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  
•       •       •

8686 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (28 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 02:47:37 PM

elchupacabra: Ignore is not an option -- they claim victory by virtue of no challenge


They claim victory by virtue of getting a challenge.  Their goal here is to get creation taught as an alternative in science class.  The science argument is - creationism does not belong in science class.  We don't even bother to argue which is more valid because creationism is not science and therefore does not belong in science class.  Scientists debating creationists admits it does belong.

Even best case scenario, Bill Nye wiping the floor with Ham, admits he feels Ham's point of view was worth debating in the science realm.  By showing up, Nye lost.
 
2014-02-05 02:52:40 PM

Begoggle: Awesome!
For our next battle, Chuck Liddell will be fighting a sloth with 3 broken legs!


Are they Chuck's legs, or did he rip them off of two or three torsos? Strange choice of weapon.
 
2014-02-05 02:53:16 PM
For one, I am glad creationists exist and fight rational thinking people.

The world needs ditch diggers too.  And crane operators, construction workers, gardeners, farmers... etc.  What critically thinking people would take these jobs where you are a cog in some meaningless wheel?
 
2014-02-05 02:53:30 PM

jso2897: At what point do Larry, Curly, and Shemp enter the picture?


They're the ones who comfort Job, leaving it to their manservant Groucho to finally make a decent point.

// Abe begat Ike, who begat Jake, who begat Levi (drat, no nickname), who begat Koe, who begat Amie, who begat Moe
// and then Moe married Zippy and did some begatting of his own
 
2014-02-05 02:55:18 PM

killdawabbitt: The world needs ditch diggers too. And crane operators, construction workers, gardeners, farmers... etc. What critically thinking people would take these jobs where you are a cog in some meaningless wheel?


And when they end up being your doctor, you're still okay with it?
 
2014-02-05 02:55:55 PM

lennavan: elchupacabra: Ignore is not an option -- they claim victory by virtue of no challenge

They claim victory by virtue of getting a challenge.  Their goal here is to get creation taught as an alternative in science class.  The science argument is - creationism does not belong in science class.  We don't even bother to argue which is more valid because creationism is not science and therefore does not belong in science class.  Scientists debating creationists admits it does belong.

Even best case scenario, Bill Nye wiping the floor with Ham, admits he feels Ham's point of view was worth debating in the science realm.  By showing up, Nye lost.


No way is this debate going to mean Creationism will supplant Science any more than it already is in some schools.  Ignoring them will equate to an oppressed minority in their eyes, which means more fighting to get recognition.

Add to that the fact that more people will see that "this is what they believe?" and you actually give anti-ID types motivation to fight, and there's a clear advantage there.

"No, you're stupid, shut up" won't help stop this.  "Hey, these guys are stupid, and let's let them show how stupid they are!" will.
 
2014-02-05 02:57:41 PM

killdawabbitt: For one, I am glad creationists exist and fight rational thinking people.

The world needs ditch diggers too.  And crane operators, construction workers, gardeners, farmers... etc.  What critically thinking people would take these jobs where you are a cog in some meaningless wheel?


I don't know if I'd use those examples as cogs in some meaningless wheel.
 
2014-02-05 02:57:47 PM

ikanreed: killdawabbitt: The world needs ditch diggers too. And crane operators, construction workers, gardeners, farmers... etc. What critically thinking people would take these jobs where you are a cog in some meaningless wheel?

And when they end up being your doctor, you're still okay with it?


Notsureifserious.jpg

Wouldn't any creationist doctor pretty much fail Med School?  Or are we including "Not a Certified Doctor" among that list?
 
2014-02-05 03:05:59 PM

elchupacabra: ikanreed: killdawabbitt: The world needs ditch diggers too. And crane operators, construction workers, gardeners, farmers... etc. What critically thinking people would take these jobs where you are a cog in some meaningless wheel?

And when they end up being your doctor, you're still okay with it?

Notsureifserious.jpg

Wouldn't any creationist doctor pretty much fail Med School?  Or are we including "Not a Certified Doctor" among that list?


yep.  they would get all the questions about how the earth was formed and how life began wrong.
 
2014-02-05 03:06:11 PM

Mikey1969: Egoy3k: Mikey1969: 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.

Here in Nova Scotia if you are on a beach anywhere near five islands you can usually find fossils if you look hard enough and if you are in a place called Joggins you pretty much are guaranteed to find some, I have a whole shelf full of them.  I have fern leaves and lots of shells. Anything with footprints that I've found got donated and I've never found vertebrates but I would donate them as well.

That's pretty cool, we had the spiral shell fossils and ones called crinoids at the Canyon, but like I said, you had to hunt for them. Not super hard, it was easy to come across them on accident, if you happened to be in the right place, but they were nowhere near as prevalent as your experience, that would be very cool.


The Appalachian foothills (most of Kentucky) are some of the oldest mountains on Earth. And yes, anywhere there is a creek bed or a place where they cut through a hill to place a road (every damned mile in northern Kentucky) you can walk over and pick up a fossil. The ground is littered with them. (Also... coal)

I always thought that was one of the great ironies of the southern anti-science stronghold.
 
2014-02-05 03:06:16 PM

elchupacabra: No way is this debate going to mean Creationism will supplant Science any more than it already is in some schools.


Wanna bet?  This debate admitted creationism is worth debating scientifically and publicly.  You don't think it will be used in front of school boards next time this is brought up?

elchupacabra: Ignoring them will equate to an oppressed minority in their eyes, which means more fighting to get recognition.


I'm not saying ignore them, I'm saying science should ignore them.  And in fact, I don't even think science should ignore them, I think science should reply to them appropriately.  If they have a scientific hypothesis they would like to debate, we would be happy to.  Creationism is not testable, therefore it is not a hypothesis.  That is not something science can or should attempt to debate.

Read this thread and any others about Nye and Ham.  Creationism does not meet the definition of hypothesis, therefore cannot be considered an alternative.  Nye debating Ham admits it is (it's not) and the end result is threads full of people who are becoming more and more confused about what a hypothesis and what science actually are and do.  Every single person in this thread who thinks Creationism is a hypothesis, or thinks science would or should ever even begin to debate creationism has a worse understanding of what science is and does, thanks to Bill Nye.

That's not to say I don't have a shiat ton of respect for Bill Nye and what he has done.  Overall he's still done way more good than what he lost here.  But here, he lost.
 
2014-02-05 03:07:54 PM

elchupacabra: Wouldn't any creationist doctor pretty much fail Med School?


Nope.  The get admitted and pass college biology classes all the time.  Tests determine whether or not you know material, not whether or not you believe it.  I know the Bible pretty well but I don't believe it.
 
2014-02-05 03:08:38 PM
To paraphrase, Nye made 2 good points that Ham didn't address.

1 No testable hypothesis, no science..
2 There's no "intelligent" design if successful species continuously kill unsuccessful species. That's "Sweep Your Bad Ideas Under the Rug" Science.
 
2014-02-05 03:10:24 PM

elchupacabra: ikanreed: killdawabbitt: The world needs ditch diggers too. And crane operators, construction workers, gardeners, farmers... etc. What critically thinking people would take these jobs where you are a cog in some meaningless wheel?

And when they end up being your doctor, you're still okay with it?

Notsureifserious.jpg

Wouldn't any creationist doctor pretty much fail Med School?  Or are we including "Not a Certified Doctor" among that list?


Well it depends, Are they being tested on Observational or Historical Medicine?
 
2014-02-05 03:11:49 PM

lennavan: Sofa King Smart:
Bill Nye:  who wrote the bible?
Ken Ham: god.

Are there any Christians that believe God wrote the Bible?  I mean, the book of Matthew was written by... Matthew.  That's why it's referred to as "The Gospel According to Matthew."


God was Matthew's Holy Ghost writer
 
2014-02-05 03:12:33 PM
i drunk what: 1. difference between observational science and historical science

StoppedReadingThere.jpg
TheStupidItBurns.jpg
 
2014-02-05 03:12:37 PM

Heliovdrake: Historical Medicine?


That's the kind of thing I'd fear resulting.  "I'm a doctor of medicine, and I say that homeopathic treatments are historically scientific"
 
2014-02-05 03:12:55 PM

scarmig: colon_pow: scarmig: Take the standard Christian response to a scientific problem, and actually do the science, and it all falls apart.

can you give an example?


The amount of water actually required to cover the surface of the earth up to the peak of Mt Everest -

Eeyup, pants on head retarded.
Vestigial organs, and otherwise "just enough" biological design as opposed to "perfect" designs.- Vestigial organs? You mean like human Tailbones and Appendixes? Might wanna read up on current medical thought before trotting that argument out.
Yearly mutation of influenza virus.- Into what? E. Coli? Nobody who is sane argues against viral or bacterial mutation, but not once has an example of a Bacterium or Virus actually evolving into a completely different entity been shown. They can always be identified through millions of mutations. So is Mutation the same as Evolution?
Faulty understanding of 2nd law of thermodynamics w/ regards to evolution. - Eeyup, very true. Easy to forget the giant nuclear reactor in the sky.
Homosexual behaviors in non-human animals. - How exactly does "The animals do it" equate to "humans should too"?  Dolphins hump everything that moves, living or dead (and need I mention the chimp and his frog?). By extension, the argument that "Animals do it so it's natural in humans" means that it should be okay for randy humans to fark anything that moves. See the problem here?

Basically, you made some good points but you also had some outdated arguments and rebuttals.
 
2014-02-05 03:18:33 PM
Wait, wait. IDW has ABB3W, the guy that's known for rationalism here farkied as lost cause?

The size of the projector he uses can screen movies on the Moon from the bottom of the Marianas trench.

Holy batfark.
 
2014-02-05 03:19:59 PM

washington-babylon: scarmig: colon_pow: scarmig: Take the standard Christian response to a scientific problem, and actually do the science, and it all falls apart.

can you give an example?


The amount of water actually required to cover the surface of the earth up to the peak of Mt Everest -Eeyup, pants on head retarded.
Vestigial organs, and otherwise "just enough" biological design as opposed to "perfect" designs.- Vestigial organs? You mean like human Tailbones and Appendixes? Might wanna read up on current medical thought before trotting that argument out.
Yearly mutation of influenza virus.- Into what? E. Coli? Nobody who is sane argues against viral or bacterial mutation, but not once has an example of a Bacterium or Virus actually evolving into a completely different entity been shown. They can always be identified through millions of mutations. So is Mutation the same as Evolution?
Faulty understanding of 2nd law of thermodynamics w/ regards to evolution. - Eeyup, very true. Easy to forget the giant nuclear reactor in the sky.
Homosexual behaviors in non-human animals. - How exactly does "The animals do it" equate to "humans should too"?  Dolphins hump everything that moves, living or dead (and need I mention the chimp and his frog?). By extension, the argument that "Animals do it so it's natural in humans" means that it should be okay for randy humans to fark anything that moves. See the problem here?

Basically, you made some good points but you also had some outdated arguments and rebuttals.


I was also responding to the question to list some examples of sciency things that got me questioning my religious belief.  That was something around thirty years ago.  Science has indeed been updated in the past three decades.
 
2014-02-05 03:20:20 PM

PicoDelSol: lennavan: Sofa King Smart:
Bill Nye:  who wrote the bible?
Ken Ham: god.

Are there any Christians that believe God wrote the Bible?  I mean, the book of Matthew was written by... Matthew.  That's why it's referred to as "The Gospel According to Matthew."

God was Matthew's Holy Ghost writer


I used to like that show and I don't remember why.  I was way too old for it.


31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-05 03:20:25 PM

ZeroCorpse: Next up: The debate between a biologist and a Scientologist pundit regarding the existence of thetans.


You should read up on the Scientologists' idea of "evolution". Reading "A History of Man" (or "What To Audit", depending on the year of publication) is an eye-opening experience. The crap people will believe in is insane.
 
2014-02-05 03:21:22 PM

washington-babylon: So is Mutation the same as Evolution?


"I'm pretending that an important part of a theory is the entire thing, for no other reason than it's trivial to dismiss as wrong."

Like talking snakes are the same as Christianity right?  Like there's no difference there?  This one stupid claim on your part is enough to make anything you say from now on sound like complete idiocy unworthy of any examination.

Like, there aren't words to describe how dumb this argument is.
 
2014-02-05 03:22:14 PM

vactech: I often wonder if the historians Tacitus and Josephus used historical science when they reported on Christ/Jesus.


notreligious.typepad.com
 
2014-02-05 03:23:55 PM

lennavan: elchupacabra: No way is this debate going to mean Creationism will supplant Science any more than it already is in some schools.

Wanna bet?  This debate admitted creationism is worth debating scientifically and publicly.  You don't think it will be used in front of school boards next time this is brought up?

elchupacabra: Ignoring them will equate to an oppressed minority in their eyes, which means more fighting to get recognition.

I'm not saying ignore them, I'm saying science should ignore them.  And in fact, I don't even think science should ignore them, I think science should reply to them appropriately.  If they have a scientific hypothesis they would like to debate, we would be happy to.  Creationism is not testable, therefore it is not a hypothesis.  That is not something science can or should attempt to debate.


That.... is actually a decent option.  I still don't think it's the end of the world to debate -- it's not Star Wars "Cut me down and I'll become more powerful" logic, here.  But funny thing, your statements sound like a better way to debate.
 
2014-02-05 03:24:51 PM

vactech: I often wonder if the historians Tacitus and Josephus used historical science when they reported on Christ/Jesus.


They talked about Christians who worshiped a "Christ" not a Christ himself.  That doesn't prove anything about anything, but it doesn't do to misrepresent.
 
2014-02-05 03:24:55 PM

Shadow Blasko: Mikey1969: Egoy3k: Mikey1969: 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.

Here in Nova Scotia if you are on a beach anywhere near five islands you can usually find fossils if you look hard enough and if you are in a place called Joggins you pretty much are guaranteed to find some, I have a whole shelf full of them.  I have fern leaves and lots of shells. Anything with footprints that I've found got donated and I've never found vertebrates but I would donate them as well.

That's pretty cool, we had the spiral shell fossils and ones called crinoids at the Canyon, but like I said, you had to hunt for them. Not super hard, it was easy to come across them on accident, if you happened to be in the right place, but they were nowhere near as prevalent as your experience, that would be very cool.

The Appalachian foothills (most of Kentucky) are some of the oldest mountains on Earth. And yes, anywhere there is a creek bed or a place where they cut through a hill to place a road (every damned mile in northern Kentucky) you can walk over and pick up a fossil. The ground is littered with them. (Also... coal)

I always thought that was one of the great ironies of the southern anti-science stronghold.


The coal wouldn't be interesting, but the fossils would be awesome. I just have to keep my ears out for banjo music, I guess...
 
2014-02-05 03:27:06 PM

Zafler: Wait, wait. IDW has ABB3W, the guy that's known for rationalism here farkied as lost cause?


which makes IDW haz a sad since abbey is the ONLY IB known to date to have ever gotten the card test right...

*poors one out for good ole abbey*

unfortunately he lacked the courage necessary to confront the rest of the Brigade :\   sonamdisappoint.jpg

meh
 
2014-02-05 03:27:25 PM
Here is the real "problem" with the literalist view in terms of the bible. It is not internally consistent.

(1) God wants people to believe in him without seeing (e.g. doubting Thomas)
(2) creationists believe that God is perfect, all knowing, etc
(3) creationists believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

So, if God doesn't want people's faith in him to be influenced by "signs," "evidence," or "proof," but rather by faith alone, why would he write a book that is literally true and put the evidence in the ground. Why wouldn't God create a universe that looks like he did not have a hand in making it? If he really valued blind faith in him, as the Bible suggests, everyone should expect there to be no signs of his "work" to satisfy the doubting Thomas.

Therefore, it is pretty clear that science (our observation of how the universe operates) and religion (our organized system of belief in how the universe operates) are two giant circles that do not intersect. Rather, they are two explanations for two different things that satisfy two different needs. Science satisfies our intellect and provides practical, working solutions to real problems and religion satisfies our need of belonging, our need for a higher purpose, and our need for comfort in facing death.
 
2014-02-05 03:28:02 PM

CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

[wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com image 850x291]


Heh.  Fundies know they're at risk if not isolated.
 
2014-02-05 03:28:21 PM

washington-babylon: Vestigial organs, and otherwise "just enough" biological design as opposed to "perfect" designs.- Vestigial organs? You mean like human Tailbones and Appendixes?


How about legs on whales and snakes?
 
2014-02-05 03:29:00 PM

Epicedion: 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 image 220x275]


I have learned that asking a creationist how they have ascertained, accurately, that what they claim "God" to have stated was in fact stated by "God" causes them to express anger.
 
2014-02-05 03:29:15 PM

killdawabbitt: For one, I am glad creationists exist and fight rational thinking people.

The world needs ditch diggers too.  And crane operators, construction workers, gardeners, farmers... etc.  What critically thinking people would take these jobs where you are a cog in some meaningless wheel?


I'm, I wouldn't exactly list crane operators as an unskilled portion of the workforce, I think those bring in some good money, even the small cranes. High rise cranes? That's some serious cabbage, IIRC.
 
2014-02-05 03:31:50 PM

ikanreed: vactech: I often wonder if the historians Tacitus and Josephus used historical science when they reported on Christ/Jesus.

They talked about Christians who worshiped a "Christ" not a Christ himself.  That doesn't prove anything about anything, but it doesn't do to misrepresent.


Leave it alone.  It's in the past.
 
2014-02-05 03:32:44 PM
OK read enough of the Fark comments to post this.

1.) This issue NEEDS to be confronted.
2.) You do that by talking together in a respectful manner and seeking common ground.
3.) ATTACKING people just re-enforces their beliefs that you are a prick. They might actually be right....


/+1 internets for Bill Nye in my book
//maybe I'll read the rest of the comments now......
 
2014-02-05 03:37:58 PM

vactech: Leave it alone. It's in the past.


Is it fair for me to ask what you mean?  Your post is in the past?  The historians are in the past?  Discussions of historical christ are about the past?   I'm not quite sure what any of those imply I should leave alone.
 
2014-02-05 03:48:18 PM

impaler: washington-babylon: Vestigial organs, and otherwise "just enough" biological design as opposed to "perfect" designs.- Vestigial organs? You mean like human Tailbones and Appendixes?

How about legs on whales and snakes?


Creationists frequently fail to understand that "vestigal", with respect to biology, refers to structures that no longer serve most or any of their ancestral function. A vestigal organ may still serve some important function, it just will not be the function of an ancestral form of the organism.
 
2014-02-05 03:48:21 PM

lennavan: Yes it is, you just admitted the Bible is a reliable source worth using in arguments.  They won more ground than they initially even imagined.


If you are debating the tenants or belief of someone who believes in it, then yes, yes it is.

If someone says "But the Bible says God impregnated a monkey and that lead to humans," would you really argue that saying "Um..no it doesn't," is a bad argument, just because it uses the Bible?
 
2014-02-05 03:49:59 PM
I really expected more from Nye. He spent to much time in a "whu? srsly? so dumbz, rite?" mode.

It didn't go over well.

I did learn that "things live their whole lives, sometimes 20 years."

That said, Hamm's "interpretation of an ancient book translated into American english" is wack.
 
2014-02-05 03:51:44 PM

ikanreed: vactech: Leave it alone. It's in the past.

Is it fair for me to ask what you mean?  Your post is in the past?  The historians are in the past?  Discussions of historical christ are about the past?   I'm not quite sure what any of those imply I should leave alone.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-05 03:53:03 PM

grumpfuff: If you are debating the tenants or belief of someone who believes in it, then yes, yes it is.


The question about "Oh, so do you believe in these ancient, local laws that are documented in this book, as well!?" question was about as relevant as ID in a biology class. So... fair play, I guess.
 
2014-02-05 03:53:20 PM

grumpfuff: If someone says "But the Bible says God impregnated a monkey and that lead to humans," would you really argue that saying "Um..no it doesn't," is a bad argument, just because it uses the Bible?


I would say - "I'm a scientist, that is not a testable statement, therefore it is not something I can answer now, or ever.  Maybe it's a good argument, maybe it's not.  Whatever it is, it's not science.  Might I suggest you ask a priest?"
 
2014-02-05 03:54:12 PM
Also relevant. "If you don't believe in science, don't invent the MRI!"
 
2014-02-05 03:54:37 PM
As I said in the other thread, Ken Ham's argument was essentially a rejection of uniformitarianism (that the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the Universe and have always been the same in the past) which is something all science subscribes to and HAS to subscribe to otherwise it can't make any useful predictions.

So he makes the case that because we cannot observe whether the laws of physics were the same in the past, therefore YEC is plausible. Or in his case, true. That's what he was going on about with his nonsense about "observational" science vs "historical" science (what he really means is deductive science). As far as I know, the only people who make this division are Creationists. Scientists don't divide scientific evidence like that. It's another one of those definition games Creationists like to play. They also came up with the split concepts of "macroevolution" and "microevolution" (they have no problem acknowledging the latter cf. animal husbandry). But no evolutionary scientist recognizes these division. To them, it's all evolution. Or to put it in Creationist terms, there is no macroevolution. It's all micro.

But we don't need to observe something to know how it happened. Otherwise, all police detective work and all court cases would be pointless. What infuriated me was that Bill Nye failed to sufficiently debunk this nonsense which allowed Ham to repeat it over and over again for 3 hours. It was a dumb debate and I didn't think Bill Nye really expressed his point very well.

I DO like how Bill used the platform to promote scientific literacy and education, and tied it into the future of the country. It's as if he recognized that no one's mind is going to be changed so rather than argue, he advertised the importance of science instead. Smooth move.
 
2014-02-05 03:56:35 PM

JusticeandIndependence: ikanreed: vactech: Leave it alone. It's in the past.

Is it fair for me to ask what you mean?  Your post is in the past?  The historians are in the past?  Discussions of historical christ are about the past?   I'm not quite sure what any of those imply I should leave alone.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 435x249]


This is not helpful.  I'm genuinely trying to ask what I'm doing wrong, either through my own ignorance, or vactech's oversensitivity, and being told "you're wrong" doesn't actually help me become less wrong.
 
2014-02-05 03:56:48 PM

Strik3r: OK read enough of the Fark comments to post this.

1.) This issue NEEDS to be confronted.
2.) You do that by talking together in a respectful manner and seeking common ground.
3.) ATTACKING people just re-enforces their beliefs that you are a prick. They might actually be right....


/+1 internets for Bill Nye in my book
//maybe I'll read the rest of the comments now......


This.

And I'm disappointed in Farkers on this issue. They usually have a decent understanding of these things but most seem to think this debate was directed at creationists. Or that Nye was trying to change their minds. It wasn't and he wasn't. It was directed at people that might become creationists. Like our kids and grandkids. Or those on the fence about this issue. Trying to point out how wrong something is is never a bad thing otherwise Fark wouldn't have a Politics Tab at all.

We need more debates like this or we stand the chance of losing more people to these whack jobs in the future.
 
2014-02-05 03:58:36 PM

Ishkur: As I said in the other thread, Ken Ham's argument was essentially a rejection of uniformitarianism (that the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the Universe and have always been the same in the past)


While at the same time saying that natural law is proof that god made everything, and is consistent?
I thought his point was that god's law is consistent, and that's how we know how to observe, deduce.
Of course, it was hard to tell what he was saying, since everything was basically an altar call.

I was ready for "if you were to die in a car crash on your way home tonight, where would you end up?"
 
2014-02-05 03:59:07 PM

elchupacabra: That.... is actually a decent option. I still don't think it's the end of the world to debate -- it's not Star Wars "Cut me down and I'll become more powerful" logic, here. But funny thing, your statements sound like a better way to debate.


There's nothing wrong with debate, science welcomes debate.  I am all for debating the fark out of global warming theory because that absolutely leads to a shiat ton of a testable hypotheses.  But science cannot debate non-testable things.  There is no should science debate it or not, it simply cannot.

The science v. creation debate goes like this:
Science:  Evolution is a theory that has generated a multitude of hypotheses.
Creation:  Our alternative hypothesis is God created stuff.
Science:  That's not a hypothesis.  Can you rephrase it in a manner that is testable and falsifiable?
Creation:  Nope.
Science:  K bye.
 
2014-02-05 03:59:51 PM

I'll just leave these here:


i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com


Checkmate, evolutionists.
 
2014-02-05 04:00:13 PM

I drunk what: Zafler: Wait, wait. IDW has ABB3W, the guy that's known for rationalism here farkied as lost cause?

which makes IDW haz a sad since abbey is the ONLY IB known to date to have ever gotten the card test right...

*poors one out for good ole abbey*

unfortunately he lacked the courage necessary to confront the rest of the Brigade :\   sonamdisappoint.jpg

meh


So today's not a "pretend to be an atheist and troll them lelz im so funny" day?
 
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