Guest hitoallusa Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 If he is going to talk about science then he should based his statement based on evidence and logic. Some statents he made in this clip are illogical and unfounded. The denial of evolution is not unique to the US and he doesn't fully understand why foreigners want to come to the US... I think his unfounded statements lashed out without thorough thinking are much more harmful to children. The THEORY of evolution has many holes that need to be filled and explained. The children should be challenged to fill that gap and study science but should not be influenced in anyway to push out other alternatives and possibilities. Now even some of Einsteins's explanation of gravity is being challenged as we progress. Let science speak for itself rather than is strange ill prepared clip where the speaker repeats "really" twice to make his statements. Quote
Guest EXPAT Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 I have to say your response to this is a bit more "aggressive" than I would have thought it deserved. And the denial of evolution is much more prevalent in the US than anywhere else. He never said "exclusive" to the US. Quote
AdamSmith Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 Nye always seems to me profoundly sane, logical, and humane. hito, we can let several things go unsaid. But I too wonder about the deep reasons inside yourself for your reaction here. I really don't understand it at all. Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 Well my point is not to defend creationism. As I respect my Adam Smith.. I will listen to him again and let you know what I think. Maybe I was wrong to criticize him like that. Nye always seems to me profoundly sane, logical, and humane. hito, we can let several things go unsaid. But I too wonder about the deep reasons inside yourself for your reaction here. I really don't understand it at all. Quote
AdamSmith Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 Well, I am all ears. What do you think? I don't really want to know what you think about Nye on re-hearing, but what you think about the reasons why you first reacted that way to him and what he said. ...You can tell your Uncle Sigmund here. (Now I have to go search the Web for a Hr Dr Freud smiley.) TotallyOz 1 Quote
Members MsGuy Posted August 28, 2012 Members Posted August 28, 2012 Herr Doctor AdamSmith will see you now, Mr. Hito. TotallyOz 1 Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted August 29, 2012 Posted August 29, 2012 Oh my do I have a new shrink... If you listen to his statements, is it only me that I think he speaks like Sarah Palin when she was asked about the bail out on air? There are many unfounded statements in this clip if you listen carefully. Well, I am all ears. What do you think? I don't really want to know what you think about Nye on re-hearing, but what you think about the reasons why you first reacted that way to him and what he said. ...You can tell your Uncle Sigmund here. (Now I have to go search the Web for a Hr Dr Freud smiley.) Quote
AdamSmith Posted August 29, 2012 Posted August 29, 2012 I zink I vud prefer... Und I disagree mit yur opinion of Nye. Happy to argue further if you wish to provide arguable details. Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 Radioactive decay is not constant... http://www.examiner.com/article/more-evidence-that-radioactive-decay-is-not-constant Quote
Members JKane Posted September 13, 2012 Members Posted September 13, 2012 Yes, scientific theories are routinely examined and improved. That makes them stronger--not weaker. TotallyOz 1 Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 My point is that the theory of evolution is incomplete... I don't like arrogant scientists who act like they know something for sure when it is not the case.. Children will be fine and I hope evolutionists do not force their narrow mindness upon children either. Teaching evolution is fine but do not prevent another Einstein to come forward. That's what I simply asking... Quote
Members JKane Posted September 13, 2012 Members Posted September 13, 2012 My point is that the theory of evolution is incomplete... I don't like arrogant scientists who act like they know something for sure when it is not the case.. Children will be fine and I hope evolutionists do not force their narrow mindness upon children either. Teaching evolution is fine but do not prevent another Einstein to come forward. That's what I simply asking... Except it's not scientists that act like that! They call it a theory, point out any inconsistanies, research them and either improve or replace the theory in question. The whole point of calling it a theory is that yes, niggling little points will be found and worked out over time, but to date nobody has proven a better alternative explanation. You're mixing scientists up with creationists, who are absolutly positive their *specific* brand of invisible magic friend in the sky did everything (AND cares deeply about what we do in our bedrooms--yet doesn't seem to give 2 shits about the familly sleeping in their car two blocks over...) and that *this* nonsense is what children should be taught! FINE, I say, set up your own fucking right-wing fundie madrassas! But DO NOT fund them with my fucking tax dollars or whine when your precious Billy can't get a fucking job because his diploma dosen't even make good toilet paper! Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 I have worked with scientists who are narrow minded. They do things they are not supposed to do and worship evolution. It is a religion to them. Not just a theory and force it irrationally to their students. They have been teaching the unchangeable constant rate of decay for decades that has been just proven wrong. They look down people who don't believe in evolution and call others dumb and stupid. Sometimes called people misinformed in front of other people... I don't like that kind of arrogance and absolute belief of something that is not perfect. What is different from them and Pope when they both teaching wrong things. Yea it's true that some religious interpret old texts without thinking in context and become fundamentalists. The same thing happens to scientists who can't overcome bias. Both commit error of believing in something that could be wrong and needs to be verified. What I am fighting is to eradicate irrationality and bias that exist on both sides that are propagated a few. This kind of iraationality that I am always right and you are wrong and close down communications is what has killed the ambassador in Lybia IMHO.. Quote
Members JKane Posted September 14, 2012 Members Posted September 14, 2012 If they are shutting down reasonable, informed discussion of how it works, people trying to get their heads around natural selection + time becoming so much, they are wrong. "Science" is generally consensus-driven but there are always outliers and people with differing ideas, once in a while they manage to prove something that improves our understanding of their field greatly. But people saying that this process (continual application of the scientific method) somehow brings the foundation of these theories into doubt makes no sense whatsoever. Of course there are people calling themselves scientists or teachers who are just wrong or misinformed--though that is but a drop in the ocean of people calling themselves religious leaders who are absolutely speaking out of their ass on the matter! I make no apologizes for anybody who goes somewhat frothing at the mouth because somebody is idiotically contradicting millions of hours of research and study with "no, my personal invisible magic friend did it"! Especially an average American Christian--because what they are really saying is: "I haven't read it myself, but I was told by somebody (with a room-temperature IQ and a divinity diploma anybody could get for $25 + postage) that a book of muddied origin with documented mistranslations and edits for political reasons says that the earth is only 4000-some years old and the fossil record is just one of Satan's attempts to lead people astray!" That same "faith" also rules out genetics (Noah's Ark) and astronomy (universe created in a day), but never mind that... Further, the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE of the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA states, VERY FUCKING CLEARLY that the govt. has no business supporting one religion over another. So that's another thing deeply wrong with teaching creationism in schools: religions differ greatly (even within Christianity) on the topic--and have changed over time. Maybe you've known some bad scientists and teachers. I've known some great teachers who did treat evolution as a theory, subject to improvement, explained it's intricacies and even stated that others have different beliefs on the matter. It deeply offends me that children today in many southern states are not being taught that way--and that my tax dollars are paying for it! AdamSmith and TotallyOz 2 Quote
Members JKane Posted September 14, 2012 Members Posted September 14, 2012 Or, put far more succinctly: TotallyOz 1 Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 Yes I agree with you in that evolution should be taught to students. Issac Newton, however, didn't have to know the theory of evolution to achieve and contribute so much in science. My point is just to point out that the very bias that hinders development of our society is found in Nye's talk. Science is not free from bias and wrong conclusions yet some people worship it so much and hold to a theory that could be proved wrong such that they forget to see other important things in life. That is the only point that I'm trying to deliver. Quote
Guest EXPAT Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 Christians take issue with this new Dr. Pepper ad. LOL http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/dr-pepper-evolution-ad-backlash-christians-facebook_n_1882066.html?1347575495&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009 Quote
AdamSmith Posted September 17, 2012 Posted September 17, 2012 Today's Doonesbury Flashback may be relevant... http://assets.amuniv...605001dd8b71c47 (Sorry, that image format is not postable here as an image, thus the link instead.) JKane 1 Quote
AdamSmith Posted September 17, 2012 Posted September 17, 2012 BTW, thank you. When he said that, it further proved this man's holiness, in my book. Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted September 17, 2012 Posted September 17, 2012 I am not so sure one's belief can be scientifically tested... ??? Can you guys elaborate on this testing? How can you set up a hypothesis and design experiments on a religious belief? I'm so curious since I can't come up with it. Quote
AdamSmith Posted September 17, 2012 Posted September 17, 2012 I am not so sure one's belief can be scientifically tested... ??? Well, a fairly trivial example would be some fundamentalist Christians' religiously inspired belief that Earth is only 5700 years old, and the rest of the points made in the Doonesbury cartoon. All last week I listened to a daily Bible radio show where the preacher went through all that in exhausting detail -- why the fossil record is really due to Noah's flood rather than slow deposits over eons, etc., etc. All that, I would say, is subject to objective disproof. Another, maybe better example is the pretty convincing body of empirical evidence that sexual orientation is not a willed choice. That evidence, taken together with secular moral reasoning following any of the various schools of secular ethical philosophy that I know of, leads to the conclusion that religious (or any other) condemnation of homosexuality, or efforts to suppress its expression are immoral, unethical and inhumane. Now, if you want to return yet again to quibbling about scientific method, and the impossibility of absolute certainty as undermining the usefulness of trying to know the world on the hard-won insights of Ockham and Bacon, then we just may not have enough common ground to have any meaningful discourse. JKane 1 Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted September 17, 2012 Posted September 17, 2012 For me "Jesus died on the cross for our sins", "Jesus loves us", "God loves us" and etc... are in the category of belief... That's what I meant... There are some discrepancies in the Bible and some texts are added, for example in the gospel of Mark by scribes later... The author of the first five books of the Bible can't be Moses and some archeaology studies suggest that the first five books had multiples authors and was finished during the Babylon captivity... Anyways, despite all this... If one claims that the Bible written is written by God's inspiration then how can you test the validity of that claim? I don't think no one can test that... Well, a fairly trivial example would be some fundamentalist Christians' religiously inspired belief that Earth is only 5700 years old, and the rest of the points made in the Doonesbury cartoon. All last week I listened to a daily Bible radio show where the preacher went through all that in exhausting detail -- why the fossil record is really due to Noah's flood rather than slow deposits over eons, etc., etc. All that, I would say, is subject to objective disproof. Another, maybe better example is the pretty convincing body of empirical evidence that sexual orientation is not a willed choice. That evidence, taken together with secular moral reasoning following any of the various schools of secular ethical philosophy that I know of, leads to the conclusion that religious (or any other) condemnation of homosexuality, or efforts to suppress its exp<b></b>ression are immoral, unethical and inhumane. Now, if you want to return yet again to quibbling about scientific method, and the impossibility of absolute certainty as undermining the usefulness of trying to know the world on the hard-won insights of Ockham and Bacon, then we just may not have enough common ground to have any meaningful discourse. Quote
Members JKane Posted September 17, 2012 Members Posted September 17, 2012 For me "Jesus died on the cross for our sins", "Jesus loves us", "God loves us" and etc... are in the category of belief... That's what I meant... There are some discrepancies in the Bible and some texts are added, for example in the gospel of Mark by scribes later... The author of the first five books of the Bible can't be Moses and some archeaology studies suggest that the first five books had multiples authors and was finished during the Babylon captivity... Anyways, despite all this... If one claims that the Bible written is written by God's inspiration then how can you test the validity of that claim? I don't think no one can test that... People familiar with the edits, discrepancies, and contradictions in the bible, who see it as, at best, "inspired by god" and filled with parables are not the problem, not who we are arguing with. But when those people go along with the moo-ing herd of uneducated idiots who believe (though they've never spent time thinking about it for themselves) that it is the literal word of god and want it taught as such (and selectively enforced on our private/social lives)--especially when it's allowed to reach it's tendrils of idiocy into our public schools... THAT'S WHEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM! - - Quote
