Bill Nye critcizes GOP, parents teaching creationism

We have linked to many facts that you have ignored.

that is not what evolution says.

Actually that is exactly one of the mechanisms of evolution. Mutations that have advantages get passed on those that don't don't get passed on. Overall expression of organisms change slowly over time, at one point a new species develops.

Good lord how can http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-evidence-supports-the-theory-of-evolution.html be critical of something you don't understand? Oh yeah you can cut and paste things you don't even read.

No not even in the loosest definition of the word.

Again here is some simple explanations:
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-evidence-supports-the-theory-of-evolution.html

 

Just because you refuse to believe the truth and can not back up your false belief system with any facts apparently is not enough for you to at the very least concede evolution has yet to be proved a scientific fact.

I find it interesting that for the second day now I am asking for just one scientific fact to back up the evolutionary model and for an example of a closed system to test the hypothesis presented of the 2nd Law only in a closed system, but for the second day, no one has provided anything they can articulate in their own words. Doesn't that tell you something.

I have provided scientific discoveries consistent with a young Earth/Creation model but those are not sufficient because you have been brainwashed by the secular education cabal.

The Pope is not a god, and is a flawed human being. Is he a scientist?.

 

Probably has more to do with selection bias than belief in creationism.

 

You have linked to opinions and suppositions, which proves you only provided a link that you have never critically read on your own.

then quote one of these 'facts'

Do you realize that mutations will, if returned to the former environment, will revert back to the original organism. Genetic science (I know you don't like facts from science) shows that a mutation is due to a LOSS of genetic information, not an increase in information.

 

Maybe the children in public school are less evolved. That is one of the beliefs of the proponents of evolution, that the 'white race' is more evolved that the 'black race'. But you already knew that by reading the sub-title of "On The Origin Of Species" by Charles Darwin.

 

I am racist? I simply pointed out that one of his parents is white and the other black and I am the racist? It is YOu who used the derogatory term Oreo to describe him. You are the worst kind of hypocrite! He isn't 100% black, factually! It is you and your ilk who like to categorize people by meaningless things such as the shade of their skin, not me. I am making these statements to show how ridiculous and stupid the notion of a "black" president is in the first place. It shouldn't matter and certainly shouldn't be either a selling point or a reason not to vote for anyone. I knew from the beginning that Obama was the second coming of Jimmy Carter, and didn't vote for him for that reason. Obviously I was correct!

 

If Barack Obama were alive in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955....where would he get to sit on the bus? "In the middle since he's 'not 100% black'"?


(Watch)

 

So, to you, it is appropriate to see people simple mindedly as fitting into a category based on his skin color? Why am I not surprised!

 

Kids of rich parents get sent to private christian schools; kids of poor parents get sent to public schools. It can be pretty well presumed that the child of the rich family will do better in school, since he generally takes his studies more seriously, and because he attends a better scholastic instiution.

I didn't really intend to say anything about race, as that's another can of worms. But since you bring it up: the two races (white and black) have certainly evolved differently, not really a matter of 'more' or 'less'.

 

Are you saying that one can have the belief of "creationism" yet still understand science?

 

I think you used the term "evolved" incorrectly. I don't blame you. I blame your public school education.

 

I'm asking you a question based on your statement about the President being "not 100% black"....and its historical relevance.

If he had been alive in Alabama in 1955.....could he have rode "in the middle" of the bus, given he's "not 100% black"???

 

It has no historical relevance, so your question is completely irrelevant. Once again, you seem to see people in a dumbed down skin color categorized fashion, I choose not to.

 

How so?

 

Ever hear of Sir Issac Newton? Lord Kelvin? Geo. Washington Carver? Michael Faraday? Kepler? Pasteur? Joule? Joseph Lister? All scientists who have changed the world in science who professed a faith in Jesus as the Messiah.

 

Many African-Americans had "white blood" (many due to the rape of female slaves) and were still oppressed by racism and things like Jim Crow.

So what is the POINT of you "pointing out" that the President is of white and black ancestry?

or do we both know the answer?

- - - Updated - - -

Newton believed in astrology.

Lord Kelvin believed that X-rays were a hoax.

 

Maybe you should focus on criticizing the failing public education system, as opposed to bashing creationism.

 

I wonder what these guys would think if they'd all have had the privelage of reading the works of Charles Darwin....

 

You seem to be having great difficulty comprehending what you read, My point is that there is no pure white or black, so your party marketing your candidates as "black" or deriding GOP candidates as "white" is ignorant and dishonest at best.

I doesn't seem that you know any answers.

 

I forget the context, but evolution is commonly used to describe adaptation or mutations. There is no dispute that organisms adapt and mutate, but those are not evidence of evolution.

Mutations will usually revert to their un-mutated form once removed from the changed environment. Adaptations are in response to a change in environment but the kind of animal does not change to a different kind of animal. There are limitations on adaption. Dogs can not be selectively bred to be as large as an elephant for example.

- - - Updated - - -

And you believe in evolution, which has been shown to be a hoax.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have any idea when many of these scientist lived?

 

If this is what you read, then neither you nor any of your fellow believers in creationism/intelligent design has "proved false" any of it and certainly not by stipulating a supreme/supernatural being in place of natural processes:

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level .

Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

Again, your assertions fly in the face of facts and logic. And I don't have to show you a damned thing, even though I have because apparently in the closed system that is your mind, no other facts may penetrate.

 

I haven't heard of all of them, but I know a portion of them never got to read the works of Darwin. To use their beliefs on the matter is not a good argument, if an appeal to authority ever is a good argument.

Anyhow, despite a few anecdotes, the vast majority of scientists who have knowledge of Darwin's research, do in fact agree.

 

Belief: 1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.


distinction without a difference: a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things even though there is, in fact, no actual difference.

 

The question was can a scientist believe in the Bible.

 

So why are you guys so desirous of being given "credit" for electing the first black woman Republican to Congress, Ms. Mia Love???

According to you....she's not "100% black"....so why are you marketing her as "black"?