|
04 Feb 14 - 01:13 PM (#3598278) Subject: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor This Picture Has Creationists Terrified according to Mother Jones! "This evening, Bill Nye the Science Guy will debate creationist leader Ken Ham at the Creation Museum in Kentucky." I'm going to try to watch this. I hope that at least Steve Shaw, Musket, The Snail and pete do as well. I'm interested in reading their reviews. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 02:54 PM (#3598312) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Yes should be interesting. I don't know how extensive hams science background is, but he has been defending creation for a long time, and no doubt has come across mothers claim before. in fact I remember being challenged on this myself. needless to say ,I found the answer to it on CMI. What struck me is that the fusion of telomeres was claimed as a prediction of evolution in 2005, but did,nt I read in the article that they had the data in the eighties? which would be a postdiction. and I shall be interested in reading your review, too "...let not he who puts on his armour, boast as he who takes it off" |
|
04 Feb 14 - 03:03 PM (#3598316) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor You interpret this... "The authors of the 1982 Science paper had no hesitancy in declaring that "the telomeric fusion of chromosomes 2p and 2q accounts for the reduction of the 24 pairs of chromosomes of the great apes to 23 in modern man." But they could not confirm this with the high-powered techniques of modern genetics." as this.... What struck me is that the fusion of telomeres was claimed as a prediction of evolution in 2005, but did,nt I read in the article that they had the data in the eighties? Read it again please. I don't thing it is so much a "prediction of evolution" as an explanation of why we have fewer chromosomes than our cousins. What confuses me is how you seem to accept how closely related we are to apes while rejecting the scientific explanation of how that came to be. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 03:19 PM (#3598323) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. This is unfortunate, and Bill Nye should know better. I'm a bit disappointed in him. Agreeing to "debate" with these brain-dead idiots simply legitimizes their nonsensical claims as something worth debating, when in fact it is complete and utter bullshit. Same thibng as "debating" with a Holocaust denier. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 03:25 PM (#3598327) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,Musket The word is tonight not tonite. You'd think the moderators would correct typos in the same way they do when I tell it like it is... 100% agree with Greg. It only encourages weirdos. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 03:33 PM (#3598332) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link usual scientific, follow the evidence wherever it leads impartiality from Gregg and musket.....not! so it's ok for you to debate me.... but not Nye, ham! maybe Nye thinks that with such international coverage, he can finally show creation science to be the nonsense you claim it is! I wont see it tonight, as it will be in the night here. hope catch up later. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 03:40 PM (#3598334) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,Musket No, my delusional friend. Reality shows creation to be the nonsense it is. On a serious note , I enjoyed the Maori guide showing us around parts of New Zealand a few years ago. He was a nice rational person, and started every tourist speech with "we traditionally believe .." I reckon if more people used that line , we may not need so many guns. Just a thought. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 03:54 PM (#3598348) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link just looked up the fused telemore thing. Kenneth brown reckoned only two options ape/human fuse or..... God deceiving us by making it look that way. just demonstrates the power of the paradigm muddling an otherwise capable mind 3rd option...an early human fusing. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 04:05 PM (#3598357) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Stilly River Sage Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson can do the job. So what it if it appears to be grandstanding? It won't give any less legitimacy to science and it might actually introduce the bleary-eyed followers of creationists to the idea of what science really is. Truth as scientists (and much of the rest of the thinking world) knows it. Through the "equal time" policy of many news stations (mostly television) the press has been giving great press to tiny players, treating them as equals in news debates because they think they have to always have the opposition there to argue the other side, even if the opposition they find is a puny lunatic fringe entity amounting to nothing. That single policy of "balance" has in fact created a great deal if imbalance. Go ahead, Bill Nye, shine your Fresnel light of science on the idiocy of creationism. SRS |
|
04 Feb 14 - 04:37 PM (#3598367) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link oops... make that miller not brown. what you call a tiny lunatic fringe, stilly , makes up a sizeable proportion in the US, SO EQUAL COVER IS very reasonable. I doubt it will be the demolition job, you expect, even if Nye seems to have an edge. but credit to both gents to engage in an open to the world media debate. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 04:55 PM (#3598373) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor "3rd option...an early human fusing. " What is wrong with you? Blasphemer! EARLY HUMAN? Is that before Adam? or After Adam? Was mankind a perfect creation in God's image or not?! I'm sorry, I'm not letting you claim the Adam story and that there were developmental humans not related to apes and not involved in an evolutionary process. Like all evidence that the world is more than 6,000 years it has to be the evidence that we see or "God made it look that way" those are the only two theories that fit the evidence. One of those theories in not scientific. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 04:55 PM (#3598374) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. it might actually introduce the bleary-eyed followers of creationists to the idea of what science really is NOT A FUCKIN' CHANCE |
|
04 Feb 14 - 06:28 PM (#3598394) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx Gallup Poll from 2012. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 07:27 PM (#3598411) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Q (Frank Staplin) Duck Dynasty on tonight. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 08:02 PM (#3598417) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Stilly River Sage The Flat Earth Society has an opinion, but they don't have facts. That's the difference. As Neil deGrasse Tyson has said, scientists don't go into your churches to tell you what to believe, and churches have no business in the classroom dictating how to teach science. It's totally illogical. SRS |
|
04 Feb 14 - 09:10 PM (#3598421) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. churches have no business in the classroom dictating how to teach science. It's totally illogical. Not only illigical, its assinine & fuckwitted. But then fundagelicals are by definition fuckwits. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 09:42 PM (#3598431) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor Its OK! I'm safe! I can believe in Creationism but I am not required to murder my wife when she cooks me bacon because some parts of the Bible are science texts and others are "poetry" and Ken Ham gets to decide which is which! Also I learned that some ice is 680,000 years old, a tree in Denmark has 10,000 rings and Bill Nye wants me to tell my representatives to fund science education. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 10:20 PM (#3598437) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jeri One side relies on evidence and logic and the other relies on "I believe this". So most people with brains will say Nye won and the other side will say they won because whatever they choose to believe must be true because somebody a long, long time ago said so. I watched for a while. Although Nye said some interesting things, my ability to voluntarily tolerate willful stupidity just not what it was... and it never was very good. |
|
04 Feb 14 - 10:35 PM (#3598439) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,Stim Pete; Do you think that public opinion could change the law of gravity? |
|
05 Feb 14 - 12:08 AM (#3598448) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor Actually, Nye made the public opinion arguments. He spoke of the billions of religious people who did not accept Ham's theory of creation. Ham basically said, in a round about way, said that the old way to heaven was through Jesus and believing Genesis. He was making the argument that there was only two competing theories of creation, his and science's. |
|
05 Feb 14 - 05:40 AM (#3598475) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Pete Jennings Creation? I can't adam-and-eve that theory. |
|
05 Feb 14 - 08:47 AM (#3598500) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor Rhyming slang? |
|
05 Feb 14 - 10:50 AM (#3598526) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST ". . . a tree in Denmark has 10,000 rings . . .". Why does that strike a bell in my memory? |
|
05 Feb 14 - 11:53 AM (#3598546) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jeri Guest: BOOOOO! (What a ding-dong!) |
|
05 Feb 14 - 12:03 PM (#3598551) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST Struck a chord? |
|
05 Feb 14 - 12:05 PM (#3598552) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: frogprince ". . . a tree in Denmark has 10,000 rings . . .". Then again, the question may be, how many of them are from auto-dialers in telemarketer's boiler rooms? |
|
05 Feb 14 - 12:31 PM (#3598562) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jeri Just a bit clappered, guest. |
|
05 Feb 14 - 02:27 PM (#3598606) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: SINSULL Did Ham really say that he accepts the Bible literally up to the flood? After that it's any man for himself? I had hoped to get an understanding of how intelligent people accept the bible literally. I did not. I saw a lot of successful scientists claiming to be creationists but not going into detail. A disappointment. But I did learn that there are two sciences: one of observation and the other of history. You can't know history because you weren't there. Dare I ask - if no original texts of Genesis exist today and what we have has been repeatedly re-interpreted by the scribes who copied them (no one was in the Garden of Eden to write a history, I believe) then historical science doesn't exist. Or have I overthought this? As I said, I was hoping for more. The most saddening/frightening moment for me occurred before the debate even began. A young boy of about 9 was with his mother eagerly anticipating the show. He was sure Ham would win the debate "because he is right". Evolution is of course still a theory but one with confirming discoveries happening every day. So sad that that little one will never know. There is a beautifully written book by David Quamman (sp?) called Song of the Dodo. It details the rise and sometimes fall of life on isolated islands.More proof of evolving species. |
|
05 Feb 14 - 03:04 PM (#3598616) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor "But I did learn that there are two sciences: one of observation and the other of history. You can't know history because you weren't there. " That was Ham's contention "Dare I ask - if no original texts of Genesis exist today and what we have has been repeatedly re-interpreted by the scribes who copied them (no one was in the Garden of Eden to write a history, I believe) then historical science doesn't exist." Nye addressed that point when he compared it to a game of telephone. I think the most telling point was after Nye had gone into me detail that the ice core in Antarctica had 680,000 layers representing at least that many thaws and freezes (Summers and winters.), that Ham ignored that at the time but later said "there was a lot of snow that year." As if that explained the 680,000 layers. Ham did nothing other than try to sew doubt. His theory is not viable because it is nothing but a bait and switch to his version of Jesus. One clever thing he did do was incorporate many of the criticisms of what he does into his criticisms of Nye. |
|
05 Feb 14 - 07:33 PM (#3598686) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Bill D *sigh* I wish someone... someday... would take a philosopher of logic to a debate like that. I also wish they'd subject a guy like Ham to a Socratic dialogue and ask him carefully phrased questions about the levels of his belief and defenses for each level. "So, Mr. Ham, how DO you determine the origins of the Bible and its authenticity and accuracy without circular reasoning?" |
|
05 Feb 14 - 08:03 PM (#3598690) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor I'd be happy to settle for him being reminded to answer the questions asked. |
|
05 Feb 14 - 08:50 PM (#3598693) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST '"So, Mr. Ham, how DO you determine the origins of the Bible and its authenticity and accuracy without circular reasoning?"' That's three questions and a loaded condition, figuratively speaking of course :-). |
|
06 Feb 14 - 01:32 PM (#3598897) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,sciencegeek "*sigh* I wish someone... someday... would take a philosopher of logic to a debate like that." Daniel Dennett has been giving talks & writing some "dense" books - as in they go pretty deep into logic, philosphy and science- you might want to look into them. |
|
06 Feb 14 - 02:06 PM (#3598913) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link lost my last post.... saw it last night. generally respectful though Nye did employ some dubious ploys, like firing off so many challenges that would take far too long to address all in limited rebuttal time. but at least he got more bottle than dawkins, who wont debate an equally qualified creationist, and criticizes Nye for doing so. as expected responses from most of you, but at least lesser prejudiced joe public can see through the ...no such thing as a creation believing scientist, and they only use the bible for their science....Darwinist dogma soundbites. presumably stim the answer is yes, since you evidently think the law of biogenesis is decided by majority opinion . |
|
06 Feb 14 - 02:30 PM (#3598920) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor " like firing off so many challenges that would take far too long to address all in limited rebuttal time." I'm sorry pete. I didn't see Ham proper address one of Nye's points with anything more substantial than questions and evasions. Nye offered science. Ham offered "faith" and evasion. If the Bible is your "scientific" proof and some of the Bible is not scientific proof which Ham readily admitted. Who gets to choose exactly which passages to ignore? |
|
06 Feb 14 - 04:49 PM (#3598947) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,Ed T I wonder what is actually gained from two people debating from two extremely polarized perspectives - with little possibility of either learning much from each other (as with open minded viewers). Rather than a possibility of any gains, I suspect it was more or less designed to entertain. SMACKDOWN may be an appropriate entertainment word to describe it :) |
|
06 Feb 14 - 05:08 PM (#3598950) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jeri I suspect it only changed the minds of those who weren't convinced already. I can't take the flat earthers seriously, and I can't take creationism seriously. I don't think arguing with them is anything but frustrating since the science-minded look to empirical data and logic and the followers of creationism look to "I read it somewhere I like, so it must be true". Scientists can change their minds when confronted with new evidence. Creationists can't, because if anything new conflicts with anything already existing, they focus on finding a way to make the evidence fit the dogma. So I don't think it's worth arguing about. Bill Nye, however, is primarily an educator. That's how I see him, anyway. So he'd make sense to people who haven't closed their minds. And as for creationist "scientists", you can't be a scientist and completely ignore science. I'm not saying the people who believe this can't be good folks--I believe Pete is. But I also think that if we were somewhere playing music, this is a subject I would try hard to avoid. |
|
06 Feb 14 - 05:32 PM (#3598956) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST SINS: David Quammen |
|
06 Feb 14 - 06:33 PM (#3598968) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor Both Nye and ham increased their audiences, I think. A recent poll suggested that 92% thought that Bill won the debate. So if you think of the two hours as a one hour commercial for science education and a one hour pitch for unwavering, unquestioning belief, there was a purpose. Nye looked out into the camera about 4 times and asked for the increased support of science education. If he had to buy that many eyeballs in an ad campaign it would cost millions. Then there are the interviews for the publicity campaign. |
|
06 Feb 14 - 08:01 PM (#3598989) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,Ed T From your post, Should one detect you already have your mind made up and are convinced about a few things, Jeri? :) |
|
06 Feb 14 - 08:50 PM (#3599004) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Stilly River Sage People like David Quammen and John McPhee write about natural history in a way that is engaging and extremely thought provoking. But being a writer and having the time to think, write, and edit, versus being an onscreen person and being able to think fast on your feet is a real gift. I've heard (and spoken with) Quammen on a local radio program a couple of times, he's very good. But the only other person I can think of who might take out Ham with a one-two punch is Tyson (Neil, not Michael). SRS |
|
06 Feb 14 - 10:38 PM (#3599019) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Bill D I was about to post a quick remark about someone I used to know who could give a good response... then I decided to look him up and WOW! He's already been involved! (I was in several of his classes in college) Dr. Gerald Paske is quoted in a Creation.com article about how to reconcile & interpret the different points of view! (scroll down a ways... but read the article, too) Dr Paske reflects MY opinion that one cannot adequately defend one position if they cannot accurately explain their opponent's! Dr. Paske also wrote why_the_fundamentalist_right_is_so_fundamentally_wrong/ *grin* |
|
06 Feb 14 - 11:07 PM (#3599021) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor its on Amazon. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 04:24 AM (#3599048) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,Musket pete. What in pete's sake is an equally qualified creationist ? The reason Prof Dawkins doesn't debate with one is that one hasn't evolved sufficiently yet. So he has to make do with people steeped in theology, Archbishops of Canterbury etc. If you want someone equally qualified as a creationist for a debate, may I suggest my mate. He reckons the moon landings didn't happen and that Princess Di was killed off. He'd be able to debate at the right level. In the meantime, I haven't seem my pet greyhound for two weeks and am looking forward to chewing the fat with him on Saturday night over wine / water and supper / gravy bones. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 08:43 AM (#3599100) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Stu saw it last night. generally respectful though Nye did employ some dubious ploys, Well, Ham's use of some research, namely the observing of evolution in E. coli has provoked a robust response from one the scientists who actually did (and are doing) the work. In fact, in this article Zack Blount says Ham and his 'expert witness' were unfamiliar with the research and had not even read the paper Blount and colleagues had published. From a creationist this is expected (as Pete shows, his opinions are based on what other say on CMI, no a critical appraisal of the evidence), of the scientist involved it's plain unscientific and unethical for him to comment in a public forum as a supposed 'expert'. Blount suggests the wording used is "a lie". Blount's article is here: http://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/zachary-blount-on-ham-on-nye- Pretty strong stuff. The thing is, Ham shows a distinct lack of moral integrity in this debate by deliberately misrepresenting the honest, unglamorous hard work of a team of scientists. He twists their results and gives false witness, as so many creationists do to the work of so many. Surely this goes against the most fundamental tenets of their faith? Have they zero integrity? |
|
07 Feb 14 - 08:57 AM (#3599106) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter For anyone who can think critically, Nye was the clear winner. For everyone else, it was Ham. He was by far the more polished debater, more relaxed, and seemingly more confident. He didn't need to joke about his bowtie. All he had to do to keep up appearances was to repeat, "I don't know, I wasn't there," implying "Neither were you, so how do you know?" When Nye asked how Noah and his family could have built a huge seaworthy Ark by themselves and kept 14,000 animals (Ham's figure) afloat for a year, Ham said "I don't know, I wasn't there." Of course, he could have said, "Because God gave them the ability," but he didn't. That would have been a little too obviously ad hoc. Nye accused him of invoking "magic." But instead of showing that he wasn't, Ham ignored the charge. Obviously it didn't deserve a reply. (Just ignoring a serious charge is Trick Number One in any debater's book, and many people are impressed!) Just how Ham's repeated confessions of complete ignorance could be taken as a defense of his position is beyond me, but that was his main strategy. Then he explained that he *did* know what happened in the past, because Genesis explains it, and if you add up the ages of the patriarchs plus 2014, you get a little over 6000 years for the age of the Earth. Which brings us back to the circular argument commented on above. What's more, the resolution that "Creationism is a viable explanation..." set the bar far too low. How many viewers know exactly what "viable" means? If (as many think) it simply means "possible," then Ham wins immediately: of course Creationism is "possible" - if you assume, as does Ham, that anything inconsistent with Genesis is wrong! The resolution should have been "Creationism is the best explanation..." or "Creationism is a better explanation than Darwinism." But even Ham acknowledges that he believes in evolution. Nye looked surprised when Ham said "of course" plants and animals evolve - but never into new species. (None of the finches Darwin found had evolved into, say, eagles.) Even that admission would have been unthinkable years ago, but it lets Creationists say that the claim they *don't* believe in evolution is a "secularist" smear. I don't have the time or energy to analyze it all, but Ham looked better and sounded better. And in the Entertainment Age, isn't that what really counts? C'mon, you know it is. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 08:57 AM (#3599107) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,Musket BBC reporting 2,000,000 year old footprints found in The UK. Meanwhile some bible society is moaning in The Independent that children and their parents don't know bible stories. They say we are preventing children getting a good start in life. Mine never had bible stories but had read most of Tolkien by their teens and Harry Potter books were on shopping lists by then too. The difference being no stupid fool was trying to tell them they were real. Even Santa and the tooth fairy buggered off by puberty. Bible stories are fascinating in abstract but have dangerous people promoting them who want to fuck with your mind. Hence they were off my reading list for the boys. At his wedding my eldest told those present their mother and I had taught him how to think, not what to think. Nice to get something right. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 09:36 AM (#3599121) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jeri 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. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 09:57 AM (#3599132) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 10:13 AM (#3599136) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. For anyone who can think critically, Nye was the clear winner. Should read for anyone that can think. Period. Full stop. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 10:19 AM (#3599140) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor Perhaps is should read for people who choose to think critically. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 11:40 AM (#3599178) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Bill D Sometimes I wonder if thinking critically or NOT thinking critically is not a choice, but a genetically determined, evolutionary trait. ;>) |
|
07 Feb 14 - 11:53 AM (#3599187) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Stu "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. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 12:07 PM (#3599191) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Stilly River Sage 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 |
|
07 Feb 14 - 12:25 PM (#3599205) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter 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. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 01:02 PM (#3599218) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Stilly River Sage 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 |
|
07 Feb 14 - 01:24 PM (#3599228) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,Musket 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. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 01:44 PM (#3599237) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. 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. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 02:03 PM (#3599249) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor >>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. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 02:07 PM (#3599251) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor "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? |
|
07 Feb 14 - 03:31 PM (#3599281) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Don Firth The way it REALLY happened. Don Firth |
|
07 Feb 14 - 03:41 PM (#3599284) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter > 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. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 03:55 PM (#3599287) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter 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? |
|
07 Feb 14 - 03:55 PM (#3599288) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor "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. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 04:16 PM (#3599297) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter > 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. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 04:54 PM (#3599300) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 05:22 PM (#3599305) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. 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. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 05:37 PM (#3599308) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor Sigh,,, That is why it is in quotes. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 05:38 PM (#3599309) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link 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. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 06:02 PM (#3599320) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor >> 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. |
|
07 Feb 14 - 06:56 PM (#3599336) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Stilly River Sage 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 |
|
07 Feb 14 - 07:06 PM (#3599338) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter 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. |
|
08 Feb 14 - 02:18 PM (#3599543) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link 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! |
|
08 Feb 14 - 03:10 PM (#3599557) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. Ham is an asshole. "Creation Science" is an oxymoron, perpetuated by plain morons. There is no point "dabating" with the delusional. End of story. |
|
08 Feb 14 - 03:23 PM (#3599564) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,Musket 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? |
|
08 Feb 14 - 03:57 PM (#3599574) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor "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? |
|
08 Feb 14 - 04:26 PM (#3599580) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor For those who might be interested, a discussion of the word infer. |
|
08 Feb 14 - 05:55 PM (#3599587) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter 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"? |
|
08 Feb 14 - 06:10 PM (#3599589) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor What Lighter said. |
|
09 Feb 14 - 03:09 AM (#3599685) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,Musket 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. |
|
09 Feb 14 - 08:24 AM (#3599733) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Stu " 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. |
|
09 Feb 14 - 10:22 AM (#3599759) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. 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. |
|
09 Feb 14 - 11:07 AM (#3599768) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter 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? |
|
09 Feb 14 - 11:09 AM (#3599769) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter That's "skills," of course. |
|
09 Feb 14 - 11:13 AM (#3599770) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor 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?" |
|
09 Feb 14 - 12:13 PM (#3599787) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Musket 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. |
|
09 Feb 14 - 12:19 PM (#3599790) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
09 Feb 14 - 12:40 PM (#3599800) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter > 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. |
|
09 Feb 14 - 12:48 PM (#3599804) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link 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. |
|
09 Feb 14 - 02:16 PM (#3599825) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,Guest Enough Mindless Bullshit Already 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. |
|
09 Feb 14 - 02:34 PM (#3599829) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jeri 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... |
|
09 Feb 14 - 02:37 PM (#3599832) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
09 Feb 14 - 02:55 PM (#3599835) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Musket 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? |
|
09 Feb 14 - 03:45 PM (#3599844) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter > 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. |
|
09 Feb 14 - 05:34 PM (#3599859) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor >> 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. |
|
09 Feb 14 - 06:02 PM (#3599865) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter 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." |
|
09 Feb 14 - 06:04 PM (#3599868) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jeri 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. |
|
09 Feb 14 - 07:01 PM (#3599877) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor I think Nye made the point that children being taught that things which are clearly not science is science is bad for science education. Creation has a lot to do with observing in today's world, if human beings are doing the observing. How does one reconcile observing a galaxy more than 6,000 light years away? Would those gentlemen have got the same level of education at an institution that refused to recognize evolutionary biology as a science? How can you teach kids the scientific method and refuse to let them apply it to biology, to Astronomy, to geology? |
|
10 Feb 14 - 09:22 AM (#3600051) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Stu "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?"" Yes, my mistake. "millions now know that creationists do not only argue from scripture, as the likes of you'll insinuate." That's true. They lie too. |
|
10 Feb 14 - 10:20 AM (#3600066) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter > How does one reconcile observing a galaxy more than 6,000 light years away? Simple: it's only 6,000 miles away, if that. > Would those gentlemen have got the same level of education at an institution that refused to recognize evolutionary biology as a science? I don't know, I wasn't there, and it would be wrong to speculate. Anyway, Ham (at least for now) would be happy just to make schools teach creationism too. >How can you teach kids the scientific method and refuse to let them apply it to biology, to Astronomy, to geology? Ham makes the scientific method "work" for him by asserting that creation scientists are using it every day to show that an "old Earth" is a delusion. But the point is that Ham and his associates are 100% committed to creationism. They'tr also "creative" enough to twist and warp any rational argument into seeming consistency with their beliefs. It's what they do. They can't help it. Millions more or less accept their arguments because millions don't think critically: "Sounds possible, and it fits with the bible, so I guess it's true. Anyway, a lot of experts turn out to be wrong, and who knows?" The core creationist argument is that the current inability of "mainstream science" to explain the appearance of consciousness or the appearance of life or the existence of the universe proves the initial account in Genesis is correct, or at least as likely as anything else. But they don't usually say that in so many words, because it's clearly nonsense. Today astronomers announced the discovery of a star 13.6 billion light-years from Earth. Well, says the creationist, how do they know that? The astrophysicist talks about "red shifts" and spectrographic analysis, the bases of which the average person has never heard of nor can instantly understand. The creationist smiles pleasantly and says, yes, but those measurements assume the laws of physics have not changed in 6,000 years. It's very misleading to make such assumptions, and I think Mr. Nye would agree with me that the real scientific method, which we both respect, is based not on assumptions but on evidence. And the best evidence from observational science, some of which we've gathered here at the Museum, shows quite clearly that the stars are about 6,000 years old. Interestingly enough, that's completely in line with the evidence from Scripture. |
|
10 Feb 14 - 10:28 AM (#3600067) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor If the debate is any indication, Mr. Ham pretends to believe that if the scientific consensus says the universe is about 14 billion years old and some data seem to indicate that it may be say, 11 billion years old than that is evidence that 6,000 years could be equally likely. |
|
10 Feb 14 - 10:42 AM (#3600069) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Musket Depends on what you term as evidence .. |
|
10 Feb 14 - 11:42 AM (#3600084) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter You got it, swabbie. |
|
10 Feb 14 - 07:55 PM (#3600229) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link I think hams point was that evolutionary theories have to posit elements that are not observable to fit their timeline. creationists like dr john Hartnett propose models that reconcile a young creation of the stars with their current distance. his book has a lot of mathematical calculations included after the main text. that is not to say that this model will be the last word on it, and evolutionary ideas on it will probably change to. just because the Wyoming floundered, and made by experienced shipwrights, does not prove the ark was unseaworthy. I think reference was made to other ancient large vessels that were fine. I don't recall any personal attack on nye....I shall have to watch it again. I did read about the Christian today poll. seems surprising, but I don't have that publication, and don't know what its ethos regarding biblical authority is or the readership it attracts. |
|
10 Feb 14 - 08:05 PM (#3600235) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: frogprince Christianity Today is on somewhat the same wavelength as other left-wing radical professing Christians like Pat Robertson Whom Satan is using to propagate the evil of evolutionistic heresy. |
|
10 Feb 14 - 08:08 PM (#3600236) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. Pete, of you want to believe fantasy, myth, nonsense and bullshit masquerading as science, that's your right & nobody is going to stop you. Have at it, with my blessings. Please just stop trying to pretend and/or convince others that it isn't fantasy, myth, nonsense, and bullshit. Perhaps you'd care to expound on the Theory of Gravity mentioned above vs. the absolute fact that things fall because it's God's will? |
|
10 Feb 14 - 08:33 PM (#3600241) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter "Christianity Today" is pretty restrained compared to some other frankly evangelical magazines. If 92% of its readers think Nye won the debate, that's a good sign. |
|
10 Feb 14 - 09:27 PM (#3600253) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor >>From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link - PM Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:55 PM I think hams point was that evolutionary theories have to posit elements that are not observable to fit their timeline. << I didn't hear that. I heard him discredit without offering any competing theory and he offered exactly ZERO observable data to support his timelime. >>creationists like dr john Hartnett propose models that reconcile a young creation of the stars with their current distance. his book has a lot of mathematical calculations included after the main text. that is not to say that this model will be the last word on it, and evolutionary ideas on it will probably change to.<< There is no such math. There is that the speculation that God made the Universe to look as if it were 6,000 years old. After all he is God, why not. But that would allow science and evolution to be taught as is without "corrections" from Mr. Ham. But that would never do. He spent 23,000,000 in donations from crazy people to argue with sane people over what is to be taught in schools. >>just because the Wyoming floundered, and made by experienced shipwrights, does not prove the ark was unseaworthy.<< Do you know that in the 1800's they were trying to build wooden ships as large as they could? The Wyoming was not the only attempt. It was just a large and spectacular failure. I think that Nye argued that with the materials and labor at hand the building of the ark would have been a monumental task. I think Mr Ham argued that if it had three hulls it may be able to float. >> I think reference was made to other ancient large vessels that were fine.<<< no such reference was made in the debate. No such wooden vessel is known to exist on the scale of the arc described in the Bible, Ever. You either believe it was supernatural, or that it was exaggerated, or you don't. >>I don't recall any personal attack on nye....I shall have to watch it again.<<< Ham said, because of Nye's beliefs, he would not want to ride on a plane that Nye had worked on. |
|
10 Feb 14 - 10:23 PM (#3600266) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow "Perhaps you'd care to expound on the Theory of Gravity mentioned above vs. the absolute fact that things fall because it's God's will?" What's the difference? If you believe in God, Gravity is his will. Along with Evolution. |
|
11 Feb 14 - 05:03 AM (#3600316) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Stu I love the way when Pete is finally called out on a subject he avoids it completely. John Hartnett is a physicist Pete got from CMI, the only source he apparently ever consults, and whose he takes with the same unquestioning acceptance as fact as he does from the Bible. You'll never convince a religious extremist. |
|
11 Feb 14 - 12:22 PM (#3600420) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. What's the difference? If you believe in God, Gravity is his will. Absolutely - its the same unscientific nonsense either way. |
|
11 Feb 14 - 12:38 PM (#3600423) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Gravity superstitious nonsense? Now that's what I call a radical unbeliever... |
|
11 Feb 14 - 12:48 PM (#3600424) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jeri What's the difference? If you believe in God, Gravity is his will. Consider the possibility that if you believe in God, evolution is his will. What people believe is limited by what they're capable of believing without freaking out. The Earth as the center of the universe, stars being diamonds hung up there for us to look at, the impossibility of breaking the sound barrier. Consider the possibility that, if you believe in God, he gave humans the curiosity to ask questions and the reason to find answers. If you think you know the answer already, you can feel comfortable eschewing those gifts. |
|
11 Feb 14 - 01:17 PM (#3600427) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. Ah, but Jeri- that assumes the ability to THINK...... dunnit? |
|
11 Feb 14 - 01:44 PM (#3600430) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: catspaw49 Pete, I love ya' Bro and I love your heart. I know your religion works for you and that is the real function of any belief......working for YOU. I figure we all could do well with whatever we believe if it makes us feel good and does no harm to others. But let me give you some caring advice............Find someone else to carry the water for you and put Ham down the disposal. He's spoiled and is stinking up the entire refrigerator. Go get some fresh beef. When Ham says: "We know from the dates God gives us in the Bible that He did create the whole universe about 6,000 years ago. When we hear the term light-year, we need to realize it is not a measure of time but a measure of distance, telling us how far away something is. Distant stars and galaxies might be millions of light-years away, but that doesn't mean that it took millions of years for the light to get here, it just means it is really far away!" ..............that is utter horseshit. It means exactly what he says it does not. It means more than far away. It means real fuckin' far away. It means that the universe is way to hell and beyond 6000 years old and it means that only in the cartoon world of Fred Flintstone did man and dinosaurs share the planet at the same time. Believing they did makes no sense unless they were just tooling through space and crashed down here 6000 years back and of course brought a few fossilized remains along just to throw us off. The "Word of God" has passed through far too many hands and to think that Ham has an inside track is would cheapen any god he believes in. Read up on William Sloane Coffin maybe.....or Jacques Ellul.....or the thousands and thousands of brilliant theologians that have lived and studied in just the last 100 years. Spaw |
|
11 Feb 14 - 02:05 PM (#3600436) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. Or maybe even Walter Rauschenbusch, eh Spaw? Wouldn't hurt the TeaPublican idiots to review his works, either. |
|
11 Feb 14 - 02:34 PM (#3600449) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,jts I have been looking for a good place to post this. Since it so nicely dovetails with what Spaw had to say. I'll put it here. pete, Spaw has give you very good advice. Tyson takes that concept quite a bit further. Of course you are saying that God is in the mystery that we did not witness the past rather than in dark matter. But that means that what Tyson said, IMHO apples doubly to your philosophy. http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-religion-and-the-universe/ NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: So the history of discovery, particularly cosmic discovery, but discovery in general, scientific discovery, is one where at any given moment, there's a frontier. And there tends to be an urge for people, especially religious people, to assert that across that boundary, into the unknown lies the handiwork of God. This shows up a lot. Newton even said it. He had his laws of gravity and motion and he was explaining the moon and the planets, he was there. He doesn't mention God for any of that. And then he gets to the limits of what his equations can calculate. So, I don't, can't quite figure this out. Maybe God steps in and makes it right every now and then. That's where he invoked God. And Ptolemy, he bet on the wrong horse, but he was a brilliant guy. He formulated the geocentric universe, with Earth in the middle. This is where we got epicycles and all this machinations of the heavens. But it was still a mystery to him. He looked up and uttered the following words, "when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies," these are the planets going through retrograde and back, the mysteries of the Earth, "when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch Earth with my feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia." What he did was invoke, he didn't invoke Zeus to account for the rock that he's standing on or the air he's breathing. It was this point of mystery. And in gets invoked God. This, over time, has been described by philosophers as the God of the gaps. If that's how you, if that's where you're going to put your God in this world, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. If that's how you're going to invoke God. If God is the mystery of the universe, these mysteries, we're tackling these mysteries one by one. If you're going to stay religious at the end of the conversation, God has to mean more to you than just where science has yet to tread. So to the person who says, "Maybe dark matter is God," if the only reason why you're saying it is because it's a mystery, then get ready to have that undone. |
|
11 Feb 14 - 03:02 PM (#3600457) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor /dear-mr-ham-you-can-t-have-it-both-ways |
|
11 Feb 14 - 04:30 PM (#3600496) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link respect to ya too ,spaw, but this is something I care about passionately. I could care less what people think of me, or ham, but as you probably realize ,the faith that works for me includes believing the bible as Gods word. but despite the caricature that this is creationists only argument , there is much more to it than that. as to the quote from ham ,which you colourfully dismiss, I wonder if you have read anything from creationists on this. it is easy to follow the herd. I have confessed to my limited science knowledge , but I do know that time moving at different speeds at sea level and ,say on top of a mountain is observable science, so I would think that might be a beginning of calculating the problem.......and as ham pointed out, evolutionists have their own time/starlight problems. |
|
11 Feb 14 - 04:46 PM (#3600499) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow "Consider the possibility that if you believe in God, evolution is his will. " As I said. As most Christians actually believe. |
|
11 Feb 14 - 05:02 PM (#3600506) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. ...the bible as Gods word. but despite the caricature that this is creationists only argument , there is much more to it than that. Agreed. There's a plethora of nonsensical, irrational, unscientific, made from whole cloth bullshit about it. |
|
11 Feb 14 - 05:15 PM (#3600511) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter "But Mr. Catspaw, the abstract distance measured by a light-year (some 6 trillion miles) by itself tells us nothing about how far away any given star really is. It's just a form of measurement introduced by 'old-Earth' astronomers to be consistent with their model. "We know how fast light travels on the Earth, because we've measured it, but we really have no way of knowing how fast it travels at stellar distances. It's unwarranted to assume without proof that it travels at the same speed elsewhere, especially since the bible suggests otherwise. Many mainstream astronomers have recently challenged the assumption that conditions in other parts of the cosmos mimic those on Earth. And, honestly, why on Earth should they? "Creation science does not tell us precisely how large the universe is. It may well be infinite. But however inconceivably large it is, mainstream scientists have never been able to prove that it was all created more than about six thousand years ago. And they certainly have tried, haven't they?" (PS: Maybe I'm starting to enjoy this a little too much....) |
|
11 Feb 14 - 05:26 PM (#3600516) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor The problem is that Ham and his crew of rogue scientists takes little snippets and uses them to lie to you. Yes relativity implies that time passes differently depending on the relative velocity of two observers. In fact for the light itself, or anything traveling at the speed of light, time passes very slowly indeed. But what Ham said about a light year is total hogwash based n a kernel of truth. He knows better and therefor it is a lie. A light year is indeed a measure of distance. That is the kernel of truth. But it is not only a measure of distance, If we know the distance we can, with a high degree of accuracy infer travel time. Since the unit we are using is base on distance over time, if we know the dance we can calculate the time. Distance in light years divided by 1 light year gives us the time it takes the light to reach us. Alpha Centauri is about 4 light years away, Divide 4 light years by 1 light year per year and you get 4 years. It takes 4 years for the light to reach us from the closest star. I recently saw an announcement that a celestial object was sighted 13.6 billion light years away. 13.6 billion light years divided by 1 light year per year equals 13.6 years. It is as simple of that. So though technically Ham did not technically lie about what a light year is. He certainly did lie about the implications of measurements given in light years. I, as you do, believe that The Bible is the inspired word of God. Like Ken Ham, I believe that not all of the Bible is to be taken literally. I take Genesis and a wonderful source of poetry, mental pictures, and yes, wisdom. I am looking forward to seeing the Noah story on the big screen (our 40 inch TV) with Russell Crowe. I do not see Genesis as a science text. Ham is wrong about Genesis. You do not have to take it literally to believe in Salvation through Jesus Christ. Pat is right to advise you to find a better mentor. |
|
11 Feb 14 - 05:40 PM (#3600521) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow That's what a lightyear means, it's a unit of distance, the distance that light travels in a year. They work out the distance to some star, and use the light year distance as a unit of distance. They could use miles, in theory, but that wouldn't be as convenient. |
|
11 Feb 14 - 05:45 PM (#3600524) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor I am sure that the reason they use light year is the easy conversion to time. If you ever meet Mr. Ham pete, ask him about that for me if you will. |
|
11 Feb 14 - 06:08 PM (#3600533) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow the year in the expression light year just means the same as year does generally. No conversion. in the sense I think you mean Jack, is involved. |
|
11 Feb 14 - 06:33 PM (#3600547) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. Ham and his crew of rogue scientists They are not, by any valid definition of the word, "scientists". |
|
11 Feb 14 - 06:39 PM (#3600552) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor Light years (distance) conversion to years (time) That is the sense that I meant. |
|
12 Feb 14 - 07:47 AM (#3600694) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Musket Newton and God are both wrong with respect to gravity. The earth sucks. (I'm sure I had something along those lines on a t shirt in my youth....) I have no problem with delusion. After all, despite Sheffield Wednesday being to the best football team ever, and will not listen to any dissent from that position... I know that some smart arse might just blow me out of the water with facts. Facts tell a different story. You know what? I even indoctrinated my kids.... One poor bugger travels from Liverpool to Sheffield to drink Bovril at half time in the rain too. No matter, the faith is strong.... |
|
12 Feb 14 - 01:13 PM (#3600796) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link jack...actually, neither do I see genesis as a science textbook...it is a historical record. I,m pleased to see you trust Christ for salvation ,as do I. but I also trust his endorsement of genesis as history. it seems more consistent somehow. I see Gregg is still labouring under the delusion that being creationist disqualifies from being a scientist. on the other hand , I think you can still be a good scientist despite thinking that the principles of causality and biogenesis can be bypassed! but perhaps it is not me that is the raving fundamentalist! |
|
12 Feb 14 - 01:55 PM (#3600810) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Musket How can Genesis be a historical record? I only know the first sentence of it, and didn't bother getting any further as it is flawed from the beginning. It is, I suppose, a record of the strength of superstition in the past, both the original text, whatever that said, and the many translations with bits added for the convenience of those wanting it to suit their more material ends. History is, by definition, a record of what happened. The bible speaks of things that cannot physically happen. No problem whatsoever. After all, Tolkien wrote of speaking trees and immortal elves. But in the same way someone who wonders if Middle Earth actually existed being humoured rather than seriously debated with, how can anyone seriously debate with those who take this fantasy called religion seriously? Faith in the idea of a purpose to life is rather commendable, but taking seriously the idea that there are books that know the answer? I still say children and vulnerable adults should be protected from it. |
|
12 Feb 14 - 02:19 PM (#3600814) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor It is a record of the understanding of history and science of its time written in its time for people of its time. If it were written for our times as Mr. Ham insists it was it would begin with "In the beginning there was nothing then Bang! God created light! Then some of the light became matter and some persists today as cosmic background radiation, the discovery of which lead to a Nobel prize, which people think is good, but God doesn't care because God cares about goodness and salvation and does not concern himself with science because he know all of that "why we are here" stuff already In 50 years it would have to read something like "In the beginning, there were strings. The strings were looped into other parts of the multiverse and God saw this as a chance to materialize this portion of the infinite and ongoing realm of his reign. The current state of human knowledge is a moving target. Expecting it to be covered in a 3,000 year old story, is a fantasy. |
|
12 Feb 14 - 02:56 PM (#3600827) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. Dear me, Pete, its like talking to a two-year-old about dragons.... genesis ... is a historical record. Genesis is a fairytale re-written and re-edited so many times by so many individuals over the milennia as to be entirely useless as any sort of evidence for anything whatsoever. Nor can all your wishful thinking prove otherwise. the delusion that being creationist disqualifies from being a scientist. It is self-evident, Pete, that this is not delusion, but FACT, if one understand the definitions of science, scientist, and scientific method, which you, obviously, do not - or choose to pervert. Again, be happy in your delusional world, just stop prating on about it as if it were reality. |
|
12 Feb 14 - 03:37 PM (#3600836) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor Greg F, Genesis is written record of an oral history. Almost certainly represents the author's understanding of the state of the art knowledge of the time. Of the time. The wisdom in Genesis is still applicable to humanity today. For instance maybe kids should be made aware they should love their siblings, but to watch for signs of betrayal. The "history" is what it is and is almost certainly exaggerated. The science is terribly outdated. |
|
12 Feb 14 - 03:56 PM (#3600845) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. Which author(s) would that be exactly, Jack? |
|
12 Feb 14 - 03:57 PM (#3600846) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. And at what time? |
|
12 Feb 14 - 04:03 PM (#3600849) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor The people who wrote it down when they wrote it. Unless you are asserting that it was magically handed down to Moses from God. |
|
12 Feb 14 - 05:01 PM (#3600861) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter There are actually two somewhat contradictory creation accounts in Genesis, 1:2-3 and 2:4-25. Maturally, it is also claimed that they aren't contradictory at all, and that only "radical theologians" think otherwise. But they are literally different. Enjoy. |
|
12 Feb 14 - 05:16 PM (#3600865) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor Yeah oral histories are like that! :-) |
|
12 Feb 14 - 05:57 PM (#3600888) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Facts and truth aren't always the same.. Some true stories are factual, and some factual stories convey truths. |
|
12 Feb 14 - 06:23 PM (#3600903) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. And some stories are just that - stories. |
|
12 Feb 14 - 08:00 PM (#3600925) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Penny S. If you open the programme here, and listen about ten minutes along (there are six days left) you will find Mitch Benn's song about the debate. The Now Show Penny |
|
13 Feb 14 - 05:23 PM (#3601238) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link yes, lighter, they are different. so what is the problem. on any cosmic story you could get the big picture, and then zoom in on the details of ,say. the main players. you say they are contradictory? do detail. I will see if I can help you with your problem. musket....let me remind you that it is you who believe in things that cannot happen.... ok - how do you define the scientific method? |
|
13 Feb 14 - 06:03 PM (#3601249) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter Sorry, Pete, but unlike some of our friends I'm not going to argue with a true believer. You seem to be aware of the implied contradictions but are undisturbed by them. There is an enormous amount of biblical scholarship on the subject, and most scholars thoroughly familiar with Genesis seem to agree that the two accounts do not mesh as they should in a supposedly incontrovertible source. Of Course, Ken Ham would be quick to point out that "the truth doesn't rely on majority vote." As for me, I wasn't there, so I really can't say which if either version may be the more trustworthy. |
|
14 Feb 14 - 12:55 PM (#3601486) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow They are stories to get a point across, reading them as history is misreading them. There probably wasn't a Prodigal Son or a Good Samaritan either, but that's not relevant to the truth of the stories. |
|
14 Feb 14 - 01:49 PM (#3601502) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor Last night I read that the first five books of the Old Testament were compiled by the residents of Jerusalem when it was ruled (occupied?) by the Persians who allowed the residents more autonomy in exchange for having their own codified set of laws. There were indeed multiple sources representing and merging the abrahamic lineage tradition with that of the desert wanderers (presumably Moses' 12 tribes.) Is that exactly what happened? Who knows? Like Ken Ham and pete, I wasn't there. But it seems plausible and it seems to shed a little light on the "one indisputable source" theory. |
|
14 Feb 14 - 02:22 PM (#3601512) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link that's ok lighter. somehow I suspected that you only wanted to toss in assertions gleaned from liberal theologians, without really wanting to know if there really were contradictions. McGrath- there may, or may not have been an actual prodigal son, or good Samaritan. Jesus introduced them as stories. that is not the genre of genesis. and if you take any of genesis as historical narrative, where do you start to do so. the plain reading would seem to suggest a story line. |
|
14 Feb 14 - 03:01 PM (#3601515) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Precisely, a story line. |
|
14 Feb 14 - 04:34 PM (#3601532) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter 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. |
|
14 Feb 14 - 05:13 PM (#3601541) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. For "story line", read fairytale. Or nonsense, if you prefer. Keep on keepin' on pete - |
|
16 Feb 14 - 05:32 PM (#3602051) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link 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. |
|
16 Feb 14 - 05:50 PM (#3602052) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
16 Feb 14 - 06:34 PM (#3602054) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. 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. |
|
16 Feb 14 - 07:39 PM (#3602070) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Calling it "history" prevents people from recognising that is true. |
|
16 Feb 14 - 07:41 PM (#3602072) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Calling it "history" prevents people from recognising that it is true. |
|
16 Feb 14 - 08:13 PM (#3602085) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. And your proof and/or evidence of its veracity is....? Or do you have a rather elastic definition of the truth? |
|
16 Feb 14 - 09:52 PM (#3602097) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 04:54 AM (#3602147) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Musket 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 |
|
17 Feb 14 - 06:20 AM (#3602164) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 12:18 PM (#3602265) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. However, Kevin, it is HISTORICAL truth that is the assertion under discussion here. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 12:41 PM (#3602272) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 01:07 PM (#3602282) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. 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". |
|
17 Feb 14 - 01:10 PM (#3602285) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link "...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. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 01:15 PM (#3602291) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter 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. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 01:33 PM (#3602296) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 03:34 PM (#3602328) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,Musket Ok. A fictitious book is true because a fictitious character said it is true. Just making sure I got that right. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 03:50 PM (#3602333) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor "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. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 05:06 PM (#3602356) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. 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. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 05:43 PM (#3602374) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 06:12 PM (#3602380) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. Tell that to Homer, Kevin. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 06:35 PM (#3602385) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter > 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.) |
|
17 Feb 14 - 07:00 PM (#3602392) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 07:26 PM (#3602394) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter 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.... |
|
17 Feb 14 - 08:39 PM (#3602416) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 08:49 PM (#3602422) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter 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. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 09:39 PM (#3602433) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
17 Feb 14 - 11:02 PM (#3602438) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
18 Feb 14 - 05:24 AM (#3602480) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Musket 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. |
|
18 Feb 14 - 08:32 AM (#3602514) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter 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. |
|
18 Feb 14 - 10:30 AM (#3602550) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
18 Feb 14 - 11:06 AM (#3602557) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Bill D 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. |
|
18 Feb 14 - 11:46 AM (#3602570) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter 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. |
|
18 Feb 14 - 12:27 PM (#3602580) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor I agree Lighter. That was more or less my intended point. Please forgive me for not expressing it adequately. |
|
18 Feb 14 - 01:17 PM (#3602592) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
18 Feb 14 - 01:52 PM (#3602606) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
18 Feb 14 - 03:04 PM (#3602630) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link 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. |
|
18 Feb 14 - 08:58 PM (#3602707) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor 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." |
|
18 Feb 14 - 10:25 PM (#3602715) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: McGrath of Harlow 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." |
|
18 Feb 14 - 11:24 PM (#3602721) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor "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 |
|
19 Feb 14 - 08:46 AM (#3602786) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Stu "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. |
|
19 Feb 14 - 08:53 AM (#3602787) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Lighter > 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.... |
|
19 Feb 14 - 09:10 AM (#3602791) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor Such quotes do draw attention to the writing! |
|
19 Feb 14 - 10:08 AM (#3602807) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. 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. |
|
19 Feb 14 - 10:35 AM (#3602817) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: frogprince "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. |
|
19 Feb 14 - 01:48 PM (#3602886) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
19 Feb 14 - 02:42 PM (#3602911) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Greg F. I was trying to give him [Ham] the benefit of the doubt. For God's sake, WHY? ;>) |
|
19 Feb 14 - 02:45 PM (#3602914) Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!! From: Jack the Sailor manners. |
