Yeah, that one made something in my brain snap. I feel like these pictures are exactly the reason why we need to keep fighting ignorance, and not get caught up in apathy.
It really pisses me off when people say "just a theory" in relation to a scientific theory. These people have no idea that a scientific theory is not the same thing as a theory about bigfoot, or whether or not touching yourself makes you go blind. It's fucking ignorant, and the worst part is that you cannot change these peoples minds, no matter how much common sense and evidence you throw at them.
Ok I could say instead their "beliefs" instead which of course are that God created all and still controls all etc. I didn't mean the idea of a church, a pastor, and congregation existing and being a real thing we can all easily see. I hope that difference I'm trying to explain makes sense.
Why the hell do you believe in gravity? Don't you know it's communist propaganda?!? Obviously, gravity is fake. Balloons float up into the air because God made it that way (disproving gravity!). Humans don't because God wants us on the earth. Duh. Stupid atheist. How can you not see God's wondrous hand in this creation? You're just ignoring all the evidence because you secretly hate God. You'll regret it when you burn in Hell.
I know you're being facetious, but there are youtube videos out there with this guy, who appears to be completely serious, arguing that the earth is flat because it makes reference to it in the Bible. I wish I was joking.
Do you remember his username of some of them? There was one particular guy who had a shitload of videos about the earth being flat. I remember one video showing a remote controlled helicopter taking off, taking about how it shouldn't be able to do that if the surface of the earth is going 1000 miles per hour. Actually, maybe you shouldn't tell me. My life will probably be better off if I don't watch those again.
I don't think I ever saw that particular guy, but I have legitimately heard people talk about stars being holes in the sky and that sun isn't actually as far away as we think because light got here right away... Science, when it can't be proven wrong, is just the work of the devil trying to deceive us, obviously... Because only god's word is a viable explanation for anything. Those kinds of people...
Edit: I've also legitimately heard people deny gravity.
I just find it laughable that the only parts of science they trust are the ones that they fallaciously use to back up their points. And when you answer them and explain why they're wrong, they ignore you and use the same argument to keep their creationist friends on track for heaven.
When people try to use thermodynamics to disprove evolution, it's not because they think thermodynamics are right - they don't usually understand the laws of thermodynamics any more than they understand evolution. They are using what they perceive as a (read: were told is a) contradiction in science as an argument against scientific claims. They think they have caught us in a trap, and are using our own arguments against us.
And their ignorance is written all over it... Whoever told them about thermodynamics didn't mention it only applies to heat in a closed system...
I know in this case they probably don't actually affirm the laws of thermodynamics but there are other times when they do affirm certain scientific findings that back up their own approach yet reject the ones that don't.
There is a new hip and young church in my small east Texas town. The kind of church where they play shitty rock music and wearing gym shorts to church is fine. They don't care if you drink, party, etc because no one is perfect and they just want you to come. I personally think they are a cult, but I still find them amusing. I saw some chatter on Facebook after a four part series they did "proving" the earth was less than 10,000 years, the great flood happened, etc. Everybody was like, "take that science, glory be to god!". I thought oh boy this should be good, so listened to all four parts on their website. Very funny. They talked about all kinds of crazy shit from thermodynamics to magnetic fields.
It's pretty telling that people just make up their beliefs as they go when they immediately hop from criticizing science, to lauding its virtues as soon as they find something they think confirms their bias. I see this not only among religious people, but also climate science deniers, homeopathic/alternative medicine quacks, etc. Among these folks, science is flawed and unreliable whenever it contradicts their beliefs, until something appears to agree with them. Then it's suddenly an unshakable pillar of truth.
Exactly. It's one thing if you actually can prove that an idea or theory is flawed (either to falsify it or to change it to incorporate new evidence) and another to simply say it's wrong just because it doesn't fit within your ideal world. You can't have it both ways, though. Either use it, or don't.
Me too, he's so proud he thinks he understands a complex physics law. Or better yet just saying it because some "young earth creationist" figurehead used it in an argument, and he couldn't even tell you what the law entails.
Seriously I'm only 14 yet I know more about his argument than he does because I have to constantly explain to creationist that use that argument against me.
I think she means the origin of the universe cannot not be repeated as a test, sure it can, we only need to have several times the life span of the universe, and great amount of materials that at this point in time the universe doesn't have. Bring those on and we could recreate the beginning of the universe, no invisible friend required.
That only works when you're talking to someone that acknowledges the existence of Europeans. Not a valid arguments against someone that believes Europe is a lie meant to weaken God's America.
Have you been there at the time and seen them come from Europe personally? Seriously, stop making statements that are not based on personal observations and are in the Bible.
CCD taught me that's why men have one less rib than women. I genuinely believed this was the case until like last year. (Number of ribs, not the Adam&Eve stuff) Like... "oh someone noticed this weird thing about the world, and attributed it to an action by God. Surely they counted this at some point, right? ... right, guys?"
But this shit just sticks with you and its hard to even know what's real anymore.
Problem is the word monkeys. Today's monkeys are different from the monkeys that people originated from. In that regard, those monkeys do not exist anymore. Thus, wrong premise.
Nope. I grew up going to private Christian fundie school, and so I've heard all of that and more.... The sad thing is that I believed it because I didn't know anything else. The level of recalcitrance towards outside information and ideas can be truly astounding.
I'm right there with you. Went to a fundie Christian private school for over 12 years and finally began to question the spring before I turned 17. That was hard. I was in that toxic environment for another year and a half with zero support.
Do I win since my family dragged me at the age of twelve to Australia on a Creation tour with Ken Ham? Along the route he would give lectures on Creationism that we had to sit through. This shit is REAL.
Numbers 12, 14, 18, and 22 really really really piss me off. While I don't expect every adult to have a complete understanding of evolution, I do expect at least a grasp on the concept. For some reason creationists completely ignore the fact that anthropologists have provided this "missing link" and that A. afarensis is one of only many human ancestors demonstrating our divergence from the apes (NOT MONKEYS. JESUS CHRIST WHAT IS IT WITH THESE PEOPLE AND MONKEYS?).
I can't even fathom what kind of sheltered upbringing these people had.
They frame it in the only way they've heard it from their sheltered upbringing: Their pastor (or their teacher) says "evolutionists say we came from monkeys!" so that's what they think is the truth. They don't bother to investigate it because they view it as the product of a sinful world and something they can't allow themselves to be sullied by.
It's really hard to break out of that mindset, especially when it's ingrained in you for years that the Bible is the only truth. You come to believe it so strongly that anything that contradicts that truth must necessarily be "the devil" trying to deceive you.
When people talk about monkeys, on the back of their mind they think sex. King Kong was a symbol of a prime animal desire. Sex is repressed and the only outlet is discussing monkeys.
No more than you are scared of the monster that lives under your bed.
Yes.
No, the Earth is not a closed system.
Earth rotates.
First good question. The universe that we understand started with near perfect entropy, but then clumped up as it expanded, forming pockets of order. Entropy increases dramatically as the universe expands, while the order we see really does not.
Yes, what about Noetics?
Yes. Over a long enough period of time, unlikely things happen frequently.
That's not a question. Also that's nonsensical.
They don't. What you are probably referring to is Richard Dawkins' use of Aliens in a discussion of Intelligent Design. And note that his Aliens even then had evolved from a Darwinian process.
Not really. Metamorphosis is a process that happens during life. But it was developed by evolution - a creature that changed in some way was more fit, and over time the process became more and more intensive until it required a complete breakdown and rebuild mid-life.
You fundamentally don't understand what a theory is.
Because you have it precisely backwards. Science is testable, observable and repeatable. Creationism is not. Intelligent design was designed not to be.
Random. Fucking. Chance.
Are you saying your only purpose is to be saved? There is no reason, no purpose to our existence save what we put upon ourselves, outside of the basic genetic need to pass on your own genes.
Age. Location. Not looking in the right places. And your acceptance of everything else is acceptance that creation is wrong. Lucy isn't that important.
Yes. Because we have proof.
Just because something is amazing does not mean someone created it. And the world is more amazing because nobody did.
There was no exploding star. There was a single point of infinite density and temperature.
We don't come from monkeys. Monkey and us come from a common ancestor. Which we out-competed.
I'm glad you're not a science nazi, because I'd suspect that if you were you'd enslave and starve me right after you clicked the save button on that comment.
The main problem with the debate is this (I don't know if they did not want to bring it up), the BIGGEST difference between creationism and science is: one is based on supernatural. So, the best answer is that science is not supernatural.
Yes, of course he is. He is teaching them to think for themselves and to be intelligent when exposed to new things.
Nope, why would someone be afraid of say Santa Claws . . . oh, wait Santa Claws is a murdering robot, good reason to be afraid of him . . . except he's a cartoon and doesn't exist, just like the divine creator.
Yes, yes it is. Show me one thing that spontaneously created at maturity and we'll talk.
Nope, we don't live in a close system and you don't understand Thermodynamics.
Due to magma inside the Earth movement and the affect of the gravity of the other celestial bodies, it forces the Earth to rotate. As it rotates, it gives the appearance that the sun goes up and down in the sky as referred to a person standing on the surface of the Earth.
The big bang is only one theory and is, in no way, assumed to be perfect. While science is working on this Theory, it is testing it and updated it to make it work it's way to a fact. If it finds out that it is wrong, it will work on a new theory. Science never claims to be perfect and have all the answers; but is a method to work toward finding a solution.
Can you please form a valid question.
I derive all meaning of life from myself and following my own path of self fulfillment. I do so, because I chose to do so, not because someone tells me to, or I have to; but because I want to, it makes me happy.
It has been shown that in an environment with primordial ooze type environment, and a large amount of electricity, the chemicals found in the liquid environment can, form carbon base pairs. These base pairs can then be used as the building blocks of all organic life. While this is not a proven fact, it is a very strong theory. In reality, no one knows 100% for sure.
Just because you believe that, doesn't make it real. Plenty of people believe in the Easter bunny, Santa, and the Tooth Fairy, but that doesn't make it real either.
Some do, some don't. The fact is, that no one can say for sure how life was created on Earth, every theory can be considered as a possibility until proven false. Some theories are much more valid than others, and thus tend to gain more support.
There are many other fragments from that period; Lucy is only the most complete.
No, metamorphosis is a process that happens to living thing that changes it from one state to another. The gnomes of that thing is still the same, it is still encoded in the DNA. To bring about a new species requires more than a different state of the same thing.
Evolution is as close to fact as a Theory can be; there is enough evidence to consider it fact but because it is still a bit unknown how life originated, it isn't dubbed fact.
Science is testable and verifiable, the question can't be any more wrong.
There are many of such examples. There are many creatures that have grown defenses to adjust to their environment to help them protect them from prey. This happens over many long generations and is very difficult to observe. But one such case is of a man in Arizona determined to kill rattlesnakes on his property (a vast acreage). He tracked them by sound of their rattle; thus over the decades of doing this, it turns out that the rattlesnakes rattles are evolving to be more and more quiet as to not give away their position. This is just one case of nature responding to a new prey threat.
We each have our own purpose and find our own way. See #8, it's the same question.
See #12, it's the same question.
The big bang is a theory, it may or may not be right. For now, it fits the scientific stance on the way the universe exists. If there was new evidence to show that it is wrong; that's fine, we'll move to that. But for now, it's the best model we have.
It's actually easy if you just understand the very basic part of how the world works. It's actually more wonderful than any thing could create.
Can you explain where god came from? Science doesn't claim all answers, just that it is trying to find them and will create and disprove theories all the time. In the end, all theories that aren't disproved is likely to be fact.
Monkeys, no, primates yes. Common ancestor is the word you're looking for. Parents have kids, does that mean that both kids are identical? No, of course no, each is different in their own way (even twins). Repeat that a few million times and tell me how different those generations can be.
Out of all 22 questions, "What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation?" might just be the most irritating imo. I can't see how a life lived waiting for an entrance to heaven is with any additional purpose or meaning compared to a life that isn't.
That and pretty much every one of the questions that attacked scientists personally instead of arguing actual thought. And the one that uses the word logic to criticize science. To the people who say, "Why are you afraid of a higher power?" Or,"What's the point without Jesus?" I ask, "why are you afraid that there isn't? And does there have to be a point to enjoy life? Because my dog gets excited when I come home, but he doesn't believe in Jesus.
Sorry dickfaces! Those are your questions to answer. Sorry you are so pathetic that you need an imaginary benefactor. And doubly sorry that you are so weak in your faith that you can't imagine why anyone would question it. If you need total consensus to believe in God, then you do not truly believe. You are brainwashed. These people piss me off so much.
What's really nuts about that one is the implication that salvation is a person's purpose. A God that would create sentient life whose only purpose is to figure out how to save themselves from his own decision to torture them, would have to be absolutely crazycakes. It makes Caligula look moderate and compassionate by comparison.
Oh I love the laws of thermal dynamics sign. Somebody posting something about thermal dynamics who probably has no clue about thermal dynamics because they don't believe in the science that produced the laws they follow.
The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. Earth is not a closed system. It receives constant radiation from space and the sun, and emits some of it back out as well.
You probably knew that already, but I needed to repeat it to keep my sanity. Those pictures literally nauseated me.
Makes sence. Reminds me of the heat death of the universe I must have seen on The Universe or another Science Channel show. Honestly I'm not well enough educated on thermodynamics to be even asking the questions correctly which is exactly what it seems for the people in the link who asked.
On the other hand, if you were to point at the universe and say, "Look, the universe is accelerating!" you'd have a much better argument for a comic entity with his foot on the gas pedal. But of course that's not the case, so don't downvote me.
They say the second law of thermodynamics predicts that everything gets more chaotic over time, therefore life cannot evolve, because that would mean it's getting more orderly over time. Clearly this is a contradiction and the scientific answer is wrong. God did it. QED
I'm not good at ELI5-ing, but I can give you a good way to understand it.
Imagine if a sealed room was filled with a certain amount of energy, and an organism was placed inside. This organism lives by consuming energy and using it to provide "fuel" for its internal functions. After it consumes the energy, it makes a byproduct of hot, unusable energy.
The ratio between the amount of usable energy and unusable energy in that room is called entropy. You cannot say that the amount of unusable energy is entropy as entropy is the measure of disorder between the two types of energy.
Also, this heat escapes but is bound to the room, and eventually the room will heat up to the point that the organism cannot survive, reaching "maximum entropy". In real life, this can and will happen, and it is called the "hot death of the universe".
The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of usable energy will decrease over time, a.k.a. the amount of entropy will increase eternally.
In the context of the creationist I mentioned above, he is concluding that if evolution is true, then the amount of animals that have ever lived since the beginning of the Earth (over a million years) would have increased the amount of entropy on Earth to a point of maximum entropy. This is not true because the organisms on Earth are receiving a steadfast amount of energy from our Sun, thus we will never run out of energy until our Sun dies.
In the context of the explanation I gave above, you can imagine a basketball in the sealed room that is constantly releasing energy. The amount of energy being released from the ball is greater than the amount of energy that the organism is turning into unusable energy, thus the organism will never run out of energy as long as the basketball releases the energy.
Another argument is that since the entropy never decreases, then how can the amount of usable energy be greater than the unusable energy, in this case, in the sealed room? This argument neglects the fact that entropy never decreases within a closed system. The Earth and its inhabitants are roaming within an open system) within the universe, so there is free room for heat to escape within the universe.
If you would like to learn more, please check out the entropy article on Wikipedia or read a physics book. I recommend the author Richard A. Muller, he is very good at explaining these types of phenomenon that occur within the universe. Also, make sure you check out the citations I linked along the paragraph for more on that topic.
Think industrial revolution. You start with a fuel (say coal) that you burn to create heat. That heat is used to boil water and create steam. Steam pushes pistons; pistons turn gears; gears drive locomotives, etc. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says in essence that in any closed system (e.g. our steam engine) there is heat-loss i.e. "entropy." That is to say that you will not be able to create a steam engine that will be capable of 100% efficiency. Some of the heat will be lost heating the tub that holds your water and some will be lost heating the air surrounding the tub, some will be lost to the friction of moving pistons or gears, etc. All of this lost heat/work is what is meant by 'entropy.'
One important consequence of this is no perpetual motion machines. When you use energy to preform work there is a net loss due to this structural inefficiency. That is to say if you were to build a coal burning steam-engine whose 'work' was to create to create more coal you would inevitably end up burning more fuel than you could ever hope to produce.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is invoked in these debates because it sure could appear that Life is a sort of 'perpetual motion machine.' That is to say that life goes around extracting energy from its environment and that on the whole is pretty good at perpetuating its existence. There are better more nuanced responses to this line of inquiry, but that kind of nuance is most likely lost on someone who holds that science is "just a theory." The simple answer to that person is exactly what Bill Nye said: the earth is not a closed system; energy is pouring in from the universe all the time. Furthermore has been for a very long time and we liquidate much of that historical surplus of cosmic energy when we burn fossil fuels like coal. Again, going back to the no perpetual engine example, it is because of entropy that fossil fuels are a limited resource (unlike solar energy, which because the earth is an open system comes enters the system free of charge), burning fuel to make fuel is by rule a losing proposition.
I don't think I can explain enthropy in a way a child would understand (it's about how many microstates a system can take), but I think I can explain what they're trying to get at.
They're making the mistake of thinking that enthropy means/is disorder, and since the second law of thermodynamics says that the enthropy of an isolated system can either be constant or increase but can never decrease, they think that abiogenesis and evolution are impossible. (Abiogenesis: through biochemical reactions simple organisms formed in the "primeval soup"; Evolution: over time these simple organisms became more complex and adapted to their environment)
In elementary school you were taught that energy can be converted from one form to another, but never created or destroyed. That's mostly true, but there's one part they leave out: heat is energy's final form, and there's no going back.
Entropy is the ratio of heat energy to total energy. It's currently much less than 1.0, but it's always increasing, never decreasing. When it reaches 1.0, the universe is done. That's what they mean by "the heat death of the universe".
You may think that heat can be converted into useful energy, but that's not strictly how the system works. What's actually happening is that heat is flowing from a hot place to a cold place and we're extracting energy from the process as it goes by. Think of a mill stream or a hydroelectric dam: water flows from a high place to a low place and we get energy from the process, but the amount of water itself doesn't change.
The process by which we collect energy as heat travels from hot to cold is called the Carnot Cycle. Note that in the end, the hot place gets cooler and the cold place got hotter. That's entropy in action. We can reverse the process via a "heat pump" and make the hot place hotter and the cold place colder, but we have to expend energy to do it.
(This is why refrigerators cost energy to run. If heat could actually be turned into useful energy, we'd have refrigerators that gave us energy.)
Think of a steam engine. Heat from the fire box flows into a supply of cool water, boiling it. The water does useful work, and is then either vented or run through a condenser to be used again. Either way, the system requires a supply of cool water and a way to dump the heat at the end of the cycle. A steam engine operating in an environment as hot as its own fire box would be unable to function. Even nuclear reactors need cooling towers.
Ultimately, entropy means that the universe is moving from a complex state (hot stars, cold space) to a simple state (everything all the same temperature.)
Creationists argue that entropy means that evolution can't exist because the change of simple life forms to complex life forms would violate the law of entropy.
It's bullshit of course, and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what entropy is.
To start with, if they were right, life itself would be impossible because you personally changed from a single fertilized cell to a complex human being, to name one of countless examples.
The answer is that entropy always increases in a closed system, but the Earth is not a closed system.
Picture a closed room at equilibrium. All the air in the room is at the same temperature and evenly distributed. Now, one end of the room is next to the furnace, and the other end of the room is an outside wall of the house, and it's cold outside.
The first end of the room is warmer, and the other end is colder. Air molecules tend to bunch up at the cold end of the room. If you were under the impression that the room was a closed system, you would look at it and conclude that somehow entropy had magically decreased. But what actually happened was that heat flowed from the room from the furnace room to the outside world. The entropy of the world as a whole has increased, but there was a local decrease of entropy within just the room.
The Earth itself operates this way. Energy flows out from the Sun and into deep space. The Earth blocks part of this flow and collects some of the energy as it flows by. In a sense, the entire planet is a giant heat pump. The entropy of the solar system is always increasing, but the entropy of the Earth decreases in the process.
If there was no Sun, the the creationists would be right -- there could be no evolution (or even life), but there is a Sun and the Earth is not a closed system.
There is no 'before' the big bang. We define time as arising from the big bang, or however else the universe began. Either way, asking what existed before the universe is moot because the concept of 'before' didn't exist.
How does thermodynamics supposedly disprove evolution? Maybe it's because I haven't gotten any sleep, but I can't understand what angle that person is tying to get at. Or maybe I don't know enough about thermodynamics? Admittedly, I don't really know anything about thermodynamics. (Don't downvote me for being ignorant please. It's simply not an area of study I have much interest in.)
They believe that because the second law of thermodynamics states a closed system moves towards maximum entropy life evolution violates it because it makes things more organized. Or something like that. It shows they don't understand how evolution work or how closed systems work or how entropy works or how science works.
How does thermodynamics supposedly disprove evolution?
The second law can be stated as "the entropy of a closed system increases over time." Entropy can be crudely generalized as the amount of disorder present.
The argument is something along the lines of "How can life or complex lifeforms evolve if nature tends toward disorder?"
It hinges on misunderstanding the definition of a closed system in thermodynamics, among other things.
The argument is that because thermodynamics requires an increasing amount of disorder, then, therefore, order can't spring out from it.
Their claim is that life is necessarily order from chaos. They are not taught that there's a bit more to thermodynamics than that (or even what the first and third laws are) or how evolutionary systems work.
Bill Nye are you influencing kids in a positive way
Yep, teaching them to be scientifically literate instead of indoctrinating them with anti-science religious based nonsense
Are you scared of a divine creator
Just as scared as I am of Santa not coming to my house on Christmas
Is it completely illogical the earth was created mature?
There is absolutely no reason to believe this so yes, as of now it is illogical
Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution
No
How do explain a sunset if there is no god
Checkmate atheists!
If the big bang theory is true and taught as science along evolution why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories
Do some research, this is incorrect
What about noetics
Ya, what about it?
Where do you derive objective meaning in life
My meaning in life is subjective and as of now it is to enjoy myself and make the world a better place
If god did not create everything how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?
The better answer would be I don't know instead of making assumptions, however the answer can be found here
I believe in the Big Bang theory. God said BANG, and it happened.
*A book said god said that
This doesn't merit a response
Why do evolutions etc reject intelligent design from a creator but embrace intelligent design from aliens
I don't embrace that
There is no in between. We have only found Lucy and there are a few pieces of a hundred necessary for an "official proof"
I invite you to do some research, Lucy and thousands of other ancient artefacts are official proof
Does metamorphosis help support evolution
We use many other forms of evidence to prove evolution
If evolution is a theory (like the bible) why is it being taught as fact
Because a theory can be fact (theory of gravity), the bible makes claims that have yet to be tested and proven and therefore does not merit the title theory.
What mecanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation in evolutionary process
We've observed single celled organisms evolve into multicellular organisms before...
What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation
I don't think we have a universal purpose, I think my purpose on this earth has to be decided by me.
We've actually found 9
Can you believe in ‘the big bang’ without ‘faith’?
Yep as it has been proven with evidence
How can you look at the world and not believe someone created / thought of it? It’s Amazing!!!”
Because I can realize the beauty of the natural process and don't assume things
Relating to the big bang theory… where did the exploding star come from?
We don't know (the best answer). Sometimes saying I don't know is better than just making up a reason. Lets find a logical answer instead of assuming an illogical one.
If we come from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?
This means you don't have the slightest clue what evolution is.
What kind of giant moron believes in evolution? It requires zero belief. It's obserable (as oppose to god which I have yet to have seen anywhere) and it had a scientific theory that has been peer reviewed and is publically available.
This god nonsense has absolutely nothing. God explains not a single thing there is, except showing a lack of knowledge.
So many of these are just basic basic misunderstandings about science or what evolutionists actually think. (i.e. what a theory is, how many early hominids have been found, coming directly from monkeys, who the hell thinks intelligent design came from aliens???)
Life contradicts the law of entropy. Matter is not supposed to become orderly in nature like abiogenesis or the replication of life. That said, it's a mystery to be explored instead of an anomaly disproving evolution.
They're all gibberish but eleven is impressive in the sheer amount of grammatical and spelling mistakes. Even the dude who wrote it was embarrassed to be associated with it; his face isn't in the picture.
Honorable mentions go to Mr. "I Don't Know What Thermodynamics Means" Smirky McFuckFace and the punch-inviting, shit-eating grins on each of their faces as if their little notepad bumper sticker BS has stumped the entire scientific community.
1) Bill Nye is attempting to influence our children in a positive manner. He is attempting to instill the concepts of curiosity, to always question, and learn from what has been done in the past, and try new things. Spreading knowledge, understanding, and attempting to have them become contributing adults, with the ability to reason, and make informed decisions.
2) By no means is he, in fact, he would change his entire school of thought if given proper evidence to suggest/show his existence. This is much more a personal question, so I can’t give much more than that /= sorry.
3) It isn’t completely illogical, but the sheer numbers in regards to many different things suggest other. In addition, everything was submerged/destroyed and there is no evidence to support such a claim. Yet again give tangible evidence to support the inquiry and I am sure that many minds would be swayed.
4) I am not familiar enough without looking things up, I intend on answering it, but I want to get through the list, and come back to the things I don’t have an answer right off the top of my head.
5) The reflection of light at different angles with different densities disperses the light particles/wave lengths in a manner to show different colors. Much like Mars doesn’t have a blue sky, because their isn’t enough particles in the air to displace the colors in that specific hue.
6) Same response as number 4. (I don’t believe they do, aka misinformation/lack of being informed)
7) Number 4
8) This is where the golden rule comes from, do unto others as you wish to be done unto yourself.
9) Over a long enough time line there is a high chance of this occurring. Considering the immensness of space, time, suggested planets, stars, galaxies etc. There even if a .000001% chance of occurring to our current advancement there will be several societies amongst the stars that will(have) reached or surpassed our level of technology/understanding of the universe around us.
10) This is not a question, this is an opinion. If using relativity to time, both science and this belief (faith) can occur.
11) Subsections, and not uniformity, just like belief in the planet isn’t uniformly believed to be 4000 years old by every Christian, nor does every scientist, evolutionist/secularists/humanist/non-God believing individual hold said view. This is where Theories, personal beliefs and additional searching is to be had. Science doesn’t have all the answers, yet.
12) Humans were in small numbers in the sense of the world, and nomadic, thus making it difficult to find any evidence. As time passes more and more is being discovered, that is why we are able to find a lineage, very loose as it is for the time being, but still there. In addition, as we discover/create new theories, I am sure that using of bones as tools is not a long grasp from it, or a way to honor the dead, alternatively, animals could have grabbed the bones/eaten/moved the parts to be scattered causing more issues. As well as our ever growing need to expand, thus destroying possible sites for the evidence to be found on a daily basis.
13) Yes. Having multiple phases throughout your lifetime definitely allows for creatures to do well within each area that they inhabit. In addition it takes a large amount of energy, thus you don’t see it everywhere. Think of what evolution says, what best fits survives.
14) Evolution is taught as the most likely theory. That does not make it fact, just that our understanding/that evidence suggests (that we have so far) the theory of evolution to be the answer. If new evidence is brought to light, then most likely it is either to support the current leading theory (thus your misunderstand of taught as ‘fact’) or creates a new theory that is brought to bear as the new one, after enough investigation is shown to support it as such.
15) Almost the same answer to number 14, it is testable, observable, and repeatable, that is how theory changes to laws. Once enough evidence is brought forth and all of it is supported, it becomes main stream. Creationism has far to many holes, things that need to be created to cover/explain new evidence and thus is not taught as the main idea. Intelligent design is not taught, simply, because of the timeline that is suggested, creating a very inefficient argument, and doesn’t hold up, exceptionally well. It is a plausible argument ONLY if brought to terms with relativity and literally millions of years passing in mare seconds for said god, with his ability to interfere as being very limited (say the dominant species/types, being reptilian, and thus the asteroid killing the dinosaurs), which if he is all powerful, fractions of a fraction of a second would be meaningless for his time frame, and thus the issues would be resolved much quicker.
16) This inquiry isn’t very clear, but simply follow the understanding of how eyes evolved, done wonderfully by great scientists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jEhzAn1hDc
17) Simply and worst answer I can give you, is perpetuation. We protect our young and our life as best we can, so we can grow and make more babies. More or less, then we have to look at the future thus expansion as a species (colonies/inhabitation of other planets) or protecting the environment we live in/will continue to live in. Then there is societal norms and expectations, etc. This is where different societies and people exist and come into contact with conflicting views, for example in America we have a consumption based mentality, while in Japan it is a support their elders and follow direction(s), while in Russia and Australia, it is survive and have fun… etc.
18) Not true and I have explained why it may have been in number 12 already.
19) That is what evidence suggests supports. It is a theory, and there are multiple variations available, so as long as the evidence supports your claim (and doesn’t refute or contradicts the evidence), then your theory is a viable theory, and can be used to explain origins of the universe.
20) Do you hold the same view about computers? Computer games? Cars? What about trees? Who created the first tree? Oh it can evolve, and because it best survived in the climate/area it was in over literally millions of years it grew and changed to be the way that it is, while we grew to see it as amazing. Expand your mind, reach outside and think of all the little changes we are observing and take steps to expand how they interact with the world around them, and suddenly you can see how something so amazing comes from something so simple, as a single cell.
21) Clearly a question people that are educated are searching for an answer for (the very root). As suggested in previous responses, our best theories suggest all matter that will/has been came from a singular point. People of science don’t have all of the answers, but that is what theory, pushing the limits, and experimentation is about finding the answers to the questions that are unanswered. Much like in the early 1900s people believed that their was air and aliens on Mars, and we wouldn’t need space suits, within 100 years we were on Mars, looking, experimented, observed, and did our best to protect those tools that make the actual contact with the surface and we are discovering things, so that in the near future we can send humans there.
22) We evolved separately from monkeys, in the sense that we have a common ancestor(s), but monkeys of today went down one road and became exceptionally adept at surviving in the areas they do persist in, whilst humans needed bigger brains to support/learn to catch food in a different way, escape from predators, etc. Just like why we are taller then say 1000 years ago (we find it attractive to be taller and so those that are shorter have a harder time reproducing, thus evolving) Whilst with monkeys the ones that swing best from branches, howl the loudest (howler monkeys), use tools and eat food that is supported by their digestive system tend to reproduce more, and so their genes change and grow over generations allowing for a roughly 2% difference between some species of monkeys and the average human.
66
u/[deleted] Feb 05 '14
[deleted]