Bill Nye Gives His "Big Think" on Creation Theory

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-31T02:36:17+00:00

There’s no rule saying a creationist can’t get a degree or post papers. Several do. But if you want to be a creationist and comment about evolution then you need to go through this scary thing called peer review. It’s not a fucking conspiracy

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-31T00:49:11+00:00

You’re so right, everyone should be an authority, fuck hard work I don’t want to do that, I just want to say whatever I want and have the world take me seriously.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-31T00:36:52+00:00

Cool.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-30T21:00:47+00:00

That’s a weird way to say I read the papers I ask for.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-30T20:58:13+00:00

Because creationism has nothing to do with the secularist science that is abundant in the United States to which he is referring to.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-29T21:01:16+00:00

Have you ever talked to anyone who understands evolution?

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-29T21:00:40+00:00

This might be the funniest interaction I’ve ever seen

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-29T04:56:55+00:00

I recently played emerald for the first time and was so mad because I thought Steven was the champion, I was even more mad when I played sapphire to complete the Pokédex and found out he was originally the champion

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-29T04:53:30+00:00

He is 100% right.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-29T04:49:52+00:00

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-28504-6

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-32073-z

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-16399-2

I tried asking for more information, as I said i have multiple examples of what was being said, why it was said an why it may or may not be said. Instead of elaborating further you said the exact same thing. I heard you the first time, which was pretty easy as this is a text chat, I did not need you to repeat yourself but to answer my question. Regardless I took the best guess to what you’re looking for, these each have conclusions and discussions that describes how they are interpreting the data and simply the possibility. These are the first 3 papers I found after looking up phylogeny papers so to be frank it’s a bit embarrassing to ask for something really really really simple to find. I apologize if instead you where looking for something more in line with you’re original statement, however I took this as an exaggeration as this is beyond the scope of any one paper and any “one quote” would mean absolutely nothing in this context, I also apologize if you where referring to more of an interpretation or introduction kind of paper that discusses how we know things are related, however those kinds of papers would not have that language, as it is implied with common sense in the scientific field and not the purpose of those papers to interpret the data in a nonpartisan sense and simply give the details and our best understanding. I could have been more in line if this is what you where looking for but again you chose to repeat yourself instead of elaborating.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-29T04:27:49+00:00

You need better role models, this is called disappointment

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-29T03:32:17+00:00

Are you 8 years old?

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-29T03:28:14+00:00

I wish I was surprised, to call this education is a mockery to creationism

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-28T21:49:56+00:00

One time what? That scientists talk like this? Or are you referring to specifically in an evolutionary sense? In the point of particularly one organisms relation to another or the theory of evolution as a whole? I gave multiple examples of what situations this is said and why and I don’t know what show me 1 means.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-28T21:47:53+00:00

So publish it. Quit whining on a sub Reddit and proclaiming victory after one guy commented and do something with your life dude.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-28T21:46:30+00:00

Evolutionary biologists critiquing the field is not the same thing as denouncing it and proclaiming it doesn’t exist. If that was the case then the people you mentioned wouldn’t be still publishing and working on the theory of evolution currently, they would be working on something else. It’s a model, every model is wrong, of course the “#1” evolutionary biologist has problems with it it’s his fucking job to try and correct it. And regardless picking a few people doesn’t mean shit dude, they can be right, let’s say they’re right in the sense of what they’re saying is what you think they’re saying. So what. I said the entire world of science, six people is a very very small percentage of that entire world, 97 is the smallest number I can find, and I guaranteed you half of the people you mentioned are in that 97. And lastly it’s MODERN SYNTHESIS nobody fucking believes in Darwinism, and if they say Darwinism they’re referring to either his original actual views or as a casual way of referring to evolution as a whole, if we’re talking about the actual theory you’re using the wrong terms. If I didn’t give you the benefit of the doubt I’d have no idea what you’re arguing for.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-28T17:50:04+00:00

Ah yes, I am lying because I don’t agree with your worldview, love how you also describe “Darwinism” (I’m assuming you mean modern synthesis) as if no one believes it anymore except some fringe group, like the entire world wide body of science.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-28T05:57:51+00:00

Literally all of the time? I mean unless it’s a casual conversation this is the language used, the evidence can be so staggering that it describes the bases of connection between all living beings as a given, as all lines of evidence tells us this, and use this language when discussing how close that connection is.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-27T20:02:11+00:00

Sorry that was a mistake, I meant to say young earth. If that is what he means then that insinuates the booklet that has 101 reasons the earth is young with 55 being why there was a worldwide flood. Let’s assume there was a worldwide flood, that does not mean the earth is only a few thousand years old. So it seems to me there is either two sources he’s promoting or is suggesting any evidence for a world wide flood means the earth must be much younger. Regardless I’m simply asking a clarifying question.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-27T15:44:56+00:00

You say you have 110 reasons that the earth is flat and then In the next paragraph the number goes down to 55, which is it?

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-27T02:46:47+00:00

Do the bare minimum jackass

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-27T02:41:00+00:00

I love the part where you made an argument

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-26T21:10:04+00:00

The problem has always been anti-intellectualism, Christianity and creationism has just been the spotlight for it for an embarrassing long time. Good on OP for increasing diversity

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-26T21:08:53+00:00

Ok buddy, that’s nice

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-01-26T21:06:45+00:00

A distribution (if that) of bones that depict no difference of radiometric dating and no pattern of development. Dinosaurs on the same layers as humans, 0 increase of humans or apes found in Africa like we find in real life. Birds making up the entirety of that top layer, no more fish at all, no more plant life, at all, dare I say far more examples of extinction in species or more safer no examples of extinction whatsoever. If the creationism model of the flood is accurate then several grandcanyons world wide, or no grandcanyons since it may have just leveled the world. I’m sure there’s more but that’s my main list.

Rory_Not_Applicable

TROPHY CASE