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  
•       •       •

8690 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (32 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 09:42:22 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?


Don't you think it is a bit silly to believe in an all powerful god who is only capable of delivering his/her message to one small part of the world?
 
2014-02-05 09:47:03 PM

rwfan: 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.


Yes, I do. To say it isn't is kinda like saying bacteria stopped evolving.

/preach, choir etc.
 
2014-02-05 09:48:07 PM

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


All evidence on what?

What evidence are you expecting us to find?
 
2014-02-05 09:50:57 PM

Your Hind Brain: rwfan: 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.

Yes, I do. To say it isn't is kinda like saying bacteria stopped evolving.

/preach, choir etc.


Well the implication is that since we do not know everything therefore god.  I am not buying it.
 
2014-02-05 10:01:08 PM
How do you prove something to someone who does not believe in "proof?"
 
2014-02-05 10:02:22 PM

Waldo Pepper: 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.


The fundamental mechanisms of evolution are descent with modification and reproductive selection pressure (that is, not all organisms in a generation reproduce). These mechanisms demonstrably occur, and can be directly observed and studied.

Please describe the fundamental mechanisms by which "creation" occurs. Show where and how these mechanisms may be observed and studied.
 
2014-02-05 10:07:36 PM

grumpfuff: 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 didn't find it.  You think that's because it's not in there.  You're wrong.  That's because it is written super tiny.  Look again, look harder.

You didn't find it, it's written in invisible ink.  You're wrong.  Look again.

You didn't find it, it's written sub-microscopically.  But it's definitely there.

grumpfuff: 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.


Nope, I read your statement just fine.  You have no idea what science or a hypothesis are.

grumpfuff: When you dismiss a statement as non-scientific or un-testable


The classic example to teach students an example of an un-testable hypothesis is "There are pink elephants."  You can't prove that wrong, therefore that's not a hypothesis.

Google "there are pink elephants."  Learn something from someone other than me, since you're so dug in with this argument right now.  There are pink elephants is just as unscientific as this passage is in the bible.  You can't test it, you can't prove it wrong.

Your mind = blown.
 
2014-02-05 10:09:20 PM

rwfan: Your Hind Brain: rwfan: 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.

Yes, I do. To say it isn't is kinda like saying bacteria stopped evolving.

/preach, choir etc.

Well the implication is that since we do not know everything therefore god.  I am not buying it.


Well, that would be your own "implication". I never claimed " we do not know everything therefore god ". That bullshiat makes me quite grumpy. I was only suggesting the idea that we have a very long road ahead of us as a species before we start proclaiming that we have the truth. Science has done us very well. But we don't know how well.

/Both sides are bad so vote Ganesha.
 
2014-02-05 10:11:22 PM

star_topology: How do you prove something to someone who does not believe in "proof?"


In science, it is impossible to prove something, it is only possible to support something.
 
2014-02-05 10:25:58 PM

lennavan: In science, it is impossible to prove something, it is only possible to support something.


Well, like many fields, science does have an idea of proof, it's just never bulletproof.  If something is tested over and over and over again with the same results, and every control you(and others who study your field) can come up with.  It's scientifically "proven", but unlike, say, math, this proof only stands until the next test, when it can be totally shattered by controlling for just one more variable.

By convention, those working on new ideas in science work with the existing "proven" body testing their ideas against limits imposed by the collective theory as a whole.  But a single example of a natural law being broken means it was wrong and needs to be rethought.  What creationists get wrong about this part is they think that the entire theory scientists work in needs to go, but usually all it means is introducing one more variable to consider, with new hypotheses testing the validity of that single change.

Creationists can't cope with it, I suspect, because beneath it all, science itself is an evolutionary algorithm, supporting the fittest ideas yet tested, with selection based on observational evidence.

tl;dr: things can be proven, but that doesn't mean shiat.
 
2014-02-05 10:26:07 PM
So... Should this had taken place, or not?.
 
2014-02-05 10:26:54 PM
So you believe in a literal interpretation of a selected part of a translated and reinterpreted 2k year old book over facts mountains of evidence, math, observation and still claim you're right?
 
2014-02-05 10:31:41 PM

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


Depends on what you and the other poster both mean by "ALL evidence", because I suspect you're interpreting the phrase differently. One way could mean "all of the evidence we currently have available to us" and another way could mean "all possible evidence that could relate to the matter, even if we have not collected yet or are currently incapable of collecting it." The former has been gathered because by definition it's all the evidence we have, the latter has not been gathered because by definition it would require us to be omniscient and we are decidedly not.

I find in conversations like this, the most important first step is establishing common ground, because it is *very* easy for people to assume they're talking about the same thing when they are not.
 
2014-02-05 10:34:04 PM

Virulency: So you believe in a literal interpretation of a selected part of a translated and reinterpreted 2k year old book over facts mountains of evidence, math, observation and still claim you're right?


Just playing Lucifers advocate here,: The book wasn't written at one setting by a god nor is it a 2k old "book". I like some of the "literal" parts, just not saying which ones.
 
2014-02-05 10:37:07 PM

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

Depends on what you and the other poster both mean by "ALL evidence", because I suspect you're interpreting the phrase differently. One way could mean "all of the evidence we currently have available to us" and another way could mean "all possible evidence that could relate to the matter, even if we have not collected yet or are currently incapable of collecting it." The former has been gathered because by definition it's all the evidence we have, the latter has not been gathered because by definition it would require us to be omniscient and we are decidedly not.

I find in conversations like this, the most important first step is establishing common ground, because it is *very* easy for people to assume they're talking about the same thing when they are not.


I think he means that when "ALL" evidence has been gathered, it's a done deal. No more evidence is needed. Universe at full stop.
 
2014-02-05 10:42:19 PM

CygnusDarius: So... Should this had taken place, or not?.


I don't think Bill changed any minds out there but it was neccessary to further bring to light the mentality of the religious.
 
2014-02-05 11:21:12 PM

skeevy420: ReverendJasen: Princess Ryans Knickers: What Creationists believe:

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

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

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

And here I was told they used their teeth to make holes in coconuts to drink the milk.


You put a lion with a coconut and he'll drink it all up?
 
2014-02-05 11:21:13 PM

Farking Canuck: 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.


do you get off comparing religious beliefs to fantasies?  how is any scientific belief on how earth and man were created taken to be factual?  There is zero proof for any scientific explaination on how earth/man came into being.

I don't call your science a fantasy, satanic or anything other insulting name. growup and stop thinking you sound smart by degradiing other's beliefs.
 
2014-02-05 11:31:02 PM

CygnusDarius: So... Should this had taken place, or not?.


Of course it should have taken place. It's never out of place to identify and mitigate faulty thinking and theories, as Nye did, and it's important that others see that it's perfectly acceptable to apply critical thinking skills to any issue, even "sensitive" issues like religious fundamentalism, and to do so in a productive and positive manner. Simply bellowing insults or resorting to violence is not only counter to intellectual investigation, but counter to society as a whole.

Everything should be questioned, challenged, investigated - it's how we move forward as people, and as a society.
 
2014-02-05 11:37:39 PM

Dimensio: Waldo Pepper: 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.

The fundamental mechanisms of evolution are descent with modification and reproductive selection pressure (that is, not all organisms in a generation reproduce). These mechanisms demonstrably occur, and can be directly observed and studied.

Please describe the fundamental mechanisms by which "creation" occurs. Show where and how these mechanisms may be observed and studied.


Nope and nor to I play the "Can God create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift."

I've never claimed that I know how creation happened, nor do I claim that science is 100% wrong.  I've often said when i get to heaven I might find out that it was both. God created everything in 6 days but those were not earth time but heaven time (if you will) and it was a process not a wham bam event. I honestly believe in that Adam and Eve were first and the Garden.

I'm horrible at explaining and have to "proof". but I do observe and it all fits from how I see people behave, grow and how the world has progressed since I was little.

Science is important and for me I try to look at what science presents and figure how that works hand in hand with what the Bible states and how I see God working around everyone.

if you want a more basic idea how I know we are a creation of God and not just a scientific event.
Sex. 
I fully believe sex is a wonder gift from God and no other creature on this planet gets the joy out of it the way humans are gifted with the experience.

this is my last word on it for this thread. I grow tired of the circle jerk these threads become for some farkers.
 
2014-02-05 11:39:15 PM

dragonchild: Given the creationists got the exposure they wanted without the least of intentions to change the way they think, Nye could've curb-stomped Ham for the entire event and I fail to see how this ends as anything other than a smashing victory for wilful ignorance.


It's more to disprove all of the arguments that the creationists use to insist that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in school,s. By consistently smacking them down, it makes it harder for politicians to listen.
 
2014-02-05 11:39:33 PM

lennavan: star_topology: How do you prove something to someone who does not believe in "proof?"

In science, it is impossible to prove something, it is only possible to support something.


Oh, good, Karl Popper's entered the room and dragged "The Wedge" with him.
 
2014-02-05 11:40:23 PM

Waldo Pepper: I fully believe sex is a wonder gift from God and no other creature on this planet gets the joy out of it the way humans are gifted with the experience.this is my last word on it for this thread. I grow tired of the circle jerk these threads become for some farkers.


Pigs have a 30-minute orgasm. *drops mic, walks off*
 
2014-02-05 11:45:21 PM

FormlessOne: Waldo Pepper: I fully believe sex is a wonder gift from God and no other creature on this planet gets the joy out of it the way humans are gifted with the experience.this is my last word on it for this thread. I grow tired of the circle jerk these threads become for some farkers.

Pigs have a 30-minute orgasm. *drops mic, walks off*


And dolphins also have sex just for the pleasure of it, not just because their biology tells them it's time to mate.
 
2014-02-05 11:50:53 PM

lennavan: grumpfuff: 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 didn't find it.  You think that's because it's not in there.  You're wrong.  That's because it is written super tiny.  Look again, look harder.

You didn't find it, it's written in invisible ink.  You're wrong.  Look again.

You didn't find it, it's written sub-microscopically.  But it's definitely there.

grumpfuff: 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.

Nope, I read your statement just fine.  You have no idea what science or a hypothesis are.

grumpfuff: When you dismiss a statement as non-scientific or un-testable

The classic example to teach students an example of an un-testable hypothesis is "There are pink elephants."  You can't prove that wrong, therefore that's not a hypothesis.

Google "there are pink elephants."  Learn something from someone other than me, since you're so dug in with this argument right now.  There are pink elephants is just as unscientific as this passage is in the bible.  You can't test it, you can't prove it wrong.

Your mind = blown.


This is some pretty vapid shiat.
 
2014-02-06 12:15:20 AM

Pentaxian: the Vatican's meteorite collection


Wait...what?
 
2014-02-06 12:15:38 AM

Waldo Pepper: this is my last word on it for this thread


Poor Waldo Pepper.  Now he's leaving.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-06 12:16:52 AM

Waldo Pepper: how is any scientific belief on how earth and man were created taken to be factual? There is zero proof for any scientific explaination on how earth/man came into being.


Sure there is. We know the physics well enough to understand how proto-planetary matter coalesces into an accretion disk. Moreover, every single asteroid we have studied is dated around the exact same time: 4.6 billion years. How can all the asteroids be the same age? Because they came from the same accretion disk. Moreover, we have found the oldest/earliest rock on the planet in Western Australia to be only a few hundred million years younger than that. Which makes sense: Early Earth was mostly molten and very hot. And likely had a visitor.

All this evidence lines up. It's not just one thing, it's every thing. All of it pointing in the same direction toward a more probable explanation.
 
2014-02-06 12:21:25 AM

Waldo Pepper: Sex.
I fully believe sex is a wonder gift from God and no other creature on this planet gets the joy out of it the way humans are gifted with the experience.


BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Now that's comedy.
 
2014-02-06 12:22:14 AM

Waldo Pepper: God created everything in 6 days but those were not earth time but heaven time (if you will)


What's Heaven time? Why would there be different time in Heaven? Do you (or the bible writers) know this for certain or are you just guessing? God is eternal and outside of the Universe so time is completely meaningless to him (I guess that explains the theory of relativity). Why would He have two absolute standards of time and what is the difference between the two? Is time relative in Heaven too?
 
2014-02-06 12:24:29 AM
Four scientists are on a train traveling through Scotland, each trying to debate with the others in being factual and precise.

At one stage, the first looks out the window, and spying an animal on the field nearby, claims, "All the sheep in Scotland are white!"

The second replies, "No, SOME of the sheep in Scotland are white."

The third retorts, "No, AT LEAST ONE of the sheep in Scotland is white."

They all look at the fourth, daring him to improve on the last statement.

He thinks for a second, and replies, "At least one of the sheep in Scotland is white ON ONE SIDE."

While this exchange is going on, a fifth man is walking through the train car. He overhears the exchange and stops. He looks out the window, sees the sheep disappear in the distance, and says quietly, "At least one of the sheep in Scotland is white on one side part of the time."

Bill Nye did a very good job of weaving practical and natural philosophy in with his presentation without getting needlessly drawn into an anti religious position.
 
2014-02-06 12:30:17 AM

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.


My eyes rolled so hard, the centrifical force turned them to jelly.
 
2014-02-06 12:46:14 AM

Dingleberry Dickwad: FormlessOne: Waldo Pepper: I fully believe sex is a wonder gift from God and no other creature on this planet gets the joy out of it the way humans are gifted with the experience.this is my last word on it for this thread. I grow tired of the circle jerk these threads become for some farkers.

Pigs have a 30-minute orgasm. *drops mic, walks off*

And dolphins also have sex just for the pleasure of it, not just because their biology tells them it's time to mate.


The same with Bonobos. Those simians are freaky sex machines.
 
2014-02-06 01:04:42 AM
If we come from parents why are there still parents?
 
2014-02-06 01:45:39 AM

lennavan: grumpfuff: 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 didn't find it.  You think that's because it's not in there.  You're wrong.  That's because it is written super tiny.  Look again, look harder.

You didn't find it, it's written in invisible ink.  You're wrong.  Look again.

You didn't find it, it's written sub-microscopically.  But it's definitely there.

grumpfuff: 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.

Nope, I read your statement just fine.  You have no idea what science or a hypothesis are.

grumpfuff: When you dismiss a statement as non-scientific or un-testable

The classic example to teach students an example of an un-testable hypothesis is "There are pink elephants."  You can't prove that wrong, therefore that's not a hypothesis.

Google "there are pink elephants."  Learn something from someone other than me, since you're so dug in with this argument right now.  There are pink elephants is just as unscientific as this passage is in the bible.  You can't test it, you can't prove it wrong.

Your mind = blown.


um you can test whether there are pink elephants. you find all elephants in the world, are any of them pink yes=positive yes there are pink elephants no=negative there are no pink elephants at current.  If Negative result does this mean in the future there will not be a pink elephant? no it does not for if something causes its genes to Adapt (evolve) where being pink is more benificial or say man interferes and keeps the pink elephant alive where it's genetic code with the gene that causes it to be pink is allowed to spreadthen there may be more pink elephants. on the other hand if it is a positive well end of story and then Yes there are pink elephants for now until maybe all of them die off for some reason or another.

BOOM! Mind=Metaphorically Blown because actually Blown would suck for whoever's mind is blown.
 
2014-02-06 02:39:58 AM

lethological_lassie: dragonchild: Given the creationists got the exposure they wanted without the least of intentions to change the way they think, Nye could've curb-stomped Ham for the entire event and I fail to see how this ends as anything other than a smashing victory for wilful ignorance.

Agreed. No one outside of creationist circles knew this guy's name before: now he's on the national radar. Fail! I like Bill Nye, but this grandstanding comes at a cost.


There are more intelligent children than you think who are forced to live almost entirely within creationist circles. They know Ken Ham's ideas if not his name a lot better than they know Bill Nye's or any other scientist's. Throwing them a bone once in awhile is in no way equivalent to elevating the Ken Hams of the world to equal standing.
 
2014-02-06 02:48:04 AM
Ham won, Nye lost.

Now I have a PhD in condensed matter physics. How can I say that?

Here's how: I didn't watch the debate, nor did I read a transcript. Nor do I need to, in order to know what creationism is. There is no evidence of creationism's correctness. All evidence points strongly towards evolution.

But it's unlikely that any creationist watched the debate either, at least with a critical eye. Now all that they know is that the debate happened, and that Ham probably won.

Nye had good intentions but Ham won by getting him on the stage in the first place.
 
2014-02-06 04:44:20 AM

proteus_b: Ham won, Nye lost.

Now I have a PhD in condensed matter physics. How can I say that?

Here's how: I didn't watch the debate, nor did I read a transcript. Nor do I need to, in order to know what creationism is. There is no evidence of creationism's correctness. All evidence points strongly towards evolution.

But it's unlikely that any creationist watched the debate either, at least with a critical eye. Now all that they know is that the debate happened, and that Ham probably won.

Nye had good intentions but Ham won by getting him on the stage in the first place.


The Bad Astronomer makes a pretty good case as to why you are wrong.
 
2014-02-06 05:35:18 AM

Waldo Pepper: I have shiat the thread, am too stupid to clean up the mess, and will now run away.



Yes, Waldo - we know. We have all seen you before.
 
2014-02-06 06:39:17 AM

I drunk what: 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 image 259x195]

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?


If you define it by what is natural then everything. Which of the definitions do you mean?

The word means birth.
 
2014-02-06 06:47:04 AM

Waldo Pepper: I fully believe sex is a wonder gift from God and no other creature on this planet gets the joy out of it the way humans are gifted with the experience.


Cats are one. Female cats attain orgasm. Your belief is false and can be demonstrated to be so because cats get the same pleasure from sex that humans do. If your belief was true then all humans including females would orgasm every time they had sex as it is a gift from God. This does not happen. I suspect each act would lead to a child. This also does not happen.
 
2014-02-06 07:31:08 AM

Fuggin Bizzy: Pentaxian: the Vatican's meteorite collection

Wait...what?

Yes, over 150 kg of material.
The Vatican Observatory Meteorite Collection
 
2014-02-06 07:34:25 AM

dready zim: Waldo Pepper: I fully believe sex is a wonder gift from God and no other creature on this planet gets the joy out of it the way humans are gifted with the experience.

Cats are one. Female cats attain orgasm. Your belief is false and can be demonstrated to be so because cats get the same pleasure from sex that humans do. If your belief was true then all humans including females would orgasm every time they had sex as it is a gift from God. This does not happen. I suspect each act would lead to a child. This also does not happen.


Aw, well now I just feel sorry for you. Maybe you'll do better next time. My suggestion is stop watching the cat porn and maybe you'll have a better chance with the humans.
 
2014-02-06 07:41:52 AM

Cpl.D: proteus_b: Ham won, Nye lost.

Now I have a PhD in condensed matter physics. How can I say that?

Here's how: I didn't watch the debate, nor did I read a transcript. Nor do I need to, in order to know what creationism is. There is no evidence of creationism's correctness. All evidence points strongly towards evolution.

But it's unlikely that any creationist watched the debate either, at least with a critical eye. Now all that they know is that the debate happened, and that Ham probably won.

Nye had good intentions but Ham won by getting him on the stage in the first place.

The Bad Astronomer makes a pretty good case as to why you are wrong.


^^  AWESOME !!!  That is a fabulous article. Let me post a couple highlights:

- We've been losing this debate in the public's mind all along by not showing up.

-  He insists evolution is anti-religious. But it's not; it's just anti-his-religion. This is, I think, the most critical aspect of this entire problem: The people who are attacking evolution are doing so because they think evolution is attacking their beliefs.

- So evolution is not anti-religion in general. But is it atheistic? No. Evolution takes no stand on the existence or lack thereof of a god or gods.

- I hope that my message of science, of investigation, of honesty, of the joy and wonder revealed though it, gets across to everyone. That's why I don't attack religion; there's no need.

Personally, I think that it's actually counterproductive and harmful to attack anyone's intellectual idea. An intellectually and emotionally health person should be open to an examination of their beliefs. There are a HUGE number of people that suffer from one of both.

Who can blame them?  Attract more bees with honey and all that.....
 
2014-02-06 07:44:34 AM
Oops..... sorry for the rant.  That last comment is mine not his (Bad Astronomer). Here's a correction:

Personally, I think that it's actually counterproductive and harmful to attack anyone's intellectual idea. An intellectually and emotionally healthy person should be open to an examination of their beliefs. There are a HUGE number of people that suffer from one of both.

Who can blame them?  Attract more bees with honey and all that.....
 
2014-02-06 08:48:16 AM
Waldo Pepper: do you get off comparing religious beliefs to fantasies?

Belief without evidence is not a position worthy of respect.

how is any scientific belief on how earth and man were created taken to be factual?

It is not taken to be "factual". This is a dishonest position that you continue to project. Please stop intentionally misrepresenting people.

Logic and reason dictate a person take their positions based on the weight of evidence available. There is no evidence that magic is real. There is some evidence that the Big Bang Theory was the start of the universe as we know it now. There are mountains of evidence that the Theory of Evolution is by far the most likely explanation for the current forms of life on this planet. So my positions on these subjects, relatively speaking, are: not real, interesting/possible, and obviously this is the position to take.

No claims of anything being factual.

There is zero proof for any scientific explaination on how earth/man came into being.

Abiogenisis, the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are three different things. If you are going to argue against them you should really know the difference between them. Evolution does not, in any way, attempt to explain "how earth/man came into being" ... it attempts to explain how life evolved on Earth from its earliest form to its current forms.  Abiogenisis is a theory of how life began on earth and the big bang theory is one possible explanation of how our current universe (and subsequently our planet) formed. As I mentioned above, there is different amounts of evidence supporting each and therefore different confidence levels on how likely each is the correct explanation.

None of the above theories are taken to be "factual". But, in the case of evolution, the evidence is overwhelming and there are no competing theories that have any merit. So the position that an intelligent, educated person will take is pretty clear.
 
2014-02-06 08:50:12 AM

lennavan: <snip>

No, no it's not. You just don't recognize the difference between "The Bible says x" and "God did x." You are confusing a claim about a religion("Bible says x") with a religious claim("God did x"). A claim about a religion is easily tested. If I say "Members of this religion have this belief," it can be tested by examining the tenants of that particular religion.

Of course you can't test "God did x," I never said you could. But when you say "The Bible says x", you can definitively test that, because the Bible is a real book that can be read. Your "invisible ink" and other such examples sound just as ridiculous as "Fossils are the Devil's trick." If you're going to argue that "The Bible says x" is not testable, then you also have to say that "Romeo and Juliet has a character named Bob" is also untestable.

Going on your "you just don't understand" line, you seem to think I'm some sort of believer. I'm not, I'm an atheist. I understand theories and hypothesis just fine. However, as I got my degree in philosophy, I tend to look at things a little bit differently, and distinguish between different types of claims about the world.

ThreeFootSmurf: um you can test whether there are pink elephants. you find all elephants in the world, are any of them pink yes=positive yes there are pink elephants no=negative there are no pink elephants at current.  If Negative result does this mean in the future there will not be a pink elephant? no it does not for if something causes its genes to Adapt (evolve) where being pink is more benificial or say man interferes and keeps the pink elephant alive where it's genetic code with the gene that causes it to be pink is allowed to spreadthen there may be more pink elephants. on the other hand if it is a positive well end of story and then Yes there are pink elephants for now until maybe all of them die off for some reason or another.

BOOM! Mind=Metaphorically Blown because actually Blown would suck for whoever's mind is blown.


Not quite. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. You would need to know all the things that exist, and that is simply not possible. Yes, you could examine all the elephants on earth. But maybe there's a pink elephant on Mars? Or on a planet orbiting a distant star?

There are other problems with the claim of "pink elephants," generally dealing with the properties of what we mean by "pink" and "elephant", but those are mostly intellectual jerking off done by bored philosophers.
 
2014-02-06 08:50:29 AM

I drunk what: 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 image 259x195]

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?

sigh


"You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red? "

That's the rules.   Dready zim is incorrect.
 
2014-02-06 08:51:58 AM

Waldo Pepper: There is zero proof for any scientific explaination on how earth/man came into being.


Not wanting to believe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 
2014-02-06 09:08:00 AM

Your Hind Brain: How often is it updated?


daily

Your Hind Brain: Is it peer reviewed?


if you're doing it right
 
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