Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?

[LanDroid]

There is a large collection of evidence here; let us know when you're done reading it.
http://talkorigins.org/

[BarryW55]

There is a large collection of evidence here; let us know when you're done reading it.
http://talkorigins.org/

As soon as you get through reading all this.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

[Chris OConnor]

I have however debated MANY evolutionists...

How can you debate against a topic you don't understand?

[BarryW55]

I have however debated MANY evolutionists...

How can you debate against a topic you don't understand?

I didn't say I didn't understand it. I said I didn't believe it. Macro-evolution is an impossibility. Micro? Probably. I have no problem with slight variations within a species to adapt to its environment but for a whole species to evolve into another one takes more faith to believe than the faith of a mustard seed to believe in God. When it all boils down to it, evolution is just the idea that we evolved from lower life forms. That in itself is ridiculous and the majestic gorillas of the African highlands take great offense.

[Chris OConnor]

If you understand evolution you must have done some reading on the topic. What books have you read?

[Chris OConnor]

Or at least give me the online sources where you have learned about evolution please. Your knowledge came from some source. What was the source?

[BarryW55]

Or at least give me the online sources where you have learned about evolution please. Your knowledge came from some source. What was the source?

What is so important about the source? Let's just say years, and I'm not some young pup but I am not a senile old dog either, years of listening and years of research into what I was listening to evolutionists say. Evolution, in a nutshell, is not rocket science. I understand that some say that biology and evolution is necessary for medicine and surgery. Ancient Egyptians performed brain surgery. I mean WAY before Anno Domini. Was evolution crucial then to surgery? I would bet not since there was spiritual activity connected. And, let's be a little more forthcoming. You want sources so you can try to debunk them, or to belittle someone's credentials. Evolution is hardly new, it just took Darwin to kind of lend "scientific' credentials to it.

[Chris OConnor]

Ah, so you haven't read any books on evolution but you know it to be untrue.

...years of listening and years of research into what I was listening to evolutionists say

Did you listen to them speak in person or in YouTube videos? What videos? Please post a few links.

So you've done research? Excellent. What sources did you use for this research? What was the nature of this research? Please explain how you went about conducting the research without cracking open a book on evolutionary theory.

[Interbane]

See? You have faith in the environment, the environment is your god.

That doesn't make sense. Do you mean I have faith I'll be rained upon at some point? The environment doesn't produce conclusions. Humans do. I don't have faith in the conclusions of humans ex nihilo, but I trust conclusions if they were arrived at by proper method.

There is no evidence. We have gone from searching for the "missing link" to saying ALL fossils are transitional. Evolution, like climate change, is hardly settled science. It is not even a science. The theory of evolution originated not long after God created man and he promptly rebelled.

There's more evidence than you could possibly digest in your remaining years in support of evolution. If you don't know this to be true, you've been horribly mislead at some point in your life. No words will change your position, but you need to know you're wrong, beyond the shadow of a doubt. There are many hibernating threads on this topic in our archives that you're welcome to read through to catch up.

Mankind has been puttering around on earth for around 14 thousand years. We are still here. To think that WE, little ole fallible man, can destroy this earth is really naive at best.

What you're appealing to here aren't good reasons. Obviously, our "puttering" has increased exponentially, as has our population size. It is the opposite of naive. You have blinders on if you don't see that we're changing the environment for the worse.

According to you folks, the earth's atmosphere at one time had to be so clogged with CO2 that life as we know it could not have originated.

Really? Could you provide a source for that claim. I'd like to read the words of this expert who knows what conditions are impossible for any life, rather than just life as we know it.

CO2 levels have been higher in Earth's history. But correspondingly, the Earth's temperature was much higher, the weather much harsher, sea levels higher, etc. Thrusting us into such a dramatically different Earth would wipe out the majority of our population. No one here is arguing that fallible old man won't survive. Just that our numbers will be greatly reduced.

But that's a good thing in your holy book, right? Perhaps the difference between us is that we actually agree that the environment will change, yet we think it's a horrible thing that millions or billions will die, while you think it's a good thing. Please tell me that's not true.

Lone facts on a pulpit do nothing, which is why it's so easy to come to conclusions that are opposite the truth from a handful of true facts. You need a comprehensive set of facts and evidence, which you make clear you don't have.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human- ... ssions.htm

[geo]

There is a large collection of evidence here; let us know when you're done reading it.
http://talkorigins.org/

As soon as you get through reading all this.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

The obvious question here is why would you turn to a book of religion to learn about a scientific theory (or to even discuss it)? It makes no sense.

Granted, religion is a source of personal meaning for people. But when it comes to discussing the physical world, we turn to science. If you don't agree with this, that's fine. But I doubt any kind of substantive discussion can ever get past this point.