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

[Reincarnate]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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

Thank you.

[Reincarnate]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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

how bout that bill nye and ken ham