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

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

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]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

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]

Originally Posted by Dynam0

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

Thank you.

[Reincarnate]

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]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

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]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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]

I read what you quoted from him as if I was being cast for revenge of the nerds

[dAnceguy117]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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]

how bout that bill nye and ken ham

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by qqwref

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.

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Or, you can steer the conversation in a direction you think is more meaningful.

Sure, let's build on this:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

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]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...unding-miracle

I'm actually pretty angry about this.

[RagedBerserker]

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.