1. noneofyourbusiness says:

    Let’s all listen to a guy that looks more like a kid toucher than Sandusky.

    • John says:

      Comment on his words, not his looks jackass.

      • US says:

        Judging by looks is the most important thing we can do in the USA today. No one cares about what the content is, it is looks.

  2. Dallas says:

    I haven’t had a chance to listen to this but I disagree with Alphie’s viewpoint.

    • John says:

      I am new here and everyone keeps talking about Alphie. WHO IS ALPHIE?

      • The Monster's Lawyer says:

        “Taxed Enough Already” use to go by that moniker.
        Alfie got all pissy because he lost so many arguments due to his lame-ass viewpoints. He announced he was leaving us for good but no sooner than Alfie had been gone about a month that “Taxed Enough Already” showed up with the same lame-ass talking points fed to him by Fox News or Jeebus. We are all glad he is back to add comic relief. An easy target if you will.

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        I used to post as Alfred1, which of course was perverted like everything else, by progressives.

        Especially a Mr. Fusion, who evidently doesn’t post here anymore…since going to jail for great sex…

        Pay no mind to Dullass and his lawyer, after the abduction no one invites them over for family functions….and they take out their frustrations here.

        • Thomas says:

          “I used to post as Alfred1, which of course was perverted like everything else, by progressives. because of my insane, blind, superstitious and often outright false responses caused me to feel unwanted and so I hid away and came back like a cancer with a new name.”

          Fixed that for you.

          • John says:

            What the hell makes you think it’s okay to call someone “a cancer” because you disagree with them?

          • Thomas says:

            John – There is disagreeing and then there is encouraging people remain in the dark ages and wanting them to teach their children to do the same. Cancer’s are the later.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Hey NFS–whats yer point? No body cares about Al Gore, even fewer about Bill Nye … or can you function outside of a “real” straw man argument?

      Maybe this will clarify: because there is junk science/fraud/snake oil around cancer cures is there any doubt in your mind that cancer exists?

      Same thing.

      Really.

      Same thing. Think better. It improves what you post in a blog. Very un-Alfie behavior.

  3. Anon says:

    Saw this somewhere and thought it could bare repeating:

    I’d like to point out how irrational it is to have any reverence for religion at all. We look at ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing lightning bolts and say, ‘Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So primitive and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes talking to people and guys walking on water. We’re …sophisticated.’ – Paul Provenza

    I think that just about says it.

    • dege says:

      I love it how people, and those who quote them, have apparently never studied any theology, yet they always have such strong opinions on it.

      First off, the bush was not literally burning.
      Go read Exodus 3. And not the various commentaries on it because most are wrong.

      Second, how can one not see the difference between making gods out of earthly weather events, vs those events that are supposed miracles that defy the laws of nature. Big difference.

      FYI, I am not a religious man, I just use some common sense and intellect.

      • John says:

        What does it matter if it’s a literal or figurative burning bush? I don’t see how this is relevant.

        And are you arguing that the less a religion adheres to the laws of the universe the more believable it is? The bible has miracles and roman mythology simple describes weather patterns so the bible is more sensible? This logic seems a little backwards to me. And even if the logic were not backwards, you are ignoring the fact that all kinds of crazy crap happens in Roman Mythology. Did you ever hear about the one where Zues turns into a bull?

        • So what says:

          All religion is mythology. It’s just a question of time as to when one is deemed silly and replaced by another (equally as silly).

  4. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Friend of Science and Religion continuing in his conflicting non-sequiters says:
    8/27/2012 at 8:13 am

    Luddites fear technological change. I fear the RATE of technological change, and its application by a generally dim-witted angry species. /// This distinction is meant to point out what? forget the luddites, I mean YOU. ie==can’t be “rate” of change but actually some actual change say like the discovery of atomic elements? iow==any discovery harmful to man? Like the bow and arrow or the stirrup? How self possessed we are.

    Fact is, we don’t know how to handle the science and technology we’ve got. Yet we keep opening up new cans of worms every day. /// Name what we can’t handle? Your FEARS are not reality. Just FEARS. Have you used your fertile imagination to imagine human life/prospects/conditions WITHOUT the science that fears you? How would that work?

    What’s the realistic end game for science and mankind? It appears to be a race to oblivion. /// Name any course that isn’t?

    If you don’t think so, I hope you’re right. /// No, I agree with you. We are on a non-stop train to oblivion. Makes jumping the rails before destination almost irrelevant wouldn’t you say?

    Ha, ha. Monkeys with brains.

    • Friend of Science and Religion says:

      I know you’re on a roll today, but since you asked…

      “Name what we can’t handle?”

      Nuclear material, chemical warfare agents, crack cocaine, and 5-hour energy drink. Better living through chemistry?

      “If you don’t think so, I hope you’re right. /// No, I agree with you. We are on a non-stop train to oblivion. Makes jumping the rails before destination almost irrelevant wouldn’t you say?”

      Glad we agree. But why take the bullet train to get there?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Well Friend–you got me there. I’m responding half to what you posted but equally to the others.

        Here is my sober point: its not enough to correctly criticize what you do. That is a meaningless exercise until/unless you have a better approach.

        Would the world be a better place had the Genie not been released from the bottle? I agree. But was that even possible at the time? Lose the War to the Nazis and get killed off in a labor camp OR create the bomb that wins the war?

        In reality–not even a close question absent a Magic Eight Ball that is never wrong.

        I don’t disagree with the first step you took===only that thereafter you stopped and did not go anywhere at all.

        Reality is like that.

        • Friend of Science and Religion says:

          A fair response to ponder, sir!

          I bid you *Adieu (“I commend you to God”)

          * rhymes with: accrue, achoo, Agnew, aircrew, airscrew, anew, askew, babu, Baku, and bamboo

  5. TripHamer says:

    It’s all about the interpretation of the “evidence”. One person can look at it and conclude evolution and another can look at it and conclude creation.

    The only thing you can really prove about the dinosaurs is that they died, not that we evolved. (Nye said dinosaurs as an example of evolution)

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      So, you reject one of the central examples used to prove evolution huh?

      Why do you go so far as to admit Dinosaurs ever died? Meaning they lived? You imply its reasonable to say they were all faked? along with the carbon dating that goes with it==although I think carbon dating gives out at 50K years–so whatever dating is used?

      You see, the various disciplines of science all fit together. Unless you want to come at it from the context of you can’t assume anything like you know, nothing exists and you are just a dream of a cosmic gnat.

      Can’t prove otherwise you know, so lets just deny the obvious.

    • John says:

      Just out of curiosity, what evidence do you feel supports Creationism?

  6. tomdennis says:

    Creationism is not appropriate for children.
    I agree with him.
    We now have the Internet with a variable input of ideas that moves the mind in a spectrum of thought. I guess the book that says that only Creationism is the only answer probably would not bother any child.
    The Internet is like the wheel or fire. Once opened it stays open and can never be closed.
    If you turn off the electricity it can be opened by battery via WIFI.
    Creationism is just another color in the spectrum.

  7. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    NewformatSux disappoints me completely by saying:
    8/27/2012 at 8:25 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/

    I’d like to see Bill Nye apologize for thsi before anyone takes him seriously again. //// OMG!!! I mean: OH….MY…..GOD!
    You can’t be this stupid? Well, I gotta take you at your printed affirmations. You think the Al Gore DEMONSTATION can’t work as advertised because they used different thermometers to show the temp rise rather than the ones that were supposedly used in the actual statement????

    Experiment vs Demonstration.

    Gee Whiz—I keep telling you idiots to buy and read a dictionary. Your basic language skills amount to shitting in your pants in the morning and then walking around all day long criticizing everyone else for smelling.

    Dopes.
    Reply

  8. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    dege, making Alfie look good says:
    8/27/2012 at 11:13 am

    I love it how people, and those who quote them, have apparently never studied any theology, yet they always have such strong opinions on it. /// What do you use to measure/guage/assess “strength” of opinion? Do you think “strength of opinion” applies to a Comedians Punch Line?

    First off, the bush was not literally burning. /// And no one but you said it was. You do realize this is the epitomy of a weak, (aka–not strong) argument to make?==ie==respond to something that wasn’t said? Its the mark of a grade A idiot.

    Go read Exodus 3. And not the various commentaries on it because most are wrong. /// Which of the 1349 Versions should we read==and to what point?

    Second, how can one not see the difference between making gods out of earthly weather events, vs those events that are supposed miracles that defy the laws of nature. Big difference. /// How is not understanding what you are observing significantly or strongly different one example from another? Especially if you aren’t observing anything at all and rather are just reading one of 1349 Versions of what someone else wrote in a book,

    FYI, I am not a religious man, I just use some common sense and intellect. /// Ohhhh soooo close. If you were religious, at least you’d be something……. cause you ain’t the other two.

    We need a supplemental category cause Silly Hooman just isn’t catching it anymore ………………………………………….

    Alfie Stoopid.

  9. Skippy says:

    Who says belief in creationism or evolution is mutually exclusive? You cant believe in the bible without believing that science exists at the same time? Really?

    I have an oldschool uncle. He is very loving, intelligent and has a great business mind. But, he is so solid in his christian faith that he “shudders to think what kind of experiments they are doing on the space station” He thinks, well god made man, therefore the entire basis of science is bs, and every scientist is basically a quack or mad scientist. He wont allow for the possibility of the science theory to be true, because that is clearly against the bible. Ridiculous conclusion that there can only be truth in one line of thinking. Nothing can evolve because God made Adam and Eve. Think, think, think! Dont be a meat puppet to your ancestors fearful beliefs.

  10. Uncle Patso says:

    At the risk of repeating myself :

    “The stage is too big for the drama.” Feynman, 1959.

    From here we can see hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars. I find it hard to believe the creator of all this takes attendance, or cares who sleeps with whom.

    Of course, that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in right and wrong — our sense of right and wrong is built into our brains and our genes, and is developed and nurtured by society.

    The ten commandments and other systems of ethics are methods for building/maintaining a healthy, successful society — that is, allowing us to live together in groups larger than a dozen or two with a minimum of trouble and strife.

    Much of ethics and religion is mankind still trying to adjust to the switch from hunter-gatherer bands to the larger, more permanent settlements allowed by the invention of agriculture.

    = = = = = = = = = = = =

    Hyph3n says, in part:
    “Please tell me the great scientific achievements of the Amish?”

    They have largely figured out how to live in a world after the oil is gone.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      “The Stage is too big for the Drama.” /// Catches the issue perfectly and yet somehow itself is not big enough? Not “evocative” enough? Not attention grabbing enough? More the work of a thoughtful scientist than a word smith.

      What could we substitute. Of course with that Carl Sagan drifiting through the Cosmos Music going on at the same time?

      ………………………….It is what it is.
      ………………………….It is what it is, and we are nothing.
      ………………………….Look, just LOOK!

      Nah. I got nothing. Amusing that as big, large, infinite and unknowable as it is, it means nothing… our hour upon the stage… and then, out like a match.

  11. dcphill says:

    Who created the Bible and can you prove it?

  12. Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      A little art and multi-media sure does spruce up a blogspot.

      Well done.

  13. HUGSaLOT says:

    ignoring Bill Nye.. I get the feeling John and Adam are completely anti-science.

  14. Mr Ed says:

    All religions are bunk. There are no gods, period. Belief in creationism is a fool’s most defining moment.
    I really feel sorry for those who have been so badly taken in by religious types without a single scrap of real evidence. So sad.

    • Bob73 says:

      Presuming there might be someone out here that cares, please give us your particular definition of “real” evidence.

      • Thomas says:

        Tangible, repeatable, logical proof based entirely on observable phenomena which can be verified by unbiased parties in an objective manner.

      • Thomas says:

        Let me add that it starts with a falsifiable hypothesis.

  15. orchidcup says:

    A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.

    Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious.

    – Aristotle (384-322 BC) Greek philosopher

  16. deowll says:

    The guy is free to express his views as is everyone else. Reality is that we are supremely ignorant about how the Universe came to be or even what the Universe really is or how it operates. That being the case one ignoramuses ignorant blathering is just about as likely to be correct as any other’s which should take the heat out of the debate but obviously doesn’t.

    Please don’t give me the “Science knows” bit. The really smart scientists don’t hesitate to tell you just how little they really do know about this topic.

    • John says:

      We actually know a lot about the origins of the universe, and it’s honestly fascinating as hell. If you want some suggestions on books, articles, or documentaries about this stuff, let me know (I am being serious).

      And then you start calling people ignoramus. :/ Let’s try to be a bit more mature please?

      But all that aside… I don’t understand why science is such a perceived threat. What if Genesis was metaphorical? Science is nothing but the formalized observation of the universe. If anything science should make you feel closer to God because it helps you understand his creation better.

      • orchidcup says:

        What if Genesis was metaphorical?

        What if it is not? Maybe Genesis is a cosmology invented by Iron Age scribes in an attempt to explain their existence.

        If anything science should make you feel closer to God because it helps you understand his creation better.

        Presumably God is everywhere all the time, an omniscient being without form. I don’t know how anyone could get closer to God under those circumstances.

        Science is the exact opposite of magical thinking. If you understand why God would create humans for the sole purpose of worshiping Him then please explain.

        • John says:

          Wow you sure are being hostile. I was just pointing out that it’s possible for a Christian to both believe the Bible and to be excited about science at the same time. I am not a Christian and was not trying to argue religion, I was just saying “Hey Christians out there, don’t let science get under your skin so much, it’s kind of cool.”

          • Science and religion will always be at odds, and trying to reconcile the two is a fool’s errand. Just one example is the famous story of the Wise Men, taking place in the very early part of the Christian story. Among other things, it asserts the validity of astrology as a valid channel through which the Creator of the Universe communicates to human beings. The Magi couldn’t have understood the Savior’s celestial birth announcement without a significant amount of successful practice in reading similar messages from God in the skies, so this was definitely not a one-time communication. When you think about it, it’s disturbing how many messages from the Creator that we might be missing due to our ignorance of astrological methodology.

            Perhaps if we allowed more Christian influence in our public schools, we could bring the age-old “science” of astrology back to its rightful place of prominence, thereby bringing us all closer to our Creator and Savior. Maybe we should study astrology in place of evolution.

            Bad ideas are never in short supply.

          • John says:

            Gary it’s attitudes like that that turn away inquisitive minds. It’s never bad to learn more about the world around you regardless of your belief system.

  17. Guyver says:

    Up to the parents to decide until the child reaches their own conclusions as they get older.

    Otherwise just another person who wants the government to supersede parental rights.

    • noname says:

      Guyver you are so right.

      Unless the parent conduct is abusive, they have the right to teach their Children their beliefs.

      It’s naive and a very dangerous tack for the government to take. I understand and appreciate Bill Nye’s concerns, but; he is wrong in directing parents not to share their life’s understanding.

      There always has been a billion things parents are scientifically wrong about. Parents have historically enjoyed the right to be less then perfect.

      It only should become a governmental matter, when it becomes abusive.

      Expecting and enforcing governmental policing of Scientific accuracy in Parenting will only spread into other areas of life. It would become a loveless following of governmental approved discussions, resulting in an immediate squelching of creative speech and create a drive towards the “one approved standard” of scientific individual conformity and commonality.

      America would become an abysmal and dead society. The communist tried aspects of this.

  18. Skippy says:

    So, parents should have the right to teach and ingrain into their childrens psyche whatever strange notions and beliefs they happen to have. No matter how idiotic, barbaric, or disgusting. Because the parents freedom to do this is more important than the welfare of their childrens mental or spiritual condition. Is that about the size of it?

    • noname says:

      It’s a matter of who you trust more to be in charge of a child’s belief system, the inevitably imperfect parent(s) or the inevitably imperfect bureaucrat.

      What you don’t seem to understand is that strange notions and beliefs are not limited only to parents.

      I challenge you to point out any system, government, scientific agency or any institution that has never promoted strange notions and beliefs.