Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

The ultimate rub is actually much of the general public's conclusion about who is being more honest. Just because Nye "indicated" that something can change his view doesn't automatically mean it's the truth. Evidence indicates that evolutionists are just as closed-minded as Christians about their beliefs, despite their assertions about their open-mindedness. There is a difference between assertions and actual demonstrations.Bill Nye's honesty further comes into question because of one his main assertions, his main recap about the whole science versus creationism debate - that young people's secular scientific education in the U.S. is so very important in keeping the U.S. from falling behind other countries when it comes to new innovations and discoveries. History should tell him that when new innovations and discoveries are made anywhere in the world, the entire world benefits. That he is so adamant about promoting secularism and downplaying Christianity makes one wonder if he has other interests besides promoting science. A search of his political beliefs reveals the answer - he's a flaming liberal! A big contributor to Democrat candidates campaigns, including Obama's. No wonder he's big on secular science "education", the phrase "endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights" probably really bothers him.Now a dozen posters here will sputter with rage at me, but just remember, it's not my fault that not everyone completely trusts scientism/atheism.

It's far more than just a case of the rest of the world buying something while the country of origination gets it for free. As one simple example, the "weedeater" was invented in the U.S., yet a good case could probably be made that the Japanese build better weedeaters today than does the U.S., and after 40 years since its invention, they don't have to pay one penny for the privilege.Ideas can be expounded upon, sometimes in ways having to do with less scientific knowledge and more of other factors, like the availability of certain or more plentiful natural resources etc. My point is that IMO Bill Nye overstates the importance of only U.S. innovation. But there are other factors - what are the trade-offs? 50 years ago, when science classes consisted of at least some more creationism and a lot less atheism, kids were bringing squirt guns, realistic-looking toy guns, and in some cases, real guns to school, and no one raised an eyebrow, and no one got shot. Today the U.S. spends countless millions of dollars dealing with the guns in schools issue. There is no morality in evolution/science. How much does that cost a society? That little blanket statement didn't address the common sense statement that I made. It's not like evolutionists don't feel threatened by honest, Godly men like Ken Ham.

True, adjustments are made providing they don't meaningfully threaten naturalism/atheism. Though it can sometimes take plenty of time - the Piltdown man hoax lasted for a full 40 years before being reluctantly exposed. It only took a few days or weeks before the book Darwin's Black Box and its author were demonized. It would have been nice if he'd have had 40 years trial time. There are many different denominations of Biblical literalists who have some different ideas about what the Bible says and how people should react to them. It doesn't have to be bought in the country of its origination too? (Percy is all excited about YOUR implication, and is blaming me for it - I love this place) Probably would - the U.S. props itself up on borrowed money from China as it is now anyway. Well, you're just now pointing them out, I'm sorry I couldn't have foreknowledge of what you were going to post. How honest are you in ignoring my point that Bill Nye has far left political opinions, and might not like the phrase "endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, and therefore might like atheism in science classes? You do a fair job of pretending you're from the U.S. but you're really not, are you? If you were, you'd know that what the little kid said is largely reality in the U.S. today, and a lot of people think it's good. It's only people who are educated in economics and liberty that know it's not sustainable.

Source? When humans are thought to have evolved by exactly the same process as animals, where is morality any kind of testable, falsifiable science? In a uniform, prescribed way? Tell me more. Let's see that evidence. Not just a few cherry picks, but uniform, prescribed ways that they are more moral, and the source from where they derive that morality. Lay those scenarios on me, and I'll consider them. I've never noticed them put fourth on forums such as these before.

Well then I stand corrected on the "no one got shot" statement of mine, but the rest is true. It has only been the recent, mass shootings in the U.S. schools that have inspired costly measures to try to prevent them from happening in the future, and unlike most of your examples that were the results of a single conflict, recent school massacres have involved shootings of people unknown to the shooter, where the shooter then takes their own life. Kind of like the shooter thought humans to be of no more importance than animals, that life is all just random chance. It's very simple, Christians generally admit that they have unchangeable beliefs, and atheists aren't honest in likewise admitting their own beliefs are unchangeable.

If it doesn't make much sense TO YOU, then maybe you're the one with the problem that needs to take "another shot" at something, such as reading it and the relevant posts about it again. When I'm facing a whole herd of atheists, I have more to do than drop back to sixth grade reading instruction to help you understand.

This kind of ridiculous question speaks volumes about the closed-mindedness and haughtiness of evolutionists. Education isn't the only thing that promotes innovation. A thing called liberty also figures prominently. It was the summary of his entire debate. Here's how he finished up;

quote:

---

...The process of science, the way we know nature, is the most compelling thing to me. I'd like to close by reminding everybody what's at stake here. If we abandon all that we've learned - our ancestors - what they've learned about nature and our place in it, if we abandon the process by which we know it, if we let go of everything people have learned before us, if we stop driving forward, looking for the next answer to the next question, we in the U.S. will be out-competed by other countries, other economies, now that would be okay I guess, but I was born here, I'm a patriot, and so we have to embrace science education, and to the voters and taxpayers who are watching, please keep that in mind, we have to keep science education in science / science classes.

---

Science is the only thing he's focused on, he seems oblivious to non-scientific things that "people have learned before us", like the threat of tyrants, the value of liberty. All the scientific education in the world does us no good if we're so oppressed by a "license, regulate, restrict, and prohibit" government of his beloved Democrats that we have no freedom to be able to "innovate" anything. He may know a lot about science, but he sure is illiterate about how his freedom to practice it came about, and how fragile it is if him and others in the U.S. don't get busy and learn something about it. Well that's a bad guess, because Spanish and Math specialists don't attempt to convince the public that society would be better if their favorite subject is used to trump and downplay the traditional values and morality of Christianity. They don't actually pose a threat to actual science, they pose a threat to atheism and liberalism.

They were less frequent, had less volume of innocent victims, and were more explainable in terms of a personal conflict.

Here's what you said in message 464;

quote:

---

True, when someone somewhere invents something then the whole world can buy it, but...

---

Your implication here, however slight, was that the "whole world" has a different.....access to an invention than the "somewhere" that it is invented. Further;

quote:

---

Bill Nye's (extremely obvious) point is that a country's quality of life depends upon its ability to compete with the rest of the world, and education is key to a country's competitiveness. The greater a county's flow of innovation the greater its wealth.

---

Now you mention a country's "wealth" as being beneficial to having innovations developed within, making your slight implication above even less slight. When your implications combine with Bill Nye's hysteria that the U.S. is doomed if innovations aren't home-grown, then I started off a point about how there is far more to the whole equation than just a well defined access issue, economic or otherwise. I started off with this sentence that has you so captivated;

quote:

---

It's far more than just a case of the rest of the world buying something while the country of origination gets it for free.

---

The words "FAR MORE" were the focus of what I was saying. (wow, this place is an exercise in word processing) NOW, we have two possibilities. 1) Either your reading comprehension is so basic that you genuinely didn't understand how my actual point followed the words "far more" or 2) you're using the standard atheist (WHOOPS, I mean evolutionist) tactics of understanding a good point, but going off down a largely irrelevant rabbit trail to try to frustrate someone who doesn't share your worldview. To compliment your actual reading comprehension, I suspect it's number 2. It doesn't have to be directly stated to be strongly implied. Bill Nye is clearly a one-subject guy, his entire presentation was about science and nothing else. Not when a particular liberty clashes with the moral beliefs of the majority of people in a society where they have a political voice. I was thinking more about things like nuclear power, genetically modified foods, alternative energies, just a few examples of things that the political party he donates his money to strongly opposes. Oh, and the fourth amendment too, something that the president he donated his money to is now being (quite legitimately) sued by a senator for flagrantly violating. I wonder if he thinks there can be more innovation when innovators have to succumb to an increasingly heavy hand of government regulation, and/or the redistribution of the wealth that innovators generate. He never said anything else! He mentioned what our ancestors learned, that he was born here, that he was a patriot, then made a bee-line to ONLY innovation that comes from science. What he promotes as important competes with other things that are important. He promotes science to a level that reduces other important things to almost nothingness. Some people swallow this politically correct mantra because it's said over and over and over and over again in almost every scientific venue out there, but that doesn't mean it's still not laughable to many people. There's plenty of evidence for it right here on earth. Yes, I know, you're perfectly neutral. Good luck with that.

I agree with that, the reason being that even non-theists were created by God. If you don't agree, where do you think non-theists get their morals? The same evolutionary process that DID NOT give any morals to animals?Here is the best statement on your link about prisoners beliefs;

quote:

---

Atheists *might* constitute a larger percentage of prisoners than we previously thought but we really have no idea:

---

How anyone seriously thinks prisoners can be trusted to answer questions truthfully is beyond me. Doesn't it make sense that prisoners are going to claim to be Christian in hopes of getting off easier because of it? That many of them could be skilled enough to fake out the chaplains that contribute to these findings?