its just nice to know that he agrees.

Wow children of all ages, Bill Nye is teaching you something, lets all hold hands, close our eyes and listen to the old man teach us religion of evolution
We should call him father and confess we were once stupid and didnt believe him, now we all do.
Our new high priest of our new fairy tail, evolution

Yippe

sooooooo you have no counter argument to offer. thanks for playing.

Counter argument for what, your religion

Post it up in the form of a question, I get so many stupid comments it's hardly worth reading them all

no.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: flyingfish

Then it's just a matter of producing the scientific evidence, not assumption, theory belief
Now go fetch, take all the time you need
You need science to prove your beliefs are true if you claim science, go at em

Be scientifically literate
Show me the science, hard facts, save me from my ignorance...

you dont want to be saved from your ignorance. you are playing fetch so you can slap us down when we come back with the desired item. its a spite tactic and you have overplayed it.

Gonna slap it down because it's a religion with high priests like Bill nye, surely that's deserving of a slapping
Nothing to offer, thanks for playing, sawft

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: flyingfish

Then it's just a matter of producing the scientific evidence, not assumption, theory belief
Now go fetch, take all the time you need
You need science to prove your beliefs are true if you claim science, go at em

Be scientifically literate
Show me the science, hard facts, save me from my ignorance...

you dont want to be saved from your ignorance. you are playing fetch so you can slap us down when we come back with the desired item. its a spite tactic and you have overplayed it.

You have nothing but faith in your chosen religion, Big Bang, nothing, abiogenesis nothing, why go on, you have nothing and you know it

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, no one is mocking biblical stories, just the people who bend reality insisting they're all meant to be taken literal.

imagine a historical institute dedicated to the documentation and display of santa claus artifacts, complete with diagram of how he travels the entire world in a single night and the latest research on his hidden base in the north pole.

I see it everyday taught in schools, its called evolution
Its a fantasy with no evidence, anywhere
None

Its the scientific santa with their ducks on a string

...ok then?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

clearly the global flood and noahs ark and "a pair of every animal" didnt happen. this was bill nyes assessment, and lets be honest, we werent really waiting for his verdict anyway. its just nice to know that he agrees.

Wow children of all ages, Bill Nye is teaching you something, lets all hold hands, close our eyes and listen to the old man teach us religion of evolution
We should call him father and confess we were once stupid and didnt believe him, now we all do.
Our new high priest of our new fairy tail, evolution

Yippe

sooooooo you have no counter argument to offer. thanks for playing.

Counter argument for what, your religion

Post it up in the form of a question, I get so many stupid comments it's hardly worth reading them all

no.

Of course no

a reply to: Raggedyman

Aw cute you trying to make a pun with my moniker?

I understand you all say you are not bound by the law but then you will turn around and use the OT to justify actions or use the ten commandments or the creation story. So sounds like you take the parts you want to take literal, pretty typical actually.

a reply to: Raggedyman

You know, I've come to the opinion that you, Raggedyman, are a Trojan Horse, come in to assault the dignity that can be found in Christians and their doctrine.

Surely, you MUST bat for the other team, perhaps you're a member of some Satanist organisation, because you really have a knack for turning people away from the ideals of "Christ" and image of Christianity.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Its not a religion, you utter clod.

Religious beliefs and science could not be more different. Science is a psychological tool, which, if embraced, allows a person to make observations, understand their implications, and extrapolate from those observations and implications, a framework for understanding the physical universe, in which our mortal existence plays out.

Religion is no such thing. It speaks EXCLUSIVELY to the soul, it is focused on the affairs of spirit, not primarily affairs of body. As concepts go, they could not be further from one another in terms of form or use.

I happen to be in a perfect position to correct you on this matter, since I find it possible to have both my faith in Christ, and a healthy understanding of and appreciation for the sciences in my life, without being overloaded and confused.

Science though, is not a religion. It has no deity, it has no priesthood, it, unlike religion, changes ALL the time to fit better and more accurate observations made by those engaged it. The physical reality around us is more important to scientists than ANY dogma that may have sprung up. It is neither good, nor evil, it is merely a way of thinking about the physical universe and how it's parts interelate.

You can say none of these things about religion.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

You know, I've come to the opinion that you, Raggedyman, are a Trojan Horse, come in to assault the dignity that can be found in Christians and their doctrine.

Surely, you MUST bat for the other team, perhaps you're a member of some Satanist organisation, because you really have a knack for turning people away from the ideals of "Christ" and image of Christianity.

You know, I don't think very much about you after I post a comment
I can't turn you away from something you hate so vehemently

Read the thread, it's a Christian hate thread

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Raggedyman

Aw cute you trying to make a pun with my moniker?

I understand you all say you are not bound by the law but then you will turn around and use the OT to justify actions or use the ten commandments or the creation story. So sounds like you take the parts you want to take literal, pretty typical actually.

Care to explain where and when
What actions do I justify with the OT
There are non literal and historical parts of the OT
What do you know of the literal and non literal parts I take from the OT

You are just assuming, how about showing

I wasn't trying to make a pun with your moniker, I did

a reply to: TzarChasm

there was a flood, not only the bible says so

a reply to: TrueBrit

I can say an active faith in evolution, without any empirical evidence is a faith, it's not a science
Kinda like Buddhism is a religion
Evolution has reached dogma stage
You can argue, I am very confident that the science behind evolution is a formal faith

Now don't be silly and suggest I don't accept science, just don't accept evolution as a science, it's a faith
How about you get empirical evidence for evolution and prove me wrong

a reply to: TrueBrit

It's not that science doesn't work, science is very important. This become more abut how science is communicated. Observations are made but can we trust what is communicated.

Below is a call for a rebranding so to speak of the business of science.

The Why and How of Science Communication

“Trust is central to the business of science”, however in recent years there has been a significant shift in how members of the public trust and defer to expertise relating to scientific topics. A special Eurobarometer report on Science and Technology in 2010 noted that within Europe the majority of citizens feel that “scientists cannot be trusted to tell the truth about controversial scientific and technological issues” (European Commission, 2010: 19).

The increasing reliance of scientists on funding from industrial and private sources was the main reason given within this report for this reduced level of trust, however other factors also come into play. High levels of press coverage for major controversial scientific topics such as climate change, nuclear power or genetically modified foods have led to a wide degree of polarisation and uncertainty in public opinion (Ipsos MORI, 2011), a situation that is exacerbated by high profile disagreements between ‘respected’ scientists on either side of the scientific argument.

If the scientists can’t agree on the ‘right’ conclusion, so the argument goes, then why should either side be recognised as being in a position of authority? As Kerr et al. (2007) argue, there is also an increasingly wide range of recognised additional ‘experts’ who are outside the scientific discipline in question. This is particularly true in the case of the medical professions, where “expert patients”, “lay experts” or “experts of community” are common (Kerr et al., 2007: 387).

Finally, specific examples of scientific fraud (suspected or proven) have been given high profile and wide ranging media coverage, again arguably causing a reduced acceptance of the ‘authority’ of people in such professions amongst public groups. For example, when in 2005 it emerged that Woo Suk Hwang had fabricated key findings relating to reported successes in cloning developments, there were immediate concerns that “the episode will damage not only public perceptions of stemcell research, but science’s image as a whole” (Check and Cyranoski, 2005). More recently, the ‘Climategate’ scandal (involving leaked emails from researchers which included describing a ‘trick’ approach to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures) has led to a noticeable reduction in public belief in global warming in America (Leiserowitz et al., 2010).

Interesting read, one of the proposal is to use more integration if science and comedy.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Ah, so a single facet of one particular theory, within one particular field of science, is indicative and representative of all science? No. Whether a person happens to believe that the concept of evolution is valid or not, does not change the FACT that science (a very broad edifice, not defined by any one of its various facets, but by the totality of its facets) is a tool to help critical thinkers develop better, more accurate, and evidence based thinking on matters pertaining to the physical universe we are living in, not a religion.

Also, if you ask a Buddhist whether Buddhism is a religion, and they know half a crap about what they are talking about, they will tell you that no, it is a philosophy, just FYI. And before you decide that you can counter that, it is impossible for you to understand Buddhism better than someone who lives by it.

a reply to: Observationalist

Well, whatever the truth is about how the man on the stree feels about scientists, it has no bearing on the subject of whether or not it constitutes a religious belief.

But you raise some good points. In Britain there has been a rise in suspicion of science, although no where near as shocking and ridiculous as that which has afflicted the United States. But what we have to remember at all times, is that what a person ends up doing with the science they have learned, is separate from the science itself. It is as much a product of their intellect, filtered through their morality, and the difficulties of getting things done in an increasingly corporate world.

I would prefer that things were done for the sake of knowing, not for the sake of making money, and I think most scientists would prefer that as well. I know a few. All the physicists and doctors I have ever met, HATE the way funding is developed for projects, because it limits the number of projects which can run at any one time, and insists that pressure which is unhelpful to rigorous examination of a concept, be applied to all of those desiring a grant to aid in their researches.

However, those issues have nothing to do with the issue of whether or not science is a religion. It is not. It has no significant similarity to a religion, requires no faith what so ever to operate its methodology. It seeks to ask better questions, and that is all science is for in reality.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

You know, I've come to the opinion that you, Raggedyman, are a Trojan Horse, come in to assault the dignity that can be found in Christians and their doctrine.

Surely, you MUST bat for the other team, perhaps you're a member of some Satanist organisation, because you really have a knack for turning people away from the ideals of "Christ" and image of Christianity.

I love it when nonbelievers who spend most of their time here bashing Christians turn around and tell people how to be Christians.

There's only one Satanist posing as a Christian in this thread, and its not the person you're trying to school.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
close our eyes and listen to the old man teach us religion of evolution

You do know that doesn't make sense, right?

Religion is based on faith - the belief in the absence of evidence.

Science (and in this case the theory of evolution) is based not on faith but observation and evidence.

It used to be the fossil record, but now, thanks to advances in (shock, surprise!) science and technology, DNA sequencing and analysis is even more accurate as to which species were our ancestors, how we diverged, why and traces back.

So - 'religion of evolution'? Only if you live your life in a cave, man.

a reply to: Bone75

There's only one Satanist posing as a Christian in this thread, and its not the person you're trying to school.

Ah, a Trojan Horse tag team! LOL