Bill Nye the Science Guy and Creationism

[joshua 1 9]

That's certainly not a very loving view of God, Joshua 19. I understand the Bible as saying God loves everyone, not just the elect. Your post reminded me of the Puritan minister Richard Baxter, who argued we should not help the poor, as they are reprobate and so God wants them to suffer that way. It's that kind of insensitive attitude that has alienated many from the church. For me, I believe God is truly loving, loves everyone, and seeks to help everyone live a more beautiful life. I also resist any form of Christian Imperialism, the notion that only Bible-believing Christians are saved. That notion, though quite popular, allows faith to collapse into mere consent to doctrine. It is more important to God what dogmas you hold than how you live. Because I see God as loving and l;ur9ing us to a better world, I think it is much more important to God how we live than what our religious beliefs are.

We do whatever we can to help people. The question is what really helps and what hinders them? It is a challenge to figure that out.

 

[joshua 1 9]

He also supposedly created man incapable of NOT breaking the law.

We can not function independent of God. We are dependent upon Him.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have to admit it though, AV, he rocks that bowtie while he does it

No argument there, Sarah ... none whatsoever!

 

[AV1611VET]

It's that kind of insensitive attitude that has alienated many from the church.

Unless you are excluding the Catholics, I submit you don't know Mother Teresa.

Study why she administered [only] aspirin to cancer patients.

ETA: Nevermind ... I just noticed you're a Protestant -- my bad.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I was hoping that you could find something that was published in a peer-reviewed journal or in a book written by a professional scientist. Was the McDonald's commercial written by a professional scientist?

There is a huge battle between good science and bad science when it comes to food. A perfect example is that Science tells us butter is bad for us so we should eat margarine. Now we find out that some of the margarines are worse for us then the butter was. So Who do we believe? Food labels is an effort to help people know what good science recommends but food labels are still far from perfect. Even government tries to protect people but they are limited in what they can do. The European Parliament adopted the world's strictest and most comprehensive rules on the labeling of GMOs. Americans do not seem to want to put any restrictions on GMO's. So it is confusing just where true science stands on this issue. A lot of people have trouble to figure it all out and they do not have access to trained professionals that can help them.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Unless you are excluding the Catholics, I submit you don't know Mother Teresa.

Study why she administered [only] aspirin to cancer patients.

She never wrote any books but lots of people wrote books about her.

 

[AV1611VET]

She never wrote any books but lots of people wrote books about her.

I imagine so.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I imagine so.

The amazing thing is that she never turned anyone away. She had real help for whoever came to her. Of course she must have had an abundance of donations because people believed that she could be trusted to do good with the resources that she had to work with.

 

[AV1611VET]

The amazing thing is that she never turned anyone away.

Would you, if all you had to do is administer asprin?

She had real help for whoever came to her.

I would imagine it depended on what they needed help with.

Of course she must have had an abundance of donations because people believed that she could be trusted to do good with the resources that she had to work with.

Millions of dollars passed through her hands.

 

[tiglathpileser]

It wasn't in haste, but an error of ambiguity. I wasn't sure if you meant one way or another, so I guessed.Fair enough, upon checking, he was in fact an atheist at one point... one of the young, angry ones. So not only was he an atheist, but he was the ignorant religion bashing kind. However, in what regard should I consider him a person with an understanding of science?Still, just because he converted, doesn't mean that what he views as "evidence for deities" would be satisfactory to everyone, nor does it mean his standards are without flaws.But in what way should I consider him a person that understands science?Good for him. Still not a reason to be a Christian. Plenty of dumb people are Christian too. You keep committing a fallacy in promoting these converts, and thinking that it will encourage others to do it.I consider anyone that would support Donald Trump in politics to be a fool. Also, how about a link to that talk show. So help me, if Dawkins was a participant, I am going to flip a table out of rage due to his persistent incompetence in philosophical debates, and continued position in the minds of many as the stereotypical atheist. Just note for future reference, in case Dawkins ever comes up, that I have no respect for the man in terms of philosophy and debate prowess.The fact that you think giving me a list of intelligent converts justifies conversion makes me face palm. Why are you even bothering to bring it up to me, a seeker? That is, I am already trying to find faith. The fact that others have is not going to do it for me.

Point one. Thankyou for confirming that guesstimates are the content of evidence for atheists.

Point two. The issue is that you said he wasn't an atheist, not whether he understood science.

Point three. No one has said that his "evidence for deities" would be satisfactory to everyone, nor does it mean his standards are without flaws. No one has claimed that except you to cover your back on your mistakes.

Point four. Until you can prove that he doesn't I suggest you desist in making vague generalisations about him. I have heard him give talks about atheism, evolution and christianity and to date no one has said he doesn't understand his subject matter probably because he had a brilliant mind.

Point five. I never said it was a reason to become a Christian and to suggest Derek was even close to dumb makes the mind boggle. It says to me that Cambridge University employs dumb people to head up their faculties. And I am not promoting anything or anyone. I am telling the truth which you have made patently clear that you can't handle it as you reject the most obvious of truths.

Point five. Is that the world according to Garp when you claim "according to me..." I think anyone who is an atheist is a fool so that is one all.

Point six. You may think Dawkins is a fool but thousands believe him to be their saviour and the mouthpiece for atheism so you may be out on your own on that one.

One final point. When I am sitting down and watching TV, I don't sit there with a notepad and pen to detail every aspect of the programme to keep atheists like you happy and to use it as a cop out if you don't get every detail. I watch TV to enjoy the programme and that doesn't include keeping atheists happy. If that is not to your liking, stiff cheddar.

 

[tiglathpileser]

What???

More people believe in astrology than believe in christianity, so I guess that makes astrology correct, right?

Astrology is not the subject of the thread.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Would you, if all you had to do is administer asprin?I would imagine it depended on what they needed help with.Millions of dollars passed through her hands.

Better to send my wife. She gets better results when she prays for people compared to me.

 

[tiglathpileser]

No, not really. Creationism is dishonesty and dogma. If you really understood the evidence, you would not be a creationist.

And evolution is dishonesty and dogma. If you really understood the evidence, you would not be an evolutionist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Better to send my wife. She gets better results when she prays for people compared to me.

Proverbs 31 wife?

 

[tiglathpileser]

Why should I look up information to support your argument?

Why should I do your homework?

 

[tiglathpileser]

Simple -- I looked at the number of Polio cases before we actually started doing something about it compared to the number of cases after we started doing something about it... and I did the math.

That doesn't mean that some people didn't have healing from polio by supernatural means. That is an assumption on your part which seems to be a speciality of atheists.

 

[tiglathpileser]

What does popularity have to do with truth?

Depends on what you mean.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Shame that God couldn't be bothered to share it until the 20th century and millions had to suffer in the meantime. If I was an all-loving and all-powerful deity I'd be pretty cruel letting so many people suffer when I could easily improve their lives. It doesn't make sense.

I agree. Nothing makes sense to those who have been blinded by satan and cannot see the truth. The sad thing is that atheists blow themselves out of the water so often when they blame God for this and that and why doesn't he do this or that. Tell me, how can anyone who does not exist do anything? Not logical, you know that thing that atheists pride themselves in.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy.

Yes, that is why atheists do it all the time as they live in a fallacious world.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Did you know the first polio vaccinations were created using fetal tissue? Isn't that a big "no no" in Christianity?

If I did know, what difference does it make. I have made no comment about the validity of the research done by Salk.