Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ Hits Evolution Deniers

[Kyle Ricky]

That thread blew up quickly, and undeservedly, in my opinion. I see no reason that evolution and creation leaning Christians can't have honest debates without umbrage for one another. Each view has it's merits, and it's shortcomings.

Yep, just like liberals, you can't have a civil discussion with some evolutionists. They think they have all the 'FACTS' and know all the science. But when you ask them to show said 'FACTS', they buckle and spit in your face.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: There are no 'FACTS' to support 'ANY' science. It is all based on theories. Any 'REAL' scientist will tell you that.

Edited for my stupid spelling.

[vesta111]

If you think you’ve got “facts”, then please get hold of David R. Liu, professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard; ‘Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative’.
They desperately need your help!!!
They’re looking for some “facts”; not really “facts”, but “could have.”

Read every theory supporting evolution; it’s always “could have.”
Once you have a “could have” then the evolution cult members demand that it be accepted as a “fact.”

Most of the “facts”, that is “could haves”, have been proven impossible!

Ever wonder why evolutionary scientists are so desperate to search planets for the origin of life when there’s such a massive presence of life on every square inch of Earth?
You have 100 trillion critters living in, and on, your body.
A real scientific fact is that there’s currently no workable theory of how life could have started on Earth!

Prebiotic Evolution; "Research in recent years has challenged all aspects of this paradigm as well as the assumptions on which it is based." Dr. Michael A. Meyer, Discipline Scientist for the Exobiology Program, NASA Headquarters.

Evolution, we see it every day, science shows us how diseases can evolve from on thing to another and adapt to our medication so the drugs are no longer usefull to combat that disease..    New unknown strains of the Flu virus that evolves, mutates into another strain.

If an unseen organism can mutate, why not higher forms of life.??

 Pig farmers know that a pregnant sow that escapes and goes wild will in in short time have a litter of baby's that are much different from the mother herself.  Far as I know the pig is the only Anamal that changes from domestic to wild in this way.

The Neanderthal Man, darn I have known people with the features , the large head and big brow bone that resemble the recreations in museums.     Where the heck did their DNA come from ??

Go to the zoo and check out the giraffes,  did God have a sense of humor and create these  poor animals that in order to drink water have to splay their legs out to counter balance their body ????

Then we have our cousin the Gorilla that has been filmed in the wild mimicking human behavior they see.    One film really got to me, a big brute watching the scientists that were watching him, A large stream dull of slippery rocks separated the two watchers.

Occasionally the scientists would cross the stream using a walking stick for balance.   Then out of no where the Gorilla went searching and found a good size stick, played with it for awhile and then on two legs using the stick mimicked the humans and crossed safely.

Evolution of mind and body, our plants and animals, all is part of the Master Plan for our Planet.   

Humans live quite well without some lost in the past need for a Gall Bladder or Appendix. ---Can you roll your tongue, usefull if drinking out of streams, but what about some of us that cannot do that, have we evolved beyond the need to do so ???

 

[LRanger]

On the science part, I'm not sure you understand what 'Halflife' really means for radioisotopes…

Current theories estimate about 5 billion for Universe; 4 or 4.5 for Earth; and life started about 3.5 billion years ago.

Not saying I believe this, and I don’t,  because it’s all based on assumptions, but I’ll give it to you.

So you’ve got about 3.5 billion years to get this whole “Life” thing done.

Looks like you’ve got a lot of time, until you start considering the Math.
You’ve got 10 trillion cells in your body.
You’ve got 100 trillion little living entities living on and in your body, one million on your face.
You have about 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses in your brain.
DNA is so complex that, "A device the size of your thumb could store as much information as the whole Internet," Harvard University molecular geneticist George Church.

You can’t just add these numbers up!
You have to multiply the possibility of it all coming together as a functioning entity in 3.5 billion years.

Oh, and some single cells have a motor capable of doing 6,000 to 17,000 rpm unloaded; sperm cell. (Flagellum)

3.5 billion years; I’ll give you 350 billion years, make that 100 trillion years.

The math won’t work.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The bible is wrong? And Darwin was right?

What if you're reading it wrong?

If you discount that possibility then you've never read the Bible right.

[DefiantSix]

Why does it have to be bible vs. Darwin?  This is a false dichotomy, I think.

IMNSHO, Darwin's theories would be a discussion of the MECHANISM; the Bible is the User Guide from the MECHANIC.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Why does it have to be bible vs. Darwin?  This is a false dichotomy, I think.

IMNSHO, Darwin's theories would be a discussion of the MECHANISM; the Bible is the User Guide from the MECHANIC.

Copernicus said that the Holy Spirit teaches men how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.

[docstew]

Yep, just like liberals, you can't have a civil discussion with some evolutionists. They think they have all the 'FACTS' and no all the science. But when you ask them to show said 'FACTS', they buckle and spit in your face.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: There are no 'FACTS' to support 'ANY' science. It is all based on theories. Any 'REAL' scientist will tell you that.

Theories, despite your derisive tone, are derived from empirically observed facts. Gravity is a theory based upon the empirically observed fact that small things are attracted to bigger things, inversely proportional to the distance between them. Are you denying that gravity exists because it is a theory? A theory is a hypothesis that has not yet been disproven by any documented observation.

[LRanger]

vesta111: Evolution, we see it every day, science shows us how diseases can evolve from on thing to another and adapt to our medication so the drugs are no longer usefull to combat that disease..

Adapt, yes; which falls within the definition of “evolution”.
Adaptation is essential; no adaptation, everything dies.

If an unseen organism can mutate, why not higher forms of life.??

Good question, same question Darwin asked.

Mutations have to be related to bring about any significant change.
(toe gets longer and finger gets shorter; not related)

4 related mutations: 10^28 (bacteria)
World = 510,072,000 sq/km (CIA Fact Book)
Google "510072000 square km to square inches ="
World = 7.90613181 × 10^17 square inches
bacteria per square inch = sample/earth's square inches
bacteria per square inch = (10^28)/(7.90613181 X (10^17))
Google "(10^28)/(7.90613181 X (10^17))="
(10^28)/(7.90613181 X (10^17)) = 1.26484104 x 10^10 bacteria per square inch
Google "1.26484104 x (10^10)="
12,648,410,400 bacteria per square inch of the Earth's surface

Just for one form of bacteria to make 4 related changes; the Earth isn't big enough.
That's only one small step in the path the Theory of Evolution wants to take us down (neo-Darwinian).

[LRanger]

docstew: A theory is a hypothesis that has not yet been disproven by any documented observation.

There is no working theory of how life could have started without God!

Prebiotic Evolution; "the processes that led to the first living cells"

"Research in recent years has challenged all aspects of this paradigm as well as the assumptions on which it is based."
Dr. Michael A. Meyer, Discipline Scientist for the Exobiology Program, NASA Headquarters.
The writing group consisted of:
Dr. Michael H. Carr, USGS
Dr. Benton Clark, Martin-Marietta Aerospace
Dr. David J. DesMarais, NASA Ames Research Center
Dr. Donald L. DeVincenzi, NASA Ames Research Center
Dr. Jack D. Farmer, NASA Ames Research Center
Dr. John M. Hayes, Indiana University
Dr. Heinrich Holland, Harvard University
Dr. Bruce Jakosky, University of Colorado
Dr. Gerald F. Joyce, Scripps Research Institute
Dr. John F. Kerridge, University of California, San Diego & NASA HQ (chair)
Dr. Harold P. Klein, Santa Clara University
Dr. Andrew H. Knoll, Harvard University
Dr. Gene D. McDonald, Cornell University
Dr. Christopher P. McKay, NASA Ames Research Center
Dr. Michael A. Meyer, NASA HQ
Dr. Kenneth H. Nealson, University of Wisconsin
Dr. Everett L. Shock, Washington University
Dr. David M. Ward, Montana State University

[Texacon]

Why does it have to be bible vs. Darwin?  This is a false dichotomy, I think.

IMNSHO, Darwin's theories would be a discussion of the MECHANISM; the Bible is the User Guide from the MECHANIC.

DS if you're saying what I think here then I'm with you.  I'm a Christian and believe in creation as a whole.  I ALSO believe living things have evolved to suit their environment.  The cut off here is I don't believe a lizard laid an egg and a chicken hatched out. 

Can living breathing organisms evolve?  Sure, why not?  God made them and now they are adapting to the environment.  How cool is that?!

KC

[docstew]

There is no working theory of how life could have started without God!

I wasn't saying that there was. I was responding to KR's derisive comments about theories.

I believe that God created life in the beginning and then let it run to see where it would go.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I wasn't saying that there was. I was responding to KR's derisive comments about theories.

I believe that God created life in the beginning and then let it run to see where it would go.

I'm fine with that myself.

[LRanger]

 â€œIn a human, there are more than 125 trillion synapses just in the cerebral cortex alone,” said Smith. That’s roughly equal to the number of stars in 1,500 Milky Way galaxies, he noted.

 http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2010/november/neuron-imaging.html
 
 You've got 1,500 Milky Way galaxies of synapses in your head.
 Theses are just a few of the living parts of a whole living entity.
 
 Use a few of them.
 
 This degree of complexity is going evolve from rocks in a puny few billion years?
 
 
 
 

[Kyle Ricky]

What if you're reading it wrong?

If you discount that possibility then you've never read the Bible right.

Based on what the bible says in Genesis 1. How could you read it wrong? 

Genesis 1

New International Version (NIV)
The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. ” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning —the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning —the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning —the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. ”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning —the sixth day.

Theories, despite your derisive tone, are derived from empirically observed facts. Gravity is a theory based upon the empirically observed fact that small things are attracted to bigger things, inversely proportional to the distance between them. Are you denying that gravity exists because it is a theory? A theory is a hypothesis that has not yet been disproven by any documented observation.

Sorry if my tone seems to be contemptible. I am not trying to be like that at all. I just got a little upset because of the individual who blocked me calling me an 'F'n RETARD!' (because I wouldn't bow to his atheistic evolutionary beliefs).. But for your question, yes, science is all based on theories. I am not trying to discredit science. It does have some feasible explanations of things. My main point was that I don't believe we evolved from fish who came out of the ocean, that eventually turned to apes, then became humans.

Sure people could say that we evolved from Ape's for example; they claim the reason is because 98% of our DNA matches theirs. Well, 98% of our DNA also matches that of a dragon fly, House Fly, a fish, and your firs cousin. So saying the statement that we evolved from Apes is not plausible.

I, too, do not believe that a crocodile laid an egg that hatched a chicken.

I wasn't saying that there was. I was responding to KR's derisive comments about theories.

I believe that God created life in the beginning and then let it run to see where it would go.

This I would except.

Why does it have to be bible vs. Darwin?  This is a false dichotomy, I think.

IMNSHO, Darwin's theories would be a discussion of the MECHANISM; the Bible is the User Guide from the MECHANIC.

The bible vs. darwin is the main issue. Darwin completely discredits the bible, and God, by claiming that the universe started from an explosion in space. And eventually caused the earth to form and humans coming from fish who came out of the ocean. If that is the case, why are the other planets not the same as earth?

[obumazombie]

Some theories have the advantage of being well documented, well experimented, well researched, and having no evidence disproving them. Gravity is such a theory, yet not everything is known about gravity, like the attractive force. But all in all, the theory of gravity is about as close to fact as one can get. Other theories have not matured to anywhere near the extent that the theory of gravity. To compare mature theories, and immature, incomplete theories isn't useful, in fact it can be quite misleading. Evolution is a theory that is not fully mature, not even half by my estimate. Evolution may one day be as mature a theory as gravity, but not today.

[DefiantSix]

The bible vs. darwin is the main issue. Darwin completely discredits the bible, and God, by claiming that the universe started from an explosion in space. And eventually caused the earth to form and humans coming from fish who came out of the ocean. If that is the case, why are the other planets not the same as earth?

Darwin himself never believed his body of work discredited the Bible. It has always been rabid, activist atheists (as opposed to your average "I'll believe what I believe and you believe what you believe, and we'll both live life as happily as we can" atheist and progressives/Socialists/ Marxists/etc. with a political need to exclude God from their quest for power who have misused his theories and research. 

Again, I think it's a matter of the mechanism vs. the designer.  Darwin can be completely correct in his assertions, and the fact will not do a single thing to discredit the reality of God's creation of the universe. If God chooses to use "evolution" as the tool for forming all of creation from the proverbial dust of the earth, does that make him any less God?  Any less the Creator? Or, ultimately, any less the intelligence which circumvents entropy and causes complex creations to spring forth from the elements?

[Kyle Ricky]

Darwin himself never believed his body of work discredited the Bible. It has always been rabid, activist atheists (as opposed to your average "I'll believe what I believe and you believe what you believe, and we'll both live life as happily as we can" atheist and progressives/Socialists/ Marxists/etc. with a political need to exclude God from their quest for power who have misused his theories and research. 

Again, I think it's a matter of the mechanism vs. the designer.  Darwin can be completely correct in his assertions, and the fact will not do a single thing to discredit the reality of God's creation of the universe. If God chooses to use "evolution" as the tool for forming all of creation from the proverbial dust of the earth, does that make him any less God?  Any less the Creator? Or, ultimately, any less the intelligence which circumvents entropy and causes complex creations to spring forth from the elements?

Just the belief of evolution discredits God. Most scientist who believe in evolution do not believe in God, and use it to discredit God.

I have often thought myself that there could be a double way of thinking here. One) God did create the universe, earth and all things on it. 2) There was a big bang that was caused by God. And this is what Darwin was talking about. The difference is that it wasn't millions of years ago. It was sooner. Ie; if you go by what the bible says and look at the age of the earth, it is less than 10,000 years old. So if there was a big bang, that was caused by God, it was about that time period. Of, course this is just an assumption on my part....And in this assumption both Darwin (Except for the time frame) and the bible would be right.

[docstew]

Darwin didn't say anything about the creation of the universe, yet you keep attributing the Big Bang Theory to him. All Darwin said was that living creatures, over time, adapt to better fit into their environment.

[DefiantSix]

Just the belief of evolution discredits God. Most scientist who believe in evolution do not believe in God, and use it to discredit God.

If this is truly the case, then your God is a whole lot more fragile and less omnipotent than the one who hears my prayers each night.

Look at it this way, KR: when God decides that some evil dudes need an ass-kicking, does he warm up the ol' smiting button and start hurling lightning bolts at the offenders in question, or does he put the bug in the ear of the right person - good or evil - down here on Earth (the rival drug dealer, the "respectable" crook in the cell block, or the US Armed Forces) and point them in the right direction?

[Kyle Ricky]

Darwin didn't say anything about the creation of the universe, yet you keep attributing the Big Bang Theory to him. All Darwin said was that living creatures, over time, adapt to better fit into their environment.

I know, I say that because the Big Bang Theory always comes up as a complement to Darwin's Theory. Even though the Big Bang Theory was thought up after him.

If this is truly the case, then your God is a whole lot more fragile and less omnipotent than the one who hears my prayers each night.

Look at it this way, KR: when God decides that some evil dudes need an ass-kicking, does he warm up the ol' smiting button and start hurling lightning bolts at the offenders in question, or does he put the bug in the ear of the right person - good or evil - down here on Earth (the rival drug dealer, the "respectable" crook in the cell block, or the US Armed Forces) and point them in the right direction?

I like your point. God would put a bug in the ear of the right person and point him/her in the right direction.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Just the belief of evolution discredits God...

Switch "discredit" for "at odds with."

BTW -- if you're going to cite Genesis as to why the Bible is at odds with something you might want to insure the translation you use does not employ the word "serpent" as accuracy is central to the point of your argument.

[Kyle Ricky]

I am going to quite citing things. People will find something wrong with everything you use.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I am going to quite citing things. People will find something wrong with everything you use.

"Wrong" only applies if you CANNOT defend your argument.

If you WILL NOT defend your argument its called "conceding."

You could try vigorously defending your argument but that requires fewer appeals to emotion to be effective.

Of course, bringing one's argument in line with observed phenomenon is always an option as well.

[Kyle Ricky]

"Wrong" only applies if you CANNOT defend your argument.

If you WILL NOT defend your argument its called "conceding."

You could try vigorously defending your argument but that requires fewer appeals to emotion to be effective.

Of course, bringing one's argument in line with observed phenomenon is always an option as well.

Telling someone to make sure they use the right version of the bible is kinda stretching it. It doesn't matter what version of the bible you use, people will find an issue with. I think what we should do is ask what version of the bible people read before citing it. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Telling someone to make sure they use the right version of the bible is kinda stretching it. It doesn't matter what version of the bible you use, people will find an issue with. I think what we should do is ask what version of the bible people read before citing it. 

My point is: You claim your reading of Genesis renders you impervious suggestions that the world exists by any other understanding.

Yet, what you read and how you understand it (potentially) is not the the intent of the Creator. That isn't to question scripture, that's to question you. That sounds harsh, I know; but if you had your choice of errors would you choose you being wrong or the Bible being wrong?

I'm confident of your answer and that's what makes you a good Christian in the sincerest meaning of the term.

Don't get butt-hurt because "nachash" has been translated as "serpent" lo these many centuries. Archbishop Ussher gave us the whole 6,000 year old erf debacle based on his very human reading of Chronicles. It's not a problem with revelation or even translation; it's a problem with Archbishop Ussher. The problem is people injecting themselves into a thing meant to move them away from themselves.

But then that's what The Book is really about anyway: People are messed-up, here's why and here's how the Divine seeks to fix them.

At least that much was properly translated so there's still hope.