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  
•       •       •

8695 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (37 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 04:01:28 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.


Look up the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and the human eye for two perfect examples of 'just enough' biological design that was mentioned in the OP.
 
2014-02-05 04:01:29 PM  

draa: 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.


In the politics tab, we use the phrase "don't feed the trolls."  Do you know why that phrase exists and what the argument behind it is?

fc08.deviantart.net
 
2014-02-05 04:02:09 PM  

The AlbinoSaxon: I'll just leave these here:

[i.imgur.com image 625x602]
[i.imgur.com image 625x564]
[i.imgur.com image 625x480]
[i.imgur.com image 625x452]

Checkmate, evolutionists.


The sunset one is going to be my favorite for a long time to come.  It really does have it all.
 
2014-02-05 04:03:27 PM  

The AlbinoSaxon: I'll just leave these here:

[i.imgur.com image 625x602]
[i.imgur.com image 625x564]
[i.imgur.com image 625x480]
[i.imgur.com image 625x452]

Checkmate, evolutionists.


I must assume that those images, and the messages therein, were intended as mockery of creationists.
 
2014-02-05 04:04:35 PM  
Yeah I'd test the "do not stick your dick in crazy" hypothesis with her:

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-05 04:04:40 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've made a living in gardening and construction, and made side money farming. I think your average data entry position might be a little more cog-like.
 
2014-02-05 04:04:42 PM  

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

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. Ham said no, pointing to the authority of Scripture. Nye said that evidence for creation would change his mind. But Nye made clear that he was unconditionally committed to a naturalistic worldview, which would make such evidence impossible. 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.


Mohler "corrected" this paragraph as I edited. But he didn't change anything else, even if such a correction would necessarily torpedo his rant. Thus, "Nye is close minded and wrong" persists.
 
2014-02-05 04:04:57 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-05 04:05:46 PM  

lennavan: Yeah I'd test the "do not stick your dick in crazy" hypothesis with her:

[img.fark.net image 625x452]


You can't explain that!
 
2014-02-05 04:06:10 PM  
Dimensio:

I must assume that those images, and the messages therein, were intended as mockery of creationists.

I think they are creationists posing what they believe to be valid criticisms of the Theory of Evolution.

Then again, Poe's Law really found a home with creationists.
 
2014-02-05 04:06:25 PM  

s2s2s2: 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.


I came up with something off the top of my head. My basic point is there really is no Biblical basis for believing in YEC, if you just open your eyes and mind. I've personally seen YEC believers start to doubt, and eventually give up their belief in YEC, when confronted with that fact.

lennavan: 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?"


Or you could simply point to a Bible, tell them to read it, and point out exactly where it says that. When they can't, it hopefully causes them to doubt that belief.

My point is what I said above - sometimes arguing on their terms is ten times more effective. Of course, it varies from person to person, but sometimes, rather than throw something with the weight of science behind it at them, it's better to lob something made of their own beliefs at them, and THEN bring in the science.
 
2014-02-05 04:06:32 PM  

lennavan: Yeah I'd test the "do not stick your dick in crazy" hypothesis with her:

[img.fark.net image 625x452]


Also, "there".
 
2014-02-05 04:07:21 PM  

Dimensio: The AlbinoSaxon: I'll just leave these here:

I must assume that those images, and the messages therein, were intended as mockery of creationists.


The author of the post from which they come says he asked 22 creationists that attended the debate to write a message/question to the other side, so unless 22 evolutionists trolled him...
 
2014-02-05 04:07:52 PM  

Farking Canuck: Dimensio:

I must assume that those images, and the messages therein, were intended as mockery of creationists.

I think they are creationists posing what they believe to be valid criticisms of the Theory of Evolution.


I may need to excuse myself from further discussion. I believe that I am suffering from a psychotic break.
 
2014-02-05 04:08:04 PM  

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

[notreligious.typepad.com image 367x177]


The second one and the last one should be checked as either could disprove the hypothesis.  The first has an odd number (irrelevant what its back is).  The third has a red back (irrelevent whether the other side contains an even or an odd number).  The hypothesis is disproven if the back of the 8 is not red, or if the front of the fourth card has an even number.

However, this proves nothing -- it simply supports the hypothesis unless this is the entire population under study.  To determine the likelihood that this is always true (which should only be expressed as a probability), you would need to know how many cards are out there in total and make a similar test on a statistically relevant sample.

(Where is this going?)
 
2014-02-05 04:08:32 PM  

The AlbinoSaxon: I'll just leave these here:

[i.imgur.com image 625x602]
[i.imgur.com image 625x564]
[i.imgur.com image 625x480]
[i.imgur.com image 625x452]

Checkmate, evolutionists.


Any adult who can smugly hold a sign that blatantly contains the their/there error should be punched in the head.  Hard.
 
2014-02-05 04:08:38 PM  

The AlbinoSaxon: Dimensio: The AlbinoSaxon: I'll just leave these here:

I must assume that those images, and the messages therein, were intended as mockery of creationists.

The author of the post from which they come says he asked 22 creationists that attended the debate to write a message/question to the other side, so unless 22 evolutionists trolled him...


BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POTATO KING?!?!
 
2014-02-05 04:10:47 PM  

KarmicDisaster: lennavan: Yeah I'd test the "do not stick your dick in crazy" hypothesis with her:

[img.fark.net image 625x452]

Also, "there".


If she spelled it correctly, she wouldn't be nearly as crazy.  If I'm testin the hypothesis, I'm goin all in.
 
2014-02-05 04:11:13 PM  

lennavan: In the politics tab, we use the phrase "don't feed the trolls."


Actually I believe that phrase is universal across the internet, but it still doesn't make it right in this instance.

Without debate more people will move towards creationism. And please don't tell me that by standing pat people will eventually see the truth. That simply doesn't work or we wouldn't have the Republican Party either. By pointing out how absurd their views are more people will be inclined to avoid them in the future. Again, see the Republican Party for an example of that.

If Bill Nye prevents one person from joining that crowd the debate was worth it.
 
2014-02-05 04:11:48 PM  
You can't "win" a debate with a brick wall no matter how many times you hit it with your head.
 
2014-02-05 04:12:07 PM  

grumpfuff: lennavan: 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?"

Or you could simply point to a Bible


Why would I do that?  I'm not a priest.  I'm not a religious scholar.  I have no credentials to discuss the Bible.  What's more, I don't give a shiat what is in the Bible.  I'm a scientist.  You wanna talk Science, great.  You wanna talk about non-testable statements?  Not my area of expertise, go find someone else.
 
2014-02-05 04:12:25 PM  

draa: If Bill Nye prevents one person from joining that crowd the debate was worth it.


There's your hypothesis, now what's your test for that hypothesis?
 
2014-02-05 04:13:38 PM  

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


 I'm bored. You're boring. You bore me.
 
2014-02-05 04:16:59 PM  

draa: Without debate more people will move towards creationism. And please don't tell me that by standing pat people will eventually see the truth.


What debate?  There is no debate.

Bill Nye farked up by showing up, he undermined that statement.  There is no debate.  Creationism is not an alternative hypothesis because it is not a hypothesis and so it doesn't meet the minimum requirements for the relative merits to be weighed.

draa: By pointing out how absurd their views


By all means, point out how absurd their views are.  Just don't use science.  Their views are not hypotheses, therefore by definition, science cannot disprove them.

draa: If Bill Nye prevents one person from joining that crowd the debate was worth it.


Meanwhile, a shiat ton of people across the country saw Creationism put up on equal footing as the Theory of Evolution and if nothing else, gained a fundamental misunderstanding of what Science is and does, what a hypothesis is and what a theory is.  That Bill Nye attempted to use science to debate Creationism taught a country full of people, on his side no less, an incorrect perception of what Science is.  By definition, Science cannot debate religion.
 
2014-02-05 04:17:27 PM  

grumpfuff: I came up with something off the top of my head. My basic point is there really is no Biblical basis for believing in YEC, if you just open your eyes and mind. I've personally seen YEC believers start to doubt, and eventually give up their belief in YEC, when confronted with that fact.


I disagree with Hamm that there is any basis for dating the earth to be found in the bible.
 
2014-02-05 04:18:47 PM  
img.fark.net

PullItOut: The second one and the last one should be checked as either could disprove the hypothesis.  The first has an odd number (irrelevant what its back is).  The third has a red back (irrelevent whether the other side contains an even or an odd number).  The hypothesis is disproven if the back of the 8 is not red, or if the front of the fourth card has an even number.


abb3w, is this^ correct?
 
2014-02-05 04:22:00 PM  

PullItOut: However, this proves nothing -- it simply supports the hypothesis unless this is the entire population under study.  To determine the likelihood that this is always true (which should only be expressed as a probability), you would need to know how many cards are out there in total and make a similar test on a statistically relevant sample.


img.fark.net

PullItOut: Where is this going?


We're on a road to nowhere...

... come on inside.
 
2014-02-05 04:23:35 PM  

ikanreed: 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.


Perhaps I should have typed The Christ/Christus/Jesus.

or...maybe...

wrong/right?  it doesn't matter.  the only thing that matters is His Truth™ or nature.  but I'm genuinely happy that you are asking yourself theses questions "what I'm doing wrong?"  even if it is in the past tense.
 
2014-02-05 04:24:33 PM  

I drunk what: [img.fark.net image 367x177]

PullItOut: The second one and the last one should be checked as either could disprove the hypothesis.  The first has an odd number (irrelevant what its back is).  The third has a red back (irrelevent whether the other side contains an even or an odd number).  The hypothesis is disproven if the back of the 8 is not red, or if the front of the fourth card has an even number.

abb3w, is this^ correct?


It just asked you to "test" it, not prove it. So I'd only turn over the 8, or the orange, either one would be a test.  A better test would be to turn over both, but they just asked for a "test". So either the 8 or the orange or both for a better test.
 
2014-02-05 04:28:59 PM  

I drunk what: [img.fark.net image 367x177]

PullItOut: The second one and the last one should be checked as either could disprove the hypothesis.  The first has an odd number (irrelevant what its back is).  The third has a red back (irrelevent whether the other side contains an even or an odd number).  The hypothesis is disproven if the back of the 8 is not red, or if the front of the fourth card has an even number.

abb3w, is this^ correct?


2: the 8 card and the red card.
 
2014-02-05 04:29:23 PM  

vactech: ikanreed: 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.

Perhaps I should have typed The Christ/Christus/Jesus.

or...maybe...

wrong/right?  it doesn't matter.  the only thing that matters is His Truth™ or nature.  but I'm genuinely happy that you are asking yourself theses questions "what I'm doing wrong?"  even if it is in the past tense.


I think I understand.  Maybe.  You've misunderstood my motives as being a christian trying to defend the existence of historical Jesus or something.  I was not doing that.
 
2014-02-05 04:30:24 PM  

yakmans_dad: 2: the 8 card and the red card.


You've failed the test.
 
2014-02-05 04:30:39 PM  

ikanreed: draa: If Bill Nye prevents one person from joining that crowd the debate was worth it.

There's your hypothesis, now what's your test for that hypothesis?


No test, but it's a good bet it didn't do any harm. Or at least anymore than staying quiet has done so far.
 
2014-02-05 04:41:47 PM  
pretty much every question HAM moved the goal posts.  I did smile when he got frustrasted and asked something to this effect, " what's the point of discovering new things if you can't live forever in magical land? "
 
2014-02-05 04:42:27 PM  

ikanreed: yakmans_dad: 2: the 8 card and the red card.

You've failed the test.


All of the cards except the 3.  We do not care what the back of an odd looks like.  A red back on the 8, an even on the red and a not even on the yellow can be used to test "an even number has a red back."
 
2014-02-05 04:42:57 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) which is something all science subscribes to and HAS to subscribe to otherwise it can't make any useful predictions.


This is what I came here to say.  Creationists continue to make unsubstantiated conjectures about science to conform to their world view. While scientists develop theories to explain the evidence they see.
 
2014-02-05 04:45:24 PM  

lennavan: grumpfuff: lennavan: 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?"

Or you could simply point to a Bible

Why would I do that?  I'm not a priest.  I'm not a religious scholar.  I have no credentials to discuss the Bible.  What's more, I don't give a shiat what is in the Bible.  I'm a scientist.  You wanna talk Science, great.  You wanna talk about non-testable statements?  Not my area of expertise, go find someone else.


You really think that saying "The Bible says god impregnated monkeys" is a non-testable statement?
 
2014-02-05 04:46:32 PM  

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

 I'm bored. You're boring. You bore me.


Stealing my line is the best you can do? I am disappoint.
 
2014-02-05 04:47:29 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?


Hey, you try to have sex with your partner with no arms or legs. Not easy is it? What if they aren't vestigial and are instead grown from the frustration of trying to get your mate to stay still? In other words, how do you know which way the limb is going in the evolutionary chain for that whale or snake?
 
2014-02-05 04:49:09 PM  

s2s2s2: grumpfuff: I came up with something off the top of my head. My basic point is there really is no Biblical basis for believing in YEC, if you just open your eyes and mind. I've personally seen YEC believers start to doubt, and eventually give up their belief in YEC, when confronted with that fact.

I disagree with Hamm that there is any basis for dating the earth to be found in the bible.


Well then, we'd be in agreement(if I'm parsing your somewhat awkward sentence correctly). But in this specific case, YEC was at issue, and so YEC was the example I used.
 
2014-02-05 04:49:45 PM  

Saiga410: All of the cards except the 3.  We do not care what the back of an odd looks like.  A red back on the 8, an even on the red and a not even on the yellow can be used to test "an even number has a red back."


We also don't care what is on the front of the Red card. There is nothing in the conditions saying it must be even.
 
2014-02-05 04:57:28 PM  
It still amuses me the size of the projector IDW is using. He accuses someone who basically embodied pvq or qvp of being a 'lost cause' then turns around and uses a similar test the he himself failed in a spectacular fashion at, while 3 other people got it right without additional details, and claims no one other than his 'lost cause' has answered it correctly. Yeeesh.
 
2014-02-05 05:02:38 PM  

Zafler: Hah, I was wondering if that was going to show up. I didn't realize it was in graphical format now.


Actually the graphical format made me realize something.  The 3 might have an even number(instead of a color as we'd intuitively expect) on the reverse.  That possibility would add an extra flip.
 
2014-02-05 05:02:52 PM  

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



www.jollybengali.net
 
2014-02-05 05:07:42 PM  

I drunk what: [img.fark.net image 367x177]

PullItOut: The second one and the last one should be checked as either could disprove the hypothesis.  The first has an odd number (irrelevant what its back is).  The third has a red back (irrelevent whether the other side contains an even or an odd number).  The hypothesis is disproven if the back of the 8 is not red, or if the front of the fourth card has an even number.

abb3w, is this^ correct?


the first one needs turning over to be totally sure it does not have an even number on the other side so the technically correct answer is first, second and fourth although usually cards do not have numbers on both sides.
 
2014-02-05 05:13:22 PM  

ikanreed: Zafler: Hah, I was wondering if that was going to show up. I didn't realize it was in graphical format now.

Actually the graphical format made me realize something.  The 3 might have an even number(instead of a color as we'd intuitively expect) on the reverse.  That possibility would add an extra flip.


The implication of explicitly calling them cards leads to the concept of numbers on one side and a design of some sort on the other, as a cultural touchstone. In a more formal setting I would probably have asked if that implication is true, however the presentation of the question is to determine whether or not the opposite face of an even card is red or not, implying, without that cultural touchstone, that all cards will have a number on one side and a color on the other. As such, the color of the oppose face of the odd number is irrelevant as is the number on the opposite side of the red card.
 
2014-02-05 05:15:53 PM  

Egoy3k: 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.

Look up the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and the human eye for two perfect examples of 'just enough' biological design that was mentioned in the OP.


Notice I wasn't replying to the "Just enough" bit. I was pointing out that organs once thought to be vestigial actually are vital to human anatomy.
 
2014-02-05 05:23:11 PM  
It took an hour and half into it, and is that a cross Bill is wearing on his left side?
 
2014-02-05 05:35:20 PM  

Electrify: how many of these people are actively expressing these beliefs


Around 46% of Americans, as of 2012. Additionally, 32% believe that humans evolved but the process was guided by a god. 15% believe that humans evolved, but a god was not involved.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-D es ign.aspx
 
2014-02-05 05:37:49 PM  

ikanreed: yakmans_dad: 2: the 8 card and the red card.

You've failed the test.


Thanks. I see that.
 
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