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  
•       •       •

8687 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (29 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 05:44:52 PM

washington-babylon: 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?


Fossil records. Knowledge of skeletal structure between animals.
 
2014-02-05 05:49:30 PM
http://www.collegehumor.com/post/6951423/wow-these-people-really-do-no t-like-bill-nye
 
2014-02-05 05:52:31 PM

grumpfuff: 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.


I'm bored. You're boring. You bore me.
 
2014-02-05 05:58:28 PM

grumpfuff: 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?


Yes.

By all means, tell me what test would you do?
 
2014-02-05 06:04:30 PM

lennavan: grumpfuff: 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?

Yes.

By all means, tell me what test would you do?


You make God fark another monkey but he can't pull out this time.
 
2014-02-05 06:07:10 PM

I drunk what: grumpfuff: 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.

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



i58.tinypic.com
 
2014-02-05 06:10:56 PM

lennavan: grumpfuff: 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?

Yes.

By all means, tell me what test would you do?


Sure. It's very simple.

Statement: "The Bible says God impregnated a monkey."

How to Test
Step 1: Acquire Bible.
Step 2: Read Bible
Step 3: Look for any instance of "And lo, God did impregnate a monkey" or something very similar( ie "The monkey was impregnated by God")
Step 4: If any instance is found, statement is true. if no instance is found, statement is not true.


You see, the difference between you and I is how we see the statement. You focus on the "God did x" part. I focus on the "Bible says x" part.

When you dismiss a statement as non-scientific or un-testable, you still leave room for that person to hold the belief, no matter how right you actually are. They can dismiss you as being afraid or unable to contest their statement.

However, when you confront the statement head on, on its own terms, you can definitively show the statement to be false, and the person holding it to be wrong. That, and that alone, is why I think at least a basic understanding of Christianity is needed for these debates.
 
2014-02-05 06:10:57 PM

ikanreed: You've failed the test.


but this is farkchan, he still gets a trophy for participating

don't be such a closed minded bigot

dready zim: 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.


img.fark.net

congratulations, you have been disqualified from the Idiot Brigade, please turn in your shiny plastic helmet, and may the Lord have mercy on your soul...

you see abbey?  that wasn't so hard

so then Senor Zim, what is nature?
 
2014-02-05 06:12:08 PM

vrax: I drunk what: grumpfuff: 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.

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


[i58.tinypic.com image 320x240]


He's taking what I did to him in another thread and trying to repeat it. I guess he thinks it makes him funny or something.
 
2014-02-05 06:18:07 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-05 06:22:07 PM

grumpfuff: I guess he thinks it makes him funny or something.


actually i was going for 'insufferable douchebag', but you were close

IDW gets a kick out of irony...

/funny ha ha
//funny strange
 
2014-02-05 06:26:59 PM

I drunk what: actually i was going for 'insufferable douchebag',


You didn't need to copy me to pull that off, you were doing just fine on your own. :)
 
2014-02-05 06:28:00 PM

grumpfuff: You didn't need to copy me to pull that off, you were doing just fine on your own. :)


I'm bored. You're boring. You bore me.
 
2014-02-05 06:36:29 PM

I drunk what: grumpfuff: You didn't need to copy me to pull that off, you were doing just fine on your own. :)

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


warosu.org
 
2014-02-05 06:41:15 PM

I drunk what: what is nature?


It's a science journal.
/that was easy
 
2014-02-05 06:50:33 PM
Bill Nye lost the debate the moment he agreed to it.
 
2014-02-05 06:54:28 PM

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.


Midwestern road cuts (where they just cut right through a small hill rather than go around) are fantastic for fossils.  You could pick up trilobites and whatnot by the handful, and any random chunk of limestone would just be crammed full of them near where I grew up in Indiana, not all that far from where this took place.

Not to mention that being immediately adjacent to large roads, they are much easier to reach than the exposed vertical faces of the Grand Canyon.  Somewhat less pretty, though, I will grant.
 
2014-02-05 06:56:53 PM
Going on upwards of 7 years and I see that IDW still hasn't gotten over failing the Wason card selection task so spectacularly that he owes every sentient being he comes across an apology for simply existing.

Good thing I decided to make popcorn when I got home from work, this should be interesting.
 
2014-02-05 07:00:38 PM
As has been pointed out multiple times, you do not win a direct argument against Creationists.

Plenty of research to show that when arguing with any sort of partisan, rational points literally do not reach the reasoning part of the brain.

So have to find an argument they will listen to.

A major concern to all rel groups is that they lose large chunks of congregation when they reach 20, and they are at a loss to explain that.

So I offer this - (summarised) "You teach your kids a list of objections to Evo, but these are PRATTS (Points refuted a thousand times). And these are little bits around the edges of the vast mass of evidence supporting Evo."

(diagram of huge square with a few chips out of edges)

"But when your kids go into the real world, they notice that some of these PRATTS are actually wrong"
(Earth only 6000 yo is a particularly vulnerable one)

"They realize they've been lied to, or at very least, actively mislead."

"Then they look at the other bits you've taught them and start to doubt them as well"

Thus my sermon to you is that bc you preach a view that doesn't hold up IRL, you actually wind up making yr kids doubt everything you teach.
 
2014-02-05 07:00:48 PM
As a young Catholic, I always thought that eventually they would tell me that it was just a snipehunt, like Santa.  As I got older, I realized that even people I loved were blinded by this bullshiat.  I was in a lot of trouble constantly for questioning clergy, and my teachers. It kind of hurts my heart that people even give ANY creedence to what Ken Ham says.  His arguments weren't even debatable.  How do they look at themselves in the mirror, and say this stuff out loud?  But, debating the Bible is like arguing over Itunes user agreements.  No one reads either, so people just go based on what the think they say.
 
2014-02-05 07:00:57 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.


That is extraordinarily sad (but at least the first three could spell).
 
2014-02-05 07:07:00 PM

Mad Tea Party: Ham's argument literally boils down to "Well, the laws of physics were different back then."

Radioisotope dating? "Well stuff decayed faster back then!"

Plate Tectonics? "Well the plates moved a lot faster back then! You weren't there, you can't prove it didn't happen!"


One of the main defects of Creationism is need to invent new miracles to patch the holes in their arguments.

Radioisotope dating is one - need to explain how the 40-odd different isotope reactions all synchronise. The 'official' (Discovery Institute) line is that God magically brought all the decay rates into synchrony in the year of Noah's flood.

They acknowledge that this is a bit of a problem bc the heat accompanying this rapid radioactive decay would have heated the surface of the Earth to around 22,000 degrees, instantly boiling off the seas and vitrifying the top few feet of the surface.

Since this clearly didn't happen, God must have magically created a path for the heat to be harmlessly wicked off into space ......
 
2014-02-05 07:11:30 PM

madgonad: Nye really didn't handle Hamm's chronic efforts to bring up the bible.

The first time it was brought up this should have been the response:

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the Bible. It came into existence in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea. Leaders and representatives from all across the Mediterranean were brought together to unify the faith. There were all kinds of documents being used and many were in disagreement. That is where the New Testament was assembled and historical tidbits from the Hebrews were slotted into the Old Testament. Lots of stuff that was part of the evolving faith was chucked out. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered the enormous breadth of early Christian writing was revealed, leaving many to question how the Bible was distilled into what we recognize it as today. A very significant event, but clearly the act of mankind and not an infallible being.


They simply do not believe this. You can tell them (truly) that we have no copies of the NT from the first century, and they will not accept it.

They understand that the NT was written down, by people who were there, exactly as it appears in their Bibles. Not centuries later, but as Jesus was walking around
 
2014-02-05 07:17:51 PM

elchupacabra: 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.


I think it's better to teach ID/Creationism in school, and demand equal time for every other creation story .... and divide the explanations into the ones which are supported by evidence, and the ones which aren't
 
2014-02-05 07:21:03 PM

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

What better points were made by Ham?


1. God did it.

2. The Bible says so.

That is some rock solid evidence right there. Nye didn't stand a chance.
 
2014-02-05 07:40:15 PM

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?


  There are actually people in the US govt that believe this shiat as truth.  Sad, but true.
 
2014-02-05 07:40:39 PM
Me: The Universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Them: Were you there?
Me: Yes.
Them: Prove it.
Me: The Lord told me it's flat none of your business.
Me: I win. The end.

/Jimmy Swaggart
 
2014-02-05 07:41:29 PM

CJHardin: I successfully submitted a link for the live webcast last night and it was rejected prior to the debate even starting.  I'm guessing Fark wasn't down for a live discussion thread? WTF?

/I'll get over it.


Yes, it pissed me off also.  Fark has the best format for things like live discussion, but the speed and arbitrariness of their submission system is what will eventually kill it.

r/I'llgetOverItAlso
 
2014-02-05 07:41:54 PM
I doubt this is the case, but it would have been awesome to see the history of the Bible as an argument from Bill.

Ignore for a moment the many, many gaping flaws in the science of young earth creationism.  There are two, much more compelling arguments:

1)  There are civilizations on Earth that are older than 6000 years (or were at least around before then) and we have direct evidence of them.  You don't need to prove the Earth is billions of years old to disprove Ham, you just need to show it's older than he figures it is based on the geneology of Jesus.  We can do that convincingly without the need for the imaginative leap needed to try to comprehend what millions or billions of years looks like (i.e. it's hard to imagine millions or billions of years, it's easy to imagine slightly older than the Egyptian empire)

2)  The church didn't come from the Bible, the Bible came from the Church.  We have record of why the various books were included, and the criteria for inclusion at the various councils of the early church.  We know that there were books used that came and went (like the Gospel of Peter) for being inconsistent.  You can look at two of the criteria, that a book be true, and a book be internally consistent, to be included, and break young earth creationism.  Genesis is only internally consistent if it is read as allegorical truth.  That is, that the truth contained in Genesis is about our place in creation and relationship to God.  If it is to be read literally, historically, or scientifically, then the two contradicting stories of creation within Genesis make it inadmissible in the Bible as it is self contradictory, and thus can't contain the truth when read literally.
 
2014-02-05 07:45:10 PM
I shouldn't say those arguments are more compelling... I think they are more challenging to Ham because they directly speak to the nature of his argument, rather than being arguments of a different nature, and I think they are more accessible to an audience with low scientific literacy.
 
2014-02-05 07:47:16 PM

Olympic Trolling Judge: It's a science journal.


I see.  But is it not also a religion journal?

//that was easy
 
2014-02-05 07:48:12 PM
i204.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-05 07:50:32 PM

I drunk what: Olympic Trolling Judge: It's a science journal.

I see.  But is it not also a religion journal?

//that was easy


How often is it updated? Is it peer reviewed?
 
2014-02-05 07:51:19 PM
Religion is the explanation people use in the absence of data.  Why is the sky blue?  Why is this and why is that?  The easiest answer is "God" and a good story to go along with it.  It settled the minds of most people.

But not all.  It was those that were not satisfied with "God Did It" that went out to find that data.  It was they that created the Sciences of Math, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Geology, Astronomy and all the other disciplines that allow us to truly understand the world and universe we live in, and they did it by destroying the belief systems of Magic, Alchemy, Astrology and all the other practices that were based on whatever was pulled out of one's ass that sounded the most pleasing to the masses.

Then why do we have this outbreak of Creationism in this modern world?   Science is not easy.  It requires years of study just to master the basics of ONE branch of science, and decades to become a master of it,  You want to why life exists?  You need to start out after the Big Bang and work your way to the present.  The collection of atoms in your body had to go through the furnace of star creation and destruction several times just to exist, thrown together into a collection of molecules into just the right conditions to cause a non-stop chemical reaction that would become more and more complicated over time to reach the point which could be designated "life".  The sheer amount of information one would have to digest to understand the formation of life up to that point is massive.  Its easier just to be told "God created life and everything else in 6 days 6 thousand years ago", and it is easier just to accept that!

Before, most people only had one book to work from, but now we have massive libraries to draw knowledge from, and in the process of learning, exploring and examining, we add to that source of knowledge.  Creationists keep working from that one single book, believing it is the Whole of Truth and no proof is valid unless it is contained within it.  Religion is the last bastion of "No Data -- here is something I pulled out of my ass" in regards to what happens to us after we die. Do we have a soul and does it go on existing after our physical self stops functioning?  Is there an afterlife and does what we do in this current one affect what happens to us in the next?  Troubling questions, and to tell you the truth, I don't have an answer.  I'll probably find out when I am dead.  The problem is most people don't want to wait until then and want an answer now, and will believe any line of BS that will sooth their troubled minds.

The lie of Creationism is that they claim that you can't really prove anything.  It is easier for them to accept what is comforting and easy than something that is troubling and complicated.  The Bible, a collection of stories that have been translated from early versions, which were cherry-picked from a wealth of stories to fit one particular version of religious ideology, which were retelling of older stories from other religions and myths... The Bible is the word of God and the proof of God is the Bible and everything within it is Truth.

And this is why Creationism is so hard to stamp out.  Creationism is religion, and to attack Creationism is to attack Religion.  The only way to get rid of Creationism is to firmly separate it from Religion.  It is a belief, but it is a STUPID belief, no matter how smart you are.  If you believe in Creationism, then you are a Moron, an Imbecile, a Deluded Individual, and if you try to force this belief onto other, then you are Dangerous, and should be removed from any position that gives you the power to do so.  It is not persecution -- it is self-preservation.  Bill Nye tried to hammer home the point that the US needed Scientists to figure stuff out and Engineers to build it so it can compete with the rest of the world.  Yet you have this group of 'tards that seem to just want to dumb down the populace ever more than it already is.  Even the basic premise of Evolution -- survival of the fittest -- has to be accepted even if you disagree with the rest of the theory.

There is no debate, it is a fight, and Creationism is winning.  All because people would rather believe a comforting lie than an uncomfortable fact, and force that belief onto others: your children.
 
2014-02-05 08:06:11 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-05 08:16:09 PM

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?


Enough to get textgate started and ongoing for nearly a decade, among other things. In which, let's not forget,  Answers in Genesis had a direct part and fiscal interest because they print and sell, and lobby for the use of, creationist textbooks.

For those not playing the home game, I'ma repeat that.  ANSWERS IN GENESIS WRITES, PRINTS, SELLS, AND LOBBIES FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOL USE OF, CREATIONIST TEXTBOOKS.This is business, and it apparently isn't a small one. People who have watched any amount of Fox, or TBN, should know there's big money in confirmation bias -- this is one part of it, and YEC shills cater to a very specific subset, fundies.

This is pretty much  the key in "who won the debate?" as Nye  quite successfully gave Ham and his organization that had been financially floundering for the last year or two an entire month's worth of free advertising, and a vital lifeline that can then be leveraged for more ticket sales and private donations...which will then be channeled into  writing, printing, selling, and lobbying for the public school use of, creationist textbooks. I really hate to belabor the point here, but this is exactly why this is an unqualified victory for Ham and his ilk.
 
2014-02-05 08:16:56 PM

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

wasontest.jpg


The Wason test?  I'll get to that in a minute.  To be honest, I have shown IDW what is behind those cards, so he's probably (if he hasn't forgotten my ministry) closer to the Truth than anyone here.

While IDW clumsily attempts to define God's Reality (beyond ours, which He created from His), which is more than I can say for the rest of you I.S.'ers, IDW has a fatal flaw in his calculations.  This makes IDW more dangerous in leading my fark congregation astray.
 
2014-02-05 08:27:38 PM

I drunk what: so then Senor Zim, what is nature?


I'll handle this one amigo.


But before I do, I wonder if I drunk what recalls answer #1, numero uno, the first flop, the divine reveal?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-05 08:41:04 PM
I'm a creationist and even lean towards young earth but willing to admit the age of the earth is impossible to know 100% so it could easily be billions of years old. I like both guys in small doses. I do think Ham is a bit of a nut. 

As an adult i don't understand why my belief in creation should bother anyone.  honestly from a scientific standpoint I would think you would want the beginning of creation to be explored by all different viewpoints to enable the truth to be discovered and not overlooked.

imagine if creation is fact and the proof is discovered but discounted since the only ones working on the project have discarded creation as a possiblity.  That would be the same mistake a lot of Christians are making but not accepting that gays/lesbians are born that way.
 
2014-02-05 08:43:52 PM
I know I'm late to the thread, but to all the people saying it's useless or a waste or lends credibility to debate creationism: you don't defeat this nonsense by letting it go unchallenged.

The creationists will find some way to justify their position whether you debate them or not (ex. "They are too scared to debate us because they know science is wrong"). You don't counter misinformation and ignorance with silence. The point of this kind of debate isn't to convince people like Ken Hamm to change his mind, but to expose the ignorant and misinformed to scientific facts.
 
2014-02-05 09:07:35 PM

Waldo Pepper: I'm a creationist and even lean towards young earth but willing to admit the age of the earth is impossible to know 100% so it could easily be billions of years old. I like both guys in small doses. I do think Ham is a bit of a nut. 

As an adult i don't understand why my belief in creation should bother anyone.  honestly from a scientific standpoint I would think you would want the beginning of creation to be explored by all different viewpoints to enable the truth to be discovered and not overlooked.

imagine if creation is fact and the proof is discovered but discounted since the only ones working on the project have discarded creation as a possiblity.  That would be the same mistake a lot of Christians are making but not accepting that gays/lesbians are born that way.


I don't have a problem with you believing anything you want as long as you do not insist on teaching absurdities along side science.  But I do have to ask, how can you believe in god when all evidence indicates that that belief is just superstition?
 
2014-02-05 09:19:07 PM

Waldo Pepper: imagine if creation is fact and the proof is discovered but discounted since the only ones working on the project have discarded creation as a possiblity.


I'm pretty sure that if there was a credible scientific discovery of "God done it!" that the data would not be simply discarded based on preconception.
 
2014-02-05 09:26:02 PM

Waldo Pepper: I'm a creationist and even lean towards young earth but willing to admit the age of the earth is impossible to know 100%


Nothing can be known 100%. Science doesn't prove certainties, only high probabilities.

Waldo Pepper: honestly from a scientific standpoint I would think you would want the beginning of creation to be explored by all different viewpoints to enable the truth to be discovered and not overlooked.


Science is not a democracy. It is not there to hear all sides of an issue and then let you decide what you think is true. It is a ruthless dictatorship of facts and evidence. You don't get to reject the facts and evidence just because they don't conform to your beliefs.

Waldo Pepper: imagine if creation is fact and the proof is discovered but discounted since the only ones working on the project have discarded creation as a possiblity


That's not how science works. It is not dogma rejecting alternative views like some religion, it is a process of investigating claims about reality. If proof of creation is discovered, it must withstand scrutiny and skeptical inquiry. if it is incapable of doing this, then it is not a feasible model for explaining reality.
 
2014-02-05 09:28:02 PM
rwfan:

I don't have a problem with you believing anything you want as long as you do not insist on teaching absurdities along side science.  But I do have to ask, how can you believe in god when all evidence indicates that that belief is just superstition?

Because with science, evidence is constantly evolving. Perhaps in a few thousand years, science finally has evidence that the universe was created by g-dtm. Until then, we are all agnostics and none of us have the data yet.
 
2014-02-05 09:31:57 PM

rwfan: Waldo Pepper: I'm a creationist and even lean towards young earth but willing to admit the age of the earth is impossible to know 100% so it could easily be billions of years old. I like both guys in small doses. I do think Ham is a bit of a nut. 

As an adult i don't understand why my belief in creation should bother anyone.  honestly from a scientific standpoint I would think you would want the beginning of creation to be explored by all different viewpoints to enable the truth to be discovered and not overlooked.

imagine if creation is fact and the proof is discovered but discounted since the only ones working on the project have discarded creation as a possiblity.  That would be the same mistake a lot of Christians are making but not accepting that gays/lesbians are born that way.

I don't have a problem with you believing anything you want as long as you do not insist on teaching absurdities along side science.  But I do have to ask, how can you believe in god when all evidence indicates that that belief is just superstition?


I don't believe ALL evidence has been gathered has it?
 
2014-02-05 09:36:13 PM

Egoy3k: 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.


Their/there is the least of the problems with that sign.
 
2014-02-05 09:37:04 PM

Waldo Pepper: impossible to know 100%


All things are possible through God.  He is forever knowledgeable. He is always the answer.

HE knows 3.bp.blogspot.com%


//now what's behind that first card?
 
2014-02-05 09:37:28 PM

Waldo Pepper: rwfan: Waldo Pepper: I'm a creationist and even lean towards young earth but willing to admit the age of the earth is impossible to know 100% so it could easily be billions of years old. I like both guys in small doses. I do think Ham is a bit of a nut. 

As an adult i don't understand why my belief in creation should bother anyone.  honestly from a scientific standpoint I would think you would want the beginning of creation to be explored by all different viewpoints to enable the truth to be discovered and not overlooked.

imagine if creation is fact and the proof is discovered but discounted since the only ones working on the project have discarded creation as a possiblity.  That would be the same mistake a lot of Christians are making but not accepting that gays/lesbians are born that way.

I don't have a problem with you believing anything you want as long as you do not insist on teaching absurdities along side science.  But I do have to ask, how can you believe in god when all evidence indicates that that belief is just superstition?

I don't believe ALL evidence has been gathered has it?


Nope, it hasn't and until then, it will remain "your belief or faith".
 
2014-02-05 09:40:19 PM

Waldo Pepper: I don't believe ALL evidence has been gathered has it?


"All evidence" will never be gathered. Requesting that all fantasies be considered along side evidence supported positions until "all evidence" is gathered is nothing but a delay tactic used by snake-oil salesmen.
 
2014-02-05 09:40:40 PM

Your Hind Brain: rwfan:

I don't have a problem with you believing anything you want as long as you do not insist on teaching absurdities along side science.  But I do have to ask, how can you believe in god when all evidence indicates that that belief is just superstition?

Because with science, evidence is constantly evolving. Perhaps in a few thousand years, science finally has evidence that the universe was created by g-dtm. Until then, we are all agnostics and none of us have the data yet.


Do you think all science is evolving?  Electricity and magnetism and classical mechanics has been explained for a 150 to 200 years.  In the mean time the bible has been proven to be more and more wrong.
 
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