Bill Nye slams creationism

[phyzik]

Nova did an Evolution special where a man discovered "human" footprints fossilized with "dinosaur" prints. Nova refused to film it. And the Smithsonian museum fired the Museum director for trying to add the fossil to the museum is that "Science" isn't Science about "learning"?

Evolution isn't Science it's a religion that is guarded well.

So wait... let me get this straight. Nova refused to display a non-peer reviewed (KEY POINT) piece of psuedo-science and fired the guy because he had biased religious views? Shocking!

guaranteed those "fossils" he had where peer-reviewed and debunked.

do you even understand what peer-review is in regards to the sciences?

The show "Ancient Aliens" is quite entertaining, especially the guy with the crazy hair, but none of it is peer-reviewed and accepted as real, plausable science. It's fun to think about, but its not supported by the mainstrean thoughts on reality.

[mouse]

So wait... let me get this straight. Nova refused to display a non-peer reviewed (KEY POINT) piece of psuedo-science and fired the guy because he had biased religious views? Shocking!

guaranteed those "fossils" he had where peer-reviewed and debunked.

do you even understand what peer-review is in regards to the sciences?

The show "Ancient Aliens" is quite entertaining, especially the guy with the crazy hair, but none of it is peer-reviewed and accepted as real, plausable science. It's fun to think about, but its not supported by the mainstrean thoughts on reality.

Thanks for that info. If what you say is true I have no problem reconsidering using that piece as part of my data on Age of earth Science.

I also have no problem accepting new data or if any of my data is found to be not legit. I'm not here to "win" a smack off I want to educate and maybe learn something in the process.

If I was the Science text book publisher I would definitely make sure the next edition of Science books were properly updated for the next school year.

That is really the only issue I have had lately with Science and the text books. They don't ever revise anything they still have the old fossil charts from the 1800s they never want to show the other side of how man might have have started life on this planet it's Darwin's theory and nothing else. To me that is not science.

I will delicate a few hours to re-examine your claims before I give up on supporting the story.

It's a shame many debates in this forum can't be this civil and cooperative.

Once again thank you for the very informative reply. I'm impressed.

[mouse]

On a side not you can see why I said man must of been here for "25 Million" years. Also the Smithsonian has refused many other types of fossils and information that may go against Evolution. and i have art work that has been modified to support my findings that they use in describing fossilized footprints they added them to an ape like creature which is not fair to do unless you have an agenda to support evolution.

Also you mentioned the man had a religious motive in the fossils why does his religion have to be an issue with his discovery?

[Wild Cobra]

I have a tendency to believe the Samaritan on how long man has walked earth. In our present evolutionary stage, I believe we were here for about 60,000 years. I am not solid on that number, and man would have been limited to the equatorial regions until the ice age ended.

[redzero]

I am going to try and explain to this person I am "not" supporting the population growth theory! re-read my "origina' reply.

Since you are incredibly stupid, I will explain slowly why your argument fails.

I am saying it doesn't make sense just as he is saying, why cant you see my point?

But the population numbers DO make sense. The reason why the population isn't much larger is because such a large population cannot possibly be maintained. Your. Argument. Is. False.

your making my point each time you post.

Actually, I'm destroying your point. The population would not have grown exponentially like you argue, because there are not enough resources for everybody.

Your argument: The population would be much bigger today if the earth was really billions of years old.
My response: No, it wouldn't. The population rates are due to several factors, one of which being the amount of resources available. So, to claim that the population would be bigger completely fails to take into account the contributing factors.

You have yet to acknowledge that your argument is flawed. All you have done has been trying to claim that my argument somehow helps yours, even though it does the exact opposite.

Since your lost on this point and have no evidence my data is false i will move on to another point.

You are completely delusional. Your argument was absolutely terrible, and I soundly debunked it.

Someone here wanted me to prove Science claims man has been around for over "25 Million" years. Many posters here keep whining about where is the evidence.

Here is all the evidence you really need. This "man made" tool or eating utensil was found buried under a mine 1880.



Notice the date the Scientist give the tool.



If a tool "made by man" was found to be buried in a layer of rock dated "55 Million" years old do the math.

Yet again, you fail to respond to my request. Show me any scientist who claims that humans have been around for 25 million years. I want to see a peer reviewed study.

[mouse]

Everybody has beliefs, re .

[RandomGuy]

List of Scientists who disagree with Evolution.

Debunked logical fallacy... ad populum

[RandomGuy]

I don't duck questions

Yes, actually you do.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6150427

[RandomGuy]

today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. MG]

Debunked, "same now as it was in the past" idea. Same as saturns rings, same as the comets, same as the niagra falls. This type of calculation assumes that the rate of what ever is measured
is exactly the same now as it was in the past, when you have no evidence to support it, something that you yourself admit to.

"Unicorns are real. Because unicorns are real, I can put a saddle on one and have a pleasant unicorn ride through the countryside."

My ability to have a pleasant unicorn ride is dependent on the existence of unicorns.

Your ability to make a claim of the age of the universe or the existence of mankind is dependent on the rates you put forth never changing, among other things.

[mouse]

Yes, actually you do.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6150427

I may have not read one of your replies but that is not a "Duck" to your question it just means I didn't read your post.

But one thing is for sure it doesn't matter what I say your head is too far up Darwin's ass to notice.

[RandomGuy]

I may have not read one of your replies but that is not a "Duck" to your question it just means I didn't read your post.

But one thing is for sure it doesn't matter what I say your head is too far up Darwin's ass to notice.

I reposted those questions at least three times by my count, and you directly referred to it (e.g. "candy experiments") at least twice, so you provably read it.

While I can only guess at the reason why you did not respond to my simple questions, I *can* prove that you didn't answer them. At this point, you certainly have the chance. I'm not stopping you, and the easiest way to prove me wrong is to answer them, something you have *laughably* still not done.

As for having my head up anyones ass: I go where the evidence leads. Your arguments tend to be based on provable half-truths, and provably flawed logic, if not outright non sequiturs. I can show you a do entary where one of the "scientists" who produces the garbage you copy and paste directly admits that if he finds any evidence that contradicts scripture, he simply ignores it.

Every time I subject your copy and pastes to simple background checking they have long ago been debunked, and indeed, it is not uncommon for that material to be disowned by their original writers, as even they know what they have written is deeply flawed.

Further, even when you post things in your own words, you have demonstrated a consistant lack of understanding of what you are criticising, if I am to take your posts as truthful and not trolling.

If you really want a chance to prove you didn't duck the questions put to you honestly and in good faith:

Quote Originally Posted by mouse

[I would find out how many jelly bean are in a jar] by finding out what the jar weighs w/o the jellybeans and then weighing the jar with the jelly beans I would just subtract the two numbers and come up with a close enough measurement

So you would use weight. Take the weight of the jellybeans divided by the weight of one jelly bean, to get a number of jelly beans.

1) Would the number of jelly beans that you calculated from this experiment be 100% guaranteed to be correct? Why or why not?

2) Why is this method better than simply randomly guessing a number between one and a trillion? Randomly guessing would also get a number of jelly beans.

[RandomGuy]

I may have not read one of your replies but that is not a "Duck" to your question it just means I didn't read your post.

But one thing is for sure it doesn't matter what I say your head is too far up Darwin's ass to notice.

Translation:

"I didn't duck your questions, I just didn't answer them, even when you pointed them out to me repeatedly"

[RandomGuy]

Yet again, you fail to respond to my request. Show me any scientist who claims that humans have been around for 25 million years. I want to see a peer reviewed study.

The "55 million year old mortar and pestle" thing appears to be from a paper published in the 1800's, based on one guy's limited understanding. Leave it to mouse to copy and paste bull found to be bull over a century ago.

It is held up by creationists who are looking a a huge mountain of evidence and cherry picking items they think support their assertion of how flawed the science is, when the science itself self-corrects when something erroneous is found, as this was OVER A CENTURY AGO.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=262

These accounts are quoted in a paper by William J Sinclair, “Recent investigations bearing on the question of the occurrence of Neocene man in the auriferous gravels of the Sierra Nevada”, published in University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, volume 7 number 2 (1908), pages 108-131. After a careful review of the evidence to date, Professor Sinclair concludes that a “review of the evidence favoring the presence of the remains of man in the auriferous gravels, compels one to regard it as insufficient to establish the fact. On the preceding pages, it has been shown either that there have been abundant opportunities for the relies in question to be mixed with the gravels accidentally, or that the geological conditions at the localities are such as to render it improbable that the implements and bones have been associated in the gravels to the extent supposed”.

This is exactly what I mean by half truths.

Sure, SOMEONE thought this stuff was 55 million years old.

The other half of the truth is:

A professional evaluation of the evidence found the support for that claim to be wholly insufficient, and it was discarded over a century ago.

[mouse]

Translation:

"I didn't duck your questions, I just didn't answer them, even when you pointed them out to me repeatedly"

Just because I haven't giving you the reply you desperately need is not "Ducking" it's making sure I answer properly something you don't practice.

[RandomGuy]

Just because I haven't giving you the reply you desperately need is not "Ducking" it's making sure I answer properly something you don't practice.

This is, by the way, the 5th opportunity you have had to answer those questions. That is "ducking" by any reasonable definition.

I don't desperately need an answer. The fact that you won't answer them, simply proves you aren't being honest about this debate, and don't care about the truth.

I will assert that, and your failure to answer these fair questions supports that assertion.

Don't answer them, and that proves you don't care about the truth.
Do answer them, and the answer blows a rather large hole in your position. You know this, I am pretty sure at this point, especially since I have already given you what any honest person would answer.

I "win" either way.

[mouse]

You want to try and debunk my evidence go right ahead but save the Jar of Marbles talk for another topic.


I have yet to use 25% of my data on how the Earth is nowhere near "1 Million" years old let alone "4 Billion" years old.

[mouse]

You want to talk about "erosion" of the planets, or the loss of gravity?

[Agloco]

You want to talk about "erosion" of the planets, or the loss of gravity?

Do tell.

[redzero]

You want to try and debunk my evidence go right ahead but save the Jar of Marbles talk for another topic.


I have yet to use 25% of my data on how the Earth is nowhere near "1 Million" years old let alone "4 Billion" years old.

Well, there's a lot of creationist bull out there to copy and paste, but I'm sure you'll manage.

[RandomGuy]

You want to try and debunk my evidence go right ahead but save the Jar of Marbles talk for another topic.


I have yet to use 25% of my data on how the Earth is nowhere near "1 Million" years old let alone "4 Billion" years old.

.... and now I can safely say you don't really care about the truth.


Thank you. Proven beyond any denying and/or reasonable doubt.

Thanks for the fun. It has been an interesting excercise looking into just how and why all of this bull is wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

I have yet to use 25% of my data on how the Earth is nowhere near "1 Million" years old let alone "4 Billion" years old.

If you have so much, then which one will put this issue to rest? Which one is undeniable?

[mouse]

And at the end I shall resort to overwhelming evidence and facts that almost guarantees silence and lack of replies from the Darwin supporters and the Scientific community.

Ps: Did you want to go with gravity?

[redzero]

And at the end I shall resort to overwhelming evidence and facts that almost guarantees silence and lack of replies from the Darwin supporters and the Scientific community.

Kind of like how you kept ignoring my posts about the size of earth's population.

[Brazil]

A vast majority of creationists are illiterate, go to the church every week, live on a hole and never travel out of their State... that's saying a lot

[mouse]

Kind of like how you kept ignoring my posts about the size of earth's population.

There are parts of the Antarctic that have had only 30 people living there in last 30 years and parts of Africa that have gone from 900 to 6,000 people in less than 15 years it did not effect the age of the Earth.