# Bill Nye science guy



## bullethead (Aug 27, 2012)

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blog...olution-deniers-123047918--abc-news-tech.html



> ""In a clip posted to online knowledge forum Big Think via YouTube, former children's show host Bill Nye spoke out against the denial of evolution, saying such views harm young people especially and hamper scientific progress.
> 
> Nye, who hosted the educational show "Bill Nye the Science Guy," which aired on PBS Kids from 1993 through 1998, made the statements in a clip posted online on Thursday, and has since been viewed over one million times. In the clip, Nye praises the United States for its contribution to technological innovation, but says that the denial of evolution is unique to the country.
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 27, 2012)

For the record I'm not one bit happy he supports Obama.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 27, 2012)

I don't know anyone who outright denies evolution, but I do know people that deny that evolution is the cause for all creation.


As far as Mr. Nye goes, his logic on politics and science obviously differ greatly.


----------



## Four (Aug 27, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't know anyone who outright denies evolution, but I do know people that deny that evolution is the cause for all creation.
> 
> 
> As far as Mr. Nye goes, his logic on politics and science obviously differ greatly.



I've certainly heard evolution deniers on this forum. We even house some young earth creationists.


----------



## Thanatos (Aug 27, 2012)

Bill! Bill! Bill!


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 27, 2012)

PBS, go figure. I read BH's comment about Obama, and I believe BH feels that way, but it is what it is.

If you are dumb enough to endorse Obama's re-election campaign, than you are too dumb too argue with, about anything.

I want to take a step back, and talk about the definition of evolution, as it is critical to this discussion.

Is evolution the mechanism for the spawning of all life on this planet? Probably not.

Is evolution, "change over time"? Yes, I think it is. Does that mean amoebas turned into fish, and fish into monkeys? No.

Does it mean that wolves "evolved" into many different breeds of domestic dog? Probably.

Is there proof of any of this? No. Religion doesn’t prove things, and neither does science.


----------



## Jeff Raines (Aug 27, 2012)

Nye supports obama,he is an idiot,nothing he says can be taken with any credibility.


----------



## Four (Aug 28, 2012)

What a silly argument.

Anyone who supports Obama is immediately too dumb to listen to about anything?

How about your doctor? They can no longer prescribe antibiotics because he is an Obama supporter? Your dentist?

Bill Nye is a scientist, an entertainer, and a science teacher. To assume that he has no scientific credibility due to a political opinion is nonsense. So much so that i can only assume that those posturing the position are doing so that they can attack a person instead of attacking his position.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 28, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> PBS, go figure. I read BH's comment about Obama, and I believe BH feels that way, but it is what it is.
> 
> If you are dumb enough to endorse Obama's re-election campaign, than you are too dumb too argue with, about anything.
> 
> ...



This statement is asinine. Science does prove anything? How did we get nuclear anything (bombs, reactors)?   Science didn't prove that if you could harness the splitting of atoms you would get energy? Science didn't prove that everything is made up of tiny atoms? That atoms are made up of even smaller particles? Science did't prove that if you strap enough explosives to your backside in the proper manner we could put someone into space? If science didn't get us things like this what did? I'm no scientist (like you claim to be) but I benefit from things science proves everyday, all day.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> This statement is asinine. Science does prove anything? How did we get nuclear anything (bombs, reactors)?   Science didn't prove that if you could harness the splitting of atoms you would get energy? Science didn't prove that everything is made up of tiny atoms? That atoms are made up of even smaller particles? Science did't prove that if you strap enough explosives to your backside in the proper manner we could put someone into space? If science didn't get us things like this what did? I'm no scientist (like you claim to be) but I benefit from things science proves everyday, all day.



All you gotta do is give them enough leash Bishop..........


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> All you gotta do is give them enough leash Bishop..........





I think ted has me on his "iggy" list, becuase of my "snarky" remarks.  All you you have to do is go look at his post record to see who is the one that brings little, if anything to the discussion.  Make sure he sees how absurd he truly is.


----------



## hunter rich (Aug 28, 2012)

I always enjoyed the Bill Nye the Science Guy show, I think I may have liked it more than my kids.  I hate that he backs bho, but I am not going to call the man an idiot, or say nothing he says can be taken with any credibility.  Or that he is too dumb to argue with about anything..That would make me an ignorant fool.

Of which I am not.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 28, 2012)

All I know is evolution is real!  I just witnessed it as i was cleaning my daughter's clogged bathroom sink.  Don't know what it was, but it had hair!!!  Flushed it too quick to see if it was moving...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 28, 2012)

What if we call it "Natural Selection" instead of evolution. A good example is your lawn is full of dandelions (mine is) tall ones & short ones. Then you start cutting your lawn. Before long you won't have any tall ones because they won't live long enough to reproduce. Another example is if a female animal runs from her mate for sex. Only the fastest or strongest male gets to mate. Animals with major disabilities don't usually get to reproduce and carry a defective gene forward in the wild.
One only needs to look at the animals on the Galapagos Islands. The same species of animals differ from island to island according to the food supply  variations. Finches on one island will have long beaks on others short beaks. Tortoises on one island have short necks and on another island with higher vegetation the tortoises have longer necks.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 28, 2012)

Four said:


> I've certainly heard evolution deniers on this forum. We even house some young earth creationists.



Do we have any "Flat Earth Society" members?


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 28, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> This statement is asinine. Science does prove anything? How did we get nuclear anything (bombs, reactors)?   Science didn't prove that if you could harness the splitting of atoms you would get energy? Science didn't prove that everything is made up of tiny atoms? That atoms are made up of even smaller particles? Science did't prove that if you strap enough explosives to your backside in the proper manner we could put someone into space? If science didn't get us things like this what did? I'm no scientist (like you claim to be) but I benefit from things science proves everyday, all day.



Bishop, I benefit from science everyday, in the form of a paycheck among other things. No where in the scientific method does it mention "proof", or "prove". You have taken science, and molded it into what you want it to be, much like some accuse religious folks of doing with the bible. I guess it just goes to show that we are not as different as you would like us to be.

BTW, I am back down to one on the iggy list, and you are not it.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> All you gotta do is give them enough leash Bishop..........



That is pretty pompous BH. You, of all people are not the one holding my leash.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 28, 2012)

Four said:


> What a silly argument.
> 
> Anyone who supports Obama is immediately too dumb to listen to about anything?
> 
> ...



I disagree. If someone is stupid enough to vote for Obama AGAIN, they are definetly too stupid to do anything correctly.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 29, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Bishop, I benefit from science everyday, in the form of a paycheck among other things. No where in the scientific method does it mention "proof", or "prove". You have taken science, and molded it into what you want it to be, much like some accuse religious folks of doing with the bible. I guess it just goes to show that we are not as different as you would like us to be.
> 
> BTW, I am back down to one on the iggy list, and you are not it.



I'm sticking to my statement on this one, what you said was asinine. Science proves stuff all the time.  Scientist do it using the scientific method. I don't care how much you swear to know more than us about science, your statements seem to suggest otherwise.   

Answer the following:

1. Did science prove that by splitting an atom you release energy? If not what did? 

2. Did science prove that the boiling point of water at sea leve is 212 degrees F? If not what did?  

3. Did science prove that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen? If not what did?

I could go on but start with these easy ones.


----------



## Four (Aug 29, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I disagree. If someone is stupid enough to vote for Obama AGAIN, they are definetly too stupid to do anything correctly.



I don't really even know what to say anymore, that's just one of the most silly statements I've seen.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 29, 2012)

Four said:


> I don't really even know what to say anymore, that's just one of the most silly statements I've seen.



I don't know, I don't think it is as bad as his "science doesn't prove anything" statement.


----------



## hunter rich (Aug 29, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I don't know, I don't think it is as bad as his "science doesn't prove anything" statement.



He's splitting hairs...He is probably referring to  Karl Popper (a philosopher), who is well known for discussing the idea that a scientific idea must be falsifiable. In other words, there has to be some way (in principle, if not in actual practice) that you could have an outcome which contradicts a scientific idea.

you never really prove a theory. What scientists do is instead come up with implications of the theory, make hypotheses based on those implications, and then try to prove that specific hypothesis true or false through either experiment or careful observation. If the experiment or observation matches the prediction of the hypothesis, the scientist has gained support for the hypothesis (and therefore the underlying theory), but has not proven it. It's always possible that there's another explanation for the result.


----------



## panfried0419 (Aug 29, 2012)

I don't deny evolution nor God. I'm an evolutionary creationist. I watched Bill Nye the science guy. But I am a Romney supporter.  I believe the religion and science can coexist and also provide much support for eachother.....IMO.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 29, 2012)

panfried0419 said:


> I don't deny evolution nor God. I'm an evolutionary creationist. I watched Bill Nye the science guy. But I am a Romney supporter.  I believe the religion and science can coexist and also provide much support for eachother.....IMO.



I'm an evolutionary creationist too. I don't have any problem explaining biblical things both ways such as the rainbow.  We now know thanks to science that the earth isn't flat. Except these people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Do most Christians think the Flat Earth believers are wrong?


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 1, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I'm sticking to my statement on this one, what you said was asinine. Science proves stuff all the time.  Scientist do it using the scientific method. I don't care how much you swear to know more than us about science, your statements seem to suggest otherwise.
> 
> Answer the following:
> 
> ...



Sigh. You don't understand science. You think you do, but you do not. I've beat this horse many times, but it just won't get up and walk.


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 1, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Sigh. You don't understand science. You think you do, but you do not. I've beat this horse many times, but it just won't get up and walk.



The answer I was expecting.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 1, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> The answer I was expecting.



And the answer I was expecting.

A total cop out for being outmatched (scientifically).


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 2, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> And the answer I was expecting.
> 
> A total cop out for being outmatched (scientifically).



A total cop out for being outmatched (intellectually).


----------



## bigreddwon (Sep 2, 2012)




----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 2, 2012)

Concerning the four statements above and then the #5 conclusion as stated above.
Any person who (1) doesn't believe in God yet (2) attempts to use modern science to disprove something they didn't believe in in the first place, and (3) in the process assume ANYTHING about the creation of Adam and Eve that isn't already stated, ... is a person who's elevator doesn't go to the top floor.  They're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I don't know who manufactured that little scientific theory, but it proves far more about themselves than about God.

I laugh at them.... hahahahahahahahahahaha.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> A total cop out for being outmatched (intellectually).



So, do you think I am not intelligent? Or just that you are more intelligent than me? Maybe you are, I am OK with that.


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 3, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> So, do you think I am not intelligent? Or just that you are more intelligent than me? Maybe you are, I am OK with that.



I questions someones intelligence when they say science does not prove anything.  I feel that a person who says something of that nature might not be able to process information all that well. Especially when all you do is  look around and see that is false.  We benefit from scientific discoveries and correctly PROVEN science everyday. We would not be having this discussion if it weren't for things that started out as a scientific theory and then PROVEN true.  People didn't build a nuclear power plant in Savannah on unproven theories.  They did becuase it was already proven to work. 

So becuase you say your a scientist, I'm not going to call you unintelligent (yet) and chalk it up to you misspeaking. But I would like you to explain your position better, becuase if you continue to insist on this nonsense, that (yet) will be confirmed.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 3, 2012)

Science   =    "Figuring out how God did stuff"   lol


----------



## panfried0419 (Sep 3, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Science   =    "Figuring out how God did stuff"   lol



I agree with this.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 5, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I questions someones intelligence when they say science does not prove anything.  I feel that a person who says something of that nature might not be able to process information all that well. Especially when all you do is  look around and see that is false.  We benefit from scientific discoveries and correctly PROVEN science everyday. We would not be having this discussion if it weren't for things that started out as a scientific theory and then PROVEN true.  People didn't build a nuclear power plant in Savannah on unproven theories.  They did becuase it was already proven to work.
> 
> So becuase you say your a scientist, I'm not going to call you unintelligent (yet) and chalk it up to you misspeaking. But I would like you to explain your position better, becuase if you continue to insist on this nonsense, that (yet) will be confirmed.



I think this discussion has morphed to the Science thread. Does that work for you? I just don;t want to tie up two threads. We'll get braided!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 6, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> ....Is evolution the mechanism for the spawning of all life on this planet? Probably not.
> 
> ...
> Does it mean that wolves "evolved" into many different breeds of domestic dog? Probably.
> ...



Do I detect a voice of reason within those statements?? I am personally surprised, pleasantly, by you not using absolutes here.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 6, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> Do I detect a voice of reason within those statements?? I am personally surprised, pleasantly, by you not using absolutes here.



Well, thanks. If I knew, I would use absolutes, but I am just a man.


----------

