Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Followup, smoked ham, nuclear medicines, Ken Ham, speciations, age of the universe, National Center for Science Education, fundamental science, Wheaties  
•       •       •

8719 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



501 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.netView Full Size
 
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  
quickmeme.comView Full Size
 
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]


piccer.nlView Full Size


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

astrobio.netView Full Size


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.comView Full Size


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:

ernestangley.orgView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-05 12:02:25 PM  
i1.wp.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-05 12:03:25 PM  
And this is one from their side.

wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.comView Full Size
 
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.orgView Full Size
 
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"


woodworkingtalk.comView Full Size
 
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.netView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size