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 117
    More: Followup, smoked ham, nuclear medicines, Ken Ham, speciations, age of the universe, National Center for Science Education, fundamental science, Wheaties  
•       •       •

8690 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-05 11:00:04 AM
8 votes:

I would love to see this guy debate Creationists

www.astrobio.net


Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ. Head of the Vatican's meteorite collection, one the largest in the world. And I dare Hamm to try to debate Bible theory with him.
2014-02-05 09:53:49 AM
8 votes:

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 10:05:27 AM
7 votes:
If last night leads to one kid questioning what his parents and ministers are "teaching" them, then, yeah, Nye won.
2014-02-05 10:36:30 AM
6 votes:

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 08:37:41 AM
6 votes:
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 08:14:49 AM
6 votes:
Fundies will still claim a victory.
2014-02-05 09:37:06 AM
5 votes:
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 09:36:41 AM
5 votes:
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 09:26:07 AM
5 votes:

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 09:21:56 AM
5 votes:
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 09:20:04 AM
5 votes:
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 12:56:36 PM
4 votes:

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 11:06:03 AM
4 votes:

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 09:36:31 AM
4 votes:
Nye was wright, but Ham was a consistent manipulative liar.  The end.
2014-02-05 09:33:40 AM
4 votes:

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 09:21:52 AM
4 votes:
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 09:26:02 PM
3 votes:

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


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

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


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

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


That's not how science works. It is not dogma rejecting alternative views like some religion, it is a process of investigating claims about reality. If proof of creation is discovered, it must withstand scrutiny and skeptical inquiry. if it is incapable of doing this, then it is not a feasible model for explaining reality.
2014-02-05 11:31:40 AM
3 votes:
Next up: The debate between a biologist and a Scientologist pundit regarding the existence of thetans.
2014-02-05 11:21:18 AM
3 votes:
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 10:41:48 AM
3 votes:

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 10:34:58 AM
3 votes:
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 10:33:44 AM
3 votes:
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 10:17:32 AM
3 votes:

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 10:05:49 AM
3 votes:

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 09:37:59 AM
3 votes:
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 09:37:19 AM
3 votes:

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 09:21:38 AM
3 votes:
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 08:14:03 AM
3 votes:
Nobody won the debate.  The creationist was "not even wrong"
2014-02-05 11:45:21 PM
2 votes:

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

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


And dolphins also have sex just for the pleasure of it, not just because their biology tells them it's time to mate.
2014-02-05 11:40:23 PM
2 votes:

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


Pigs have a 30-minute orgasm. *drops mic, walks off*
2014-02-05 11:31:02 PM
2 votes:

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


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

Everything should be questioned, challenged, investigated - it's how we move forward as people, and as a society.
2014-02-05 08:16:09 PM
2 votes:

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


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

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

This is pretty much  the key in "who won the debate?" as Nye  quite successfully gave Ham and his organization that had been financially floundering for the last year or two an entire month's worth of free advertising, and a vital lifeline that can then be leveraged for more ticket sales and private donations...which will then be channeled into  writing, printing, selling, and lobbying for the public school use of, creationist textbooks. I really hate to belabor the point here, but this is exactly why this is an unqualified victory for Ham and his ilk.
2014-02-05 12:20:22 PM
2 votes:
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 12:16:21 PM
2 votes:

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 11:30:40 AM
2 votes:

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 11:04:27 AM
2 votes:

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 10:51:41 AM
2 votes:

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 10:40:03 AM
2 votes:

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 10:39:16 AM
2 votes:
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 10:31:10 AM
2 votes:

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


www.piccer.nl

Click for uncensored
2014-02-05 10:28:17 AM
2 votes:
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 10:23:38 AM
2 votes:

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 10:08:07 AM
2 votes:
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 10:05:38 AM
2 votes:
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 10:01:43 AM
2 votes:

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 09:58:27 AM
2 votes:
2014-02-05 09:51:06 AM
2 votes:
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 09:48:30 AM
2 votes:
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 09:40:00 AM
2 votes:
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 09:36:51 AM
2 votes:

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 09:34:04 AM
2 votes:

I drunk what: regardless of ham making better points


What better points were made by Ham?
2014-02-06 09:49:26 AM
1 votes:

Shakin_Haitian: I drunk what: ikanreed: You've failed the test.

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

don't be such a closed minded bigot

dready zim: the first one needs turning over to be totally sure it does not have an even number on the other side so the technically correct answer is first, second and fourth although usually cards do not have numbers on both sides.

[img.fark.net image 259x195]

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

you see abbey?  that wasn't so hard

so then Senor Zim, what is nature?

sigh

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

That's the rules.   Dready zim is incorrect.


The great thing is, now I have a good idea exactly who one of IDW's alts are, because that was precisely the answer IDW gave when he was presented with the Wason all those years ago, and when told that he was wrong, that is the logic he used to defend his answer as perfectly reasonable. In the years I've been using the Wason, I had never before seen someone else provide *that* kind of wrong answer and *that* justification, and I run an organization for people with traumatic brain injury, who have particular difficulties with confirmation bias depending on the location and severity of their injuries. IDW is so uniquely wrong on this test of logic, and the responses he garnered from the rest of Fark from that day have kind of twisted him into what he has no become. He is obsessed with insulting, at every opportunity, people who are legitimately smart or who disagree with him. Look at all of his comments in this thread - not a single one is not insulting to either highly accomplished academics like Bill Nye or to any Farker who disagrees with him. And now we are presented with another individual who is making the exact same error in both answering and reasoning, that has not been seen previously or since? Yea, now I have good reason to suspect alts are in play here.
2014-02-06 08:48:16 AM
1 votes:
Waldo Pepper: do you get off comparing religious beliefs to fantasies?

Belief without evidence is not a position worthy of respect.

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

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

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

No claims of anything being factual.

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

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

None of the above theories are taken to be "factual". But, in the case of evolution, the evidence is overwhelming and there are no competing theories that have any merit. So the position that an intelligent, educated person will take is pretty clear.
2014-02-06 07:41:52 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Who can blame them?  Attract more bees with honey and all that.....
2014-02-06 04:44:20 AM
1 votes:

proteus_b: Ham won, Nye lost.

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

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

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

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


The Bad Astronomer makes a pretty good case as to why you are wrong.
2014-02-05 10:26:54 PM
1 votes:
So you believe in a literal interpretation of a selected part of a translated and reinterpreted 2k year old book over facts mountains of evidence, math, observation and still claim you're right?
2014-02-05 07:51:19 PM
1 votes:
Religion is the explanation people use in the absence of data.  Why is the sky blue?  Why is this and why is that?  The easiest answer is "God" and a good story to go along with it.  It settled the minds of most people.

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

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

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

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

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

There is no debate, it is a fight, and Creationism is winning.  All because people would rather believe a comforting lie than an uncomfortable fact, and force that belief onto others: your children.
2014-02-05 06:10:56 PM
1 votes:

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

I would say - "I'm a scientist, that is not a testable statement, therefore it is not something I can answer now, or ever. Maybe it's a good argument, maybe it's not. Whatever it is, it's not science. Might I suggest you ask a priest?"

Or you could simply point to a Bible

Why would I do that?  I'm not a priest.  I'm not a religious scholar.  I have no credentials to discuss the Bible.  What's more, I don't give a shiat what is in the Bible.  I'm a scientist.  You wanna talk Science, great.  You wanna talk about non-testable statements?  Not my area of expertise, go find someone else.

You really think that saying "The Bible says god impregnated monkeys" is a non-testable statement?

Yes.

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


Sure. It's very simple.

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

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


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

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

However, when you confront the statement head on, on its own terms, you can definitively show the statement to be false, and the person holding it to be wrong. That, and that alone, is why I think at least a basic understanding of Christianity is needed for these debates.
2014-02-05 04:08:32 PM
1 votes:

The AlbinoSaxon: I'll just leave these here:

[i.imgur.com image 625x602]
[i.imgur.com image 625x564]
[i.imgur.com image 625x480]
[i.imgur.com image 625x452]

Checkmate, evolutionists.


Any adult who can smugly hold a sign that blatantly contains the their/there error should be punched in the head.  Hard.
2014-02-05 03:59:07 PM
1 votes:

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


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

The science v. creation debate goes like this:
Science:  Evolution is a theory that has generated a multitude of hypotheses.
Creation:  Our alternative hypothesis is God created stuff.
Science:  That's not a hypothesis.  Can you rephrase it in a manner that is testable and falsifiable?
Creation:  Nope.
Science:  K bye.
2014-02-05 03:29:00 PM
1 votes:

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

Creationist response:

[www.ernestangley.org image 220x275]


I have learned that asking a creationist how they have ascertained, accurately, that what they claim "God" to have stated was in fact stated by "God" causes them to express anger.
2014-02-05 03:27:25 PM
1 votes:
Here is the real "problem" with the literalist view in terms of the bible. It is not internally consistent.

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

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

Therefore, it is pretty clear that science (our observation of how the universe operates) and religion (our organized system of belief in how the universe operates) are two giant circles that do not intersect. Rather, they are two explanations for two different things that satisfy two different needs. Science satisfies our intellect and provides practical, working solutions to real problems and religion satisfies our need of belonging, our need for a higher purpose, and our need for comfort in facing death.
2014-02-05 02:40:41 PM
1 votes:

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

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

He was only transcribing what God told him to.

/according to them.

What's a cubit?



i59.tinypic.com
2014-02-05 01:55:55 PM
1 votes:
img.fark.net
2014-02-05 01:16:58 PM
1 votes:
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 01:05:30 PM
1 votes:
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 12:59:45 PM
1 votes:
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 12:42:01 PM
1 votes:
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 12:41:32 PM
1 votes:

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 12:41:01 PM
1 votes:
"Christians invented logic" is a pretty amazing howler that Nye should have called Ham out on.
2014-02-05 12:39:52 PM
1 votes:

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 12:32:24 PM
1 votes:
Did Bevets get banned? Why? I always assumed he either passed away or got bored with copypasting.
2014-02-05 12:32:17 PM
1 votes:

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 12:29:05 PM
1 votes:

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 12:26:53 PM
1 votes:

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 12:22:59 PM
1 votes:

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 12:20:01 PM
1 votes:
what a waste of time and energy
2014-02-05 12:18:07 PM
1 votes:

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 12:16:05 PM
1 votes:

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 12:15:30 PM
1 votes:

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 12:12:28 PM
1 votes:
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 12:03:25 PM
1 votes:
And this is one from their side.

wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com
2014-02-05 12:01:26 PM
1 votes:

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 11:58:00 AM
1 votes:
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 11:50:39 AM
1 votes:

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 11:45:22 AM
1 votes:

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 11:42:13 AM
1 votes:

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 11:40:09 AM
1 votes:
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 11:39:50 AM
1 votes:

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 11:38:40 AM
1 votes:

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 11:37:52 AM
1 votes:

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 11:35:09 AM
1 votes:

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 11:27:10 AM
1 votes:

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 11:23:58 AM
1 votes:
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 11:15:22 AM
1 votes:

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 11:07:29 AM
1 votes:

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 11:03:48 AM
1 votes:

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


Creationist response:

www.ernestangley.org
2014-02-05 10:58:18 AM
1 votes:

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 10:54:59 AM
1 votes:

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 10:54:02 AM
1 votes:
Creationists are idiots that don't understand basic science. Arguing with them is pointless.
2014-02-05 10:49:06 AM
1 votes:

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 10:46:01 AM
1 votes:
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 10:37:42 AM
1 votes:
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 10:32:07 AM
1 votes:
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 10:28:30 AM
1 votes:

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 10:14:12 AM
1 votes:

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 10:13:37 AM
1 votes:
"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 10:08:37 AM
1 votes:
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 10:05:36 AM
1 votes:

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 10:01:44 AM
1 votes:
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 09:59:05 AM
1 votes:

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 09:53:14 AM
1 votes:

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 09:43:57 AM
1 votes:

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 09:43:35 AM
1 votes:
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 09:27:21 AM
1 votes:

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 09:22:49 AM
1 votes:
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 09:16:41 AM
1 votes:
img.fark.net
 
Displayed 117 of 117 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report