Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
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.
Sure, let's build on this:
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.
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.
Sure, let's build on this:
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.
Comment