File: Bill Nye - Creationism is Inappropriate for Children.swf-(8.63 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)02:48 No.

  i see your random youtuber and raise you a bill nye

Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)02:51 No.

  >>2419443
  I fold in the name of science

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)02:53 No.

  >>2419443
  /pol/ hates him now.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)03:00 No.

  >>2419447

  why?

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)03:05 No.

  >>2419454
  Because he's friends with Obongo.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)03:12 No.

  >>2419454
  /pol/ reporting in
  he's kinda a prick, not much else to say

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)03:24 No.

  >This argument on evolution
  The problem is that as a Christian, I don't believe this is relevant to our religious doctrine.
  Sure, circumstantially the Bible may not agree with evolution, but I'm not going to work too hard
  thinking on this question when the argument is beneath intelligent people. Figure it out for
  yourself by doing the research you can and stop flinging shit.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)03:31 No.

  >>2419473
  >doing the research
  You meant having a first world education?

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)05:32 No.

  >>2419478
  Being educated and doing the research on a subject are two different things.

>> [_] OP 06/17/14(Tue)05:39 No.

  >>2419568
  Being stupid and being a troll is two different things as well.

  Doesn't mean you can't be both at the same time.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)05:41 No.

  I love how Bill Nye is just casually stating his opinion and not trying to sound agressive but is
  completely tossing the salad of every Christian forever.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)05:43 No.

  Creationism is just Christianity without the faith in an actual god.
  It serves no purpose what so ever even for the people who believe in it.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)05:58 No.

  >>2419473
  except you fail to understand the effect you have as yet "another" person who says "well, it
  outright discredits a book that is supposed to be infallible, but I'm gonna ignore it because I'm
  not interested" you either pose the notion that it's fine to disregard the bible, in which
  case...why the fuck are you christian? or you allow the thought to fester that evolution must be
  false, after all. How can it discredit a book that is the word of an infallible being?

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)05:59 No.

  It really is a shame that Bill Nye said evolution denial is unique to America, because it isn't.

  >>2419569
  That that anon, but I can see you missed the point. I bet you're educated but you wouldn't know
  what are the best brand of speakers to buy without sitting down and doing some research. It's
  like that. That's the difference between being smart, i.e. educated, and getting off your
  backside and using some initiative, i.e. researching topics. Honestly, anti-christian nutters are
  as bad as the christian nutters in that they both want to shove shit down your throat for the
  exact same reason: being delusional by believing whatever they're told instead of reaching their
  own conclusions. Congratulations, you're now their patron saint.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)06:22 No.

  >>2419466
  Aren't all smart people?
  Probably why you guy's like each other so much.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)06:23 No.

  >>2419573
  But it is the best way to unify the world through religion because it is the belief that makes
  the most sense.

>> [_] friendsofsandwiches 06/17/14(Tue)06:27 No.

  At the risk of playing devils advocate, as it were, I do have to wonder how much of science do we
  just 'accept', and 'black box' it?
  In many ways, we have to take, on faith, what some scientists say as fact.
  Granted, supposedly with enough time and resources, we should be able to duplicate any given
  experiment ourselves, and correlate various facts of said given experiments.
  But by that token, any time a scientist or scientific body comes up with a new theory or
  explanation of something that flies in the face of current accepted standards, said
  theory/explanation will face an uphill battle to be accepted. Not unlike people of faith being
  told their religion is false.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)06:28 No.

  >>2419473
  Enjoy hell.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)06:31 No.

  >>2419609
  Eh, not really.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)07:16 No.

  >>2419610
  Catholicism denounces the idea of hell. The reasoning is that no all knowing, all loving God
  would subject people to eternal torment, and that the idea was only adopted in the 1700's when
  the Divine Comedy was released and gained widespread popularity.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)07:18 No.

  >>2419631
  >The reasoning is that no all knowing, all loving God would subject people to eternal torment

  Untrue. And it is heresy to say that you know more than God, if God deems you go to Hell. Do not
  try to presume you have the logic capable of understanding the divine, you will fail.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)07:19 No.

  >>2419631
  >in the 1700's when the Divine Comedy was released

  1300's moron.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)07:19 No.

  >>2419609
  >>2419613
  It's really a problem of time management, no single person can know everything and keep up with
  the activity in all scientific fields.

  Paleontologists have to take some physicists word on stuff, same the other way around.

  "You can't shit in every bush", so-to-speak.

  The REAL problem begins when politics meets science. When Congressman A has to decide his
  position on energy, should he be an expert on physics in order to trust the data he's given and
  the advisors who speak with him?

  There's a case to be made for science literacy in general, for sure, but just how literate and
  knowledgeable does everyone need to be in every subject?

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)07:20 No.

  >>2419635
  Yeah, it was written then but not published until late 1500's.

  But it goes to show the focus on hell is still older than he gives credit.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)07:20 No.

  >>2419443
  bill its a jerk
  evolution its a joke
  im out, im going to see some good anime

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)07:21 No.

  >>2419631
  Catholicism is satanist anyway.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)07:36 No.

  The thing is, there are both stupid sides to both arguments.

  Evolution has huge missing sections, but the faith that they will have some route that will be
  found in the future.
  Creationism and faith depend entirely on that faith as well.

  Evolution has huge major sections missing from it that we don't fully understand yet.
  We have only a slight clue on the genesis of life, mainly being lots of heat, electricity (static
  mainly in the chaotic early earth) and millions of years resulted in loads of molecules being
  formed, which chained up together with each other, and so on, and so on, until eventually some
  patterns were created that could consume resources and produce other resources (at an extremely
  basic level).
  Most of these biological machines were basic as shit and most never went anywhere at all.
  Only some of them were capable of producing the required molecules that yet other basic machines
  could use to combine in to other things.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)07:43 No.

  >>2419641
  Continued.

  This, after another few million years, led to even more complex machines, which led to massive
  changes to Earth (namely Oxygen atmosphere), which allowed for multi-cellular life, which allowed
  for complex life.
  A LOT of life died off during those few billion years that led up to our time, some life which
  could have had the chance of becoming intelligent.
  From Siberian Traps to the asteroid.

  Hell, the collision of the moon wiped out massive chains of evolution as well (simple bacterial
  stages at that). Life started on Earth very early.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)07:47 No.

  >>2419643
  And again.

  People arguing against it argue against it because they cannot comprehend the MASSIVE timescales
  and INSANELY fucking huge number of collisions that happen at a planetary scale.
  They already cannot comprehend simple things, such as the fact that a human dies every few
  seconds, or the fact that quadrillions of insects die every few seconds.
  The human mind can't comprehend these things, even when educated. To force such a concept,
  somehow, in to a human mind would literally kill said person. It simply has no ability to
  comprehend that thing in its entirety. And such a number is infinitely smaller than every single
  collision that happens on this planet every second between every atom.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)07:48 No.

  >>2419644
  And finally,

  They forget that Science only gives a damn about the Hows of the world, not the Whys. Religion is
  the Why.
  Both can co-exist peacefully. Outside of atrocious religions like Shitnianity, that is.
  But even, more and more Christians only use it as a basic framework for Doing Good, rather than
  give a damn about any of the stupidity in it.
  Sadly there are still huge numbers of people that take the Bible literally, word for word.

  Will we ever figure out the Whys? Never, it is impossible. But we can certainly go as far as
  existence allows to figuring it HOW it exists.
  Evolution easily falls under being capable of proving in its entirety.
  Consciousness, probably not. That, personally, sounds like a fundamental thing that has no
  "beyond".

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)08:19 No.

  >>2419606
  R E K T
  E
  K
  T

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)08:22 No.

  When the followers of Christianity wrote the bible they did not understand how God had created
  the universe and the Earth and the animals which live upon it, so they had to speculate to the
  best of their ability.

  They did not understand the extremely complex machinations that God has built for the Universe to
  behave in the way that it does, and because of this the Bibe comes across as a much more
  primitive worldview and Creationists are taking it too literally without looking at the reasons
  why it is written as it is.

  Denying evolution is intellectually bankrupt, but so is suggesting that a being as all powerful
  as God could not have created the Universe and the rules which govern its existance.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)08:40 No.

  >>2419661
  >When the followers of Christianity wrote the bible they just pulled everything out of their ass.

  There are so many flaws, fallacies, and straight up untrue things that Christianity
  conceptualizes, and all religion, for that matter, that make it impossible to believe that shit.

  I don't understand how people can ignore the stupid, untrue parts of their sacred texts, and only
  cherry pick the parts they agree with. The whole system is fabricated.

  I'm willing to believe there is a possibility of a god, but if there is, humanity doesn't have
  the slightest fucking clue about him.

>> [_] BismuthVectoring !FRESHtYylA 06/17/14(Tue)08:42 No.

  >2014
  >Still arguing creationism vs evolution

  Are americans literally primitive?

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)08:46 No.

  >when people believe something untrue it holds the rest of us back
  *le eugenics face

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)08:48 No.

  >>2419668
  It's true, Americans should all be sterilized.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)08:51 No.

  >>2419669
  That's what we get for mixing puritans with niggers and mestizos

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)08:58 No.

  >>2419666
  oh shit it's satan

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)09:01 No.

  >>2419666
  Christianity isn't doesn't have set beliefs, only denominations do.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)09:15 No.

  >>2419668
  >Implying Eugenics is flawed

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)09:16 No.

  >>2419684
  >implying you're not a shitlord

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)09:26 No.

  >>2419591

  On the scale of how many people believe in creationism it is, sure there are creationists
  everywhere, but America has the highest concentration of them.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)09:27 No.

  >>2419447
  >caring what /pol/ thinks

>> [_] Anonymous 06/17/14(Tue)09:31 No.

  >>2419645

  They really can't though. Take it from someone who does Philosophy of Science for a living. They
  are just not compatible at their fundamental levels. Nobody is saying you can't be both - but
  when one revolves around testability in order to be considered viable religion just can't work in
  the same framework as science, just like science can't work in the same framework of going off
  "faith."

  One requires disregarding of evidence, other requires evidence as the bread and butter for
  believing what's possible in the Universe.

  Untestability =/= "oh it's possible for god to exist!"