Recent Bill Nye Hatred...

[USincognito]

Dupe.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I hope nobody thinks that's serious. The only thing evolution about it is they claim it to be evolution.

Or perhaps your understanding of evolution is wrong?

 

[USincognito]

Who says you don't need a tail, wouldn't it be great to hold your umbrella when carrying groceries in one hand while you unlock the door with the other ?

Why do people who don't understand evolution expect to have their opinions on it taken seriously? (hint - evolution isn't about want or need)

 

[4x4toy]

Why do people who don't understand evolution expect to have their opinions on it taken seriously? (hint - evolution isn't about want or need)

Some people buy it, some don't ..

 

[USincognito]

Some people buy it, some don't ..

That's nice. But it doesn't address my comment.

 

[Abraxos]

For a long time, Nye was a beloved children's show host, teaching kids about fun experiments, etc...

However, I noticed a recent backlash against him on social media as well in conversation with people.

Since he did an episode about climate change, seems like many of the people who used to like him, now no longer do.

Now there's memes of "Bill Nye the 'not a real scientist' guy"...claiming that his opinion isn't trustworthy because he doesn't have a PhD (as if that ever impacted their opinion before).

Does anyone who espouses the idea that they believe in climate change instantly make them "an enemy" to some?

How much evidence would it take before some would actually start viewing scientific issues as just that, rather than immediately thinking that every form of scientific research that challenges their beliefs must be a "liberal political scheme"?

Bill Nye's a charlatan, and many of us knew he was nothing more than that. But in the last week or so the hatred really came from those that supported him and grew up with him. You reap what you sow.

But you have to hand it to Bill Nye, though, he may have single-handedly converted more internet atheists to Christianity than SJW's successfully shutting down free speech. Of course I'm referring to the You Tube video that went viral. Some of the comments are hilarious but I think I'll refrain from linking directly to the video due to lefty logic grossness.

 

[Kenny'sID]

These muscles, in humans, are pointless. We do not need them or functionally use them, it makes no sense for anyone to have them outside of evolutionary theory.

This is a perfect example of what I just went on about. It is the opinion of those looking to prove evolution, that evolution it the only possible reason for the muscle being there on some and not on others. Is there any proof it was not always there on some and not on others?

I'll have to look into the transitional fossils, and I'm a little surprised I haven seen them before.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Transitional fossils?

Who needs em' when we got things like this...

I had no idea the evidence they have these days was so overwhelming.

I concede.

 

[USincognito]

Bill Nye's a charlatan, and many of us knew he was nothing more than that. But in the last week or so the hatred really came from those that supported him and grew up with him. You reap what you sow.

But you have to hand it to Bill Nye, though, he may have single-handedly converted more internet atheists to Christianity than SJW's successfully shutting down free speech. Of course I'm referring to the You Tube video that went viral. Some of the comments are hilarious but I think I'll refrain from linking directly to the video due to lefty logic grossness.

Yeah, right.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Is there any proof it was not always there on some and not on others?

What, I think you included an extra not somewhere. No, everyone and every animal as some vestigial structures and muscles. Wales and dolphins still have philangies in their fins, wings of flightless birds, pelvis' of pythons and boas, human wisdom teeth, and possibly the appendix are examples of vestigiality in species.

 

[Kenny'sID]

When everything would have to be a transition fossil, it's not hard to understand how there are tons of them out there. How can evolutionists lose with that one.

I assume the "just different species" monkey wrench has been tossed into this before, correct?

 

[Kenny'sID]

What, I think you included an extra not somewhere. No, everyone and every animal as some vestigial structures and muscles. Wales and dolphins still have philangies in their fins, wings of flightless birds, pelvis' of pythons and boas, human wisdom teeth, and possibly the appendix are examples of vestigiality in species

Sorry, should have said, different types of the same species. Why can't they be that?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Yeah, right.

It turns out that the two classical objections to theism are easy to deal with compared with figuring out how any rational system of thought could lead to "My Sex Junk."

The sad thing is, I don't think I'm even joking.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Sorry, should have said, different types of the same species. Why can't they be that?

There can be different types of the same species, they're called subspecies. Let's say all of the animal kingdom is humanity, and just like humanity as you get more specific, the more similar they look and the more they have in common.
Race: Phylum (vertebre, invertbre, etc.)
Ethnicity: Class (mammal, reptile, amphibian, fish)
Nationality: Order (carnivore, omnivore, herbivore, primate)
"Tribe": Family ("great apes")
Extended family: Genus (canine, feline)
Immediate family: species (human, clownfish, horse)
Siblings: subpsecies (gray wolf, domesticated horse, domesticated dog).


I'm still not sure what that has to do with vestigial things organisms. Vestigial muscles, reflexes, and objects are essentially "leftovers" of the evolutionary process. The reason why they haven't necessarily gone away because it provides no disadvantage nor advantage.

 

[4x4toy]

Kinds after their kinds

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm still not sure what that has to do with vestigial things organisms.

It doesn't, it has to do with the transitional fossils simply being subspecies, and not TF's at all.

There's just nothing here that proves evolution or even close, only people who want to believe it so they conclude it, whether they be scientists or people that buy their theory as fact.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Kinds after their kinds

Or in scientific terminology... Transitional Fossils.

 

[USincognito]

Kinds after their kinds

Please provide us with a scientifically useful definition of kinds that has both explanatory and predictive power.

 

[USincognito]

It turns out that the two classical objections to theism are easy to deal with compared with figuring out how any rational system of thought could lead to "My Sex Junk."

The sad thing is, I don't think I'm even joking.

O.k

 

[SnowyMacie]

It doesn't, it has to do with the transitional fossils simply being subspecies, and not TF's at all.

Oh, now I see what you are saying. Yes and no. No, in the sense that subspecies are not different enough that you can tell if it was just a sub-species from fossil. In fact, subspecies is really just identifying and geographical or behavioral differences, and not every species has subspecies because of that. Yes, in the sense that subspecies can be seen as early speciation because the groups are becoming separated genetically, but there's no guarantee that speciation will occur because of that.