File: Bill Nye - Creationism is Inappropriate for Children.swf-(8.63 MB, 640x360, Loop)
[_] muh politicks Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)14:35:04 No.

Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)14:55:04 No.

  > murricah

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)14:57:45 No.

  >denial of evolution is unique to the united states

  sure it is bill nye, the television personality guy.

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)15:01:08 No.

  Bill Nye the Mechanical Engineer you stupid sack of shit.

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)15:21:18 No.

  There are creationists on 4chan? Asshurt ones no less?

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)15:40:56 No.

  >>2921769
  >if they arent with us THEN THEY ARE AGAINST US

  Fallacious arguments on 4chan? The guy is full of shit. Do you seriously believe that the dirt
  eaters in the darkest heart of africa BELIEVE IN EVOLUTIONS? Lots of people think its bullshit,
  for many different reasons, but here comes mr. appeal to authority, a guy who pretends to be a
  scientist on tv with no actual degree. he's basically a low grade celebrity weighing in on
  political issues for political reasons and he should be called out on his bullshit at every turn.

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)15:55:43 No.

  >>2921764
  Wow a ME degree. Fascinating.

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)15:56:04 No.

  "well like, you know, there are people who are not believing in reason like I do, you know, its a
  sad thing, cuz reason is better, and engineers can solve problems, rational tought is better than
  believing in magic because progress"

  >BIG THINK

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)16:37:02 No.

  What did I just watch? And people Idolize this guy based on his "Massive and new thinking
  intellect"?.

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)16:40:06 No.

  *tips fedora to supreme athiest bill nye*

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)17:23:34 No.

  >guaranteed replies from bronze-age apologists

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)17:36:20 No.

  dont you all know ? all scientific authority now belongs to the neils tyson brother. and everyone
  in the Bible was Black people of color

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)17:45:11 No.

  Holy shit you guys aren't actually creationists right?

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)17:48:22 No.

  okay yeah
  tell me how to raise my kids
  yeah

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)18:01:50 No.

  BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL!

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)18:08:40 No.

  >>2921869
  its not really rocket science to not teach your kid stupid shit.

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)18:10:31 No.

  I believe biologists can be creationists even if they reject evolution

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)18:24:22 No.

  >>2921886
  This makes my head hurt.

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)18:24:42 No.

  nothing can be proven fully either way, in some ways evolution sounds more stupid than
  creationism and vice versa

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)18:25:45 No.

  >>2921886
  That's your opinion but I came here to tell you that it's shit.

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)18:36:29 No.

  >>2921902
  >nothing can be proven fully either way
  holy fucking hell you dense motherfucker

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)18:41:52 No.

  >>2921907
  nope, i'm right you're retarded

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)18:49:00 No.

  >I mean you could say Japan
  Bill Nye confirmed for fucking weeaboo faggot

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)19:20:06 No.

  >>2921903
  Well, it's obviously a silly thing to say, but it could be defended.
  Part of the scientific process is debates among scientists and theories. Evolutionary theory is
  the current dominant theory in biology, but it could be disproven, or a better theory might come
  along. Personally, I think that the basic premises of evolution are pretty much unassailable, but
  alternate routes of research shouldn't necessarily be dismissed out of hand.
  On the other hand, creationism has no predictive power, so it's useless as a scientific theory.
  It's a philosophical theory.
  But, more to the point, a creationist biologist could still use evolution as a reasonable
  approximation of the world works even if they don't believe that it is totally true.

  >>2921902
  Also, you're a dense motherfucker. We can induce changes in the genetic code, and that changes
  the organism, and that's all evolution is: the accumulation of small changes.
  People who agree that we can induce changes but disagree with evolution say, "microevolution is
  real but macroevolution isn't," but that's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. That's like
  saying, "I can push a car for 20 feet, but I refuse to believe that a car can be moved 1 mile."
  Evolution is just the accumulation of small changes, and we can produce those small changes
  really easily.

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)19:21:20 No.

  >>2921935
  tl;dr - muh politicks

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)19:23:00 No.

  >>2921935
  >That's like saying, "I can push a car for 20 feet, but I refuse to believe that a car can be
  moved 1 mile."

  You couldn't push the a mile car if it were in a hole.

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)19:26:38 No.

  >>2921878
  BILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILL
  BILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILLBILL

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)19:27:16 No.

  >>2921935
  >Part to whole fallacy

  I believe anon was trying to say that evolution is technically historical science which isn't
  really science at all. You can't test an event that you didn't observe.

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)19:36:38 No.

  >>2921945
  Well, evolution addresses the emergent properties of small changes by calling it speciation and
  defining the different (observable) mechanisms by which it may occur. So while I might be making
  the inductive fallacy, evolutionary theory does not.

  I can see why you'd think evolution is a teleological theory because it is to some extent. Darwin
  looked at contemporary effects and extrapolated the causes. But you'd lose a lot if you
  disregarded evolutionary theory's explanatory power.
  On the other hand, would you argue that plate tectonics is a historical theory? We can't test it,
  we can only model it, and our models are probably wrong to some extent. Does that make plate
  tectonics not scientific?
  Is big bang theory not a scientific theory? We definitely can't test that.

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)19:39:12 No.

  >>2921940
  Well yeah, if there's a hole, you can't push the car out. But why should we expect there to be a
  "hole" for evolutionary theory? Why would a species hit a wall and be unable to change beyond
  that? There are actually good answers to that (e.g. which came first, chicken or the egg), but
  they're philosophical arguments, not scientific ones. People who don't agree with evolution could
  be useful in identifying what those barriers might be scientifically, or if there are those
  barriers at all.

>> [_] Anonymous 10/07/15(Wed)19:41:03 No.

  >>2921867
  Many of them unironically are. With the influx of newfags we had an influx of fucking idiot
  theists that was just as bad as the influx of dumb fucking kid >fedorists, so now we get to
  contend with both idiots who get their "facts" from the bible and idiots who get their "facts"
  from internet info-graphics.