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  
•       •       •

8712 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



500 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-05 11:34:10 AM  
Nye's handicap is that he had to present intelligent science while Ham merely had to score rhetorical points.
Ham presented  examples of young earth creationists who nevertheless manage to be successful scientists, inventors or engineers.
So Nye is not completely right that creationism teaching creationism will prevent the US from succeeding in scientific innovation.
The fact that he is mostly right, and that the success stories are few and far between is too subtle a point for a debate, so Ham wins the rhetorical game. And that's all he ever needed to do. To top it off, he'll make a great deal of money off the circus.
 
2014-02-05 11:35:09 AM  

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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


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

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

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


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

CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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


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

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

What better points were made by Ham?

sorry i rambled

1. difference between observational science and historical science

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

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

on the other hand what points were made by nye?

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

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

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

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

to which Ham would go full YEC

the power of chryst compels you!!!

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

meh


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


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

Creationist response:

[www.ernestangley.org image 220x275]


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

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

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

CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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


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

CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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


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

CJHardin: And this is one from their side.

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


Yeah, mostly.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


That was how I felt about Sarah Palin and I assumed she would be laughed away into nothingness.  Turned out that wasn't the smartest strategy.
 
2014-02-05 12:20:01 PM  
what a waste of time and energy
 
2014-02-05 12:20:22 PM  
Ham's argument literally boils down to "Well, the laws of physics were different back then."

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

Plate Tectonics? "Well the plates moved a lot faster back then! You weren't there, you can't prove it didn't happen!"
 
2014-02-05 12:20:59 PM  

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

Did Ham get a stage to speak on?  Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

Does that warrant a debate?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


That's pretty cool, we had the spiral shell fossils and ones called crinoids at the Canyon, but like I said, you had to hunt for them. Not super hard, it was easy to come across them on accident, if you happened to be in the right place, but they were nowhere near as prevalent as your experience, that would be very cool.
 
Displayed 50 of 500 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report