Upload

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

by Big Think • 6,784,518 views

Don't miss new Big Think videos! Subscribe by clicking here: http://goo.gl/CPTsV5 Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. According to Bill Nye, aka "the...

Responding to trolls and nutcases is a waste of time.
Report spam or abuse
And it's a joker like me who will become your king.
Report spam or abuse
The delusion is strong with this one
Report spam or abuse
Some gibbering buffoon commenting on this video stated that The greatest impediment to accepting creationism is understanding it. Understanding what precisely? • That man was made from a ball of mud (note that creationists often exclaim that they are not "made from dirt") and woman from his rib? • That the woman (with the cooperation of a talking snake) "tempted" the man to eat the fruit of "knowledge" (we see how poisonous knowledge is against religion if it was shunned thousands of years ago)? • That a 600 year-old man and his family of 8 without any knowledge of ship-building were able to build a wooden boat massively larger than the largest wooden boat built in modern times which despite being built by hundreds of experienced (and much younger) ship-rights, still was unable to stay afloat? • That we are told that unlike for believers who have a strict moral code handed down by god, for atheists morality is all relative and yet when we question why stonings to death are no longer carried out today, inevitably the answer the theist offers is that god prescribed punishments that were appropriate for the time i.e. their own god is a proponent of moral relativism! • The list is endless... I would say that the greatest impediment is knowledge - the more one learns about the natural world, the less one is likely to believe in fairy tales written for adults. In fact, it's not just me who says it - the fastest growing segment of the population who reject these fairy tales is precisely the more educated who attend college.
Report spam or abuse
+kreator9 Kretornine You believe Jesus is your God, yet Jesus wasn't even considered a God until the Romans rewrote the Bible, replacing manlike features with Godlike features. Defiantly? Learn how to spell bud.
Report spam or abuse
On Saturday, I head to Death Valley, California with my spring undergraduate class. Evidence for a protracted history (more than one billion years) is wholly incompatible with YEC beliefs. Yet no creationist has taken up my standing offer to test those beliefs against the rocks. And that in a nutshell is what is wrong with religious faith. https://vimeo.com/102055931
Report spam or abuse
I would also say that Christians willfully reject & promote the rejection of any means by which truth is gained empirically in favor of a means by which no truth has ever been discovered, blind belief. Christian "faith" is actually self deception. Its continually telling oneself that rejecting the rules of the origins of knowledge can lead to knowledge, which is simply a lie. - executionerofgod Trusting that something exists that you not only can't see but have no way to assess if it actually exists is merely self deception. You only compound self deception when you grant attributes to this "trusted existence" despite having no actual experience with any aspect of it that's distinguishable from a fictional being fabricated through your imagination. Faith is the pinnacle of arrogance, rooted in the cowardice of denying one's ignorance when confronted by mystery. Faith is the deadliest of all vices, a kind of brain death, elevated to the status of virtue, & worse even than war; because with faith there can be no reasoning, no negotiating, no compromise, no diplomacy, no peace. "Only two things are infinite, the universe & human stupidity, & I'm not sure about the former." ~ Albert Einstein "Faith is not built upon evidence, but ultimately some assumption." Which is precisely why no intelligent god would demand or require it. Because even if one did happen by accident of chance to happen to worship something remarkably like the real thing (given of course that one exists), does it then reward this accident and punish those who's accidents didn't happen upon the same kind of god? If that were so, why would one worship such a god?     Why would anyone (including a god) respect unfounded beliefs unless they wish to foster the continuity of ignorance? That's just something religious people cry over because if their beliefs were under critical thought and scrutiny, it wouldn't get very far.     Do you think a god would care if you believe in him? If that was at all important to him he would provide a lot more than just isolated rumors of long past events and confirmation bias. If one thing is very clear in the bible it is that it is only that some of the kind of actions inspired by faith are pleasing to god. Sadly it's also apparent that the biblical god expects us to accept the edicts of his spokesmen without question and to know which spokesmen are his and not deceivers (despite these 2 requirements being at odds with each other and no evidence to use to discern valid truths). When you realize this book is just a huge tool to get control of populations so the clergy can live on the dole(tithe) with the cushiest jobs that a primitive barbarian could ask for, you begin to see it in perspective.
Report spam or abuse
"Something that I find especially repulsive about monotheistic, messianic religion is that it quite clearly wants us all to die. It wants this world to come to an end. You can tell the yearning for things to be over whenever you read any of its real texts or listen to any of its authentic spokespersons. Not the, sort of pathetic apologists who sometime masquerade for it.”  “One famous spokesman in Virginia, recently said ‘those that have chosen rightly will be gathered into the arms of Jesus’ leaving all of the rest of you behind. So if you're in a car, it's your look out, that car won't have a driver anymore. No pilot, that's you're lookout, that plane will crash. We will be with Jesus and the rest of you can go straight to hell. The eschatological element that is inseparable from Christianity, says, "if you don't believe that there is to be an apocalypse, there is going to be an end, a separation of the sheep and the goats, a condemnation, a final one, then you're not really a believer", and the contempt for the things of this world shows through all of them. It's well put in an old rhyme from an English exclusive brethren sect, which says 'We are the pure and chosen few and all the rest are damned, there's room enough in hell for you, we don't want heaven crammed.”  “You can tell it when you see the extreme Muslims talk. They cannot wait for death and destruction to overtake and overwhelm the world. They can't wait for, what I would call without ambiguity, a final solution. When you look at the Israeli settlers, often paid for by American tax dollars, deciding if they can steal enough land from other people, and get all the Jews into the promised land and all the non-Jews out of it, then finally, the Jewish people will be worthy of the return of the Messiah, and there are Christians in this country who consider it their job to help this happen so that Armageddon can occur, so that the painful business of living as humans and studying civilisation and trying to acquire learning, knowledge, health, and medicine can all be scrapped and the cult of death can take over.”  “That to me is a hideous thing in eschatological terms, in end-times terms and on its own, a hateful idea, a hateful practice, and a hateful theory but very much to be opposed in our daily lives where there are people who sincerely mean it, and who want to ruin the good relations that could exist between different peoples; nations; races; countries; tribes and ethnicities; and who openly say, they love death more than we love life and who are betting that with ‘god’ on their side they're right about that.”  “So, when I say in my book that I think religion poisons everything, I'm not just doing what publishers like and coming up with a provocative subtitle. I sincerely mean to say it infects us in our most basic integrity. Religion says we cannot be moral without big brother, without a totalitarian permission. It means we can't be good to one another. It means we can't think without this. We must be afraid. We must also be forced to love someone who we fear; which is the essence of sadomasochism; the essence of abjection; the essence of the master slave relationship, and that knows that death is coming and can't wait to bring it on.”  “I say this is evil, and although I do some nights stay home, I enjoy more the nights when I go out and fight against this ultimate wickedness and ultimate stupidity". - Christopher Hitchens
Report spam or abuse
+Scientific Lee You are so humble... Your "god" must love you very much. To allow you to be such an incredible asshole.
Report spam or abuse
+AllHailDiskordia ...even funnier that he doesn't understand what a "straw man" is...lol Creationists are just too funny.
Report spam or abuse
Even though the hemoglobin molecule of a chimpanzee differs from that of a human by only one amino acid, I have a question.  If evolution is true, then why are humans still here, and why haven't we evolved ourselves over the extent of time we've been here?  Why is it that we voluntarily choose our own nature of life, while the chimpanzee cannot, and is kept captive by his own breed?  Here's another issue with Bill Nye's outlook.  He wants the future generation to be filled with scientists, but that's simply not going to happen.  With all the years I've been in science myself, I can tell you that it eventually becomes very dry, boring, and lifeless.  You'll never truly know why so many people in the world do not enter the field of science until you have been exposed to it. 
Report spam or abuse
+Jonathan Y Wu Actually according to a theory by MatPat in the poke universe humans ARE pokemon.
Report spam or abuse
I often read-over my conversations with creationists from the past few years, and with the advantage of distance, I can see where I have often gone wrong. That is where I assume, wrongly, that the creationist has at least some knowledge of the topic. A good example occurred just recently when I was talking to someone who claimed to be a biology student at university engaged in post-grad research (and I believed him). He mentioned that he was doing gravimetric tests which might explain why fossils were sorted in the column by size. "Sorted by size". Yep. After some time pondering why I couldn't get through to him, I had to ask myself if the idiot wasn't me, for believing I was talking to a normal human. And I can see where I have continued debating with these people in the past, letting many of these kinds of blunders past my guard. They don't know the basics, and we shouldn't assume they do.
Report spam or abuse
+ExtantFrodo2 It seems to me that females take spirituality much more seriously than males. Which may seem strange to say, given the long history of male-dominated religion, but then, we males would take ownership of the menstrual cycle if it gave us dominance. It doesn't support my claim at all, but for a laugh, go to "Stupid Game Show Answers - Richard Dawson Tribute" /watch?v=BeRby1A_HvQ&index=2&list=FLboz7_Danh180VJJbSe-f3w and watch the first question he asks "Living or dead, name a famous religious woman".
Report spam or abuse
+matchlockfun it's probably due to the larger intercranial connection between the hemispheres in women. Bah, I blame all the differences between men and women on that though it's probably that plus something else. It's not that the bigger pipeline between the brains is better or worse it's just that the kinds of processing done is different. It's good to have more than one perspective on things. Viva la difference.
Report spam or abuse
Poor Bedrock Eddze Edd Flintstone (Coyotollah Aminu) is left trying desperately to find the sunshine that he thinks shines out of his backside. Like some mutant Oroboros,  Edd's head is swallowed by his own arse (and whatever light he thinks he will find there would in any case be blocked by several copies of Merriam-Webster's dictionary and his own fat head). The Aminuboros thus internally bathes in the delusion of his own magnificence while externally he stands as nothing more than a symbol to all of his circular reasoning and consequent affirming fallacious logic. Let us laugh at the "almighty" Aminuboros.
Report spam or abuse
+mikecucuk "It makes me happier than you, that's for sure. ^_^ And do pull your head out of your ass and breath some actual air from time to time. It's healthy. ;)" Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Anyway, YOU KNOW YOU'RE ALREADY CONDEMNED! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
I wonder how Jesus could have died as a blood scrifice for our sins, when the Bible itself says this is impossible. Ezekiel 18 says "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them" And this theme is repeated several times in the Bible. There will BE NO SUBSTITUTES. I'm confused.
Report spam or abuse
+ExtantFrodo2 An "almighty" god who could not think of a better way of punishing mankind for going wayward than to send an epic flood that killed not only the guilty, but even those who believed and praised him, or who were too young to know what sin was, For that matter, he also condemned all animal life on earth because you know who much those goddamn cows sin - all day long sinning and chewing, sinning and chewing...
Report spam or abuse
+The Celestial Coffeepot It's called collateral damage. You know the kind of thing incompetent people are guilty of.
Report spam or abuse
Complexity alone is no measure of good design or even intelligent design. Indeed if a job can be done with less complexity it invariably means there is less to go wrong, less that could foul it up. A sweeping examination of any modern life form shows complex inter connected systems ala Rube Goldberg using a hundred steps where 2 or 3 would suffice. A deeper closer examination reveals the cumulative nature that built these systems by taking something crappy and making it a little bit better by adjusting the crap or adding some other bit of crap to compensate. Thus evolution proceeds via removing the crappiest crap from the bottom of the gene pool leaving the slightly less crappy crap to breed their crappy solutions to the environmental challenges just because they survived.
Report spam or abuse
+kreator9 Kretornine You're an idiot. You probably posted on some completely different thread or somehow managed to hide your comment because between the one you posted at 5:33 PM is the only one visible to me since your prior one on Mar. 12.
Report spam or abuse
+The Celestial Coffeepot The comment she's referring to is probably in her head like most of the crap she talks about.
Report spam or abuse
Creationism in a nutshell: "I have never engaged in any activity that could remotely be confused with homework on this subject, nor would I recognize actual homework on it, nor do I understand or appreciate the homework that others have invested on the topic. However, I browsed a web page, talked it over with a minister and an MBA, and consulted a few like-minded and equally ill-informed people, so I feel confident in saying that scientists are full of cr@p."
Report spam or abuse
Yet another while has passed and not a single theist produced a single empirical evidence for their deity's existence. Meanwhile, more discoveries on the evolution of early Arthropods are made, evidence that social pressure eventually became more important than "survival of the fittest" for homo sapiens in the last few millenias and finally, the bone structure of the toes may lead to a better understanding of our bipedality arose after the speciation from our common ancestors with the pans.
Report spam or abuse
Skeptic(s): "What is your point, and why should we believe any god-claims without positive evidence?" Zzealot: "Haha(x7)! YOU must BE insane SINCE you DON'T see THE invisible, ARE you Not? Haha(x6)" Skeptic(s): "Answering questions with unrelated questions makes you a hostile witness (never mind that your style makes look like a lunatic); so, no answer as to your motivations?" Zzealot: "Haha(x7)! WHO are YOU to JUDGE? You CLAIM the UNIVERSE is MEANINGLESS and PURPOSELESS, do YOU not? Haha(x6)!" Skeptic(s): "You keep saying stuff like that, over and over... can't you think up some new material? Our purpose and what we claim is not as you say (or imply). Why can't we have a civil chat in which you drop the snark, the subterfuge, the hyberbole...?" Zzealot: "Haha(x7)! YOU sound LIKE a FAGG*T! Haha(x6)!" Skeptic(s): "Another repetitive, uncivil non sequitur, it says more about you... Why preach your unwanted message to the same people who have heard it a zillion times, and with whom you refuse to be reasonable, to use reasoned arguments? Why can't you address common grievances concerning scripture with anything reasonable? For example:"  (read more 127 lines) Zzealot: "UGH! BORING! This is just drivel! Looks like you boneheads have had enough! Haha(x11)! I'll BE back TO finish YOU off! I'll SCRAPE the LAST shreds OF steaming Meat from YOUR quivering CARCASSES! Haha(x27)!" Mainstream Christian bystander: "Zaki, that's not how true Christians deal with criticism. Please try to act more civil. Zzealot: "SHUT UP, FAGG*t!! Haha(x13)!"
Report spam or abuse
Creationists generally assert that everything in the universe was designed (like our resident mad man Wacky Zaki). However, this renders it impossible to establish an objective and meaningful distinction between designed and non-designed objects, because there are no non-designed objects for us to experience. Therefore, creationism is incompatible with the argument from design. In the Watchmaker analogy, the creationist claims that a rock might have always existed but a watch was definitely created. The characteristic property of design implicitly suggested is the watch is not naturally occurring and is therefore designed. However, the creationist also argues the universe, including the rock, was designed. This invalidates the "naturally occurring" vs. "not naturally occurring" distinction the creationist established in the first place; i.e. the argument is self-refuting.
Report spam or abuse
+Owen Atkins But it's not random at all. Certain traits increase the chance that an organism will survive to pass on its DNA. It's like if you had a machine random picking out puzzle pieces to fit into a slot; even though the machine is picking randomly, a piece that fits into the slot will end up being chosen because there's selective pressure (in this case, the slot itself).  And even ignoring that, we can literally observe very simple organisms evolving. Like, with our eyes. This is why most creationists at least concede that "micro"-evolution occurs (in reality, "micro" evolution directly necessitates "macro" evolution, but that's another argument).
Report spam or abuse
+BenkaiDebussy I mean the adding of genetic information to turn a prokaryote into a man.
Report spam or abuse
A day age creationist patiently explained to me that the six days of creation were in fact periods of millions of years. I enquired, "God made land plants and modern day grasses on the third day of creation and made the Sun on the fourth day, how did flora survive for millions of years without the Sun?" You don't have to be too bright to be a Christian!
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu they say every time you say 'boring' you get a facial from your camel 
Report spam or abuse
Creationism is not appropriate for children because "you" need literate taxpayers! What the fuck are you talking about? what's the relation with believing creationism? are you sure that you are a "scientist" or a kind of clown. 
Report spam or abuse
"Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! The enemy has been PUT TO THE SWORD and their remainder have FLED THE BATTLEFIELD! I'm simply ROBBING THE CARCASSES of their SLAIN and LOOTING, as all VICTORIOUS armies do! It's a time-honoured tradition! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!" So religious proselytisation is simply a cover for land-grabbing and plundering the wealth and possessions of others, eh Eddy? Thanks for confirming that !
Report spam or abuse
+AllHailDiskordia "And once more you admit how boring you are...." Ugh! BORING! "...Self-knowledge is the first step to recovery." So, now you know you're PART-MONGOL, do you feel you're recovering, Fritz? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu Google translate wird dir nicht wirklich weiterhelfen, Cletus, das Programm macht halt Fehler. Anyway, cool story, Cletus, how is your sex life?
Report spam or abuse
Really Bill? I can be an engineer. Proficient in drafting, construction and material science regardless of what I bielive or what God I worship. Think for 2 seconds before you open your mouth next time, alright?
Report spam or abuse
@Zakass Free will?   Free will and omniscience cannot co-exist, if god knows everything then it knows our future but we have free will and make our own decisions. If it doesn't know then it isn't omniscient, if it does know then we haven't got free will, one or the other is a lie?  Take your pick and choose wisely! You don't have to be too bright to be a Christian!
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu "I guess you would know huh Zaki?..." You don't mind, do you? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Actually I do. "...You know all there is to know because you are "awake"...." You sound UPSET about that - WHY? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! because if you truly  believe you are awake than that means you consider yourself a prophet. Hee hee a prophet of madness. "...Hah, are you obsessed with always being right and knowing better than others and having people with different opinions than you "challemged"?..." Hahahahahahahahahahaha! YOU WANT ME TO BE WRONG? - WHY? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Because you preach madness NOT science or religion. Your madness can spread around if left unchecked. "....Hey Zaki you asked how many bat shit crazy people that Claimed to be prophets just like you were right, correct?...." Hahahahahahahahahahaha! I'm "crazy" because I say that you're wrong to claim that SOMETHING CAN COME OUT OF NOTHINGNESS? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! No, you're crazy because of all your Hahahahahhahahahahaass. "...Well the answer is simple...." Do tell! Hahahahahahahahahahaha! You should already know Mr. awakened. "...No single person throughout history has ever been right about every single little thing..." REALLY? AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT - ATHEISTIC GUT FEELING? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT WRONG ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC THING? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Well it's just one thing, I am not claiming to have knowledge of all like you do. You know what you give theists a bad name. I bet no self respecting church would be caught dead being associated with you. There are some theists that have faith but also have use of logic. You only have use of madness. "...You are no different than they are...." HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT, FAGGOT? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! I know that because of the mountains and mountains of evidence that you have left here on this threads. "...You just happen to have access to a steady Internet connection and a lot of free time on your hands...." Hahahahahahahahahahaha! I'm sorry to hear you don't have proper internet connectivity at home! The government should make better provisions for the LESS FORTUNATE! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Whoever said that I don't have access to the internet? Oh that's right you did because you know all and see all with your omnipotent power of cognition. "....I guess by this point the only thing that keeps you going is your complete and utter madness...." Or maybe I'm just BETTER THAN YOU, eh? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Is that what you tell yourself at night when you can't go to sleep? "...But hey if me calling you mad makes you feel bad about yourself, try dropping the "hahahahahas" from your replys...." Hahahahahahahahahahaha! WHY would I be upset about atheists disapproving of ME? THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE: IF ATHEISTS APPROVED OF ME, I WOULD BE MORTIFIED! WHAT GOOD IS A PEST-KILLER THAT IS APPROVED OF BY PESTS? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Haa haa you're funny Zaki. I bet not even god approves of you. "...They don't make you sound smart or intimidating, they just make you sound demented and crazy....." CLEARLY, you don't like them - WHICH MEANS THEY'RE JUST THE RIGHT SORT OF THING I SHOULD HAVE IN MY POSTS! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! It's not that I don't like them Zaki, it's just that if you are trying to convince me of your bat shit crazy ideas it is kinda distracting with all the "hahahahahhaahahaass" "...That is why your madness cannot be taken seriously because with your deranged crazy clown laugh it seems that YOU don't even take yourself seriously." Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! I don't take YOU seriously, FAGGOT! That's all! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Well you take the time to reply to my posts do you not?
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu "BEAT UP THAT GUY" That's what tantrum throwing teenagers want to do when they're proven wrong, isn't it?
Report spam or abuse
Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color, like 'off' is a tv channel and like abstinence is a sexual position. Since we've been over this tired failed argument here before, do we need to look at both Webster and Oxford to see atheism defined as the disbelief or lack of belief in god(s)? Rather boring, no?
Report spam or abuse
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually everyone will believe it. Adolf Hitler. That my friends is what evolution is, a big lie, that is told over and over, until now almost everyone believes it.
Report spam or abuse
+ExtantFrodo2 Ah, the true blessing of the internet is that it allows everyone access to information. And false information has a way of revealing itself. Hence the ever increasing number o atheism!
Report spam or abuse
Oh, the hilarious irony.
Report spam or abuse
So, the dufus 'You are a sad pathetic moron' is posting on my channel. If you wanna take a few free shots, go ahead and talk to him. Lord knows I've already torn his ass a couple inches wider.
Report spam or abuse
+ergonomover I'm still waiting for a source for his statistics... Think I'll get one?
Report spam or abuse
+lordlandraid Yeah, surely.... not!  How not to laugh at these people? 
Report spam or abuse
Evolution is the basses’ for everything? Where did the energy come from then to evolve in the first place then? Evolution makes the world simpler? If we evolved why are we nice to disabled people, and offer help to them shouldn’t we let them die off, because we don’t want to mess up our natural section? He didn’t even justify his opinion, to well either. And He can’t really say there is no evidence of God without looking it up, the bible has some evidence that it must have been written by God. it's not to nice to say we evolved and then not be able dig up a missing link in the ground and show it to your kid.
Report spam or abuse
'Where did the energy come from then to evolve in the first place then?' The sun, you moron. 'If we evolved why are we nice to disabled people-' Why wasn't Hitler? Oh, right. Because he was a dick. '-shouldn’t we let them die off, because we don’t want to mess up our natural section?' Maybe if it was a genetic issue. At the end of the day it doesn't matter because people who have crippling disabilities from some sort of genetic defect don't tend to breed anyways (depending on the defect). If you're talking about people who are disabled due to some environmental effect, then we treat them nicely because if we ended up in that position we'd like to be treated nicely, too. It's called empathy. You know, that thing that the biblical viewpoint is devoid of? 'And He can’t really say there is no evidence of God-' He never said that anyways, so why bring it up? '-the bible has some evidence that it must have been written by God' Ahahahaha. No. Just no. 'it's not to nice to say we evolved and then not be able dig up a missing link in the ground and show it to your kid.' We have plenty of them. Lucy's species we have over 250 examples of. What more do you want?
Report spam or abuse
+Owen Atkins You seem to have pressed reply twice. I assume it was a technical glitch in the mouse/keyboard due to the copious amounts of spit from your constant dribbling.
Report spam or abuse
True, but your soul lives forever and ever You have that to deal with. And if you are right , hey no problem for eitherone of us. O K. But if I am right, you got a real problem, dealing with the eternal soul. 1rst. John Chap 3 vs. 15
Report spam or abuse
Creationist self-pwnage 101 Creationists often claim that Darwin recanted on his death-bed (which he didn't btw). Therefore, if this so-called 'heaven' existed (which it doesn't btw) Darwin would be spending eternity teaching his life's passion (Evolutionary biology) to all the so-called 'moral' people who made it through the pearly gates. Hilariously, if this so-called 'hell' existed (which it doesn't btw) then judging by the hateful immoral and dishonest behaviour of our resident creationists (all creationists in fact), then it is they who will be roasting in the so-called 'lake-of-fire' (which doesn't exist btw) for all eternity. Too funny.
Report spam or abuse
+matchlockfun I can't wait for the follow-up documentary (spoiler alert) where Ham and Alan end up fighting; they fall into the water and Alan ends up finding a ring 5 km down on the sea floor. When he places the ring on his finger he becomes invisible. It's all true, I've seen the trailer.
Report spam or abuse
+Charlie Darwin Should be a good soundtrack. The deathly screams of the small children, and terrified gasps of hopelessness set to a thumping 70s disco beat.
Report spam or abuse
One minute Nye is opposed to GMO's, then after meeting with the scientist at Monsanto, he all of the sudden changed his tune! Bill Nye: bought & paid for by the corporate suits at Monsanto!
Report spam or abuse
+ExtantFrodo2 Do you have an example or where Pesher has been shown to be wrong? Do you realize that what you are considering is akin to treating the "Da Vinci Code" as non-fiction? Aren't you skeptical of that kind of stuff? See http://creation.com/barbara-thiering-a-short-critique for a short critique on Barbara Thiering. If you don't trust that, then read what Wikipedia has to say: "James F. McGrath, an Associate Professor in the Religion and Philosophy department at Butler University in his 1996 review of the book states that Thiering's thesis lacks proof, and that she herself acknowledges that the pesher of the Revelation of St. John is her own composition." - Wikipedia "Barbara Thiering" I debated Professor McGrath (http://www.godofevolution.com/did-jesus-believe-in-a-six-day-creation-and-a-literal-adam) who is so far from early Biblical Christian theology that you would probably love him (compared to me) but not even he can take Barbara Thiering seriously. Wikipedia's assessment of Thiering gets even worse: In 1993 N. T. Wright, New Testament historian and former Bishop of Durham, wrote: "It is safe to say that no serious scholar has given this elaborate and fantastic theory any credence whatsoever. It is nearly ten years since it was published; the scholarly world has been able to take a good look at it: and the results are totally negative."
Report spam or abuse
+Alan Clarke "Do you realize that what you are considering is akin to treating the "Da Vinci Code" as non-fiction?" Yet another false claim from the frightened fundie. The Da Vinci code is popular fiction and is called so. The Pesher scroll is dated to the same origin as the Dead Sea scrolls it was found with. It is a serious study, and despite your pathetic attempted character assassination (by WIKIPEDIA no less!!) of one of its researchers, it remains yet to be disproven. One example of a wrong sustitutive code will do it, yet we don't have one yet. The scroll gives examples, for god's sake. If it's a fraud, it's a 2000 year old fraud. But given all your patheitic attempts at denial here, I'd say you're the likely fraud candidate.
Report spam or abuse
Evolution is not a fact it is a theory. There is tonnes of stuff proving evolution wrong, and scientists, instead of either saying "we dont know" or "maybe we were wrong" instead they make crazy assumptions. Wait until you can actually fix the holes in this absurd theory before stating it as fact. 
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
+General Shamic They might, but there metabolism would have to  be extremely slow. There are bacteria miles underground which only replicate once every 10,000 years. That's how slow their metabolism is. It's very plausible similar life forms live underground on Mars. If Mars had life once it probably has some remnant somewhere.
Report spam or abuse
In a nutshell.. RELIGION IS DUMB. 
Report spam or abuse
+AMF1134 Well, there's no rest for the wicked! That's true! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
you know what, i see why so many christians (I'm christian) don't believe in evolution. its been in our understanding that evolution doesn't exist and that humans just came from God, basically out of dust/dirt/sand?.... (nowhere). I feel like humans did come from God but I don't think that humans came from nothing. Look at the filipino race. they were asians and then Spain came over, had some fun and then the race of filipinos were born. I'm filipino and over time, we as a race changed in appearance. I feel like people did change over huge periods of time which leads to the conclusion that evolution does exist. before the catholic church had been wrong before such as the neolithic and neolithic beliefs. Humans can be wrong. we can be wrong. Catholicism can be wrong. does that mean their bad people? No, but I'm just saying we all have a possibility of being wrong and that that shouldn't hinder us from the information we have now. Im a christian and I believe in evolution. I dont think that one day chimps just turned into a human one day but i believe that over time we get smarter and smarter with some genetic traits towards survival get passed down such as phobias. why you hating?
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Nicholas. Before you 'throw the book at me' again could you answer this? Why is that book for free? Aren't most things that are free usually... oh I don't know, worthless?
Report spam or abuse
+FreedomR115 And to think that you actually believe that all of this is true. My deepest condolences.
Report spam or abuse
+mikecucuk Well they're not EXACTLY aliens but... would you look at the time? Gotta go!
Report spam or abuse
The Big Bang contradicts the first Law of Thermodynamics. Meaning, that something can not come from nothing.
Report spam or abuse
+The Celestial Coffeepot it was pretty evil, seemed to be waiting for me and it just stared at me. Our dogs at the time saw it before I did, on our way to close the gate on our property. The dogs stopped so I did, I looked at them and the hair on their neck's were raised and then I saw it. Think I went into shock for a couple of seconds and ran like a man mad.
Report spam or abuse
+Jack lee I think you are well-equipped to imagine how primitive man looked at lightning and thunder in that case.
Report spam or abuse
Bill Nye has a BS degree in mechanical engineering.  He is no more a scientist, than Al Sharpton is a reverend.
Report spam or abuse
+Ianes58 and where is your degree?
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
every time you say boring you get a camel facial
Report spam or abuse
Creationists, including ID creationists, pathologically misrepresent the facts, laws, logic, theories, history, philosophy, methods and BASIC TERMINOLOGY of science because they are science illiterates whose religious convictions make them fearful of scientific inquiry. Example: They HABITUALLY misrepresent the scientific terms theory, law, transitional, evolution, vestigial, &c. Science illiterates should not define science policy or science curricula or misinform children about basic science.
Report spam or abuse
+ergonomover Dinos 'shrank' to become birds? Dino-to-bird evolution is again in the spotlight. Researchers recently used existing fossil data to explore how birds supposedly evolved. From their analysis, they conclude that the closer in form dinosaurs got to birds, the smaller the dinosaurs got. (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/28563682) But from an evolutionary perspective, there is a flaw in their scenario. Archaeopteryx, a so-called 'advanced' form on the dino-to-bird evolutionary tree, is 'dated' to around 150 million years old. However, practically all the 'feathered dinosaurs' (supposedly more primitive in the alleged dino-to-bird transition) are 'dated' anywhere from 20 to 80 million years younger than Archaeopteryx! This is known as the 'grandfather paradox', where supposedly more 'primitive' fossil forms are in fact dated younger than the more 'advanced' forms (the grandfather younger than the children!). This might occur a few times by chance, since fossils form in a relatively random way. But such paradoxes are found in almost all the fossil evidence for dino-to-bird evolution! So, even if these fossils were real feathered dinosaurs, they would be irrelevant for dino-to-bird evolution. source: creation.com
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Creationism: Because in their minds, pushing the origin of the universe up a level is the equivalent of solving it. ^_^
Report spam or abuse
+mikecucuk Sure, look how they invariably invoke Pascal's Wager. Gambling is the Christian way, all the way from their souls to the bingo parlors to the ballots they cast at election.
Report spam or abuse
+ExtantFrodo2 Ah, yes. Pascal's Wager. Because it's better to believe in their god "just in case." Talk about hedging your bets.
Report spam or abuse
"LET THE RECORD SPEAK FOR ITSELF - AND PEOPLE JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES! I'm happy with that - WHY AREN'T YOU?" So why do you keep posting wacky? How many records do want speaking for your fantasies.
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu Why can't this Universe be the only reality? Alternatively why would you need an Ultimate reality, why not just multiple realities? If you have evidence present it. If you only have an inference you don't have evidence.
Report spam or abuse
"We have identified the evolutionary history of favourable genetic mutation in the mitochondria of virtually every living vertebrate...this process can be used to trace the common ancestor of virtually every living species today" Okamura, L.N. Tyler, K. (2008). "The evolution and functional diversification of animal microRNA genes". Genome Research. 18(10): 985–96. 
Report spam or abuse
+Alan Clarke "If two different organisms evolved eyes at or near the same time on the evolutionary time scale, that could/would be considered "simultaneous mutations"   Wow, talk about stretch shit to the max? Define "at or near the same time" quantitatively. Apparently to you it means "whenever", because to you the development of eyes is just random, not beneficial. That's where being a stupid shit gets you.
Report spam or abuse
+Alan Clarke ""The persistence of original soft tissues in Mesozoic fossil bone is not explained by *current chemical degradation models."*     Because we have only begun to know how to characterize the differences in different nanoscale environments. Well might one ask how molecules would move when locked in a nanoscale prison.       It's hysterical how you accept science only when it can be made to seem to support creationism yet rail against it when it doesn't.
Report spam or abuse
Albert Einstein Quote: In consideration of the cosmos the order of the universe witch I with my limited human mind am able to perceive. Yet there are those who say there is no God. What makes me really angry is when they quote me in support of such views.
Report spam or abuse
+otonabeeave Adami et al., 2000. (see below) Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho & M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation & polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385. Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication & fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. & D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490. Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd & R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology & Evolution 15(8): 931-942. Hughes, A. L. & R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799. Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews & J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry & Biology 3: 937-947. Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215. Lynch, M. & J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate & consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066. Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216. Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin & C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471. Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo & I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022. Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799. Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang & H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments Carson 1982, Evolution of drosophila on the newer hawaiian volcanoes Borash et al. 1999, Evolution of ammonia & urea tolerance in Drosophila melanogaster: resistance & cross-tolerance Inomata 2005, Evolution of amylase in Drosophila Takahiro 2005, Genetic variation in susceptibility to organophosphate insecticides within a natural population of Drosophila melanogaster Hutchinson et al. 1991, Quantitative Genetics of Postponed Aging in Drosophila melanogaster. I. Analysis of Outbred Populations Fos et al. 1990, Mitochondrial DNA evolution in experimental populations of Drosophila subobscura Rose et al. 2005, The Effects of Evolution are Local: Evidence from Experimental Evolution in Drosophila Yadav et al. 2007, Evolutionary genetics of Drosophila ananassae : evidence for trade-offs among several fitness traits "How much of protein sequence space has been explored by life on Earth?" (Dreyden, Thomson, White.) Bull JJ, Wichman HA (2001). "Applied evolution". Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32: 183–217. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114020. Mindell, DP (2007). The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 341. ISBN 978-0674025585. Doebley JF, Gaut BS, Smith BD (2006). "The molecular genetics of crop domestication". Cell 127 (7): 1309–21. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.006. PMID 17190597. Jäckel C, Kast P, Hilvert D (2008). "Protein design by directed evolution". Annu Rev Biophys 37: 153–73. doi:10.1146/annurev.biophys.37.032807.125832. PMID 18573077. Maher B. (2009). "Evolution: Biology's next top model?". Nature 458 (7239): 695–8. doi:10.1038/458695a. PMID 19360058. Borowsky R (2008). "Restoring sight in blind cavefish". Curr. Biol. 18 (1): R23–4. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.11.023. PMID 18177707. Gross JB, Borowsky R, Tabin CJ (2009). "A novel role for Mc1r in the parallel evolution of depigmentation in independent populations of the cavefish Astyanax mexicanus". PLoS Genet. 5 (1): e1000326. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000326. PMC 2603666. PMID 19119422. Yergeau DA, Cornell CN, Parker SK, Zhou Y, Detrich HW (2005). "bloodthirsty, an RBCC/TRIM gene required for erythropoiesis in zebrafish". Dev. Biol. 283 (1): 97–112. doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.04.006. PMID 15890331. Fraser AS (1958). "Monte Carlo analyses of genetic models". Nature 181 (4603): 208–9. doi:10.1038/181208a0. PMID 13504138. Rechenberg, Ingo (1973). Evolutionsstrategie – Optimierung technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der biologischen Evolution (PhD thesis) (in German). Fromman-Holzboog. Holland, John H. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-262-58111-6. Koza, John R. (1992). Genetic Programming (On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection). MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-11170-5. Jamshidi M (2003). "Tools for intelligent control: fuzzy controllers, neural networks and genetic algorithms". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 361 (1809): 1781–808. doi:10.1098/rsta.2003.1225. PMID 12952685.     This is but one tiny fraction of the scientific material on evolution. Your ignorance of it is astounding. Indeed, you can't find ANY mechanism that would prevent evolution from happening. You are welcome to try.
Report spam or abuse
+ExtantFrodo2 Not only is he welcome to try, so are any working scientists who would achieve instant fame and fortune, and win the affection of spectacular women everywhere to boot, if only they could falsify the theory of evolution and propose a new theory in its place that includes an intelligent designer that happens to like fashioning creatures out of magic play-doh. It's telling that scientists (the few that exist) with a strong creationist bent, have reserved their work mostly for creationist web sites rather than for peer review and publication in scientific journals.
Report spam or abuse
lol Incorrect Bill.. No evidence for Creation? In reality there is none for Evolution and is solely based on faith... How? a scientific method is based on the collection of Data through observation and experimentation. That's how one arrives from hypothesis to theory. And Darwin evolution says that there will be a change of kind (macroevolution),  Yet there is no Observable evidence for the Theory of Evolution, because it all happened between 6 to 100 million years ago, So with that said i question if it is really even a theory at all. It can't be seen, and is not testable over time, So my conclusion is that evolution is not really scientific fact but must be faith based. Saying that Darwin's finches evolved is a mistake, they clearly have adapted and have not become a different kind or something completely different, like a snake, they are still birds.
Report spam or abuse
+Fly WEST You: In a community that claims to be fact driven why believe in something that can't be proven? Me: The scientific use of the word "theory" does not mean "mere speculation" as the colloquial use implies. It is something that has explanatory and predictive powers, and importantly, can be falsified. For example, the theory of evolution explains why marine life evolved before terrestrial life, predicts where transitional fossils between marine and terrestrial life could be found, and can be falsified by finding evidence of the first terrestrial life in layers that are more ancient than those in which it was predicted to appear. A theory can never be proven - at best we can only say that after a scientific theory was proposed, it has been a good model for predicting and has so far failed to be falsified. The more it withstands the tests of prediction and of falsification, the more we can consider it to be "proven" but it could never be proven absolutely. You: if something has overwhelming evidence, why is it still not fact. Yet many treat evolution like it is. and even say it? i'm confused on that. Me: For similar reasons I explained above, scientific theories are not promoted into facts. Facts (such as finding marine life fossils below the fossils for terrestrial life) are what are used to support the theory.
Report spam or abuse
why do u want teen like us to not belive in a devine creator?
Report spam or abuse
You: if we evolved from apes then why are there still apes Me: Really? Really??? • if Americans evolved from the British, why are there still British? • if mankind came from mud, why is there still mud? • if Eve evolved from a rib, why are there still ribs? (credit to one of my "accomplices" on this video for that one) I suggest you never use that "argument" again unless you enjoy embarrassing yourself.
Report spam or abuse
+isaiah ortiz heres the best answer to that question. if dogs evolved from wolves, why are there still wolves? also the same process that might give you your mothers eyes but your fathers nose is the same genetic process that allows new species to evolve and, over vast periods of time, new phylogenetic groups. what creationists call "kinds" is actually called phylogenetic groups. the more you know :)
Report spam or abuse
Mr. Nye, here is a question for you: 1.) What is the reason, we never saw in the last 100-150 years (since we have good microscopes) when a 1-cell bacterium gained at least 1 more cell and became a 2-cells "healthy bacterium" (able to reproduce 2-cells bacterium)?  Or a virus evolve into a 1-cell bacterium? According to evolutionists, in the last 4 billion years our ancestors had to gain an average 25,000 cells in every single year to become human as we are now (see the calculation below).  My question: ---------------------------------- Calculation for average cell growth per year: Fact: the human body has ~100 trillion cells, (100,000,000,000,000).  According to evolutionists, the first 1-cell bacteria appeared 4 billion years ago (4,000,000,000).  To find out, what was the average cell gains per year to get a human from the 1-cell bacteria, divide the number of cells with the number of years:  100,000,000,000,000 cells / 4,000,000,000 years = 25,000 cell growth per year ------------------------------------ Just a note: If we want to find out how many cell growth needed by evolution to get the biggest dinosaur the "Dreadnoughtus", this number would be more than 2,5-million cell growth per year !!! The weight of the dreadnoughtus by good faith estimate is: 130,000 lb.
Report spam or abuse
+Chocolate Covered Reason ...or "how to be pregnant for longer than a human lifespan!"
Report spam or abuse
Chimps are actually primitive humans. Our ancestors, at one point, would have been virtually indistinguishable from them.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
This is why I never take him seriously
Report spam or abuse
+Saba Bajwa "lol I mean if that's your way to deal with atheists I don't blame you inshallah we progress and be stronger atleast we accept Allah." Rejection of Allah is rejection of EXISTENCE! That is what Atheism is - NIHILISM! Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
There is evidence of God's existence everywhere, but you choose to ignore it. How many here are scientists? And how many of you take what others tell you for granted? Can you prove that God doesn't exist? Finally, when you see a car you know that some one or something made it, why would it be any different with the Universe. I'm ending this debate before any of us says something we may regret. May God show you the truth.
Report spam or abuse
Where is this said proof? We don't ignore it, It does not exist. Logical fallacy, appeal to credibility. You say that sense we are not real scientists with degrees. Then we can't talk about science. I don't take any thing for granted. As for what creationists say. I know that their bullocks speech holds no water in reality. I can prove that your god does not exist. A car is a machine. Of course it was invented and made by a person. However, we do know how the Universe came to be and the various natural processes that did it. None of them speak of any god. There is no evidence supporting a god. That is why we don't believe it.
Report spam or abuse
Please give one example.
Report spam or abuse
I am a Christian and saying that we have no proof of our religion is just crazy. Go ahead and ask me anything and I will bring proof. One for example people say the bible is all a lie yet all the people all the places and all the events have been proven with eye witness, historical accounts, and even archaeological dig's. Also let me just put out there before someone asks this question the "Big Bang" did happen, our earth did start that way. So let's say that we could watch the Big Bang happen, what would it look like... It would look like a explosion of light, right? And that is exactly how the bible says it happens. But please ask me anything and I will try my best to show you the truth.
Report spam or abuse
+Tyler P. '-in the beginning before the sun and all that there wasn't anything to call a day.' Then why did they call it a day?...
Report spam or abuse
+Tyler P. "God won't let you into heaven if you do not believe in him." Why not? It would be very easy for him to present evidence that would assure I believe in him. Meanwhile he know I can't believe in him without evidence, so who is to blame for my not believing?     Why would anyone (including a god) respect unfounded beliefs unless they wish to foster the continuity of ignorance? That's just something religious people cry over because if their beliefs were under critical thought and scrutiny, it wouldn't get very far.     Do you think a god would care if you believe in him? If that was at all important to him he would provide a lot more than just isolated rumors of long past events and confirmation bias. If one thing is very clear in the bible it is that it is only that some of the kind of actions inspired by faith are pleasing to god. Sadly it's also apparent that the biblical god expects us to accept the edicts of his spokesmen without question and to know which spokesmen are his and not deceivers (despite these 2 requirements being at odds with each other and no evidence to use to discern valid truths). When you realize this book is just a huge tool to get control of populations so the clergy can live on the dole(tithe) with the cushiest jobs that a primitive barbarian could ask for, you begin to see it in perspective.
Report spam or abuse
The point of the video is interesting but they should have had a better person to speak for it. Bill is just acting very arrogant by saying people who don't believe in an idea are holding humanity back and are not scientifically literate. I'm an Electrical Engineering student and doing my minor is physics and Evolution never comes up, God never comes up; no one cares what you believe in. A lot of people in the scientific community hold their own personal views on God, some are religious, some are atheists, some believe in God just to the extent of an order into the universe and you know what that's fine because they still make great physicists, engineers or mathematicians. In my experience people in the scientific community have a very open mind, I don't have to believe in your idea as a truth to understand it and use it while a better one is found, this is what science is, we know so many of our principles and laws are probably wrong and some of us even believe so but we still use them for as much they work and keep trying to find better models. I think this video just shows how arrogant Bill's views are, he thinks someone is not a scientifically literate and not eligible to vote just because he disagrees with him. I'm not trying to undermine the bad consequences of religions and everything but grouping people are literate and illiterate based on your own views, well we've seen that in religion haven't we? This is the seed of extremism, first you just want to ignore them and halt their ideology, then you want to get rid of them, then you kill them all based on your own view.
Report spam or abuse
+Mindstealth "the problem arises when people try to extrapolate that data."    Extrapolating is a scientific way of predicting. Predictions of evolutionary theory have been shown to be valid over and over again. If evolution was wrong, why would those predictions prove true?
Report spam or abuse
Bill Nye says: "So, once in a while I get people that really—or that claim—they don't believe in evolution. And my response generally is "Well, why not? Really, why not?" Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution." That is the funniest thing I have EVER heard. So let me see Bill Nye the science guy ... are you saying that from nothing came something? Then from chaos came order? Ya better get back into your Quantum Mechanics books & read them again.
Report spam or abuse
Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings and the evolved peppered moths of Great Britain are still in school text books today, so much for teaching true facts to kids but we must continue the lies so Drawliest can keep their alter candles burning. The last big evolution fraud was the Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis that was published in National Geographic a few years ago and later had to recant when real scientist looked at the data and found the fraud, Piltdown man II anyone.
Report spam or abuse
I love Bill Nye. He is so funny. Science cannot understand nor answer questions about our existence so when another idea id bought fourth that science cannot understand, quantify, measure, or see, it must be wrong. Why not leave room for both ideas?
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Bill nye is with the illuminati
Report spam or abuse
+xxSTEELSICKNESSxx And because you're not getting graded for it, you allow your laziness to get the better of your writing, just like you allow your laziness get the better of reading a "long ass speech" and more importantly, just like you allow your laziness to accept an easy answer that includes sky wizardry in place of the more difficult task of actually thinking scientifically. I thought so...
Report spam or abuse
stop trying to be such a smart ass
Report spam or abuse
So you're telling me something came from nothing? I'm pretty sure there needs to be something existing for something to be the final result(that's the weirdest sentence I've ever made). So there needs to be something that can create things. No, creating does not mean making a plate out of clay. No, creating does not mean making grilled cheese from bread and cheese. Creation is literally poof now we have a lamp or poof now we have a parrot. For the world to have started, there have been something to make something up out of thin air, but what would have created the creator? So ultimately, that creator must be OUTSIDE OF TIME to create also, time. Sounds a lot like God to me.
Report spam or abuse
Science is something about which fake Atkins thinks he can know everything worth knowing by browsing a few old creationist websites. Sad, that. His side of any debate exchange amounts to 1. Copy-paste 2. flat denial of counterarguments, mainstream science etc. 3. gratuitous insults, slurs and profanity.
Report spam or abuse
I thought Bill was cool, until now, to believe in Evolution, is to not believe in Jehovah God, and I refuse to go there,..and kids need to learn the truth instead of non-believers lies.
Report spam or abuse
+The Celestial Coffeepot this steel wasnt any steel. The burning tempratures wouldnt of even soften it. Fire fighters dont like going up lift shafts or using lifts because they get easily trapped. You also have the fire itself. The fire wouldn't even be that big because most of the fuel would of been burnt on impact as liners carry fuel in their wings to distribute the weight. Meaning most of the fuel wouldn't of made it into the building so there was hardly any fire in the building. Certainly not enought to melt or soften steel. Its why a lot of tje events of 9:11 dont make sense. why is there charges clearly seen exploding on footage. Just doesn't add up. The thing that done it fore was the utter obvious cover up at the Pentagon after that I don't believe a word that comes from their mouths.
Report spam or abuse
+animalization You: this steel wasnt any steel. Me: So....... what mystery material was it? You: The burning tempratures_[sic]_ wouldnt [sic] of_[sic]_ even soften it. Me: Fire does soften OWSJ - that's the whole point. Their design is intended to provide a lightweight structure by removing material from the vertical member of an ordinary solid steel "I-Beam" design, but this light weight comes at the cost of safety. Primarily where OWSJ fail are at the connections to the walls on their ends, because they are hung from the top rail of the joist only. I'm surprised an "engineer" can't figure this out even when it's explained at length. You: Fire fighters dont_[sic]_ like going up lift shafts or using lifts because they get easily trapped. Me: Who's talking about going up lifts? Fire fighters hate fighting fire in any building that is built using OWSJ because of their danger. It could be a one-story warehouse and too many firefighters have lost their lives in such buildings because the roof (which is held up using OWSJ) collapses on top of them. You: Meaning most of the fuel wouldn't of_[sic]_ made it into the building so there was hardly any fire in the building. Me: Were you in the building on those floors where the planes hit to be able to say that here? You: Certainly not enought to melt or soften steel. Me: Who says? You? Even after I have had to explain to you at lengths about the problems of OWSJ in a fire? You: why is there charges clearly seen exploding on footage. Me: DEBUNKED! That's the pancaking of the floors - as each floor collapses onto the one below, the air and debris contained within that floors space is ejected out the windows. The trouble with you "truthers" is that the you think Occam's Razor doesn't apply to you. You so desperately want to believe in some fantastic story (possibly because it gives some meaning to your life or lets you have something to blabber about at the bar), that all of the other complex assumptions that go along with your chosen version of the events are tossed out. I prefer the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions such as buying off • the fire departments, • the police departments, • the air-traffic controllers, • the victims' families, • the people who worked in the building that miraculously didn't notice men planting explosive charges throughout the buildings for weeks prior to the collapse, • the entire engineering profession (with the exception of one - here) that supports the official version of events, The list is endless and yet you prefer to think that these thousands upon thousands of people can be persuaded to keep their mouths shut. This is why I view "truthers" as a bunch of crackpots.
Report spam or abuse
How can people agree with what this man said? That's such authoritarian and intolerant mindset... This behaviour of ridiculing other people's ideas and believes is poison in society. What's the believe in creationism interfere in how an engineer works?????????? That's absolutely retarded comparison! He also compared the fact there are similar stars to the sun in the universe with evolution. hahaha! With these "great" power of analogy I wonder how he performs in an IQ test... He actually never accomplished anything in science, only repeat like a parrot other people's theories. I don't exactly believe in Creationism or Evolution. I have the right to do so! As I never analysed the data on evolution, I'm not going to repeat like a parrot what some people say, even more those making stupid analogies such as comparing animals and stars. There are a few scientists that stopped believing evolution after analysing data and noticing how a lot were incomplete and some uncertain... mostly the evolution of cetaceans. Let's not forget 60 years ago scientists were certain the universe was infinite and always there, and now they are almost certain they were completely wrong. Then a bigot like this one makes it harder to discover different theories, because they are so certain of something that isn't really certain. And actually, some of the most outstanding scientists in human history were Creationists. This guy can dream of someday making different to humanity as Isaac Newton did.
Report spam or abuse
+PF Woody You: Let's not forget 60 years ago scientists were certain the universe was infinite and always there, and now they are almost certain they were completely wrong. Me: And there's the beauty of science. It is self-correcting, unlike religion which is pure dogma, delivered all too often with the threat of execution over non-belief. By the way, did you ever notice that when science corrects itself, it is NEVER because someone reached into a 2,000 year-old text and said "Hey - you scientists are wrong because Yahweh said so on page xxx". Instead, it is always the other way around - when scientists discovered that the universe is expanding and must have originated from a singularity, bible thumpers are always so quick to jump on the bandwagon and say "Ahhh - that's what Yahweh meant when he said 'Let there be light'" and attempt to shoehorn biblical passages into the best known science of the time. Advances in science have never come from religion.
Report spam or abuse
+PF Woody You: We have free speech and are allowed to ridicule the influential citizens impositions. That's actually our obligation in case we like our freedom. Me: I'm glad you agree to guarantee our right to criticize bad ideas such as those of an invisible sky-monsters. You know what other freedoms we have? It's a free country and everyone has the right to make fools of themselves. As Thunderf00t aptly said about the marketplace of ideas - "The Internet: where religions come to die".
Report spam or abuse
Wow, Bill Nye is so stupid. I'm surprised he's even a scientist, because religious beliefs and modern society are 2 different things. How will believing that our grandma was a monkey and worshiping Darwin help the children grow up? Believing in where we came from and our main focus in life is a very important aspect. If creationism is not appropriate, then why spend life believing that we had no purpose to even exist on this planet? Better yet in this universe? The problem with scientists is that they try to explain everything, that's what is leading to all of this confusion.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
I used to like Bill Nye. It's a shame that he let go of logic. No evidence exists for evolution. No one has lived long enough to prove it. Science makes mistakes all the time. The KJV of the Bible hasn't changed in hundreds of years. People continue to dilute and fictionalize the truth. Evolutionist say that 8000 animals could not fit in Noah's ark and then expect us to believe that everything in existence to include 8000 animals could fit in a singularity.
Report spam or abuse
Ya'know Bill, I think I'll be the one to decide what is and isn't appropriate for my children.
Report spam or abuse
+FreedomR115 I actually agree with you, and if I had my way, the religious influence would be reduced to ZERO. But government doesn't work that way. 
Report spam or abuse
Atheists say the universe came from nothing.they say the earth took billions of years to naturally become what it is today.that's like saying a tornado can blow through a junkyard and produce a functioning 747 air liner.so it could happenso technically they could be right
Report spam or abuse
+Owen Atkins And to think that evolution produced a full-blown, pedal-to-the-metal ignoramus like yourself. You can take your bare assertions and insults and shove 'em up your fat rectum.
Report spam or abuse
Bill Nye is hoping Kent Hovind doesn't get released from Prison because Bill Nye fears Kent Hovind. I believe the earth is only around 6000 years old. Amen God Bless Kent Hovind and bring him home to his family.
Report spam or abuse
But he doesn't say, in any way, that creationism is not appropriate for children
Report spam or abuse
+You are pathetic sad moron :) "as long as there is a being that rewards believing in it" That'll be the day.
Report spam or abuse
+ExtantFrodo2 You are truly a pathetic, sad, sad moron and i feel bad for you piece of thrash atheist
Report spam or abuse
LOL no evidence for creationism. There's evidence all around us that God exists. You can even look at how complex humans are and can tell that we must have a creator and were designed. But athesist want to tell everyone that we came from an explosion of "non living" matter and kept mutating to finally turned into humans??! ...The devil is a liar & atheists have been fooled big time!
Report spam or abuse
+Nicholas Christie-Blick Well said. Mr. Williams comments demonstrates (and for those with a similar mindset) the dangers of intellectual laziness. I am reminded of an article Neil deGrasse Tyson wrote titled "The Perimeter of Ignorance" which I am sure you are familiar with. Not until a difficult problem arises is a higher deity invoked to explain the phenomenon at hand. It is easy (for some) after hitting a roadblock to stop rather than keep pushing. Great intellectual breakthroughs, innovations occur when those keep pushing and thinking and not giving up saying, it must be god.
Report spam or abuse
this guy is the biggest moron today, I use to respect him, now I dont... do I understand evolution, yes. is it theory? YES its not fact you moron... unless you can prove it, its not fact... there is a difference between macro and micro evolution and should be stated as such. at least I am willing to admit my faith is THEORY!
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu "All you do is make bald assertions without proof to back it up!" Oh my-- well, non-existent god, your hypocrisy is astounding. We have been giving you recourses and links to cold, hard evidence for evolution and you have provided us with NOTHING, YOU PEICE OF SHIT. I know it isn't nice to mess around with and 'bully' mentally handicapped people, but I don't really care right now. Give us some evidence. You have provided nothing.  You're just going to say "well, look at the Bible, go read that and find proof!" A book written 2,000 years ago by Bronze Age farmers is not a credible source for information. If you want to use a book as proof of something, go debate for the existence of Tom Sawyer or Sauron or something. PURE DRIVEL.
Report spam or abuse
+Matthew Weigel "..."All you do is make bald assertions without proof to back it up!" Oh my-- well, non-existent god, your hypocrisy is astounding. We have been giving you recourses and links to cold, hard evidence for evolution and you have provided us with NOTHING, YOU PEICE OF SHIT....." Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ABUSE and BUFFOONERY won't help your situation, will it? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! "...I know it isn't nice to mess around with and 'bully' mentally handicapped people, but I don't really care right now. Give us some evidence. You have provided nothing...." Hahahahahahahahahaha! WHY do you even need ANYTHING since you believe that SOMETHING CAN COME OUT OF NOTHINGNESS and that EVENTS CAN OCCUR WITHOUT CAUSATION? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! "....You're just going to say "well, look at the Bible, go read that and find proof!"...." NO, I'M NOT! That's the trouble with atheists: THEY DON'T LISTEN and prefer to MAKE UP THINGS IN THEIR HEAD WHICH THEY THEN DELUDE THEMSELVES THEY HEARD AND SAW! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ".....A book written 2,000 years ago by Bronze Age farmers is not a credible source for information....." Hahahahahahahahahaha! You prefer one written by Dawkins simply because he's an ATHEIST and BELIEVES SOMETHING CAN COME OUT OF NOTHINGNESS, eh? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!  "....If you want to use a book as proof of something, go debate for the existence of Tom Sawyer or Sauron or something. PURE DRIVEL." Hahahahahahahahahahaha! BUT DIDN'T YOUR SO-CALLED "evidence" come from things you read in - BOOKS? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
I don't subscribe to either creationism or evolution...sorta. It's obvious that most of evolution is fact, but the way it explains the actual beginning itself is what I have a hard time swallowing. The part of the theory that the scientific method can't be applied to. That part of the theory is a shot in the dark. Dinosaur bones explain nothing of how this world came to be, and it knows nothing of what was before the Big Bang. I will never be able to wrap my head around why people can't admit that they just don't know what happened. Yet some people view this as absolute undisputed fact. But the reality is that as science keeps advancing, we'll come up with something better. Until then, it's just philosophy, and kinda weak philosophy at that. Let the QQ begin
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu "I DO NOT SAY THAT I AM IGNORANT ABOUT ANYTHING THAT I HAVE COMMENTED ON!" Actually you do with every comment which display ignorance Zaki.
Report spam or abuse
The only thing I have to comment on is when he almost completely said the US was the worlds most technologically advanced civilisation. Bringing up one country by saying 'eh.. you could say Japan...' doesn't make you look any less out of touch. I don't know the first thing about tech advancement around the world, but I doubt the US and maybe Japan are the only countries 'up there'.
Report spam or abuse
+mikecucuk Hmm, I might actually check it out properly later, looks pretty cool!
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
This is big thinking?  Nye practically gushes over Evolution like it is the mother of Science, the fountain of all knowledge, the Queen of all logic and rationale, the gateway to future scientific discoveries.  Whatever.  It's a branch of Biology that is rarely if ever used in the other branches of science.  It certainly isn't needed to understand the other sciences.  I took university General Biology, General Chemistry, Microbiology, Organic Chemistry, Anatomy and Physiology, Physics and never, ever had to fall back on the Theory of Evolution to understand any of them.  This is much ado about nothing.  News Flash, Bill, millions of Christians who believe in God and Creation are lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, judges, professors, architects, mathematicians, etc.  In fact, some have even won Nobel Prizes (Of all the Nobel Laureates that have been honored, 65.4% are Christian).   More atheist nonsense.  
Report spam or abuse
I think it is like the bible says in Romans 1:21 and following. As far as I know, all of Mr. Nye's evidence isn't valid as shown by Answers in Genesis. You are welcome to believe that the universe came from nothing (as Hawking would argue) but I would point out that even our natural laws are something and thus that he is wrong.  The question only shifts to become, "Who created the laws of physics?" I encourage you to not be like the people Fallible Fiend talks about. Research it for yourself, become scientifically literate, contrary to popular belief it doesn't take a PHD to know how the universe began it only takes curiosity and a developed intuition/common sense. The more you know the more you will be able see the problems with arguments for both sides but at least you won't have evolution or creation shoved down your throat through a text book or a church. As for me,I've read/been taught both side and I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  I've found the truth, but don't take my word for it. I'm encouraging you to find it on your own.
Report spam or abuse
+Evan Brass You're trying to blend two different topics into one. ExtantFrodo has more than adequately explained the mechanistic phenomenon of variation, and how we know of the contribution to evolutionary change.  It's surely up to you now to read and learn? If you're really interested in the truth, you'll look these things up without prejudice. As to your other, and unrelated topic, you're right in saying we may never DIS-prove the existence of any god, but you're wrong in thinking that we can (or have already) proven the existence of one. On purely logical terms, the idea of the Abrahamic god doesn't add up. . .  Judas - why is he the bad guy? Didn't Jehovah know his contribution to the resurrection story before he involved him in it? I have become fascinated over the past few years by the Pesher scrolls unearthed near the Dead Sea. As an atheist, the most convincing argument (in my own mind) for any truth to the Gospel account, was that somebody had gone to a lot of effort to put it in writing. But why so much contradictory, parable-driven gobbledegook? The pesher reading makes it clear. If we understand that Judea was a land with nothing to offer except mysticism, religion and self-discovery, due to it being a barren and arid land midway between the various kingdoms to the east (Mesopotamia), West (Egypt) and North (Greece/Rome), then we can grasp why it was the center of so many religions and cults. The pesher depends on being 100% predictable - if any reading differs with any other, then it must be considered flawed - but it has not failed yet.  And what does it show? That the early christians were Jews who were driven by the gnosticism of the Greeks - shunning the physical world and only entertaining the spiritual preparation for what they thought (hoped) would be the end times. Against a backdrop of occupation by the Romans, they kept a thorough record of their recruitment of new converts in the known world, the money they brought in, the politics of their religious sect, and ad accounting of the calendar, counting down to the end-of-days. Look it up, see what you think.
Report spam or abuse
+Evan Brass "How do you know that it is accelerating at the same rate?"    So you want a course in the mathematics of cosmology here? You don't ask for much, do you? "I would like to ask you what story you believe."    Not the gospel accounts. Aside from authenticity issues (which is a heated debate all on it's own), there the inherent lack of plausibility of it all.     First you have Matthew claiming zombies were rising up all over the place. Not only is this not support by ANY source outside Matthew (even the other gospels), but if it is to be taken as fact, then it diminishes the resurrection of jesus to being only one of many at that time. If you don't take it as fact then why accept the claim about Jesus as fact? Then there is the post resurrection discrepancies The Saga of the Empty Tomb Matthew 28: Two Marys meet an angel Mark 16: Mary, Mary & Salome meet a young man Luke "Mary Magdalene, Joanna, & Mary the mother of James & the other women with them" meet 2 men in dazzzling apparel John 20: Mary Magdalene sees an empty tomb & no one else, runs to bring Peter & someone who also see no one & leave Mary who then sees 2 angels & then sees Jesus      4 Gospels & 4 completely different accounts for the most significant event in human history?  I really can't see any Roman soldiers going through all the trouble of putting a guy up on a cross just to let him down the same day. The standard procedure was to leave the body to rot up there as a kind of gruesome billboard not to fuck with Rome. So much so that I find it harder to believe they would undo all that work (supposedly out of respect for the Jewish holidays (like they cared at all)) than to believe anyone rose from the dead. They would sooner have just cut his throat or bashed his head in and tossed him in a ditch. Then there's the account of the following weeks... Luke 24:15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them. 16 But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him. hahahaha Mark 16:12 After that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country. 13 They went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either. (LOL appeared in a different form. I can't stop laughing.) Matthew 28:16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. (Why were they doubtful? Was this not Jesus whom they had spent the last 3 years? Doesn't it seem more like there was someone claiming the spirit of Jesus had risen up in him, possessed him to talk through him so that he could take the place of and have the attention that Jesus had? Some believed and others didn't.) "The rate of evolution is, however, bound by the rate of mutation"    Fairly large changes in the rate of mutation (either more or less) do not appreciably change the rate of evolution. Of course you can not have zero mutation of have it so high that few of the offspring are even viable, but outside those extremes it doesn't matter a lot. In my genetic algorithms I employ a varying rate of mutation to "bump" the population out of  any local minimum it may have gotten stuck in. This is a very artificial set up. In nature that rate of mutation is more or less constant and due to background radiation, radiation from out there (points to the sky), as well as various chemical and viral mutagens. Each of these are pretty most constant and so the rate of mutation is also. "It would change the beneficiality of mutations but, without a mutagen, you wouldn't have an increased amount of beneficial evolution."   You'll have to reword this for it to not be confusing. Do you have a source where an organism has gained a new tool through mutation? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5278028/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/ Google beneficial mutations and don't click to the creations websites. "The problem arises in the fact that these beneficial mutations must accumulate fast enough that the animals between species die and the fossils don't form"   Why is that "the problem"? Look how many changes between wolves which have changed numerous ways ranging from great danes to toy poodles in just a few thousand years. That's not through genetic engineering but selective breeding of natural random variations. Notice while we are here that wolves do not change into poodles in the wild as the selection pressures are in place for them to be wolves, not poodles. Now ask how many fossils document the change from wolf to poodle? What? No transitional fossils documenting a known change of form? Travesty! It's not the rate of mutation which is the culprit but the frequency of fossilization. "An intelligent designer could do the work of billions of years of evolution in a matter of micro seconds. {granted IF such exists} It would also mean that the animals would follow after their kind instead of performing evolutionary jumps." If you're saying the changes recorded in the fossil record indicate microsecond creation, then you are talking about an extended creation talking billions of years and following the same logical progression outlined by evolution, just using god to explain the PE. I don't much care for "god of the gaps" type arguments as they invariably get shot down. What then of your belief? St. Augustine cautioned against this and (despite my not accepting his premise that god exists) his logic as far as the position of the believer is sound nevertheless. "The Bible clearly tells what is right and wrong" Correction - The Bible clearly CLAIMS TO tell us what is right and wrong. And clearly fails to know what wrong is in many circumstances. Let's look at some of God's morals, as written in the bible: - If you work on a Sabbath, you should be killed [Exodus 31:15] - If your son disobeys you, murder him [Deut 21:18-21] - Sell your daughter into slavery to pay the bills [Exodus 21:7] - If your children curse you, kill them [Lev. 20:9] - Women are subservient, they must remain silent [1 Tim 2:11-12] - Slaves must perform any act you wish [Titus 2:9] If you agree these are wrong then you are more moral than god.    God commands his followers not to kill, & then in the same book commands they go & slaughter an entire city, including all the children.     If you say killing is wrong & then command killing you are immoral. Being immoral is setting up a moral code & then violating it.     If not believing in magical sky daddies is immoral then what is moral?     It is unethical & immoral to create sentient beings to use as mindless servants. Rebellion in such cases is mandatory     Is murder wrong because your god says so, or did your god say so because it's wrong? In other words, in the absence of a commandment not to, would you be going around murdering people?     Think carefully before you answer, since you will either be admitting that you're a latent serial killer, or else that god is irrelevant to the morality-discovering process.
Report spam or abuse
Is Mr. Nye a homo? He looks and sounds very efeminate to me
Report spam or abuse
+MC1579 I don't know. It takes one to know one, so I will take your word for it.
Report spam or abuse
So... The big bang (beginning of the universe) was just disproved. I'm wondering what the flak would be from you guys. - EDIT: And if you guys don't believe it; google BICEP2
Report spam or abuse
A scientific theory is the explanation of natural phenomena using the various collected evidences and observations. The big bang certainly did happen. However, it is explained by the big bang theory. Also, like this, evolution is explained by evolution theory, aka the theory of evolution. Evolution itself is a biological process. Furthermore, cosmology has nothing to do with evolution theory, and vise versa. So why you even posted this is beyond me. If you were to do a simple Google search for scientific terms and their definitions. We would not be here.
Report spam or abuse
+richard mcdaniel Aight, sorry for the trouble then. XD As you could tell I know I'm wrong but people keep posting their comments.. I'm debating with myself rather or not to lock my comment or delete it entirely.
Report spam or abuse
My christian friend doesn't believe in gravity
Report spam or abuse
+Owen Atkins Translation: "Duh, I dont's know how gravity or complex systems work, so uh... Goddunit!" You walking waste of carbon.
Report spam or abuse
There is only ME PUSHING THE ORIGIN QUESTION UP A LEVEL INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY SOLVING IT (I.E. GOD). IT'S ALL MY FEEBLE MIND IS CAPABLE OF POSTULATING! ARBITRARY CONDITIONS are, naturally, A PRODUCT OF MY THEISTIC ARROGANCE; whereas OBJECTIVE CONDITIONS are, naturally, SOMETHING I CHOOSE TO AVOID!
Report spam or abuse
Owen Atkins "Atheists really are idiots." Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! YOU HOPE SOMEDAY to be an IDIOT! IDIOTS LOOK DOWN ON YOU AND LAUGH! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
there are many fors and against evolution and creation. I was speaking to a friend of mine just on this subject. first of all evolution is only just a theory don't be goofed in believing it is fact period. I believe the evolution theory and I am a christian. the bible doesn't rule the theory out ether. the 7 day theory on creation is massively misinterpreted due to quantum mechanics and the fact that at the time of scripture time was very differently interpreted back then. you only have to view the myan calendar to see that. but the thing that goes against evolution is the Entropy law. it says that everything decays over time so in that case how can things evolve if they are designed to die. my answer to this is simple adaptations are handed down to the next generation and over time a change in kind occurs. 
Report spam or abuse
Bill Nye is a liberal Democrat.  So....... Another attack on religion by the left......diversity is great until liberals come across people with ideas outside their utopia.    Evolution is currently just a theory.  A theory with holes that get a pass.......
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
+Lee Walter You: Many debate the concept of theory and fact Me: Curiously, you didn't specify many "what". If by "many", you mean "people", I would agree with you (especially because that would include the scientifically illiterate). If by "many" you mean "scientists" then you are either completely wrong, or you have a very loose interpretation of the word "scientist".
Report spam or abuse
I especially like when he basically states that anyone who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, as it currently stands, is unable to become an "engineer" (around 2:00-2:07).  While I realize that "engineering" covers a multitude of disciplines, I wish Bill Nye would explain how failing to believe in the theory of evolution makes people unable to add, calculate wind loads, assemble electronic circuits, mix chemicals, write equations or perform other tasks related to "engineering".
Report spam or abuse
+Atharkas I raise this only in response to the 'lists of scientists' strategy. There may be individuals of uncertain qualifications and expertise who hold certain views. There is not in fact any scientific basis for the existence of a god or gods or for divine intervention of any kind in the natural world.
Report spam or abuse
+Barry Rudesill "The day that we do not call out inconsistencies in a proposition is the day when we have a religious system instead of a scientific one." Totally agree. I disagree with your belief that the debate would be "fun" if the personal abuse and name-calling was dropped, I try to imaginative in my ridicule, resurrecting words I haven't used since my schooldays 40+ years ago; dolt, buffoon, lackwit etc. :-)
Report spam or abuse
The genome is a blueprint , much like the blueprints for buildings. When looking at the blueprints for various structures you can see how those similar in design were made in similar ways using similar methods and materials. When comparing the genome of similar organisms , again...you obviously see similarities. Those that have two eyes , opposable thumbs , or even hair , share a very similar make up , they are arranged the same way. The more seperate species are alike the more genetic material they have in common. Genetic similarity is not necessarily a family tree , but more of an illustration of how species are assembled. Its pure assumption that genetic similarity is part of an evolutionary map. Yeah I know , some of you armchair geniuses are gonna come back with your challenges and smart alec comments , but only the very simple would try to deny the point I am making here. 
Report spam or abuse
+Chris Spencer List of observed speciation: http://www.darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html No one claimed we have mastered the world; but scientific advance has been significant, especially since the Enlightenment. Would you hold us all back to some pre-Enlightenment era?  The protracted, haphazard path of human genetic evolution can be measured in many ways, including the large amount (70-80%) of junk DNA in the human genome - still no discernible biological function as of 2014. Is this vast 'wasteland' well designed? My personal view is closely aligned with facts and evidence and mainstream scientists' views. That is the thing with Google: claims can be checked using authoritative sources, to the detriment of mystery- and ignorance-mongering. As I pointed out, 'design' arguments are not scientific (ruled pseudoscience in Dover 2005), I.D.-friendly legislation keeps failing, zero scientific ID studies... people neither need nor want your thinly-veiled Christian creationism in schools. The boat has sailed, there is no controversy within the scientific community over the validity of the theory of evolution: welcome to the 21st century.
Report spam or abuse
+Chris Spencer Only scientifically illiterate creationists believe evolution is in dispute. It isn't. Never has been, never will be.
Report spam or abuse
Leonard Nimoy's death is a timely reminder to all that every man's date with his Maker draweth nigh. Weaselly varlets like Blick Boy and Co. can stick their fingers in their ears and say 'La La La' all they want but their craven conduct is not going to rescue them from the ineluctable reality of perdition.
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu yes you are a boring retard with the IQ of a sea sponge
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Okay, age of the Earth, stars, dinosaurs, etc, has NOTHING to do with evolution. Bill Nye is asking the wrong question. When someone says they don't believe in evolution the question he should ask is "what do you mean by evolution". If by evolution they mean "change over time" and/or mircoevolution (ie adaptation within a type) then they would be wrong because there are plenty of evidence for change over time and adaptation within a type. But by evolution they mean Macroevolution  (ie Neo-Darwinism/molecules to man) then they have every reason to reject that notion of evolution. Macroevolution isn't supported by any evidence empirical or philosophical.  Also, there is difference between creationism and Young Earth Creationism. YEC is not supported science nor is it supported by the Bible. Creationism doesn't reject the age of the Earth or evolution, as Pope Francis said at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences  "The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”
Report spam or abuse
+Owen Atkins You are not any kind of scientist.  You never have been. You never will be.  You are a liar.
Report spam or abuse
+Fallible Fiend Up late today, fat shit? Go have your breakfast; your brain is still dead.
Report spam or abuse
Atharkas: Yet another while has passed and not a single theist produced a single empirical evidence for their deity's existence. RogerS4JC: Empirical Evidence: Historical accounts, names, places, and dates as recorded in ancient Scripture, fulfilled prophecy, and 4 Gospel accounts of Jesus Christ. Evolutionists deny what they do not know. I know Him and proclaim Him.
Report spam or abuse
We're all a little confused as to why the mention of towns by the people who lived in them, or the mention of peoples' names by people who knew them would have EVEN THE SLIGHTEST RELEVANCE to claims of supernatural beings, and cosmological creators. I have a plant evolutionary physiology text here which gives the names and addresses of its contributors, and the times and locations of many experiments - is that empirical evidence for evolutionary plant physiology, roger?
Report spam or abuse
'Creationists deny what they do not know' I fixed it for you.
Report spam or abuse
evolution is a belief system that has little to do with reality.
Report spam or abuse
Empirical Evidence of Evolution: 1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature: a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.) b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967). c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island. d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species. 2. Fossil evidence - The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows. transitional forms: scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/03/07/yet-another-transitional-form/ sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406100543.htm 3. Genetic evidence - E.g. the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes ... and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time). 4. Molecular evidence - These are commonalities in DNA ... which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically 'typos') enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock'nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-molecular-clock-and-estimating-species-divergence-41971 and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating). 5. Evidence from proteins - Proteins - E.g., things like blood proteins (the things that give us our A, B, O blood typing and the Rh factor (the plus/minus thing) which incidentally stands for 'rhesus monkey'); the exact structure of the insulin molecule; and my favorite, the proteins responsible for color vision. The specific proteins found in human color vision are exactly the same as those found in Old World primates (the great apes and the monkeys found in Africa and Asia). These proteins are absent in New World primates (the Central and South American monkeys), and from all other mammals. In fact among the New World primates, only the howler monkey has color vision ... but these use slightly different proteins, coded on different locations and chromosomes, than humans and the OW primates. This is yet more evidence of a closer link between humans and the OW primates. 6. Vestigial and atavistic organs - E.g. Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes; eye sockets in eyeless cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds and insects; flowers in non-fertilizing plants (like dandelions); in humans, wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, the plantaris muscle in the calf (useless in humans, used for grasping with the feet in primates). 7. Embryology - E.g. Legs on dolphin embryos; tails and gill folds on human embryos; snake embryos with legs; marsupial eggshell and carnuncle. 8. Biogeography - The current and past distribution of species on the planet. E.g. almost all marsupials and almost no placental mammals are native to Australia ... the result of speciation in a geographically isolated area. 9. Homology - E.g. the same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs. 10. Bacteriology, virology, immunology, pest-control - I.e. the way that bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics (we can compare strains of tuberculosis today, with samples of older epidemics and can see the specific structures), or viruses (like HIV) respond to antivirals, or insects evolving in response to pesticides. Don't need faith anymore, now you have the evidence! And this isn't even all of it ;)
Report spam or abuse
+Kristian á Lakjuni I think that what you meant to say is that  *you* are an idiot that is destached from reality
Report spam or abuse
Bill Nye science guy, I'm sorry but evolution has nothing to do with engineering. And the most complicated thing is evolution, because it does not make any sense .
Report spam or abuse
+David Demyan Bill Nye mentioned dinosaur fossils, which Charles Darwin didn't even know about. The theory of evolution is refined as new evidence keeps rolling in. Fossils connect with genetics, show common ancestry of everything alive on this ancient earth, my friend. 
Report spam or abuse
+David Demyan *"the most complicated thing is evolution, because it does not make any sense ."*Evolution depends on three things:1. initial genetic variation & the production of new alleles via mutations/errors in meiosis2. the heritability of those genetic changes3. the influence of those new alleles on the fitness of the organism - i.e. whether or not they increase its ability to successfully reproduce.Is there any of the above that don't happen?
Report spam or abuse
Creationism is total bullshit, but a creationist can still be an adequate engineer, chemist, physicist, mathematician. I don't get this assertion that religious people are damaging the technological advancement of the future generation. You get these so called atheists on the internet, running their mouth, making memes, criticizing religion, and calling out religious people, when you get these religious kids at universities/colleges studying stem subjects like chemistry, physics, computer science and engineering. Religious people do not reject science or mathematics so I don't really get this guy's point. And if he's directing this message at creationists alone then why is such a supposed science great giving such rubbish the time of day? Following religion may be a great cop out, but this notion that they're damaging the scientific development of a country just doesn't make sense. I have a friend at university that goes to Church every Sunday and he's a quantum physicist for fuck sake. He may not be philosophically gifted, but to say he has no value in the world of science is silly. Shit video, basically...
Report spam or abuse
+The Patrick Creationism is the plain truth. You are a gibbering idiot.
Report spam or abuse
+Owen Atkins And you're a gibbering troll. 
Report spam or abuse
Today's Creation Moment New Type of Eye Discovered! Psalm 119:18 "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law."  The University of Tübingen's Institute of Anatomy recently discovered a fish with what they called "a previously unknown type of eye." The glasshead barreleye has a cylindrical eye pointing upwards to see prey, predators and potential mates. But the eye also has a mirror-like second retina which is able to detect bioluminescent flashes created by deep-sea denizens to the sides and below, reports Professor Hans-Joachim Wagner. Actually, it's not really a previously unknown type of eye. Reflector eyes are usually only found in invertebrates, such as mollusks and crustaceans, but there is one other vertebrate that also uses a combination of reflective and refractive lenses in its eyes – the deep-sea brownsnout spookfish. Now this is where it really gets interesting. According to the report, both the glasshead barreleye and the brownsnout spookfish developed this amazingly complex eye from different kinds of tissue. So if you're going to believe in evolution, you'll have to deal with the fact that this unusual type of eye had to evolve twice, independently of one another, using two different solutions to the same problem. Those of us who accept biblical creation as true often wonder at the blindness of evolutionary scientists. How can they continue to cling to mindless mutations and natural selection when only a supremely intelligent Creator could account for the incredibly complex eye of the glasshead barreleye? Prayer:  Father, I thank You that You have given me eyes to see! Not only am I able to see the world around me more clearly, I am able to see – through the eyes of faith – the work that Your Son has done for me to secure eternal life.
Report spam or abuse
+werriboy55 Fail again, Dag. You are a brainless moron that STILL doesn't understand that evolution cannot even form one little insulin molecule, let alone account for the existence of any one creature.
Report spam or abuse
+Owen Atkins So  you haven't read his book. How do you know what it says Fake Joe?
Report spam or abuse
1.4.bill u fool OK both sides here we go! ROUND? I think this is 163363737377373^45564 or something. I go around to universities and I fix analytical equipment. I'm also a christian who believes in the positively charged source of good in this cosmos (God/Creator) who doesn't deceive us and a source of negative charged evil (anit-God/The destroyer). Now I know I am gonna be attacked just for believing in a omnipotent source of good (God/Creator) by a lot of unbelieveing PhD types. My answer to you is don't waste your time on me I'm not trying to convert you to anything i promise, I do believe totally from blind faith that God/The Creator exist and I can't even physically/scientifically prove it to myself let alone you. However, the consequences are far too great for not believing/worshiping a God/Creator that DOES exsist. There are NO PERSONAL consequenses in believing in a God that doesn't exsist, as you believe... I would rather have my bases covered so preemptively PLEASE SHUT THE HELL UP ITS FAITH NOT SCIENCE I WOULDN'T CALL HIM GOD IF YOU COULD PROVE SCIENTIFICALLY EVERYTHING ABOUT HIM, I WOULD CALL YOU GOD!! ALSO DON'T PISS ME OFF IF YOU WANT YOUR PANalytical or OTHER BRAND EQUIPMENT TO EVER WORK RIGHT AGAIN MUAHA HA HA.... OF COURSE IM JOKING I HAVE TO EAT ;) (P.s. When i write i refer to God as Him but mean no gender reference! Im not comfortable with IT or he/she either. Humanity/women/men are all included in the image of God) Ok now...my father is a strict six day (24hr. like they are now) creationists. He also holds three masters degrees in math, science, and almost a PhD in chemistry. The man is a genius runs two powerplants, built his own house, taught me how to build mine but I kind of stumped him with this. I am a creationist but don't believe that the test we run in the labs are false and I know that when the results do get skewed because of an equipment malfunction I'm fixing it right! Christians the Earth is older than the 10000 or so years most of you believe and evolutionist the whole universe hasnt been around long enough to radomly sequence DNA let alone this Earth! This has been proven by our best supercomputers! So I finally figured out how to satisfy our equation, though you will still fight me as a Christian, listen up! We bible thumpers use the genealogies of the bible to date the earth. When we get back to Adam ( weather you believe that was one man/ or as in cuneiform = humanity as a whole) we see that he lived 900+ years and was no more. That's were the 10000 year old Earth (give or take) number comes from! Fellow Christians (Evolutionist/Scientist/Historians you may want to pay attention, here I'm about to unite science, the bible, and cuneiform). Adam/humanilty according to ancient text, that scientifically can't be proven right or wrong as myth, was created and was intended to be an eternal being. The bible/cuneiform says had he not sinned he would have lived forever eating of the tree of life. So there is some combination of molecules out there that will yeild this result! This is not a myth why would science be searching for a way to reverse this curse if it was? He was also created stupid/ Neanderthal (the tree of knowledge was forbidden) and when working ratio's = (the knowledge in the tree was forbidden = we were never intended by the creator to be modern man)! When humanity ate/(modified his DNA) he trusted another modern man type creation that impressed him with his wisdom of God but didnt know it was an evil/anti-God. Science can't explain the massive jump in brain size and intelligence we modern women/men enjoy today only because they view these historic cuneiform/biblical text as myths. They can't prove they are myth using the scientific method, but they will go to the grave believing they can. So the fall was instant and so was the physical change in humanity man started to become modern, started aging in years, on the first day the cocktail of the tree of life was taken away. So Adam/humanity was created in the image of (God/primitive man; Gods not too attractive), but without knowledge so to not become one. Now here is the kicker? How long was the first day? Creation wasn't six earth days (for sure) my fellow Christians. On the first day there was evening and morning but no sun or moon. God is light so there was no need for a sun or moon while He enjoyed his creation and we don't know how long He enjoyed it by himself without humans. Day in Hebrew can be translated to era or epoch too. When He left He new that the plants He created needed a lightsource for photosynthesis so then He created the sun and moon this trips a lot of people up. So the scale for the blueprint can't be a 24hr day for sure, it doesn't make it any less miraculous that we are here to believe it took a billion Earth years. For the Creator/ God not one day has aged Him or passed Him since it is still the first day of creation to Him. How long does the scripture say is a day to the Creator?
Report spam or abuse
+GeneticHybrids "he gives man the privilege to not believe" Hmm somehow that exactly the same as Zeus giving us the privilege and freedom to not believe in him. (It's also exactly what we have if no god exists) To proclaim that God allows man free will is little different than proclaiming that a dam allows a river free run, when there is no evidence of any dam. Free will is not the result of a regulatory system which has selected not to regulate. It's the result of there being no regulatory agent in the first place. And that is fully consistent with the evidence.     If something is good it does not ask you to believe in it or suffer eternally. Nor does it let something innocent be killed in order for you to shirk your personal responsibility. In fact that is quite perverted if you think about it. The notion that one can "transfer guilt" from one person to another like money or other things should make people stop in their tracks and go "WTF?", yet this theme is found throughout the biblical texts (from all men inheriting the guilt of Adam and just to prove it they inherit his curse as well) to the animal sacrifices pre-Jesus to the scapegoat Jesus story - this notion is no doubt born of the barbaric notion that "if you can conquer X, then you are better than X!" (if I can conquer an innocent then I too can be better than innocent). See the vile connections stripped of all their raiment?
Report spam or abuse
i used to like bill nye. young earth creationism is easy to prove bill
Report spam or abuse
Are you proving earth is old or the absence of a higher power?
Report spam or abuse
+TheJamielandon You can not prove anything about things which leave no evidence of their existence. It's sad that people make claims about such things.
Report spam or abuse
Just believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church. Life isn't always about this and that, but it is about faith in God, and his Church, the Catholic Church.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
+phuoc thuan The trouble is, you are telling me that there's an orange on the table but I look and I can't see it. I try to feel around for it but I can't touch it. I try to sense the smell of citrus but I can't smell it. I compare the weight of the table with the weight I had measured previously and the weight has not changed. I don't accept other people's claims of invisible and intangible oranges even if you do.
Report spam or abuse
Show me the evidence that humans are evolving further, and why aren't more monkeys changing into humans. I won't have all the answers, but evolution has many holes. Tell me this: when the U.S. nuked Hiroshima, did it create anything? No it only destroyed. So tell me, how could hydrogen gas create the universe by exploding? You can't answer everything, neither can I, but I won't have enough faith to be an atheist. But I will pray that God will have mercy on you, and show you the truth. Thank you, and good day.
Report spam or abuse
+The Celestial Coffeepot That you are a gibbering idiot that thinks his grandfather was a monkey is not proof of evolution. Rather, it is evidence that you never evolved. LOL.
Report spam or abuse
+Womens Napkins - in the absence of actual evidence and logic, the best he can is to resort to calling people gibbering idiots. I'm sure if he actually had any solid evidence or even the ability to reason logically, he would actually present it.
Report spam or abuse
make a timemachine and go back to your monkey cousins then.
Report spam or abuse
I understand that evidence and facts conflict with what you believe, and that you feel threatened by science. Deal with it! Facts and evidence aren't going away just because you prefer not to acknowledge them. Consider instead the possibility that your beliefs are false. The sky won't fall. Living in the world that actually exists rather than the make-believe world of organized religion is remarkably liberating.
Report spam or abuse
Aristotle in a bottle that is what we need A little pill full of Latin logic in a bottle then everybody can start munching more and more effectively then come the very interesting smiling smarts tell it hurts as the words just get bigger and bigger under more and more effective pressure until I our heartless heads explode Then we shall know something that in fact is for sure one great big fact and that is that
Report spam or abuse
I think in 50 years or so the government will make it so you cant believe in a God no matter what your religion. Only because it limits the your knowledge about the universe. You can say plants need sun or you could say God keeps them alive, if people cant advance technologacly in the future we will probably all be dead.
Report spam or abuse
+ExtantFrodo2 then the old skin cells (religion) will fall off and be replaced by the new skin cells
Report spam or abuse
I think encouraging people to take the 7 days of creation as a Metaphor would be better as the Bible is full of Metaphors and who is to say that the 7 days of creation are just a Metaphor for God caused everything to happen. but again everyone is allowed their opinions and believes, btw even Charles Darwin believed there was a God he just didn't agree with creationism. fun fact :)
Report spam or abuse
+jayjayx5x1 You should look up quote mining and its inherent flaws as a valid argument, not only do you state two different page numbers but you totally miss the point of what Mr Darwin is talking about. Page 86 sums up with "I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. In fact that many *false religions* have spread over large portions of the Earth like wild-fire had some weight with me." When you read on from your quote mine he is talking about his younger days up till the time he wrote "On the Origin of Species", I'll paraphrase for clarity, "gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. (his religiosity) But then arises the doubt." (of religion) Talking of the mind of man, "developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal," he then mentions childhood brainwashing by religion and its stubbornness against cure, "as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake." Charles Darwin clearly says that he disbelieves in Christianity and calls it a false religion that uses childhood indoctrination to stupefy its victims. A pretty good summary of you there, a victim of religion.
Report spam or abuse
+Gary Bell  i don't care. you obviously ignore fact as i gave you an undeniable and you called it false and made up so as far as I'm concerned you are either incredibly stupid or a troll sooo STFU this is my last response to you. p.s. I would rather have a conversation with Stalin than you as it would actually be interesting and i wouldn't be talking to someone who had the same intelligence as a potato.
Report spam or abuse
Whether or not religion has become irrelevant, why have so many people who believe in evolution become egocentric?
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
+Pete Velaquez I know the answer. because humans are humans and do human things
Report spam or abuse
More idiocy from the socialist guy.
Report spam or abuse
Socialism is a failed and horrible form of government. However, Bill Nye is not a socialist. LOL Also socialism has nothing to do with redistribution. In fact, communism would have redistribution because in that form of government. The state owns everything, especially the economy and distribution.
Report spam or abuse
+Justin Plainname You: More idiocy from the socialist guy. Translation: I have nothing of value to add to the argument, so I'll just call it idiocy and attempt to discredit the speaker by tarnishing him as a "socialist". Me: I have never attempted to hide my dislike for redistributive governments that run a nanny state, and even if Bill Nye were a communist, I would still accept his arguments as valid. His arguments in favor of teaching science instead of pseudo science have nothing to do with his politics, just as my support for capitalism has nothing to do with trying to teach science to the younger generation.
Report spam or abuse
Darwinists are in the habit of constantly claiming that Creationism offers no mechanism for how things are brought into being whereas Darwinism does! In actuality, THE REVERSE IS THE CASE: Darwinism offers NO MECHANISM but simply claims that things JUST HAPPEN and JUST ONE OF SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES  JUST HAPPENS TO BE SELECTED TO SURVIVE - WITHOUT ANY AGENT BEING INVOLVED! On the other hand, Creationism states that FREE WILL INITIATES and GUIDES ALL ACTIONS - thus VERY CLEARLY indicating the AGENT that is RESPONSIBLE here! A mechanism WITHOUT AN AGENT to drive it is just as USELESS for explaining ANYTHING as a gun is in explaining a shooting - WITHOUT the identification of the AGENT - i.e. the SHOOTER - that operated it! GUNS DON'T SHOOT THEMSELVES - anymore than dice throw themselves! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
+gsundiszno "Get it out of your system. We are getting tired of having to wait for you to catch up." YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE BUT YOURSELF, Tonto! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu Oh, I think I do. I have never once seen anyone post anything except disparaging comments directed at you. Even other creationists. But keep telling yourself otherwise. I don't care. I got you to show that you don't have anything when asked for the "grand MEANING" of the universe. Confirmed my suspisions. My work is done.
Report spam or abuse
Read John 3 KJV.. About Spiritual Rebirth (Regeneration) Read it again and again and again. Believe it. Jesus Christ said blessed are those who believe in Him yet haven't seen Him with their own eyes. If any human really truly wants to know if God exists He will reveal Himself. God doesn't always reveal Himself to every human in a flash of lightning or a loud explosion noise. But as a still small voice speaking to humans. There are many different ways God reveals Himself to humans.
Report spam or abuse
Does anyone see a problem with believing in evolution and creationism?
Report spam or abuse
+Knewclear If you imagine the time scale of just Earth and not the universe as a year long period then Homo sapiens have appeared a few seconds before midnight on December 31st. Why did the dinosaurs exist for well over a hundred million years before any mammals even appeared, to think that this universe was created for us and our mere speck of an existence is ludicrous at best. 
Report spam or abuse
FUNNY......I see the godless nitwits cracking on home schooling yet home schooled kids outscore public school kids by like 85 to 50 on standardized tests..... either home schooling is best OR godless nitwits want everyone to be as stupid as they are. any idea on why that is? 
Report spam or abuse
+ExtantFrodo2 yeah....plus u forgot starving people to death....all things atheists have done. 
Report spam or abuse
+badvagirl I was talking about things theists have done. You're just that ignorant and prejudiced to not notice. Shame on you.     Atheism is the belief that a "nothing" doesn't deserve acknowledgment as a "something". Nothing more, nothing less. I guess you could say our allegiance is to sanity, rationality and integrity. Since this is the opposite of the biblical god, we must be satanists.     Atheists aren't a GROUP. They are simply those people who, in their resolve to find the truth, do not accept lurid claims which are unsupported by any evidence as anything other than POTENTIALLY valid PENDING actual evidence that supports the claim. That this also happens to extend to the "god" claim has people like you putting the label of atheist on them. We're "avampireists" as well, right?     Actually atheism has plenty to offer, intellectual integrity, rationality, freedom from fear, freedom from the cognitive dissonance that plagues theists, freedom to spend the time you devoted to religion more productively, freedom to make moral judgments & laws based on fairness & what is best for society rather than what is written in a magical book, the knowledge that this is your only life & it should be cherished because when you're dead you're dead.     There is frustration and anger because the religious have a stranglehold on the government in most countries. Imagine how you would feel if every politician who ran for office had to profess his belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy to get elected. That means that every single politician is either starting out his campaign by lying through his teeth, or (more likely) is a fucking idiot - and these are the people who control where YOUR tax money is spent and what laws YOU will be forced to obey. Or maybe you never stopped to think about that. This is the 21st century and the intelligent people have had ENOUGH of this idiocy. It IS infuriating for good reason. There is no longer any legitimate excuse to be that stupid.     To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place, we have barely emerged from millenia of barbarism.   
Report spam or abuse
OK I'm sorry I got a little to happy about wining the argument but I don't see you as totally unintelligent just unable to meet my challenge you just that science treats some of us the same way!!! Einstein couldn't prove red shift but knew it was true and in time it was proven some things we are arguing about are the same way you don't need to see it to know its true
Report spam or abuse
+UnexplainedReality1 '.2sec of attention deficit disorder' I actually do have ADHD.
Report spam or abuse
UnexplainedcontentionsLose! Do you ramble on much? Here is a tip. Pick a point you wish to convey. Introduce it, provide supporting information, and reach a conclusion. When you get to high school, sign up for some English composition/grammar/punctuation remedial classes. Then, if you pass, consider taking more! Become eloquent. Become concise. Become convincing!
Report spam or abuse
It's ridiculous when atheists/materialists go on about peer-review as if Nature needs to acquire permission from scientific journals before it does something! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! If something is correct, it remains so - REGARDLESS OF WHAT PEER-REVIEW SAYS! REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ITS DISCOVERER IS THE HOLDER OF A SCIENCE PhD from a renowned university or not! This is something that atheists simply don't grasp - and why they're at odds with Nature and it's workings despite their bluster and posturing! Nature will NEVER share its most intimate secrets with those who show it no respect - NO MATTER HOW MANY DEGREES THEY HAVE OR HOW MANY PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES THEY PUBLISH IN SCIENCE JOURNALS! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu Your ONLY strategy here is to BLOW UP ALL THE BRIDGES FOR LOGICAL COMMUNICATION so that NOTHING from MY side can reach you! If there's no logical communication (or worse, bad logical communication) coming from your side, it's only sensible that I demolish those bridges and construct new ones. I'll get to you eventually. Just you wait. YOU HAVE NO OTHER HOPE of surviving in this intellectual battle! What intellectual battle? I'm arguing against Zaki the Stubborn Jackass who thinks his random farts and braying are the best thing since Einstein's work. This is just NONSENSE! The perfect sentence to describe your choice of words. ^_^ You're having a discussion WITH YOURSELF: You have your say and then MAKE UP what want to believe I've said and REFUSE to listen to what I've actually said! It's PURE SELF-DELUSION! If you were truly ignorant of what I was explaining to you, I would pity your self-serving false accusation here. But the fact of the mater is, you showed your poor command of the English language right then and there, I stuck your face in it like a dog having his face stuck in the mess he made on the living room carpet, and now you're feverishly working to say the mess is my fault. Quit whining like a temperamental little brat and own up to your mistakes like a mature adult. Or is that beneath you? Ugh! BORING! I see all you're trying to do now is BORE ME TO DEATH, eh? Don't be a silly and whiny little Muslim. You're too stupid to be bored to death.^_^
Report spam or abuse
+mikecucuk "...."Your ONLY strategy here is to BLOW UP ALL THE BRIDGES FOR LOGICAL COMMUNICATION so that NOTHING from MY side can reach you!" If there's no logical communication (or worse, bad logical communication) coming from your side, it's only sensible that I demolish those bridges and construct new ones. I'll get to you eventually. Just you wait....." Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Would you care to explain what you MEAN by "BAD LOGICAL COMMUNICATION" - or is that an atheist thing? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! "....."YOU HAVE NO OTHER HOPE of surviving in this intellectual battle!" What intellectual battle? I'm arguing against Zaki the Stubborn Jackass who thinks his random farts and braying are the best thing since Einstein's work....." Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! And that is NOT AN INTELLECTUAL BATTLE FOR YOU? Hahahahahahahahahahaha! HOW are you fighting it then - WITH ATHEISTIC GUT FEELING? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! "...See? This is what I mean about your abysmal reading comprehension. When you were talking about "people checking it out for themselves", the "it" in that sentence was to the dictionary definitions of those words (don't lie to me and say you weren't), and when I said "You not being one of those people", I was including you amongst those people going to check out the dictionary definitions of those words (don't lie and say that that's not what I meant). The fact that I'm explaining this to you right now is undeniable evidence of your abysmal reading comprehension....." This is just JUMBLED UP NONSENSE! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! "The perfect sentence to describe your choice of words. ^_^" Well, you're entitled to your PRIVATE OPINIONS - BUT WHY SHOULD OTHERS SHARE IT? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! "...."You're having a discussion WITH YOURSELF: You have your say and then MAKE UP what want to believe I've said and REFUSE to listen to what I've actually said! It's PURE SELF-DELUSION! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!" If you were truly ignorant of what I was explaining to you, I would pity your self-serving false accusation here....." Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! You've made it VERY CLEAR that you REFUSE to CLARIFY your comments to me, haven't you? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! "...But the fact of the mater is, you showed your poor command of the English language right then and there, I stuck your face in it like a dog having his face stuck in the mess he made on the living room carpet, and now you're feverishly working to say the mess is my fault. Quit whining like a temperamental little brat and own up to your mistakes like a mature adult. Or is that beneath you?..." Ugh! BORING! I see all you're trying to do now is BORE ME TO DEATH, eh? ".....Don't be a silly and whiny little Muslim. You're too stupid to be bored to death.^_^..." BEST JUST LET THE RECORD SPEAK FOR ITSELF, eh? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
I don't believe in a God I believe more in Spirituality which means I believe in evolution but I also believe in Chakras and Spirit
Report spam or abuse
Whats our soul? Ectoplasm ?
Report spam or abuse
+werriboy55 LMAO! I personally model myself after Homer's fastidious eating habits.  ;-D "You can kiss my hairy yellow butt!" HS
Report spam or abuse
According to the Strong's concordance, Soul translated into Hebrew is nephesh. It is translated: a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion. Technically, all living things that have a brain has a "soul" according to Judaism, and Judeo-Christianity.
Report spam or abuse
IN THE BEGINNING, THERE WAS ONLY THE ETERNAL PRIMORDIAL POTENTIAL - FROM WHICH ALL ELSE SUBSEQUENTLY CAME! IT IS WITHOUT CONSTRAINT ON ITS NATURE - AND THEREFORE IS INFINITE! BY DEGREES, ALL ELSE ISSUED FROM IT BEARING EVER LESS RESEMBLANCE TO IT WITH GREATER DISTANCE FROM IT - UNTIL AT LAST, THE LOWEST OF THE LOW, MATERIAL SUBSTANCE, ALSO AROSE! IT IS TO THIS LOWEST OF THE LOW THAT ATHEISTS HAVE DEVOTED THEIR ENTIRE ATTENTION, CALLING IT "reality" - AND HAVE NO WISH TO SEE ANYTHING OF EXISTENCE OUTSIDE OF IT! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! FOOLS! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Report spam or abuse
+Zaki Aminu So you're admitting it is possible then? Good one. Shouldn't you be worshipping me then?
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Show more Loading...
to add this to Watch Later

Add to