TheDonkeyBomber
7530
15518
2010
Let's have a discussion...
This image was just posted, then removed after the downvoting started. However, there were several great discussions going on in the comments. Not worried about points here, so let's commence.
bendingmoment
If you care to see fucking magic, study quantum mechanics.
Phirun123
Don't be naive. Most of these people can't even comprehend simple kinematic concepts let alone quantum.
HughLaurie
He didn't seem so hostile when he debated with Ken Ham. Are we 100% sure this is an accurate quote from Bill?
16and0bears
It is not. The real quote is floating around the comments somewhere. Much less inflammatory
HughLaurie
Thank you. I knew this sounded wrong.
Summonsays
Narushima
Petri dish*
counciler05
pettry?
PerceptivePenguin
Pettry! Big whoop, wanna fight about it??
counciler05
u wot m8
Summonsays
yea yea, it has a typo....
ButtAmbassador
it's a malaportmanteau for "pretty" and "petty", meaning "pretty petty" (just go with it)
CameHereForOneThingAndOneThingOnlyLNI
GuardLLama
I never got this. They're amazing, sure. But it's not like these guys created warp drive.
JacenSolo
but...
man...
CptZiggy
Going hard!
rosenzone
I always loved this quote
PhysicsnStuff
I think, that might be. The worst punctuation; I've ever seen.
iliketosaysomethingandthenjustbanana
I read somewhere that we still don't know how the great(er) piramids were build? Is that still true?
fblurbg
No, it's not true. Read this fascinating stuff about it:
iliketosaysomethingandthenjustbanana
I'm pretty sure they are man made tho :) But there was some big discussion about what methods they used to make them.
InboxMeYourOods
....how else could they have been made...
KamikazeFish
If there's one thing I know for sure, is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendages extend throughout everyone and the universe.
Obnoxious
Ramen ! Brother
Bellec32
OH NOES, a flamewar started in the comments, quick abandon post!
ViciousDogMan
Can we get a citation on this quote?
ExTechOp
Not Nye http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/12/bill-nye-on-religious-superstition-fear-of-death-makes-people-nutty/
Thispostisaboutacat
I would love to join the discussion but I'm on mobile and it took 18 mounties just to write this comment.
Yupurineutah
On Wednesdays he goes shopping and has buttered scones for tea.
eerongal
I see you Canada. You can't hide from me... ಠ╭╮ಠ
JizzOnYourBeard
18 mounties? full uniform? That's my fetish.
OOAKIapparel
Ill treat this like an intended joke and snort air through my nose in approval!
PantheraTigrisKittyKats
It's too costly to be able to go back and correct the typos. BTW, June 2 is here! New android app!
Senatoruppercut
You mean Canadian Kilted Yaksmen?
Broberry
0/10 this post had nothing to do with a cat.
thegelatoking
This post had nothing to do with a cat.
BitchNiggerWuuut
Is there no bonded LTE in canadalanda?
mellowdrama
mounties?
FancyFrance
Mounties.
Equinox13
I assume he meant minutes, but an autocorrect mountie rode in to dispense justice upon his comment.
mybrothersmario
I'm going with he meant months
mellowdrama
Each time I reread the "18 mounties" comment, I'm more convinced it's pure genius.
Nerfection
I'm very glad the Canadian police were so kind as to help you write it
Samcart
Oot and aboot with a couple of sloots and a beaver.
Sarumanandtheamazingtechnicolourdreamcoat
Just checking, but people know that we have regular police in Canada too, right?
JosephDunaravich
Like, on a moose instead of a horse?
Sarumanandtheamazingtechnicolourdreamcoat
Exactly like that.
pigsearsandtwirlytails
no, you don't. obvi gosh
Sarumanandtheamazingtechnicolourdreamcoat
Oh right, my bad..sorry
pigsearsandtwirlytails
my comments went out of order -_- this one was supposed to go before the other one -----_____----
Nerfection
Yes, we know. Sorry.
OndeBent
no
snurx
I REFUSE TO ALLOW YOU TO BREAK MY HEADCANON
pigsearsandtwirlytails
Actually, do you even have mounties anymore??
KnightofRenown
RCMP provide security to the vast majority of Canada (In addition to the rangers). Police forces only exist in large pop. centers and exist
KnightofRenown
To supplement the RCMP, not the other way around.
Sarumanandtheamazingtechnicolourdreamcoat
Yes we do :) not to worry!
Masterofdisgust
Mounties Moose and Maple Leaf. Canada! With all the things you like starting with M.
pigsearsandtwirlytails
GEWD :)
SpecialContainmentProcedures
But isnt the RCMP your federal police force?
AbbyBabyGirl
Had a teacher ask me once if it was possible for evolution to be God's way to get us to where we are now. I'll always remember that.
CoffeePoweredPHD
As someone who isn't american, so an outside observer, yes creationism is an embarrassment.
FriendlyNeighbour
Creationism is the belief that the Universe and Life originate "from specific acts of divine creation." so you say all theists are too then
CitizenDickbag
Remember: "Creationism" is the view that that denies evolution as the explanation for human beings, not merely "God created the universe."
FriendlyNeighbour
"Creationism is the belief that the Universe and Life originate 'from specific acts of divine creation.'" Sorry, this is the defn
CitizenDickbag
No. The entire reason the term "Creationism" was invented was to contrast with Darwinian evolution. It rejects evolution, by definition.
[deleted]
[deleted]
CitizenDickbag
The reason that doesn't apply is b/c expanding the meanings DOES NOT HELP. It only confuses the arguments. It's utterly pointless.
wadewallbanger
This is a very important distinction to make. Good on you.
DukeOfChutney608
thank you for pointing this out i feel like a lot of people where not discussing this correctly.
Equinox13
Thank you. I did not realize this distinction and it makes me feel a lot better about reading some of the less courteous comments here.
frozeninthesnow
So if I believed that doge was creator of the earth and all inhabitants, I would still be considered creationist? (What I'm not)
CitizenDickbag
Not really. "Creationism" has a particular contextual meaning referring to the debate over an interpretation of the Bible.
HmmICantThinkOfACleverUsernameRightNow
He's incorrect. The only criterion for creationism is the belief that something created the universe/life/etc. So yes, that's creationism.
AskingTheRealQuestions
"Something" being an intelligent designer, also known as a god.
InboxMeYourOods
divine adjective di·vine \də-ˈvīn\ : relating to or coming from God or a god : very good
InboxMeYourOods
"Creationism is the belief that the Universe and Life originate "from specific acts of divine creation."
HmmICantThinkOfACleverUsernameRightNow
No it's not. Young Earth Creationism is that view. Creationism is merely the belief that something created the universe/life.
AskingTheRealQuestions
That an intelligent designer created the universe*
JordD04
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=define+creationism
AskingTheRealQuestions
Coloquially, "creationism" is to "Young Earth Creationism" what "evolution" is to "the theory of evolution". He's not incorrect.
flapperfemmefatale
No, you're thinking of intelligent design.
AskingTheRealQuestions
That's the same thing. Creationists rebranded creationism as "intelligent design" to make it sound more "sciencey".
flapperfemmefatale
Um
flapperfemmefatale
No...ID accepts evolution. Creationism accepts a literal translation of Genesis.
AskingTheRealQuestions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22
CitizenDickbag
No. "Creationism" has always referred to the debate over an interpretation of Genesis. You're using it as a synonym for "religious."
FuckTheUSCjrShamecocks
I've noticed you're fighting awfully hard to appear educated in a subject you obviously haven't thoroughly researched. Might I ask why?
CitizenDickbag
Heh, amusing. I'll put my knowledge of it up against yours any day.
HmmICantThinkOfACleverUsernameRightNow
Also, being creationist doesn't imply you're religious or spiritual, either; it's a philosophical belief.
HmmICantThinkOfACleverUsernameRightNow
No, I'm really not. "Religious" doesn't even inherently imply a belief in a creator. Seriously, look it up.
Vesarret
This is true. You can be religious and yet not believe in a deity.
CitizenDickbag
I meant to say, "theism." My point remains, Creationism has a contextual meaning people here aren't getting.
HmmICantThinkOfACleverUsernameRightNow
I think most of the commenters are coming to it from the same context you are; I simply disagree that that's an inherent part of creationism
HmmICantThinkOfACleverUsernameRightNow
Though I agree that Bill Nye is probably referring to creationism in the context you're speaking of.
MaxwellMurder89
http://imgur.com/eyS9jEH
quaffle54
You just blew my mind. Thank you.
saganworshipper
Boom! A thousand fake points.
TalkRlyehianToMe
More like 10.
DerikZain
Imgur's format is not one in which a fluid discussion/debate can occur. 140 characters per comment is horrible.
WhimsicalCalamari
Yeah, look at how many stupid controversies have come out of Twitter, the site that basically created the micro-discussion format.
[deleted]
[deleted]
DerikZain
Pretty nifty little thing there.\
HUFLPUF
Yup, thanks. Few use it. I think they're afraid of external sites.
Albertiarp
On one hand huge arguments are typically avoided, on the other, you can say anything and the vote system decides whos "right". Which sucks.
tsamneb
imo, imgur is not meant to be a discussion platform. That's what real life is for. (Find the irony)
TotalSmartAss
Yeah, it's like having sex but you only get a couple strokes and have to quit. For those of you that have this occur normally, I apologize.
DerikZain
I chuckled much. =)
Unquote
Not to mention the overall hugbox tumblr-esque mentality here
KillingTheJoke1
I've got a fluid debate right now. With the toilet.
Snooj
Yeah, but look what happens when people can use more than 140 characters. You want this place to become YouTube?
trancek
Too true. And this lot is exactly the sort of people to turn it into Youtube as well. Mostly kids who have no expertise on anything serious.
Snooj
I miss when Internet access required a tiny amount of problem solving skills. It wasn't a difficult gated entry but it made a difference.
LazyJones1
There's no debate.
BitchNiggerWuuut
spar with brevity
NuclearVWwasAlreadyTaken
I totally agree, the idea that we can intellectually debate a topic within the constraints of the character limits is without a doubt the m
KatInTheCorner
That is exactly why I picked Imgur as my chosen online community: No one can endlessly rant.
Spearka
I would but I practically get lynchmobbed both on Imgur and Youtube for stating what is practically facts.
ninjafartball
But the foundation is images, not discussion. I'm glad there aren't lengthy texts everywhere
drumstel
My problem with most discussions or opinions. When you can explain your self your running out of free text. They do this on purpose i think
CookieOfAwesome
Why doesn't everyone just type their text in Paint, save the image, upload it and post the 15 character embed code in the comments?
am0k
Also you are asking like-minded people. No better than a creationist asking the opposite to far right Christians.
Sleelan
Same issue Twatter has
Sacurason
If you really, really wanted to do get the whole point across, you can screencap a comment on notepad, upload, and comment the image.
huanthewolfhound
It'd also be nice if posts on the topic were more than just snarky quotes attributed to NDT or Bill Nye.
stoffo
Also you won't find many creationists here (thanks God!), so "discussion" will end up as a circlejerk.
hujaz
No, an argument about it would end up one-sided, a discussion can still be had. Probably not on the internet, though.
clashforsanity
I concur with these concurers
BitchNiggerWuuut
concurrence Is the basis of truthiness
gbreezy
And anonymity... That is the worst thing for reasonable debate.
TonyTheSandwich
I'm going to say it. Highly unlikely these are Bill's words. They are from an article about Bill, but appear to be the author's words not BN
lighterletter
Bill understands the need for spirituality in man. It's when it gets in the way of social progress that he has a problem.
NextineX
Spirituality and putting up with religious bullshit are two different things, Creationism has and does get in the way of progress.
Iamnotacreativeman
Community.imgur.com
dNa87
I need 41 characters to win any argument. "You're wrong, I'm right, go fuck yourself"... see?
khora
The ability to downvote opinions (or facts) you disagree with is the biggest problem.
Callipygous87
good thing this one isn't a debate.
SuicideByAccountant
Lalalalalalallalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalallalalalalalalalalalalalalalallalallalala I'm not liste
pinkfuzzybunny
Imgur wasn't made for discussions. If I wanted to read peoples' opinions and walls of text, I'd go to reddit.
BitchNiggerWuuut
or f*book
supraman2turbo
It is like a political debate, all soundbite no substance
PizzaPringler
Maybe that was the whole point!
Dispari
I disagree..................................................................................................................................
CanadianEngineer
However, it could be considered strong practice for a certain form of rhetoric
CirclejerqueDuSoleil
@sarah pls
sidfromtoystory
i think this is more just a straight forward criticism of creationism which i imagine most christians to agree with
dxblacker
The topic is the character limit for comments and their limiting effect on conversation and debate, not the post itself (wasn't my down).
sidfromtoystory
yeah it's very true. arguing on here can be frustrating
NorthCrown
Well fu (1/2)
NorthCrown
Ck you too (2/3)
opheleon
Y'all seem to have forgotten https://community.imgur.com/ already.
Ifellthroughthefourthwall
Bill Nye for President 2016.
RealityMachina
Yeah I've seen way too many concise yet wrong comments get upvoted to the top while the lengthy due to citation rebuttals languish below.
RealityMachina
Imgur's comment system is great if you want to encourage snappy jokes, but for serious discussions it's just terrible if you like sources.
HomelessToddler
I'm glad it's 140. It keeps pretentious people out sometimes.
GhoulsNightOut
I wouldn't mind bumping it up a little though. I'm usually on mobile so continued comments can become a pain.
aseverelylongstory
I upvoted both comments.
Tateson
Lol a discussion on not being able to have a discussion.
frustrum8879
I agree. Imgur was first devised as an image sharing platform. But now touts itself as a community. Yet still limits our discussion ability
licensetoillite
You're right; however, all you gots to do it be extremely succint...aaaaaand GO!
myusualusernamewastaken
https://community.imgur.com/ - that should work for such hefty discussions.
IMakeLotsOfReferencesAndRemakes
Holy shit! HOW LONG HAVE I NOT KNOWN GODDAMMIT?!
caolila
Well... I like witty, smartass comments. I don't want to read endless rants and arguments on every conflicting topic.
d1d1t4t3hlulz0hl4wdy
Imgur works with KISS. Keep it simple, stupid. No need for 1k+ character comments, that's what blogs and dumblr are for.
Ihavethisusernameandnooneelsehasit
That is why Reddit exists.
Galdornae
As far as comments systems go though.... could be much worse *C҉͢҉̨Ớ͘Ų̴̧̀G҉H͜͜͞͝Y̶̵͠͏̕Ǫ̸̧͝͏U̴͘͘͢͠T͜U̸̴͢͢B͝͝͡͡É̷̕C̵̕҉̧Ò̸̢̡͠U̷G̵̸̕͞H̷͘͜͏
Logmister10
@Sarah pls
tonalstates
@serapls
aseverelylongstory
Brevity is the soul of wit.
cyno01
Do you want Imgur to become reddit?
elfoe
Because that's how you get imgur to become reddit
ohsillyus
And pray tell what would be wrong with that? besides letting people like you type more.
licensetoillite
Definitely not
SteveCraft
Yes.
StonerCatJay
If the only difference between imgur and reddit is how long the comments are, then there's litterally no difference between imgur and reddit
zeaga
Our communities aren't different because our comments are shorter. The suggestion of that is just silly.
zeaga
I should clarify; I'm not saying our communities are the same.
HornyZebras
You're right, we can also use our arrow keys to switch threads.
CheesusChrisp
Don't understand why this got downvoted, excellent point.
Thellluminati
I would like to point out that I got to this comment by clicking his name in another comment, then clicking on this comment, so it does not
Thellluminati
show the comments above it, since the original post makes a point, and was originally down-voted, It seemed clear that it was about the
Thellluminati
original post, my apologies to CheesusChrisp, who may or may not think the original idea was excellent as he was referring to frustrum's
Thellluminati
It's not an excellent point, I know many many fully functioning people that believe in creation. It's a bigoted attack on religious people.
ForTheLoveOfBeaverTail
So if the person has the ability to breathe and eat then creation is alright? Isn't there something in the bible against houses of worship?
Thellluminati
When I said functioning I should have said contributing members.
stackcollision
Actually I think they were talking about frustrum's comment.
mknickin
Unfortunately, you can "function" and be will-fully ignorant and anti-intellectual at the same time
Thellluminati
When I mean functioning I mean masters and PhD students in engineering, people involved in government, teachers, two lawyers. Probably much
Wylf
The up/downvote system is another reason why imgur is just bad for discussions. Can't have a discussion when one side is downvoted to hell.
Jerenemy
Yuuuup.
pieboy117
I DONT AGREE WITH YOU IM GONNA DOWNVITE TO OBLIVION. but really good point
MatchesMaloneWasHere
But it does give way to more concise thoughts instead of ramblings from one side or another.
photonblaster
Yes I hate super long debates with abusively long paragraphs
DerikZain
That is a good point. Id rather someone make a couple replies then sift through 5 paragraphs of garble.
GNiko
Cheap soundbites are short. Serious answers are almost always long. That's why populists are what they are and do so well in politics.
whyteraven74
Only thing is, some thoughts can't be shortened to 140 characters.
MatchesMaloneWasHere
I think it depends on how you word it and if you try to be precise and direct.
krauraurgg
Then keep those thoughts off Imgur. Not everything needs to be be discussed everywhere. You won't persuade anyone on such topics anyway.
whyteraven74
Sometimes it's not about persuading but simply explaining or elaborating.
LadyFate
It's not about persuading the person with the strong opinion, it's about persuading the spectators that are on the fence.
RamirezGoDoEverything
I find that I ramble a lot on reddit when I'm making a comment. I think the 140 cap is a great way to limit what I want to say in a(1/2)
MatchesMaloneWasHere
Exactly. If it was as many characters as you want we'd just get huge rambling rants from people on either side & less real conversation.
RamirezGoDoEverything
Clear and concise manner, even if I have to split it into two comment boxes like this. (Irony not intended.) (2/2)
zombiebatman
Hey man I've said it before and I'll say it again, If somebody can't get their point across in one hundred forty characters then maybe they
FredGreen182
It took me a while to get this...
seasonsgreetings
Was gonna downvote. Upvoted.
edasm
Christ- learn to spell!
DerikZain
Brilliant =).
Kiwi31415
Squirrell
ninjafartball
Looool
FuckThisThingInParticular
Snap back to reality - oop! There goes a squirrel.
Kiwi31415
Disturbingly, I get that reference. I spend to much time on here.
PenisFacts
Should go back home to their mother and crawl back into her vagina and turn back into a sperm and get her to queef you back into your dads..
kmikl
Ugly fucking face and moustache that like looks like it belongs in a shitty porno involving the use of multiple piles of giraffe scay and
fayseman
That's offensive... An egg was involved too
lighterletter
What is wrong with you man? +1
PenisFacts
I have a colourful imagination
keyblader1985
Reversed creation process is not something I ever wanted to imagine.
jnoahj
Feel free to PM me if curious about a Christian-seminarian/science-lover's perspective. Not going to try this topic in 140 characters. Nope.
Athearchist
I can. The scientific method does not allow self-contradictory entities to exist. God is one of many self contradictory entities,therefore
jnoahj
Feel free to PM me because it still seems like the character limit hindered you, and I'd hate to try to respond without full understanding.
TheDemonCrowley
As a mobile user who can't PM, I'm interested.
jnoahj
I'll shoot you a message. It should give you a notification on mobile that will let you read it, but there are some formatting issues.
Ekajra
Pre-sem student here, also available for discussion.
jnoahj
I'm technically Pre-sem too. I graduate with my undergrad in Religion in December, and I'm hoping to do proper seminary at Knox.
TallWall
Make a post about it!
indigorush101
As someone who's been to seminary, I encourage you to make a post. It may not make it to the front page, but I'd definitely read it!!
ElanMorin
I have a question - do you believe because of reasons that can be known by anyone, or because of feelings that are only relevant to you ?
jnoahj
Can it not be a culmination of both? I believe God is above us, but that He is also an intensely personal being. Both are relevant.
ElanMorin
It's just that when I ask people why they believe, they often give some emotional response, which cannot be evidence for an objective fact.
jnoahj
Ok, I understand where you're coming from. If it's ok, I'll send you the response I've been giving here, I've tried to lay it out logically.
ElanMorin
Alright.
uchronia
2/3: Or to be locked in a pitch black closet for days and discover that there are things worse than death at a single digit age. Or to see
uchronia
1/3: Ex-cult kid / triple science major here. Feel free to PM me if curious about what it's like to be beaten half to death by Men of God.
iamanapatosaurus
Does Seminarian mean you run seminars?
jnoahj
I attend Liberty university pursuing my degree in religion, and I'm hoping to pursue my masters in Divinity at Knox seminary if I get in.
HellaDonkeys
I'm not sure if this was sarcastic, but it means they are in seminary to become a leader in the church.
machton
as a Christian who has done real science (my name on medical imaging and surgical papers!), I am willing to jump in here as well.
HmmICantThinkOfACleverUsernameRightNow
That's why I made a post. It bugs me that seemingly no one gets what thinking Christians actually believe. I'd encourage you to do likewise
IKEAdragon
I'm def interested! But can't figure out how to message from mobile
jnoahj
The options tab at the very bottom should be messages. or tap my UN and thereshould be a message option in the top right
jadespider
yeah, I've tried it, and ended up getting stoned to the bottom of the bad comments section every time. No regrets for trying though.
kinema01
I know it's cliche, but.... are you a 5-point-er? ;D
jnoahj
No, I'm a dispensationalist, my wife is a calvinist though.
kinema01
Not all consider dispensational thought and covenantal systems to be polar opposites. John MacArthur is a Dispensational Calvinist.
jnoahj
I consider them to be contradictory solely because the dispensations seem meaningless under a Calvinistic level of foreknowledge.
kinema01
I suppose it also depends on how dispensational you are. Also Darby was a Calvinist as well, however, but yeah...
LazyLexiconographer
Its called Cognitive Dissonance, fits nicely in 140 characters.
jnoahj
lol I don't see them as conflicting and it actually brings me peace not anxiety. But I can see why you'd think that.
LazyLexiconographer
It is Cognitive Dissonance when you hold all of your beliefs about the natural world to a high standard, ie science, minus one.
jnoahj
I've been asleep for the last 8 hours and RIP my inbox. I'll get back to each of you asap. Sorry about the delay.
SkyHSmith
Are christians the only ones to believe in literal creationism? In Judaism it's allegorical, and to my knowledge it's the same in Islam...
LazyLexiconographer
There is no religion without at least one follower somewhere who takes it literally. Sorry, not interesting.
CitizenDickbag
There are Islamic Creationists. Not common at all among Jews, except in small ultra-ultra-Orthodox groups.
jnoahj
As far as I'm aware it's certain small sects of Judaism/Islam and a vocal minority of Christianity.
reider10
Exactly. I'm a Christian, but in also wondering why Bill Nye is yelling at me, I'm on his side too...
SkyHSmith
Judaism specifically states that it's allegory in the Talmud (the commentary on the Torah)
machton
remember: creationism = God created everything as it is now, poof. Others like me believe in God-guided evolution (God wants us to science!)
SkyHSmith
Intelligent design would be supported by Islamic and Jewish teachings.
dnalerb
No, God created everything in perfection. We sinned (Adam/Eve) and everything was corrupted at that point, (our bodies, the universe etc)
machton
I agree. Who's to say the story of the Garden of Eden can't have happened to evolved apes that sport newly conscious minds?
InboxMeYourOods
...really?
InboxMeYourOods
Big bang and evolution are two completely different things.
machton
Yes they are. I noted evolution because creationism is most commonly pitted against evolution. I have no problem with the big bang either
aginglikeapotato
idk why but somehow I doubt that science-lover part. Otherwise I'm guessing this comment would be different.
jnoahj
I actually do love science, I'm a big believer that evolution and creationism are 2 sides of the same coin and should be used in concert.
aginglikeapotato
well .. if you google "define creationism" you will see that is in direct opposition to evolution. So which takes precedence ?
jnoahj
Dude if you think we're all running around spouting Ken-Ham-Esque nonsense then I don't really know how to reply.
aginglikeapotato
Creationists != Christians. If you are a creationist, you by defenition don't believe in evolution...
IChangeMyUsernameAllTheTime
Where do you go? I'm in seminary too
jnoahj
LIberty University for my undergrad, planning to go to Knox in Coral Ridge for my M.Div if I get in.
crazycakelady
Me too! But we just call it bible college.
zaraztroe
Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?
Kralizac
I prefer the homer/Flanders teleological argument where homer proves there's no god whilst filing his taxes. Still, this was good.
jnoahj
God cannot act outside of His nature. Can't sin because sin is defined by not His nature, can't make a rock so heavy He can't lift it.
mcof
So who or what defines God's nature? Us?
jnoahj
His nature is whatever is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, commendable, excellent and worthy of praise. (Phil 4:8)
Vafthruthnir01
Just want to compliment your awesome username!
zaraztroe
you like Mozart too?
Vafthruthnir01
As a matter of fact, I do. I sing opera, and even did a thesis on Mozart, The Magic Flute, and Freemasonry.
zaraztroe
Ive always had a feeling that Mozart faked his own death to become an immortal freemason and that Zauberflote is like some cryptic metaphor
GilaMonsieur
burrito, no. hot pocket, yes. https://youtu.be/wmHSe_S04CU
SchmidtyC
Asking the important questions.
Isleepwithamagicblankie
God does not eat. That would make him not God.
fayseman
Jesus can burn the roof of his mouth if he so chooses. But should he? Yes. But will he? Time will not tell.
renotime
I can answer that, only sections of the burrito will be too hot, while others are still frozen. The "net burrito temperature" remains edible
OrbitusII
Ah yes, the Hot Pocket Principle. It's a bitch regardless of your scientific or religious views.
plusoneforyou
*breaks science and religion simultaneously*
pinkfuzzybunny
Same here, a physicist and serious Christian/creationist. I went to the trouble of learning Hebrew so I can understand the Bible better.
sorensiim
Ah physicist creationist? You seem like the perfect guy to explain the kangaroos to me: /a/y4u3q
LazyLexiconographer
Human minds are interesting, belief in things which contradict each other is not. Its called cognitive dissonance, its normal, even common.
Thorlite
But not Ancient Greek or Aramic? If you had studied Greek you would understand that the virgin birth was nothing more than a mistranslation
Kissmyshinydafodilass
How does a physicist whom (I assume) would rely on evidence for theory work, neglect enormous bio/chem/evo evidence?
CitizenDickbag
Just because one knows physics doesn't mean one is qualified to talk about biology, chemistry, evolution, etc. Physicists can be cranks.
LazyLexiconographer
Its called cognitive dissonance and differing standards for belief.
isaaclw
I wonder if he means "God Created the world" rather than "God Created the world in 7 earth days", which are two vastly different statements.
uchronia
And by Hebrew you mean Classical Hebrew, and by Bible you mean Miqra... right?
uchronia
1/2: Guise, guise. I also science by trade, and am likely the only person in this thread who has been tortured in the name of religion. I
uchronia
2/2: can't convey forcefully enough how much I disrespect your downvotes over my basic fact-checking. Don't be peons. Use your think-meat.
pinkfuzzybunny
By Hebrew I mean Biblical Hebrew, and by Bible I mean the Tanakh
uchronia
If you studied either of these things in any depth you would know that I just gave you alternate names for them. Color me... skeptical.
pinkfuzzybunny
Nor have I ever heard it called "Classical Hebrew", only Biblical.
pinkfuzzybunny
I have never heard of Miqra, the version I own is called the Tanakh, and that's how it is referred to in my textbook.
uchronia
3/3: your childhood friends choose the latter. Sorry, @jnoahj. But any God whose Truths you might perceive could not also contain my wrath.
jnoahj
I'll shoot you a PM once my inbox settles down though!
jnoahj
I am very sad abuot things like this. I have also been abused by people identified as Christians. Many people have failed me Christ has not.
ryanvm18
Every religion has people who falsely represent the religion as a whole. It is impossible to have a religion without any corrupt people.
Thorlite
You sound like Sepp Blatter.
jnoahj
A church is an assembly of sinners. Whenever you get a bunch of sinners together there is going to be sin.
uchronia
No true scotsman / bad apples bullshit.
Clunky343
You should probably know the definition of a fallacy before you accuse someone of it. Also; you committed the fallacy fallacy.
uchronia
My post was a shorthand response to the parent argument's core problem. It wasn't incorrect and admits none of your snark, so dial it back.
uchronia
You should also know that you use semi-colons incorrectly as a regular thing. As a linguist I truly don't care, but somebody out there does.
Icthyus
What seminary?
jnoahj
LIberty University. I disagree with some things there, but they have an outstanding online program ideal for active duty (Which I am)
Icthyus
Yeah, a bunch of my friends went there! Keep it up, and good luck!
themostoriginalusername
Not sure about jnoahj, but I'm currently attending Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Reformed Baptist though.
jnoahj
I applied there, I have a tentative yes pending my undergrad graduation, but I'm still hoping to get into Knox for my M.Div.
themostoriginalusername
I have a friend here that transferred to SWBTS from Liberty. He is finishing his undergrad and will then pursue an M.Div.
Icthyus
Nice, southeastern here...
themostoriginalusername
I've heard it is nice there. When I've finished here I hope to make my way over to Southern, PRTS, or GPTS. Excellent language programs.
Icthyus
My best friend is in Southeastern's language program! I sure am glad I finished all my language requirements! Greek 3 ate my lunch! lol
crazycakelady
What are you studying there? Im currently doing at bible college as well but not in america.
themostoriginalusername
I am doing a Bachelor of Arts in Humanities with a concentration in Biblical Languages. I hope to be a translator in the field.
crazycakelady
Awesome! I'm doing a Bachelor of Ministry training to be a youth pastor :)
Woodsidj
Bill Nye the angry guy
Jester123ish
Behold Bill the Nye lest thou be smited unto.
spaceflavoredagenda
I AM BILL NYE!
spaceflavoredagenda
(In the I AM series... not, I'm not actually Bill Nye..)
Vesarret
People need to stop acting like this is bashing Christianity. No, its bashing the nonscientific belief in junk science.
FriendlyNeighbour
Creationism is the belief that the Universe and Life originate "from specific acts of divine creation." Aka bashing the set 1/2
Vesarret
I have no problem with the idea of divine creation, but I refuse to respect the ideas of those who oppose real science because of beliefs.
FriendlyNeighbour
that includes christianity, thus bashing christianity. Simple if a element A and we hate A we hate a. 2/2
Vesarret
I don't think most people bash the possibility that a god may have had a hand in things, it's more about the Ken Ham junk science.
Hamglove
I hated how after the debate Ken Ham acted like he won.
ConvenientlyRelevantUsername
I hate how everyone assumes that creationists are all just Ken Ham fanatics
Unindoctrinated
http://imgur.com/flu9cR4
TheLordLucifersBannedAccount02
This is how pretty much all christians act after debates
TheDonkeyBomber
then he voted...
RollTribe88
Can you not believe in science and a God??
ArentCatsLikeHumans
Yes yes you can
brassmonkeys
I think it depends what you call god too. I believe the universe was created but not by any 'god' known.
PlutoIsSoAPlanet
You can't not believe in science. It's a process and method for answering questions. Then you assign a degree of confidence to its findings.
CantBrainTodayIHaveTheDumb
That is what religion is, opinion. Just because the belief is widely accepted without evidence does not make it fact. (2 of 2)
CantBrainTodayIHaveTheDumb
You can believe that sandworm from Saturn created Earth but until you can prove it, it is only an opinion. (1 of 2)
BitchNiggerWuuut
yes, that's troglodytism
Greeneyeddevil
In Catholicism they teach Creation as faith and evolution as science. My RC school at least struck a decent balance between faith and fact.
skitchmusic
Yes, BUT, if you reject conclusions founded in science because they contradict your beliefs in a God, then the beliefs are incompatible.
Tiskel
you can sort-of tell yourself that you believe both, but eventually, you'll have a situation where you have to pick one.
ropewarrior
You most certainly can. Some of the greatest scientists were/are Christian. Science and religion both have truth as their goals.
dogsi
Yes. It's called cognitive dissonance.
Iamyourcaptainnow
The normal Joe cannot. Which is stupid. From a scientific standpoint god makes absolute sense and vice versa.
TheSkeletonWar
Can you not believe in your parents giving gifts AND a Santa?
ThisIsHawkward
As a novice Scientist, I’ve asked myself this constantly. I and the other 40% of American scientists who believe in a personal god say (1/?)
ThisIsHawkward
yes, you can. Religion and scientific fact rarely if ever over lap if you interpret the bible metaphorically as it was supposed to be (2/?)
ThisIsHawkward
(not to say I don't believe the literal parts either) but the bible was written so that any one could understand, especially the old (3/?)
ThisIsHawkward
d testament which was all orally passed down. Try explaining evolution to people who have yet to happen upon writing (4/4)
MichaelPlatson
No. God is the answer to the questions we have no yet solved. The more answers we have the less room there is for God. [1/2]
MichaelPlatson
Perhaps it's arrogant to think that we'll answer all the questions but at that point God would become irrelevant in a Religious sense.[2/2]
unagiwarrior
One is for doubting until the best answer and one is for unquestioning belief. If you can find a middle ground there then I suppose you can.
AardvarkAdventures
Many people, myself included, believe in God and the bible, and use science to back it up. There's evidence everywhere of God's hand.
[deleted]
[deleted]
jeffasaurusrex
Boy, you must be a special kind of stupid
DishonoredUser
Stay mad, christian.
jeffasaurusrex
Listen, there are very dumb Christians and atheists alike. Please do not think us all foolish. Joking aside, I will give you that courtesy.
[deleted]
[deleted]
whyteraven74
Horse hockey
Timedagger100
Stallion Soccer
doctorpenguinphd
Science and God are mutually exclusive, like water and vinegar. Is that right? I don't actually know, I went with "God".
doctorpenguinphd
Yes that is a joke.
ButtAmbassador
So do you believe in water, or do you believe in vinegar?
jeffasaurusrex
It depends on what you define as science. If you mean strictly what is proven and indisputable, than yes, yes you can.
skitchmusic
As csamsh said, nothing is indisputable, and furthermore, nothing is 'proven,' strictly speaking, in science.
csamsh
Nothing is indisputable. The best we can do is fail to reject an idea.
TheMostModestMouse
Because one is wrong.
csamsh
A scientist wouldn't say that. Wrong is just code for a hypothesis that can be statistically rejected with a certain confidence.
VileFury
One gives no solid reason to assume it is right, therefore it should be disregarded until reasons are presented.
TheMostModestMouse
Yes a scientist would, and has. Religion is wrong, What they believe in may be right/wrong. But it as a whole, isnt.
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
You can believe what ever you want, that doesn't make it true.
mightykingfisher
In science we don't accept anything as "truth" , so I hope you weren't making this argument from a pro-science standpoint.
PlutoIsSoAPlanet
Wrong; many things are accepted as being true in science. Evolution is one example. That it occurs is a FACT. How it occurs is the Theory.
mightykingfisher
I understand that. We still don't consider theories and facts to be "truth". If you think that, you need to relearn the scientific method.
PlutoIsSoAPlanet
It appears you are using semantics to avoid dealing with the actual point.
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
That depends on the type of "truth" you are talking about, there are several, and science certainly has one based on inductive reasoning.
mightykingfisher
I am legitimately curious. Can you please fill me in?
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
In the depths of philosophy, nothing can be certain. For practical purposes, we still use the words like truth and fact. We say things (1)
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
can be that it leads to the truth, since that's out experience. And it's the inductive reasoning that makes science useful to explore (4)
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
reaches the moon. You design medicine with good science and you cure disease, etc, etc. So a general inductive argument about science (3)
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
are scientifically true if they are reached via the scientific method because it works. You design a rocket with good science and it (2)
Tiskel
inductive reasoning can't give more than a 'probably true' result. you're thinking of deductive reasoning, where the result must be true.
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
Natural sciences are indeed more based on inductive reasoning, but "truth" and "fact" still have a place and a use there.
Tiskel
of course, the premises of deductive reasoning must also be true to begin with.
Lonewolf87
depends on your ability to suspend disbelief - and you're threshold for cognitive dissonance - in other words you can but it's ignorant
whydidyoureadthis
Doublethink
WaifuRapist
your*
Lonewolf87
realized it after i hit submit
WaifuRapist
I only did it because you seem to be so into grammar lol
Lonewolf87
and you'd be wrong
terbril
No. Because science isn't a matter of "belief". It is a matter of fact. It keeps revising itself and fixing mistakes the more it learns.
diphiminaids
Science is not sentient
dogsi
Science is about best fit models/explanations given current evidence. It doesn't deal in facts.
diphiminaids
Webster definition of science:knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
terbril
Religion, OTOH, is a matter of belief, a matter of faith. Putting your trust on something you can never truly, objectively learn till death.
dogsi
That would be a belief in an amorphic afterlife. All religions make claims. Those claims can be tested. All major religions are false.
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
Thus proving the autonomy of both. Regarding ones validity does not discredit the other.
terbril
Exactly. Subjective, personal faith can coexist with objective, external fact. But many people think faith should overrule everything else.
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
I believe that I was given a level of intelligence and to think something so illogical would be an insult to the One that blessed me in >
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
How can people up vote you if you're agreeing with and complementing what I said and then down vote me? Fickle, fickle.
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
> the first place. But that's just me.
StooperDave
The problem is when you try to combine them on the same topic. There is a preponderance of evidence AGAINST biblical creation. You cannot...
Patches3000
You...you are saying things I like StooperDave
StooperDave
teach creation "science" and real science at the same time. they are mutually exclusive of one another.
Wuz314159
( damn. I didn't realise this was a part 2. Oops.)
Wuz314159
That makes people believe both have merit when one has evidence & the other has none.
FriendlyNeighbour
not at all. In any way.
KelKrist
My favorite part is where you added more text to support you comment and convince people. Oh... Wait... You didn't.
FriendlyNeighbour
140 characters isnt enough to educate someone sometimes.
TheLordLucifersBannedAccount02
Nope, he's right.
StooperDave
and denying the evidence against biblical creation is denying the evidence that forms the foundation for much other science. which is...
StooperDave
verrifiable and repeatable. so to believe that the biblical account of creation is correct is to deny things like relativity and the speed..
StooperDave
of light, etc. very basic and correct tenants of science. 140 characters is shit for comments. come on imgur!
HypnotoadIRL
There is no evidence for biblical creation. None.
rootwo
People who interpret the Old Testament as absolute fact don't really understand Jewish culture or the idea of parables as teaching tools
whyteraven74
That and they don't know that St. Augustine of Hippo wrote about how you're not supposed to take everything literally. He sure as hell didnt
StooperDave
Exactly. It boggles the mind that people can read that and take any of it seriously. Might as well believe in Harry Potter.
thestarbird
Exactly! In Genesis, if you assume evolution was God's tool for creation, how would you EVER begin to explain that to Old Testament dudes?
jnoahj
For example there was no sun until day 4, how could a "day" be measured? Could mean 24 hours or millions of years for all we know.
mightykingfisher
Sure. You can believe whatever you want, but science isn't about belief. From a scientific point of view, a god does not exist, because...
skitchmusic
Furthermore, even if a god was introduced as an explanation, if it isn't falsifiable, it cannot be science (thanks Karl Popper!).
mightykingfisher
science relies on observations and repeatable experiments. There isn't observable evidence to show that god exists. Now, I'm not saying...
mightykingfisher
a god does not exists. We just can't show it through science. And that is okay. We just need to keep a distinction between what is...
mightykingfisher
science and what is belief. Otherwise the layman's theory and scientific theory would become more similar and that would be scary.
mightykingfisher
*layman's "theory"
BraveChicken
As you go on to say, it's not that from a scientific point of view a god doesn't exist, it's that he isn't proven to exist.
mightykingfisher
Well yes, but we don't technically "prove" anything in the research sciences. We just show strong evidence that something is occurring...
BraveChicken
My mistake then.
mightykingfisher
I would word it as "the existence of a god is not supported by any observable evidence or repeatable experiments". I know..tomato potato. :P
Tiskel
or, any evidence.
CitizenDickbag
Nye isn't arguing against God. "Creationism" is a specific belief that is anti-science.
FriendlyNeighbour
Creationism is the belief that the Universe and Life originate "from specific acts of divine creation."
CitizenDickbag
No. For fuck's sake read the whole arguments being posed before chiming in with stupid statements.
[deleted]
[deleted]
CitizenDickbag
Doesn't apply. Now you google "Self-important fuckwit."
FuckTheUSCjrShamecocks
Could the universe not have been created by a god using the laws of science? Creationism is not anti science. Bill seems bitter here.
loopernor
Nye is talking about young-Earth creationism which is very much anti-scientific.
[deleted]
[deleted]
CitizenDickbag
No. You're playing a cutesy semantic game. "Science" = the application of the scientific method. Creationism doesn't do this.
mightykingfisher
I'd say you're reaching a bit on this one.
alexanderthegreater
I think its young earth creationism to be exact. "Creationism" is a very broad set of beliefs
CitizenDickbag
"Creationism" rejects evolution origins of humans, whether it's YEC or OEC. Both are unscientific.
FuckTheUSCjrShamecocks
No, it does not. Creationism is far too broad and diverse. An entity could create whatever using the laws of science and through guiding 1/2
FuckTheUSCjrShamecocks
things in hopes of creating something else like humans through evolution. This notion that creationism is anti-science is wrong for the most
CitizenDickbag
You're redefining Creationism to mean something it doesn't. You're just describing Theism. Stop clouding the debate with useless terms.
TheSealPushedMe
I believe in God, and science. I always thought Creationism was just believing that God created everything first. Can you explain more?
Kese04
That's what I thought too; it's even the first sentence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism ).
Kese04
Whoops, didn't read the second sentence.
Wuz314159
Creationism is rooted in the biblical Adam & Eve myth. & THAT is how humans have existed throughout time unchanging.
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
Inserting God at the start of the universe or whatever is a conclusion assumed without evidence, which is unscientific.
Biriq
Maybe science, which tells us about the natural universe, wouldn't be the solution to discovering something beyond that.
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
Yeah, maybe. Should we abandon the system of learning things that's worked so well for centuries? Guessing about gods is more reliable?
CitizenDickbag
What you describe is just "theism." "Creationism" has a contextual meaning in the debate over interpretation of Genesis.
AmishJew
How is it "anti-science"?
AmishJew
I just asked a simple question. What's with the downvote fairies?
CitizenDickbag
Because science has discerned a vast body of evidence that contradicts the Creationist beliefs.
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
I may be wrong but I think Creationism is believing the universe was created from a higher power/authority rather than random circumstance.
CitizenDickbag
No. "Creationism" has a specific contextual meaning referring to the debate over the Bible. What you described? "Religion."
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
I think you're way off base. Creationism and nihilistic theories of chaos are two sides to the SAME coin.
CitizenDickbag
That's about as meaningless a claim as I've seen.
razetherunner
that is more often called Intelligent Design, but both terms have lots of overlap and varying interpretations
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
Isn't Intelligent Design more commonly referenced in evolution towards intelligence guided by GOD?
JSJ1221
"random"... It really bothers me that this word is so widely used in the discussion about both the the creation of the universe and 1/?
JSJ1221
2/? about evolution. It's not right to say that either happened randomly. There are natural laws that guide both. I can't tell you where 2/?
JSJ1221
3/3 they came from or why they're there (personally I find that irrelevant), but we know they're there.
MerlinMan73
I wish people would stop saying that. It isn't "anti-science."
skitchmusic
As it is presented by organizations that advance Creationism/Intelligent Design, there is an 'anti-science' lean to the presentation.
CitizenDickbag
Rejection of evolution is absolutely anti-science.
AardvarkAdventures
Creationism is far from anti science. It's believing in what the Bible tells us and using science to back it up.
skitchmusic
IS there a condition or set of evidence that could potentially demonstrate to you that the Bible is, in fact, wrong?
mightykingfisher
http://imgur.com/J79tV06
LennyKoggins
In other words, coming to the conclusion first and then trying to fit the evidence into the conclusion. That is by definition anti-science.
5gallonbucketofdogpoop
I wish I had more upvotes to give.
alchemist12345
Which is wrong. Its having the conclusion first and then looking for the reasons. Its backwards and thats why it fails.
CitizenDickbag
Science does not back up what the Bible says, unless you interpret it so metaphorically as to render such use of science meaningless.
Atalung
not anti science, the two can be rectified (Ive been working on it and have found logical gaps in the big bang theory)
CitizenDickbag
Oh, you've found gaps? Wow, can't wait to see your Nobel prize in physics! When do you publish your paper? What journal?
Atalung
they aren't based in physics but in logic, reason, mathematics, and probability, also stop with the ad hominem attacks please dirtbag
CitizenDickbag
Uh, you're the only one who engaged in ad hominem with that last blatant insult. And considering there's so much abundant scientific 1/2
CitizenDickbag
Oh good lord, you're an 18-year old econ student and think you've shown up BB cosmology? That is the most hilarious bit of hubris I've seen.
CitizenDickbag
(oops 3) mathematics to overturn the current model, which is universally-accepted by, you know, real physicists and mathematicians.
CitizenDickbag
2/2 evidence for the Big Bang, what you consider "logic and reason" is probably anything but. I sincerely doubt you've the knowledge of
MadHakon
The more I learn about the universe, the more beautiful it becomes. But I think I squander it's magnificence if I presume it had to be (1/2)
sushifire
I actually hold a similar yet different perspective. To each his/her own, ya?
Lonewolf87
couldn't agree more (i tried to get rid of your downvotes)
MadHakon
It's as if people are looking to be offended. Nothing I said was inflammatory even. But an upvote for you kind sir.
MadHakon
the work of a divine power. I think it's perfectly fine to accept the universe just came to be by itself as something amazing (2/2)
possiblyemmawatson
Interesting perspective. I'm Catholic, so I guess religious ppl just credit the universe's magnificence to God. It doesn't subtract from 1/?
possiblyemmawatson
the magnificence of the universe itself, but we do find allusions to God's glory in the beauty of the universe. Honestly, I think you've 2/?
possiblyemmawatson
(From my Catholic POV) maybe found your own way to God through admiring creation. Hope you're not offended by my God-sumption.
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
Would you admire artwork as the beauty of mixed oils and dyes on canvas rather than the skill and mind of the painter?
skitchmusic
As the brother of a painter, one can do both, but that has nothing to do with assuming that the universe has/requires a creator.
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
I don't think you got where I was going with that. ..
MadHakon
The painting requires the painter, who is to say the universe requires a God?
torreypines
At this point the world god could be anything, Providence, Nature, a transcendent power that human brain cannot process
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
I do. I see the universe and His artwork. But that is my belief, even though I have no proof of it.
Fishgape
Science rules
Jester123ish
Found the logical positivist!
BitchNiggerWuuut
science theorizes
IgnisMoltenheart
It's fine if you want to teach creationism in church (I think it's batshit crazy but ok whatever) But it has NO place in academic settings.
BitchNiggerWuuut
neither does metaphysics but it's presented in US high school science classes
Jester123ish
What is wrong with metaphysics?
FriendlyNeighbour
You can literally study this in Uni. Thus Academic. Thus it belongs.
FriendlyNeighbour
As a christian, I agree partially. Partially because studying creationism is an actually thing so it can be done in academic settings
FriendlyNeighbour
you downvoting my comment dont get it. Its taught at uni, which is considered academic, thus I disagree.
tomes1225
The problem arises when it is taught as "science." Teaching the historical importance of religious ideologies and beliefs is fine.
FriendlyNeighbour
I was saying at taught at unis as a degree, dont get why thats downvoted lol
Jester123ish
I disagree, it is a bad thing for Religion to teach Creationism. It's not a revelation, it's an attack on truth.
FriendlyNeighbour
still doesnt mean it isnt taught at university as part of theology and philosophy... i think everyone missed whatbi was saying lol
ISwearToGodIHadSomething4This
Let the stereotypes against Christians begin
alabamafutbol
An imgur fav
GraphicsInterchangeFormat
It's kinda sad. No one should be shaming anyone.
LateParrot
Shaming someone and lampooning someone's beliefs are two different things entirely.
itchyPUSS
its like taking candy...
piratica108
And equally, let us commence the misconceptions about what science actually is
nodwick
Scientists should keep an open mind. It's crucial for scientific discovery. Creationists should embrace science. 1/2
nodwick
2/2 because if there is an all powerful god, he can go ahead and refute atheism. Cuz - omnipotence..
FriendlyNeighbour
They perpetuate these antichristian ideas without realizing their own ignorance.
peepinginyourshower
I have met very few Christians who aren't a la carte believers
mzxrules
this is because Christianity has dissolved due to lack of substance
Itsboomtiemrightnow
Then you have met very few Christians
peepinginyourshower
I went to christian schools for almost a decade and live in a predominantly christian country
ChewSoap
Bill Nye was better when he wasn't in politics.
WhoAteMyRice
i wonder if he realises all of these type of statements aren't scientific.
whyteraven74
I went to Catholic school for 13 years, and find anyone who thinks any form of creationism has any validity to be a bit questionable.
BitchNiggerWuuut
he was better?
brownsugga
How is this politics?
Atalung
I can't stand him anymore, not even because of what he says but because of the stuck up douchey attitude he says it with
GilaMonsieur
agreed. this isn't changing anyone's mind, and science was never meant to argue the philosophical existential questions of humanity.
CitizenDickbag
He's not arguing philosophy. He's talking about the rejection of proven facts.
GilaMonsieur
The debate in general blurs the line between philosophy and science. Merging science and philosophy is anti-science too.
TrashedPandas
The very fact humans can even question humanity is because of science. Neuroscience to be exact!
GilaMonsieur
Neuroscience is not the thing which created what the field of neuroscience observes.
TrashedPandas
Behavioural neuroscience and sociology explains how we view our own existence and are vital in answering existential questions of humanity.
GilaMonsieur
They contribute, but the human mind being objective about itself is about as easy as being morally perfect.
HypnotoadIRL
There is no reason to beleive those questions are worth asking. Why beleive we have a purpose?
GilaMonsieur
Life and purpose create eachother. Life deserves purpose. I hope you get to live a life inspired to explore these questions, rather than (1)
GilaMonsieur
a life taking comfort in their absence. Because it is your life that makes them worth asking.
HypnotoadIRL
It doesnt matter if you think it deserves purpose. That is meaningless.
TrashedPandas
I believe this is what Bill is in politics for...
[deleted]
[deleted]
piratica108
And here we see the phenomenon of absolute faith from basic assumptions
Izzdelp
What the fuck is that? Is it even allowed to "teach" this in US schools?
helpnonamesareleft
Private schools. Not unusual.
Izzdelp
Holeee shit. That's fucked up. Very fucked up.
helpnonamesareleft
Friend of mine attended a Catholic homeschool co-op. I remember their textbooks being creation based. Impressed me at the time.
TrashedPandas
Yes it is.
CitizenDickbag
This isn't political...
Vesarret
This. Science should never have been politicized in the first place, but arguing that factual is not political, it's just sensible.
Vesarret
arguing what is factual*
illpickausernameafteridoadab
I think it's amazing he's in politics... Most politicians think science is whoever pays most for the results. Bill just drops hard science
CredibleHulk
First, I believe in evolution. Second, name calling and throwing insults at people who disagree with you won't solve anything.
V1K1NGFVNERAL
Don't believe in evolution. Understand how it works.
CredibleHulk
Yea that's one thing that gets me. Science isn't something you "believe in". It's just knowledge. It's just using your brain.
MadHakon
Sometimes you can't dance around the issue with delicate words. You just have to be blunt.
kapp70
Brother could you spare a blunt?
CitizenDickbag
Are you saying Nye did this? I don't see where he did. No name calling, no insults. He's stating a problem with a particular view.
CredibleHulk
Not him, but others in the comments. Elsewhere I said we should follow his example of being cool, diplomatic, and eloquent.
rectalprolapse
I really, really, really like your username.
BitchNiggerWuuut
it's petty catharsis
OtherBarryDylan
It'll only further steel their resolve.
skitchmusic
From what I know, even showing evidence in a calm manner will steel their resolve as well.
rectalprolapse
And makes everyone angry, which doesn't engender good conversation.
Wuz314159
Shows you can't fix stupid.
cardboardisdelicious
Shut up, stupid face.
CredibleHulk
HypnotoadIRL
First, beleiving in evolution is like saying you beleiving in gravity. It's just a weird thing to say. Second sometimes the truth hurts.
GilaMonsieur
Implying the evolutionary origin of the human race is as simple as gravity is a lot weirder. Lies hurt more than the truth in the long run.
AskingTheRealQuestions
It's not about the simplicity, it's just that it's an established fact that you'd NEVER question unless you had serious a religious agenda
GilaMonsieur
I don't believe a few centuries of civilization has enough data to infer million year events as fact. Proponents can have an agenda too.
AskingTheRealQuestions
Then you're clearly not very well educated on the subject if you don't believe we have enough data to establish it as fact.
StandardDeviant
It's not that it is as simple as gravity, but that it is as provable and self-evident.
GilaMonsieur
The larger and more detailed the hypothesis, the more it takes to prove it. How things evolve, how things could have evolved in the past,(1)
GilaMonsieur
and exactly how things Did evolve, are all questions which are progressively more precise and harder to prove. Important distinction.
HypnotoadIRL
I never implied its as simple. But it holds the same truth value as gravity.
GilaMonsieur
'truth value' is subjective and philosophical. We need to understand gravity and observable evolution for day to day life. Origins? no.
HypnotoadIRL
Im sorry but you are just wrong. We dont need to observe something directly to gauge its truth. With DNA and fossils we can know plenty
scabab
it sometimes will.
TonyTheSandwich
Pretty sure that these aren't Bill's words. They are from an article which quotes him, but these don't appear to be a quote from Bill Nye.
dudeinsha
Yeah, but what if they ARE a bunch of retarded imbeciles?
CredibleHulk
Don't stoop to their level. Be like Bill Nye, not like Bill Maher.
dudeinsha
True and I'm all for kindness, but sometimes people need to told the truth. In a kind way of course.
CredibleHulk
Agreed. I do sometimes Hulk out at people but always end up regretting it.
FrozenVapors
Although Bill Maher makes an excellent point just the same.
skitchmusic
Third, no degree of argumentation or evidence presentation will sway those who hold deeply held convictions in a contrary belief.
CredibleHulk
You'd be surprised. I remembering hearing my very conservative Orthodox Jewish friend say one day "You're right, homosexuality isn't a sin."
skitchmusic
I'm not saying that beliefs can't change, I'm saying that evidence/argumentation are poor tools to change deeply held beliefs.
shesaidgoodbyetotheground
No name calling here... But I guess you could say it's insulting to point out things about people that are true but also unflattering?
CredibleHulk
No my friend, it's called constructive criticism. There's a polite and diplomatic way to have these discussions.
sidfromtoystory
truth hurts dude
bluefacepaint
There is no discussion. One side is screaming "It was magic" then covering their ears and singing real loud so they can't hear the truth.
CredibleHulk
Then don't stoop to that level. Discuss. For example, I know that's what Ken Ham would do, but think about the people listening to Bill Nye.
bluefacepaint
What about them?
dpidcoe
It doesn't matter what you believe in, eventually it all comes down to magic. Where do you think all that energy came from?
Tiskel
Like the fat shaming and anti-feminism here on imgur. those are fine, but point out the inconsistency of religion, and you're a bad person.
TrashedPandas
It's the truth. It does hinder scientific progress. Creationism is a insult to the intricacies and development of the natural world.
HiveinMind
The truth? Maybe. All the more reason to insult and belittle anyone who believes in either evolution or creationism? Never.
bluefacepaint
Who is being insulted? Facts have been stated. If someone is insulted by those facts, that's a reflection on that person, not anyone else.
HiveinMind
You ask "who" as if imgur's religious population is a small one.
bluefacepaint
All religious people are Creationists now? When did that happen?
AskingTheRealQuestions
Insult? If you openly believe in dumb shit be prepared to have people call your asinine beliefs dumb.
TrashedPandas
Teaching religious superstition can have real and negative effects on how children view the world. ie: religious supremacy, homosexuality
TheThingNoNotThatOne
Teaching blind faith in anything (both religion and science) is harmful to everyone and everything.
AskingTheRealQuestions
Except for that you don't need blind faith to "believe" in science because it's fact that makes sense. You choose to acknowledge science.
Tiskel
false equivalence - there isn't such a thing as blind faith in science. There may be for specific conclusions, but that's not the same.
TheThingNoNotThatOne
Listen, if you want to convert someone to your side, calling them stupid and an international embarrassment isn't the way to do it.
AskingTheRealQuestions
Have you tried debating any dyed-in-the-wool creationists yet? Calling their BELIEFS stupid (there's a difference) is exactly what to do.
TrashedPandas
But what if they are?
TheThingNoNotThatOne
I'm not saying they're not, but saying it to them isn't a good idea.
Tiskel
I don't think you are correct. Willful ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence should be mocked.
TheThingNoNotThatOne
trying to feel superior, because it's not embarrassing at all. 2/2
TheThingNoNotThatOne
And there's overwhelming evidence that mocking someone is the worst way to change their mind. But hey, stay ignorant and keep 1/2
AskingTheRealQuestions
The problem with creationism is that we have ACTUAL DEBATES over whether noahs ark fucking happened. It's ridiculous.
Tiskel
Not sure that there is a 'correct' way to change the minds of those who choose to not see evidence in front of them.
AskingTheRealQuestions
Believe me, the goal isn't to change ppl like Ken Ham's mind. It's to stop taking creationism any more seriously than believing in santa.
royandmossladyproblems
It's a problem when we indulge people who "disagree" with fact, especially if it allows them to influence education.
rectalprolapse
Macro-evolution is not fact. It is still a theory, and one with plenty of doubters - even in the scientific community.
skitchmusic
This statement demonstrates several fundamental misunderstandings about science, evolution, and what a theory is in science.
rectalprolapse
Macroevolution as in Darwinian evolution (everything from nothing), which is not completely accepted, cannot be called a "fact."
skitchmusic
Neither 'macroevolution' nor Darwinian evolution claim that everything came from nothing.
CredibleHulk
Agreed. And speaking as a religious person, it's damn embarrassing.
Cystman
I'm just going to note that this is due to corporations funding these movements since the 70's to discredit science to avoid regulation.
thecrossthebridge
neoconservatism
CantStopTheHopp
Sauce?
PlutoIsSoAPlanet
It goes back further than that. Religion and politics got together about 80 years ago in an awkward attempt to marry Jesus to Capitalism.
Cystman
True, Red Scare did start putting those two in bed together.
lmgursLibertarian
As an atheist, that's in the top five most retarded things I've read on imgur.
Cystman
It is stupid, but it is also hard fact as far as what groups corporations make contributions to, it has to be recorded for taxes.
sidfromtoystory
ah religion, so moral!
toonsniped
Fucking A right. It's not just corps though. The whole you can only publish if you find something significant bullshit causes it's fair 1/2
toonsniped
of bad science too. If you could publish what doesn't work and still get funding could reduce overall waste and corruption in science. 2/2
Kissmyshinydafodilass
In-fuckin-deed. Experimental Psychologist here. P-values are the devil and publishing N.S. results would be really useful (along sig ones).
aintnopartylikeaLizLemonpartycuzaLizLemonpartyisMANDATORY
working on a meta-analysis. wish journals would allow null results. at least i'm gathering correlations, which are reported regardless.
aintnopartylikeaLizLemonpartycuzaLizLemonpartyisMANDATORY
well, except for one paper. only reported significant correlations... :|
Kissmyshinydafodilass
What's the meta on?
TheThingNoNotThatOne
How does believing evolution doesn't exist avoid regulation? And wouldn't "don't believe scientists" also effect their own studies?
Wuz314159
It's not direct, but discrediting the science on pestecides helped chemical company sales. Discrediting the science on Climate Change (1/2)
Wuz314159
..helped car & oil companies. Discrediting Evolution helps churches make more money. It's just an advertising technique. (2/2)
TheThingNoNotThatOne
with pesticides, climate change, cigarettes, alcohol, medicine, etc. Not to mention the church-corporation connection is a stretch at best.
TheThingNoNotThatOne
that will only plant the seeds of doubt about science, when you can just bring your own science to the table? That's what they did 1.5/2
TheThingNoNotThatOne
It's a rather roundabout way to get there. The other examples you gave were direct. Why waste time and money supporting some movement 1/2
DarkGnosis
It actually goes back to the 30's.
Cystman
Before that expressing things too religiously made you unelectable. JFK had to go out of his way to distance himself from the Church.
TheThingNoNotThatOne
JFK was the only Catholic ever elected to the presidency. As popular as Catholicism is, people don't want them as presidents
Unindoctrinated
Sort of. JFK went out of his way to distance himself from the Catholic church which American Protestants didn't like or trust.
Cystman
True, but you didn't see heavy bible thumping out of serious presidential contenders of any sect. Though I guess that started in with the-
Cystman
-Red Scare, where we let money and religion associate themselves the our identity as a nation when they were panic over commies.
tellemurius
Actually this goes back to the issue with religion. Catholics were somewhat percecuted since majority America were protestant.
Unindoctrinated
Partly because the public didn't trust Bible thumpers. Partly because they actually understood the need for separation of church and state.
tellemurius
Don't be too sure. William Jennings Bryan gained tons of support back in the day and that man was a raving creationist. Even today:
MrMantastic
Creationism is akin to someone not believing in electricity, but still using a computer. They benefit from things they don't accept.
MerlinMan73
It's a sad website that approves of this. It's ignorant and borderline bigotry.
HypnotoadIRL
How is it bigotry and ignorant to question people that deny evidence of things like evolution?
ireallylovenachos
I don't believe in electricity or the internet.
somerandomnamegoeshere
Sigh. Not at all. Macroevolution has never been seen, but instead of talking about it people make fun of others who don't believe in fantasy
JSJ1221
Macro and Microevolution are exactly the same thing, just on a different time scale.
GodelEscherBach
Yes, it has: a frog with eyes on the inside of its mouth. It is also a logical consequence of the fossil record and summation of mutation.
whyteraven74
evolution is evolution, and we have actually observed speciation in animals and plants.
somerandomnamegoeshere
Micro/speciation has been observed and uses existing generic code. Macro requires new code to appear from thin air
FriendlyNeighbour
There is no reason why science and religion have to be mutually exclusive. Your logic is flawed.
peepinginyourshower
His logic is not flawed. He said creationism, not religion. Religion does not necessarily contradict science. Creationism does
Junktrunkjunkie
I believe his major concern is that creationism will stifle curiosity. If you answer everything with "God did it" than children might 1/2
Junktrunkjunkie
2/2 explore for answers and learn to reach logical deductions. We would stagnate as a society if this happened everywhere.
Junktrunkjunkie
*then children might *not (oh dear my poor grammer.
FriendlyNeighbour
Creationism is the belief that the Universe and Life originate "from specific acts of divine creation."
peepinginyourshower
Creationism necessitates a literal interpretation of scripture. This is at odds with science
[deleted]
[deleted]
Cystman
I give you page 40 of Science 4 for Christian Schools (Home Teacher's Edition):
I still don't even.
huanthewolfhound
It reads more like a philosophical discussion than anything else.
lxlulz
Holy shit that was a page from a real book? I thought it was a joke mock up.
Davidnfilms
Oh god... what hath the world borne?
StandardDeviant
Fuckin magnets, man. How do they work?
snowtree
Sounds like something from Idiocracy.
orangemarmaladesky
Can you imagine if the entire US was taught this? Our country would be ruined. Same goes for creationism. (1/2)
ItsCaptain0bvious
Well, your country was lead for 2 terms by a buy who claimed that was doing what God told him, so it's more than an imagination scenario.
orangemarmaladesky
(2/2) On top of being demonstrably false it would damage our economy. Any innovation in any biology field wouldn't be created here.
PunsOfQuickening
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
RonPaulWasAnInsideJob
Are you fucking kidding me? This sounds like an Onion article.
Cystman
Can look it up independently, was a big hubbub when it was noticed by people online some years back, look for "Electricity is a Mystery".
RonPaulWasAnInsideJob
I feel like looking it up would just make me angry and hate people even more. But here goes...
Yummychickenblue
I'd just like to point out that doing a quick image search takes you to an Amazon page showing that was published in 1995. (1/2)
Scientificevidence
1995? What the fuck. I was assuming Late 60's.....
Cystman
I am amused that the new edition's preview page primarily feature the electricity chapter. Guess the ridicule worked.
Yummychickenblue
(2/2) Hopefully that curriculum has gotten better since then.
dpidcoe
considering that home schooling curriculum are a dime a dozen, maybe.
SightlierGravy
Have you seen Jesus Camp? It's a documentary on evangelical christians. The beginning shows some home schooling curriculum and it's bad.
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
The light goes on, the light goes off. You can't explain that.
Equinox13
The problem being that the author of that page's light never went on.
ItsCaptain0bvious
Fuckin magnets, how do they work
ETomAdzo
OMFG. I'm a Christian and I don't support such willful ignorance
Tiskel
if you give funds to your church, then yes, you do support such willful ignorance, whether you want to or not.
Cystman
Same here. I love science. Discovering how the universe works is wonderful and should be celebrated.
ItsCaptain0bvious
You support some of it, though, no? When all your faith is based on a book that today's knowledge makes it look like fiction, at some 1/2
ItsCaptain0bvious
stage you must say to yourself "Ok, I know this is a proven fact, but I'll with the Bible version, in order not to shake my faith", right?
thetonestarr
*Young-Earth Creationism. Creationism in and of itself doesn't necessarily deny science.
CitizenDickbag
It denies evolution of human beings. "Creationism" can't just be used as a synonym for "religious."
thetonestarr
Young-Earth Creationism denies evolution of human beings. There is such a thing as Evolutionary Creationism.
KaiserFredVIII
That is usually called, in a less ambiguous way, Theological Evolution. I dislike it either way, but still rather reserve creationism for a+
thetonestarr
It is (more correctly, "theistic evolution"), but it's still a form of Creationism nonetheless.
KaiserFredVIII
special kind of bonkers, personally.
CitizenDickbag
No, that would be contradictory. It's "Theistic Evolution." It's not Creationism.
thetonestarr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution - "Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism or evolutionary creationism"
aintnobodygottime4dat
enigma1235
I'm gonna use this in real life
aintnobodygottime4dat
1/2 If they use the Bible as scientific knowledge you'll own them no problem. Learn the Bible, it pisses them off as well. Then you can 1/2
aintnobodygottime4dat
2/2 prove them wrong with their own book.
TheMIseQguy
Please stop saying you believe in evolution. Evolution is a fact not a belief system.
Jester123ish
You would need to distinguish between the Theory of Evolution and the facts it seeks to explain. The ToE is believed and well founded.
HypnotoadIRL
Might as well say "I beleive in god and still beleive in gravity"
grimgrinner
I believe in God. I also believe the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and that evolution is a scientific fact. 1/2
grimgrinner
Faith in God does not preclude acknowledgement of scientific facts or achievements. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant. 2/2
FriendlyNeighbour
And as such, one can believe in creationism and fully accept and agree that evolution is a fact
aginglikeapotato
Not to be snarky, try googling "define creationism". You should see the contradiction there.
FriendlyNeighbour
"the universe is created from specific acts of divine creation", so one could just say God was behind the math of the universe
Tiskel
you can't really do these two things at the same time without diluting one of them to the point of irrelevance.
FriendlyNeighbour
"universe is made by specific acts of divine creation", If God is behind the math/ physics, how is that diluting either?
Tiskel
discoveries that diminish the scope of your god (making them unnecessary) lead to a choice: retain belief, or accept discovery.
FriendlyNeighbour
If God created said random framework & all this are derived from this framework, how is God diminished? Cannot one be discovering his works?
thestarbird
How? Not being snarky, but doesn't taking the Bible word for word contradict evolution? Curious as to how they aren't mutually exclusive.
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
That's the key, you don't take it word for word, for some reason it's acceptable to use 20/20 hindsight to interpret it to fit.
thestarbird
Isn't the idea of creationism taking the Bible word for word, though? I might be wrong, I thought it was the idea God made everything.
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
Well I think it can mean "literally Genesis" but some people also use it for "he caused the big bang and then took a nap".
FriendlyNeighbour
Creationism is just believing specific acts of divine creation, doesnt mean a literal interpretation of the bible.
thestarbird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism can be taken both ways. For young earth creationists, it's literally, but the general concept 1/2
thestarbird
That's what I always thought too, but comments on this post seem to imply otherwise. Will find sauce.
FriendlyNeighbour
theyd be wrong. Took my defintion straight from sauce lol
thestarbird
applies to idea of divine creation. 2/2
gimmethatbecks
I've never understood why creationism and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. Could God not set evolution in motion?
itchyPUSS
god, you're so ignorant to even ask that
HmmICantThinkOfACleverUsernameRightNow
Yes. That's what I believe. The problem is, half the people here are talking exclusively about young earth creationism, which excludes it.
GilaMonsieur
I think it has to do with philosophical loyalty; some people have faith in the human mind's ability to know Truth, some are skeptical of it.
StandardDeviant
That makes no sense. Both sides are claiming to have the Truth on their side, but they each use a different system of logic to defend theirs
terbril
That's called "Intelligent Design".
PlutoIsSoAPlanet
No, with Intelligent Design, complex organisms were created whole because they are "irreducibly complex." ID is just as junk as Creationism.
Popero44
No. You want to believe in a deity so bad that you have to discredit the works of science and replace it with a God to further your beliefs.
ElvisParsly
Why is a supernatural component necessary? I don't get it.
Scientificevidence
It could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster who set evolution in motion. But Yaweh? That's a pretty big retcon.
Wellisntthatinteresting
Except he didn't, says so right there in Genesis. He created the Earth, he didn't "set life in motion".
scabab
He could, but it would be redundant, because we already know what set evolution in motion.
WorldsSmallestMegaDick
and its this dick mhm yeah
Lonewolf87
for people who understand the finer details of evolution and who know how to use logic/reason, the answer is no - it makes zero sense
Crimsonak
God could absolutely, but scientifically speaking that requires you demonstrate both a God exists, has that power and did it.
ElvisParsly
Why must there be a supernatural component?
CitizenDickbag
That's not "Creationism." That's "Theistic Evolution." Words have meanings, so that's why.
ScienceGoneTooFar
Which is also known as "evolutionary creationism". You are still believing that God created everything but allowed for things to evolve
CitizenDickbag
That is a very new and utterly stupid usage of it. Look at the history and context of why "Creationism" even exists as a term and it 1/2
CitizenDickbag
renders "evolutionary creationism" a redundant term. It just confuses the debate, makes things worse. It's pointless.
ScienceGoneTooFar
It doesn't make things worse but better. It encourages scientific exploration not only for the betterment of man but to get 1/2
CitizenDickbag
What? That's nonsense. The issues is the debate of Evolution vs. Creationism, a term explicitly devised BY CHRISTIANS to attack Darwinism.
ScienceGoneTooFar
closer to God as well. I don't see how this could be bad?
CitizenDickbag
So changing the definition of Creationism to nonsensically include acceptance of evolution does, in fact, utterly confuse the issue.
cardboardisdelicious
the thing that baffles me more is noahs ark..
PlutoIsSoAPlanet
Statistically, God would have HAD to have killed pregnant women in the Flood. But somehow abortion is wrong.
Kisamex96
And going off of how big that ark had to be, where is it? or a part of it?
ILoveBoobSweat
Yeah, my favorite part of the bible is when God gave everyone free will, and then flooded the earth because he didn't like how they were 1
ILoveBoobSweat
acting. I forget who said that but it rings true.
Polygrammar
The funny thing is God didn't even give us free will. He wanted to keep Adam and Eve ignorant but then (1/2)
cardboardisdelicious
If there was no free will he wouldn't have put the fruit tree there in the first place.. we had a choice: our way or his way..
Polygrammar
Satan came along and convinced them to eat the apple and God was just like "Fuck it! Do whatever then!"
vyoletnytmayre
I will never flood the earth again because mans hearts are evil. I knew they were evil. But this one was for fun. Bully with an ant farm.
whyteraven74
Borrowed from the epic of Gilgamesh pretty much in tact. It's an allegory
Kissmyshinydafodilass
Legit. Assuming you got all (est.) 5 million species, the fuck did they eat? Also, water-dwellers were just fine....so no massive death.
MerlinMan73
*sigh* no, not all 5 million species... just the geni. Genuses? Anyway, creationism generally accepts microevolution as a fact.
waitwhereamI
Magic. It was magic. Another question that always got me was this: why didn't the plants need to get saved on the ark? They would drown too.
waitwhereamI
Especially when the water supposedly covers "the highest mountain tops". For a year. Not 40 days. A year.
Kissmyshinydafodilass
Magic.
waitwhereamI
Magic is... Correct! You just won a free bucket of disappointment, because I actually don't have a prize to give away.
bluefacepaint
Because when we talk about Creationism, we're not talking about intelligent design. We're talking about Young Earth Creationism.
GodelEscherBach
Perhaps, but ID is a load of crap. Horrendously flawed premises, methodology, and conclusions. It's a none-theory; creationism in disguise.
PlutoIsSoAPlanet
Intelligent Design is actually just as bad as Creationism, because it states that organisms must have had a designer. It's junk science.
RocketMan2
But the studies that find incredibly high percentages of people who believe in it might not make such a distinction.
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
Speculation.
RenegadeTQ
He didn't say that though. He just outright said 'Creationism' as a whole.
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
Exactly! He made a generalization which was wildly incorrect.
TechnicolorSlippers
The problem with that is for those who believe Genesis clearly states that God created a male and female human. Not an evolving organism.
Pimpsmurf
Nowhere in Genesis is evolution denied. In fact Adam and Eve "evolved" a knowledge of good and evil from eating fruit from a specific tree.
whyteraven74
And Adam and Eve aren't meant to be literal, hell Genesis starts off two mutually exclusive creation accounts.
keykilla
It's described that a second is a lifetime in the eyes of God. Let's average the human lifespan at about 76 yrs. There are 1/2
keykilla
Roughly 86k seconds in a day. We multiply this by the average lifetime and we get 6.5 million yrs. If it took that long 1/3 [whoops]
keykilla
we could have evolved without straying from the biblical word.
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
Go with me here: what if Genesis was a metaphorical story and isn't supposed to be taken literally? What if the importance isn't how but why
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
skitchmusic
The problem is that folks like Ken Ham (someone Bill Nye dealt with) advocates for the literal interpretation of Genesis.
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
I don't see it as literal. There is a large portion of atheistic people that argue only on that footing, which is incorrect.
skitchmusic
Because there is a contingency of people who DO view it was literal who try to influence policy on areas like Science and Education.
PlutoIsSoAPlanet
it IS supposed to be taken literally. The people who wrote the bible want you to know that God was so powerful he made everything in 6 days.
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
I believe that is possible and GOD is more than capable of doing so but I don't think that's how it happened. Why trick us?
PlutoIsSoAPlanet
Exactly - why trick you? Why not just explain in Genesis what really happened? The answer of course is that "God" is the real trick.
ItsCaptain0bvious
Why are you trying adapt reality and facts, to fit the story of a book? Did it ever cross your mind that the story might not be real?
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
It sounds like you're confusing how with why. One does not invalidate the other.
StandardDeviant
But if you take the bible as a metaphor, then there's no immediate reason to worship God (i.e. heaven and hell.)
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
Please explain how you arrived at theory. I did say that Genesis is likely a metaphor, not the entire Bible.
whyteraven74
And yet for the vast majority of the history of Christianity all Christians took Genesis as metaphor and allegory. And most still do
TechnicolorSlippers
I personally struggle with the thought that at the end of both science and religion, something came from nothing and no one knows why.
reflectedsoundofundergroundspirits
Imagine that what existed before the Big Bang is the realm of GOD. Not nothing but something we can't understand yet.
piratica108
At the end of science you're most likely going to be dealing with things that don't logically make sense, but do have a science to them.
causality
"Why" is a difficult and possibly meaningless question, but "how" is not a terribly hard extension of quantum mechanics.
HypnotoadIRL
Not knowing an answer to something doesn't mean we can assume there is a god. Fallacy called arguement from ignorance.
TechnicolorSlippers
Oh no I agree. But it is pretty amazing what we tell ourselves to cope with our existence. I just want to know where it all came from.
GilaMonsieur
People don't all believe in God simply to cope. But along those lines, people could choose to disbelieve in order to cope as well.
scabab
The general consensus is that lipid bilayers (fat bubbles) enclosed a self-accumulating protein, creating stable replicating cells.
SightlierGravy
Are you talking about the origin of the universe or life? Don't know shit about the former but abiogenesis is extremely interesting.
thestarbird
Miller–Urey for life!!! (Haha, get it?)
SightlierGravy
I got it fam.
TechnicolorSlippers
Universe. Like at the start of science we know there was a bang. Start of religion we know there was a god. What came prior to both ya know?
SightlierGravy
We'll probably never know and I think that's fine. Richard Feynman says it best imo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1RqTP5Unr4
scabab
Science never suggested something from nothing. We just happen not to know exactly what happened at a microscopic level 4 billion years ago.
TheThingNoNotThatOne
Everything is wild speculation. Hell, we're not entirely sure how life came to Earth. God is just as likely as anything else.
scabab
An all powerful yet somehow totally unapparent supernatural being is more likely than a few common chemicals reacting given 4bn years?
TechnicolorSlippers
Right, we don't. But it's just the question of where the hell did all this shit come from? No side has an answer and I think that's wild.
piratica108
Science sorta has a few vague answers but they're hard to understand, because you have to drop a lot of natural assumptions about the world
scabab
You mean the big bang?
Goodwolf
Given that more people ID as religious than not, and the US is a scientific superpower, can we *please* stop implying that all religious>>
TheMIseQguy
The good things is that's is changing the last poll number show there has been increase in people who Id as none and decrease in religion
Ciffer
Why was this downvoted, this is great news
Goodwolf
people want to put us back in grass huts and replace surgeons with priests?
scabab
Thats not what they want, but thats what theyll get if they carry on the way theyre going
piratica108
It's not about what they want to do, it's more about what the ideas of religion stand in the way of; the wisdom and progression of society.
Goodwolf
I'm not even religious, I just get tired of evangelical atheists ramming their lack of belief down other people's throats.
CitizenDickbag
How is atheism "rammed down other people's throats?" I mean, atheists aren't the ones trying to make laws adhere to their beliefs...
DishonoredUser
Firstly, that's not a correct use of 'evangelical'. Secondly, the post attacks Creationism, not all Christianity. Don't ignore truth.
malexmatt
To what end?
DishonoredUser
To what end? Can you elaborate on that?
Goodwolf
Fine. Does proselytizing work for you?
whyteraven74
Except we're not as much of a scientific superpower as we could be if we didn't have so many people badmouthing science *points to Congress*
Goodwolf
Although I do agree we could do with a few more scientifically literate people who are in power to decide legislation.
Goodwolf
Specious logic. Religion!= scientific slowdown. Do you honestly think no scientist is or has been religious?
piratica108
Alright stop using absolute logic. No one implied religion wants us in "grass huts", and no one implied that scientists are never religious
StandardDeviant
But scientific/logical thought is the opposite of religious thought. The basic premise of all religion is to believe without evidence.
whyteraven74
That's not the point, the point is we have a lot of people bad mouth science cause it appeals to them and others. And religion is a factor
Goodwolf
And we have a lot of people who happen to believe in *something* who work very hard to advance knowledge. So far, they're winning.
HypnotoadIRL
No, but it is religious people saying theories are basically guesses and stuff like that making science a straw man.
Goodwolf
But they're not a majority, are they? And technically, theories *are* guesses. They're just really good ones that produce consistent>>
Bushpig
I would say it was a language issue. if you have evidence, stop calling it a theory.
HypnotoadIRL
Or learn the language and read the definition of a scientific theory.
Goodwolf
and predictable results. That's straight out of my critical thinking class, by the way.
HypnotoadIRL
you know what I mean by guesses.... Never said they were a majority did I? Doesnt make it ok.
ETomAdzo
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why can't we believe that we are discovering the rules rather be tHan remain ignorant ?
skitchmusic
You can, but as an explanation, 'God' is pragmatically useless, esp. if it can't lead us to making testable predictions about reality.
GiveMeUpvotesIfMyUsernameCouldBeBetter
I go to a Catholic school and in theology class, a debate between religious and non-religious revealed that science is truth but that (1/2)
GiveMeUpvotesIfMyUsernameCouldBeBetter
(2/2)doesn't necessarily make God untruth. Obviously the earth is billions of years old. The question asked is what a year is for God.
Jamblesquack
My thoughts exactly.
grumplestiltzkin
Why assume that there's any god in the first place?
Exsul
In the middle ages, we did. That is why so many universities were started by the catholic church; however, in the Renaissance, 1/2
Exsul
Protestants began to state that the Catholic church was against science. This was due to a few instances where, 2/3
Exsul
in order to preserve their power, the church banned some scientific findings that would invalidate some preconceived notions about 3/4
Exsul
the universe which made the "god made everything about us" theory. Eventually, this led to a stigma forming which stated that 4/5
Exsul
Catholics were anti-science. Ironically enough, Protestant-majority America has more Protestant sects against science than Catholics today.
doctorwhoovesandtheMexicansatellite
Exactly
HypersonicHarpist
"The first sip from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting." -W. Heisenberg
GradiustheFox
If we ever do literally find God, I like to think he'll be waiting with a stopwatch."Hey, nice! Everyone before you took twice that long."
alyxandar
Exactly! If he's so all damn powerful, why couldn't he have created evolution!
heyguysimtom
I'm religious and this is exactly what I think. Exactly.
indigorush101
Many important scientists were Christians. For some, that motivated their thirst for learning more about God's Creation. That's why (1)
indigorush101
...it seriously bothers me that Creationism is automatically equated to stupidity or naivety. I'm a Christian and science and astronomy (2)
indigorush101
...interests me so much. It's like... "God made that. Don't you wanna learn more about it?" "HECK YEAH I WANNA KNOW ABOUT IT." (3/3)
indigorush101
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands." - Psalm 19:1
ineptimgurian
I like this I'm gonna steal that from you. Thanks! Don't worry I'll always credit ETomAdzo to anyone I say that to.
operationcwal
Because of multiple interpretations from the Bible. Many do not like it when what they've been indoctrinated in was proven to be false.
probablywhyidonthaveanyfriends
Check out Hume's trilemma. It talks about exactly that
RabidHobo
If god does not exist, then what would we make of efforts and decisions made based purely on speculations of the existence of a god or gods?
ThanatosElNyx
IF God is Omnipotent, and IF God is omniscient, and IF God exists... those are some pretty big IFs.
HypnotoadIRL
Problem is that with occams razor it is not a very good reason.
SuperToughPinkPuff
I disagree. "Simplest solution" and "easiest solution" can be quite different things.
aCoolBreezeOnAHotSummerDay
Just wrote a very similar comment! We could be doing just that - study of physics could be the study of God's scientific laws!
ZombieBagel
I think many people are afraid to read Bible passages metaphorically when they were taught them as literal truths. But what do I know, 1/2
ZombieBagel
I'm an atheist. I, too, think that would be a reasonable and responsible way to reconcile science and religion, though.
BitchNiggerWuuut
believe what you like
ibextrainer
Wasnt this an idea that was fairly common among most of the enlightenment naturalists?
RoomTemperatureCoffee
That is basically what Galileo said.
Patches3000
I feel as if most religious doctrines directly contradict science. To say otherwise is to cherry pick the bible. Down vote me idc.
ToastedVanilla
That is actually what Jews believe. That's why Jews don't really fight evolution, they just say that time in the bible worked differently.
felicia86
I 100% believe science is a gift from God.
theyak
science is the library of knowledge written from human labor, it can't be a gift from god, none of it was ever given to us
MerlinMan73
While I agree with your general thought, I tend to define science as a process, specifically of observation.
thetonestarr
Young-Earth Creationism is the specific problem here. There are other subtypes of Creationism, to include Evolutionary Creationism, etc.
thetonestarr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Types_of_creationism themoreyouknow.gif
dsvstheworld1
Because when we see that it's all fairy tails the church industrial complex will lose power and money.
SondreTy
Bible
peppyhare15
In my beliefs science and religion are telling two sides of the same story.
Vosian
Because that would be easy and logical. We can't have that. It's better to remain offended at simple laws of nature, like Tumblrinas.
sowetoninja
^this is actually the driving force behind many religious scientists,& why they're so good at it & practice science&reporting with less bias
sowetoninja
to be devoted to something on a religious level creates an amazing work ethic& people are less inclined to skew results&support open source
TheMrPendragon
As a Christian, the real issue is that most Christians take the Bible literally in every sense possible. That's not how it's meant.
minecraftbeck19
If it's not meant that way why is it written that way?
skitchmusic
There are areas of study which will indicate that aspects of the Bible are in different, non-literal, genres of writing.
michealikruhara0110
Because I'm stupid and can't wrap my mind around evolution over millions of years, so it didn't happen.
o11c
mumble mumble "having eyes, see not; having ears, hear not".
RabbiShmuley
This would suppose using logic and reasoning in religion. Two concepts they are not too comfortable with.
sevalecan
Agreed. Science is generally a good predictor of how things were or will be, but I don't ignore the possibility that something existing 1/2
sevalecan
beyond it that can violate its rules at will, like those billions of planets and galaxies out there exist whether or not we see them. 2/2
tefftlon
This is kinda how I see it
minabear
I don't think this is about that. I think Bill Nye is talking about the "evolution didn't happen" believers.
triculious
You cannot discuss with zealots. Logic has gone out of the window a long time ago.
[deleted]
[deleted]
thisnameisntfunny
I'm pretty sure you just made up an opinion, attributed it to Bill Nye, then criticized him for it.
RenegadeTQ
I'm not the OP, merely responding to the alleged quote.
thisnameisntfunny
You responded by making up that Bill Nye believes science and religion cannot coexist. Creationism is not the same as All Religion
RenegadeTQ
Most religions believe in some form of Creationism so yes, if this were his quote he'd be saying just that.
HypnotoadIRL
he said that? weird. You must be looking at a different picture than me. My pictures says creationists which goes against science completely
RenegadeTQ
Google Creationism. All Christians are Creationists. Now if he said Young Earth Creationism that's different.
HypnotoadIRL
either way, science is about proving things with evidence. Religion is the opposite of that. hard to see how they could work together well.
RenegadeTQ
You believe God or some deity created all things and the laws of the universe. Science merely examines those laws. There you go: coexixtence
terbril
Not all Christians are creationists. Just like not all Christians believe in the utter crap of "rapture" or "tribulation" or "end times".
RenegadeTQ
Those are kind of necessary to being Christian. You must be thinking of general spiritualism or something.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Potatospotatoa
What if the universe was basically like a giant Lego set God made as an 8 year old, and the reason we don't have many more
Potatospotatoa
Miracles of divine stuff happening is because he grew up and got a life
skitchmusic
It's a consequence of statements regarding God in the Bible. Igtheism maintains the stance that people assume too much about God upfront.
IKilledKennyAndIAmABastard
When I was a Christian I thought god was logical and that science was how we discovered his logic.
Xrow
As a Christian who loves science, this is the right outlook to have. Who are we to decide what is/isn't right for God? Evolution included.
thecolonels
So believe something with no evidence? That is unscientific. Don't say "God can't exist" say "Lets wait till we find out"
SimonCharles
People tell themselves all kinds of crap to sleep better at night
chris11291
http://imgur.com/wNYqe9W
MerlinMan73
Dude. Jewish literacy was at an all time high at the time. And it clearly made an impact. That argument is flawed.
thisnameisntfunny
Many scientists identify themselves as religious, or at least spiritual for exactly this reason.
WhiteGuiltMilkToast
But among the highest groups in science, most are Atheist/Agnostic.
rootwo
I like that explanation :)
thegelatoking
So perfect
itslikeforgettingthewordstoyourfavoritesong
Influenced by their environments. A belief in creation is instilled in so many children. If Bill were helping children, he'd understand that
carrickbender5150
As a Christian, this is exactly how I look at it. I hope we meet some day so I can buy you a beer.
ThatOneIndustrialElectrician
The people who believe bullshit like how all science is evil and shit like that are just the loud ones. You can ignore them
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
Except these people find their way into extremely important positions sometimes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEWuBrkHc (1)
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
(2) that guys was chairman in the Committee on SCIENCE and Technology in the US house of representatives. That's fucking terrifying.
Alsenoth
Mormon here. DEFINITELY see it this way. Without a doubt. Many of our Church leaders have been well known scientists, as well.
PlutoForPresident2016
*Steve Buscemi voice* How do you do, my fellow Mormon? Seriously, though - science is great. Hugh B. Brown once said, "There are two 1/2
PlutoForPresident2016
2/2 records of how the earth was formed: One written in the scriptures, and one written in the rocks. Though they seem to contradict on some
PlutoForPresident2016
3/2 points, they have the same author."
SmackTubby
Ditto
AynCantStopThinkingAboutYew
You guys believe indians are brown israelites that killed the white israelites and were cursed to no longer have white skin.
collinhead
Same. Was about to say something similar. I have been pretty annoyed with all the anti science AND anti religion going around lately.
collinhead
Why_not_both.jpg
itslikeforgettingthewordstoyourfavoritesong
As an athiest child of a Christian marriage, I'm going to say that even this line is a little too harsh. Unfortunately, children are 1/2
Proxy24
A bloody Jesuit priest came up with the Big Bang theory, only small sects are actually anti-science
MerlinMan73
Well to be fair, being a theory, it's not science. Science is observation, not ideas or even definite truth. Just the process for deducing.
skitchmusic
In order for something to be a Theory in science, that means that it not only has evidence supporting it, but it survives peer-review.
rehhausser
Teilhard de Chardin was also a Jesuit Priest, geologist and paleontologist. Studied the evolution of man.
HypnotoadIRL
A huge percentage of the US beleive the creation story and that the earth was made in 6 days. Way more than a small sect.
kittyprrrrl
Scientific findings into their beliefs. It's viewed by many as humans becoming closer to God. Don't asserts stats that you don't know. (4/4)
HypnotoadIRL
42% of the US beleive the bibles human creation from adam and eve. Even if 1% believed in 6 days that is way too many.
kittyprrrrl
There's a difference between believing in Adam and Eve and the creation story and literal six days. I believe in a scientific interpretation
kittyprrrrl
Orthodox Jews who believes in 6 days is very small. In order for religion to continue to exist, it's believers must incorporate (3/4)
afterdinneromelets
I think it's smaller than you realize. Most Christians aren't creationists- my dad went to Catholic school and was taught evolution by nuns.
BorneAloftOnWingsOfFire
Why can't it be six allegorical days? Why wouldn't a day to a being who made time not be billions of years to us?
[deleted]
[deleted]
BorneAloftOnWingsOfFire
The facts being billions of years. I didn't deny that....Dude I'm not even Christian
mrsmusica
That's what I've always believed. Also, when the Bible was being written, I doubt the humans had any concept of vast amounts of time.
HandsomeSwede
Huh? People back then knew tons of shit. Don't underestimate them.
skitchmusic
It can't be allegorical if you are dealing with those who assert Biblical inerrancy/literalism, such as Ken Ham.
mrsmusica
So they wrote day because it's what made sense to them.
BorneAloftOnWingsOfFire
I like the way you think confusitcateandbebother
rectalprolapse
in Genesis, the form was "yom," which means a literal 24-hour day. The original writer wanted us to know that it was exactly one day. 2/2
rectalprolapse
Not necessarily. The Bible uses multiple variations of "day" in Hebrew, meaning 24 hours or an unspecified period of time. HOWEVER, 1/2
ImAGoodPersonISwear
In the bible it does say that a day for us is not the same time for God.
rectalprolapse
The Bible uses multiple variations of the word "day" in Hebrew. Some mean 24 hours. Some mean an unspecified period of time. HOWEVER, 1/2
rectalprolapse
in Genesis, the form was "yom," which means a literal 24-hour day. The original writer wanted us to know that it was exactly one day. 2/2
kittyprrrrl
That's not true. It is not a "huge percentage" that believe in literal 6 days. It's SOME (not all) Christian evangelicals. That group (1/2)
ImperatorAugustus
I think 42% is a huge percentage.
KnucleheadFlow
Its a bit more complicated than that. Its not 42% that are 100% certain it's 100% literal truth in Genesis, it was more in the teens. Still.
yannyboy100
my interpretation of the six days thing has always been, six days to God, what kind of time would that be to humans?
synthetichug
Oh yay we've made it to interpretations! When do we get to the part about context?
ImperatorAugustus
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
kittyprrrrl
There's a diff bw Adam and Eve and 6 literal days. There's also a diff bw a literal Adam and Eve and a scientific interpretation of them
chrisazy
One of your comments is missing o.O But yes, this.
hailthefish
Young Earth Creationism is retarded bullshit from a theological perspective, too. You don't have to be an atheist to accept science.
GoddamnitClown
But flip it round and you'll find very few atheist creationists :P
Owensey
That would be because that doesn't make any sense. Atheism is an absence of belief. Creationism requires a belief in a higher being.
MerlinMan73
I believe that God created the earth, I don't believe it had to be six days, I don't believe evolution is proven. I do believe in my (1/2)
MerlinMan73
experiences in life and I've come to the conclusion that I was made by a loving God. Evolution is not science; science is just (2/3)
MerlinMan73
observation. Much like reading is not writing. *I* have observed a God at work, so *I* believe. I'm glad this thread is... tolerant. (3/3)
BlueDan
Science is just observation? All right. Scientists observed the evolution, and proved it as a fact.
CirB
The problem is, that evolution _is_ proven scientifically. If you choose to believe (your choice of words) otherwise, it just means you're 1
CirB
refuting a fact with a fiction (that science is a matter of belief). This is the point of Bill Nye: fact is not a question of belief. 2/2
DanceWithMeLampy
I don't mean to be obtuse, but why is Young Earth Creationism retarded bullshit, theologically speaking? I'd just like some theological(1/2)
DanceWithMeLampy
backup for your viewpoint. I'd just like to hear your thoughts
sowetoninja
there's no backup needed,the one that makes the claim needs to back it up, right? So let Bill Nye show where the Bible says Earth is 6000y.o
sowetoninja
btw, YEC came from a monk's studies that was popularized out of context & it just spiraled out of control to get some sects that believe it
whyteraven74
Because by taking Genesis as literal you toss out the moral lessons it gives, which is why it exists.
PreachItSigard
Not to mention that taking the bible literal means you throw away a lot of sound science in favor of fundamentalism. Should be opposite.
rectalprolapse
That seems like a false dichotomy. Why can't it be taken literally and morally?
whyteraven74
Because it was never meant to be literal. That's why the Jews were ok with borrowing from other sources for it.
HypnotoadIRL
That's your opinion. Many would disagree. You don't know why it was written any more than anyone else.
whyteraven74
Genesis is a collection of stories of various origins, Jewish scholars were writing up the moral lessons way before Jesus showd up.
hailthefish
YEC is built around a strictly literal interpretation of the bible, rejecting the known history of the Christian faith and the process by >
hailthefish
which the composition of the Bible was decided and the way the books were transmitted through history, i.e. through fallible human beings >
hailthefish
in order to cling to some ridiculous shit. A notion that only really came to exist in the 18th century and only became widespread recently.
PiscinaDeLaMuerte
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, can he see why kids love cinnamon toast crunch
Potatospotatoa
God CAN believe it's not butter
TacoRocket
God DOES have Grey Poupon
PiscinaDeLaMuerte
no infomercials in heaven. "theres gotta be a better way", Yahweh
Zombraina
There's a Christian college in my town accredited for science, and my SO laughed and said that made no sense. I disagreed. I know some 1/2
[deleted]
[deleted]
sometimesiwonderwhatimdoingonhere
Why? What's wrong with pursuing music, psychology, teaching, philosophy, acting, or anything else at a Christian college?
[deleted]
[deleted]
sometimesiwonderwhatimdoingonhere
I honestly can't figure out what you meant by your statement. My question was an honest one.
Zombraina
Christians who love the sciences. Most just say that they're discovering how God made the universe.
Wuz314159
& that's rational. But they got there by ticking off a few more items the Bible says than other Christians.
fakebecauseidontwantpeopletoknow
What do you mean?
layduhlayduhlay
Maybe that Christians who are involved in the sciences understand the Bible to be less literal than Christians who are less educated?
AHNOLD
Thats true, my sister is Christian and she really knows her shit about biology, considering shes going to be a doctor.
liliputian7
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. Proverbs 25:2, bitches
Zombraina
Nice!
ToastyMozart
That's an amazing one.
Zephronias
+1
MerlinMan73
That's out of context, though. It means an issue, a scuffle, a kerfuffle between people. Not just an idea or thought or fact.
rectalprolapse
Agreed. A better passage would have been the ones about "creation pointing to God."
liliputian7
It's Proverbs. There is no literary context, so you'd have to go to a historical context, and I don't find your translation accurate.
captainikag
Think of it like this.Christianity assumes a belief to be true despite a complete lack of evidence. You might see why that's not scientific
sometimesiwonderwhatimdoingonhere
Some of the worlds most prominent scientists subscribe to the multiverse theory while no evidence supports that idea. Is that not scientific
schtomp
They don't "believe" it, they think that it is a possible explanation for some things that don't yet have a probable explanation.
schtomp
And that would immediately abandon that hypothesis in the face of contrary evidence. The same can't be said of religious belief.
captainikag
Really? Thank you @ghindman for saving time on this one
GilaMonsieur
more like, it's based on evidence which can't be reproduced (most of the human experience can't be reproduced in a laboratory)
captainikag
No, dreams and chemicals in your body that cause certain feelings are not evidence of any god, that includes yours.
GilaMonsieur
What a crude straw-man you have constructed, have fun playing with it.
afterdinneromelets
But not all Christians ignore science; they just believe in something that can't be empirically proven.
schtomp
Which is pretty much the definition of unscientific.
afterdinneromelets
Not exactly... it's just outside of science. They can coexist. Unscientific would be ignoring empirically evidence that God did not exist.
captainikag
Whether they like science or not, religion is inherently unscientific
qaaaaa
Unscientific? No. It operates completely outside of science. Faith, science, and logic are all compatible.
afterdinneromelets
I think it's something separate. It exists outside of science without necessarily contradicting it. As long as they don't mix, it's fine.
julialikesu
As a Christian, I believe in evolution. Science does not threaten my faith, it strengthens it. Science shows us a lot about God.
eggmuffin
That shows that you understand it. It is a powerful, beautiful thing, evolution. It only needs time, and time there's been plenty of.
lostnortherner
THIS THIS THIS
rectalprolapse
Macro-evolution is contradictory to the Biblical God, though. Unfortunately, you have to choose one or the other.
julialikesu
Not at all true. The book of Job says that God spread out the stars like a tent, but Genesis is a different account. God created the earth..
chrisinsocalif
Then please prove to me how science directly correlates with God. No assertions or assumptions please.
julialikesu
I can't do that in 140 characters and I can't make any statements about science without assertions or assumptions bc Science operates...
chrisinsocalif
No one has. Science is the best tool we have for understanding the world around us.
julialikesu
And, if you believe on God, Science gives a deeper understanding of the detail of God's creation.
ThatGuitarGuy
THANK YOU!!! I've felt this way for years.
OnionCutter
I'm so glad someone said this.
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
2 some catalyst before the nothing, something to make the nothing something. I call that catalyst God, and whether it is in the form
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
1 I look up into the night sky and into space and how obscenely huge it is, and how it all came from nothing, and I think damn, there had to
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
3 religions of Earth make that God out to be, or something yet to be understood, something had to start it all.
TiberiusIsACoolName
Well yeah, no one really believes in nothing, to be honest no one knows what happened before the big bang, if it was some immensely dense
TiberiusIsACoolName
Multidimensional particle, obviously we'd think something would have to come before or create it, so some logically jump to God, but then
TiberiusIsACoolName
Same process applies, something had to come before/create him and we're still left without an answer, I find the first to be more logical
csullivan
..like how a god isn't necessary?
julialikesu
Quite the opposite.
raywin
But, by negating the creation stories and genesis of humans, isn't the bible weakened as a reputable source of information?
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
No, silly! You just call the inconvenient bits symbolic!
KeatonTS
the bible is written, translated and rewritten by man for YEARS. It would be no surprise that info within it is partially flawed or entirely
Selalalalah
I studied up on the canonization of the Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran. I believe in God, and from what I have seen in my own life, I believe 1/2
Selalalalah
That He would put people in place to change and edit as necessary, whether they knew it or not
Selalalalah
Basically, God is bigger than anything people can do to Him.
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
2 written by man, and therefore fallible. I took a Bible study class where the Bible was viewed purely as a piece of literature, and
gid00
"all scripture is given by inspiration of God.. profitable for doctrine.. reproof, for correction.. instruction of righteousness" 2timothy3
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
1 I see the Bible as a book of parables, used to explain things to the people of the times in terms they would relate to. The Bible is also
Selalalalah
It's not a scientific text; however, I believe in a God who could actually create the world in 7 days. Did He? Idk, wasn't there. 1/2
Selalalalah
It *could* be literal (I believe God can do anything), but is most likely figurative.
julialikesu
Exactly what I'm saying.
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
3 studying it from that perspective gave me much more insight into the context and actually strengthened my faith as I could now understand
terbril
Some schools of thought (at least in Catholicism, dunno Protestantism) say the Bible is mostly for morality plays/parables, not information.
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
4 it as both a religious text and a piece of literature whose authors were aware of the concept of rhetoric.
raywin
So what about all the (I hope you would agree) silly shit in Leviticus? Those are pretty definite rules that some Christians cherry pick.
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
I agree they are silly shit indeed! The way my prof had us understand (from I can recall) is that those were rules set out specifically to
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
2 have the Hebrews distinguish themselves from anyone who was not one of God's chosen people, because at the time the religion was not
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
9 As for the Leviticus rules existing in the first place, I file that under man's fallibility and Bible author rhetoric, because the Bible
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
8 but if they openly hate anyone for anything that is deemed "sinful" they are going against the fundamental creed of their own religion.
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
7 the old testament. The creed of the New Testament is "Love them as you would love [Jesus]," so "Christians" can cherrypick all they want
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
5 "Do not do as they do in Egypt, etc." pretty much saying do not do as people who have not been chosen and who cannot be chosen.
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
4 so there was no longer need for distinction so the rules from Leviticus should no longer apply. The Leviticus rules always start out
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
3 something one could really convert to. Christianity, however, was stated to be all-welcoming that anyone could follow to find "the way"
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
6 Christianity has no need for these distinctions because it is a religion open for anyone to join. So as I see it Leviticus went out with
MyLuggageAteMyHomework
10 was most certainly used as both a religious text and a political and social tool to manipulate people.
crazycakelady
As a theology student i can say that Genre is quite often neglected when studying the bible. Alot of scholars would agree that the genre of
crazycakelady
the creation story is that of Poetry and the rest of Genesis is in historical narative. So it would be expected that the creation story be
crazycakelady
viewed in a less concrete fashion that the rest of genesis.
gizarziza
i am an atheist and i see this as a great outlook on science from a religious perspective. why not view science as a gift from god?
awwyis
now your thinking with Catholicism... er... portals
StandardDeviant
Because the basis of religious thought is to blindly accept dogma instead of thinking logically for one's own.
freezepopsaregood
I'm very proud of science and religion being talked about so maturely. Congratulations on you guys for being literate and intelligent
Labinnac
I do. Im a hindu and it said Brahman is the knower and the known. This tells me to seek knowledge is to seek God.
FelixG
As a fairly agnostic person this is my outlook.
vermiculus
I do not […] believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use […] –Galilei
PeanutBruddah
Exactly, I'm not sure what if call myself but I do believe in God and believe science is just apart of it. What the hell says (1/2)
PeanutBruddah
Evolution and everything else can't exist along side? Science is wonderful and we need to embrace that shit.
Missingsock
I am a Christian. I am also fascinated with evolution and science in general. This is my exact viewpoint! Thank you#
SaphireDragonRider
Science explains how, but not why. Religion explains why, but not how. This is how I (Roman-Catholic) see it
UberWagen
We do. Or at least, I do.
motorwaffle
We were given the capacity to understand how God's creation functions. It would be a crime not to use it.
DualSupernova
I think it's because many passages in the bible do not agree with logical thinking.. If you think scientifically, you question the bible..
[deleted]
[deleted]
pushedtothemax
This just seems like a mock to God's power that he was only good enough to make humans, that we can make. Ourselves bettr
HypnotoadIRL
why would a god take millions of years of evolution to have humans be the end state? And at what point did an ape become human enough 1/2
theyak
hundreds of millions of years of terror and suffering, so that this miserable race can exist and continue the aforementioned
HypnotoadIRL
to get a soul? 2/2
gizarziza
THANK YOU for being rational
BitchNiggerWuuut
knowing is
GrabbinSince05
Science is Satan's magic! Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are pawns of the devil!
gizarziza
heyzeus will lead us to salvation! burn your books! shut off your electricity!
KillerGymSox
I believe that the author of the bible and rock are one in the same.. and I am mormon if that matters.
kenetiket
The problem I think is that science forces religion to change the rules god made and that would mean gods wrong
HiveinMind
The argument can even be said in reverse. Religion forces science to change the rules and that would mean science is wrong.
GrandTheftManual
Interesting point, could you elaborate( if possible)
HiveinMind
A scientist changing the rules based on something religious they believed in. All about perspective.
gizarziza
but we change god's rules all the time. there are very few people who follow the bible literally and they aren't on imgur.
delightfulanny
Maybe it didn't mean that God is wrong, but that we misunderstood the first time
Tiskel
This leads to sects and religious wars. Most rifts are caused by such differing 'understandings' of folk stories and oral traditions.
gormtheoldthesleepyofdenmark
What if we just read Genesis wrong and he six days were the days God TOLD the story, not days of creation?
FirstArchetype
As a Christian who loves science, I believe it Is important to acknowledge truth in science and cross reference the findings with my beliefs
yousuckGina
As a Christian, I see science as the tool God gave us to help us understand Creation and the universe around us. Why throw it away?!
JordanBFrye
I'm very disappointed that Bill makes a point to debate this. Yes, it's important, but it's not as big a problem as it seems.
gizarziza
i agree. i think the proportion of people who really think that way is so small that it doesn't matter. annoying, but negligible.
JordanBFrye
I was raised Baptist. Our Schism during the late 90s/2000s between fundamentalist and moderate theology was terrible, and we always 1/2
JordanBFrye
Assumed that the fundamentalists won. There were a lot more moderates left when the dust settled. Turns out they were just louder. 2/2
theyak
it is when you have state governments discrediting evolution and trying to state-sanction creationism in schools
RabbiShmuley
I too do not subscribe to any religion. I agree. Think of understanding science as getting inside gods head and figuring out what he did.
samsonguy920
I like you. Though I tend to more see it as the choice humans live with choosing knowledge instead of bliss back in Eden. Some people sadly>
samsonguy920
2> overlook that, expecting God to deal with their problems, when we are already on the more challenging path of learning about the >
samsonguy920
3> universe he has given us.
gsaberrealisticcombat
I could kiss you
JordanBFrye
In the Garden, one of the first things that Adam did was name the beasts. That's discovery. That's the beautiful fucking nature of humans.
[deleted]
[deleted]
JordanBFrye
I don't believe it's literal. Origin stories represent the values held by the people who created them. It's just silly if taken literally.
skitchmusic
While a nice interpretation, if I'm not mistaken, this is based on the 2nd creation story in Genesis, as opposed to the 1st one.
itsamazing
majority do. Seriously this weird anti-science shit is just a tiny fringe movement, sincerely a christian evolutionary anthropologist
szepasszony
42% of Americans is not exactly a tiny fringe movement. http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
itsamazing
more than 2.1 billion christians in the world and I've only met anti-science people in the US up until a few years ago. It's a tiny movement
szepasszony
You realize that a Gallup poll (Pew research shows similar #s)is a more accurate representation of America than 'people you've met',right?
BorneAloftOnWingsOfFire
That's what I do. Biology is my how, God is my why
YamatoIouko
As a religious scientist, this is exactly how I feel about it.
thepopesdaughter
I extremely little knowledge of religious scientists, but you guys don't go to the doctor, right? Why reject that part of science?
TharrickLawson
I think you're confusing the 'Christian Scientist' denomination with just scientists who are religious :P
thepopesdaughter
Woops! You're so right. I'm not all here atm :p
YamatoIouko
....a scientist who is religious. You nincompoop.
thepopesdaughter
Yeah I mistook it for something else, but I was corrected and I have now been made un-confused :p
ISOMETIMESWRITEINCAPS
As a Christian, my beliefs are a mix of creationism and science. There's evidence that creationism by itself is wrong, and it's not 1/?
ISOMETIMESWRITEINCAPS
2/? stated directly in the Bible that the events of Genesis take place 6k years ago. Therefore I think that the "days" that Genesis uses
skitchmusic
The 6k-10k years figure is derived from using genealogies presented for Jesus, then extrapolating back from there, from what I've read on it
ISOMETIMESWRITEINCAPS
Sometimes science fucks up. In this case, this is definitely the case.
ISOMETIMESWRITEINCAPS
3/? is meant as a figurative rather than a literal. God is a timeless being, so a day to Him is multiple lifetimes to us, and vice-versa.
ISOMETIMESWRITEINCAPS
Erm, 3/3.
skitchmusic
The problem is that there are folks, like Ken Ham, who assert that the days MUST be literal to maintain an 'honest' Biblical interpretation.
Hellomynameisgeorgeandimadeyoureadthisusernamehahaha
As a christian, science is the existence of God. Those creationists are fools. If they believe "6,000 years young theory" then screw it.
vermiculus
Gee, thanks.
Spice00002
I hear a lot of people using Ps. 90:4 as reason that earth is young. The passage isn't meant to be specific. It's saying that God --1/2--
Hellomynameisgeorgeandimadeyoureadthisusernamehahaha
Fundamentalist christians take everything literal. There are some parts to be taken literally and others figuratively/metaphorically.
Spice00002
does not adhere to the concept of time. Therefore, the 6 "days" he created the universe could literally be billions of years.
SugarPants
During the time he was creating the universe, there would have been no real concept of 'day' anyway, because the sun didn't exist yet.
WhimsicalCalamari
...but Psalms is literally just an ancient hymnal.
Spice00002
There's also a verse that was basically Peter quoting this verse. Still the same meaning.
theyak
science is the collaborative labor of human reason, it fundamentally cannot be a gift from god
qaaaaa
In most belief systems, reason is a gift from G-d or a higher power.
pastorsamuel85
Well I believe that was an older view like around the Middle Ages. Religion was the why and science was the how. I mean that's how I see it
YamatoIouko
That's how some of us still see it.
pastorsamuel85
Good to know we have good company with it, eh?
YamatoIouko
Well, I'm a physicist, so it's either this outlook or atheism, and...well, I like God, personally. XD
iamthedoctorthisismytardis
As a non-stupid Christian, that is exactly what I think. Part of the mystery of life he gave me was figuring out this crazy universe.
DontYouHateWhenAllUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken
Then why believe in god in the first place? Start from a clean slate.
theyak
Don't you think he could have given us tips to figure out all of those horrible things we've solved and have yet to solve
SchrodingersGinger
Maybe he did, but you know, minimum of 10k years and thousands of rewrites, edits, and translations tend to obscure useful information.
iamthedoctorthisismytardis
Human curiosity and free will. Has gotten us to where we are today.
Thellluminati
I think 90% of Christians think this, that science and religion are in unison. There's just a few very loud people that don't.
AdmiralRaven
There are always going to be the loud stupid minority of every single group.
ElusiveEnt
Indeed, and unfortunately it seems to be the case with most groups/ideas. Science and faith should be parallel not perpendicular or skewed.
BitchNiggerWuuut
+1
[deleted]
[deleted]
LadyMcCormick
*agnostic
OhGodImHorribleAtNames
That's the case with most every group, and sadly the loud few are used as a image.
ButtAmbassador
And unfortunately, it's the loud ones that give a bad name to the rest of them.
ThrowAway44445555
Exactly my mind set. It's very comforting to find that both Atheists and other Christians agree.
KayEhn
SO VERY TRUE, I hate all the atheists that see the 5 that don't think so and hate all of us. Science was started by Christianity.
GoodChange
Depending on how you define science it may or may not have been started by a christian, By no definition was it started by christianity.
TheSqeeek
Tbh as a religuos person, I have a hard time finding anyone that agrees around here :(
szepasszony
Why would the Bible contain so many scientific inaccuracies then? (serious question)
rectalprolapse
The problem, for Christians, is when you let science trump religion. That's what macro-evolution is.
KeatonTS
it's definitely less than 90%. Most people would believe god is sitting in the clouds handing out gift baskets and hand holding you. (1)
KeatonTS
one would think when god says "Heaven" would be in space. If he created all of that, what makes earth so special to host "heaven"?
CanadiansWilllRule
As a Muslim, this is exactly what my sect believes in!
iamthedoctorthisismytardis
I just got done with a Muslim event at work. Was really interesting to listen to a different religion's doctrines.
MetaphoricalFox
As a non-reigious Christian, I beieve tat is THE ENTIRE point of life: figuring things out. once you are done, you go back. the end.
viperbunny
Er... No. That's not the point... The point is to become more like Christ. Hence Christian.
handsomecs
I'm curious as to what you mean by non-religious christian, I've honestly just never heard of that.
MetaphoricalFox
I was just too lazy to express that I hardly practice anything related to the cult these days.
TorSverre
Then what do you do when science disagrees with your religious teachings? Because unlike science, religion doesn't adapt to new knowledge.
iamthedoctorthisismytardis
You are assuming that science disagrees with my beliefs. And religion does adapt to new knowledge, though usually kicking and screaming.
TorSverre
Okay, then I guess you're some other type of Christian than what I was picturing; the type who believes in God, miracles, the bible...
freyjaboo
Luckily this argument doesn't matter in Christianity
TheVRay
That is also what Charles Darwin believed; evolution is a tool used by God to create different creatures.
vowofloudness
Just curious, do you believe in Hell?
iamthedoctorthisismytardis
I do believe there is a place without God, a dark place, that sees no light and in which the soul is crushed. Whether that place is all 1/2
iamthedoctorthisismytardis
fire and demons and torture.....not as sure about all that. 2/2
vowofloudness
And if a person dies believing without believing that the bible is true, they are doomed to have their soul crused for all eternity?
KeatonTS
see it as a scare tactic man has written in the bible to force people to abide by the "rules"
AlCo94
Have you read 'the great divorce' by c.s. Lewis? Really interesting take on heaven/he'll, Inc; nooone goes to he'll that doesn't want to...
vowofloudness
Haven't read it but I'm interested. That view isn't consistent with most Christian churches though is it?
gizarziza
exactly. these creationist kooks are the same ones that pray instead of taking going to the doctor. use what the god lord gave you!
viperbunny
Uh tell that to the medicine majors at Christian colleges, missionary doctors, and all the other creationist medical professionals...
iamthedoctorthisismytardis
Esp that damn brain!
almostsomething182
A great brain capable of abstract thought, able to overcome any hardship we find in our way. It's incredible what we can do. :)
mrlemonbarz
Some people assume that being a christain means you believe in Ken Ham's creationism, which isnt true. But its awesome seeing two people1/2
InboxMeYourOods
....some Christians do...
mrlemonbarz
from opposing relgious views agreeing and being friendly to each other. Warms my heart and gives me hope
RaidRover
God is the truth. Science is the pursuit of the truth. Science is really just searching for God, even if we don't know it.
Bobloblawlawblogblogslaw
You are starting with an already defined conclusion though. That isn't how science works.
CirB
Exactly. It's why this statement isn't for me, but if someone finds solace in it, I won't challenge it.
Blanxmarx
Truth is, we don't know what the truth is.
Tiskel
The problem is that this isn't why science was created, nor is it really compatible.Science isn't a search for anything but knowledge.
vermiculus
IOW, it's the search for the *true* interpreted model of reality from our observations and study.
Tiskel
no, it's the search for the currently *consistent* theory that explains the evidence. Individuals may search for 'truth', but not science.
djzapz
That is a very manipulative argument IMO. Appeals to emotion, disregards actual definition of God. It just sounds nice.
djzapz
There are plenty of arguments for intellectually honest Christians on this post and (especially) elsewhere. This is not one of them.
BitchNiggerWuuut
yes. there is truth for the mind. There is truth for the heart. Some truth for both.
HypnotoadIRL
How do you know this?
SugarPants
It's not a question of knowledge, it's a question of belief.
HypnotoadIRL
Then dont state it likes it a fact.
KharnApproves
I feel like if we discuss this particular theme enough, we're going to end up writing the plot to Contact.
gizarziza
that's a beautiful way to look at it. i may be a skeptic, but if at the end of my search for truth i find god, i am open to that.
krauraurgg
I think that's how most non-religious people see it. It's not rejecting God, merely saying current evidence is insufficient to believe.
KeatonTS
It would answer a lot. Like what created the big bang, why are these conditions so perfect for life. Someone or thing has to be behind it.
KeatonTS
and it would be amazing to meet such a being, the only question would be what created it. and before that. so perplexing.
docileirish
Well said
chrisinsocalif
We should not use GOD as a convenient informational gap filler. No scientific models need a GOD. We should focus on that we do know.
ohmywordddddddddd
And yet we still strive to figure out the unknown
chrisinsocalif
Yes, but don't fill the unknown with fantasy and we can progress faster.
MetalJesus
A lot of people forget that many scientific discoveries were religiously motivated by people actively seeking to understand God.
MRWIRealiseYouCanChangeUsernames
IMO it simplifies down to either God created everything out of nothing, or nothing created everything out of nothing.
MRWIRealiseYouCanChangeUsernames
That's how I explain my reasons for being agnostic if I don't want to get into a lengthy heated discussion
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
Agnosticism isn't an alternative to theism or atheism, anyone with a shred of intellect should recognize they COULD be wrong.
skitchmusic
As a side note, to say anyone can create anything from 'nothing' is exceedingly incomprehensible with regards to causality.
skitchmusic
In some areas of theoretical physics, the inevitable consequence of nothing is the 'creation' of a universe.
V1K1NGFVNERAL
"Nothing created everything out of nothing," said no science book ever.
CitizenDickbag
Who says there was ever "nothing"? Who says "nothing" is even a possibility?
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
Putting god at the start of absolute origins doesn't help, you don't get to pass on explaining where god comes from.
arminillo
But then you have an infinite loop. Also it is just as hard if not harder to come up with how nothing creates everything imo
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
Right, I'm just saying that inserting god at the "start" doesn't help and isn't supported by any scientific evidence, so why do it?
MerlinMan73
That's assuming that it's an impersonal God that is irrelevant to individuals lives. But if one is a part of our lives, and some of (1/2)
MerlinMan73
The problem being that an infinity is required for anything. Something has to be infinite, because something had to be first. Sorry... IMO
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
absolute origins is something we can't comprehend, as has been the case with things far outside our realm of experience in the past, but (2)
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
Maybe. Time is a concept that's been turned on it's head before. Maybe "start" and "first" aren't even applicable. The paradox of (1)
AsABiologistWhoIsNotFunAtParties
to just call it god, and assume science will never reach a point of understanding, is a disservice to ourselves. (3/3)
MerlinMan73
Somewhere else in this string of comments I said why I think putting God into the equation is rational. I don't want science to stop! (1/?)
MerlinMan73
directly prove the existence of God. I believe that personal experience is what can prove that to an individual, and it's the individual 4/?
MerlinMan73
God cares about.5/5
MerlinMan73
I believe God created the universe, put the world in motion, that science does not prove evolution, but also in it's nature cannot (3/?)
MerlinMan73
I want science to continue... assuming we agree that science means "observation of facts." Maybe I should be clear on what I believe. (2/?)