If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NCSE)   Smoked Ham; or How Bill Nye won the debate. Hint: science   (ncse.com) divider line 505
    More: Followup, smoked ham, nuclear medicines, Ken Ham, speciations, age of the universe, National Center for Science Education, fundamental science, Wheaties  
•       •       •

8684 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



505 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-05 10:32:07 AM
Oh, also: rich ironing in that an Old Testament preacher is named HAM.

// don't touch his flesh, lest you become unclean
 
2014-02-05 10:33:44 AM
I drunk what: can any butt hurt anti-theist evolutionists admit they can recognize the difference between observational science and historical science yet?

I'm watching this right now, and the whole observational science/historical science doesn't make a lick of sense. No non-creationist makes this distinction; it's clearly an arbitrary construct made to advance a shoddy argument.
 
2014-02-05 10:34:58 AM
I recently saw the Richard Dawkins - Wendy Wright debate and after 20 minutes of it I realized it is a completely pointless debate.  Creationists will just sidestep any questions that don't fit their narrative and will never back down and acknowledge the most basic scientific facts.
 
2014-02-05 10:36:30 AM

Mad Tea Party: I'm watching this right now, and the whole observational science/historical science doesn't make a lick of sense. No non-creationist makes this distinction; it's clearly an arbitrary construct made to advance a shoddy argument.


It's an incredibly bald-faced example of goal-post moving. "We accept deductive reasoning, we accept the collection of evidence, but we're going to erect a flimsy barrier called 'historical science' to try and wall off certain kinds of evidence which we don't like."
 
2014-02-05 10:37:19 AM

JusticeandIndependence: I drunk what: regardless of ham making better points

What better points were made by Ham?


sorry i rambled

1. difference between observational science and historical science

2. taking into account all the methods of dating, and how conclusions should be drawn from them

3. at least positing theories of, global catastrophes and how they would influence the big picture of dating, geology, etc..

on the other hand what points were made by nye?

1. i like science because i can see it right here in front of me, why should i take your word from a book that was written thousands of years ago and translated many times into american english, and you must interpret it for me, derpity doo

2.  please write your local congressman about funding teh science schools better, we need moar science educations! (this shout out brought to you by: NASA, PBS, NSF, etc... etc...)

3.  lulz you guys don't even have a nuclear medicine science course available in KY because of ur stupid religion :D

4. b-b-but layers of ice and only 4000 years to evolve millions of species?!?  we got trees older than your theory!

to which Ham would go full YEC

the power of chryst compels you!!!

....  and then we'll break for some questions from the audience that won't even be remotely answered...

meh
 
2014-02-05 10:37:42 AM
I live at a seminary with my wife, who is studying to become a Methodist pastor. We were all aware the debate was going to take place, but I don't know anyone who actually watched it.

Basically the fundies aren't going to change their stance. They'll nit pick the points they want and ignore the rest. The entire thing was a waste of time and much unneeded publicity for the Creationist morans.
 
2014-02-05 10:38:17 AM

eraser8: What are you basing that on?


observation science

/experience
//paying attention
 
2014-02-05 10:39:16 AM
I'd like a debate between different religions about how the Earth was created. "My book says God did it." "Well my book says it's the blood of a titan." "It's clearly turtles all the way down!"
 
2014-02-05 10:40:03 AM

xanadian: Fundies will still claim a victory.


This.  I remember a great part during the Q&A portion: "What, if anything, could make you change your belief?"

Nye responded with evidence (not sure if actual quote, but I'll italicize it anyway).

"We just need one piece of evidence like a fossil that swam from one level to another." We would need evidence that rock layers could form in 4,000 years. Bring me any of those things and I would change my mind immediately.

Ham, on the other hand:

"I am a Christian, I believe in the word of God."

So, that sounds like a pretty big difference, but then I caught this on twitter:
www.albertmohler.com/2014/02/05/bill-nyes-reasonable-man-the-central -w orldview-clash-of-the-ham-nye-debate/ 

This is where the debate was most important. Both men were asked if any evidence could ever force them to change their basic understanding. Both men said no. Neither was willing to allow for any dispositive evidence to change their minds. Both operate in basically closed intellectual systems. The main problem is that Ken Ham knows this to be the case, but Bill Nye apparently does not. Ham was consistently bold in citing his confidence in God, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the full authority and divine inspiration of the Bible. He never pulled a punch or hid behind an argument. Nye seems to believe that he is genuinely open to any and all new information, but it is clear that his ultimate intellectual authority is the prevailing scientific consensus.

So, Nye can come out and say "bring me any evidence that is repeatable science and I will believe" and that turns into "Nye is close minded and wrong."

You can't win.  The best we can hope is to keep them out of the science classroom.
 
2014-02-05 10:41:48 AM

Dr Dreidel: I really think Nye missed out by not making Ham's argument - the whole thing is predicated on what is necessarily faith, yes? Faith that necessarily cannot be proved outside tautology - "This book is 100% true. How do I know? The Book says so" or "God's Word is true. How do I know? He's God"?


That would have actually been counterproductive to what I suspect was Nye's real goal: getting people who deeply value the Bible to accept the possibility that evolution is a better explanation of the diversity of life than special creation.

In other words, Nye was saying, "keep your faith if it provides you comfort...but, don't close your eyes and ears to mountain of evidence for the incredibly mindblowing wonder that is evolution by natural selection.

I personally think science and most religions -- certainly mainstream Christianity -- are incompatible.  I think the Bible is nonsense.  But, if you want to convince Bible believers that the science is right, those are two truths that you'd be better off keeping to yourself.
 
2014-02-05 10:42:55 AM

I drunk what: eraser8: What are you basing that on?

observation science

/experience
//paying attention


Fine.  Provide evidence that non-creationists are biased in the same way that creationists are, just from a different direction.
 
2014-02-05 10:46:01 AM
Maybe I'm not spending enough time around fundies, but are devout creationists anything more than a lunatic fringe so small that they make birthers look like a small nation in comparison? I mean certainly there may be people who do believe the Earth is 6000 years old and in the Garden of Eden, but how many of these people are actively expressing these beliefs to the point of seeking policy change?
 
2014-02-05 10:46:36 AM
The fact that Nye didn't call out Ham's propositional fallacies, straw man arguments, false equivalency, denying the antecedent, ecological fallacies, and simply not answering the questions posed to him means that he didn't do what he needed to. Ham will sell the DVD of this at his theme park and make out like a bandit.
 
2014-02-05 10:46:44 AM
He should have argued from their religion much more. Since they hold the bible to be true and literal he should have brought up the timelines in the bible. Since Genesis itself points to way more than 6,000 years alone he could have crushed them and forced them to argue against the bible. At that point it'd be easy to cover all kinds of things. No, science and the bible can not co-exist. They contradict.
 
2014-02-05 10:48:18 AM

I drunk what: 1. difference between observational science and historical science


Real concept and incredibly nonspecific made-up meaningless phrase.  What do I win?
 
2014-02-05 10:49:06 AM

Electrify: Maybe I'm not spending enough time around fundies, but are devout creationists anything more than a lunatic fringe so small that they make birthers look like a small nation in comparison? I mean certainly there may be people who do believe the Earth is 6000 years old and in the Garden of Eden, but how many of these people are actively expressing these beliefs to the point of seeking policy change?


You'd be surprised.
 
2014-02-05 10:49:10 AM
Also, using the word "naturalism" (another made-up creationist word) as some sort of pejorative is a really weird debate tactic. "They're putting naturalism in our natural sciences textbooks!"
 
2014-02-05 10:51:41 AM

Electrify: are devout creationists anything more than a lunatic fringe so small that they make birthers look like a small nation in comparison?


They're about a third of the country.
 
2014-02-05 10:54:02 AM
Creationists are idiots that don't understand basic science. Arguing with them is pointless.
 
2014-02-05 10:54:59 AM

MayoSlather: Nye didn't attack the Bible enough. Ham's whole argument centered around every last word being true. All Nye had to do was point out that Christians don't even buy into all the evil shiat in there, and if they didn't believe any part wasn't true then why should they buy into every word of genesis.

Plus he never hit on the idea that by Ham merely pointing out any mystery in science, it doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that christianity is automatically correct, which Ham did over and over.


You think if he attacked the bible more it would have converted more religious people or less?
 
2014-02-05 10:57:44 AM
"Bill there is a book"
 
2014-02-05 10:58:18 AM

Where wolf: xanadian: Fundies will still claim a victory.

This.  I remember a great part during the Q&A portion: "What, if anything, could make you change your belief?"

Nye responded with evidence (not sure if actual quote, but I'll italicize it anyway).

"We just need one piece of evidence like a fossil that swam from one level to another." We would need evidence that rock layers could form in 4,000 years. Bring me any of those things and I would change my mind immediately.

Ham, on the other hand:

"I am a Christian, I believe in the word of God."

So, that sounds like a pretty big difference, but then I caught this on twitter:
www.albertmohler.com/2014/02/05/bill-nyes-reasonable-man-the-central -w orldview-clash-of-the-ham-nye-debate/ 

This is where the debate was most important. Both men were asked if any evidence could ever force them to change their basic understanding. Both men said no. Neither was willing to allow for any dispositive evidence to change their minds. Both operate in basically closed intellectual systems. The main problem is that Ken Ham knows this to be the case, but Bill Nye apparently does not. Ham was consistently bold in citing his confidence in God, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the full authority and divine inspiration of the Bible. He never pulled a punch or hid behind an argument. Nye seems to believe that he is genuinely open to any and all new information, but it is clear that his ultimate intellectual authority is the prevailing scientific consensus.

So, Nye can come out and say "bring me any evidence that is repeatable science and I will believe" and that turns into "Nye is close minded and wrong."

You can't win.  The best we can hope is to keep them out of the science classroom.



My favorite quote was this one:

"There are few facilities in the world more high-tech than the Creation Museum."

REALLY?  They consider that place HIGH TECH???
 
2014-02-05 10:59:48 AM

CJHardin: REALLY? They consider that place HIGH TECH???


To be fair, the moderator was from CNN.  Knowing what they're talking about before they start talking isn't exactly their strong point.
 
2014-02-05 11:00:04 AM

I would love to see this guy debate Creationists

www.astrobio.net


Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ. Head of the Vatican's meteorite collection, one the largest in the world. And I dare Hamm to try to debate Bible theory with him.
 
2014-02-05 11:02:49 AM
What Creationists believe:

s3-ec.buzzfed.com

If this is the literal word of God then I have one answer: lions
 
2014-02-05 11:03:23 AM

I drunk what: can any butt hurt anti-theist evolutionists admit they can recognize the difference between observational science and historical science yet?


Of course there's a farking difference.  That difference does nothing to invalidate the science--except by those wanting excuses to ignore it.  And that's all you really want.  An excuse to ignore reality while making yourself feel better about it.
 
2014-02-05 11:03:41 AM

Mad Tea Party: Also, using the word "naturalism" (another made-up creationist word) as some sort of pejorative is a really weird debate tactic. "They're putting naturalism in our natural sciences textbooks!"


What's also really weird is that Ham admitted the scientists on his side use "naturalistic" methods to study the universe while denying the foundations of those methods. So what's the damn problem? That it doesn't start with "God did it"?

Grow the fark up, and try living for a day as a religious minority in the US (or an hour in December) to see just how privileged you are in terms of religion in society.
 
2014-02-05 11:03:48 AM

Pentaxian: I would love to see this guy debate Creationists[www.astrobio.net image 492x678]
Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ. Head of the Vatican's meteorite collection, one the largest in the world. And I dare Hamm to try to debate Bible theory with him.


Creationist response:

www.ernestangley.org
 
2014-02-05 11:04:27 AM

bulldg4life: Creationists are idiots that don't understand basic science. Arguing with them is pointless.


This.  If a grown-ass adult insists Santa Claus is real, does that warrant a televised debate?  No.  You smile and nod and say, "That's nice, is that an hors d'oeuvres  tray over there?" and wander off.  You're dealing with someone who has a powerful  need believe a fantasy.  Their entire understanding of both the world and their own identity rely on it.  You're not getting any traction there, save your breath.
 
2014-02-05 11:06:03 AM

China White Tea: This.  If a grown-ass adult insists Santa Claus is real, does that warrant a televised debate?  No.  You smile and nod and say, "That's nice, is that an hors d'oeuvres  tray over there?" and wander off.  You're dealing with someone who has a powerful  need believe a fantasy.  Their entire understanding of both the world and their own identity rely on it.  You're not getting any traction there, save your breath.


If a third of the population insists Santa Claus is real and starts trying to spend government money on infrastructure to support Santa, someone needs to say something.
 
2014-02-05 11:07:29 AM

scottydoesntknow: Creationists believe something so monumentally stupid that no amount of facts could sway them. They've already had to dismiss the mountain of facts available, so why would anyone believe a debate with a former children's TV star would make them rethink anything?


I've seen one guy change his mind upon seeing a progression of human ancestor skulls from clearly non-human to human because he'd been told there was no such thing and scientists were still looking for a non-existent missing link.

/he became an atheist not too long afterwards as he started digging and finding out a lot of the "facts" he'd been taught were bullshiat
//he'd been taught those facts in school
 
2014-02-05 11:07:56 AM

Princess Ryans Knickers: What Creationists believe:

[s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 625x441]

If this is the literal word of God then I have one answer: lions


Lions used those large, sharp canine teeth for shucking avocados back in Eden.  They were well known for making a mean guac for all the pre-sin garden socials.
 
2014-02-05 11:10:02 AM
I watched  the debate.  Entering into the fray on the side of science but Hamm convinced me.  I am a new convert.
 
2014-02-05 11:10:48 AM

ReverendJasen: Princess Ryans Knickers: What Creationists believe:

[s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 625x441]

If this is the literal word of God then I have one answer: lions

Lions used those large, sharp canine teeth for shucking avocados back in Eden.  They were well known for making a mean guac for all the pre-sin garden socials.


Wouldn't that be evolution? Them changing from eating avocados to eating meat and humans tells me they changed. The bible says God never changes and that everything has stayed the same since Creation. One of these things is not like the other...
 
2014-02-05 11:12:03 AM

Saiga410: I watched  the debate.  Entering into the fray on the side of science but Hamm convinced me.  I am a new convert.


Really? Would you like to donate to my church?
 
2014-02-05 11:13:53 AM

Princess Ryans Knickers: What Creationists believe:

[s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 625x441]

If this is the literal word of God then I have one answer: lions


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2014-02-05 11:15:22 AM

Electrify: Maybe I'm not spending enough time around fundies, but are devout creationists anything more than a lunatic fringe so small that they make birthers look like a small nation in comparison? I mean certainly there may be people who do believe the Earth is 6000 years old and in the Garden of Eden, but how many of these people are actively expressing these beliefs to the point of seeking policy change?


CSB: In college, one roommate was a Liberal Arts or Communications Major (don't recall which), with pretty much zero exposure to Biology, Biochemistry, et al.  Her career path -- if it didn't simply end up being MRS -- was not going to have anything to do with science either.  She could afford to reject evolution because there was nothing staring her in the face.  It wasn't like someone was going to demand she reject any and all of the benefits we get from accepting evolution as more sound than creationism.  And nobody's going to reject her job app because she denies science.

Yeah, we thought she was an idiot -- but for different reasons.  She could have been very smart in everything else but just had one flagrantly bad mindset on biology, and it wouldn't have made much difference in 99% of her life.
 
2014-02-05 11:17:14 AM

Epicedion: China White Tea: This.  If a grown-ass adult insists Santa Claus is real, does that warrant a televised debate?  No.  You smile and nod and say, "That's nice, is that an hors d'oeuvres  tray over there?" and wander off.  You're dealing with someone who has a powerful  need believe a fantasy.  Their entire understanding of both the world and their own identity rely on it.  You're not getting any traction there, save your breath.

If a third of the population insists Santa Claus is real and starts trying to spend government money on infrastructure to support Santa, someone needs to say something.


Stay out of shopping malls from October to January, man.  Your head'll asplode.
 
2014-02-05 11:21:18 AM
I said this yesterday

There was no debate.

It was a farce, a dog and pony show so that Ken Ham, creationist asshole numero uno, could point to this and say "See, I'm a real scientist, I got to sit down at the grown up table."
 
2014-02-05 11:23:58 AM
I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that science was born out of religion. After all, religion (at it's core at least) was an attempt to explain observations. Without microbiology, how do you explain why someone gets sick? It must be demons. Get sick from eating pork? Demons.

The people who defer to the religious explanations are people who are either unaware or refuse to believe the falsifying evidence that required a change to the existing model.
 
2014-02-05 11:24:52 AM
It is difficult enough to get people who believe in magic to re-evaluate their position. Logic doesn't apply to magic therefore logical arguments hold no sway.

Now take a group like creationists, a sub-group of the religious that all the other religious people think are crazy/stupid, and try and try to use logical arguments on them. Good luck.

These debates are wasted on the firmly religious ... they've abandoned logic for faith. These arguments may help a person who is doubting their faith break the bonds of indoctrination though. Shoring up their doubt with solid, evidence-based arguments helps the process.

tl;dr - These debates are useful. Just not for convincing any of the truly "faithful" of anything.
 
2014-02-05 11:24:55 AM

China White Tea: If a grown-ass adult insists Santa Claus is real, does that warrant a televised debate?


whoa whoa whoa
Hold on one goddamn minute

What do you mean "if"
 
2014-02-05 11:25:24 AM

Herr Morgenstern: This debate was painful. It was like watching an astrophysicist argue aerodynamics with a toddler as he blindly insists racing stripes make his scooccurred somewhere in the worldo faster.

Seriously, every time Ham said "You know, Bill, there's this book you may have heard of..." and didn't get punched in the face, a small earthquake occured somewhere in the world to balance out the lack of gravitational shift.


Thing is Nye had to stay on course and not stray into that kind of territory.  If he had turned to Ham and given him the withering takedown he so richly deserved Ken and his braindead followers would whoop it up and start playing the victim.
 
2014-02-05 11:25:52 AM

JusticeandIndependence: I drunk what: regardless of ham making better points

What better points were made by Ham?


Ham is delicious.

And now it comes in Kosher flavors.

i457.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-05 11:26:40 AM
Ham's basic argument was "No one was there, so you can't prove it by any means at all," despite the fact that we have many means by which to prove it.

Nye should have really taken more advantage of Ham's declaration that only SOME of the Bible is meant to be taken "historically" and other parts "poetically".  That was a definite soft point that could have been jabbed at.
 
2014-02-05 11:27:10 AM

SewerSquirrels: I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that science was born out of religion.


Sure.  I will give you that.  The problem came when religion tried to censor or control the flow of any information they saw as a threat.  Take the Vatican and Galileo for instance.
 
2014-02-05 11:30:18 AM
Nye prepared well. On the way to the venue, he picked up a piece of limestone from the roadside, with a fossil in it

Jesus... They were pretty easy to find at the North Rim, but even there, I had to be climbing down the face of the cliffs most of the time, I've never been able to just pull over and grab a fossil. Very cool.
 
2014-02-05 11:30:40 AM

SewerSquirrels: I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that science was born out of religion. After all, religion (at it's core at least) was an attempt to explain observations.


That is like saying cars were born out of walking since they both get you from point A to point B.

The core of religion is believing what you are told without critical thought - a.k.a. faith. The core of science is a method that focuses on questioning everything and demanding evidence for any claims.

They may try to get to the same place but they use radically different methods to get there.
 
2014-02-05 11:31:40 AM
Next up: The debate between a biologist and a Scientologist pundit regarding the existence of thetans.
 
2014-02-05 11:34:03 AM

ReverendJasen: Princess Ryans Knickers: What Creationists believe:

[s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 625x441]

If this is the literal word of God then I have one answer: lions

Lions used those large, sharp canine teeth for shucking avocados back in Eden.  They were well known for making a mean guac for all the pre-sin garden socials.


And here I was told they used their teeth to make holes in coconuts to drink the milk.
 
Displayed 50 of 505 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report