Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=135114)

Reincarnate 02-4-2014 08:04 PM

Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

MeaCulpa 02-4-2014 09:08 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
This is frustrating to watch. Ken doesn't address half of the points, and the other half is answered by "The Bible".

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure why I was expecting anything different.

Artic_counter 02-4-2014 09:32 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
It was pretty interesting! Thanks for bringing that up! Ken's bit were sometime cringe worthy but otherwise pretty interesting as a whole.

Snowcrafta 02-4-2014 09:33 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
I caught the last minute of the debate. I'll have to go stream an archive version of it later

Xiz 02-4-2014 09:35 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Ken is a really REALLY bad guy to represent the religious side haha. He is a joke in the upper leagues of religious studies.

Reincarnate 02-4-2014 09:59 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
To be 100% honest, I wasn't even satisfied with Nye's responses.

Snowcrafta 02-4-2014 10:01 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
I'm sure he had to dumb it down because

you know

Kentucky

Nullifidian 02-4-2014 10:05 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Ken Ham's argument in a nutshell:

RARAWR 02-4-2014 10:06 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowcrafta (Post 4071777)
I'm sure he had to dumb it down because

you know

Kentucky

Well thanks for making me laugh....rawr.

-RARAWR

Dynam0 02-4-2014 10:53 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 4071775)
To be 100% honest, I wasn't even satisfied with Nye's responses.

Agreed. He didn't do a very good job as far as debating goes; Ken was a much better talker and addressed the questions more directly. Nye focused a lot of his time repeating things like asking Ken Ham how Creationism will be able to predict the future, exclaiming how much joy discovery brings him, and he kept lobbying for science to stay in curriculum for economic reasons which although true was always out of place in the context of the debate and repeated way too often imo.

Spenner 02-4-2014 11:25 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
It was quite frustrating. It almost felt like Ken's debate was mostly constructed to have so many things asked of Bill that would be impossible to address and still have a point of his own that wasn't just refuting the other frustrating points.

I especially disliked the "Hey, we have successful scientists that believe in the bible's scripture. We want to encourage the success that they have accomplished, which we attribute in part to the biblical teachings" and using those guests and whatnot.

He was also by in large preaching to the choir. The fact that it was taking place in a creationist (pet cemetary? lol) museum seemed to draw in a biased crowd, from their reactions when clapping was heard/facial expressions/when jokes were made and the audience was shown.

eastsideman09 02-5-2014 01:20 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Pointless debate, at its core. I liked some of the audience questions though, because they intentionally tried to rustle the debaters jimmies.

Also, if I hear the term "Historical Science" again, I might have an aneurysm.

RagedBerserker 02-5-2014 02:05 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Creationism is quite possibly the most laughable argument to be made. It truly is disappointing that these debates need to take place to sway general opinion in a state in order to keep science in a child's education.

Snowcrafta 02-5-2014 02:05 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Talking about fish asexually reproducing

"This is a real chin stroker"

Made me giggle

MeaCulpa 02-5-2014 12:20 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eastsideman09 (Post 4071869)
Pointless debate, at its core.

I agree with the points made here about not feeling satisfied by either side. Then I realized near the end that all of this arguing and debating is futile, since nothing will seem to change their belief system. Became obvious pretty quickly that Bill was more interested in selling his pitch about science education...over and over again.

JohnRedWolf87 02-5-2014 12:30 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MeaCulpa (Post 4072102)
Became obvious pretty quickly that Bill was more interested in selling his pitch about science education...over and over again.

Well, he IS Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Reincarnate 02-5-2014 01:05 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
I mean, I understand the reasons behind reaching out to the audience instead of beating the opponent, but I felt like his appeals were really transparent and not all that convincing (IMO). All too often I found myself frustrated: "There are so many better examples you could be using!"

I more or less understand where religious types are coming from with their logic, and so when approaching Bill's arguments with that mindset, none of his arguments were that effective because there was always a really obvious hole that was left unaddressed.

IMO, if your goal is to convince people to ask questions and pursue science instead of being stifled by dogma, you have to address the core points of confusion and give really good examples.

For instance, he used the fossil record to explain how old shit was found below less-old shit, and that is strong evidence in favor of evolution etc. And yet when Ham brought up the basalt rock + wood thing, Bill just said "maybe the rock went over the wood" or something like that. If I were a religious person, I'd be asking, "Well, that was sure convenient, can't we say the same about the fossil record, then?"

I would focus on complexity. The core of the religious mindset with respect to the universe is that the universe is so grand -- so complex -- so beautiful, that it had to have been created. So, show how awesome shit forms naturally. At least, this is what worked for me back when I had a religious belief or two.



This video fucking blew my mind when I first saw it, and I realized then there was so much about biology/science that I hadn't been taught and had never learned. I found it genuinely interesting, and as I learned more, it became obvious that we don't need a designer to explain anything.

Of course, I still think this is the most mindblowing video of all time:



Universe, made for us? LOL.

The universe is large because it had to be. Same logic behind evolution -- albeit on a cosmic scale. You have a shitload of variation in star systems, planets, matter clouds, forces, etc. Some of those are going to have conditions ripe for biological evolution to take place. As usual, the answer is in math + stats + natural science.

If the universe were small with limited variation, we wouldn't be here -- which means I wouldn't be writing this, and you wouldn't be reading it. Anthropic principle, etc.

Snowcrafta 02-5-2014 02:53 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
I do find it funny that a mechanical engineer was chosen to debate this topic. But he's pretty much one of the only scientists Americans know

devonin 02-5-2014 02:55 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Not CT aside:

How Bill Nye wins the debate:


stargroup100 02-5-2014 06:56 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Honestly, I find it ridiculous that this is even being discussed still. Only in America, only in America...

The one major point Ham makes is that evolution is "historical science", and therefore can't be observed. All we need to do is explain to everyone that understanding science allows us to understand natural phenomena, which gives us the capability to accurately understand the relationship between cause and effect. This means that if we know the present CAUSE, we can predict the future EFFECT ("observational science"). If we know the present EFFECT, we can predict the past CAUSE ("historical science"). This is how our science allows us to understand the past: by piecing together many clues and using our understanding of the world, not reading a fucking book with many scenarios that can't be replicated/stimulated with current technology.

Reincarnate 02-5-2014 07:31 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
It annoyed me that he mentioned stuff like prophecies in the Bible coming true or whatever / having predictive value, when you can pick out tons of predictions that the Bible flat-out got wrong. Of course, anything is flawless if you ignore the flaws.

qqwref 02-5-2014 08:17 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Every prediction will eventually come true if you're willing to read it sufficiently metaphorically :p And remember, if you don't think something's true or possible, you're probably just not smart enough to understand it. God's got it all figured out, and he's way smarter than you.


PS: I do agree Bill Nye isn't the best person to represent the anti-creationist side of a debate, but remember he's basically a pop-sci educator, not an atheist activist. I didn't expect him to have a deep understanding of all the misconceptions, arguments, and neologisms an extreme YEC would use. Many of their arguments are essentially just references to previous published creationist writings, which you can't even try to argue against without having looked into it beforehand. Their rules and axioms are just so different from those of the scientific community that you might as well be talking about the interpretation of a novel you haven't read.

From my perspective, most of the sentences coming out of Ken Ham's mouth had several dubious or demonstrably false assumptions behind them, and he was often making several different claims a minute (or even 90 at once, in one case where he lists a bunch of random, unrelated dating methods designed for different things and then claims they give inconsistent results, without statistics or numbers to back it up). It's no surprise that Bill couldn't, and didn't try to, properly respond to most of that - you'd need a whole science textbook (or some kind of rational wiki) to refute all of what Ken said, if you wanted to go to enough depth to potentially convince someone. At least the appeals to the scientific method, the joy of discovery, the value of science education, etc. might get someone to look more deeply into the philosophy of science and how it differs from creationist dogma.

choof 02-5-2014 10:15 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
what the fuck is historical science

GuidoHunter 02-5-2014 10:29 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by qqwref (Post 4072423)
PS: I do agree Bill Nye isn't the best person to represent the anti-creationist side of a debate, but remember he's basically a pop-sci educator, not an atheist activist. I didn't expect him to have a deep understanding of all the misconceptions, arguments, and neologisms an extreme YEC would use. Many of their arguments are essentially just references to previous published creationist writings, which you can't even try to argue against without having looked into it beforehand. Their rules and axioms are just so different from those of the scientific community that you might as well be talking about the interpretation of a novel you haven't read.

I don't think you give Bill Nye enough credit; he's not just a children's show host. This ain't his first rodeo.

You seem to suggest that an atheist activist would have been ideal, but honestly, I think a Christian scientist (not to be confused with Christian Scientist) would have best shown how evolution is science and that science doesn't conflict with religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by choof
what the fuck is historical science

It's the idea that we can't design an experiment to watch evolution happen, that we can only analyze what's happened in the past and call that science.

It's total horse pucky, but I believe that's what "historical science" means.

--Guido

choof 02-5-2014 10:55 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
if that's really what historical science is then that's absolutely idiotic

igotrhythm 02-5-2014 11:49 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eastsideman09 (Post 4071869)
Pointless debate, at its core. I liked some of the audience questions though, because they intentionally tried to rustle the debaters jimmies.

Also, if I hear the term "Historical Science" again, I might have an aneurysm.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messa...ve-in-evolutio

I like the shit-eating grins on these people's faces. The questions themselves make me want to give a blowjob to a shotgun.

ilikexd 02-5-2014 11:50 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by igotrhythm (Post 4072648)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messa...ve-in-evolutio

I like the shit-eating grins on these people's faces. The questions themselves make me want to give a blowjob to a shotgun.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH



DONE

stargroup100 02-6-2014 12:46 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by igotrhythm (Post 4072648)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messa...ve-in-evolutio

I like the shit-eating grins on these people's faces. The questions themselves make me want to give a blowjob to a shotgun.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not

MracY 02-6-2014 12:56 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
This isn't a debate. It is a display of a collection of the simplest cookie-cutter arguments.
It is a farce. It could almost be considered sensationalism by some.

If you want an actual good debate, you would need two scientist philosophers who actually understand both sides of the issue.
Otherwise the debate will end like a children's squabble, as it tends to.

edit: I'm not interested in discussion on this topic.

qqwref 02-6-2014 01:17 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MracY (Post 4072717)
edit: I'm not interested in discussion on this topic.

Good thing you didn't post in this thread, then!

kmay 02-6-2014 08:44 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
that tree is 6800 years old? where you there to watch it grow? no? well HISTORICAL SCIENCE SAYS WE CAN'T PROVE ITS AGE BUT THE BIBLE CAN PROVE IT.

Crazyjayde 02-6-2014 11:43 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
This center video was suggested as related material:



I enjoyed it much more.

Reincarnate 02-6-2014 11:44 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Another interesting debate


Cavernio 02-6-2014 12:38 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Creationism is pretty irritating.

The opposite of 'not knowing what happened with certainty' isn't 'divine intervention'
Why would God give us a brain capable of imagining and learning everymore things about evolution if God didn't want us to use it?
The laws of physics could be called God's laws, how life exists and all the biology behind it could all be God who initiated it. But the very nature of all our knowledge is deterministic, one thing leads to another, everything affects everything else. Evolution just makes sense. There is still plenty of mystique that humanity will never know about the existence of our world, questions like why and did we come from nothing or was there always something...so many reasons I could see that someone would be rational, intelligent and still believe at least in the possibility of God.
If I were religious at this point in time I certainly wouldn't believe in creationism. But, if I did, I might as well not believe anything my eyes see or my ears hear either, as that's how much I'd have to doubt my own observations and understanding of the world around me in order to believe that creationism is real.

korny 02-6-2014 03:21 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 4072879)
Another interesting debate


I watched that the other week. Pretty interesting. I would like to see Dawkins or some other prominent scientist or evolutionary biologist debate with Dr. William Lane Craig.

GuidoHunter 02-6-2014 04:02 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Evolution is what the evidence suggests is the case. The overwhelming amount of evidence, at that.

Science has no "jurisdiction" over God, nor does it care to; it is concerned solely with the realm of the observable, testable, repeatable, and makes conclusions of varying degrees of certainty in response. As such, evolution has gotten the gold star of support from science.

Could God have created the world six thousand years ago with pre-buried fossils and other age-suggestive elements as initial conditions? I suppose; this is God we're talking about, after all. Hell, he could have created the universe yesterday and just implanted us with false memories and imagined thoughts for all we know. Is entertaining that possibility a worthwhile intellectual endeavor? Hardly. "I know nothing and anything is possible" is only a brick wall for the development of knowledge and, as Cavernio said, a gross insult to the minds God gave us.

Since it would be foolish to accept those premises and halt our intellectual development, it is fully reasonable to examine the world around us and draw conclusions based on what the evidence suggests.

Again, that may not be what *really* happened (though the argument is pretty damn convincing), but who cares? Your belief in the true origins of the world and your acceptance of (note: not belief in) evolution are two completely different issues. Evolution, as a science-based theory, merely shows what the evidence suggests. Since the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution, you'd be foolish not to accept it even if you believe the Earth is actually 6000 years old.

--Guido

stargroup100 02-6-2014 04:53 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
okay seriously why is this even a topic of discussion

fucking creationism

Izzy 02-6-2014 05:05 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4073043)
okay seriously why is this even a topic of discussion

fucking creationism

I don't know, but I liked Guido's point. I've always taken the stance that things that are untestable are irrelevant, but that way of wording it makes more sense. Although of course it would never make sense to someone that doesn't understand it in the first place.

Reincarnate 02-6-2014 05:31 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4073043)
okay seriously why is this even a topic of discussion

fucking creationism


I think, at some level, it becomes a matter of:

1. Emotion. Some people have lived their whole lives believing in Creation, and so it's really troubling to them for science to come along and say, "Uh, here's what really happened." It's not exactly easy to outright drop such a huge component of your mental process/life/psyche/emotional worldview/whatever. It's much easier to just stick with shitty arguments that substantiate your view even if you have to be willfully ignorant to the rest. It's always easy to keep in mind that you can't be proven wrong 100% (the "beauty" of unfalsifiable paradigms), so that means there's a chance you're right -- and for some, that chance, no matter how small, is enough to resolve the cognitive dissonance.

2. Intellect/education. I seriously think some people just lack the means to understand the arguments, either because there's so much science they simply haven't learned yet, or they don't have the capacity to make sense of it.

qqwref 02-6-2014 06:06 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
One problem I have with the whole creationism viewpoint is that some people take fundamentalism/anti-science to an extreme, where everything they are sufficiently confused by gets explained away with a "well God did it that way, and we just can't understand His reasoning" argument. Like why God apparently created light from all these stars and galaxies and pulsars, appropriately red-shifted, and sufficiently far along on their journey to make us think they are billions of years old when they're not. That's all well and good if you're just talking to a bunch of people who believe exactly what you do, but from the perspective of someone who doesn't agree, the same argument can be used by a believer in any all-powerful deity. There's really no difference to an atheist between "God did it that way and doesn't have to tell us why" and "Aten did it that way and doesn't have to tell us why", except that people tend not to believe in Aten anymore. And it hasn't explained anything, either.

In fact, a lot of arguments I've seen for a God fall into this same trap: even if there is a supreme being out there, how do you know it's the one you believe in? I've seen some Christians making argments for the existence of God that are so general they could even apply to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And even if all the 6000-year-old-earth stuff is true, it could actually be the Mormon or Jewish version of God that did it, or even an entirely different being, and you may be eternally punished for obeying the wrong set of rules. People of other religions believe in their holy book as much as Christians believe in theirs.

Reincarnate 02-6-2014 06:14 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
It's actually a kind of insult to God when you think about it.

If God made a universe that is indistinguishable from one that didn't need him to create it in the first place... then what good is God for?

God may as well be a trickless magician:


stargroup100 02-6-2014 06:30 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
I guess I should elaborate.

Everything we discuss here about the relationship between what we observe and the actual reality of the world around us, the nature of science, the nature of knowledge, etc. falls in the subject of philosophy (or something like that, maybe I'm not being technical).

What we discuss here is worthy of discussion as philosophy. Creationism has nothing to do with it. Discussing the psychology behind why people believe in creationism and how it affects a person is fine. Discussing why creationism is wrong, however, is as meaningful as discussing why it's impossible for a human being to consume a full-sized elephant in under 12 seconds.

Reincarnate 02-6-2014 06:36 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
I think you may be referring to epistemology (the study of knowledge / what it means for something to be knowable / true / a belief / justified / etc).

korny 02-6-2014 07:09 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by qqwref (Post 4073130)
it could actually be the Mormon God that did it

Just for clarification purposes, the mormon god is the same god as they are just another Christian denomination like the Methodists, baptists and Catholics.

Snowcrafta 02-6-2014 07:28 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Catholic #1

stargroup100 02-6-2014 08:56 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 4073161)
I think you may be referring to epistemology (the study of knowledge / what it means for something to be knowable / true / a belief / justified / etc).

One of the branches of philosophy associated with this topic, yes, but not the only one.

qqwref 02-6-2014 09:39 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by korny (Post 4073196)
Just for clarification purposes, the mormon god is the same god as they are just another Christian denomination like the Methodists, baptists and Catholics.

OK, but he does have different rules he wants people to follow, and a different set of holy books, right? Like, you could be considered a good person according to "mainstream" Christianity, but not according to the Mormons, or vice versa.

choof 02-6-2014 09:52 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
okay I finally watched this

this was really underwhelming, bill nye seemed somewhat unprepared and ken ham's head is so far up his own ass it's unbelievable

adlp 02-6-2014 10:26 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by qqwref (Post 4073336)
OK, but he does have different rules he wants people to follow, and a different set of holy books, right? Like, you could be considered a good person according to "mainstream" Christianity, but not according to the Mormons, or vice versa.

we use the KJV of the Bible that most mainstream Christians use

we use the BoM as another testament of Jesus Christ that goes hand in hand with the Bible

we don't believe God judges people unfairly and takes all things into account. our doctrine outlines that heaven is in tiers, or degrees of glory, and that most of mankind will belong in one of those tiers of heaven.

qqwref 02-7-2014 12:41 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Oh, you're Mormon? That's cool though, thanks for the info :) I guess it was a bad example.

Reincarnate 02-7-2014 12:53 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
What's Ham's reputation/standing in religious communities?

adlp 02-7-2014 01:43 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
no idea but I think creationism is dumb in it's own right

funmonkey54 02-7-2014 01:44 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 4073542)
What's Ham's reputation/standing in religious communities?

As a student in a Holiness Movement influenced School of Theology and Ministry, I can honestly tell you that 0/38 professors are young-earth creationists here. This is a conservative school. So yeah, there's that.

His view doesn't represent educated Christian thought's general concept of creationism. The Creation Museum is a joke and most of what he argued was really far off base.

stargroup100 02-7-2014 06:13 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by adlp (Post 4073576)
no idea but I think creationism is dumb in it's own right

See this is what I'm talking about.

Sorry for using you/your post as an example. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what this guy said. He's stating an opinion and clearly has his head on straight.

BUT WHO DOESNT THINK CREATIONISM IS DUMB

Pointless discussion. If this thread was titled "Philosophy of Science" or "Delusional Disorder" or "Epistemology" or "The Psychological Effects of Religion" or something similar, we could be having a brilliant thread going on here, without any bullshit. Instead, we have sparse points that give insight sprinkled in between a bunch of posts that state the obvious.

GuidoHunter 02-7-2014 07:18 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4073632)
BUT WHO DOESNT THINK CREATIONISM IS DUMB

People who don't understand science, or people who think there exists a dichotomy between it and their faith. I think those people largely exist in fundamentalist circles, but they can be found anywhere.

--Guido

stargroup100 02-7-2014 07:49 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter (Post 4073641)
People who don't understand science, or people who think there exists a dichotomy between it and their faith. I think those people largely exist in fundamentalist circles, but they can be found anywhere.

Well yeah, but the idea is that almost anyone that has their head on straight enough to contribute to meaningful discussion here will understand the common sense that creationism is a load of crap.

The point I was trying to make is that this topic of creationism keeps leading the discussion nowhere meaningful. Therefore, that statement I made refers only to the people who are relevant in that context. Again, what you said was perfectly valid and correct, but obvious. I didn't want to reiterate what everyone knew and it would sound verbose if I'm trying to be sarcastic. Once again, discussion goes nowhere when creationism is involved.

Reincarnate 02-7-2014 08:12 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
A lot of people believe in some kind of creationism, at least here in the States

SKG_Scintill 02-7-2014 09:54 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

devonin 02-7-2014 09:56 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4073632)
Instead, we have sparse points that give insight sprinkled in between a bunch of posts that state the obvious.

So, like the debate the thread is about?

stargroup100 02-7-2014 05:39 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 4073689)
So, like the debate the thread is about?

Yes.

It's a stupid debate to begin with.

Reincarnate 02-7-2014 09:34 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4073652)
The point I was trying to make is that this topic of creationism keeps leading the discussion nowhere meaningful. Therefore, that statement I made refers only to the people who are relevant in that context. Again, what you said was perfectly valid and correct, but obvious. I didn't want to reiterate what everyone knew and it would sound verbose if I'm trying to be sarcastic. Once again, discussion goes nowhere when creationism is involved.

I don't understand: The whole point of the Nye/Ham debate was creationism, which is what this thread is about.

I think it's plenty meaningful to discuss the topic. Yes, creationism is obvious bunk, but that's the point: A lot of people still believe it.

Others simply push the goalpost back a bit further and say God created the universe and then just sat back and let things unfold, but this is arguably no better since it's God of the Gaps / argument-from-ignorance, which is convenient to do when you don't have as much counter-evidence as we do for something like evolution.

TheSaxRunner05 02-7-2014 10:11 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
God appears to Stephen Hawking and shows him the underlying mathematics combining quantum theory with relativity, and gravity with the other forces. Then Steven (we're on a first name basis) starts "New Wave Scientology" to proclaim God's word through the 'voice' of Stephen Hawkings.

God then shows Hawking how he created the universe, 6,000 years ago, but made to look like it was much older. Because he is an all powerful God, he made the universe much older than it seemed in order to test the faith of the population of his creations. Only the faithful would continue to beleive because of age old texts.

Steven Hawking took this information and ran with it. Taking the math behind creationism, he creates his own parallel universe, taking only his faithful followers. An angry God follows Hawking with an army of angels. A climactic battle ensues, but Hawking created his Universe to his own advantage. After much gnashing of teeth, the angels and God retreated in defeat.

Steven remains immortal in a parallel universe, surrounded by his immortal faithful allies, the cyber-humans. God was forced back to Earth's Middle East, where people murder each other over which historical account of God is accurate.

omega_grunt666 02-7-2014 10:11 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 4073654)
A lot of people believe in some kind of creationism, at least here in the States

Old-Earth Creationists vs New-Earth Creationists.

On one hand you have a group of people who, in-general, listen to science and try to fit it within their own faith. On the other you have a group actively attacking science to try and fit it into their faith. I think its pretty obvious the problem isn't WHAT people choose to believe in, its their actions and how they affect the people that don't share the same belief.

Fundamentally the problem is they are trying to push out observational fact with fiction, the bible doesn't belong in a science class room because its not a system for measuring/testing/predicting diddly. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is science isn't written in stone. There are no commandments that cannot be broken, simply observations of the natural world that through various methods of testing and criticism hold true (or true enough). If someone came around tomorrow with a new formula for modelling gravity that worked correctly in all related equations and managed to improve/simplify on the old one, it would be the new standard and the old would be dropped. That would never happen for anything in a bible-science classroom.

Dynam0 02-7-2014 10:15 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 4074211)
I don't understand: The whole point of the Nye/Ham debate was creationism, which is what this thread is about.

I think it's plenty meaningful to discuss the topic. Yes, creationism is obvious bunk, but that's the point: A lot of people still believe it.

Others simply push the goalpost back a bit further and say God created the universe and then just sat back and let things unfold, but this is arguably no better since it's God of the Gaps / argument-from-ignorance, which is convenient to do when you don't have as much counter-evidence as we do for something like evolution.

Right, so what is the purpose of this thread actually?

stargroup100 02-7-2014 10:25 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dynam0 (Post 4074272)
Right, so what is the purpose of this thread actually?

Thank you.

Reincarnate 02-7-2014 11:21 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
serious question: are you guys trolling? the "purpose of the thread" is obvious

If you guys don't wish to discuss the debate or its underlying topics, then this thread won't do much for you

stargroup100 02-7-2014 11:46 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 4074389)
serious question: are you guys trolling? the "purpose of the thread" is obvious

If you guys don't wish to discuss the debate or its underlying topics, then this thread won't do much for you

I'm not trolling. I'd like to politely request that you state this purpose that is so obvious.

And then I will attempt to explain why we aren't actually talking about creationism, and if we are, it's not worth discussing.

I'm not giving this retarded concept any more credit than it deserves.

Reincarnate 02-8-2014 12:25 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4074428)
I'm not trolling. I'd like to politely request that you state this purpose that is so obvious.

And then I will attempt to explain why we aren't actually talking about creationism, and if we are, it's not worth discussing.

I'm not giving this retarded concept any more credit than it deserves.

The point of the thread is to talk about the Nye/Ham debate and its underlying content / the nature of religious thinking / the role of science and religion / whatever.

This also includes creationism (the main topic of that debate) in the sense that a lot of people still believe in it. And so while you're 100% right that it's a retarded concept that should be dismissed to the dustbin of history, our society isn't there yet -- and that's something worth discussing. Do you not find it troubling that so many people seriously choose to not "believe" in evolution?

stargroup100 02-8-2014 12:51 AM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
underlying content [of the debate] - science
the nature of religious thinking - philosophy and religion
the role of science and religion - more philosophy

Note how creationism specifically has nothing to do with the things you want to talk about. There's nothing to discuss about creationism. It's stupid. These other things, however, are worth talking about, but putting them in the context of a creationism topic is unnecessary (using it as an example is fine).

And no I do not find it troubling. After being exposed to a wide range of people and beginning to understand more about how different people think, I am no longer surprised by the lack of intelligence certain humans possess. Their dribble is now mere entertainment for me, if I'm not trying to analyze them. Most people do not need and/or have the capacity to understand some of these things, and they don't need to either, as long as they're working members of society.

What I DO find troubling, is how people with totally ridiculous and/or stupid ideas/philosophies/worldviews/etc manage to get themselves out in the open, and almost taken seriously by a lot of people who have power and matter. I believe in free speech and all, and it's important that everyone is able to share their ideas, no matter how ridiculous, but in the end society/government/etc needs to put in filters along the way so that only ideas that have value/merit are given serious attention.

Though in retrospect, it's still far better than the opposite, in which I am referring to people not having the ability to voice ridiculous ideas like this, and are completely shut down without being given a chance. This is far more troubling than letting these people roam free (see China).

qqwref 02-8-2014 01:46 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Stargroup, your meta-arguments contribute nothing and are really just preventing people from actually talking about the things they want to talk about. You say "there's nothing to discuss" - ok, then leave the topic and let the people who think there is something to discuss talk. You say creationism is "not worth discussing" - well, then you can leave, and those of us who are from countries like the US where it has a noticeable effect on public policy can continue to discuss its effects. You say this is "a stupid debate" - then go join a smarter one. You say "discussion goes nowhere when creationism is involved" - well, I think it was going somewhere before you showed up, but if you don't like the way the topic is going, stop posting in it or reading it!

choof 02-8-2014 01:55 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4074483)
I am no longer surprised by the lack of intelligence certain humans possess. Their dribble is now mere entertainment for me, if I'm not trying to analyze them.

*fips tedora*

korny 02-8-2014 02:00 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
I read what you quoted from him as if I was being cast for revenge of the nerds

dAnceguy117 02-8-2014 02:00 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4074483)
I believe in free speech and all, and it's important that everyone is able to share their ideas, no matter how ridiculous, but in the end society/government/etc needs to put in filters along the way so that only ideas that have value/merit are given serious attention.

that sounds extremely dangerous. unless the government or whatever other entity is all-knowing and completely benevolent, there will be huge problems. not everyone will agree on what should be "filtered out" from receiving any attention.

Reincarnate 02-8-2014 02:20 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4074483)
underlying content [of the debate] - science
the nature of religious thinking - philosophy and religion
the role of science and religion - more philosophy

To all three of your claims here I say: Not solely.

If you don't like the discussion, nobody is forcing you to post here. Or, you can steer the conversation in a direction you think is more meaningful.


Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4074483)
And no I do not find it troubling. After being exposed to a wide range of people and beginning to understand more about how different people think, I am no longer surprised by the lack of intelligence certain humans possess. Their dribble is now mere entertainment for me, if I'm not trying to analyze them.

Given the amount of societal setback + abuse that has come from crap like creationism, I think it's troubling that you find it merely entertaining.

Ohaider 02-8-2014 03:15 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
how bout that bill nye and ken ham

stargroup100 02-8-2014 11:18 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by qqwref (Post 4074661)
Stargroup, your meta-arguments contribute nothing and are really just preventing people from actually talking about the things they want to talk about. You say "there's nothing to discuss" - ok, then leave the topic and let the people who think there is something to discuss talk. You say creationism is "not worth discussing" - well, then you can leave, and those of us who are from countries like the US where it has a noticeable effect on public policy can continue to discuss its effects. You say this is "a stupid debate" - then go join a smarter one. You say "discussion goes nowhere when creationism is involved" - well, I think it was going somewhere before you showed up, but if you don't like the way the topic is going, stop posting in it or reading it!

I say that it's pointless, but that's a matter of personal opinion. I also mentioned in what way this discussion is pointless in an effort to improve the quality of the discussion. I don't have an interest in discussing creationism itself, but I do enjoy the other areas I mentioned that pertain to creationism as an example of concepts.

It just so happens we diverged slightly into these meta-arguments, which is another point of discussion in itself, but not totally unrelated, the same with the other things that are being brought up in this thread.

Nothing is stopping anyone from continuing to contribute anything else useful or make a point relating to the debate. Perhaps my sarcasm is taken as hostility or negativity, and for that I apologize. It's the way I talk/act when I'm presented with things that are taken to absurdity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 4074687)
Or, you can steer the conversation in a direction you think is more meaningful.

Sure, let's build on this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 4074687)
Given the amount of societal setback + abuse that has come from crap like creationism, I think it's troubling that you find it merely entertaining.

I don't find it amusing in the same way that someone enjoys seeing someone suffering or in pain. Seeing it as entertainment for me covers a few things that are important to me/that I like: it's a way of coping with the urge to fight/argue with these people, it's a way for me to understand the way other people think, it gives me insight on the reality that there exist a large number of people that think that way, and it challenges certain philosophies I accept almost without question to think about how and when they're valid. It is in this way that I justify the entertainment value I derive from listening to people present poor arguments.

Some of these people are unmovable. No matter how much logic and evidence you provide, how absolutely you prove they are wrong, they won't budge on their stance. There's no point beating a dead horse, you don't argue with these people, you just leave them be. Rather than trying to teach these people the right way, another dimension we need to consider is how to reach people early on, before they reach the point of no return, and how to deal with the implications on society, such as the setback and abuse you're referring to (which I do not find entertaining). I think these are two separate issues that you're talking about.

While it is a significant problem, I don't think it sets back society as much as some people make it out to seem. There are tons of smart biologists out there working hard in their field, who ignore things like creationism. None of these ideas affect them directly. Research in these fields continue as they normally would. Where it does become a problem is when the technology that uses all of these scientific principles reach the public, and they must interact with them. Then it would beneficial (importance depends by case) for the people to learn about how their technology works. Along this context, creationism is one of the more harmless bogus ideas by comparison. Creationism could also indirectly lead to how people judge and see each other, but this is a religious issue in general, so religion as a whole needs to be addressed here, not just creationism.

choof 03-2-2014 09:13 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...unding-miracle

I'm actually pretty angry about this.

RagedBerserker 03-2-2014 10:38 PM

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 
This is one of the more infuriating debates ever, and to think it has actually helped funding for the stupid fucking park is mind-boggling annoying.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution