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  
•       •       •

8693 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



505 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-05 08:14:03 AM  
Nobody won the debate.  The creationist was "not even wrong"
 
2014-02-05 08:14:49 AM  
Fundies will still claim a victory.
 
2014-02-05 08:37:41 AM  
Not for nothing, but it is hard to accept the opinion that Bill Nye won the debate from a guy that helped him prep for the debate.
 
2014-02-05 09:16:41 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-05 09:20:04 AM  
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.
 
2014-02-05 09:21:38 AM  
It was sort of pointless, though, because fundies who watch it will just invoke their "LaLaLaLa I can't hear you" defense, anyway.
 
2014-02-05 09:21:52 AM  
So, Bill convinced the creationist their view was wrong and they walked away believing in evolution, Big Bang and Global Warming?

That's a win.

The only way to win is to stop arguing with these people.
 
2014-02-05 09:21:56 AM  
Creationists believe something so monumentally stupid that no amount of facts could sway them. They've already had to dismiss the mountain of facts available, so why would anyone believe a debate with a former children's TV star would make them rethink anything?
 
2014-02-05 09:22:49 AM  
meh

i'm sure many minds were changed as a result of that thoughtful and insightful debate, notsureifserious.jpg

1 question

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

won't hold my breath

in the mean time, over zealous YEC need to remember that in professional public debates that focus on SCIENCE, they need to keep their "the power of jebus compels YOU" to a minimum

this round goes to Nye (secular science) for being able to keep better composure, regardless of ham making better points and actually defending them (though dodging a few important items)...
 
2014-02-05 09:26:07 AM  

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


Not everyone in the world who is alive or will ever be born already has an unchangeable opinion of everything.

/ex-christian.  At some point, something changed my mind.  Without debates, that wouldn't have happened.
 
2014-02-05 09:27:21 AM  

I drunk what: this round goes to Nye (secular science) for being able to keep better composure, regardless of ham making better points and actually defending them (though dodging a few important items)...


2/10. Hits the right nerves, but what kills it is it's the same nerves that are jackhammered to numbness by creationists themselves.
 
2014-02-05 09:33:40 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Not for nothing, but it is hard to accept the opinion that Bill Nye won the debate from a guy that helped him prep for the debate.


It's also hard to accept that a debate between creationism and science was held and people feel the need to seriously discuss who "won".
 
2014-02-05 09:34:04 AM  

I drunk what: regardless of ham making better points


What better points were made by Ham?
 
2014-02-05 09:36:31 AM  
Nye was wright, but Ham was a consistent manipulative liar.  The end.
 
2014-02-05 09:36:41 AM  
Watched the whole thing. Basically, Bill Nye was playing an amazing chess game, but Ken Ham brought checkers pieces onto the board.
 
2014-02-05 09:36:51 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: What better points were made by Ham?


Since creationism is obviously true, any points made in support of it are inherently better than points made against it.
 
2014-02-05 09:37:06 AM  
1) It was far from a debate.

2) Nye was to nice to Hamm, example:  Nye attempted to get across that no reasonable person would believe the young earth or anything Hamm was pushing.  Nye used reasonable a lot in an attempt to get across the point that the young earth people are crazy (they are).  However Nye failed to go for the heart of Hamm's argument,  the young earth argument was that without witness past events cannot be verified, hence why carbon dating is pointless as no one was present at the time of the event to provide witness and due to the countless numbers of failed carbon data testing (no specific evidence provided) there is no proof the age of the earth is over 6000 years.

The issue is that his own argument destroys the young earth stance.  Young earth age was determined by the geneolgy of Jesus, the information for that geneolgy is provided by the bible, the information provided to the bible was done by people who god spoke to.  That is the young earth stance, yet if they hold all other forms of evidence to the "Must have witness requirement" then their theory fails.

If god spoke to people, who is to say god did not speak to the scientist that have repeatable test and evidence to show the age of the earth is around 4.5 million?

The people that wrote the passages in the bible were never at the events, it is a known theological fact that the writers were writing based on stories told to them many times removed from the event.  Where is the witness that was there?

The point is young earth says no witness no proof, yet there is no witness for their theory to which they counter God did it.  They grasp at anything so that they don't have to critically think, give them a simple all encompassing solution for any minor problem beyond their comprehension and all is good for them.


I can see why so many people were against this, it put these nuts into to much light.  However this movement needs to be constantly attacked, not to change the believers but to prevent wasted tax dollars and to hopefully win the minds of the young that might have doubts.
 
2014-02-05 09:37:19 AM  

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.
 
2014-02-05 09:37:59 AM  
Nye did well.  He seized the opportunity to force-feed science to a captive audience (2.5 hours of "I'm not trapped in here with you.  You're trapped in here with me!") who would not otherwise have heard it.  He may not have changed any minds, but he might have put some cracks in some walls.

Meanwhile, Ham just recited the same tired arguments his audience has probably heard a hundred times already.
 
2014-02-05 09:40:00 AM  
Nye didn't attack the Bible enough. Ham's whole argument centered around every last word being true. All Nye had to do was point out that Christians don't even buy into all the evil shiat in there, and if they didn't believe any part wasn't true then why should they buy into every word of genesis.

Plus he never hit on the idea that by Ham merely pointing out any mystery in science, it doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that christianity is automatically correct, which Ham did over and over.
 
2014-02-05 09:43:35 AM  
The vast majority of people watching it went in thinking "This guy who thinks like I do is going to 'debate' some moron" and after watching it, they figured that's exactly what happened.

It doesn't matter which side you were on. Hopefully a small minority of people who were ambivalent or otherwise on the fence had their opinions swayed by Nye, but there's no way that either side converted any body who already had their mind set.
 
2014-02-05 09:43:57 AM  

Chthonic Echoes: Nye did well.  He seized the opportunity to force-feed science to a captive audience (2.5 hours of "I'm not trapped in here with you.  You're trapped in here with me!") who would not otherwise have heard it.  He may not have changed any minds, but he might have put some cracks in some walls.

Meanwhile, Ham just recited the same tired arguments his audience has probably heard a hundred times already.



I think you're giving creationists far more credit than they deserve.
 
2014-02-05 09:45:25 AM  
www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-02-05 09:46:46 AM  

stuhayes2010: The only way to win is to stop arguing with these people.


A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
 
2014-02-05 09:48:30 AM  
Ken Ham made two good points the entire night: that everyone approaches the act of scientific research with presuppositions about the nature of the universe, and that those different "world views" may influence the way one interprets scientific data. He really should have expounded on these points, rather than try to discredit the evidence for evolution itself.
 
2014-02-05 09:51:06 AM  
Debate, what debate? There's nothing to 'debate'. The two topics aren't even related, putting this creationist on the same stage with science is a joke.

If you argue with a creationist, you're still retarded.
 
2014-02-05 09:53:14 AM  

Chthonic Echoes: Meanwhile, Ham just recited the same tired arguments his audience has probably heard a hundred times already.


Yes, but, do you go to a Rolling Stones concert to hear them play their new album or to hear them play their greatest hits?
 
2014-02-05 09:53:49 AM  

stuhayes2010: So, Bill convinced the creationist their view was wrong and they walked away believing in evolution, Big Bang and Global Warming?

That's a win.

The only way to win is to stop arguing with these people.


I have a creationist friend who I periodically argue with. As a result, her 13 year old daughter is not a creationist. Winning ≠ giving up. Exposing people to rational thought is never pointless.
 
2014-02-05 09:54:08 AM  
The real question is, did Bevets evolve into a rational person?
 
2014-02-05 09:55:55 AM  
Awesome!
For our next battle, Chuck Liddell will be fighting a sloth with 3 broken legs!
 
2014-02-05 09:58:27 AM  
 
2014-02-05 09:59:05 AM  

Donnchadha: Chthonic Echoes: Meanwhile, Ham just recited the same tired arguments his audience has probably heard a hundred times already.

Yes, but, do you go to a Rolling Stones concert to hear them play their new album or to hear them play their greatest hits?


Well you go for the hits but at two concerts I've liked the new stuff more.

/Matthew good shortly after he dropped the band  and Bruce Springsteen - Wrecking Ball
 
2014-02-05 10:01:43 AM  

scarmig: /ex-christian.  At some point, something changed my mind.  Without debates, that wouldn't have happened.


I identified as a christian probably up to my late teens. But I think it wasn't debate that changed my mind as much as two realizations. One was naturally becoming old enough to realize your parents aren't right about everything. The second was thinking about a scenario where if you could start 10 different civilizations on 10 different islands separate from each other, after a few generations you would probably find 10 distinct religions, all of them feeling as strongly that their religion is true as christians, jews, etc. feel about theirs.
 
2014-02-05 10:01:44 AM  
Most people who side with Nye are at least somewhat aware of Hamm's arguments. I wonder if the opposite is true of those who follow Hamm? I would venture to guess that there are quite a few people who have never been exposed to ideas and facts that Nye so aptly explained. I think that was Nye's goal last night.
 
2014-02-05 10:05:27 AM  
If last night leads to one kid questioning what his parents and ministers are "teaching" them, then, yeah, Nye won.
 
2014-02-05 10:05:36 AM  

Whodat: http://geochristian.com/2014/02/04/ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-post-debate-an a lysis/

Overall, I did not find the debate to be at all helpful. I did think that Nye's scientific arguments were stronger than Ham's (as YEC is rather indefensible scientifically), but they could have been stronger, and Nye demonstrated deep misunderstandings of Christianity that are, unfortunately, much too common among skeptics. Young-Earth creationists who watched the debate probably thought that Ham crushed Nye. Atheists who watched it probably thought that Nye demolished the silly arguments of the young-Earthers. For the rest of us, the debate was a lose-lose affair. There was little in Ham's presentation that would cause a non-believer (especially a non-believing scientist) to consider Christianity, and Nye's weakness on geological issues hampered his effectiveness.


Interesting take
 
2014-02-05 10:05:38 AM  
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.
 
2014-02-05 10:05:49 AM  

SewerSquirrels: stuhayes2010: So, Bill convinced the creationist their view was wrong and they walked away believing in evolution, Big Bang and Global Warming?

That's a win.

The only way to win is to stop arguing with these people.

I have a creationist friend who I periodically argue with. As a result, her 13 year old daughter is not a creationist. Winning ≠ giving up. Exposing people to rational thought is never pointless.


THIS.  The goal is not to win over hardline Creationists so much as it is to ensure their efforts to win converts will fail.
 
2014-02-05 10:08:07 AM  
This debate was painful. It was like watching an astrophysicist argue aerodynamics with a toddler as he blindly insists racing stripes make his scooccurred somewhere in the worldo faster.

Seriously, every time Ham said "You know, Bill, there's this book you may have heard of..." and didn't get punched in the face, a small earthquake occured somewhere in the world to balance out the lack of gravitational shift.
 
2014-02-05 10:08:37 AM  
My favorite part of Ham's argument was him naming people who believe the same thing he does (most of them are in his employ it seems) and not being able to get past 6 or so.  It was almost like he was waiting for all of our light bulbs to turn on once he named enough.
 
2014-02-05 10:08:50 AM  
But how did Nye deal with the banana argument?
 
2014-02-05 10:13:37 AM  
"This debate was painful. It was like watching an astrophysicist argue aerodynamics with a toddler as he blindly insists racing stripes make his scooccurred somewhere in the worldo faster."

Ugh, copy/paste fail (cell phones are my enemy).

"Scooter go faster" is what I was going for.
 
2014-02-05 10:14:12 AM  

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

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


I don't think Nye can match Martin Sheen in his delivery.
 
2014-02-05 10:17:32 AM  

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

Ugh, copy/paste fail (cell phones are my enemy).

"Scooter go faster" is what I was going for.


Actually I think that your first sentence summed up Ham's intellect quite nicely and made more sense than anything Ham said.
 
2014-02-05 10:19:13 AM  
Lots of people talk to their food.
 
2014-02-05 10:23:38 AM  

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

What better points were made by Ham?


the ability of creationists to admit they are using highly biased views of religion to influence their "science" and their opponents inability to honestly do the same

the rest just sounded like soundbites and filler, with neither side listening to the other

though for all the good ham did, he did twice as much damage for his cause going full "jebus compels you derp" at the end of almost every chance he got to speak

so in other words the typical YEC methodology of one step forward two steps back, which the foxnews crowd eats right up

nye did a decent job of just shilling for "MORE SCIENCE EDUMUCATION", meanwhile pretending to "debate" ham... *rolls eyes*

though i've seen much much much worse, a la  hovind vs sam harris types

overall this debate was way too much vanilla, and too little too late, this bipolar derp country-world won't take a single thing away from it other than

YEEHAW nye smoked ham, HEEHAWW  YEEEEEEAAAH, for science!!!1!

i would have liked to have seen more points addressed and MUCH less snarky comments made at each other, which is why i said nye won, simply because he used less smug/snark

good jorb lad, now debate someone who isn't of the hovind/ham flavor, and let's make some actual progress
 
2014-02-05 10:28:17 AM  
I really think Nye missed out by not making Ham's argument - the whole thing is predicated on what is necessarily faith, yes? Faith that necessarily cannot be proved outside tautology - "This book is 100% true. How do I know? The Book says so" or "God's Word is true. How do I know? He's God"?

So on the one hand, there is naked faith. If you don't buy into the deity or whatever words they claim, the rest of it falls apart. To say nothing of the fact that Ham & Co's interpretation of the Book isn't universally accepted even by those who read and follow it - I recall reading the OT many, many (MANY) times over many years, and never once did I see anything about "Original Sin" (even in Hebrew).

On the other is, at least, a set of principles that can be predictive, tested, refined, and/or disproven, all of which can be independently verified and require no faith.

So reconcile them if you must (which requires discarding YEC and basically God of the Gaps-ing), but recognize that faith and empiricism are two different things, and the extraordinary claim that The Fall changed the fundamentals of the universe is, frankly, a bridge to far for me to ever have walked.
 
2014-02-05 10:28:30 AM  

I drunk what: the ability of creationists to admit they are using highly biased views of religion to influence their "science" and their opponents inability to honestly do the same


You're assuming non-creationists are biased in the same way that creationists are, just from a different direction.  What are you basing that on?
 
2014-02-05 10:31:10 AM  

Ambitwistor: [www.quickmeme.com image 625x351]


www.piccer.nl

Click for uncensored
 
2014-02-05 10:31:29 AM  

I drunk what: so in other words the typical YEC methodology of one step forward two steps back, which the foxnews crowd eats right up



Fish are sinners!
 
2014-02-05 10:32:07 AM  
Oh, also: rich ironing in that an Old Testament preacher is named HAM.

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

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

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


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

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

What better points were made by Ham?


sorry i rambled

1. difference between observational science and historical science

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

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

on the other hand what points were made by nye?

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

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

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

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

to which Ham would go full YEC

the power of chryst compels you!!!

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

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

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

eraser8: What are you basing that on?


observation science

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

xanadian: Fundies will still claim a victory.


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

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

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

Ham, on the other hand:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

observation science

/experience
//paying attention


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Ham, on the other hand:

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

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

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

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

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



My favorite quote was this one:

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

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

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


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

I would love to see this guy debate Creationists

www.astrobio.net


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

s3-ec.buzzfed.com

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


Creationist response:

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Princess Ryans Knickers: What Creationists believe:

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

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


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

ReverendJasen: Princess Ryans Knickers: What Creationists believe:

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

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

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


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

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


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

Princess Ryans Knickers: What Creationists believe:

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

There was no debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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


whoa whoa whoa
Hold on one goddamn minute

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

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

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


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

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

What better points were made by Ham?


Ham is delicious.

And now it comes in Kosher flavors.

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

ReverendJasen: Princess Ryans Knickers: What Creationists believe:

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

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

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


And here I was told they used their teeth to make holes in coconuts to drink the milk.
 
2014-02-05 11:34:10 AM  
Nye's handicap is that he had to present intelligent science while Ham merely had to score rhetorical points.
Ham presented  examples of young earth creationists who nevertheless manage to be successful scientists, inventors or engineers.
So Nye is not completely right that creationism teaching creationism will prevent the US from succeeding in scientific innovation.
The fact that he is mostly right, and that the success stories are few and far between is too subtle a point for a debate, so Ham wins the rhetorical game. And that's all he ever needed to do. To top it off, he'll make a great deal of money off the circus.
 
2014-02-05 11:35:09 AM  

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

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

You think if he attacked the bible more it would have converted more religious people or less?


That's a valid point, but you might also consider that many adult creationists are a lost cause. However if you embarrass their argument enough it could shift the opinions of kids that may have more of an open mind, and are more likely to recognize incongruities in the Bible that their parents can't explain. Nonetheless, he likely still planted seeds of doubt in many young minds who have only been exposed to the creationist echo chamber.
 
2014-02-05 11:37:52 AM  

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

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

You think if he attacked the bible more it would have converted more religious people or less?

That's a valid point, but you might also consider that many adult creationists are a lost cause. However if you embarrass their argument enough it could shift the opinions of kids that may have more of an open mind, and are more likely to recognize incongruities in the Bible that their parents can't explain. Nonetheless, he likely still planted seeds of doubt in many young minds who have only been exposed to the creationist echo chamber.


You think any creationist parent is going to let their children see that?
 
2014-02-05 11:38:40 AM  

bborchar: Ham's basic argument was "No one was there, so you can't prove it by any means at all," despite the fact that we have many means by which to prove it.

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


At that point you're looking at an entirely different debate that Nye was likely not prepared to engage in. It goes from science to historical criticism of source material. A smart move to avoid that.
 
2014-02-05 11:39:50 AM  

meat0918: MayoSlather: Corvus: MayoSlather: Nye didn't attack the Bible enough. Ham's whole argument centered around every last word being true. All Nye had to do was point out that Christians don't even buy into all the evil shiat in there, and if they didn't believe any part wasn't true then why should they buy into every word of genesis.

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

You think if he attacked the bible more it would have converted more religious people or less?

That's a valid point, but you might also consider that many adult creationists are a lost cause. However if you embarrass their argument enough it could shift the opinions of kids that may have more of an open mind, and are more likely to recognize incongruities in the Bible that their parents can't explain. Nonetheless, he likely still planted seeds of doubt in many young minds who have only been exposed to the creationist echo chamber.

You think any creationist parent is going to let their children see that?


I guarantee you that some of them did, and that hopefully at least one of those children will have a few questions right now.
 
2014-02-05 11:40:09 AM  
I thought it funny that Ham kept saying that we weren't there to know that the properties of nature, physical laws etc. are constant throughout the universe, but kept repeating that God made the universe and therefore such properties are constant everywhere. But we can't look at these constants to infer anything about the past because we weren't there.
 
2014-02-05 11:42:13 AM  

meat0918: MayoSlather: Corvus: MayoSlather: Nye didn't attack the Bible enough. Ham's whole argument centered around every last word being true. All Nye had to do was point out that Christians don't even buy into all the evil shiat in there, and if they didn't believe any part wasn't true then why should they buy into every word of genesis.

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

You think if he attacked the bible more it would have converted more religious people or less?

That's a valid point, but you might also consider that many adult creationists are a lost cause. However if you embarrass their argument enough it could shift the opinions of kids that may have more of an open mind, and are more likely to recognize incongruities in the Bible that their parents can't explain. Nonetheless, he likely still planted seeds of doubt in many young minds who have only been exposed to the creationist echo chamber.

You think any creationist parent is going to let their children see that?


I've argued my YEC next door neighbor a bunch of times about all this while his daughters were at the table. I don't know if this is commonplace, though. He's the only one I really know.
 
2014-02-05 11:43:09 AM  

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

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

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

They may try to get to the same place but they use radically different methods to get there.


I think the point he was trying to make is that we, as humans, try to find solutions to satisfy our inquisitiveness.  Both religion and science started at a question.  Unfortunately, religion takes what feels like the correct answer to them and runs with it through their communities wrecking any hope of critical thought.
 
2014-02-05 11:45:22 AM  

Vodka Zombie: I think the point he was trying to make is that we, as humans, try to find solutions to satisfy our inquisitiveness.  Both religion and science started at a question.  Unfortunately, religion takes what feels like the correct answer to them and runs with it through their communities wrecking any hope of critical thought.


Science changes it's viewpoint based on evidence.
Religion either changes it's interpretation to fit the evidence or denies the evidence entirely.
 
2014-02-05 11:47:06 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.


Um.... many people outside of Creationist circles know who Ken Ham is.  He's in the news a lot due to his antics and his theme parks -- including worldwide news.  His organization is also the one that funds a lot of the Intelligent Design suits for various school systems, where, again, people who are in Creationist circles know darned well who he is.
 
2014-02-05 11:50:39 AM  

meat0918: MayoSlather: Corvus: MayoSlather: Nye didn't attack the Bible enough. Ham's whole argument centered around every last word being true. All Nye had to do was point out that Christians don't even buy into all the evil shiat in there, and if they didn't believe any part wasn't true then why should they buy into every word of genesis.

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

You think if he attacked the bible more it would have converted more religious people or less?

That's a valid point, but you might also consider that many adult creationists are a lost cause. However if you embarrass their argument enough it could shift the opinions of kids that may have more of an open mind, and are more likely to recognize incongruities in the Bible that their parents can't explain. Nonetheless, he likely still planted seeds of doubt in many young minds who have only been exposed to the creationist echo chamber.

You think any creationist parent is going to let their children see that?


Yeah, they want their kids to have ammo against evolution arguments.
 
2014-02-05 11:56:01 AM  

FitzShivering: 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.

Um.... many people outside of Creationist circles know who Ken Ham is.  He's in the news a lot due to his antics and his theme parks -- including worldwide news.  His organization is also the one that funds a lot of the Intelligent Design suits for various school systems, where, again, people who are in Creationist circles know darned well who he is.


A batch of the headlines I've seen were along the lines of "Bill Nye debates creationist."  I'm not sure that this debate raised Ham's star that many notches in the general public's awareness.
 
2014-02-05 11:57:37 AM  

sxacho: I've argued my YEC next door neighbor a bunch of times about all this while his daughters were at the table. I don't know if this is commonplace, though. He's the only one I really know.


I have never had the chance to argue with a YEC.  Are these agruements only locked into the age of the universe and past evolution.  I am more than happy to let people believe what they want for stuff in the past but moving forward do you agree that current science theories best explain the universe as we know how it works now.  Yes, OK nothing to talk about now.
 
2014-02-05 11:58:00 AM  
The problem with Bill Nye is that he was trying to teach something to a group of people who just aren't interested in learning.
 
2014-02-05 12:01:26 PM  

Saiga410: sxacho: I've argued my YEC next door neighbor a bunch of times about all this while his daughters were at the table. I don't know if this is commonplace, though. He's the only one I really know.

I have never had the chance to argue with a YEC.  Are these agruements only locked into the age of the universe and past evolution.  I am more than happy to let people believe what they want for stuff in the past but moving forward do you agree that current science theories best explain the universe as we know how it works now.  Yes, OK nothing to talk about now.


I've simply found it best to steer away from the discussion.  There is no convincing them that they are not correct.
 
2014-02-05 12:01:38 PM  
roedersrants.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-05 12:02:25 PM  
i1.wp.com
 
2014-02-05 12:03:25 PM  
And this is one from their side.

wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-02-05 12:05:07 PM  

CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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


"You have to read the bible naturally"
 
2014-02-05 12:05:49 PM  

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

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


It warrants a televised debate once that individual's organization starts trying to force the inclusion of Santa Claus into school textbooks.
 
2014-02-05 12:08:10 PM  

CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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


A good cartoon?  It's really baffling when you see right wingers presenting great arguments against their own perspectives as if it's a devastating blow against those they disagree with.
 
2014-02-05 12:10:03 PM  

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

What better points were made by Ham?

sorry i rambled

1. difference between observational science and historical science

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

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

on the other hand what points were made by nye?

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

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

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

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

to which Ham would go full YEC

the power of chryst compels you!!!

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

meh


1 - There is no such difference at all. Nye actually addressed this though.
2 - The different methods of dating pretty much come down to radiometrics, which were well covered by Nye.
3 - That nuclear science point was to prove a point that Kentucky is falling behind the tech and education curve, and it's correct. He made several references to education through the presentation.
4 - I don't get your point here or why Ham's was better.
5 - Questions from the audience were great I thought, but they needed to allow more discussion about the questions. Bonus points to Nye for getting the last word.


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

Creationist response:

[www.ernestangley.org image 220x275]


He actually literally said that at one point.
 
2014-02-05 12:12:28 PM  
That's funny, on a religious leaning website I just read a similar article:

Toasted Nye; or how Ken Ham won the debate.  Hint: Religion.

That's great you all think Bill Nye "won" the debate but you weren't Ken Ham's target audience.  All his target audience heard was Ken Ham debate Bill Bye and Bill Nye never debunked one of his points, so clearly Creationism is an equal and alternative option.
 
2014-02-05 12:12:55 PM  

CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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


And here I though the Japanese had a monopoly on tentacle porn.
 
2014-02-05 12:14:07 PM  

CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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


Do they honestly believe that a 'naturalistic worldview' and 'worldly thinking' are bad things?
 
2014-02-05 12:15:16 PM  

CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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


If you don't mind giving douche bags an extra click here is a youtube reaction video that doubles down on the crazy.
 
2014-02-05 12:15:30 PM  

Egoy3k: CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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

Do they honestly believe that a 'naturalistic worldview' and 'worldly thinking' are bad things?


Being raised Southern Baptist I can tell you that they absolutely do.
 
2014-02-05 12:16:05 PM  

Saiga410: I have never had the chance to argue with a YEC.  Are these agruements only locked into the age of the universe and past evolution.


Yeah, mostly.

Dog Welder: I've simply found it best to steer away from the discussion.  There is no convincing them that they are not correct.


Which is what I do now. Although my wife, who in the past has just rolled her eyes and tried to change the subject whenever we got to talking about all this stuff, recently got into an argument with him about some ancient art piece that's many thousands of years old. He, of course, denied it and I got to experience the argument from a different side. So, I quietly sipped my beer and listened to the madness.
 
2014-02-05 12:16:21 PM  

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.


I think he adequately demonstrated to a fairly wide audience of people that these idiots 1) exist 2) are trying to usurp education and 3) have succeeded in ruining large swaths of the south with their brand of bullshiat.

We've tried not fighting them, they just turtle up in jesus land and fark us from afar.  This was about a lot of things, imo.  Convincing the YEC dumbasses wasn't one of them.

Let Ham spew his completely crazy shiat all over.  Give him the BIGGEST platform we can, and challenge him constantly.  Letting him do it in peace and private comes at a cost as well.
 
2014-02-05 12:18:07 PM  

BeesNuts: Let Ham spew his completely crazy shiat all over. Give him the BIGGEST platform we can, and challenge him constantly. Letting him do it in peace and private comes at a cost as well.


That was how I felt about Sarah Palin and I assumed she would be laughed away into nothingness.  Turned out that wasn't the smartest strategy.
 
2014-02-05 12:20:01 PM  
what a waste of time and energy
 
2014-02-05 12:20:22 PM  
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!"
 
2014-02-05 12:20:59 PM  

MayoSlather: CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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

If you don't mind giving douche bags an extra click here is a youtube reaction video that doubles down on the crazy.


Yup, just as I expected.  Wow, they revel in their incompetence and only serve a purpose now to enable each other to say the next stupid thing.  SMH
 
2014-02-05 12:21:06 PM  
This is what I got out of Ham's argument:
People speak different languages, which proves the Tower of Babel story, which proves the rest of Creation. Therefore, SCIENCE!
 
2014-02-05 12:22:08 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.


Obviously God guided his hand to the fossil.
 
2014-02-05 12:22:59 PM  

CJHardin: Egoy3k: CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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

Do they honestly believe that a 'naturalistic worldview' and 'worldly thinking' are bad things?

Being raised Southern Baptist I can tell you that they absolutely do.


Wow.  If I had kids and my less than 10 year old (going by the age I guess the cartoon is representing) had a naturalistic worldview and exhibited worldly thinking I'm be damn proud of him or her.
 
2014-02-05 12:23:29 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!"


But he didn't really. Well, not consistently anyway. He also said that the nature of the universe is unchanging/eternal.
 
2014-02-05 12:26:53 PM  

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

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

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

They may try to get to the same place but they use radically different methods to get there.


Perhaps I should have said, "The inspiration for religious doctrine" instead of "core of religion". The inspiration was based on evidence, but at some point it failed to be repeatable. I'm sorry to say this, but not every time you sacrifice your fatted calf are you going to have a good harvest.

At some point religion became more about control and power and less about explaining observation.
 
2014-02-05 12:29:05 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.


Here in Nova Scotia if you are on a beach anywhere near five islands you can usually find fossils if you look hard enough and if you are in a place called Joggins you pretty much are guaranteed to find some, I have a whole shelf full of them.  I have fern leaves and lots of shells. Anything with footprints that I've found got donated and I've never found vertebrates but I would donate them as well.
 
2014-02-05 12:30:16 PM  

fat boy: The real question is, did Bevets evolve into a rational person?


Into technobevets, who was subsequently banned. He is on an AMAZO like journey of self reflection through the universe right now.
 
2014-02-05 12:30:23 PM  
The problem with attempting to logically debate a creationist using, you know, facts is that if you could, there wouldn't BE creationists. In order to be someone who genuinely believes the world is 6k years old, you have to have the ability to completely ignore facts, logic and reason.
 
2014-02-05 12:32:17 PM  

Saiga410: sxacho: I've argued my YEC next door neighbor a bunch of times about all this while his daughters were at the table. I don't know if this is commonplace, though. He's the only one I really know.

I have never had the chance to argue with a YEC.  Are these agruements only locked into the age of the universe and past evolution.  I am more than happy to let people believe what they want for stuff in the past but moving forward do you agree that current science theories best explain the universe as we know how it works now.  Yes, OK nothing to talk about now.


There were a couple in my basic training flight. One who didn't really hold it as a religious worldview but thought it was corrupt scientists following massive piles of money. He was otherwise quite bright and skeptical. Turns out his teacher was sacked for refusing to teach evolution. The other...we stopped talking to him about evolution and that when he dropped the "homosexuality is a psychological disorder" bomb, and started railing on him for that one.
 
2014-02-05 12:32:23 PM  
FTA:Blah blah blah

Did Ham get a stage to speak on?  Yes.

Did Ham get a stage to speak on with a celebrity-engineer who is a noted advocate for science and science literacy?  Yes.

Did Ham get validation in the perception there is actually a debate to be had on this topic?  Yes.

More importantly, did Ham get free advertising for himself, AiG, and the Creation Museum?  Yes.

And, most importantly, will AiG and the Creation Museum see increased revenue through ticket sales and private donations?  Yes.

...that AiG can then channel right back into the "textbook wars" and political advocacy for scientific illiteracy in schools?

The debate was over, and an unqualified victory for Ham, the instant Nye agreed to it. What scientists and advocates for scientific literacy need to understand much greater, is that these people aren't out to educate. They're out to "minister", and more importantly make money to  continue "ministering". These people are in no way interested in ethical, honest debate, and to treat them as if they were is a greater grant of validity than they deserve.
 
2014-02-05 12:32:24 PM  
Did Bevets get banned? Why? I always assumed he either passed away or got bored with copypasting.
 
2014-02-05 12:32:47 PM  
Ham should have started with the 'Nothing will ever change my mind' response.

That being said, I'm pretty sure I could change his mind or he would become the greatest martyr of all time.
 
2014-02-05 12:32:59 PM  

Fano: fat boy: The real question is, did Bevets evolve into a rational person?

Into technobevets, who was subsequently banned. He is on an AMAZO like journey of self reflection through the universe right now.


That must be a strange, strange trip.  I hope he remembered to pack his tin foil hat.
 
2014-02-05 12:34:27 PM  

Mad Tea Party: Did Bevets get banned? Why? I always assumed he either passed away or got bored with copypasting.


probably because spamming your own website is not kosher unless you are giving a cut to fark
 
2014-02-05 12:34:43 PM  

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

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


What if that grown ass adult demands your children be taught santa is real in science class.  And then built a business around attracting people to a North Pole Museum?

Does that warrant a debate?

It's like none of y'all are aware that people watch these things.  And that the speakers' audience isn't the other speaker.
 
2014-02-05 12:36:46 PM  

SewerSquirrels: Perhaps I should have said, "The inspiration for religious doctrine" instead of "core of religion". The inspiration was based on evidence, but at some point it failed to be repeatable. I'm sorry to say this, but not every time you sacrifice your fatted calf are you going to have a good harvest.


Well, God isn't some machine you can put a quarter into and get a toy. Making an offering may help to secure God's favor, but it doesn't guarantee it. You need to make sure you are living according to God's law first.

In a way, this proves the existence of God. In the naturalistic mindset, if making a sacrifice meant you would have a good harvest, it would happen every time. The fact that it doesn't work every time proves that you are dealing with an intelligent force (AKA God).
 
2014-02-05 12:39:52 PM  

Egoy3k: Mikey1969: Nye prepared well. On the way to the venue, he picked up a piece of limestone from the roadside, with a fossil in it

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

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


That's pretty cool, we had the spiral shell fossils and ones called crinoids at the Canyon, but like I said, you had to hunt for them. Not super hard, it was easy to come across them on accident, if you happened to be in the right place, but they were nowhere near as prevalent as your experience, that would be very cool.
 
2014-02-05 12:40:41 PM  

Egoy3k: CJHardin: Egoy3k: CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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

Do they honestly believe that a 'naturalistic worldview' and 'worldly thinking' are bad things?

Being raised Southern Baptist I can tell you that they absolutely do.

Wow.  If I had kids and my less than 10 year old (going by the age I guess the cartoon is representing) had a naturalistic worldview and exhibited worldly thinking I'm be damn proud of him or her.


A naturalistic worldview and worldly thinking are a waste of time because you already have the answer, and it's Jesus Christ, our personal Lord and Savior.  The only thing that you need to think about is how we can stop this war on Christians and our Christian values.  Just look at all these gays and atheists and people dancing!!!!    Lord we call upon you in the name of your Holy Son to help us win this war on these sinners.  Praise be your name, in Jesus name we pray, Amen.

*Pass the offering plate and vote your values*

/I got better
 
2014-02-05 12:40:51 PM  

CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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


I did not realize tentacle porn has such a diverse audience.
 
2014-02-05 12:41:01 PM  
"Christians invented logic" is a pretty amazing howler that Nye should have called Ham out on.
 
2014-02-05 12:41:03 PM  

GameSprocket: SewerSquirrels: Perhaps I should have said, "The inspiration for religious doctrine" instead of "core of religion". The inspiration was based on evidence, but at some point it failed to be repeatable. I'm sorry to say this, but not every time you sacrifice your fatted calf are you going to have a good harvest.

Well, God isn't some machine you can put a quarter into and get a toy. Making an offering may help to secure God's favor, but it doesn't guarantee it. You need to make sure you are living according to God's law first.

In a way, this proves the existence of God. In the naturalistic mindset, if making a sacrifice meant you would have a good harvest, it would happen every time. The fact that it doesn't work every time proves that you are dealing with an intelligent force (AKA God).


Or that you can get the same results by praying to a carton of milk.
 
2014-02-05 12:41:32 PM  

BeesNuts: What if that grown ass adult demands your children be taught santa is real in science class. And then built a business around attracting people to a North Pole Museum?

Does that warrant a debate?


No.

BeesNuts: It's like none of y'all are aware that people watch these things. And that the speakers' audience isn't the other speaker.


Did you watch it?  Watch just the moderator's introduction.  Part of his introduction is that Ken Ham debated this very topic at Harvard long ago.  What happened in the debate doesn't matter, Ken Ham added that to his resumé, now he touts it.  After last night, Ken Ham will be able to say he has engaged in a second debate.

If scientists constantly debate him, he will be able to say "he travels the world debating scientists" and yet it's still in question.  That will give his followers reason enough to continue to believe him.  That will give the board of education in various states reason enough to want to teach creationism as a viable alternative.  If this guy can travel the country debating top scientists and we haven't reached consensus, then clearly this merits discussion in classrooms.

You don't get it, the audience is the general public and understanding the key arguments and major scientific findings supporting evolution requires at minimum a college biology degree.  To the audience "hey, look at the similarities in DNA sequence" has significantly less impact than "hey, look at this Piltdown Man scientists used to LIE to us."
 
2014-02-05 12:42:01 PM  
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.
 
2014-02-05 12:42:17 PM  

GameSprocket: SewerSquirrels: Perhaps I should have said, "The inspiration for religious doctrine" instead of "core of religion". The inspiration was based on evidence, but at some point it failed to be repeatable. I'm sorry to say this, but not every time you sacrifice your fatted calf are you going to have a good harvest.

Well, God isn't some machine you can put a quarter into and get a toy. Making an offering may help to secure God's favor, but it doesn't guarantee it. You need to make sure you are living according to God's law first.

In a way, this proves the existence of God. In the naturalistic mindset, if making a sacrifice meant you would have a good harvest, it would happen every time. The fact that it doesn't work every time proves that you are dealing with an intelligent force (AKA God).


Proves?
 
2014-02-05 12:42:23 PM  

SovietCanuckistan: CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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

I did not realize tentacle porn has such a diverse audience.


I did.
 
2014-02-05 12:44:35 PM  
Has anyone turned up a transcript of the debate yet?

I find watching Ken Ham expensively hazardous to video displays; while still somewhat wasteful, it's less expensive to (repeatedly) print out another copy in dead-tree format after tearing yet another into confetti.
 
2014-02-05 12:44:51 PM  

Ghastly: 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.

Obviously God guided his hand to the fossil.


Yeah, no matter what Nye says, the Creationists are going to have a counter argument that doesn't involve science at all, or if it does, tries to rationalize by because, God. Fossils are just tricks by Satan, or things to "encourage" humans to study "God's Plan"...
 
2014-02-05 12:45:35 PM  

lennavan: You don't get it, the audience is the general public and understanding the key arguments and major scientific findings supporting evolution requires at minimum a college biology degree. To the audience "hey, look at the similarities in DNA sequence" has significantly less impact than "hey, look at this Piltdown Man scientists used to LIE to us."


yeah but if people ignore debates like this what else can /r/atheism ruffle the feathers in their fedoras over
 
2014-02-05 12:46:58 PM  

BeesNuts: What if that grown ass adult demands your children be taught santa is real in science class.  And then built a business around attracting people to a North Pole Museum?

Does that warrant a debate?


A grandstanding circle-jerk of a debate that will have no bearing on anyone's beliefs, nor on the setting of public/social/educational policy in the US?

Still no.  This did nothing to thwart the scenario you're describing.
 
2014-02-05 12:49:16 PM  

China White Tea: BeesNuts: What if that grown ass adult demands your children be taught santa is real in science class. And then built a business around attracting people to a North Pole Museum?

Does that warrant a debate?

A grandstanding circle-jerk of a debate that will have no bearing on anyone's beliefs, nor on the setting of public/social/educational policy in the US?


If anything, it actually gave more credibility to the Creationists.  We went from "Creationism isn't worth debating because of X, Y and Z" to "Creationism is worth debating."
 
2014-02-05 12:56:36 PM  

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

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


This doesn't surprise me. A big failing for people like Nye is that they don't take into account the foundations of the other side's beliefs. Nye argued from a position of science, when he should have poked holes in the idea that the Bible is 100% literal. By failing to attack the foundations of the other position, he only allowed the other side to keep making the claim of: "Science says the Bible is wrong. Therefore science is wrong."

What he really needed for the debate prep was a Christian who isn't a YEC, but rather one who accepts science and believes Genesis is more of a metaphor than a literal history. He needed a Christian who understands the other side and who understands how to attack YEC without attacking the Christian faith. I am one ofthose Christians, and there are many others like me out there. And I am sick of people like Ham who are doing a lot of harm to not only the faith but also the nation and world with this nonsense.

Nothing Ham said is new. Anyone who follows people like him knows exactly where he's going to go with his "theories." Know your opponant and attack his strengths.
 
2014-02-05 12:59:45 PM  
After reviewing the Twitter and Facebook posts afterward, the sciencey people were unhappy that Nye wasn't tough enough and did not "win" by proclaiming Creationism bs. The religiony people were unhappy that there was not enough time in the debate to go over all the arguments to prove that scientists weren't there to know what happened. So, imo, completely useless for both sides because neither were convinced, even a little bit, that they may not know what they are talking about.
 
2014-02-05 01:01:18 PM  

pkellmey: After reviewing the Twitter and Facebook posts afterward, the sciencey people were unhappy that Nye wasn't tough enough and did not "win" by proclaiming Creationism bs. The religiony people were unhappy that there was not enough time in the debate to go over all the arguments to prove that scientists weren't there to know what happened. So, imo, completely useless for both sides because neither were convinced, even a little bit, that they may not know what they are talking about.


Same is true of most debates.
 
2014-02-05 01:01:37 PM  

sprawl15: /r/atheism


Now all atheists have to answer for reddit?  My god, that's like pretending all Christians participated in the holocaust.
 
2014-02-05 01:02:26 PM  

pkellmey: After reviewing the Twitter and Facebook posts afterward, the sciencey people were unhappy that Nye wasn't tough enough and did not "win" by proclaiming Creationism bs. The religiony people were unhappy that there was not enough time in the debate to go over all the arguments to prove that scientists weren't there to know what happened. So, imo, completely useless for both sides because neither were convinced, even a little bit, that they may not know what they are talking about.


How could either side be convinced?  One side is firmly entrenched in dogma, they aren't going to change their minds.  The other side is more than willing to be proven wrong, but of course there is no real evidence against evolution.  How could it have gone any "better"?  The whole thing was nothing more than an exercise in futility.
 
2014-02-05 01:03:13 PM  

ikanreed: sprawl15: /r/atheism

Now all atheists have to answer for reddit?  My god, that's like pretending all Christians participated in the holocaust.


Or all Canadians are responsible for Justin Bieber.
 
2014-02-05 01:04:40 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Or all Canadians are responsible for Justin Bieber.


Aren't they?  Aren't they?
 
2014-02-05 01:05:11 PM  

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


 It's a cute little philosophical thought, but ultimately a self defeating distinction.  From what I've observed people will intuitively reject it, for obvious reasons.  What is "historic", ten minutes ago? The time it takes for light to reach us from the sun?  Should crime scene investigators simply throw their hands?  "Well, we weren't here! No use in using a 'less powerful' scientific 'method' to determine what happened.  We'll never be able to discount magic being the culprit!"

It's the kind of argument children make.
 
2014-02-05 01:05:30 PM  
soporific: ...Nye argued from a position of science, when he should have poked holes in the idea that the Bible is 100% literal. By failing to attack the foundations of the other position, he only allowed the other side to keep making the claim of: "Science says the Bible is wrong. Therefore science is wrong."

What he really needed for the debate prep was a Christian who isn't a YEC, but rather one who accepts science and believes Genesis is more of a metaphor than a literal history. He needed a Christian who understands the other side and who understands how to attack YEC without attacking the Christian faith. I am one ofthose Christians, and there are many others like me out there. And I am sick of people like Ham who are doing a lot of harm to not only the faith but also the nation and world with this nonsense...


I grew up around fundies and evangelicals, and still live around them, and this is  exactly what you don't do, because then they just play the "you lack the faith and revelation to understand the  Bible as inerrant and literal" card. Christian scientists they just argue are "corrupted" by Satan (evolutionists), have lost the faith, and should be categorically rejected (even over atheists and agnostics, who know not what they do) at all costs lest they corrupt the audience as well.

I've said it before, and I've said it again. There is  no way to win against these people, and the very act of trying is a net victory for them. The only winning move is truly not to play. Like I said in my previous post, this "debate" will just result in stemming AiG's ongoing funding hemorrhage which will empower them to continue their activities. One of which is  writing and printing creationist textbooks.
 
2014-02-05 01:06:32 PM  

Epicedion: Aren't they?  Aren't they?


No, I blame the U.S. and U.K. as well.
 
2014-02-05 01:06:34 PM  

ikanreed: sprawl15: /r/atheism

Now all atheists have to answer for reddit?  My god, that's like pretending all Christians participated in the holocaust.


no just the ones who thought circlejerk xlvii: the debationing would be worth spending a single brain cell watching
 
2014-02-05 01:07:58 PM  

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

 It's a cute little philosophical thought, but ultimately a self defeating distinction.  From what I've observed people will intuitively reject it, for obvious reasons.  What is "historic", ten minutes ago? The time it takes for light to reach us from the sun?  Should crime scene investigators simply throw their hands?  "Well, we weren't here! No use in using a 'less powerful' scientific 'method' to determine what happened.  We'll never be able to discount magic being the culprit!"

It's the kind of argument children make.


Especially since you can claim that the book was written by men and there's no way to prove if the authors are who they claim.

The "Were you there?" argument doesn't look as good from the other side.
 
2014-02-05 01:08:11 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Epicedion: Aren't they?  Aren't they?

No, I blame the U.S. and U.K. as well.


I blame Obama.
 
2014-02-05 01:09:37 PM  

Fano: fat boy: The real question is, did Bevets evolve into a rational person?

Into technobevets, who was subsequently banned. He is on an AMAZO like journey of self reflection through the universe right now.


So he's like Raul Julia in Overdrawn At The Memory Bank?
 
2014-02-05 01:10:18 PM  

Mikey1969: 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.


I spent hours looking at limestone along roadsides north of San Antonio.  Net result:  Sunburn and a corner of a leaf imprint.  Yay.
 
2014-02-05 01:11:45 PM  

sprawl15: no just the ones who thought circlejerk xlvii: the debationing would be worth spending a single brain cell watching


Right, like we all appreciate the time we spend on your opinions?
 
2014-02-05 01:12:51 PM  

vactech: It's the kind of argument children make.


so then you've come to the right place...?

:D

have fun lad, no1curr.gif
 
2014-02-05 01:13:04 PM  
I had 14 years of Lutheran prep school.
I remember as a young kid being told about the dinosaurs being fake or a trick and took that as face value (even though I love dinosaurs).
Then as an 8th grader I went to the National Museum of Natural History and realized that "religion" as whole was a trap for the weak minded.

So bravo Bill Nye
 
2014-02-05 01:13:19 PM  
How can you win against someone who is playing the argumentative equivalent of Calvinball?
 
2014-02-05 01:13:50 PM  
No one who's a true believer is going to ever be persuaded that creationism is bogus, but that's not the point. If we can highlight to a casual audience how farking absurd the creationists are, it makes it much easier for polite society to vote against allowing them equal time in schools.
 
2014-02-05 01:14:02 PM  

TheBlackrose: How can you win against someone who is playing the argumentative equivalent of Calvinball?


4closurefraud.org
 
2014-02-05 01:14:11 PM  

CJHardin: RedPhoenix122: Epicedion: Aren't they?  Aren't they?

No, I blame the U.S. and U.K. as well.

I blame Obama.


You guys don't realize it.  Gordon Lightfoot and Celine Dion were TEST BALLOONS!

Canada is coming for your babies, America!
 
2014-02-05 01:14:25 PM  

meat0918: I said this yesterday

There was no debate.

It was a farce, a dog and pony show so that Ken Ham, creationist asshole numero uno, could point to this and say "See, I'm a real scientist, I got to sit down at the grown up table."


Indeed. Such people should be dealt with the same way Farktrolls should be: ignored outright. Debating them only risks legitimizing their hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance, which can then be exploited as "proof" when those idiots appeal to the well-meaning but ill-informed.

(Unless you have that rare gift to provoke one into a very public, vitriolic meltdown... those are so wonderful to see...)
 
2014-02-05 01:15:17 PM  

ikanreed: sprawl15: no just the ones who thought circlejerk xlvii: the debationing would be worth spending a single brain cell watching

Right, like we all appreciate the time we spend on your opinions?


i have been keeping my posts short so as to not overstimulate you

hth
 
2014-02-05 01:16:54 PM  

TheBlackrose: How can you win against someone who is playing the argumentative equivalent of Calvinball?


That's actually a really good analogy.
 
2014-02-05 01:16:58 PM  
Ken Ham:  the answer is in the bible... and the bible is the word of god.
Bill Nye:  who wrote the bible?
Ken Ham: god.
Bill Nye: you weren't there.  You didn't see it.   checkmate.
 
2014-02-05 01:17:42 PM  

sprawl15: i have been keeping my posts short so as to not overstimulate you

hth


I just was pointing how dumb a perspective it is to say "how terrible people waste time listening to other people talk about things" as if there weren't a shiat-ton of worse ways to spend your time.
 
2014-02-05 01:19:28 PM  

ikanreed: sprawl15: i have been keeping my posts short so as to not overstimulate you

hth

I just was pointing how dumb a perspective it is to say "how terrible people waste time listening to other people talk about things" as if there weren't a shiat-ton of worse ways to spend your time.


Well, it does keep a potential child molester off the street.
 
2014-02-05 01:19:33 PM  

Mad Tea Party: No one who's a true believer is going to ever be persuaded that creationism is bogus, but that's not the point. If we can highlight to a casual audience how farking absurd the creationists are, it makes it much easier for polite society to vote against allowing them equal time in schools.


Conversely, if creationists can highlight to a casual audience whose science education in school has suffered perennially the inherent flaws and drawbacks of the scientific method without context, as well as cherry pick instances where scientists have been incorrect or unethical, people will begin to believe there is a controversy and begin to reject science -- or begin considering pseudoscience as equally valid.

See, climate change.
 
2014-02-05 01:19:52 PM  

ko_kyi: Mikey1969: 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.

I spent hours looking at limestone along roadsides north of San Antonio.  Net result:  Sunburn and a corner of a leaf imprint.  Yay.


which is just further proof that nothing worthwhile ever has or ever will live in that part of the country.
 
2014-02-05 01:20:22 PM  

that bosnian sniper: soporific: ...Nye argued from a position of science, when he should have poked holes in the idea that the Bible is 100% literal. By failing to attack the foundations of the other position, he only allowed the other side to keep making the claim of: "Science says the Bible is wrong. Therefore science is wrong."

What he really needed for the debate prep was a Christian who isn't a YEC, but rather one who accepts science and believes Genesis is more of a metaphor than a literal history. He needed a Christian who understands the other side and who understands how to attack YEC without attacking the Christian faith. I am one ofthose Christians, and there are many others like me out there. And I am sick of people like Ham who are doing a lot of harm to not only the faith but also the nation and world with this nonsense...

I grew up around fundies and evangelicals, and still live around them, and this is  exactly what you don't do, because then they just play the "you lack the faith and revelation to understand the  Bible as inerrant and literal" card. Christian scientists they just argue are "corrupted" by Satan (evolutionists), have lost the faith, and should be categorically rejected (even over atheists and agnostics, who know not what they do) at all costs lest they corrupt the audience as well.

I've said it before, and I've said it again. There is  no way to win against these people, and the very act of trying is a net victory for them. The only winning move is truly not to play. Like I said in my previous post, this "debate" will just result in stemming AiG's ongoing funding hemorrhage which will empower them to continue their activities. One of which is  writing and printing creationist textbooks.


Exactly why you do my approach of arguing from THEIR position and make them have to argue against the bible. It's not one they like at all. And yes, they'll attempt the "begone satan!" trick to which you pull out multiple Paul verses. Force them into a corner and remind them about false prophets and hypocrisy.
 
2014-02-05 01:21:17 PM  
Sofa King Smart:
Bill Nye:  who wrote the bible?
Ken Ham: god.


Are there any Christians that believe God wrote the Bible?  I mean, the book of Matthew was written by... Matthew.  That's why it's referred to as "The Gospel According to Matthew."
 
2014-02-05 01:21:35 PM  
abb3w (lost cause): Has anyone turned up a transcript of the debate yet?

I find watching Ken Ham expensively hazardous to video displays; while still somewhat wasteful, it's less expensive to (repeatedly) print out another copy in dead-tree format after tearing yet another into confetti.


yep got it right here for ya;


Ham:  G'Day blokes, I like teh bybull

Nye:  I like Science!!

Ham:  I liek teh bybull

Nye:  I like, she blinded me with ... SCIENCE!!!1!

Ham:  I like teg bybull, teh power of Jebus compels YOU!!1!

Nye:  FOR SCIENCE!!!1!!111

Ham: bybull

Nye: SCIENCE!!!

Le Fin
 
2014-02-05 01:22:19 PM  

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

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


He was only transcribing what God told him to.

/according to them.
 
2014-02-05 01:22:28 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Exactly why you do my approach of arguing from THEIR position and make them have to argue against the bible


So you agree the Bible is true then?  Great.

Princess Ryans Knickers: It's not one they like at all.


Yes it is, you just admitted the Bible is a reliable source worth using in arguments.  They won more ground than they initially even imagined.
 
2014-02-05 01:23:31 PM  

ikanreed: I just was pointing how dumb a perspective it is to say "how terrible people waste time listening to other people talk about things" as if there weren't a shiat-ton of worse ways to spend your time.


there really arent that many worse ways to spend your time than watching someone debate a young earth creationist slash attention whore except maybe crowing about how his arguments are not logically sound

but in the interest of fairness i will try to list some worse ways to spend your time:
peeing in one's own cheerios
slamming one's own dick in a car door
posting on tfd
getting a tattoo of jean claude van damme's face over your own face
planning a food truck / anal bleaching helicopter concept pitch
looking up guy fieri's banging fashion sizzle tips
reading terry goodkind
 
2014-02-05 01:23:53 PM  

lennavan: Are there any Christians that believe God wrote the Bible?


I thought Bart Ehrman wrote the Bible?!?  i'm so confused

lelz
 
2014-02-05 01:25:27 PM  
ken ham:  god made the billions of stars and planets and universes to show how great he is.
bill nye: when was the bible written?
ken ham: 2,000 years ago.
bill nye: how many stars were they aware of 2,000 years ago?
ken ham: hundreds...maybe thousands... also they thought the earth was the center of our solar system and that the earth was flat.
bill nye: you might want to consider just pleading the 'fif'.
 
2014-02-05 01:25:59 PM  

lennavan: Are there any Christians that believe God wrote the Bible?


Yes.  Getting into the details of the bible as a book isn't good for "keeping the faith" and it tends to not be brought up much.  So a lot of people end up believing exactly like Ham says(who I suspect is just a sociopathic manipulator and doesn't believe what he's saying)
 
2014-02-05 01:26:01 PM  

sprawl15: reading terry goodkind


At first I thought you were referring to Terry Pratchett and I was worried I was going to have to kill you to keep you from infecting the others.

/no offense.
 
2014-02-05 01:26:41 PM  

GameSprocket: In a way, this proves the existence of God. In the naturalistic mindset, if making a sacrifice meant you would have a good harvest, it would happen every time. The fact that it doesn't work every time proves that you are dealing with an intelligent force (AKA God).


Or, more likely, it suggests that sacrifice has no bearing on the out come of harvest.

Some people seem to have an intrinsic need for a sense of control even when they have none.I have a friend (a creationist no less) who doesn't like to fly. She told me that she would feel more comfortable in a plane if she was in the pilot seat even though she doesn't know how to fly a plane.
 
2014-02-05 01:27:06 PM  

RedPhoenix122: sprawl15: reading terry goodkind

At first I thought you were referring to Terry Pratchett and I was worried I was going to have to kill you to keep you from infecting the others.

/no offense.


oh no terry goodkind is the author of ayn rand fantasy edition starring rape
 
2014-02-05 01:27:36 PM  

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

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


I do not know of a single christian that believes the gospels were written by god.  Now the old testimate.......
 
2014-02-05 01:27:55 PM  

RedPhoenix122: lennavan: Sofa King Smart:
Bill Nye:  who wrote the bible?
Ken Ham: god.

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

He was only transcribing what God told him to.

/according to them.


That's not what they actually believe.  See for instance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
 
2014-02-05 01:29:07 PM  

ikanreed: lennavan: Are there any Christians that believe God wrote the Bible?

Yes.


Got a source for that?  Because everything I was ever taught at my Catholic High School says otherwise.
 
2014-02-05 01:29:13 PM  

sprawl15: oh no terry goodkind is the author of ayn rand fantasy edition starring rape


I've read some of them.  The first ones aren't as bad, but they do get worse.
 
2014-02-05 01:29:37 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Exactly why you do my approach of arguing from THEIR position and make them have to argue against the bible. It's not one they like at all. And yes, they'll attempt the "begone satan!" trick to which you pull out multiple Paul verses. Force them into a corner and remind them about false prophets and hypocrisy.


So you concede the Bible is a credible source, and "prove" you lack the faith to understand it by "cherry picking" Paul, who wasn't even Jesus.  Remember, these folks are preconditioned to reject certain speakers as soon as keywords or tactics are hit, and that's one of them. When you argue that, you're Alinsky flippingyourself.

You  just don't argue with these people.
 
2014-02-05 01:30:00 PM  

lennavan: That's not what they actually believe.  See for instance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source


It's what some of them actually believe.

Source:  Raised as a Jehovah's Witness.
 
2014-02-05 01:30:57 PM  

lennavan: ikanreed: lennavan: Are there any Christians that believe God wrote the Bible?

Yes.

Got a source for that?  Because everything I was ever taught at my Catholic High School says otherwise.


As a Southern Baptist we were told that the bible was written by God directly using man as his hand.  It didn't matter if men were involved, they were simply instruments of God's almighty hand.  Also, there are no mistakes and no contradictions.
 
2014-02-05 01:31:12 PM  

lennavan: RedPhoenix122: lennavan: Sofa King Smart:
Bill Nye:  who wrote the bible?
Ken Ham: god.

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

He was only transcribing what God told him to.

/according to them.

That's not what they actually believe.  See for instance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source


It's not possible to pin down every distinct belief here, because while you can take a observational approach to the content of the bible, many people don't.
 
2014-02-05 01:31:29 PM  

SewerSquirrels: Some people seem to have an intrinsic need for a sense of control even when they have none.


Wouldn't sewer squirrels be eaten by sewer gators?
 
2014-02-05 01:32:15 PM  

lennavan: ikanreed: lennavan: Are there any Christians that believe God wrote the Bible?

Yes.

Got a source for that?  Because everything I was ever taught at my Catholic High School says otherwise.


Not by the literal hand of God, but by the guidance.  Catholic....well my Mom is Catholic
 
2014-02-05 01:33:16 PM  

lennavan: That's not what they actually believe.  See for instance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source


Fundies reject the synoptic problem altogether.
 
2014-02-05 01:34:29 PM  

lennavan: Got a source for that? Because everything I was ever taught at my Catholic High School says otherwise.


Since you're asking for evidence of the relatively tame claim that at least one person does, I'm just going to say I've spoken to people who believe that.  And an anecdote(unless you're calling my personal experience into question here) is sufficient for that kind of claim.

Try being raised in the rural south.  Try looking at polls asking people if they think the bible is "the literal word of god"(this is as opposed to "inspired word of god")  It's not even remotely uncommon.
 
2014-02-05 01:36:58 PM  

meat0918: Ham is delicious.

And now it comes in Kosher flavors.


(roll back the time machine to the late 70s)
In a moment straight out of a sitcom, my roommate once convinced another roommate that there was such a thing as Kosher Ham, and had him ask the hostess (Jewish, naturally) for some. Our time living together wasn't all as hilarious as this one off stunt, but there are times when I see shows like That 70s Show or New Girl (the victim's girlfriend lived with us, and she could pass for the character of Chrissie on Three's Company) that I think must have got most of their ideas from spying on all our shenanigans.
 
2014-02-05 01:37:03 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Fundies reject the synoptic problem altogether.


The problem is that fundies aren't a unified group either.  The particular backwards beliefs that turn them into "fundies" varies from group to group, though they're pretty united in their overall degree of social conservationism.
 
2014-02-05 01:38:50 PM  

lennavan: China White Tea: BeesNuts: What if that grown ass adult demands your children be taught santa is real in science class. And then built a business around attracting people to a North Pole Museum?

Does that warrant a debate?

A grandstanding circle-jerk of a debate that will have no bearing on anyone's beliefs, nor on the setting of public/social/educational policy in the US?

If anything, it actually gave more credibility to the Creationists.  We went from "Creationism isn't worth debating because of X, Y and Z" to "Creationism is worth debating."


Precisely.  "Debate" implies that there is an argument between two positions, and that they both have at least a marginal degree of credibility.  You can't "debate" science Vs. delusion without implying that the delusion warrants at least some degree of consideration.
 
2014-02-05 01:39:15 PM  

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

Not everyone in the world who is alive or will ever be born already has an unchangeable opinion of everything.

/ex-christian.  At some point, something changed my mind.  Without debates, that wouldn't have happened.


Wouldn't unhindered critical mocking work just as well?
 
2014-02-05 01:40:36 PM  

lennavan: BeesNuts: What if that grown ass adult demands your children be taught santa is real in science class. And then built a business around attracting people to a North Pole Museum?

Does that warrant a debate?

No.

BeesNuts: It's like none of y'all are aware that people watch these things. And that the speakers' audience isn't the other speaker.

Did you watch it?  Watch just the moderator's introduction.  Part of his introduction is that Ken Ham debated this very topic at Harvard long ago.  What happened in the debate doesn't matter, Ken Ham added that to his resumé, now he touts it.  After last night, Ken Ham will be able to say he has engaged in a second debate.

If scientists constantly debate him, he will be able to say "he travels the world debating scientists" and yet it's still in question.  That will give his followers reason enough to continue to believe him.  That will give the board of education in various states reason enough to want to teach creationism as a viable alternative.  If this guy can travel the country debating top scientists and we haven't reached consensus, then clearly this merits discussion in classrooms.

You don't get it, the audience is the general public and understanding the key arguments and major scientific findings supporting evolution requires at minimum a college biology degree.  To the audience "hey, look at the similarities in DNA sequence" has significantly less impact than "hey, look at this Piltdown Man scientists used to LIE to us."


Ignore is not an option -- they claim victory by virtue of no challenge and have the best chance of getting the "I have an Open Mind (that should be "closed for repairs") and don't trust "The Man" to tell me the truth" types that way.  Or the "Life sucks I'm desperate to find a solution" types.
Silencing is not an option -- Help, Help, we're being Oppressed!  (which inevitably turns into "Praise the Lord and Pass the ammunition")

Debating, sure it gives them street cred for the already faithful.  But more importantly, it gives the best chance at keeping them from getting more adherents, when compared to the above.
 
2014-02-05 01:40:42 PM  

NebTheWise: Ken Ham made two good points the entire night: that everyone approaches the act of scientific research with presuppositions about the nature of the universe, and that those different "world views" may influence the way one interprets scientific data. He really should have expounded on these points, rather than try to discredit the evidence for evolution itself.


Your handle is well earned, good sir.

And while Nye did slip up a few times, his debating skills were much better than Ham's. That being said, both sides did make valid points about each others flaws: Radiocarbon dating DOES have issues (which actual scientists in the fields of Geology and Archeology freely admit), which is why most dating methods today use more stable isotopes less prone to environmental variances.  Then there are the issues of calibration, namely that the oldest verified non-clonal trees are less than 6000 years old, and the so-called annular ice layers have been shown to be not always annual as freeze-thaw cycles can skew the layers.

On Nye's side though, were the arguments he made regarding the grand canyon theory that Ham was backing (created by the great Flood), namely that there should be multiple Grand canyons worldwide. The funny bit is, the current thinking is that the Canyon was probably created by a process similar to the Missoula Floods, only the damming was caused by lava instead of ice, resulting in several flood pulses as lava dams broke carving through massive amounts of rock in a geologically short time (current estimates place this time around 700,000 years). Of course Ham hasn't kept abreast of the current research so he didn't know that. Nye also was correct in pointing out the argumentative flaw that Ham's model is based on an appeal to authority, and not so much on actual research.

Both sides could have argued better, but it was altogether quite entertaining.
 
2014-02-05 01:41:37 PM  

SewerSquirrels: Or, more likely, it suggests that sacrifice has no bearing on the out come of harvest.


Well, yeah. I didn't think anyone would take my comment seriously, I guess I need to be more outlandish next time. Poe's Law got me again.
 
2014-02-05 01:42:13 PM  

eraser8: SewerSquirrels: Some people seem to have an intrinsic need for a sense of control even when they have none.

Wouldn't sewer squirrels be eaten by sewer gators?


Well, yes, but only until they're big enough to be in a cheapo Syfy flick. Thankfully we are prodigious breeders.
 
2014-02-05 01:42:14 PM  

China White Tea: delusion


I'm not sure how I feel about the word "delusion" in the context of creationism.  I mean, the core idea "thing believed in spite of evidence" stands, but there's also the elaborate lengths the defenders go to to "explain" it, which is less consistent with the behaviors of sufferers of an actual mental disorder.
 
2014-02-05 01:45:25 PM  

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

Not everyone in the world who is alive or will ever be born already has an unchangeable opinion of everything.

/ex-christian.  At some point, something changed my mind.  Without debates, that wouldn't have happened.

Wouldn't unhindered critical mocking work just as well?



Not at that point in my life, no.

All the little bits of science the people pointed out to me that didn't fit into the Christian theology weakened the foundation.  Take the standard Christian response to a scientific problem, and actually do the science, and it all falls apart.  The believer must resort to "because magic", which then leads to the question of why a god would ever need to alter it's own rules of physics, just to prove a book that it divinely inspired.

And then to be told I'm not to question gods motives.  I can't know that.      Pulling threads.
 
2014-02-05 01:46:43 PM  
Late to the party here, but while I think Bill Nye's effort is worthy (although he didn't deliver the 1,000 cuts to Ham that I would have liked him to do since he was constantly being set up for it) how is debating with a man, whose continual fallback is on a premise that cannot in his mind be unproven, serve much purpose?

Ken Ham's mind, and that of his followers, will always be made up since they don't think Creationism can be unproven (since all evidence of it is intangible).  Bill Nye is, unfortunately, likely fighting a losing battle here, with my fingers crossed that enough young people get instilled enough skepticism to actually talk about it.
 
2014-02-05 01:47:21 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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

"You have to read the bible naturally"


www.woodworkingtalk.com
 
2014-02-05 01:48:23 PM  

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?
 
2014-02-05 01:48:33 PM  

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

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


according to 'answers in genesis' people... who claim the bible is the inerrant word of god...
from their website... they claim moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT (pentateuch)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/06/28/did-moses-write- ge nesis

There is abundant biblical and extra-biblical evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch during the wilderness wanderings after the Jews left their slavery in Egypt and before they entered the Promised Land (about 1445-1405 BC). Contrary to the liberal theologians and other skeptics, it was not written after the Jews returned from exile in Babylon (ca. 500 BC). Christians who believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch do not need to feel intellectually intimidated. It is the enemies of the truth of God that are failing to think carefully and face the facts honestly.
As a prophet of God, Moses wrote under divine inspiration, guaranteeing the complete accuracy and absolute authority of his writings. Those writings were endorsed by Jesus and the New Testament apostles, who based their teaching and the truth of the gospel on the truths revealed in the books of Moses, including the truths about a literal six-day creation about 6000 years ago, the Curse on the whole creation when Adam sinned, and the judgment of the global, catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah.
The attack on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is nothing less than an attack on the veracity, reliability, and authority of the Word of Almighty God. Christians should believe God, rather than the fallible, sinful skeptics inside and outside the church who, in their intellectual arrogance, are consciously or unconsciously trying to undermine the Word so that they can justify in their own minds (but not before God) their rebellion against God. As Paul says in  ,"Let God be true and every man a liar."
 
2014-02-05 01:51:19 PM  

GameSprocket: Poe's Law got me again.


No, it got me. I took the bate; you should have set the hook.

Next time: "Yeah, but if I'm right, when I die, I go to heaven."
That one gets me every time.
 
2014-02-05 01:51:37 PM  

washington-babylon: it was altogether quite entertaining.


The only thing Bill Nye has going for him is his ability to be entertaining.  I've known more than a few debaters who loved to shred Creationist types.

One geologist dude I knew would go to Dinosaur Valley State Park in the early 80s and pack a lunch... and wait ... for the Creationists to come out to view the imprints that kind of look like they're not dino caused (thus proving Man walked with Dinos) and he would strike up a conversation and his extensive knowledge of the Bible as well as Science allowed him to mercilessly shred the poor Creationist in front of his flock.
 
2014-02-05 01:53:41 PM  
i thought the best (best being most interesting) part of the debate was the Q&A question afterward that asked [paraphrased because i dont remember the actual wording] "What, if anything, would change your mind, Mr. Ham?"  his response was nothing could, that his belief is so strong it cant be changed.  and then he asked Nye what could change his and he said, "evidence of xxx could" (xxx being several different things).  it showed the incredulity of creationists in spite of evidence of anything, fully justifying the silliness of an actual debate with them.
 
2014-02-05 01:55:55 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-05 02:02:04 PM  

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
Vestigial organs, and otherwise "just enough" biological design as opposed to "perfect" designs.
Yearly mutation of influenza virus.
Faulty understanding of 2nd law of thermodynamics w/ regards to evolution.
Homosexual behaviors in non-human animals.
 
2014-02-05 02:10:29 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: I drunk what: so in other words the typical YEC methodology of one step forward two steps back, which the foxnews crowd eats right up


Fish are sinners!


31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-05 02:11:05 PM  

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

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

according to 'answers in genesis' people... who claim the bible is the inerrant word of god...
from their website... they claim moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT (pentateuch)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/06/28/did-moses-write- ge nesis

There is abundant biblical and extra-biblical evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch during the wilderness wanderings after the Jews left their slavery in Egypt and before they entered the Promised Land (about 1445-1405 BC). Contrary to the liberal theologians and other skeptics, it was not written after the Jews returned from exile in Babylon (ca. 500 BC). Christians who believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch do not need to feel intellectually intimidated. It is the enemies of the truth of God that are failing to think carefully and face the facts honestly.
As a prophet of God, Moses wrote under divine inspiration, guaranteeing the complete accuracy and absolute authority of his writings. Those writings were endorsed by Jesus and the New Testament apostles, who based their teaching and the truth of the gospel on the truths revealed in the books of Moses, including the truths about a literal six-day creation about 6000 years ago, the Curse on the whole creation when Adam sinned, and the judgment of the global, catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah.
The attack on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is nothing less than an attack on the veracity, reliability, and authority of the Word of Almighty God. Christians should believe God, rather than the fallible, sinful skeptics inside and outside the church who, in their intellectual arrogance, are consciously or unconsciously trying to undermine the Word so that they can justify in their own minds (but not befo ...



i59.tinypic.com
 
2014-02-05 02:12:38 PM  

SewerSquirrels: Exposing people to rational thought is never pointless.


LELZ

welcometofark.jpg

lots o noobs on today...
 
2014-02-05 02:16:13 PM  

RedPhoenix122: vactech: I drunk what: can any butt hurt anti-theist evolutionists admit they can recognize the difference between observational science and historical science yet?

 It's a cute little philosophical thought, but ultimately a self defeating distinction.  From what I've observed people will intuitively reject it, for obvious reasons.  What is "historic", ten minutes ago? The time it takes for light to reach us from the sun?  Should crime scene investigators simply throw their hands?  "Well, we weren't here! No use in using a 'less powerful' scientific 'method' to determine what happened.  We'll never be able to discount magic being the culprit!"

It's the kind of argument children make.

Especially since you can claim that the book was written by men and there's no way to prove if the authors are who they claim.

The "Were you there?" argument doesn't look as good from the other side.


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

maximumtrolling.jpg
 
2014-02-05 02:18:46 PM  

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

What better points were made by Ham?

the ability of creationists to admit they are using highly biased views of religion to influence their "science" and their opponents inability to honestly do the same

the rest just sounded like soundbites and filler, with neither side listening to the other

though for all the good ham did, he did twice as much damage for his cause going full "jebus compels you derp" at the end of almost every chance he got to speak

so in other words the typical YEC methodology of one step forward two steps back, which the foxnews crowd eats right up

nye did a decent job of just shilling for "MORE SCIENCE EDUMUCATION", meanwhile pretending to "debate" ham... *rolls eyes*

though i've seen much much much worse, a la  hovind vs sam harris types

overall this debate was way too much vanilla, and too little too late, this bipolar derp country-world won't take a single thing away from it other than

YEEHAW nye smoked ham, HEEHAWW  YEEEEEEAAAH, for science!!!1!

i would have liked to have seen more points addressed and MUCH less snarky comments made at each other, which is why i said nye won, simply because he used less smug/snark

good jorb lad, now debate someone who isn't of the hovind/ham flavor, and let's make some actual progress


Debate what? How? With whom?
 
2014-02-05 02:20:35 PM  

Sofa King Smart: There is abundant biblical and extra-biblical evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch during the wilderness wanderings after the Jews left their slavery in Egypt and before they entered the Promised Land (about 1445-1405 BC).


Uh-huh.

So when, over those 40 years, did Moe set pen to paper? Was it between when they fled Egypt and hit the Red Sea? Probably not, since that's a short time and they were being pursued by a raging army. Was it before one of the many desert rebellions the Israelites waged? One would think that Moe, reading what he'd been inspired to write, might have used the benefit of forethought to try and stop those before they started - or at least, Moe might have avoided the misstep of hitting the magic rock (as opposed to speaking to it), which kept him from achieving his life's goal.

// though there is a tradition that Moe wrote it on top of Mt Nebo (where he died) just before he died, and handed the book off to Josh to finish
 
2014-02-05 02:23:19 PM  

wademh: Nye's handicap is that he had to present intelligent science while Ham merely had to score rhetorical points.
Ham presented  examples of young earth creationists who nevertheless manage to be successful scientists, inventors or engineers.
So Nye is not completely right that creationism teaching creationism will prevent the US from succeeding in scientific innovation.
The fact that he is mostly right, and that the success stories are few and far between is too subtle a point for a debate, so Ham wins the rhetorical game. And that's all he ever needed to do. To top it off, he'll make a great deal of money off the circus.


Agreed - also neither of them is truly adept in articulating their positions with confidence and technical accuracy (from an earth sciences/biological sciences perspective for Nye, and from both an overall Science and Theological perspective from Ham).

I'd much rather see a debate from someone who is familiar with both theological positions and sciences. However, said folks are almost always atheist by virtue of their search for 'the truth'.

Additionally the audience in attendance are only really going to understand bible thumping. Nye jumped around from over-complex (for the audience) example to example with disjointed segues between anecdotes and topics.

Bill Nye should feel bad for even agreeing to this 'debate' This was obviously a huge PR stunt for both Nye and Ham with red meat thrown to their followers ('her, der Jesus wants to live in your literal heart' from Ham and 'American excellence in STEM' from Nye).

I award neither of them any points and may the FSM have mercy on their souls...
 
2014-02-05 02:24:14 PM  

RedPhoenix122: lennavan: Sofa King Smart:
Bill Nye:  who wrote the bible?
Ken Ham: god.

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

He was only transcribing what God told him to.

/according to them.


What's a cubit?
 
2014-02-05 02:29:19 PM  
Oh, and eyeballs.   Someone once made a statement to me that human eyes are so complex they had to be created.  Considering all the different kinds of eyes in the world, and the many weakness and fallibilities of human eyes... it didn't fly with me.  Why create a perfect eyeball with a blind spot, when there are other eyes in the world without blind spots?  Bad design.  Not perfect.  Not god.
 
2014-02-05 02:31:49 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Sofa King Smart: There is abundant biblical and extra-biblical evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch during the wilderness wanderings after the Jews left their slavery in Egypt and before they entered the Promised Land (about 1445-1405 BC).

Uh-huh.

So when, over those 40 years, did Moe set pen to paper? Was it between when they fled Egypt and hit the Red Sea? Probably not, since that's a short time and they were being pursued by a raging army. Was it before one of the many desert rebellions the Israelites waged? One would think that Moe, reading what he'd been inspired to write, might have used the benefit of forethought to try and stop those before they started - or at least, Moe might have avoided the misstep of hitting the magic rock (as opposed to speaking to it), which kept him from achieving his life's goal.

// though there is a tradition that Moe wrote it on top of Mt Nebo (where he died) just before he died, and handed the book off to Josh to finish


At what point do Larry, Curly, and Shemp enter  the picture?
 
2014-02-05 02:40:41 PM  

Fano: RedPhoenix122: lennavan: Sofa King Smart:
Bill Nye:  who wrote the bible?
Ken Ham: god.

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

He was only transcribing what God told him to.

/according to them.

What's a cubit?



i59.tinypic.com
 
2014-02-05 02:42:15 PM  

costermonger: It's also hard to accept that a debate between creationism and science was held and people feel the need to seriously discuss who "won".


This.  Religion gets ugly when (among many many other situations) it regards science as a competing philosophy/worldview.  Science in its purest form does not make assumptions that it must then defend.
 
2014-02-05 02:42:18 PM  
Well at least the debate against IDW was a success, He is to the point of just angry luz mock posting because hes got nothing.
 
2014-02-05 02:45:23 PM  

vrax: Fano: RedPhoenix122: lennavan: Sofa King Smart:
Bill Nye:  who wrote the bible?
Ken Ham: god.

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

He was only transcribing what God told him to.

/according to them.

What's a cubit?


[i59.tinypic.com image 256x300]


I LOL'ed.
 
2014-02-05 02:47:37 PM  

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Notsureifserious.jpg

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

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

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

Notsureifserious.jpg

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


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

Mikey1969: Egoy3k: Mikey1969: Nye prepared well. On the way to the venue, he picked up a piece of limestone from the roadside, with a fossil in it

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Notsureifserious.jpg

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


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

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

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


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

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

Heliovdrake: Historical Medicine?


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

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

can you give an example?


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

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

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

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

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

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

can you give an example?


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

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


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

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

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

God was Matthew's Holy Ghost writer


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Shadow Blasko: Mikey1969: Egoy3k: Mikey1969: Nye prepared well. On the way to the venue, he picked up a piece of limestone from the roadside, with a fossil in it

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

*poors one out for good ole abbey*

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

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

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

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

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

CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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


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

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


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

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

Creationist response:

[www.ernestangley.org image 220x275]


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

How about legs on whales and snakes?


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

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


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

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

It didn't go over well.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


This.

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

I'll just leave these here:


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


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

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

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

*poors one out for good ole abbey*

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

meh


So today's not a "pretend to be an atheist and troll them lelz im so funny" day?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
2014-02-06 09:21:42 AM  

dready zim: Which of the definitions do you mean?


which one would you prefer to use?  I mean what I say, and I don't want to offend you

dready zim: If you define it by what is natural then everything.


...why would we do a silly thing like that? do you define your other terms in the same manner...?

dready zim: The word means birth.


hmm, you may need to be a little more specific than that.

for example, if I were to ask you "What was the Nature of the debate between Nye and Ham (presuming you watched it)?"... and Nature means "birth" to you, I would then be asking you "What was the BIRTH of the debate between them...?  I don't follow

and again if i were to ask what is Natural in your Reality? I would be asking what has been birthed...???  i can see that conversations with you will at least be interesting.

ready when you are.

but first, you may want to clean up a little mess that is starting to form:

Shakin_Haitian: "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.


the problem with the IB, is if you give them an inch...  well I don't have to read the rest of the thread for you, now do i?

go easy on 'em, use small words (i found pictures to be helpful... :)  they liek picturs

good luck

sidenote:  I'll go ahead and farky you as not IB, so in future discussions you will be speaking with IDW, please ignore posts from this account to anyone else, that honor has been given to Dizz (and reading those posts may be hazardous to your IQ)

peace be with you

//it seems threads close quicker than they used to, so we may need to pick up our Nature conversation, on another day
///we're patient
 
2014-02-06 09:30:00 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: That's the rules.   Dready zim is incorrect.


good jorb lad, you get a trophy!

/that's the rules
//dats the rules
///dems de rewls

why is dready zim so stupid? itz becaws he one of dem creationtards isn't it? lelz lelz lelz

i bet he can't lawjic 1+1 roflelz, naturally peeple liek him can't handle the Sciunce

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-02-06 09:47:04 AM  

ikanreed: tl;dr: things can be proven, but that doesn't mean shiat.


ikanreed: 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.


I get what you're saying but there isn't a single scientist in the world that will agree with you science can prove things.  But you see, we aren't scared by that.  Idiots and jackasses hear "science can't prove things" and start to think "oh god we don't know anything at all, it could all be wrong!"  We hear "yeah we're pretty farking sure, we'll go ahead and sleep at night."

For example:  I cannot tell you for 100% certain a head is required for long term survival.  Sure in the French Revolution we did an awful lot of experimentation and (well, I'm pretty sure at least) everyone died.  But it is still possible if I cut your head off, you will be just fine.  Now there are an awful lot of 9's after my I'm 99.999...% sure and I highly suggest you not risk it.  But it is still formally possible.

That's why we have the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Gravity.  The problem only arises when you talk with non-scientists and they hear the word "theory" and suddenly think "oh we're just guessin, cool!"  Theory has a very defined specific meaning and it's not "some idea I pulled out of my ass while drinking last night."
 
2014-02-06 09:49:26 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: 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.


The great thing is, now I have a good idea exactly who one of IDW's alts are, because that was precisely the answer IDW gave when he was presented with the Wason all those years ago, and when told that he was wrong, that is the logic he used to defend his answer as perfectly reasonable. In the years I've been using the Wason, I had never before seen someone else provide *that* kind of wrong answer and *that* justification, and I run an organization for people with traumatic brain injury, who have particular difficulties with confirmation bias depending on the location and severity of their injuries. IDW is so uniquely wrong on this test of logic, and the responses he garnered from the rest of Fark from that day have kind of twisted him into what he has no become. He is obsessed with insulting, at every opportunity, people who are legitimately smart or who disagree with him. Look at all of his comments in this thread - not a single one is not insulting to either highly accomplished academics like Bill Nye or to any Farker who disagrees with him. And now we are presented with another individual who is making the exact same error in both answering and reasoning, that has not been seen previously or since? Yea, now I have good reason to suspect alts are in play here.
 
2014-02-06 09:50:19 AM  

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.


I see that you THINK you rounded up all of the elephants in the world.  You missed one.  It's pink.  Go find it.  Your experimental design sucks balls, you are the worst scientist in the world.

I could also have gone with:
 •  Pink elephants are actually microscopic.  You're going to need to comb the earth with a microscope.  Good luck.

•  Oh, you did that?  Ah, well I think perhaps they live under the surface of the earth.  Start digging.
•  Oh, you did that?  Ah, well I think they fly, start checking the atmosphere.
 
2014-02-06 09:52:11 AM  

Epicedion: 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.


So, you didn't google it, did you?  That'd be ignorance rivaling that of the creationists you mock.
 
2014-02-06 09:54:20 AM  

lennavan: ikanreed: tl;dr: things can be proven, but that doesn't mean shiat.

ikanreed: 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.

I get what you're saying but there isn't a single scientist in the world that will agree with you science can prove things.  But you see, we aren't scared by that.  Idiots and jackasses hear "science can't prove things" and start to think "oh god we don't know anything at all, it could all be wrong!"  We hear "yeah we're pretty farking sure, we'll go ahead and sleep at night."

For example:  I cannot tell you for 100% certain a head is required for long term survival.  Sure in the French Revolution we did an awful lot of experimentation and (well, I'm pretty sure at least) everyone died.  But it is still possible if I cut your head off, you will be just fine.  Now there are an awful lot of 9's after my I'm 99.999...% sure and I highly suggest you not risk it.  But it is still formally possible.

That's why we have the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Gravity.  The problem only arises when you talk with non-scientists and they hear the word "theory" and suddenly think "oh we're just guessin, cool!"  Theory has a very defined specific meaning and it's not "some idea I pulled out of my ass while drinking last night."


I was just saying that every field of study has a different threshold for proof, math has one idea, philosophy another(similar to math), law has another, and even oddball things like engineering have ideas like "proof of concept", and scientific proof is an idea that exists.  Because at a certain point you have to start accepting things as true, at least temporarily, to work deeper in a field.

I can't agree with your assertion there are no scientists who'd accept the idea of proof, it's just the scientific understanding of "proof" is contingent, not absolute.
 
2014-02-06 10:01:39 AM  

ikanreed: Because at a certain point you have to start accepting things as true, at least temporarily, to work deeper in a field.


No, you don't "accept them as true."  You believe them and build off of them but a crucial part of science research is to always remember what you believe and why you believe it.  The general public example is "hey we used to believe the earth is flat" because that's something easy to understand.  Of course, that old of an example makes it seem like we believe wrong things extremely rarely.  That's not true, ideas and beliefs get changed (in all of science, not in very specific fields) on a daily basis.  Another example is we used to think cancers were sort of a self contained environment and treatments should target the cancer only.  Turned out the normal cells surrounding the cancers are also playing a role, signaling to the cancer to grow.  So now we can target those as well.  We just found that one out a few years ago.
 
2014-02-06 10:03:10 AM  

lennavan: ikanreed: Because at a certain point you have to start accepting things as true, at least temporarily, to work deeper in a field.

No, you don't "accept them as true."  You believe them and build off of them but a crucial part of science research is to always remember what you believe and why you believe it.  The general public example is "hey we used to believe the earth is flat" because that's something easy to understand.  Of course, that old of an example makes it seem like we believe wrong things extremely rarely.  That's not true, ideas and beliefs get changed (in all of science, not in very specific fields) on a daily basis.  Another example is we used to think cancers were sort of a self contained environment and treatments should target the cancer only.  Turned out the normal cells surrounding the cancers are also playing a role, signaling to the cancer to grow.  So now we can target those as well.  We just found that one out a few years ago.


And by the way, this was poor wording on my part.  Better wording is "current belief is" and I can actually tell you the papers upon which that belief is based.  The most convincing work was done by a group at Genentech because they have apparently an infinite budget.
 
2014-02-06 10:09:53 AM  
Well... at least Bill Nye has Pat Robertson on his side...  wait.. is that a good thing?

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_u p/
 
2014-02-06 10:22:35 AM  
In a hundred years, when Tyler Durden gets his wish, it won't matter.
 
2014-02-06 10:29:51 AM  

I drunk what: Shakin_Haitian: That's the rules.   Dready zim is incorrect.

good jorb lad, you get a trophy!

/that's the rules
//dats the rules
///dems de rewls

why is dready zim so stupid? itz becaws he one of dem creationtards isn't it? lelz lelz lelz

i bet he can't lawjic 1+1 roflelz, naturally peeple liek him can't handle the Sciunce

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]


It's a logic test with defined rules.  You can't go around declaring the rules for a logic test to be null and void because of whatever reasons you feel like coming up with, otherwise it's not a logic test.
 
2014-02-06 10:29:55 AM  

lennavan: I see that you THINK you rounded up all of the elephants in the world.  You missed one.  It's pink.  Go find it.  Your experimental design sucks balls, you are the worst scientist in the world.

I could also have gone with:
 •  Pink elephants are actually microscopic.  You're going to need to comb the earth with a microscope.  Good luck.

•  Oh, you did that?  Ah, well I think perhaps they live under the surface of the earth.  Start digging.
•  Oh, you did that?  Ah, well I think they fly, start checking the atmosphere.


You're combining shifting the burden of proof with moving the goalposts and wrapping them in a layer of argument from ignorance while settling them down in a nice bed of increasing impracticality of experimental design.

Someone once said (para.) "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

You're using the fact that anyone can assert anything to make trivial claims about epistemology: you can't prove a negative (try proving that one). You're doing this to try and support the idea of non-overlapping magisteria, which is bullshiat -- some religions make some investigable claims about reality, from a religious position. They might be correct, they might be incorrect. They might say the earth is the center of the solar system, they might say that the earth is flat. They might say that birds are fish. They might maintain the statements as accurate for certain definitions of center, flat, and fish. It doesn't matter.

What matters is that this little downward spiral you've caught yourself in ("you can't like, really  know anything, man") is headed toward epistemological solipsism.

Of course, this post only just appeared when you looked at the screen and will disappear when you look away. Take that, object permanence.
 
2014-02-06 10:31:25 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: I drunk what: Shakin_Haitian: That's the rules.   Dready zim is incorrect.

good jorb lad, you get a trophy!

/that's the rules
//dats the rules
///dems de rewls

why is dready zim so stupid? itz becaws he one of dem creationtards isn't it? lelz lelz lelz

i bet he can't lawjic 1+1 roflelz, naturally peeple liek him can't handle the Sciunce

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

It's a logic test with defined rules.  You can't go around declaring the rules for a logic test to be null and void because of whatever reasons you feel like coming up with, otherwise it's not a logic test.


For the love of shiat, why are you people still talking to him?
 
2014-02-06 10:35:03 AM  

Epicedion: headed toward epistemological solipsism.


Honestly, I feel like it's coming from there.  Every field of study(not just science) has a philosophical basis for its investigation, and an accepted idea of "true".  It's a bit like saying "you can't prove 2+2=4, because all mathematical proofs operate only with assumptions" in that it's true, but it's also completely stupid.
 
2014-02-06 10:35:55 AM  

Epicedion: You're doing this to try and support the idea of non-overlapping magisteria


Of course. Duh. Now I get why he can't distinguish between religious claims and claims about a religion. Why do I always forget the simple things?
 
2014-02-06 10:49:34 AM  

Epicedion: You're using the fact that anyone can assert anything to make trivial claims about epistemology


No, I'm trying to explain to you what a hypothesis is.  A hypothesis is a very defined, specific term in science.  "There are pink elephants" is not falsifiable, therefore by definition it is not a hypothesis.  You cannot disprove it.  No matter what you come up with, there will always be an explanation as to why your experiment failed and pink elephants still exist.

There are NO pink elephants is falsifiable.  All you have to do is find a pink elephant and POOF, the hypothesis is completely disproven.  Therefore, "there are NO pink elephants" is a hypothesis.

Hypothesis is a word, with a meaning.  It doesn't matter how hard you stomp your feet and whine about "shifting goalposts" and whatnot, that will never meet the definition of hypothesis.  You cannot prove "there are no pink elephants" wrong.  If there is no method to prove something 100% wrong, then by definition it is not a hypothesis and by definition it is not science.

Epicedion: What matters is that this little downward spiral you've caught yourself in ("you can't like, really know anything, man") is headed toward epistemological solipsism.


Holy farking shiat you're stupid.

lennavan: I get what you're saying but there isn't a single scientist in the world that will agree with you science can prove things. But you see, we aren't scared by that. Idiots and jackasses hear "science can't prove things" and start to think "oh god we don't know anything at all, it could all be wrong!" We hear "yeah we're pretty farking sure, we'll go ahead and sleep at night."

For example: I cannot tell you for 100% certain a head is required for long term survival. Sure in the French Revolution we did an awful lot of experimentation and (well, I'm pretty sure at least) everyone died. But it is still possible if I cut your head off, you will be just fine. Now there are an awful lot of 9's after my I'm 99.999...% sure and I highly suggest you not risk it. But it is still formally possible.

That's why we have the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Gravity. The problem only arises when you talk with non-scientists and they hear the word "theory" and suddenly think "oh we're just guessin, cool!" Theory has a very defined specific meaning and it's not "some idea I pulled out of my ass while drinking last night."


Goddamn you're stupid.
 
2014-02-06 10:55:26 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: It's a logic test with defined rules.


word up! itz the code word

Shakin_Haitian: You can't go around declaring the rules for a logic test to be null and void because of whatever reasons you feel like coming up with, otherwise it's not a logic test.


true dat

*respektnuckles*

you get another trophy!!

Epicedion: For the love of shiat, why are you people still talking to him?


aw u just jelly?


will someone please talk to epicwhiner? so he will stop whining, cheez

it's ok epicloser, here's a trophy for you too, lawgic is hard
 
2014-02-06 11:00:27 AM  

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


Texas?
 
2014-02-06 11:09:11 AM  

lennavan: If there is no method to prove something 100% wrong, then by definition it is not a hypothesis and by definition it is not science.


Ah, so now you admit there is a difference between "The Bible says x" and "God did x". Make up your mind, would you?
 
2014-02-06 11:12:35 AM  

lennavan: No, I'm trying to explain to you what a hypothesis is.


Everyone knows what a hypothesis is. No one's talking about that but you.
 
2014-02-06 11:18:53 AM  

lennavan: For example:  I cannot tell you for 100% certain a head is required for long term survival.  Sure in the French Revolution we did an awful lot of experimentation and (well, I'm pretty sure at least) everyone died.  But it is still possible if I cut your head off, you will be just fine.  Now there are an awful lot of 9's after my I'm 99.999...% sure and I highly suggest you not risk it.  But it is still formally possible.


b-b-but 99.999...% EQUALS 100% !!!111!!eleventyone!!111!!1

lelz
 
2014-02-06 11:22:24 AM  

dready zim: Which of the definitions do you mean?


art thou not familiar with the One True Definition of Nature...?
 
2014-02-06 11:42:08 AM  

grumpfuff: lennavan: If there is no method to prove something 100% wrong, then by definition it is not a hypothesis and by definition it is not science.

Ah, so now you admit there is a difference between "The Bible says x" and "God did x". Make up your mind, would you?


I have no idea what you're talking about.

Epicedion: Everyone knows what a hypothesis is. No one's talking about that but you.


Clearly you did not, as you used to think "there are pink elephants" is one.  I'm glad you decided to finally google it, I assume that's why you dropped your amazingly stupid argument.
 
2014-02-06 11:47:14 AM  

lennavan: Clearly you did not, as you used to think "there are pink elephants" is one.  I'm glad you decided to finally google it, I assume that's why you dropped your amazingly stupid argument.


I see your argument style is "make shiat up" combined with equal parts "shiat all over the place." You must be getting along well with  IDW.
 
2014-02-06 11:51:44 AM  

Epicedion: I did Google it, you were right.  Damn, I was so sure too.  But hey, I learned something and I appreciate your consistent effort in explaining it to me, I get how wrong I was now.  Man, I was WAY off base there.  Hey, would it be alright if I just pretend like I was right and attack you so no one notices?

Sure thing.

Epicedion: I see your argument style is "make shiat up" combined with equal parts "shiat all over the place." You must be getting along well with IDW.


Oh noes, you got me!

;-)
 
2014-02-06 11:52:53 AM  

Epicedion: You must be getting along well with  IDW.


img.fark.net
 
2014-02-06 11:53:03 AM  

lennavan: Oh noes, you got me!

;-)


And now the manufacturing of quotations. You getting paid for this?
 
2014-02-06 11:58:54 AM  

Epicedion: lennavan: Oh noes, you got me!

;-)

And now the manufacturing of quotations. You getting paid for this?


Well, I do get paid to teach college kids amongst other things what a hypothesis is, what science is and how to do science.  But your lesson was free, that's why I get to be honest in my assessments with your intelligence.  With my students, I hold back quite a bit.  Then again, they're not stupid like you.
 
2014-02-06 12:06:20 PM  

lennavan: grumpfuff: lennavan: If there is no method to prove something 100% wrong, then by definition it is not a hypothesis and by definition it is not science.

Ah, so now you admit there is a difference between "The Bible says x" and "God did x". Make up your mind, would you?

I have no idea what you're talking about.



It's simple, really. "The Bible says x" is falsifiable, "God did x" is not. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand. I have my suspicions, but I won't stoop to your level and start making assumptions.

"Invisible ink" and "sub-atomic writing" are both also testable, by the way. Also, as I pointed out up-thread, "invisible ink" and the like are just like "Fossils are a trick from the devil."
 
2014-02-06 12:14:40 PM  

lennavan: Well, I do get paid to teach college kids amongst other things what a hypothesis is, what science is and how to do science.  But your lesson was free, that's why I get to be honest in my assessments with your intelligence.  With my students, I hold back quite a bit.  Then again, they're not stupid like you.


Second time I've seen you vaguely drop your credentials. Interesting.

grumpfuff: It's simple, really. "The Bible says x" is falsifiable, "God did x" is not. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand. I have my suspicions, but I won't stoop to your level and start making assumptions.

"Invisible ink" and "sub-atomic writing" are both also testable, by the way. Also, as I pointed out up-thread, "invisible ink" and the like are just like "Fossils are a trick from the devil."


What he doesn't seem to understand is that there's a difference between "claim" and "claim modified with unfalsifiable bullshiat to remain viable after the initial claim is shown to be false."
 
2014-02-06 12:15:59 PM  

grumpfuff: It's simple, really. "The Bible says x" is falsifiable


No it isn't.  Your inability to find it might be a function if it not being there, it also might be a function of your inability to find it because of any number of reasons including but not limited to the size of the font and the ink used to write it.

grumpfuff: "Invisible ink" and "sub-atomic writing" are both also testable, by the way. Also, as I pointed out up-thread, "invisible ink" and the like are just like "Fossils are a trick from the devil."


There are an infinite number of reasons why you can't find something.  You cannot test them all.
 
2014-02-06 01:03:10 PM  

lennavan: No it isn't.  Your inability to find it might be a function if it not being there, it also might be a function of your inability to find it because of any number of reasons including but not limited to the size of the font and the ink used to write it.


Seems like the problem is your definition of "The Bible."  You're talking about a physical artifact of ink and paper, whereas most people understand it to mean the text commonly contained by those artifacts, held under copyright in one or more countries depending on the version, and available to be transmitted digitally via protocols like ASCII or Unicode.  So what if we constrain ourselves to the text of this or that (English, for example's sake) version, the sequence of characters (73, 110, 32, 116, 104, 101, 32, 98, 101, 103, 105, 110, 110, 105, 110, 103,... 65, 109, 101, 110, 46)?  That way you're looking at a specific finite set of data, about which any well-formed assertion can be verified or falsified in finite time.
 
2014-02-06 01:05:07 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: It's a logic test with defined rules


oh, i liek games

wat are the rules?
 
2014-02-06 01:14:34 PM  

Epicedion: actually you used the word "statement"


Yes, because it was not a hypothesis, so calling it a hypothesis would be stupid.

Epicedion: Here:

You literally wrote that you can't test a statement that something is written in a book.


Well sure, but I did even better than that.  I said it is possible if you get your head chopped off, you'll survive.

lennavan: For example: I cannot tell you for 100% certain a head is required for long term survival. Sure in the French Revolution we did an awful lot of experimentation and (well, I'm pretty sure at least) everyone died. But it is still possible if I cut your head off, you will be just fine. Now there are an awful lot of 9's after my I'm 99.999...% sure and I highly suggest you not risk it. But it is still formally possible.


Your mind = Blown Chopped
 
2014-02-06 01:24:45 PM  

lennavan: grumpfuff: It's simple, really. "The Bible says x" is falsifiable

No it isn't.  Your inability to find it might be a function if it not being there, it also might be a function of your inability to find it because of any number of reasons including but not limited to the size of the font and the ink used to write it.

grumpfuff: "Invisible ink" and "sub-atomic writing" are both also testable, by the way. Also, as I pointed out up-thread, "invisible ink" and the like are just like "Fossils are a trick from the devil."

There are an infinite number of reasons why you can't find something.  You cannot test them all.


I like how you're arguing for solipsism while claiming you're not arguing for solipsism.
 
2014-02-06 01:27:43 PM  

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


Which is why it's still philosophically possible for you to go find enough evidence to substantively challenge the theory.

However, science is in part a method for getting past Hume's problem of induction... which means you don't need ALL evidence before inferring a proximate conclusion; it's merely potentially subject to reassessment, in the unlikely event you do find sufficient evidence for said challenge.

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


That depends on what sense of the word "proof" you're using -- as I've previously suggested in your vicinity.

For some values of "proof", there's no proof you don't have coleslaw in place of a brain.

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.


Since someone's already brought up bonobos....

'There's nothing like eating hay when you're faint,' he remarked to her, as he munched away.

'I should think throwing cold water over you would be better,' Alice suggested: '- or some sal-volatile.'

'I didn't say there was nothing better,' the King replied. 'I said there was nothing like it.' Which Alice did not venture to deny.


Waldo Pepper: this is my last word on it for this thread. I grow tired of the circle jerk these threads become for some farkers.


Finally, selective exposure involves resisting persuasion by leaving the situation or actively tuning out the persuasive message (e.g., Brock & Balloun, 1967; Frey, 1986; Kleinhesselink & Edwards, 1975). - (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5)

grumpfuff: It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something.


Again, depends what sense of the word "prove" you're using.

grumpfuff: 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.


Not that "it is impossible to prove" is much better than "intellectual jerking off done by bored philosophers", when you're talking about science.

Anyway, I have to argue about flying saucers on the beach with people, you know. And I was interested in this: they keep arguing that it is possible. And that's true. It is possible. They do not appreciate that the problem is not to demonstrate whether it's possible or not but whether it's going on or not. - Richard Feynman

Kome: In the years I've been using the Wason, I had never before seen someone else provide *that* kind of wrong answer and *that* justification, and I run an organization for people with traumatic brain injury


...wow. Pretty exotic.

Kome: And now we are presented with another individual who is making the exact same error in both answering and reasoning, that has not been seen previously or since?


Parsimony would seem to support that; however, it seems also possible though less likely that Fark tends to attract certain exotic forms of brain damage.

Epicedion: Second time I've seen you vaguely drop your credentials. Interesting.


Possibly a form of social validation.

lennavan: You think while discussing science, the difference between the word "hypothesis" and "claim" is pedantic.


"Never argue with a pedant over nomenclature. It wastes your time and annoys the pedant."
 
2014-02-06 01:28:29 PM  

lennavan: Epicedion: actually you used the word "statement"

Yes, because it was not a hypothesis, so calling it a hypothesis would be stupid.

Epicedion: Here:

You literally wrote that you can't test a statement that something is written in a book.

Well sure, but I did even better than that.  I said it is possible if you get your head chopped off, you'll survive.

lennavan: For example: I cannot tell you for 100% certain a head is required for long term survival. Sure in the French Revolution we did an awful lot of experimentation and (well, I'm pretty sure at least) everyone died. But it is still possible if I cut your head off, you will be just fine. Now there are an awful lot of 9's after my I'm 99.999...% sure and I highly suggest you not risk it. But it is still formally possible.

Your mind = Blown Chopped


Now you're chopping up quotes and responding with inanity, just like  IDW. Cute.
 
2014-02-06 01:55:41 PM  

Kome: now I have a good idea exactly who one of IDW's alts are


IDW haz alts?!  which ones is it?

is it abbey? itz abbey isn't it? :D  i've had a theory for years that abbey is one of his imagined failures

or is it Kome? i'm so confused

can you give us a  hint...?

/teh suspins iz keeeling me

Kome: And now we are presented with another individual who is making the exact same error in both answering and reasoning, that has not been seen previously or since? Yea, now I have good reason to suspect alts are in play here.


dont worry luckily i'm a qualified fark scientician and kan halp you with your psycho-problems, have a seat on dis couch and tell us how it makes you feel

*puffs pipe*  ... *blows bubbles*

hmm yes yes, *scribbles and doodles on notepad*

veeeeery eeentersteeng

go on...
 
2014-02-06 02:06:25 PM  

I drunk what: abb3w, is this^ correct?


abb3w: ...wow. Pretty exotic.


does anyone speak IBtard, because i can't tell if this is a 'yes' or a 'no' ....?

anyone???  i haven't a clue

abb3w: Parsimony would seem to support that; however, it seems also possible though less likely that Fark tends to attract certain exotic forms of brain damage.


see, it sounds like he is saying 'yes' but my IBtard translator keeps breaking trying to convert these posts into english

can you at least give us a hint?

also also wik, on a sidenote: Would anyone care to suggest that in this particular situation, that abbey is helping Kome or hurting him?

discuss
 
2014-02-06 02:18:59 PM  

I drunk what: does anyone speak IBtard, because i can't tell if this is a 'yes' or a 'no' ....?


I'm pretty sure you are completely fluent in all 'tard' languages.
 
2014-02-06 02:20:53 PM  

grumpfuff: You are arguing you are not a solipsistic while claiming we can't know what's written in a book.


That's actually not what I argued at all.

Lennavan: that is not a testable statement

There is an entire farking world of difference between "we can't know" and "that isn't a testable statement."

You think I'm being solipsistic only because you are unfamiliar with the scientific usage of these words.  To you, hypothesis, claim, sentence, guess, these words are all interchangeable.  To me, you use the word hypothesis and a big loud bell goes off in my head and suddenly there are rules you have to follow.  To you, pointing out "hypothesis" rather than "claim" is pedantic because you don't know better.

To you, the words "prove" and "support" or "belief" and "know" are interchangeable with each other.  It is crucial in the realm of science to remember you don't actually know anything with 100% confidence because hypotheses and knowledge are ever "evolving."  Rather you believe things based on very specific supporting evidence.  Sometimes your beliefs are based on amazingly solid evidence, such as evolution.  Sometimes your beliefs are based on pretty shaky evidence, such as cells communicate with far away cells through a series of submicroscopic tubes that you can't visualize but check out this evidence that maybe they are there.  There are scientists that "know" those tubes exist and there are many others that "know" they do not.

That's the way science is.  I'm not particularly worried about gravity or evolution being debunked tomorrow.  I'm gonna go ahead and wake up tomorrow knowing my feet will be firmly affixed to the ground.  But from now until the very end of humanity, gravity will be referred to as a theory.  But again, in science theory is a word that should set of a ton of really farking loud bells in your head because it has a very important and specific meaning.  It is not interchangeable with "conjecture" "wild guess" or "drunken thought."
 
2014-02-06 02:25:21 PM  
 
2014-02-06 02:31:26 PM  

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


was it jim morrison with the doors? break on through to the other side
 
2014-02-06 02:35:27 PM  

lennavan: grumpfuff: You are arguing you are not a solipsistic while claiming we can't know what's written in a book.


That's actually not what I argued at all.


Step 1: Make inane argument
Step 2: Spew a thin santorumy froth all over the thread
Step 3: Deny making original inane argument.
Step 4: ?????
 
2014-02-06 02:35:47 PM