Strolling with a skeptical biochemist
The children are our children and if its okay to question what is good for them then its okay for everyone to add their point of view.Historically it was insisted children should not be taught anything against belief in God and Genesis in the Anglo-American civilization.Anyways the important historical thing here is that creationism is starting such a revolution in origin research in our time that everybody, even kids shows, must react to this development.I see it everywhere.Creationism is marching ahead and gathering force so much its become the talk of the scientific community.either creationism will fail in this new invasion or the times they are a changing for these subjects.We do live in exciting times on these matters and everyone should be wary of the role they play.Don't what to be like a old time liberal in opposition to the Reagan revolution and world reform.Make sure your on the right side.
Your ability to type coherently has improved a bit, but your content is as ludicrous as ever.
@ByersThat was hilarious!
"Creationism is marching ahead and gathering force so much its become the talk of the scientific community"Creationism is nothing more than a joke in the scientific community.
Booby Byers is an even bigger joke.
As i said it is not seen as a joke but as a threat.This forum exists because of its status.The impact of this assault is not a joke by any observation of modern times.One could only say the merits of creationist ideas are a joke to many dealing in these subjects in the "scientific" community.Notwithstanding.Creationism(s) is the talk of the town.It shouldn't be this way or such a threat to the establishment.There is a crisis of confidence that I see everywhere.It was expected the error evolution would be revealed one day but not so quick.
I suspect that Robert is a Poe.Anyway.Within the scientific community creationism is a joke. Within educated circles, creationism is a joke. Unfortunately, for a huge mass of ignorant people, creationism "makes sense." The threat is neither for science, nor for evolution, nor for any scientific discovery, but for education and politics, where creationists, being as many as they are, can have an influence. I never gave a damn for creationism. It is indescribably ridiculous. But after noticing that many people actually believe such shit, well, I got involved in at least ridiculing their "views."But I suspect that you know this Robbert. As ridiculous as creationists tend to be, your comments get to such unexplored levels of ludicrousness that you cannot be for real.
Re Negative EntropyFor what it's worth, the folks over at Panda's Thumb, where he also posts talkbacks, don't think that Booby Byers is a Poe, and they know more about him then we do. He reads like a Poe because it is hard to believe that a grown man could be so stupid. By the way, he's a fellow countryman of our host.
I struggle to get my head round the idea that anyone could troll/Poe consistently, without really meaning it, for more than a couple of posts. I've done it a couple of times unintentionally (humour does not always travel, nor irony leap off the screen), but day in day out?
Well, if he is for real, then my experiments trying to explain him simple stuff are much more interesting than I previously thought.
Nice video, I love Bill Nye, but why does anyone think a creationist would entertain for an instant, not indoctrinating their children in their delusions?
Negative EntrophySaying heaps of North Americans are ignorant IS not a way to persuade them.In fact I guess unless they give up ignorance there is no hope to persuade.Education on origin subjects is a waster of time by this reasoning.Anyways.You make my case in your comments.It doesn't matter what the scientific or educated "classes" think on creationism.It only matters from those fewer folks who study these issues.The others just get their convictions from confidence in the smaller groups of authority.A man only knows what hje knows. Everything else he knows is what someone told him he trusts.Creationism is popular in all segments of society.Remember its foundation is belief in God and/or not Genesis.In short historic christianity. Especially Protestant Christianity and so on.evolutionism must make its case on the merits.it fails greatly for many.In fact creationists have no problem making our case but a problem reaching audiences.We are confident 3/4's of the people would disagree with evolution as a fact if we got to them.
Watching the video, I am struck by how all over the place Nye is with his thinking. First, he calls evolution "the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology". So far so good. No disagreement. But then he goes on to talk about the universe, stars, planets, deep time, etc. None of this has anything to do with biology or life sciences. Evolution is the study of organisms, not stars. If he want to argue against biblical belief in a young universe, then that should be the starting point. He should say, "denial of an unfathomably old universe" rather than "denial of evolution".He talks about the United States as a place that 'people still come to'. Does he think that people still come here so they can not deny evolution? I think people 'still come here' because of the work opportunities. If he wants to say that 'bright science students still come here" because of what American universities offer, he should say that.Then he goes on to talk about a need for 'scientific literacy' because 'we need engineers'. If he is talking about the types of engineers needed to create products and so forth that enable the U.S. to thrive against competitors such as Japan, South Korea, etc., what, really, does evolution have to do with that? I mean, seriously. What does it have to do with it? People can learn to become engineers that develop computer programs or innovate cellular phones without taking more than the required freshman biology courses. Is he saying that Christians can't become engineers, or that they will be less likely to do so if they deny evolution? If so, what country is he living in? In short, his argument, such as it is, is so poorly considered and weakly argued that it holds no real value other than as a high-five to the already converted.