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

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:45 PM

manners.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:42 PM

I was trying to give him [Ham] the benefit of the doubt.

For God's sake, WHY?

;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 01:48 PM

Sorry Greg F. My bad, I usually try to put "museum" in quotes and I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 10:35 AM

"That pile of crap that Ham runs is in no way, shape or form a museum."

It certainly ain't in the sense that Ham thinks, or claims to think, it is.

There's a little museum in the Los Angeles area that preserves very eclectic stuff, including some medieval recipes for cooking up mice in various ways to cure various illnesses. But it's quite apparent that they aren't taking themselves seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 10:08 AM

Ken Ham, argumentative museum operator

MUSEUM? That pile of crap that Ham runs is in no way, shape or form a museum.

Try carnival barker.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 09:10 AM

Such quotes do draw attention to the writing!

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 08:53 AM

> And his last words on his deathbed were "all I have written now appears as so much straw."

Chaucer and Tolstoy said pretty much the same thing about their own writings. Vergil wanted the Aeneid burned.

Makes you wonder....

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Stu
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 08:46 AM

"I have cited creationist theories, and just because I am not equal to doing these justice does not negate those theories and calculations."

So you still can't be arsed to get to grips not openly with any actual science, but also the spoutings of those you profess to follow? Wow, blind faith in action, right there. You can't be bothered to understand what you assert as truth? Do you understand how that looks, and how it portrays your 'arguments'?


"imo ham did a good job of differentiating between operational science where observation, testability and repeatability apply"

No he didn't, and you know full well that he lied about the work of honest scientists, as they have said so themselves. Just to be sure, he bore false witness. He is a charlatan at best.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 11:24 PM

"I very much doubt that Aquinas, or just about any of the church fathers would embrace evolutionism "

Are you saying that Aquinas, a Roman Catholic would be more likely to agree with Ken Ham, argumentative museum operator, than the current Roman Catholic Church? Possible I guess :-) For those who believe in heaven, it is more likely that he and John Paul II had a laugh or two at Ham's arguments during the debate. IMHO :-D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 10:25 PM

Aquinas's successors in the religious tradition in which he worshipped and taught are perfectly at ease with evolution seen as the way in which God's will is carried forward. And his last words on his deathbed were "all I have written now appears as so much straw."

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 08:58 PM

I've not seen you "cite" a theory about the speed of light vs measured distance to Stars. I was referring to what Ham said in the debate.

If you think I am ranting, you are as wrong about my mood as your are about everything else you have said.

I think your use of the word "cite" is inaccurate. When you cite something, you tell the person where to find it.
All you do is say illogical things and say that you don't care what we think of you. Or say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Tell you what. Show us what the theories are about how creationist scientists explain that light traveled 13.7 billion light years in 6,000 years. If you don't understand the science someone here will explain it to you. No one will lie to you about that. No one will bare false witness the way that Ken Ham lied about "light years."

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 03:04 PM

I very much doubt that Aquinas, or just about any of the church fathers would embrace evolutionism ,could you pluck them out of their time and present them with these [elusive] strong evidences [let alone proof] of your theory. granted, it is possible that were they born into this culture, where near everyone believes it is a fact [but could not say why, except that everyone says it is] they might get inculturated into it as well, but i'd like to give them more credit.

the conflict is not between creation and science ,but between conflicting beliefs about origins, despite your self serving assertion of there being such conflict.
if you insist on that, you need to demonstrate that any evidence you present for the GTE could not also be interpreted according to a creationist model.

and why , lighter, should Darwinist ideas be protected from competing theories and contrary evidence?
who are the cranks, who are the controllers?!

a lot of emotive rants there, jack.
who said teachers are lying? most of them have never heard the counter arguments and/or it suits their worldviews.
having said that, I think I could find quotes by evolutionists who have sanctioned lying to indoctrinate kids in the evolutionist belief.
your assertion that creationists bare false witness to science is I think, what is called begging the question.
imo ham did a good job of differentiating between operational science where observation, testability and repeatability apply, and origins conjecture from evidences that can be variously interpreted, are not subject to that scientific method.
and where you can apply that method at all, I reckon creation wins.
you also misrepresent what I said about distant starlight. yes, God did it ,in that he created the stars, but not that he put deceptive information in place. I have cited creationist theories, and just because I am not equal to doing these justice does not negate those theories and calculations.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 01:52 PM

Bill, McGrath,

the Wiki page sheds some light.

good call McGrath..."very hostile diatribe against just about anything to do with Islam. "

The wiki which includes quotes from the people studying the documents seems much less frantic and alarmist.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 01:17 PM

That's interesting, Bill, and Is worth following up - but the information and quotes about early manuscripts and variations are contained in a very hostile diatribe against just about anything to do with Islam. It's like reading reports about the Dead Sea Scrolls in an antisemitic and anti-Christian website.

A much better source is needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 12:27 PM

I agree Lighter. That was more or less my intended point. Please forgive me for not expressing it adequately.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 11:46 AM

Thanks for that, Bill.

Jack, Aquinas had one of history's most rigorously analytical minds. If he were living today and familiar with scientific literature, I don't believe he'd insist on any literal interpretation of Genesis, or conclude from the alleged lifespans of the Patriarchs that the universe can be no more than 6000 years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 11:06 AM

Lighter said: "Many millions of Muslims believe so literally in the Qu'ran that they have to learn Arabic to read it, and every word of the Arabic text is true, unalterable, and holy.

It seems that Islam has some of the same problems as Christianity


A recent discovery

from that site:
"The earliest Quranic manuscripts discovered in the Sana'a mosque in Yemen not only differ from the standard version, but disagree amongst themselves. Since Muslims believe that the Quran contains the verses of Allah word for word, the new finds may unravel the 'Pandora's Box' for Islam..."

"a large number of ancient Quranic manuscripts, dating from first century of Hijra were discovered in the Great Mosque of Sana'a (Yemen), which significantly differs from the present standard one. Carbon dating system confirmed that these Qurans are not forged one by religious rivalries. Moreover, these Qurans were discovered by Muslims, not infidels."


Now, what will happen? Some think it might undermine the entire system to discover there were **versions** of the original texts. I'd bet not... Muslims are just as capable as anyone of rationalizing and 'explaining' the discrepancies by simply declaring that any passages that differ from the "standard" now in use must have been copied incorrectly.


This is a fairly long article, with many details of the history of the Arabic language, the various tribes involved, and the politics of the 5th thru the 8th centuries. It is obvious from a serious reading of the situation that Islam has a problem... but it is also obvious that they do not intend to discuss it AS a problem, for that would cast doubt on a major tenet of Islam. They do not intend to have the equivalent of a King James Bible vs. "Revised Standard" dispute.
   They are human... and they will interpret their history to suit themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 10:30 AM

You can't blame Aquinas for sticking to Genesis when the alternative was Zeus v Titans.

There was no controversy, So taking a stand wasn't necessary.

In this day and age, Ham doesn't have a scientific or biblical leg to stand on. Its like this "rapture" nonsense also started in the 19th century. Non biblical made up sci fy stories for people who would rather engage in flattering fantasies "I didn't come from a monkey", "I am going to be raptured and all of you losers will be left behind" than to seriously consider Jesus' teachings and sacrifice a little of their egos and to try to live better, more fulfilling lives.

The entire "conflict" and "contradiction" between science and Genesis seems to be manufactured as an attention grabbing, divisive, ploy.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 08:32 AM

I don't disagree, Jack. As I said, the real problem is that cranks are trying to get creationism taught in school as a "scientific" alternative. For many children that might seem more appealing, because it's backed by the bible, which they've heard of, rather than by various difficult scientific specialties that they haven't.

As for "consequences," I was thinking of metaphysical consequences. Certainly, as you say, it would be wrong to implant the idea, even indirectly, that most scientists are arbitrary egotists who force-fit the "facts" into their theories to contradict God. That, of course, is what creationists do.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Musket
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:24 AM

Teaching your children tradition is far cry from telling them they are sinners and must repent.

I keep repeating it, so bear with me. I visited a Maori sacred place when I was in NZ a few years ago. The guide kept saying "we traditionally believe...."

I like that.

If more religions adopted that approach, rational people wouldn't piss themselves laughing so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 11:02 PM

Lighter you pose a very interesting question, here is the best answer I can give.

"So Ham's version of creationism doesn't even carry consequences. You can believe it or not, and if you don't, he'll just shake his head and feel sorry for your ignorance."

And tell you that your teacher is lying and show you a diorama with kids riding on dinosaurs. An show you a chart with 6 "C's" on it tying salvation to Genesis and for reasons I can't understand, bare false witness about what science is and what evidence is and what logic is and how evidence and logic are honestly combined.

An honest answer to "what about stellar objects more than 6,000 light years away?" is not, "You have some problems with your model too." He implied that they had a model. "God did it." isn't a model.

I know, lighter that you aren't talking about Ham, here but I think he is a legit part of the conversation in that I think that your question implies, to me at least that those figures from the past felt as strongly about Genesis as Ham does. I don't think they did. I don't think they had a reason to. But that is just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 09:39 PM

The principle involved is completely independent of those kind of things. Since there were no grounds for disbelieving the Genesis stories, they would have been accepted. But the principle implies that this acceptance was provisional. And their primary importance wasn't what they said about cosmology etc.

As for belief in miracles, by definition they wouldn't be anything to do with reason or unreason.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 08:49 PM

True enough, but reason in the 5th century couldn't establish anything about Creation because nothing was known except what was in Genesis. (Pagan theories were obviously out of court.) And since God can do anything that isn't self-contradictory, the Genesis account, seven days, Garden of Eden, Serpent, etc., should have been okay.

Did Augustine specifically write that Genesis was one of those things that was contrary to reason? Did he believe that miracles were contrary to reason? I don't think he did.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 08:39 PM

St Augustine.? He specifically taught that whenever reason established with certainty a fact about the physical world, seemingly contrary statements in the Bible must be interpreted accordingly.

That was back in the 5th century.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 07:26 PM

In fairness to Ham, when Nye asked what would happen to Christians who didn't believe in literalism, he said they were wrong, but since salvation comes solely through acceptance of Jesus and God's grace, nothing would happen to them.

So Ham's version of creationism doesn't even carry consequences. You can believe it or not, and if you don't, he'll just shake his head and feel sorry for your ignorance.

Unless one is a crank trying to prove that "mainstream scientists" and "liberal theologians" are just a bunch of knaves or fools, while trying to get creationism taught as "the alternative," the question seems to have no real significance.

By the way, I really would be interested in evidence that any of the people I named *didn't* read Genesis literally. Why wouldn't they? They certainly believed it was the word of God, and there was very little of what we'd call "science" before 17th and 18th centuries.

Many millions of Muslims believe so literally in the Qu'ran that they have to learn Arabic to read it, and every word of the Arabic text is true, unalterable, and holy. The arguments you mention could apply just as well to them....

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 07:00 PM

Lighter, I doubt all of those people believed all of the Bible literally. Snakes, angels, floods and 500 foot wooden boats, stone people for touching pigs, etc. I certainly don't think as Ham suggested in the debate that believing in a 6 day creation is directly tied to being a Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 06:35 PM

> The "literalist" interpretation of Genesis is fairly recent

You mean Augustine and Thomas Aquinas didn't take Genesis as fact? How about John Calvin? Oliver Cromwell? Jonathan Edwards?

Bishop Ussher?

I don't believe that Genesis was seriously questioned before Galileo's discovery of craters on the moon (implying heavenly imperfection) and of moons circling Jupiter (proving there wasn't a single divine focus of motion and attention at the center of the earth). Before that, there was no reason to question it.

And, yes, Homer thought the Earth was a disk - with, perhaps, just enough surface curvature to allow ships' masts to disappear last over the horizon. But ancient ships weren't very tall.

What was developed much later was the idea that Columbus was the first to realize the Earth was round. (The post-Homeric Greeks beat him to it, though I'm not sure how well-known it was before mass education. After all, not everybody lived near the sea.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 06:12 PM

Tell that to Homer, Kevin.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 05:43 PM

The idea that the Earth was flat was in fact dreamed up in the 19th century.    The attempt to treat Genesis as history is pretty modern too, as Jack points out.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 05:06 PM

their factuality was once taken for granted by all educated people.

So once was the "factuality" of the earth being flat with the sun revolving around it.

Next.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 03:50 PM

"From: Lighter - PM
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 01:15 PM

They're certainly *presented* as historical narratives and often understood as such.

In other words, they may be interpreted as expressive or symbolic poetry, but their factuality was once taken for granted by all educated people."

Not in my United Church of Canada Sunday school 50 years ago. I hope that mean I do not have to report my parents to Dr. Dawkins thought police as child abusers? :-)

The "literalist" interpretation of Genesis is fairly recent and is still a "fringe" belief. Though I am concerned that the fringe is growing rapidly.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 03:34 PM

Ok. A fictitious book is true because a fictitious character said it is true.

Just making sure I got that right.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 01:33 PM

I don't think Jesus is ever correctly understood to be talking about history. And while I am not a Hebrew scholar I would question whether it is in fact correct to see the primary aim of the writer (s) as that of making a historical account. In any case those intentions, while interesting, are not the last word.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 01:15 PM

They're certainly *presented* as historical narratives and often understood as such.

In other words, they may be interpreted as expressive or symbolic poetry, but their factuality was once taken for granted by all educated people.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 01:10 PM

"...Leviticus folklore.. "have you got a transcript or something, jack.
...quoting things I don't remember?

maybe you find it helpful to say genesis is non historical, McGrath, but Jesus clearly didn't, though I don't know if you trust the gospel accounts as historical narrative either.
in addition Hebrew scholars I could quote, have no doubt from their knowledge of the language that the text in genesis is intended as historical narrative, though 1v 27 has the parallelism of Hebrew poetry common in especially in psalms.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 01:07 PM

The narratives may be and very well are fallacious. By your own admission, it is the idea or the allegory that they are trying to get across that may contain "truths".

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 12:41 PM

And the point I made is that it is a mistake to regard the passages in Genesis as historical narratives, but equally wrong to dismiss them as fallacious because they are not historical narratives.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 12:18 PM

However, Kevin, it is HISTORICAL truth that is the assertion under discussion here.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 06:20 AM

Historical truth is not the only kind of truth, and historical narratives are not the only kind of narrative which convey truth.

Is War and Peace a particularly accurate account of the war with France? Does that stop it being a true guide to that time and to the people of that time?

The fact that the Bible is bound as one volume tempts people to think of it as one book, both those who would treat it as a history and those who would see it as a lie. In fact it is a library containing a whole range of books of many different kinds.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Musket
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 04:54 AM

I must get around dot buying a book on religion. I was labouring under the assumption I knew, and the dictionary knew for that matter, what true, history and fact meant.

The words obviously have another religious meaning.

Picking and choosing which bits of the bible are the and which are folklore. Who'd have believed it? Boutique Christians for starters.

OUCH, What the f...?   I have just sat on a needle. Here it is. Oh.. There appear to be some angels dancing on it. How many? You ask?

Hang on, I'll just count them.


1.
2.
3.
Err hang on, already counted him.
3......
4.
Nice vajazzle you have there, I assumed you guys were all blokes.
5.
6.

Etc

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 09:52 PM

Truth can be an elastic concept. If we ask the meaning of a story, or a poem there may be a number of answers which may all be true and may not coincide, and may even conflict with each other. If we ask why something happened as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 08:13 PM

And your proof and/or evidence of its veracity is....?

Or do you have a rather elastic definition of the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 07:41 PM

Calling it "history" prevents people from recognising that it is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 07:39 PM

Calling it "history" prevents people from recognising that is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 06:34 PM

Historical narrative??? Oh, please, pete. you're giving us a headache.

Not only do you not know what science is, you apparently don't know what history is either. You & Keith make a good pair.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 05:50 PM

I think enlightened theologian might be more accurate.

There is nothing liberal about not taking a combination of ancient and sometimes conflicting stories from varying stories and refusing to treat them as current scientific fact.


Ham's position is not conservative by any stretch. I might have had some respect if he had stood up for the rest of the Bible but picking an educational battle over Genesis while dismissing Leviticus as folklore and The Psalms and Proverbs as poetry belies the position that the Bible is the unerring Word of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 05:32 PM

story line in this context meaning historical narrative.
liberal theologian...meaning starting with the assumption that it is not historically reliable...and you had already said you would not discuss it with a" true believer" so further rationale was superfluous.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 05:13 PM

For "story line", read fairytale. Or nonsense, if you prefer.

Keep on keepin' on pete -

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 04:34 PM

Watch the sarcasm, Pete.

Since you dismiss any theologians who disagree with your unshakable beliefs as "liberal" (which seems to mean uninformed, stupid, or dishonest), there really is no point in discussing this further.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 03:01 PM

Precisely, a story line.