File: Bill Nye - Creationism is Inappropriate for Children.swf-(8.63 MB, Loop)
[_] Anonymous 08/25/12(Sat)23:42 No.1751715
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 08/25/12(Sat)23:54 No.1751724
Bill Nye is the man. This is a fact.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)00:00 No.1751735
bill nye is fucking boss. and he raises several good points
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)00:04 No.1751743
BILL GUY TEH SCIENCE NYE
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)01:24 No.1751784
BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)01:27 No.1751787
Yes.
>> [_] Inheritor Leon 08/26/12(Sun)02:24 No.1751809
Even the guy who fucking teaches kids about science is saying religion is a stupid fucking think
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)02:42 No.1751819
This is why this guy has and always will be my idol in science.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)03:53 No.1751833
BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)04:01 No.1751835
But Jesus said EVILution is a myth.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)05:06 No.1751851
What if God created evolution?
Or rather...
We use the term "evolution" to name the observable "laws" of "creation" set forth by God. We are
only just now understanding how to truly... create. Having discovered these "laws" we can
dismantle the unnecessary man-made parts of religion that hold people in bondage...
You may argue, isn't all of religion man made? It is. But so is science. It is the observations
of religion and science that are made by man, and of those which can be proven as truth,
expressing a reality which exists beyond that of man, yet which man is forever a part of... those
things will endure.
Religion will never go away. It will always exist. People will always believe. Can evolution
alone fill the void? Not alone. Science will be wedded to religion. And through their struggle,
new truths shall be made known.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)05:17 No.1751854
>>1751851
>It is the observations of religion and science
It is true that science is based on observations, which are then tested, etc. scientific theory.
science is based on observations.
Religion, however, is based on faith.
Religion, by definition, mandates that you must ignore your observations, as well as ignore known
facts.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)05:29 No.1751858
>>1751854
Science and Region both involve faith. Have you seen the tests the teachers of science have made
which proves their truth? Have the teachers? Or did you read it in a book or hear a teaching that
"made sense."
Religion is much the same. Someone had an experience which they were able to observe with their
senses which led them to believe. Not everyone shares that experience, but many of them hear
about it and chose to believe because something about it "made sense" because of some other
experience they have had.
How many times in history has a trusted scientific observation been proven wrong by another,
stronger, better tested and proven science? And science, just like religion, has the same power
to unjustly manipulate people when misused.
That being said I do believe that Science is more observation than faith and Religion is more
faith than observation.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)05:34 No.1751859
>>1751735
Eh, as much as I like Bill, he doesn't really make any points. He's basically just saying, "We're
right, and you idiots need to get with the program."
>>1751854
>Religion, by definition, mandates that you must ignore your observations, as well as ignore
known facts.
Nonsense. It just means you interpret the observations differently. Both theories have
inconsistencies and unknowns. Both require faith to reach their conclusion. The difference is
only where that faith is placed.
This isn't really the setting for a debate, but can we at least drop the antagonism and just
agree to disagree?
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)05:41 No.1751860
>>1751859
>Both theories have inconsistencies and unknowns.
Let me refine that statement. Both theories (or rather, all existing theories; there are more
than two) have unknowns and apparent inconsistencies. Whether any of those apparent
inconsistencies becomes explained as more information comes to light remains to be seen.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)06:17 No.1751864
>>1751858
>Science and Region both involve faith. Have you seen the tests the teachers of science have made
which proves their truth? Have the teachers? Or did you read it in a book or hear a teaching that
"made sense."
The reason they get into the books in the first place is because they've been tested. It doesn't
gain a theory status without being tested thousands of times over.
>Religion is much the same. Someone had an experience which they were able to observe with their
senses which led them to believe. Not everyone shares that experience, but many of them hear
about it and chose to believe because something about it "made sense" because of some other
experience they have had.
You cannot replicate these experiences therefore they are nothing alike. Scientific tests can and
are repeated every day.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)06:18 No.1751865
>How many times in history has a trusted scientific observation been proven wrong by another,
stronger, better tested and proven science? And science, just like religion, has the same power
to unjustly manipulate people when misused.
Science is a journey, it never posits the absolute truth but only what explains phenomena shown
thus far. New phenomena warrants new explanations.
Science doesn't manipulate people either, science only examines what happens in reality. If
science "manipulated" people, then it's reality "manipulating" people.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)06:19 No.1751866
>>1751859
>>1751860
There are no inconsistencies in science. If your theory is inconsistent it is invalidated.
"Apparent" inconsistencies are meaningless, that's only gained from an incomplete understanding.
The only "missing pieces" in science are admitted unknowns, not trying to force in an answer
where there is no data for it (i.e. GOD DID IT)
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)06:22 No.1751868
>>1751864
...except they can't do that for the theories of the origins of life, the earth, the universe,
etc.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)06:34 No.1751872
>>1751866
>There are no inconsistencies in science.
Not in real science, no. There are apparent inconsistencies in the widely-held scientific
theories, though. And no, that hasn't stopped "scientists" from wedging in their own preconceived
theories into the unknown spaces, either, and passing them off as fact.
But again, not the place for this. There are a wealth of actual debates on the topic between
experts on both sides, and no one on the internet ever changes their mind.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)06:36 No.1751873
>>1751866
Also, it's not that there is no data for the existence of God or divine intervention. There is
certainly evidence. There is not empirical, irrefutable evidence, just as there is not empirical,
irrefutable evidence for any origin theory.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)07:04 No.1751875
>>1751868
>...except they can't do that for the theories of the origins of life, the earth, the universe,
etc.
They can observe the universe as-is and posit explanations. The Big Bang theory accounts for all
observations made in the universe thus far.
No need to posit abiogenesis, and earth's origin falls under the universe.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)07:06 No.1751876
>>1751872
How is it not the place for this? It's what the internet is for.
The actions of a few egotistical scientists do not dictate the precepts of scientific inquiry.
>>1751873
There is no evidence. At all. You cannot bring any to field.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)07:08 No.1751877
The man sounds so tired..
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)08:27 No.1751886
I love how he mentions tectonic plates
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)08:38 No.1751887
can someone post the swf about the russian song with a girl that gets her head blown off?
it has a translation bar and has black penguins or something
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)09:03 No.1751888
>>1751873
Oh yeah, I read about that, the evidence.
Except I haven't.
Show us an article, theory, whatever that contains even the slightest bit of proof of divine
intervention, miracles and/or god.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)09:33 No.1751893
>>1751851
>You may argue, isn't all of religion man made? It is. But so is science.
How is science man made? The entire thing is based on empiricism.
The gravitational constant has existed long before humans did, nobody "made it up" it was
calculated from observation.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)09:34 No.1751894
>>1751876
>How is it not the place for this?
Well, it just won't be productive:
1) It's a very temporary thread. By the time anyone gathered actual data and formed them into a
coherent argument, the thread would be gone. And even if we managed it in time, it'd disappear
soon after.
2) It's the internet, it's anonymous, it's 4chan; too many people entering and exiting the
argument without knowing who's saying what, and no one has any inclination to actually listen to
anything the other side says nor anything to keep them in the conversation after they've said
their piece.
(cont'd)
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)09:34 No.1751895
>>1751894
3) The tone in the thread is already antagonistic, which isn't conducive to a proper argument.
4) For this specific argument, the truth doesn't really even matter all that much, and neither
side can prove itself irrefutably right, so there's really no harm in just agreeing to
respectfully disagree. Despite what Bill Nye says, what's really being argued here is history,
not science. Regardless of your stance on this issue, I think pretty much everyone agrees how
things work NOW (physics, genetics, etc.), and it won't affect how one performs as an engineer or
what-have-you.
At any rate, I for one grew tired of arguing on the internet long ago, no matter the subject. And
for this subject in particular, again, I just see no point in arguing over it.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)09:37 No.1751896
>>1751895
>4) For this specific argument, the truth doesn't really even matter all that much, and neither
side can prove itself irrefutably right
Science never argues from an irrefutable perspective, and needing one is sheer idiocy. The
scientific perspective requires legitimate data, and evolution HAS THAT LEGITIMATE DATA. There's
no argument to be found: one side has evidence, the other side doesn't. This is why Bill Nye
sounds so tired about it.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)09:38 No.1751897
>>1751895
The enemy fled the thread, that proves the entire bible is the literal word of god, and you must
be killed for wearing polyester blend clothing.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)09:41 No.1751900
In my opinion, this is absolutely the place for a discussion on faith and science. /f/ is not
/b/, we can have a decent discussion without rancor here.
While it's true that we the public have to take many scientific conclusions on faith, that's not
a flaw in science; that's a flaw in humanity. We simply do not live long enough to master every
scientific field and understand the cutting edge of human discovery on a personal level, so we
make due with peer review. No one scientist can simply claim that they've discovered a
fundamental law of the universe and have that fact immediately accepted, they first have to
submit overwhelming evidence (both theoretical and practical) to be reviewed and scrutinized by
other experts in their field.
1/5
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)09:42 No.1751901
We've theorized about the Higgs boson for almost 55 years, and we're only just now getting
evidence for it's existence from experimenting with the LHC. Even then, we're not absolutely
certain that it's the Higgs boson that's responsible for the effect we're seeing, and testing
will continue until we're fairly certain that we're correct. Even then, if anyone at any time
comes up with a better explanation, one that rejects everything we know about quantum physics but
explains (and therefore predicts) the universe more accurately, it is the nature of the
scientific community to reject the models they've been working with/on for decades in favor if
the new one as soon as it becomes clear that it is probably correct.
2/5
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)09:42 No.1751902
Faith lacks these traits. Faith is a very personal feeling that we can't properly, reliably
communicate to another person, leaving it a totally subjective experience. It allows us to give
meaning to our world, to make it a little less bleak and harsh through sheer believe regardless
of evidence. It has great value on a personal level, but to attempt to try to indoctrinate those
who don't know better into sharing your faith by teaching them to reject evidence, to reject
critical thought and to believe falsehoods is nothing less than abominable. If you need a measure
of faith to make it through your day, you're human. If you need others to share your faith to do
the same, your faith is weak and so are you, to hold back a child with this weakness is perverse.
3/5
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)09:43 No.1751903
Science exists to explain and predict, nothing else. It doesn't claim to give meaning to
anything, only to help us understand it. On the contrary, faith only benefits humanity by giving
meaning and hope, yet many religions (that dictate the faith of masses of people) make claims to
understand the nature of the universe that are contrary to what we have discovered through the
careful research and examination of science. These faith based explanations of the universe have
been proven false time and time again, yet the ones responsible for propagating them continue to
claim that it is faith that should dictate how one understands the universe, going so far as to
claim that any who speak against their view are acting in an evil fashion, even as this view is
yet again being proven to be nothing but mythology.
4/5
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)09:43 No.1751904
To claim that the two have equal credence when giving an explanation of the nature of the
universe due to the fact that the layman has to have some measure of faith to believe either is
sophistry. The faith placed in science is a basic trust that there is not a massive conspiracy on
the part of the scientific community to lie to the public. The trust placed in faith is just
that, believing for the sake of believing. It's sources are wide and varied, ranging from
individuals claiming to speak for (a) god(s) to those who simply "feel it to be true". The
evidence provided for it is universally flawed, and virtually useless on a practical level.
tl;dr: Science for understanding our universe, faith for finding comfort in it. Do not allow
these two things to cross into each other's field, as they're terrible outside of their own.
5/5
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)09:46 No.1751906
Did anyone else think that Bill Nye looks like Abraham Lincoln without a beard?
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)09:52 No.1751909
>>1751896
Evolution has evidence in that what little we can actually observe does not directly contradict
it. But it's not enough to form a very compelling case for it either, unless you start with the
assumption that it's true.
But seriously, cut it out. We have better things we could be doing.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)09:57 No.1751913
>>1751909
>We have better things we could be doing.
Like Dwarf Fortress?
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)10:12 No.1751923
FOR ANYONE WHO THINKS THERE ARE INCONSISTENCIES IN SCIENCE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
There are a lot of inconsistencies in science that we have yet to be able to explain. Much like
the construct of an atom, Dalton, Bohr, Rutherford.
The difference how ever is in science, if there is an inconsistency, it is considered an anomaly
which is aimed for a closer truth. Where as religion...god makes dinosaur bones to test our
faith. Yup...
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)10:12 No.1751924
>>1751913
Dwarf motherfucking fortress.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)10:23 No.1751930
>>1751924
Our governments are worried about gay marriage, when they should be working on getting MORE MAGMA.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)10:28 No.1751933
>>1751930
BOATMURDERED NEEDS MORE DORFS FOR SUSTENANCE!
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)10:35 No.1751936
>>1751913
MORE BLOOD FOR ARMOK!
But in all srsness, I'm impressed at this thread. It's less... well, /b/ than /f/ usually is. For
the most part it's an intelligent, rational argument, antagonistic tendencies aside.
Way to go /f/.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/26/12(Sun)12:11 No.1751990
I am too. While I personally think religion is a load of bull, most of the people who took
religion's side weren't "hurr durr you can't prove me wrong so religion is right". They provided
intelligent conversation.
