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.

(Yahoo)   A lot of people say the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate accomplished nothing. On the contrary, all the attention allowed Ken Ham to reach his $73 million donation goal to build Noah's Ark   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, Ken Ham, Noah's Ark, creation museum, Kerry Kennedy, Ukrainian President, security agreement, Answers in Genesis, bond fund  
•       •       •

3055 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 12:19 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-02-28 12:10:40 PM  
That seems more like a product of a city that has no problem using taxpayer money to fund religious nonsense than a product of Bill Nye.

Still, that idiotic debate was a waste of time and a completely unnecessary legitimization of ridiculous creationist beliefs.
 
2014-02-28 12:20:38 PM  
Build the Ark before California drowns.
No, wait...
 
2014-02-28 12:20:59 PM  
It was made with good intentions.
 
2014-02-28 12:22:11 PM  
Well, as long as someone doesn't burn it down he'll acheive the sequestration of a little bit of CO2.
 
2014-02-28 12:22:13 PM  
Awesome! After they build it, the creationists should go inside to wait for the flood while the rest of us nail the door shut and remove the gangway!
 
2014-02-28 12:22:23 PM  
Something about a fool and his money comes to mind...
 
2014-02-28 12:22:25 PM  
So being a smug asshole pays off...for yourself and those you oppose.
 
2014-02-28 12:23:36 PM  
you gotta be a special kind of stupid to donate to a guy to build an ark.
 
2014-02-28 12:23:56 PM  
images2.static-bluray.com
 
2014-02-28 12:24:05 PM  

Cagey B: Still, that idiotic debate was a waste of time and a completely unnecessary legitimization of ridiculous creationist beliefs.


Yeah, the involvement of this much money makes me suspicious of Nye's motives more than annoyed at Ham for being the shrill, lying, greedy asshole dedicated to theocracy that he always has been.
 
2014-02-28 12:24:33 PM  
A stupid thing to spend 73 million dollars on but hey atleast it will create some jerbs.
 
2014-02-28 12:24:34 PM  
seriously?
how deluded are you that you hear someone spouting utter bullshiat and say..
yup, that's my guy. THAT is who I place my faith in.
 
2014-02-28 12:25:10 PM  
I'd rather have an object to point and laugh at than just an idea.
 
2014-02-28 12:26:27 PM  

natas6.0: seriously?
how deluded are you that you hear someone spouting utter bullshiat and say..
yup, that's my guy. THAT is who I place my faith in.


The same people that do literally the exact same thing for an invisible guy that wiped out the human race for no discernible reason.
 
2014-02-28 12:27:26 PM  
I was telling my friends just this: that the creationists will ultimately be the winners because they've gotten a lot of attention and respectability by engaging somebody as famous and popular as Bill Nye in a formal debate.  Whether you agreed with Nye or with Ham, the event sent the subtle message that this creationist museum is an important institution that must be reckoned with.  Creationists are desperate to be seen as credible in a world that worships science, so they're eager to flaunt whatever academic credentials they have a debate scientists in public.
 
2014-02-28 12:28:11 PM  
I guess the people of Western Maryland will have to step up their game.

Though I remember eating at Noah's Ark in St. Charles, Mo.  The animated hippo was pretty cool to a little kid.
 
Ant
2014-02-28 12:28:21 PM  

Cagey B: Still, that idiotic debate was a waste of time and a completely unnecessary legitimization of ridiculous creationist beliefs.


I'm kind of split on this. On the one hand, yes, it does lend an undeserved illusion of validity to wackaloon beliefs. On the other hand, lots of people either believe this shiat whole-heartedly, or they have never heard the reasons why it's complete bullshiat. To these people, scientists refusing to respond to creationist willful stupidity sounds like the scientists are dodging uncomfortable questions.
 
2014-02-28 12:28:28 PM  

KidKorporate: I'd rather have an object to point and laugh at than just an idea.


Well, we already have the Jesus-rode-velociraptors museum.  I don't know how much more ridiculous an object you're looking for...
 
2014-02-28 12:32:23 PM  
There wasn't even $1 million back then, let alone $73 million. There's no way Noah could've built a Ark.

/checkmate welders
 
2014-02-28 12:34:08 PM  
I think people like Ham are looney...but on the other hand I like absurd things so I want to see if they can build it. I really don't know what I wan to happen here.
 
2014-02-28 12:34:24 PM  

natas6.0: seriously?
how deluded are you that you hear someone spouting utter bullshiat and say..
yup, that's my guy. THAT is who I place my faith in.


It worked to elect Obama

// ducks
 
2014-02-28 12:34:26 PM  

Mose: KidKorporate: I'd rather have an object to point and laugh at than just an idea.

Well, we already have the Jesus-rode-velociraptors museum.  I don't know how much more ridiculous an object you're looking for...


The ark does nicely, it's symbolism as a vessel of stupidity and the image of drooling legions jockeying their hoverounds to be the first inside warms the cockles of my black heart.
 
2014-02-28 12:36:13 PM  
Actually, it cemented my opinion of Bill Nye as an attention whoring asshat who doesn't actually care about "science," just publicity and money.
 
2014-02-28 12:38:04 PM  
Except it won't get built because someone will realise it completely undercuts their reality and the crap they espouse.


So they'll pocket the money instead. It's not a non-profit, remember.
 
2014-02-28 12:38:37 PM  
Oh for f*ck's sake, Kentucky. Enjoy being the laughing stock of the country for the next couple generations.
 
Ant
2014-02-28 12:39:32 PM  
I've never understood why the drowning of all men, women, children and animals on Earth is seen as an uplifting story. Don't get me started on Noah's Ark-themed toys!

Giving a child Noah's Ark toys is like giving them a miniature Auschwitz play set.
 
2014-02-28 12:39:38 PM  
In January, Bloomberg reported AiG needed $29 million by February 6 or the park was done.  If Ken Ham's right, and Bill Nye was able to help raise $29 million in one month just by saying "creationism is wrong and here's why", it's sad that the money he helped raise so quickly will go toward an amusement park instead of something that's actually useful.

Ham would not disclose the total amount of bond funds raised because of underwriter restrictions.

fark Ken Ham.  Kentucky is helping him with the park.  He owes it to them to disclose the finances for the park.
 
2014-02-28 12:42:01 PM  
All I take from this is that science and religion are both equally valid, since they are equally debatable.
 
2014-02-28 12:43:07 PM  
I hope it gets a bad case of Norovirus.
 
2014-02-28 12:43:35 PM  
I'm pretty sure it's what Jesus would want him to spend the money on.

Healing the sick?  Feeding and clothing the poor?

Fark that, we need an ARK!
 
2014-02-28 12:43:54 PM  
As a creationist, I felt Ham fell flat on his face. There's plenty of scientific evidence he could've presented, but instead he went with this ridiculous argument that believing the so-called theory of evolution is "bad for society." So what if it is? Does he expect people to change life-long beliefs without delving into why those life-long beliefs can't be true? The most frustrating thing, is Nye didn't do much better. I, as a layman, was easily picking apart his arguments.

/Yeah, I know. Admitting to being a creationist is like asking to be pelted with dog shiat around these parts. Call me stupid, if you want. I know my intelligence level, and your remarks won't change it. There are plenty of intelligent creationists out there, which is one of the few things Ham managed to point out reasonable well.

//TL;DR Slashies: Ham lost. Pelt me with dog shiat.
 
2014-02-28 12:46:14 PM  

Relic84: As a creationist, I felt Ham fell flat on his face. There's plenty of scientific evidence he could've presented, but instead he went with this ridiculous argument that believing the so-called theory of evolution is "bad for society." So what if it is? Does he expect people to change life-long beliefs without delving into why those life-long beliefs can't be true? The most frustrating thing, is Nye didn't do much better. I, as a layman, was easily picking apart his arguments.

/Yeah, I know. Admitting to being a creationist is like asking to be pelted with dog shiat around these parts. Call me stupid, if you want. I know my intelligence level, and your remarks won't change it. There are plenty of intelligent creationists out there, which is one of the few things Ham managed to point out reasonable well.

//TL;DR Slashies: Ham lost. Pelt me with dog shiat.


Hah. I said reasonable well.
 
2014-02-28 12:48:30 PM  

Relic84: There's plenty of scientific evidence he could've presented,


I gotta ask, what scientific evidence there is to support creationism?
 
2014-02-28 12:48:31 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Actually, it cemented my opinion of Bill Nye as an attention whoring asshat who doesn't actually care about "science," just publicity and money.


Not me. I thought it was a mistake until I watched it.

Then I realized Nye was using the debate as a platform to decry the state of science education in this country, and to sound the alarm that the deplorable level of ignorance of basic scientific concepts relative to the rest of the world is going to put this country at the back of the pack in a mere decade or so.

That, to me, is something that needs to be shouted from the rooftops as loudly and as often and to as many people as possible.
 
2014-02-28 12:48:51 PM  

TheYeti: I'm pretty sure it's what Jesus would want him to spend the money on.

Healing the sick?  Feeding and clothing the poor?

Fark that, we need an ARK!


People just need to feed on GOD'S LOVE. With that, anything is possible. Just like Zombo.com.
 
2014-02-28 12:50:50 PM  
Good. Someone needs to gain something from that waste of everyone's time.
 
2014-02-28 12:51:11 PM  
Ken's Ark will only bring doubt to his followers minds, so I'm ok with this.

It's one thing for someone to just, in the abstract, say they believe Noah's Ark was 100% truth, because they don't really think about it.  But when they see it, and see how small it really is, doubt will enter at least a couple of people's minds.

Also, the inevitable construction delays will be fun to watch.
 
2014-02-28 12:51:43 PM  

Relic84: As a creationist, I felt Ham fell flat on his face. There's plenty of scientific evidence he could've presented, but instead he went with this ridiculous argument that believing the so-called theory of evolution is "bad for society." So what if it is? Does he expect people to change life-long beliefs without delving into why those life-long beliefs can't be true? The most frustrating thing, is Nye didn't do much better. I, as a layman, was easily picking apart his arguments.

/Yeah, I know. Admitting to being a creationist is like asking to be pelted with dog shiat around these parts. Call me stupid, if you want. I know my intelligence level, and your remarks won't change it. There are plenty of intelligent creationists out there, which is one of the few things Ham managed to point out reasonable well.

//TL;DR Slashies: Ham lost. Pelt me with dog shiat.


That's not just Ham's whole argument. That is the whole argument I've heard from pretty much any creationist: "Hitler believed in natural selection. Why do you love Hitler??"

Besides begging the question, it's not very convincing.
 
2014-02-28 12:52:02 PM  
This could be a good thing guys.  From TFA: "The wooden ark would have old-world details, such as wooden pegs instead of nails, straight-sawed timbers and plenty of animals"

Bill Nye specifically brought up in the debate that the ark is completely unrealistic - it was impossible to construct a boat that size with biblical-era shipbuilding techniques, not to mention fitting all those thousands of species aboard.

That means, either A) they fail to build it and we can say, "See, if a well-paid staff of professionals can't do it, how could a family of unpaid amateurs do it?" or B) they succeed in building it and then we can say, "OK, now put that thing on the water and let's see what happens."
 
2014-02-28 12:52:39 PM  

Ant: Cagey B: Still, that idiotic debate was a waste of time and a completely unnecessary legitimization of ridiculous creationist beliefs.

I'm kind of split on this. On the one hand, yes, it does lend an undeserved illusion of validity to wackaloon beliefs. On the other hand, lots of people either believe this shiat whole-heartedly, or they have never heard the reasons why it's complete bullshiat. To these people, scientists refusing to respond to creationist willful stupidity sounds like the scientists are dodging uncomfortable questions.


I liked Phil Platt's response on why it was (begrudgingly) necessary:

Last night, science advocate Bill Nye "debated" with creationist Ken Ham, the man who runs the Creation Museum in Kentucky. I was torn about the event; I think it's important that science get its advocacy, but I also worry that by even showing up to such a thing, Nye would elevate the idea of creationism as something worth debating.
But I've thought about it, and here's the important thing to remember: Roughly half the population of America does believe in some form of creationism or another. Half. Given that creationism is provably wrong, and science has enjoyed huge overwhelming success over the years, something is
I suspect that what's wrong is our messaging. For too long, scientists have thought that facts speak for themselves. They don't. They need advocates. If we ignore the attacks on science, or simply counter them by reciting facts, we'll lose. That much is clear from the statistics. Facts and stories of science are great for rallying those already on our side, but they do little to sway believers.
About last night's debate, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/02/ken_h am_bill_nye_debate_science_and_fact_versus_fiction_and_fantasy.html" target=_blank>my colleague Mark Stern at Slate argues that Nye lost the debate just by showing up, and I see that same sentiment from people on social media. But I disagree. We've been losing this debate in the public's mind all along by not showing up. Sure, science advocates are there when this topic comes up in court, and I'm glad for it. But I think that we need to have more of a voice, and that voice needs to change. What Nye did last night was at least a step in that direction, so in that sense I'm glad he did this.
But we need more, and it's not so much what we need as who. Let me explain.
Let me be clear: Ham is wrong in pretty much everything he says; the debate last night gave ample evidence of that. I could list a hundred statements he made that are simply incorrect or grave distortions of reality. I won't bother; you can find that information easily, including www.slate.com%2Fblogs%2Fbad_astronomy+creationism" target="_blank">https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=site:http:%2F%2Fwww.sl ate.com%2Fblogs%2Fbad_astronomy+creationism>" target=_blank>in my own blog posts about creationism.
But Ham is insidiously wrong on one important aspect: 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.
But unless they are the narrowest of fundamentalists, this simply is not true. There is no greater proof of this than Pope John Paul II-who, one must admit, was a deeply religious man-http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.h tml" target=_blank>saying that evolution was an established fact. Clearly, not all religion has a problem with evolution. Given that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States" target=_blank>a quarter of U.S. citizens are Catholics, this shows Ham's claim that evolution is anti-religious to be wrong.
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. Whether you think life originated out of ever-more complex chemical reactions occurring on an ancient Earth, or was breathed into existence by God, evolution would take over after that moment. It's a bit like the Big Bang; we don't know how the Universe came into existence at that moment, but starting a tiny fraction of a second after that event our science does a pretty fair job of explanation.
I can't stress this enough. The conflict over the teaching of evolution is based on the false assumption that evolution is antagonistic to religion. This is why, I think, evolution is so vehemently opposed by so many in the United States. The attacks on the specifics of evolution-the claims about irreducibility of the eye, for example, or other such incorrect statements-are a symptom, not a cause. I can talk about how we know the Universe is old until the Universe is substantially older and not convince someone whose heels are dug in. But if we can show them that the idea of evolution is not contrary to their faith, then we will make far, far more progress.
That's not to say I'll stop talking about the science itself. That still needs to be discussed! But simply saying science is right and faith is wrong will never, ever fix the problem.
And this won't be easy. As long as this discussion is framed as "science versus religion" there will never be a resolution. A religious person who doesn't necessarily think the Bible is literal, but who is a very faithful Christian, will more likely be sympathetic to the Ken Hams than the Bill Nyes, as long as science is cast as an atheistic dogma. For example, on the Catholic Online website, the argument is made that both Ham and Nye are wrong, and casts science as an atheistic venture.
That must change for progress to be made.
And who should do this? The answer to me is clear: Religious people who understand the reality of science. They have a huge advantage over someone who is not a believer. Because atheism is so reviled in America, someone with faith will have a much more sympathetic soapbox from which to speak to those who are more rigid in their beliefs.
I know a lot of religious folks read my blog. I am not a believer, but 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. I am fine with people believing in what they want. I only step up on my own soapbox when a specific religion overreaches, when that belief is imposed on others.
So I urge anyone reading this who is a believer of any stripe to speak up. In almost every case, evolution is not a threat to your beliefs. It's an important part of science, and the basis upon which our understanding of biology is founded. It's like the Periodic Table in chemistry, or Newton's Laws in physics; without it, biology makes no sense. And we know biology makes sense.
So overall, I suppose I'm glad Bill Nye took on this mantle. Debating a creationist may seem to elevate creationism as a debatable topic-and again, to be clear, it isn't-but in this case, that may be the price paid to elevate the conversation, and to get the public talking. Clearly, what we've been doing for decades isn't helping, so it may very well be time our methods evolved.
 
2014-02-28 12:53:32 PM  

Relic84: As a creationist, I felt Ham fell flat on his face. There's plenty of scientific evidence he could've presented, but instead he went with this ridiculous argument that believing the so-called theory of evolution is "bad for society." So what if it is? Does he expect people to change life-long beliefs without delving into why those life-long beliefs can't be true? The most frustrating thing, is Nye didn't do much better. I, as a layman, was easily picking apart his arguments.

/Yeah, I know. Admitting to being a creationist is like asking to be pelted with dog shiat around these parts. Call me stupid, if you want. I know my intelligence level, and your remarks won't change it. There are plenty of intelligent creationists out there, which is one of the few things Ham managed to point out reasonable well.

//TL;DR Slashies: Ham lost. Pelt me with dog shiat.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

Maybe we're all correct in our assumptions, and in the long run, what started it doesn't really matter.

/Doesn't want to live on this planet anymore.
 
2014-02-28 12:53:45 PM  
Obvious tag on vacation subbs?
 
2014-02-28 12:54:17 PM  
Religious theme parks have a notorious habit of going tits-up within a  few years.

img.gawkerassets.com
 
2014-02-28 12:54:23 PM  

Ant: Cagey B: Still, that idiotic debate was a waste of time and a completely unnecessary legitimization of ridiculous creationist beliefs.

I'm kind of split on this. On the one hand, yes, it does lend an undeserved illusion of validity to wackaloon beliefs. On the other hand, lots of people either believe this shiat whole-heartedly, or they have never heard the reasons why it's complete bullshiat. To these people, scientists refusing to respond to creationist willful stupidity sounds like the scientists are dodging uncomfortable questions.


Wonder what's going to happen when they  build it spec and then cant fit in two of EVERY kind of animal... incluing the dinosaurs?
 
2014-02-28 12:54:28 PM  

Relic84: Pelt me with dog shiat.


*Pelts Relic84 with dog shiat.*
 
2014-02-28 12:55:27 PM  

idesofmarch: From TFA: "The wooden ark would have old-world details, such as wooden pegs instead of nails, straight-sawed timbers and plenty of animals"


I can't believe people actually are doing this, like with serious intentions.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
 
2014-02-28 12:55:43 PM  
If the Ark theory is sound, why not build and sail it.

Oh yeah that's right... a wooden ship of that size would structurally fail and sink.
 
2014-02-28 12:56:04 PM  
God works in mysterious ways.
 
2014-02-28 12:57:04 PM  

Relic84: As a creationist, I felt Ham fell flat on his face. There's plenty of scientific evidence he could've presented, but instead he went with this ridiculous argument that believing the so-called theory of evolution is "bad for society." So what if it is? Does he expect people to change life-long beliefs without delving into why those life-long beliefs can't be true? The most frustrating thing, is Nye didn't do much better. I, as a layman, was easily picking apart his arguments.

/Yeah, I know. Admitting to being a creationist is like asking to be pelted with dog shiat around these parts. Call me stupid, if you want. I know my intelligence level, and your remarks won't change it. There are plenty of intelligent creationists out there, which is one of the few things Ham managed to point out reasonable well.

//TL;DR Slashies: Ham lost. Pelt me with dog shiat.


Now, just for clarification, are you of the belief that the earth is literally less than 20,000 years old? Or are you a creationist in the sense of "it was created in this way by God, but spread out over his time table - like 2 Peter says"? Because the former is vastly different from the latter.
 
2014-02-28 12:57:40 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Relic84: There's plenty of scientific evidence he could've presented,

I gotta ask, what scientific evidence there is to support creationism?


I've got some lying around here somewhere, but it'll cost yah

coinarcade.files.wordpress.com
 
Displayed 50 of 139 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | 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