BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 06:04 PM

I don't have a problem with people believing the creation stories. I have a problem with the US Constitution and religion being taught in government funded schools.
I also don't think there are that many people lobbying for religion to be taught in schools. I think the ones who do it are loud and obnoxious, and the press loves to give them attention. And I think there are certain regions in the country that are more densely infested with them than others.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 06:02 PM

Of course, Ham is all for science too. And "critical thinking." He showed the PhD Creationist inventor of the MRI (you read that right) exclaiming that nothing in "creation science" is "inconsistent with" experimentation and technological innovation. And the PhD who invented a key element of the Hubble Space Telescope said that his faith in Creationism and a young Earth had not hindered his advanced design work in any way.

Because Creationism has nothing to do with engineering or observing anything in today's world. Teaching Creationism would have no effect on American technological progress, a point that Nye seemingly hadn't thought out.

In my last post, I should have specified "very well funded people."

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 05:34 PM

>>
Jack. If the American people can't say "bollocks" or whatever term you might use<<

Musket, You can say bollocks all you want. You can't unwanted perspectives by simply saying bollocks.


I'm not sure what you mean by having Nye over there. But I've seen the debate. He was asking people in the US to support science in the USA for the sake of US competitiveness.

I think he did a good thing. Maybe for the UK too but if so, that was a side effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 03:45 PM

> a fraction of the size of the fabled ark, yet proved the maximum size for a timber boat was smaller than it, when it broke it's back.

Yes, indeed. Nye had a chart ready comparing the sizes of the "Wyoming" and the much larger Ark. He emphasized the the "Wyoming" had been built by some of the world's greatest shipwrights while the Ark was supposedly built by eight inexperienced amateurs.

Ham brushed off the fate of the "Wyoming" with a simple claim that (in paraphrase), "Yes, we know all about that, and our engineers have shown how the Ark could have been seaworthy. [He didn't go into detail.] I recommend that after the debate guests in our audience go upstairs to the exhibit we have of the Ark in 1/100 scale and judge for themselves."

The thread would only be "consummately stupid," Jeri, if it were not so entertaining. Or if so many people in the U.S.A. weren't always lobbying their state legislatures to get "creation science" and "intelligent design" taught in schools. In a couple of states they succeeded for a while, and it took extended court cases to knock the laws down.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Musket
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:55 PM

Jack. If the American people can't say "bollocks" or whatever term you might use, it isn't the argument for superstition that is simple, it has to be the people.

Don't worry, we have them over here. We just are allowed to laugh at them without political Dumbfuckistan being thrown at you. Old ladies painting gay hatred posters between doing the altar flowers and making the vicar a cuppa isn't in the same league as Q'ran burning and murdering doctors whilst giving money to Presidential candidates. Here, our deputy Prime Minister and leader of the opposition don't believe in all that nonsense, and neither does the Prime Minister, although he sometimes go to church, admitting it's for the cameras and party faithful. In USA, try running for office without playing the God card. If, like you, I moved there, I would see that perspective. Don't tell me about Nye, we have him in the free world too you know.

History and hitherto acceptance doesn't make fantasy and man made superstition any more real.

Lighter. Another verse the BBC satire had was about the world's largest timber boat, a fraction of the size of the fabled ark, yet proved the maximum size for a timber boat was smaller than it, when it broke it's back. Now, in my old world, I was an engineering physicist of sorts, or at least I hold a PhD in mechanical vibration. My professional stance is that the ark, just like all the other fantastic claims, cannot have physically happened.

Pity about the unicorns, all the same eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:37 PM

pete, I didn't say that Nye triumphed. I was arguing that he had good reason to appear on TV with Mr. Ham.

"Christianity Today" had a poll conducted and found that 92% thought that Mr Nye has won the debate. That indicates to me that Mr. Nye reached a large and receptive audience in his appeal for additional support and funding for science education.

Mr Ham was generous enough to agree with Mr. Nye on the importance of science education.

I think that Ham lost the "debate" on two cases of lack of integrity. His unfounded personal attack on Mr Nyes engineering work at Boeing and his refusals to answer almost all of the questions posed.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:34 PM

There's no such thing as "creation science" either. Those people don't believe in science. Think gravity is a government plot or something. Creation mythology and science can co-exist so long as one understands the function of parables.

Arguing with someone who believes the stories are literally true is like trying to convince a believer that they won't actually break their mother's back if they step on a crack.

You... 'scuse me, but I have to go all emphatic and shit...

You can't have a reasoned argument with someone who lacks reason.

...although trying does make for a long, strange, and consummately stupid thread. Maybe we should sell popcorn...

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,Guest Enough Mindless Bullshit Already
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:16 PM

evolutionism

No such thing as "evolutionism".

Evolution is not something one "believes in" like fairytales & mythology & the power of a crystal to preserve meat & alien abduction & "trickle-down economics" & the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - - it is an esblished fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 12:48 PM

so, jack, did you garner nyes triumph from some survey, or just your opinion?
I,m glad Nye had the bottle to do it though, despite atheist opposition. millions now know that creationists do not only argue from scripture, as the likes of you'll insinuate.
creationists are happy for students to teach evolutionism as long as it is taught warts an all. I,m sure it would fit under comparative religions as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 12:40 PM

> four creatures would have to had evolved every second to get the variety we have now.

You're sure that hasn't been happening? The world's a big place. You can't be everywhere, so you don't know.

As for the kangaroos, even hard-core Darwinists acknowledge that only a very small percentage of animals were ever fossilized, and an even teenier percentage have been dug up.

So the kangaroos are undoubtedly out there.

With the land bridge to Australia.

I suppose that what he really wishes for is compulsory teaching of Christian doctrine in the public schools. He can't get that, so he'll accept teaching creationism.

I wonder if he'd allow it to be taught by a Muslim. Muslims accept Genesis just as literally as any Christian. (Presumably he'd say yes, as long as Genesis alone was taught.)

The more I think about it, the more this insistence on literal creationism begins to look like a kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder, like various conspiracy theories. As Nye pointed out, billions of Christians have no trouble in accepting Genesis as poetry, not fact.

And surely those Christians, Jews, and Muslims who believe literally in Genesis, don't spend much time thinking about it: later parts of the bible are of more immediate significance. Even Ham admitted that God wasn't going to hold the Darwinist "error" against people if they trust in Jesus otherwise.

So even from his point of view, the consequences of disbelieving in the literal truth of Genesis are nil.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 12:19 PM

Musket,

Ham is on national radio in this country making his claims several times a day. This debate and the publicity from it has done a lot more for Nye than for Ham. People who might have heard Ham on the radio got to hear and hear about how his "theories" compare to science.


A lot of Americans grew up watching and trusting Bill Nye when it comes to science. Nye got to defend science and repeatedly make his case for science funding in the schools.


It would be nice to live in the idealized country where esteemed personages such as yourself can banish unwanted perspectives simply by saying "bollocks!" Here in America, especially in the Bible belt, things are not that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Musket
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 12:13 PM

On BBC The Now Show, Mitch Benn wrote and played a rather funny song he wrote about the debate, mainly around Noah and pointing out that to get from the ark to now, four creatures would have to had evolved every second to get the variety we have now.

The verse about swimming kangaroos was rather catchy.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 11:13 AM

Stu, When you say "Nye" in your previous post, do you mean to say "Ken Ham and his employee who claims to be a scientist?"

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 11:09 AM

That's "skills," of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 11:07 AM

We'd also have to teach all creation stories from all religions and mythologies. Since we weren't there, we can't be sure that one of them isn't the real truth.

But no. Taking class time to build critical kills by analyzing even the top twenty-five stories is obviously impossible. So the only fair thing, really, would be not to discuss any. No creationism, no evolutionism in schools.

Students could learn about creation in church. So everyone should be happy. No?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 10:22 AM

Isn't it only fair then that we teach both versions to students and allow them to decide which version is true?.

Only if we also teach that:

1.The earth is both round and flat & let them decide which version is true

2. The Theory of Gravity is only a guess and that things fall because God makes them do so, and let them decide which version is true.

Etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Stu
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 08:24 AM

" I cannot argue the details but it did seem to me that the writer went on to say much the same thing only in different terminology"


Seriously? What Blount is saying flies in the face of creationist twaddle. Nye (and his expert) misrepresented his work - that is what Blount is talking about. They did it in a way that is basically a lie.

Blount couldn't be any more explicit in his condemnation of Nye's misrepresentation of his research. He has seen evolution in action, and observed how novel information is created via the duplication of genes. This is undeniable fact, peer-reviewed and testable. Nye's contention in the debate wasn't just wrong, it was a lie. The bloke wot did the work is telling this.

I'm not sure how much clearer this can be. If you're rejecting Blount's research and ignoring the points made in the post, along with the description of the mechanism of how this process takes place, then you are denying an objective truth.

That's fine, but don't start saying the science is wrong if you a) don't make the effort to understand it, and b) you don't accept the results of the research as presented by the person who is and expert and is presenting his research. You can't take Nye's word over Blount's, because to do so would be to bear false witness, and that would be deeply unchristian.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 03:09 AM

You know, no wonder the petes of this world feel vindicated.

It wouldn't be much of a debate to say creationism is bollocks so why are we arguing?

Yet well meaning debate leads to indulging which leads to inevitable concession which leads to inferred vindication.

They say that an ass/mule is a horse designed by a committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 06:10 PM

What Lighter said.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 05:55 PM

The phrase on screen was "Experimental or Observational Science."

Ham's argument in a nutshell is that everything we know about the past is really just a guess ("We weren't there").

So "Evolutionism" is just a guess based on Darwin and dating techniques that Ham rejects as wholly unreliable.

And Creationism is a better guess based on Genesis (the Word of God) and on other dating techniques that Ham is willing to accept because he thinks they confirm his point of view.

Thus we have two guesses about the past. Isn't it only fair then that we teach both versions to students and allow them to decide which version is true? Isn't it? Isn't it? Doesn't that make Creationism "viable"?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 04:26 PM

For those who might be interested, a discussion of the word infer.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 03:57 PM

"but rather argued that evolutionism does that because its adherents conflate it with operational science."

Ham used the phrase "Historical Science" and falsely claimed a difference between that and "Observation Science" Of course he conveniently left out that we can observe evidence that the Universe is more than 6,000 year old in more than myriad places. Mr Nye covered that point quite well and that has been discussed on another thread.

I've never seen or heard of "operational science" before. Do you mean engineering? Do you mean surgery? If you got the definition from someone other than Mr. Ham would you please explain what it is?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 03:23 PM

It's there again. See it?

pete used a word. Evolutionism. It infers that demonstrable evidence based reality is on the same level as superstition.

Carry on pete. Carry on anyone else who has a similar intelligence deficit.

Just keep it away from impressionable kids eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 03:10 PM

Ham is an asshole. "Creation Science" is an oxymoron, perpetuated by plain morons.

There is no point "dabating" with the delusional.

End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 02:18 PM

ham did not re-interptrete the scientific method, but rather argued that evolutionism does that because its adherents conflate it with operational science. origins research can not be directly tested, observed and verified by repeatable experiments.....unless you have a pastoscope!

btw, having checked again, I see it was the scientist on video that spoke of the on/off switch. I don't know about the technicalities of that......though it seems some here consider themselves an authority on all knowledge!

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 07:06 PM

To debate evolution or creationism in a reasonable way before a lay audience, one merely needs to know one's subject thoroughly.

Nye, originally an engineer, has been trained in the scientific method, and Ham, who has a degree in science education, has trained himself to ignore it.

A public debate, of course, will hardly settle any question worth arguing about. Members of the audience have to decide whether they learned anything worthwhile, and if so, from whom.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 06:56 PM

Ham would reply that Nye's "demonstrable facts" are the myths, or, rather, demonstrable but entirely misinterpreted based on the "unsubstantiated theory" that the God-given laws of nature worked the same way more than 4000 years ago,

blah blah blah

Sorry, but Ham isn't allowed to dictate the terms of what constitutes science, the scientific process, or the interpretation of results, because he refuses to participate. Ham couldn't put a man or woman on the moon, couldn't parse DNA, couldn't discover new forms of life, because his mind is closed to the scientific process. His participation in that "debate" was (apparently) a courtesy only.

And for the equal and opposite reason, Nye won't be dictating religion and beliefs to Ham or others.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 06:02 PM

>> I think ,I am right in saying that neither Nye nor ham are fully fledged scientists, and therefore accusing ham of lies or wilful ignorance is unwarranted. he answered as he understood it.<<<

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA! HA!!


I think that I am right in thinking that Ham claims to head a "scientific" institution and that it can prove that the "Answers in Genesis" are scientific. He claimed that he understood it by presenting it as an argument.

Its a very strange and sort of evil little game that you play, presenting B.S. as fact then claiming ignorance when your deceit is exposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 05:38 PM

theres no way I can respond to everything here, and have another life with other interests and responsibilities.
did ham say that noah employed no other labour, or was that just nyes assumption.
I don't know, as the text don't say, but either way it was a long time building.

stu, I did read most of the link accusing hams scientist of lying/and/or not reading the e coli report. of course, I cannot argue the details but it did seem to me that the writer went on to say much the same thing only in different terminology. I think ,I am right in saying that neither Nye nor ham are fully fledged scientists, and therefore accusing ham of lies or wilful ignorance is unwarranted. he answered as he understood it.

a few times, Nye asserted that creation teaching would hamper development of science, but failed to show how so. in fact hams citing of highly qualified scientists past and present testifies against that assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 05:37 PM

Sigh,,, That is why it is in quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 05:22 PM

Does anyone here doubt that "Creation Science" is anything but a system to train young people to stop thinking critically

"Creation Science"[sic} is first and foremost an oxymoron.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 04:54 PM

True, all true Lighter, But the codification of logic, the "laws" which Mr. Ham refers to today came from the Greeks, whose written records give credit to certain mortal, dare I say, historical, philosophers for their formulation.

One could take Mr. Ham's logic and say that the universe as we know it today was formed in a battle between the Titans and the Greek Gods of Plato's time. After all, to disprove that would use "historical science" not "observational science." We can't KNOW that didn't happen any more than we can Know that the world was not on the back of a turtle circa 500 BCE. In fact we can't "KNOW" that there weren't real dragons at the end of the maps a week before Columbus set sail. Obviously in a Ken Hamian universe a thing only exists when it is observed by white men.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 04:16 PM

> originally formulated by the Greeks without the benefit of the Bible

Good point.

Except everyone reasons more or less logically from the time they're children. And, you know, there was much more cultural borrowing going on in the Mediterranean than people realize. Even mainstream science recognizes that the Greeks borrowed their alphabet from the Phoenicians, who lived just north of the Israelites. So it's quite possible that they borrowed formal logic from the Israelites,perhaps through the Phoenicians.

You say there's no evidence of that? Well, of course, a lot of ancient learning was never written down, and much of what was written down has since been lost. So, although I wasn't there, one certainly can't say that the Greeks did *not* learn about logic from the Israelites.

But it really isn't a serious issue, since God could have given them that knowledge directly for reasons of His own; for example, because they were to play an important role in the development of Western civilization.

I would add that logic is merely a reflection of natural law, and I'm sure Mr. Nye would agree with that. And where does natural law come from, if not from Creation? Those would be the simple and direct answers to your question.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 03:55 PM

"The word 'science' comes from ancient Greek and Latin, where it actually means 'knowledge.' "

I believe if you watch the debate on YouTube, you will find that Ham said it means "to know" :-)

I found it amusing that Ham claimed that there would be no science without "God given laws of logic" Which to my knowledge were originally formulated by the Greeks without the benefit of the Bible or any recorded hint of knowledge of Abraham's God. I recon that was the project they were working on in Babel when they were split off and sent to Greece.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 03:55 PM

Sure you can see a fossil with your own eyes. But that doesn't prove it's millions of years old, does it? It's only six thousand years old, tops, according to Ham.

And of course it took thousands of slaves to build the Pyramids. That was long after the Flood.

And did you know that there are ninety different ways of dating ancient materials, but mainstream scientists carefully choose only the two or three methods that are consistent with their "old Earth" theories? Only two or three out of ninety. Why is that, Ham wants to know.

Another point. Don't be fooled by claims that mainstream scientists have found billion-year-old earth rocks. Those rocks aren't from Earth at all, they're from meteorites. But that doesn't matter, because the dating methods are simply wrong.

Make sense?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 03:41 PM

> Ham deals in myth. Nye deals in demonstrable fact. Fossils. Evidence.

Ham would reply that Nye's "demonstrable facts" are the myths, or, rather, demonstrable but entirely misinterpreted based on the "unsubstantiated theory" that the God-given laws of nature worked the same way more than 4000 years ago, before the Flood, as they do today. And he emphasized that creationists accept both "fossils" and "evidence" as well as (very limited) evolution.

He just claims on the basis of the calculations of Bishop Ussher, one of the most brilliant men of his time, that the earth is no more than about 6000 years old.

Anyone who wishes to replicate Ussher's experiment can count the patriarchal ages in the bible for himself. That's how science works, by replicating experiments.

When Nye urged that science beats creationism because science can make accurate predictions on the basis of established knowledge, Ham was ready: "Of course the bible is *filled* with accurate predictions." He could have added, "And the many PhD scientists who are also creationists make accurate scientific predictions in their laboratory work all the time."

You cannot reason with creationists. They continually change the rules, redefine words, and muddy the waters; as when Ham claimed that "the secularists have hijacked the word 'science.' The word 'science' comes from ancient Greek and Latin, where it actually means 'knowledge.' And there are many kinds of knowledge. The most reliable form of knowledge, or science, is observational science - what we can see with our own eyes."

(Nye never got around to using emotive and virtually meaningless verbs like "hijack." Point: Ham.)

On the positive side, few creationists a hundred years ago would have admitted the existence of evolution of any kind. Now they say that since the landing of the Ark, 4000 years ago, evolution has occurred within "kinds" (which they've decided means "families" rather than "orders").

Maybe that's some kind of progress.

Watch the whole debate on YouTube.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 03:31 PM

The way it REALLY happened.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:07 PM

"Sometimes I wonder if ... NOT thinking critically is not a choice, but a genetically determined, evolutionary trait."

Does anyone here doubt that "Creation Science" is anything but a system to train young people to stop thinking critically and to ignore, as Nye would say while holding a piece of lime stone with a fossil, what they can see with their own eyes?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:03 PM

>>Quite a bit about Noah here. Can someone who has read the novel confirm or deny whether he raped his daughters? Only you see respectable people might wish to factor his seedy side if anyone was bored enough to wonder if he existed. <<

I think you are thinking of Lot. Who reportedly was plied with alcohol and raped BY his daughters. Noah built a 500 foot wooden ship with his only available labor pool being him, his wife, his four children and their spouses. Nye doubts that we could build such a vessel today with all of our technology and knowledge. Ham says that people in the past did things which we couldn't do today. But surprisingly, Nye didn't get the chance to ask Ham whether he thought that ten people built the Great Pyramid of Giza.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 01:44 PM

Sometimes I wonder if ... NOT thinking critically is not a choice, but a genetically determined, evolutionary trait.

None of the above. Its a gift from God, obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 01:24 PM

You don't use English Literature to teach woodwork for that matter. Good point SRS.

Stu. Fair point. I am abroad so getting news and wifi piecemeal.

You could at least have acknowledged my point stands regardless!

Quite a bit about Noah here. Can someone who has read the novel confirm or deny whether he raped his daughters? Only you see respectable people might wish to factor his seedy side if anyone was bored enough to wonder if he existed.

Luckily there's one incestual rapist who didn't. Despite his many fans.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 01:02 PM

All I'm saying is that creationism explains the world every bit as well as 'mainstream science,'

No, it doesn't. Not even remotely. Ham deals in myth. Nye deals in demonstrable fact. Fossils. Evidence. That's why we don't use religion to teach science.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 12:25 PM

How could *any* evidence be "inconsistent with creationism"?

The second basic premise of creationism is that some scientific laws were different before the Flood than they are now. So if physics can only describe accurately what astronomers see today, of course it's all consistent.

Ham explained, for example, that before the receding of the Flood, all animals were vegetarians. (That's one reason they didn't each other on the Ark.)

Nye replied that lions and tigers (both of which Ham acknowledged have evolved from the pair of proto-cats on the Ark) have sharp teeth and fangs obviously meant for tearing flesh. Ham was ready with the observation that fruit bats have terrifically sharp teeth too, which tear apart the fruit that makes up their entire diet.

So the sharp teeth of lions and tigers are holdovers from the time of vegetarian proto-cats.

Nye never thought to ask, "How do you know? Were you there?"

Of course, if he had, Ham could have said "Well, no, I wasn't there; but neither were you. All I'm saying is that creationism explains the world every bit as well as 'mainstream science,' Therefore it should be taught in schools and universities as the reasonable alternative. Furthermore, unlike mainstream science, creationism acknowledges what has been obvious to the greatest scientists in history - Isaac Newton, for example, not to mention the three or four outstanding living scientists we've just seen on video; namely, that life cannot come from dead matter, that consciousness cannot come from even living matter, and that atoms cannot come from nothing. These things were created by the will of God."

When someone asked Nye how *he* explained such things as consciousness and existence, he got wide-eyed and said (more or less), "I just don't know! Science is *filled* with wonderful mysteries like that, and part of the wonder of science is the endless searching, searching, blah blah blah blah."

In other words, Ham knows the answer (Divine Creation) and Nye admits he hasn't the foggiest (Mainstream Science).

Point: Ham.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 12:07 PM

I didn't leave it to the schools to get around to teaching my kids critical thinking skills, it was something they were exposed to organically in conversations as they grew up. I'm proud to say that I raised a couple of very smart skeptics. We live in the bible belt, there is a creationist museum next to a state park with dinosaur footprints (if you saw the Dinosaur program from PBS you know important research happened here). All of these topics were discussed so the kids had an intellectual form of self-defense when presented with the opinions of those who feel there are no versions of scientific truth but their own biblical interpretations.

The trouble with people taking the bible literally is that it is an accumulation of stories, largely handed down, that were finally written and assembled over time by the few literate scholars of the day. The stories are allegorical, and the closest cognate I can think of are American Indian trickster stories. Told only at certain times of year, told by experienced story tellers, and meant to teach - so over the top that listeners couldn't help but figure out that the trickster who devoured his own tail or who eviscerated himself and ate his own intestines or . . . was not learning from his own mistakes, but the listeners figured out to stop while one is ahead, or to not follow certain flawed paths, to not break social mores or folkways by doing what the trickster did. Teaching by example.

There is a lot of that in the bible, in some form or other, gradually massaged into different forms by many hands over the centuries. One hears of the "King James" bible - a foreign individual not present at the time the stories were originally told, but representative of another level of alteration and interpretation. The bible as literature is one thing, but the modern move by some to take it as the same as science, given from god's hand to their eyes is ludicrous.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Stu
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 11:53 AM

"BBC reporting 2,000,000 year old footprints found in The UK."

The prints are around 600k-800k old. Forget BBC science reporting, it's often wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 11:40 AM

Sometimes I wonder if thinking critically or NOT thinking critically is not a choice, but a genetically determined, evolutionary trait. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 10:19 AM

Perhaps is should read for people who choose to think critically.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 10:13 AM

For anyone who can think critically, Nye was the clear winner.

Should read for anyone that can think. Period. Full stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:57 AM

Good point about Blount Stu. Then there was the "working" astronomy on Mr Ham's payroll who said that there was no astronomical evidence inconsistent with creationism. I guess he is right if you don't count pretty much everything discovered since Einstein was a patent clerk.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:36 AM

Ed T, it doesn't take much to figure that out, does it?
There are so many different creation stories, but they're stories. Find someone who takes the Christian one literally, and I think they'll be a Christian. That's what "belief" is. Don't need testing, don't need curiosity and questioning, don't need to ever revise theories, don't need to ever think you don't have access to all the answers.