# Bill Nye vs Ken Ham (Creationist Weirdo)



## groverj3 (Feb 3, 2014)

I guess I'm a controversial SOB these days 

As a scientist, and a life scientist (molecular biology) in particular, this interests me. As you may or may not know, Ken Ham (probably the closest thing to a Neanderthal alive today... just look at him) challenged Bill Nye (the science guy) to a debate about the merits of creationism. You may know Ken Ham, you may not (I didn't before this), he's the crazy man that owns the Creation Museum in Kentucky. You know, that place that says that the Earth is ~6000 years old and people lived with (and rode!) dinosaurs.

I have mixed thoughts about the merits of this debate. On one hand, some creationists may falsely believe that it puts that view on equal footing with evolution simply because the debate is happening. However, there are people that grew up in fundamentalist/creationist households or communities that may accept the science once it's presented to them, assuming they are open to questioning their views and the "debate" is fairly presented.

I do think holding it at Ken Ham's temple of crazy is moronic. Also, as a scientist I know that there is no real debate, there is only science and... not science. Obviously.

Anyone interested in seeing how this shakes out will be able to live stream it here at 7pm EST on Tuesday.

Anyone else planning to watch? Or if any of you feel like attacking a good natured heathen like myself please feel free


----------



## flint757 (Feb 3, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> I have mixed thoughts about the merits of this debate. On one hand, some creationists may falsely believe that it puts that view on equal footing with evolution simply because the debate is happening.



This is mainly why I have a problem with it. There's nothing to debate. I take the perspective of Dawkins on these type of events.


----------



## Watty (Feb 3, 2014)

I don't like that Bill agreed for the same reason, but at least his audience will be exposed to the alternate (i.e.real) point of view. If even one person begins to doubt, then it was almost worth it...

Thanks for the streaming link!


----------



## hairychris (Feb 3, 2014)

Yeah, well, not a fan of this. Ham has been selling tickets & etc that'll go towards funding his stupid Ark theme park.

Plus Ham is, demonstrably, a liar, and I have no doubt that he'll bullshit through his presentation (see: Gish Gallop - RationalWiki ) and then claim victory whatever happens.


----------



## Hollowway (Feb 3, 2014)

Bill Nye the Science Guy vs Ken Ham the Creationist...Sham?


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 3, 2014)

Watty said:


> I don't like that Bill agreed for the same reason, but at least his audience will be exposed to the alternate (i.e.real) point of view. If even one person begins to doubt, then it was almost worth it...
> 
> Thanks for the streaming link!



More or less my point of view. You're not going to change this moron's mind, but if you can reach at least one person in the audience or watching it at home then it's been worth it. Unfortunately, there are rational people that live in fundamentalist/crazy communities that have legitimately never been exposed to REAL science! In 2014 this is deplorable, but it's the truth. If even one person on the fence can be swayed toward logic and reason then it will have been worth it.



hairychris said:


> Yeah, well, not a fan of this. Ham has been selling tickets & etc that'll go towards funding his stupid Ark theme park.
> 
> Plus Ham is, demonstrably, a liar, and I have no doubt that he'll bullshit through his presentation (see: Gish Gallop - RationalWiki ) and then claim victory whatever happens.



Oh, it'll be 100% bullshit. At least the streaming is now free so I don't have to contribute to his crazy to see it.

One of my other misgivings is that Nye is an engineer, not a biologist by training. However, I don't subscribe to the whole "YOU MUST HAVE A PHD IN BIOCHEMISTRY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY/MICROBIOLOGY... etc. OR YOU ARE WORTHLESS" sort of view.

I sincerely hope that Nye destroys him, but the problem with people like Ham is that they're definitely going to claim victory in any "debate" despite their position being indefensible.

Honestly, I'd sort of love it if Bill Nye just hijacked the whole "debate" to give a lecture on evolutionary biology. Talk about a  you to the crazies.


----------



## 12enoB (Feb 3, 2014)

I really really hope Ham uses the banana defense.

Check mate atheists!


----------



## SpaceDock (Feb 3, 2014)

Gonna be like the Super Bowl all over again


----------



## rectifryer (Feb 3, 2014)

This will go no where. The creationists have a catch-all for everything, which is god. Ham will just emotionally appeal whatever logic corner Nye pushes him into. There is no way to explain logic to faith.


----------



## Leveebreaks (Feb 3, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> I sincerely hope that Nye destroys him, but the problem with people like Ham is that they're definitely going to claim victory in any "debate" despite their position being indefensible.


 
It's like trying to catch smoke. It will be a video version of trying to win an argument on the internet.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Feb 3, 2014)

I cosign the issues of funding + exposure, but it'll be good for a laugh at least.


----------



## Discoqueen (Feb 3, 2014)

I think these debates are sort of useless. It is against many of these Christian's belief system to even consider that their version of the truth is wrong. Their belief is not just putting faith into something, but closing their minds to 'temptations' and devilish guises to try and jar your faith. I mean... the guy has a museum, a theme park is on the way? His followers are not going to just be like, 'Omg... we are so silly... we need to think about this!'


----------



## marshallH (Feb 3, 2014)

Can I just say bill nye filmed at my school


----------



## Watty (Feb 3, 2014)

marshallH said:


> Can I just say bill nye filmed at my school



You may. Seattle Represent!


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 3, 2014)

Leveebreaks said:


> It's like trying to catch smoke. It will be a video version of trying to win an argument on the internet.



That's an excellent way to put it.

I'm probably going to be end up watching this, despite my misgivings.

I put the chances of a "BUT MY GRANDMOTHER ISN'T A MONKEY" type statement at 100%.


----------



## Leveebreaks (Feb 3, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> That's an excellent way to put it.
> 
> I'm probably going to be end up watching this, despite my misgivings.
> 
> I put the chances of a "BUT MY GRANDMOTHER ISN'T A MONKEY" type statement at 100%.


 
Haha I wasn't going to watch this as I would probably end up going HULK SMASH on some poor wall, but now I almost feel obliged.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 4, 2014)

Leveebreaks said:


> Haha I wasn't going to watch this as I would probably end up going HULK SMASH on some poor wall, but now I almost feel obliged.



The atheist group at the university I attend for grad school is live streaming it in a lecture hall. This should be a hoot!


----------



## Matt_D_ (Feb 4, 2014)

You can believe whatever the hell you want, you can believe that blue is really red, that I'm really awesome at guitar, and that humans rode dinosaurs 5000 years ago while playing an advanced version of anti gravity polo.

What you believe wont change the facts, it wont change the universe, and no matter how much you believe something, it certainly doesnt make it true.

You can win an argument on bullshit, technicalities, and logical fallacies, but you always lose when you argue with the universe.


----------



## Leveebreaks (Feb 4, 2014)

Matt_D_ said:


> You can believe whatever the hell you want, you can believe that blue is really red, that I'm really awesome at guitar, and that humans rode dinosaurs 5000 years ago while playing an advanced version of anti gravity polo.
> 
> What you believe wont change the facts, it wont change the universe, and no matter how much you believe something, it certainly doesnt make it true.
> 
> You can win an argument on bullshit, technicalities, and logical fallacies, but you always lose when you argue with the universe.


 
^^ This

But what if I believe REALLY REALLY HARD and cross my fingers at the same time? That's got to work.


----------



## potatohead (Feb 4, 2014)

SpaceDock said:


> Gonna be like the Super Bowl all over again



Wow, burn.


----------



## Matt_D_ (Feb 4, 2014)

Actual Prediction:

Everyone tunes in expecting a gladiatorial style blood bath, and then feels bad for the creationist when he turns into a rambling lunatic unable to deal with how broken the way he makes sense of the universe is.


----------



## hairychris (Feb 4, 2014)

The problem with these debates are is that the sides are coming from different places:

Ham - in it to proselytize and/or make money
Nye - trying to explain observable reality

It never works. Even if we assume that Ham believes everything that he says, he will happily lie if he thinks that it will " bring people to Jeeesus". And creationists generally have a shotgun approach to arguments, generally refusing to get tied down to details (which is where they get ....ed over). This screws the science side as they will not have the time to refute all the BS and the creationists will claim victory by default.

Also science is not decided in debate. Your ability to speak in public is irrelevant if you have the facts and methodology on your side.

I certainly won't be watching it as I'd likely RAGEQUIT about 3 mins into Ham's opening statement.


----------



## rectifryer (Feb 4, 2014)

Mr hairy chris is correct. If this was about the merits of the arguments this wouldn't happen in the first place.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 4, 2014)

hairychris said:


> The problem with these debates are is that the sides are coming from different places:
> 
> Ham - in it to proselytize and/or make money
> Nye - trying to explain observable reality
> ...



Of course science is not decided in debate. I would argue though, that it's pretty obvious that this "debate" is more about (at least on the science side) presenting science to people who might be swayed by reason than to disprove a crackpot.

Whether or not the young earth creationists accept evolution is irrelevant, because evolution is still real. What is relevant is communicating science to the people, some of which have been done a great disservice by living in certain areas where real science is not taught.

Like I said though, I share all of your obvious misgivings about whether this debate should have taken place. I guess I'm an optimist though in thinking that if a couple people in the audience, or watching at home, can be persuaded then it will have been worthwhile.

I fully expect it to turn into a circus though.


----------



## icos211 (Feb 4, 2014)

It's just started and it's already ....ing stupid. Ham(what an appropriate name) has used an astronomer, the guy who invented the mri, and an engineer's opinions. So 3 people who have absolutely nothing to do with evolution or the age of the earth. What a dumbass.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 4, 2014)

Ken Ham's argument so far is buzzwords and a couple people who accept his crackpot ideas. Stating your ideas is not proof of your ideas.

Aussies, can you please take this guy back


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 4, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> Whether or not the _*atheists*_ accept _*our religion*_ is irrelevant, because _*God*_ is still real. What is relevant is communicating _*God's love*_ to the people, some of which have been done a great disservice by living in certain areas where _*true religion*_ is not taught.



Edited to show how their side of the debate could see it, too.


----------



## icos211 (Feb 4, 2014)

(1hr:15min in) I think Bill's spending too much time just disproving everything that Ken Ham and his wackos believe, not enough time actually presenting how evolution works to these people who presumably have not had the opportunity to hear yet. I think that would be the most effective in bringing these people to the truth.


----------



## myampslouder (Feb 4, 2014)

icos211 said:


> (1hr:15min in) I think Bill's spending too much time just disproving everything that Ken Ham and his wackos believe, not enough time actually presenting how evolution works to these people who presumably have not had the opportunity to hear yet. I think that would be the most effective in bringing these people to the truth.



I was actually a bit worried Bill would do this. Hopefully he will start throwing out the hard facts and proof as well as debunking the creationist misinformation.


----------



## icos211 (Feb 4, 2014)

That's probably because he's not a biologist...


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Feb 4, 2014)

Can't help but notice that Bill is skirting around every question, never getting to the meat of it.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 4, 2014)

I doubt his knowledge of evolution or biology is that extensive if he's just an engineer. I haven't had to take a single biology related course since being in college and I won't have to either. I know the basics, but that's about it. I have a feeling the same applies to Bill. Even a bio-medical engineer at my school doesn't go that deep into the subject of biology.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 4, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> Can't help but notice that Bill is skirting around every question, never getting to the meat of it.



Really? That's totally not the vibe I'm getting at all, lol. People seem to latch onto the fact that the religious can offer an explanation for most things, but can't supply proof for anything. Scientists can't explain some things yet, but the explainable things have proof for them.

This "observational vs historical science" stuff that Ham keeps saying is completely fabricated by him.

Ken Ham's debate is entirely that science is only true for the past 4000 years.


----------



## rectifryer (Feb 4, 2014)

Ken Ham doesn't understand non-linear rates. Clearly, he has never taken a first semester calculus class, that explains the rates he challenges.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Feb 4, 2014)

Also can't stand how Bill keeps saying "the Ken Ham model of creation" when it's actually just a literal interpretation of the Bible. He treats it like Ken is adding stuff to it, when he's really not. 
I do wish Ken would say why he believes what he believes rather than simply what he believes.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 4, 2014)

Putting aside my atheism. Ken Ham's "debating" strategy is presenting his opinion over and over again without supplying proof. That's hardly a way to convince anyone with half a brain.


----------



## MikeyLawless (Feb 4, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> Putting aside my atheism. Ken Ham's "debating" strategy is presenting his opinion over and over again without supplying proof. That's hardly a way to convince anyone with half a brain.



Thats just the thing...his audience generally only has half a brain.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 4, 2014)

Creationists need to take a debate or philosophy course to learn how to formulate proper arguments that are both sound and valid.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Feb 4, 2014)

All I got out of this was that "Science" is the God of atheists. 'Science' can do all these amazing things, and without the BELOVED ENTITY of this 'Science', we'd pretty much collapse emotionally, financially, and technologically. 
BS.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 4, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> All I got out of this was that "Science" is the God of atheists. 'Science' can do all these amazing things, and without the BELOVED ENTITY of this 'Science', we'd pretty much collapse emotionally, financially, and technologically.
> BS.



I hope you don't take medication, drive a car, or use a computer. Yes, my "god" of science is totally optional and "BS."


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Feb 4, 2014)

I'm a pretty avid defender of the compatibility of science and religion... I've even gone as far as to say that they are both necessary for human society. But this?!

I kind of wish I could take that 2 hours back. Ken Ham makes Christians look retarded, and Bill Nye is pretty preachy despite being more level-headed and having the better argument. I'm mainly disappointed because I was expecting some 'science' from Ham and I and everyone else who were expecting him to actually debate were severely short-changed.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 4, 2014)

JPhoenix19 said:


> I'm a pretty avid defender of the compatibility of science and religion... I've even gone as far as to say that they are both necessary for human society. But this?!
> 
> I kind of wish I could take that 2 hours back. Ken Ham makes Christians look retarded, and Bill Nye is pretty preachy despite being more level-headed and having the better argument. I'm mainly disappointed because I was expecting some 'science' from Ham and I and everyone else who were expecting him to actually debate were severely short-changed.



To be completely fair, I was raised Catholic and I don't have issues with people being religious, to a point. I think believers are being misled, but they aren't always causing harm. I also think pushing religion onto children and not allowing them to think for themselves also does them a great disservice. I think it's all about as real as ghosts and goblins, but people have a right to believe what they want in private.

The problems come about when people use religion to ignore fact and evidence-based science, or infringe upon the rights of others. I do know a few people in the sciences that aren't godless like myself and find a way to reconcile it all. As long as they do good science I don't have an issue with it. I also know quite a few people that are "spiritual" or "deistic" that don't subscribe to any organized religion. This is all fine as long as they accept facts and evidence (I still think they're wrong, however).

Everyone knows that this dude, Ken Ham, is not representative of the average believer. He's dangerous though. His own particular views are completely about self-promotion, and they fly in the face of real science.


----------



## rectifryer (Feb 4, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> All I got out of this was that "Science" is the God of atheists. 'Science' can do all these amazing things, and without the BELOVED ENTITY of this 'Science', we'd pretty much collapse emotionally, financially, and technologically.
> BS.


Science doesn't do that, humans using it do. Science is a process that employs the scientific method which is universally accepted. It's merely a compilation of sound logic. So yes, logic has tangible effects. Does this bother you?


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Feb 4, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> Science doesn't do that, humans using it do. Science is a process that employs the scientific method which is universally accepted. It's merely a compilation of sound logic. So yes, logic has tangible effects. Does this bother you?



Nope. Doesn't bother me at all, it was the way that Bill delivered it that bothered me, and his statement that belief in a God basically voids all scientific learning and principles.


----------



## rectifryer (Feb 4, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> Nope. Doesn't bother me at all, it was the way that Bill delivered it that bothered me, and his statement that belief in a God basically voids all scientific learning and principles.


I concur regarding his delivery. I wasn't sure if you were pissed off at science or something haha.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Feb 4, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> The problems come about when people use religion to ignore fact and evidence-based science, or infringe upon the rights of others.



I agree, but it works the other way as well. 
A lot of times, people use scientific theories without sound proof to cram beliefs down people's throats, particularly with molecule-to-man evolution.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Feb 4, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> I concur regarding his delivery. I wasn't sure if you were pissed off at science or something haha.



haha hell no, I love science, but not "Science". 
I just feel like people talk about science like it has some physical form or concrete manifestation wayyyy too much. hence the capital 'S'. Sort of a mockery of God vs. god.


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 4, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> haha hell no, I love science, but not "Science".
> I just feel like people talk about science like it has some physical form or concrete concept wayyyy too much. hence the capital 'S'. Sort of a mockery of God vs. god.



My feeling is that the people that think of science as "Science" are the ones that think rationalists worship science like it is a god substitute.

Personally, all the rationalists I know are fully well aware that science is just a tool humans use to understand the world around them. Nothing more, nothing less. IE: the only people that think of science as a god substitute or those of religion that simply can't comprehend a person who doesn't need a god-type figure in there life.

I haven't watched the debate but I kinda wish Nye hadn't agreed to it. I dig the man, but he's nowhere near as articulate a debater as Dawkins or Tyson and neither of them would deign to give zealots validation by engaging them as if their beliefs were arguable in the first place. 

As long as they have the "faith" catch-all there can never be a serious discussion regarding empirically provable theories.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 4, 2014)

While Bill Nye was the more rational and educational of the two, I feel that both men did a poor job at addressing important points in this debate.


----------



## Watty (Feb 5, 2014)

Adam Of Angels said:


> While Bill Nye was the more rational and educational of the two, I feel that both men did a poor job at addressing important points in this debate.



Agreed. Bill dropped the ball and Ken is....Ken.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> Nope. Doesn't bother me at all, it was the way that Bill delivered it that bothered me, and his statement that belief in a God basically voids all scientific learning and principles.



I think they're in conflict, but if someone can justify their belief to themselves then it's not my business. It doesn't change that I think they're deluded though.



Ocara-Jacob said:


> I agree, but it works the other way as well.
> A lot of times, people use scientific theories without sound proof to cram beliefs down people's throats, particularly with molecule-to-man evolution.



If something is supported by scientific evidence and some other view disagrees with it and has no supporting evidence itself, then there is only one right answer. In such a case it is logically sound to insist that the supported answer is correct. I see what you're trying to get across, but in this particular case of "molecule to man evolution" it does not apply. There is nothing within modern concepts of evolution that is even remotely contradictory with the world we can observe.

I thought you were much more unreasonable judging by your previous comment. Apologies if you find me argumentative, but we all have our hot-button issues and, while I'm not a PhD-holding scientist (I am working on an MS, much to the disapproval of my previous professors ), the evidence for Darwinian evolution is overwhelming.


----------



## Alimination (Feb 5, 2014)

so I just finished it right now and ...oh man I felt so bad for Bill.

The uplifting part where he spoke about the unknown things in the world that motivates him to get up everyday.

the home boy Ken just rebutted "actually, in the book it claims..."

You could see his face turning red. haha


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

Watty said:


> Agreed. Bill dropped the ball and Ken is....Ken.



It would have been a much more sound debate of evolution if a biologist was there, but I think Bill did a commendable job of disproving Ham's claims from a logical perspective with more physics and astronomical evidence. He stuck to his strengths as an engineer, which was the right call.

Someone like Richard Dawkins would've completely wiped the floor with Ham, but he would never stoop to the level of even engaging in this sort of "debate" these days.

I just keep reminding myself that this was not about the people in the room, or Ken Ham. This was for the people on the fence watching at home that might be swayed to see logic and reason.


----------



## Joose (Feb 5, 2014)

Love Bill, but this debate was pretty pointless. Atheist vs Creationist will never accomplish anything. Agnostic Atheist vs standard/everyday Christian, now those are the debates that get interesting. It's basically just faith vs no faith, neither usually claiming fact. Those don't accomplish anything either, but at least they're usually civil conversations that lack anyone cramming beliefs down your throat.

Science never stops. Facts can change, when new evidence is presented. We are so insignificant in this universe that we will never, ever know everything.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 5, 2014)

Even if his debating skills weren't up to snuff, I think it's important for a well-known and well-liked public figure like Nye to be out there doing stuff like this publicly, so people can see that even nice guy TV personalities like him look to science for answers rather than religion.

I know some people are quick to say that both sides of the debate are set in their ideas and aren't going to change their minds, and that may be true for the people actually doing the debating, but I know there are people out there who have been surrounded by religion and the religious lifestyle for their entire lives but are starting to have their doubts, and all it takes sometimes is hearing the right person say that that the doubts they're having are okay, and they should feel free to pursue the truth even if their religion and family say they shoudn't.

I know, because once upon a time _I _was one of those people. I'm glad I was able to be exposed to kind, open-minded people who helped me realize the questions I was having weren't wrong or bad. I worry sometimes that the particularly militant anti-religious people the internet is overrun with are further alienating the people who are on the fence about it with their angry rhetoric and name-calling. You catch more flies with honey, etc etc.

EDIT: And in all fairness, considering I turned a post with a similar sentiment around earlier, I'm sure religious people could say the same thing from their perspective.


----------



## glpg80 (Feb 5, 2014)

Bill seemed a bit uncomfortable during the beginning but overall I learned little facts and tidbits from both presenters. It seemed as though Ken's arguments are summarized to a dictionary lesson and bible passage quotes without his beloved power point to hide behind. This resulted to cyclical answering of questions with questions or walking around questions by finger pointing to others in academia with similar beliefs. Anyone who has taken an introductory course to psychology knows that isn't a valid argument 

The one thing I loved the most came not from either presenter, but from the crowd in the questionaire. It was worded in a manner where his creationalism belief is structured to fail from the very beginning. The entire belief of creationism lends an inside out approach of conversion, but nothing anyone can say will convert a creationism due to its embedded catch 22 roots in religion.

Bill's points were all over the place in the beginning but drove proverbial "nails into the coffin" when it came time for the questionnaire with the public. I do believe that there were many opportunities for Bill to catch Ken in his own catch 22, but he did not see the opportunity at hand quick enough.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Even if his debating skills weren't up to snuff, I think it's important for a well-known and well-liked public figure like Nye to be out there doing stuff like this publicly, so people can see that even nice guy TV personalities like him look to science for answers rather than religion.
> 
> I know some people are quick to say that both sides of the debate are set in their ideas and aren't going to change their minds, and that may be true for the people actually doing the debating, but I know there are people out there who have been surrounded by religion and the religious lifestyle for their entire lives but are starting to have their doubts, and all it takes sometimes is hearing the right person say that that the doubts they're having are okay, and they should feel free to pursue the truth even if their religion and family say they shoudn't.
> 
> ...



That's a great point. Many of the scientists I know are awful at presenting information in layman's terms and are quite "militant" as far as just stating the science to lay-people without explaining what the evidence is, as if it should be obvious to people who grew up in an environment much less open to inquiry.

Many atheists I know are terrible about the whole "militant" thing as well. Not all of them though.

Mentalities like that come from a certain amount of frustration with people they interact with, I think.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

glpg80 said:


> It seemed as though Ken's arguments are summarized to a dictionary lesson and bible passage quotes without his beloved power point to hide behind.



In terms of Ken's "definitions," like "historical science" and "observational science," they were completely a fabrication by him. "Historical science" and "observational science" are not real things


----------



## glpg80 (Feb 5, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> In terms of Ken's "definitions," like "historical science" and "observational science," they were completely a fabrication by him. "Historical science" and "observational science" are not real things



Of course they aren't - there were still facts presented but they were sub contextual. mainly the carbon dating facts, who in the past was a creationism believer, etc.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 5, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> Many atheists I know are terrible about the whole "militant" thing as well. Not all of them though.
> 
> Mentalities like that come from a certain amount of frustration with people they interact with, I think.



Indeed it does. I don't go around shoving my POV in peoples faces nor do I seek opportunities to, but living around mostly Christians my entire life, being told I'm just mad at God, that I'm just confused and having random events blamed on my lack of belief jades an individual a bit.

I was actually very much a 'live and let live' kind of person until after the Sandy Hook shooting when Christians on my facebook feed were saying some unintentionally terrible things (I'd like to believe it wasn't intentional at least). Then I decided to let people close to me know I'm an Athiest and from there the badgering started. It being treated like a dirty secret is quite degrading honestly. It gets to you after awhile.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Indeed it does. I don't go around shoving my POV in peoples faces nor do I seek opportunities to, but living around mostly Christians my entire life, being told I'm just mad at God, that I'm just confused and having random events blamed on my lack of belief jades an individual a bit.
> 
> I was actually very much a 'live and let live' kind of person until after the Sandy Hook shooting when Christians on my facebook feed were saying some unintentionally terrible things (I'd like to believe it wasn't intentional at least). Then I decided to let people close to me know I'm an Athiest and from there the badgering started. It being treated like a dirty secret is quite degrading honestly. It gets to you after awhile.



I know what you mean. I've become much more open about it since moving here to Arizona. When I still lived in Michigan, where I don't think there was as much in-your-face religiosity, I didn't say much and only rarely would something rile me up. However, when I'm on my way to my lab or a class here I usually have some dude yelling at me on campus telling me I'm going to hell every day (and that's without even asking me if I'm religious ). Hell, I've been on a date where someone walked out on me after they figure out that I'm an atheist. I'm definitely not the militant type either.

It definitely wears on one.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Feb 5, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> There is nothing within modern concepts of evolution that is even remotely contradictory with the world we can observe.



So basically the absence of evidence that disproves it proves that it occurred? cough cough _ad ignoratium_ cough cough 
(Man I'm just an argumentative SOB tonight XD)


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> So basically the absence of evidence that disproves it proves that it occurred? cough cough _ad ignoratium_ cough cough
> (Man I'm just an argumentative SOB tonight XD)



Healthy discussion is a good thing. No worries.

The combination of evidence proving it and lack of evidence that refutes it presents a compelling case.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Feb 5, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> Healthy discussion is a good thing. No worries.
> 
> The combination of evidence proving it and lack of evidence that refutes it presents a compelling case.



I'll just say this now: I'm a creationist. None of the evidence that I have ever seen promotes the concept of one species/kind changing into another. 

inb4 "you can't be a good guitarist if you're a Christian" 
Because I actually play drums primarily XD 
I should really just go to sleep or something.

EDIT: Ok I actually sort of drift back and forth sometimes. I don't know. I don't think that science has an answer for everything (well duh, look at how many times Bill Nye said "AND THAT'S THE GREAT MYSTERY. WE DON'T KNOW LOL") but at the same time I can often find Biblical teaching to be a bit out there, but creationism really does make a lot of sense. Everything is so beautiful and wonderful.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> I'll just say this now: I'm a creationist. None of the evidence that I have ever seen promotes the concept of one species/kind changing into another.
> 
> 
> inb4 "you can't be a good guitarist if you're a Christian"
> ...



Haha, I appreciate the humor. Some people reconcile evolution and Christianity, so it must be possible for some. Heck, the Roman Catholic Church accepts that evolution is real, they just say that a deity caused it. Evolution is not the ONLY reason I don't believe in any gods, but it is one them.

May I ask, in light of the fossil and genetic evidence, what would it take to convince you?

How obvious is it that I'm procrastinating on homework right now? lol


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Feb 5, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> Haha, I appreciate the humor. Some people reconcile evolution and Christianity, so it must be possible for some. Heck, the Roman Catholic Church accepts that evolution is real, they just say that a deity caused it. Evolution is not the ONLY reason I don't believe in any gods, but it is one them.
> 
> May I ask, in light of the fossil and genetic evidence, what would it take to convince you?
> 
> How obvious is it that I'm procrastinating on homework right now? lol



Dude so am I hahaha this is amazing. 
What would it take? 
I'd have to like actually see it happen. I'd have to watch a fish turn into a dog or something like that. It would take a lot more than a bacterium changing ever so slightly in a controlled environment.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> Dude so am I hahaha this is amazing.
> What would it take?
> I'd have to like actually see it happen. I'd have to watch a fish turn into a dog or something like that.



The thing is, and I'm sure you're aware, that's not how evolution works. For example, humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor which was neither a primitive human nor a chimp. At some point populations that would eventually give rise to both species were isolated and due to the environment around them certain mutations gave individuals in those populations advantages that lead to a greater chance at survival or reproduction, etc.

The prevailing opinion right now is that ancestors of modern humans lived on the African plains. This lead to a few important developments, most importantly intelligence. Smarter and smarter individuals became more "fit" to survive. This was because of an ability to make tools for hunting and defense, etc. Also, believe it not, we _H. Sapiens_ are some of the best long distance runners in the animal kingdom. It's thought that early hominids used this to exhaust their prey, making them easy to kill. We aren't that fast by most standards, but it's not much of stretch when you consider that just about anyone can run marathons if they train for it (even people that are kind of overweight).

Now, a fish and dog share a common ancestor but MUCH further back. Before complex life left the oceans. Definitely a vertebrate.

So, I'm not sure what kind of background you have but I really enjoy explaining things like this and if you have questions I invite you to shoot me a PM sometime. I not an expert, but I have taken lots of biochem/molecular/cell bio and do research right now on siRNAs implicated in gene expression so I hope I can answer basic questions. Although I have my days


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 5, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> Dude so am I hahaha this is amazing.
> What would it take?
> I'd have to like actually see it happen. I'd have to watch a fish turn into a dog or something like that. It would take a lot more than a bacterium changing ever so slightly in a controlled environment.



You do understand that fish didn't change into dogs right?

The concept of evolutionary biology is that of mutation. In it's simplest, the species with advantageous mutations lived while others died. 

Everything mutates and you can see that all around you, day in day out. People have 6 toes, an extra leg, no legs, 3 eyes. Hell, cancer is really just cellular mutation. Some of those mutations made it possible for one species to survive over another. The process from seaborne life to land-dwelling life took hundreds of millions of years. You can't honestly predicate your burden of proof on being around to personally witness a hundred thousand mutations come into existence and die off can you?

Also, if a fish moving on land is too big of a pill to swallow, look up the mudskipper.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> You do understand that fish didn't change into dogs right?
> 
> The concept of evolutionary biology is that of mutation. In it's simplest, the species with advantageous mutations lived while others died.
> 
> ...



Cancer is a GREAT example. Cancer cells acquire mutations that make them more "fit." Growth-factor independence, ability to grow off an ECM (extracellular matrix), immortality (telomere maintenance), etc. When you consider this it also becomes clear why cancer is not a single disease. Every cancer is different. There are common mutations and treatments that work across a variety of phenotypes, but each person's cancer is more or less genetically distinct in some way. The immune system also contributes to this process, interestingly, and actually "selects" for cancer cells that can evade the body's defenses against cancerous cells.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Feb 5, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> You do understand that fish didn't change into dogs right?



Yes. 


I have an incredible sense of hyperbole ok work with me here. 

Anyways, none of the examples of mutations that you listed actually benefit the species, nor do they demonstrate one species turning into another. 

Part of me wants to believe in evolution, but I basically just don't see enough reasonable proof for it. 
Too much hypothesizing. Not enough legitimate confirmation of a theory.

EDIT: that thing about cancer is pretty cool though.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> I have an incredible sense of hyperbole ok work with me here.
> ...



Beneficial to the species... ok, let's roll with that.

There is some (slightly controversial) stuff out there right now that suggests a genetic component to intelligence, morality, and capacity for language.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall a study of a gene in humans which is thought to correlate with the ability to understand complex language. Chimpanzees also have a gene that is extremely similar, but ever so slightly different. Humans have developed complex language, and they have not.

One can imagine that a species living exposed on the plains, running from predators, and needing to share complex information about tool-making with other members of their social group would be more likely to find a mutation in this language-related gene beneficial than a species that lives in a less exposed environment.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Feb 5, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> Beneficial to the species... ok, let's roll with that.
> 
> There is some (slightly controversial) stuff out there right now that suggests a genetic component to intelligence, morality, and capacity for language.
> 
> ...



imaaaaaaaaginaaaaaaaation.
sorry. Had to. I'll look into this stuff tomorrow and provide some rebuttal if I can. 
FWIW It makes sense to me that similar genes could just as easily demonstrate intelligent design- a genetic and physical structure that works best being used multiple times.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> imaaaaaaaaginaaaaaaaation.
> sorry. Had to. I'll look into this stuff tomorrow and provide some rebuttal if I can.
> FWIW It makes sense to me that similar genes could just as easily demonstrate intelligent design- a genetic and physical structure that works best being used multiple times.



In regards to that. There are lots of ways that the human body is actually quite poorly "designed." We have mostly useless structures everywhere. The appendix, tonsils (yes, they are lymph nodes but you don't need them), etc. There are nerves that meander through the body, not going straight from point A to B. Our immune systems are weaker than a lot of other animals, despite our relatively long lifespans.

Another thing that could refute "intelligent design" is that wings, for example, have evolved multiple times, unrelated to each other. Analogous structures. Wings of a bird are quite different than wings of a bat. The bone structures are completely different. Now, they are both wings because a wing allows an animal to fly but if something "designed" wings, why would some birds have very efficient wings and bats have very inefficient wings? Eyes carry a similar argument.

One reason I find religion and scientific views of things like evolution in conflict is that religion requires a "suspension of disbelief." You must accept the religious viewpoint of design by a creator without proof.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Feb 5, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> One reason I find religion and scientific views of things like evolution in conflict is that religion requires a "suspension of disbelief." You must accept the religious viewpoint of design by a creator without proof.



I'm almost entirely comfortable with that, because at this level, science is mostly hypothesizing and expounding upon theories. 

AND NOW I WRITE A PAPER


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> I'm almost entirely comfortable with that, because at this level, science is mostly hypothesizing and expounding upon theories.
> 
> AND NOW I WRITE A PAPER



Best of luck with the paper.

I still invite you to ask questions. Not just of me (but I'm always willing), just in general.

I'm convinced that being a skeptic is the only sensible way to live life, and if you are believing something without proof then you're doing yourself a disservice. In my mind, "faith" is not a virtue. Skepticism is a virtue. If something was to come along and prove another model for the origin of species that conflicts with evolution, and it has more substantial evidence, I would embrace it. Not because I want it to be wrong, but because accepting evidence is what logic tells me to do (insert spock smiley).

Proposing and testing hypotheses is the only way to discover anything. Without realizing it, everyone is testing hypotheses constantly every day.

Damn, that got "preachy"


----------



## alec16 (Feb 5, 2014)

Bill Nye reffed my sister's soccer game lol no lie


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 5, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> I'm almost entirely comfortable with that, because at this level, science is mostly hypothesizing and expounding upon theories.
> 
> AND NOW I WRITE A PAPER



I think the main problem most people have with the idea of a scientific theory in general is that they don't understand what that term actually means.

To the layman, a theory is an unsubstantiated idea, a whim someone had as a possible explanation for a phenomena without any substantiation or observable evidence.

A scientific theory is not a theory unless it has been verified by a plethora of observable evidence, empirical data and pass muster of peer review. A scientific theory is, for all intents and purposes, fact based on all the information that we as humans can bring to bear.

Evolution as a scientific theory has more empirical data to support it than there is for the earth being a globe; there really is just not getting around it. 

In parting, I think I'm just going to reference one of my favorite authors with what I feel is a rather appropriate quote:

&#8220;Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.&#8221; 
&#8213; Isaac Asimov


----------



## Matt_D_ (Feb 5, 2014)

The thing is, you dont even need organisms. or life.

Think about self replicating molecules, and by replicating, I dont mean a machine which makes itself (that happened much much later), but repeating groupings of atoms who are attracted to each other and form repeating structures, simply due to the forces involved in chemistry. a pattern of atoms/molecules that repeats, that's pretty weird right, but think about ice forming a lattice as it cools.... Over time, these randomly change in complexity depending on available resources (ie: what happens to be floating past ) and any external introduction (or removal) of energy (heat/pressure/lightning) to form new compounds. 

RNA (and DNA) aren't magic, they're just molecules. they have a certain structure that enables each half of the strand to act like a mold, using available resources to re-bind the other half, simply based on the forces of the universe. (ooh spooky). the fact that this even works makes my brain hurt, the fact that this is *how we work* makes my brain *really* hurt.

Something doesn't have to be alive to replicate. How's that for a crazy fricking thought. And when you start thinking about things this way, you realize that if the rules of the universe are consistent then you can expect the same thing to be happening elsewhere, as long as there's enough raw materials floating around out there. (and if there isn't symmetry, something even weirder may be happening!)

We're just moderately sized, very complicated arrangements of stuff. Our goal is to make more moderately sized complicated arrangements of stuff. Screw religion, learn chemistry.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> I think the main problem most people have with the idea of a scientific theory in general is that they don't understand what that term actually means.
> 
> To the layman, a theory is an unsubstantiated idea, a whim someone had as a possible explanation for a phenomena without any substantiation or observable evidence.
> 
> ...







Matt_D_ said:


> The thing is, you dont even need organisms. or life.
> 
> Think about self replicating molecules, and by replicating, I dont mean a machine which makes itself (that happened much much later), but repeating groupings of atoms who are attracted to each other and form repeating structures, simply due to the forces involved in chemistry. a pattern of atoms/molecules that repeats, that's pretty weird right, but think about ice forming a lattice as it cools.... Over time, these randomly change in complexity depending on available resources (ie: what happens to be floating past ) and any external introduction (or removal) of energy (heat/pressure/lightning) to form new compounds.
> 
> ...


----------



## hairychris (Feb 5, 2014)

Ask a biologist: Is a virus alive?

Anyway, I didn't watch this (was otherwise engaged) but from the science blogs that I catch up on the general impression is that Nye did a good job and Ham was horrible - and seemed to realise it by the end.

As I posted upthread I was really not convinced that this was a good idea but all of the informed opinion that I've read seems to be that Nye did fairly well even though he didn't always put the boot in.


----------



## Edika (Feb 5, 2014)

I can't believe that this is considered a debate in the US. I am not a biologist but I am a physicist. I haven't watched all of the debate but the creationist astronomer didn't mention that he believes the earth is 6000 years old and the universe was created in 6 days. If he did he would discredit all of what he was so snarkily proud he accomplished as an astronomer. A simple biology text book is enough to get you thinking and you don't need to be a phd in genetics to comprehend evolution, unless you don't want to. Paleontological/archaeological findings, fossils, carbon dating, DNA decoding that shows the genetic inheritance we share with other primates or even different species should be enough of scientific evidence to persuade people. Being skeptical is a positive quality that helps in understanding rather than just accepting information. Being provided with overwhelming evidence and choosing to ignore it is having cognitive dissonance. 
A scientific theory, as somebody else mentioned, is not a constant and can be evolved. What people don't understand is that a scientific theory becomes accepted when it is supported by facts, experiments and observations. It is a model that can evolve when there is something else than can provide a better answer or if it can't explain the phenomena observed anymore. A fine example in physics is Newtonian and quantum mechanics. Newtonian mechanics can't explain the molecular and atomic scale well so quantum mechanics was invented and fine tuned. This involved a lot of math, a lot of thought, a lot of experiments to prove or disprove it.
The argument that if I don't see it I won't believe is laughable at best. In this regard most modern astronomy and astrophysics can be disproved since we don't actually 'see' all the results. Are elements created in the nuclear fusion inside stars? No because we can't actually see it. Do electrons actually exist? No because we can't actually see them and we can only have a probability of their position and speed.
The main problem with communicating these scientific facts in layman's terms to people not being experts, it means that they have to have a certain basic level of scientific knowledge/understanding, see high school level. Most people I know (that have finished high school) have a level of understanding of grade school. A big part of them have a level of acceptance as a 2 year old. Try communicating logical arguments to these people.
Honey maybe the best way to catch flies but for my sanity I prefer to not waste honey on flies that is more partial to shit.


----------



## Necris (Feb 5, 2014)

22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

Oh, dear...


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 5, 2014)

hairychris said:


> Ask a biologist: Is a virus alive?
> 
> Anyway, I didn't watch this (was otherwise engaged) but from the science blogs that I catch up on the general impression is that Nye did a good job and Ham was horrible - and seemed to realise it by the end.
> 
> As I posted upthread I was really not convinced that this was a good idea but all of the informed opinion that I've read seems to be that Nye did fairly well even though he didn't always put the boot in.



No.


----------



## asher (Feb 5, 2014)

Necris said:


> 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution
> 
> Oh, dear...


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

hairychris said:


> Ask a biologist: Is a virus alive?



No, (although some may debate this) the consensus is that an organism must at least contain the cellular machinery to allow it to metabolize compounds independent of a host organism. They do straddle the line though, and some say that this definition of "living" is biased toward organisms more like we are familiar with in the animal kingdom.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 5, 2014)

Necris said:


> 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution
> 
> Oh, dear...



Not the most infuriating thing there, but every time I see someone use an incorrect form of their/they're/there I want to bash my head into a wall.

Edit: Wrong quote, lol.


----------



## pink freud (Feb 5, 2014)

"Molecular to human evolution" ...

is NOT a thing.

Biogenesis is not the same as evolution.


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 5, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> Not the most infuriating thing there, but every time I see someone use an incorrect form of their/they're/there I want to bash my head into a wall.



Wait what huh? Whats going on hear?


----------



## hairychris (Feb 5, 2014)

USMarine75 said:


> No.







groverj3 said:


> No, (although some may debate this) the consensus is that an organism must at least contain the cellular machinery to allow it to metabolize compounds independent of a host organism. They do straddle the line though, and some say that this definition of "living" is biased toward organisms more like we are familiar with in the animal kingdom.



... Yeah. I'm aware that technically they are not, but along with sentience I'm pretty sure that a sliding scale is the best way to look at these sorts of things.


----------



## feraledge (Feb 5, 2014)

Necris said:


> 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution
> 
> Oh, dear...



Berserker.

I'm tempted to do a response thing, but I'm too far from a food court to get some of the solid "I think about these things seriously before I write on my magic paper at the mall" photos. 
But I would like a "Are you really more comfortable thinking that we all came from Adam and Eve and thus are the product of compounded incest than dare to think we share a lineage with chimpanzees who share 98.5% of our DNA and have never started nor participated in creating a world economy that oppresses the majority of their populations while demolishing others nor have they created religious beliefs that deemed you bound to eternity in hell for the sake of being born unless they seek 'salvation'?" sign. Or "Regarding the god theory... Where did god come from?"


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 5, 2014)

hairychris said:


> ... Yeah. I'm aware that technically they are not, but along with sentience I'm pretty sure that a sliding scale is the best way to look at these sorts of things.



Actually sentience isn't considered a characteristic of a living organism. The current paradigm is: replication of their genome, susceptibility to mutations, react to environment, produce their own energy, and excrete metabolic waste. Viruses fulfill only the first two (and debatably the third).

Viruses are currently classified as obligate, infectious, intracellular parasites. They are closer to prions than bacteria.


----------



## rockskate4x (Feb 5, 2014)

i tried to stay away from this as long as i could... first i coudln't resist stopping and then i couldn't make it past their opening statements... they are both so full of BS. Personally, I feel like there is no need for such a harsh dichotomy. There are holes in the arguments of fundamentalist 7 day creationist short earth theories who work from the assertion that ancient hebrew poetry can be treated like hard history. There are holes in the arguments of naturalist evolutionary theorists who work from the assertion that nature could have made the difficult uphill climb from the most basic to the most complicated living organism without any divine intervention. I think that most viewpoints are valid, if we work from what we can actually observe, and have the humility to admit that we all compensate for that which we cannot explain.


----------



## asher (Feb 5, 2014)

rockskate4x said:


> There are holes in the arguments of naturalist evolutionary theorists who work from the assertion that nature could have made the difficult uphill climb from the most basic to the most complicated living organism without any divine intervention.



Where are these holes?

I don't mean to demean - I am curious where you find them.


----------



## Danukenator (Feb 5, 2014)

rockskate4x said:


> i tried to stay away from this as long as i could... first i coudln't resist stopping and then i couldn't make it past their opening statements... they are both so full of BS. Personally, I feel like there is no need for such a harsh dichotomy. There are holes in the arguments of fundamentalist 7 day creationist short earth theories who work from the assertion that ancient hebrew poetry can be treated like hard history. There are holes in the arguments of naturalist evolutionary theorists who work from the assertion that nature could have made the difficult uphill climb from the most basic to the most complicated living organism without any divine intervention. I think that most viewpoints are valid, if we work from what we can actually observe, and have the humility to admit that we all compensate for that which we cannot explain.



I'm sorry but this is exactly the kind of thinking Ken Ham is advocating.

Science never has, and never will, claimed to be perfectly accurate. Falsifiable is at the very foundation of science. Evolution happened, there is not debate among scholars that are qualified to discuss biology (ie. an engineer who studies biomimicry is not a biologist). The process by which evolution has happens is still being investigated and improvements to the existing theories have been made. Advanced organs like the brain and the eye have had excellent documentation of their evolution and easily fit within the framework of an naturalistic development of a species. Tests have shown how evolution can occur and that life can spontaneously arise (which, I digress, is abiogenesis not evolution). 

Christianity however has had approximately 2000 years (not going to split hairs over the start date) to give compelling evidence and their thereabout best foot forwards has been: The Kalam cosmological argument, TAG, the Ontological argument...semantics that defy causality, equivocate and break the rules of logic. There is nothing to be observed from biblical literature as much of it hasn't been first hand accounts.


----------



## Edika (Feb 5, 2014)

Necris said:


> 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution
> 
> Oh, dear...



These people are proof of evolution, some evolve to Homo Sapiens and they are still in Homo Erectus IQ and comprehension and that happens right in front our eyes and in a lifetime span.


----------



## rockskate4x (Feb 5, 2014)

asher said:


> Where are these holes?
> 
> I don't mean to demean - I am curious where you find them.



The biggest hole i can think of (there are others) is the assertion that a genetic mutation in a sexual species can cause any change that lasts sufficient generations to transform some of that species into a thriving different species. It is hard enough for the mutation to be a positive change, or at least non-detrimental. The best genetic engineers do this in the best lab conditions fail at this constantly. Why would it be any easier in nature? A godless evolutionary theory made more sense when we didn't know a damn about genetics, and thought that living cells were more like tiny bags of jello than tiny supercomputer-driven genetic factories. 

The more we know, I think that the more we can objectively say that we don't know crap about the world we live in, and everyone believes something that they can't prove. It's only human, and there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## feraledge (Feb 5, 2014)

Edika said:


> These people are proof of evolution, some evolve to Homo Sapiens and they are still in Homo Erectus IQ and comprehension and that happens right in front our eyes and in a lifetime span.



Homo Erectus would be insulted by this statement.


----------



## asher (Feb 5, 2014)

On one point in particular:



rockskate4x said:


> It is hard enough for the mutation to be a positive change, or at least non-detrimental.



Many times, changes aren't. This is part of the reason a lot of species have gone extinct! But you have to remember that the timescales in question, for most things, are _vast_ by our comprehension, allowing for many, many, many permutations. Change is incremental at best, and we mostly see the trends that emerged, long removed, and I'm sure hardly any of the failures.


----------



## Cancer (Feb 5, 2014)

Queston: what do say to the person who believes that creationism and evolution can coexist (much like the Newtonian wave/particle duality), and that creationism is the metaphor to the engine of evolution?


----------



## pink freud (Feb 5, 2014)

Cancer said:


> Queston: what do say to the person who believes that creationism and evolution can coexist (much like the Newtonian wave/particle duality), and that creationism is the metaphor to the engine of evolution?



In the end it comes down to two concepts:

a) The person believes in magic. That is what biblical events are when boiled down to the basics. 

b) There is a non-biblical creator capable of creating an entire universe.

Both A and B are non-falsifiable and not worth discussion past idle philosophy.

Falsifiability is the key concept to understanding science.


----------



## Edika (Feb 5, 2014)

^Totally different, like comparing apples to imaginary mutant killing tomatoes. 
Wave/particle duality statistics and probabilities collapse to Newtonian physics equations when increasing the scale above molecular size. Both are valid models of mechanics that have been proven mathematically and experimentally to work and have helped us advance technology.
Creationism is based on faith on a book from thousands of years ago. After Christianity prevailed any critic on the bible usually ended with the critics going six feet under. Everybody can find meaning and interpret as they want extremely vague texts.


----------



## asher (Feb 5, 2014)

Cancer said:


> Queston: what do say to the person who believes that creationism and evolution can coexist (much like the Newtonian wave/particle duality), and that creationism is the metaphor to the engine of evolution?


 

On the surface that makes zero sense as a metaphor.


----------



## KJGaruda (Feb 5, 2014)

I wasn't able to catch the debate, but I always cringe at discussions like this. I don't feel like they get us anywhere because both groups always have a bias. It can't be as black and white as people are forcing it to be though.

Most times in the media, we hear of the worst of the bible thumping Christians that have the nastiest habit of being terribly closed minded and cherry-picking the content they read to bend it to their argument, and the worst of the Atheists that do the same thing, and it divides people, making them think the other is indoctrinated or a heathen or etc.

I entertain the idea that it's gotta be a combination of both Creationism and Evolution.


----------



## 12enoB (Feb 5, 2014)

rockskate4x said:


> There are holes in the arguments of naturalist evolutionary theorists who work from the assertion that nature could have made the difficult uphill climb from the most basic to the most complicated living organism without any divine intervention. I think that most viewpoints are valid, if we work from what we can actually observe, and have the humility to admit that we all compensate for that which we cannot explain.



I think with the first statement here you're neglecting the amount of time species have had to mutate and survive or die, quite a bit more than you could do in a lab (4 billion years of natural selection). There are certainly holes in the evolutionary theory in explaining how certain things happened (last I checked going from sea to land is still unknown but we have clues), but that doesn't mean you throw out the whole theory because its yet to have an explanation for a specific problem. 

Which is the one with the humility to admit when they don't know? Science, where the scientists say "I don't know" when there are yet to be explained gaps in things, or the creationist who simply says "God did it"?


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 5, 2014)

rockskate4x said:


> The biggest hole i can think of (there are others) is the assertion that a genetic mutation in a sexual species can cause any change that lasts sufficient generations to transform some of that species into a thriving different species. It is hard enough for the mutation to be a positive change, or at least non-detrimental. The best genetic engineers do this in the best lab conditions fail at this constantly. Why would it be any easier in nature? A godless evolutionary theory made more sense when we didn't know a damn about genetics, and thought that living cells were more like tiny bags of jello than tiny supercomputer-driven genetic factories.
> 
> The more we know, I think that the more we can objectively say that we don't know crap about the world we live in, and everyone believes something that they can't prove. It's only human, and there is nothing wrong with that.



Im afraid that you just dont understand the basic concepts of evolutionary biology based on the above statement. The basics are that any organism has only one evolutionary goal and that is to put more of its genetic material into the next generation. That is why people that say humans are more evolutionarily fit, than say cockroaches or bacteria, are technically incorrect. It's all about efficiency. That is the definition of survival of the fittest. Not the strongest, but the organism that places more genetic material into the next generation. (Im ignoring resource limitations etc for the purpose of this argument)

Mutations are a way of organisms having an evolutionary advantage (i.e. to be more fit) over other members of their cohort, species, and biome. Most mutations are silent, some are deleterious, and very very few are advantageous. But here's the key --> The deleterious organisms usually dont thrive and reproduce and the silent mutations confer no advantage. However, the advantageous mutations allow for more offspring to reach successive generations. Therefore, that mutation is "selected for" and contributes more to the overall population number. That is how mutations work in a nutshell. 

Mutation is a sound evolutionary mechanism and not debated by anyone of merit. Not trying to be a dick, just trying to drop some science on ya...


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Feb 5, 2014)

Cancer said:


> Queston: what do say to the person who believes that creationism and evolution can coexist (much like the Newtonian wave/particle duality), and that creationism is the metaphor to the engine of evolution?



I often ponder if this is the case. As a Christian and what I would consider to be a philosophical and lightly scientific thinker, I've come to the viewpoint that the creation accounts given in Genesis are not to be taken literally. That is to say, since I believe in an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient God I therefore can accept that if He so chose, he could create the universe in 6 days- but I accept that our understanding of things doesn't add up to that being the case (in addition to taking the creation accounts themselves within their proper contexts). So to me, the most reasonable explanation is that God is guiding (to whatever degree), or at least has designed these processes of nature which we continue to try and understand using science.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Feb 5, 2014)

Zenki_Kouki said:


> Most times in the media, we hear of the worst of the bible thumping Christians that have the nastiest habit of being terribly closed minded and cherry-picking the content they read to bend it to their argument, and the worst of the Atheists that do the same thing, and it divides people, making them think the other is indoctrinated or a heathen or etc.



One of the most ironic things I've heard from my now atheist brother-in-law was that the only reasonable and logical conclusion anyone can come to on the subject of God is agnosticism, since it is impossible to prove or disprove such a god's existence. What makes it ironic is that my brother-in-law is one of those bat-shit crazy atheists who pickets Christian concerts and evangelizes a form of 'atheistic religion'.


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 5, 2014)

JPhoenix19 said:


> One of the most ironic things I've heard from my now atheist brother-in-law was that the only reasonable and logical conclusion anyone can come to on the subject of God is agnosticism, since it is impossible to prove or disprove such a god's existence. What makes it ironic is that my brother-in-law is one of those bat-shit crazy atheists who pickets Christian concerts and evangelizes a form of 'atheistic religion'.



Atheistic religion? What is that exactly? I've heard of places commonly referred to as "Athiest Church" which are basically non-denominational type churches that don't worship any specific deity, but just gather for fellowship and celebration of life purposes. Basically, for those atheists that miss the church community experience. 

Still, that's not a "religion." The only people I've ever refer to atheist religion are typically the religious, that honestly just can't comprehend the very idea of not having a religion at all.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm honestly just intrigued what is meant by an "atheistic religion."


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Feb 5, 2014)

Yes. 

There is no debate here, but Nye is still communicating what is the likeliest truth the the public.

Most of America got to see a creationist destroyed in debate, just as they have been for decades. 

The issue is not how old the earth is, or if evolution is a process that really happens. The issue is God's existence. I laugh so hard at any religious person thinking they have any understanding of the nature of God, should *it* exist. God might exist, or maybe it's impossible for it to exist, or maybe it's impossible for God's existence to not be the case, but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't be any God of our religions...

My philosophical proto-thesis is that God is the logical principle which is the foundation for all logical principles. Godel thought that God was the absolute infinite - all kinds of infinities multiplied. I disagree because numbers are arbitrary and the notion of infinity isn't special to me. Do I think this is right? I'll never know. That's the difference between myself and a Christian/Buddhist/Muslim/Jew.


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 5, 2014)

Zenki_Kouki said:


> I wasn't able to catch the debate, but I always cringe at discussions like this. I don't feel like they get us anywhere because both groups always have a bias. It can't be as black and white as people are forcing it to be though.



I see this sentiment frequently and try as I might, I can't find the bias for those that recognize evolution as fact.

There is no bias in recognizing what has been proven, there is only bias in ignoring fact in favor of a belief.

I don't _believe_ in evolution; I merely acknowledge that based on all available information, that evolution is the name given to the natural process that led to the current state of the known order. I recognize it as fact because there is demonstrable proof that it is how life developed.

The thing that really frustrates me is that there is plenty of room for a personal deity in the facts of evolution; evolution as a fact does not preclude that there was not a higher power at work as speculation. Evolution does not disprove a deity (though it does point to chaotic order and not intelligent design) so there should be no problem.

The only thing evolution as a fact disproves is the creation story in Genesis when you take it literally. That's it folks.


----------



## Watty (Feb 5, 2014)

JPhoenix19 said:


> One of the most ironic things I've heard from my now atheist brother-in-law was that the only reasonable and logical conclusion anyone can come to on the subject of God is agnosticism, since it is impossible to prove or disprove such a god's existence. What makes it ironic is that my brother-in-law is one of those bat-shit crazy atheists who pickets Christian concerts and evangelizes a form of 'atheistic religion'.



There is no "atheist religion." Atheism is a position on a single claim, that is, whether or not a god exists. Your brother is an atheist who hates religion (apparently), not a religious atheist.

And technically, agnosticism is the only position one can actually hold because it's impossible to prove or disprove a negative. Thus, we fall back on general belief, that is, theism or atheism.


----------



## Cancer (Feb 5, 2014)

Cancer said:


> Queston: what do say to the person who believes that creationism and evolution can coexist (much like the Newtonian wave/particle duality), and that creationism is the metaphor to the engine of evolution?



Preface: I am not a Christian, haven&#8217;t been for some time, and as a matter of course I will always default to the scientific method.

That said, as time goes along, I tend to look at Genesis almost as the &#8220;Aesop&#8217;s Fable&#8221; version of evolution, as if the writer was basically knew that he talking to a small child when attempting to explain &#8220;where the universe came from&#8221;. We have pretty decent understanding of how the solar system was formed, how a &#8220;formless void&#8221; condensed into the rocky inner planets and the gaseous outer ones. We have the Big Bang, and every visual depiction I&#8217;ve seen of it always begins with flash of light (Let there be light, and there was light&#8230;.). I could go on.

I&#8217;m not the saying the fable is perfect, of course it isn&#8217;t (it is a fable after all), but there are parallels, there are places where the metaphor of creation as it&#8217;s biblically described, and the engine of evolution as we currently understand, overlap. As a realist, and as someone who admires science, I personally can&#8217;t ignore that anymore. I get that they&#8217;re are those who are going to cling to their edge of the pendulum because it suits whatever agenda they prescribe to, but IMO is doesn&#8217;t serve anyone to not see the bigger picture.

My earlier metaphor WAS flawed, after all when Newton and Huygens went at it each thought the other wrong when both sides proven to be right, and unfortunately modern religion has polluted itself to the point when you can&#8217;t even entertain the concept of a Creator without someone trying to stick Jesus in it somewhere. Sadly, this destroyed any useful discussion of the potential of Intelligent Design, especially since that discussion could be decoupled from &#8220;God&#8221;&#8230;.

Carl Sagan said it best "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. _To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed_."


----------



## glpg80 (Feb 6, 2014)

I just found it odd creationism can be summarized by argument by authority and bible passage interpretations. It isnt so much as a theory molded by science, as it is a concept modeled by immediate surroundings. Like describing the colour purple and using another object to tell you why.


----------



## Matt_D_ (Feb 6, 2014)

Why the hell did I bother to write this? NO IDEA!


----------



## Xiphos68 (Feb 6, 2014)

This debate I enjoyed to certain extents. 

Bill Nye presented some good points and I believe Ken did as well. 


Though I feel like if this debate is to really get into the depths as it should have... 
Both of the gentlemen need to have a conversation. Not presenting points or taking questions from the crowd. 
While I believe they are useful and can make the debate stay on track. To me it was not enough. I feel like these gentlemen should have a debate as they would have a conversation. 
Until then...


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Feb 6, 2014)

Xiphos68 said:


> This debate I enjoyed to certain extents.
> 
> Bill Nye presented some good points and I believe Ken did as well.
> 
> ...



Ham isn't a gentleman. He's a charlatan who invents lies and feeds them to even more ignorant ....s. 

Out of interest, what were Ham's "good points"?

I haven't even seen the debate - I don't want to. I've seen too many of these and it makes me cringe. I am, however, familiar enough with Ham's bullshit to suspect that not a single good-point was made. Someone who lies about the fact that the Nazi ideology was actually grounded in religious belief so as to show how evil evolutionary theory and its proponents are, is not someone who I think has the capacity to make "good points". 

You can justify being a Christian a lot more than you can justify a creationist belief.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 6, 2014)

JPhoenix19 said:


> I often ponder if this is the case. As a Christian and what I would consider to be a philosophical and lightly scientific thinker, I've come to the viewpoint that the creation accounts given in Genesis are not to be taken literally. That is to say, since I believe in an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient God I therefore can accept that if He so chose, he could create the universe in 6 days- but I accept that our understanding of things doesn't add up to that being the case (in addition to taking the creation accounts themselves within their proper contexts). So to me, the most reasonable explanation is that God is guiding (to whatever degree), or at least has designed these processes of nature which we continue to try and understand using science.



Accepting both blindly is not anymore reasonable than picking a side, it's just a 3rd position. Only Christians find this position to be reasonable anyhow. To an Athiest or someone of another faith other than Christianity it sounds just as ludicrous.

The best position to take religiously speaking is to just ignore it all together. It can neither be proven nor dis-proven making it ultimately irrelevant. Accepting one faith IMO is a very egotistical POV. Most people have no idea what to believe or not to believe, what their God can do or not do, etc. so clearly man cannot understand God (if it were in fact a real thing) so why even bother. Anytime something doesn't make sense people redefine its meaning. Even on here I hear people say things like 'my interpretation', but there is only a right and wrong perspective religiously unless we are implying the existence of multiple Gods. Now, if you ignore half of the bible or pick and choose what you agree with that's even worse. Either it's right or wrong. From a religious standpoint I'm not saying the perspective that parts of it are accurate isn't a believable position, but without other proof it is borderline impossible to know without a doubt what is accurate and what isn't. Unless someone has a time machine or some sort of statistical model to find out what is accurate no one can with any great sense of accuracy decide what happened for real, what is metaphorical or just plain BS. I mean Christianity has been redefined numerous times since its formation, things were discredited, books were kept out to support particular viewpoints and to exclude any women authors, the current versions are translations of translations and the book is made up of fables and vague notions. Now, how does this honestly compare to a scientifically verifiable theory. Not particularly well IMO.

As for evolution, not being able to observe the long term effects does not mean it isn't a reality. We observe the effects of evolution all the time. This does not work for the bible because most of the stories are not repeatable, they don't still happen today, and the only thing anyone can reference to support a religious standpoint is the bible. A book mind you with probably over a 100 variations written to support that persons particular POV at the time. It honestly astounds me how passively people can refute all of the past and current religions yet not take an honest look at their own.

As for creationism, the only thing supporting it is the bible. That's it and not even all Christians believe in what Creationism proposes in its entirety. Evolution has mountains of data to back it up. Even excluding evolution from the argument there is plenty discrediting nearly every point that Creationism supports with the exception of the existence of God himself. Carbon dating, ice cores, the sea floor, etc. prove the Earth is much older than 6000 years. The sea floor recycles itself and is at it's oldest point roughly 50 million years old. That alone is quite a bit older than 6000 years. Only the bible fully supports creationism. Hard data says it is all BS. That isn't to say a God couldn't have been involved. I don't personally think so, but you don't need to disprove God to disprove Creationism as it is either.


----------



## Necris (Feb 6, 2014)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> Anyways, none of the examples of mutations that you listed actually benefit the species, nor do they demonstrate one species turning into another.


Not all mutations are beneficial, very few are. Also, one species "turning in to" another takes a very long time; and may not be the best way to think about speciation.
If a secondary species splits off from Species A over time (lets call it species B) Species A can continue to exist along side that new species.







This illustration is what many people expect/believe the process of evolution to be; and unfortunately at face value it is possibly one of the most misleading things you will ever see.

The reality of evolution is much more complex that that picture, you *do not* simply "fade" from one species to another in this manner with one disappearing after the new one has arisen:

A > B > C

Species tend to branch off from parent species; humans and apes had a parent species in common.
You can have a parent species _and_ multiple new species which diverged from that original parent species existing together at the same point in time. 
The parent species may eventually die out, but this process will repeat with the new species; it is a constant cycle. Some "older" species can exist after species which formed later have gone extinct; which can make things very hard to illustrate simply AND accurately. 

The "tree of life" is about the best attempt at clearly illustrating this while still being comprehensible to the average person that you will find.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 6, 2014)

Late to the party, but there is really no debating creationists for the creationist's sake, they have a special pleading (God) which can answer any question. There is a benefit to arguing with them for the people on the fence.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 6, 2014)

Jakke said:


> Late to the party, but there is really no debating creationists for the creationist's sake, they have a special pleading (God) which can answer any question. There is a benefit to arguing with them for the people on the fence.



You're 100% correct.

It's not really a "debate" as much as it is a way to disseminate some very basic science to an audience that might not have had the same kind of educational opportunities out there in fundamentalist communities, or have anti-science families. It's sad that such places exist, where the quality of education is that poor, but they're real.

Scientists, myself included, can be a little egotistical and self-righteous at times. It gets drilled into us that if something contradicts your position and the evidence is reputable then you MUST accept what has the most evidence. So, we often assume that evidence speaks for itself. Lots of people were either not raised in such an environment or have been had bullshit shoveled at them for so long that they don't even know how to respond when they're in an unsupportable position.

In essence, the way to improve scientific literacy is to teach it and be vocal about it. For too long it's almost been looked down on for scientists to communicate ideas in layman's terms. That needs to stop. Sure, it's a little silly to put creationism up on debate against something that has evidence... but at the end of the day, evolution has evidence and won't be disproven because a creationist throws around logical fallacies. Meanwhile, someone, somewhere, might just have that light go on in their head when hearing the evidence.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Feb 6, 2014)

my thoughts on this..... laughable. 

normally i would write long post about how i dont think Bill Nye should have even wasted his time, but Pat Robertson already did this so im just gonna post his thoughts on the matter 

Pat Robertson Disagrees With Creationist Ken Ham, Says 'Let's Not Make A Joke Of Ourselves' 

for whatever reason (i've stopped trying to figure it out) modern Christianity holds to a timeline made by some dude who used the bible and GUESSED A LOT. 

the age of the earth does nothing to hurt the teachings of christ


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 6, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> You're 100% correct.
> 
> It's not really a "debate" as much as it is a way to disseminate some very basic science to an audience that might not have had the same kind of educational opportunities out there in fundamentalist communities, or have anti-science families. It's sad that such places exist, where the quality of education is that poor, but they're real.



Honestly, I don't think it's always an issue with the quality of the education. Schools teach biology/science, after all, and religion is (usually) left to the parents and churches to teach. What it comes down to is more about the strength of their personal beliefs, their level of indoctrination, and the prevalence of religion in their social communities. 

A biology teacher can tell a kid that evolution is real until he's blue in the face, but if Mommy and Daddy at home, his elders at church, and his friends at bible study are telling him that the science teacher is a liar and only the Bible is true, who's the kid going to believe? 

When I was growing up, I didn't believe in evolution and I thought man and dinosaurs coexisted. That wasn't the fault of my teachers, though, rather it was caused by authority figures elsewhere in my life undermining the authority of my teachers, and I strongly suspect that's the case and many cases elsewhere, as well. 

That's the mostly likely reason I can think of that two people can go through the exact same school system and come out believing completely different things with regards to science. You don't really see that with other subjects like math. Kids aren't growing up thinking long division is impossible, because the authority figures in their lives aren't telling them that their Math teacher is wrong and Baby Jesus says long division is a lie created by Satan.


----------



## Rotatous (Feb 7, 2014)

This is not a debate worth having (as far as most of it goes), people believing that the earth is 6000 years old and a bunch of other nonsense taken literally in The Bible isn't a _real_ problem in our society today with regards to where man as a species is headed. 

The debate is presented as "Science" or "Evolution" vs. "Creationism" - which means we're debating world views and belief systems here, including "Science" as a belief system and the majority belief at that, because lets face it, the majority of people who vouch for evolution know very little about it, they simply believe what they are told in grade school about the subject and preach it wildly, whereas most educated people who really understand the theory of evolution also (or should) understand the fact that it is a theory, which has holes and problems of its own, and has room to be criticized and further improved on.

Unfortunately I think most people watching this debate probably don't understand that and see this as a very black vs white, right vs wrong situation with Bill Nye, a children's show host, as the voice of their belief system - their preacher, the public school system as their chapel, and school textbooks their Bible.

While I tend to agree with Bill Nye in this debate, I think that "Science" as a belief system and an institution of dogma and not a method is more dangerous to the progress of man and more of a real problem than whats being debated here, which to me is frankly a waste of time and ridiculous.


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 7, 2014)

Rotatous said:


> Unfortunately I think most people watching this debate probably don't understand that and see this as a very black vs white, right vs wrong situation with Bill Nye, a children's show host, as the voice of their belief system - their preacher, the public school system as their chapel, and school textbooks their Bible.



I'll just go ahead and lump myself in this crowd you're purporting to describe here as I am very much a layman. I understand basic scientific principles and can easily follow along with science programs and fully grasp the content if not the actual formula which produced the result.

As such, I suppose it could be argued that I believed my school text book completely and took my teachers at their word for no reason other than because that was what I was taught. The rub of it is, that anyone learning about science, learns that is merely a tool with which to discover information about the world around you. The student is to question everything, test everything, learn everything himself.

Of course if everyone had to learn everything from scratch, then we would never progress as a species. You have to build upon what comes before, refine it, sculpt it, apply it to new findings and constantly prune the redundant, disproved bits.

That is what peer review is all about, the process by which new information is deemed accurate and valid and added into the canon for future generations to build off of. I can trust that process because it is a global endeavor, across the entire scientific community bridging hundreds of different ethnicities, creeds, sexes. The idea that the scientific community has been holding the largest and longest running conspiracy of all time is patently ludicrous.

The religious don't have that process; it's abundantly obvious by the sheer volume of different religions & different sub-types of different religions; there is no joint consensus, no empirical data to review and discuss and debate. There is only speculation and interpretation, only faith.

TLDR: only people of faith look at those who trust science and think that they are worshiping science as a deity and taking it all at face value. Understanding science (even if only a little bit) is about having the will to question everything, regardless of who told it you and judge for yourself.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 7, 2014)

I don't have to question it because others already have. Hundred upon hundreds of people have already weeded out what doesn't work or only has enough evidence to be considered a hypothesis. I do not need to do that because it has already been done. Technological progress would not occur at all if we required ourselves to be experts in everything before questioning anything. Nobody sits there and says these type of things about computers, programming, architecture, etc. either. Only when something 'contradicts' faith are people accused of being 'followers' of science. 

I can believe evolution and the majority of scientific theories even outside of my field of expertise because they have already been heavily vetted by tons of people with PHD's in the subject matter. Science is not a belief system. It's a catch all term for an extremely large variety of fields and most of all a methodology.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 7, 2014)

Science doesn't dictate, it describes. That's a sentiment that is too often lost in the mix, I think.


----------



## Edika (Feb 7, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> You don't really see that with other subjects like math. Kids aren't growing up thinking long division is impossible, because the authority figures in their lives aren't telling them that their Math teacher is wrong and Baby Jesus says long division is a lie created by Satan.



Partial differential equations? The devil's work I tell you!


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 7, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> A biology teacher can tell a kid that evolution is real until he's blue in the face, but if Mommy and Daddy at home, his elders at church, and his friends at bible study are telling him that the science teacher is a liar and only the Bible is true, who's the kid going to believe?



That's a valid point. We all tend to put our own background into things on some level. Mine was one parent being a lukewarm (at best) Catholic, and the other being something of a deist that just sat in a pew every so often when mom decided she was feeling guilty enough to make us go. Nobody ever told me to reject proof of things. Who knows what my views would be if I had been born into a fundamentalist Christian household.

However, I think it's pretty reasonable to think that even in a situation like you describe some children would still reject it. It seems logical to think that susceptibility to superstitious belief is along a spectrum.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 7, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> However, I think it's pretty reasonable to think that even in a situation like you describe some children would still reject it. It seems logical to think that susceptibility to superstitious belief is along a spectrum.



Yeah, I did eventually reject it myself, in the end. It took me until I was 17, but hey, better late than never . 

The real difference maker for me was my family moving from one state where we were very involved with the church and I had a large group of really good friends in the church community, to another state where I didn't know anybody and the church we started going to wasn't really full of open and friendly people. That caused me to have to seek out friendship outside of the church for pretty much the first time in my life, and that's when I first started meeting non-believers and found at that hey, what do you know, they were cool, normal people with level heads on their shoulders.

I'm glad I had that opportunity, and a bit sad that not everyone else does. As we've gotten at before, that's the main bright spot to this Nye v Ham "debate": Maybe some kid is going to see it and think "Hey, I like Bill Nye on that other TV show. He seems nice and really smart. What he's saying is making alot of sense to me, and maybe I don't need to feel bad for agreeing anymore."


----------



## Edika (Feb 7, 2014)

This article I found interesting:
A New Step In Evolution &#8211; The Loom

That came from this link:
Religion and science: Answering creationists' questions.


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 7, 2014)

How funny that I happened to watch this episode yesterday...



[not sure why the image is reversed]


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 7, 2014)

Edika said:


> This article I found interesting:
> A New Step In Evolution  The Loom
> 
> That came from this link:
> Religion and science: Answering creationists' questions.



Always nice to see my undergrad alma mater represented. Go Green!

Also, ironically Ken Ham mentioned this study in his presentation as proof that evolution by natural selection isn't real. lolwut?


----------



## 12enoB (Feb 7, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> TLDR: only people of faith look at those who trust science and think that they are worshiping science as a deity and taking it all at face value. Understanding science (even if only a little bit) is about having the will to question everything, regardless of who told it you and judge for yourself.



This is something that I think really needs to get across more. I think on mass there is a huge misunderstanding of science as dogma, and as you say, usually people who think this are religious. It's the same as those who say atheists are religious, or that they "believe" there is no god, when that's completely not true. 

I consider myself a lover of science and a skeptic, but I can admit even I didn't understand science properly until I left college and did research on my own. I think it's important for educators to not only explain scientific discoveries, but the process the researchers used to get to that discovery. I felt that was lacking in my education anyway.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Feb 8, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Science doesn't dictate, it describes.



*And has predictive power. Not everything in science has predictive power, (like string theory which is infamous for its lack of predictive power, sorry string theorists) but much of it does. That's what gives it practical application.


----------



## rectifryer (Feb 8, 2014)

You dissonant sonovabich


----------



## The Reverend (Feb 9, 2014)

I don't think people who 'believe in Science' should be lumped into the same category as religious believers.

Would a person discover Jesus had they been raised in a vacuum of religious ideas? No. Could they figure out that two and two equals four? Yes. There is no such thing as "Scientific Dogma" because these concepts we're talking about have been repeated and observed time after time. We're not pushing talking points; we're talking about shit you could go replicate yourself, had you the time and inclination to do so. If there is a scientific concept that is taken on faith, it is by definition not a product of science. The closest science can ever get to faith is using an observation or formula to predict a future result. The difference is that should that result be different that the prediction, more testing or observation is done to narrow down what the issue is. Faith demands acceptance in all its naked, hairy glory, with no room for further refinement. 

I don't feel slighted by being a follower of 'Science.' If anything, it puts me in the company of the world's greatest humans. To think that I've followed the same chains of logic and reached the same conclusions as the people we learn about in textbooks doesn't denigrate me in any way. Science is the great equalizer, in that sense.


----------



## davidXL (Feb 9, 2014)

read this whole thread. damn waste of time. same close minded opinions on both sides. 

i'm waiting for SS.O to undergo miosis and create a 4 haploid sites, 2 for guitar related topics and 2 for religious/politics/i googled big words to look smart, topics. 

if you read this and didn't get the reference, and comented against or on behalf of evolution, then you have nearly 0 biology background and your posts should be limited to 2 a day.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 9, 2014)

davidXL said:


> i'm waiting for SS.O to undergo miosis



So... Contraction of pupils?


----------



## The Reverend (Feb 9, 2014)

davidXL said:


> read this whole thread. damn waste of time. same close minded opinions on both sides.
> 
> i'm waiting for SS.O to undergo miosis and create a 4 haploid sites, 2 for guitar related topics and 2 for religious/politics/i googled big words to look smart, topics.
> 
> if you read this and didn't get the reference, and comented against or on behalf of evolution, then you have nearly 0 biology background and your posts should be limited to 2 a day.



Best post I've seen all year. F--king delicious. Irony, thy name is David Extra Large

You win the internet, dude.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 9, 2014)

How long before he notices, hahaha.

Protip, kids: If you're going to be condescending, at least spellcheck your posts.


----------



## davidXL (Feb 9, 2014)

The Reverend said:


> Best post I've seen all year. F--king delicious. Irony, thy name is David Extra Large
> 
> You win the internet, dude.



x is my middle initial and L is my last initial.


----------



## Watty (Feb 9, 2014)

davidXL said:


> x is my middle initial and L is my last initial.



Great and great. *ignores the callout*

And to be clear, science is.....BY DEFINITION, open mindedness.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 9, 2014)

davidXL said:


> read this whole thread. damn waste of time. same close minded opinions on both sides.



In this thread we have had creationists, people who think creationism is BS and that evolution is correct, people who think God did it, but not quite the creationist way and then people who think creationism is BS and that evolution is correct while still being religious.

Now, what other positions are there to even hold and what position out of these is considered 'open minded'? It seems, since it keeps coming up, that the only perceived 'open minded' position is falling right in the middle, believing in God and Evolution, but there's a problem with this in the current discussion. 

One, this discussion has nothing to do with the existence of God at all. Creationism can be wrong and evolution right with or without a God. 

Two, from an evidence and fact POV there is none for creationism, unless you count the bible as an instant right, and truck loads of peer reviewed evidence for evolution. 

So why do we have to partially accept creationism at all to be considered 'open minded'?


----------



## davidXL (Feb 9, 2014)

i am on several forums and this is by far the most difficult forum to try and have a discussion on because of the massive bandwagon effect it has. 

every post i submit i can already hear the the insulting reactions followed by the "you mad bro?" posts afterwards. 

so since the satire was not appreciated i will explain,

by "same close minded opinions from both sides" i meant that this thread is going like all the other threads that have to do with religion or politics on this site. you get the same comments.

the mEiosis JOKE was to point out the ignorant comments made by people who claim to know or have studied or be what ever they want to be to make them an expert. (i'm not calling out any one just saying it's obvious that alot of comments made are based off of what their friend told them)

didn't get the extra large reference so don't know how you would like me confront the call out. 

my first post on here was about my experience with buying a custom guitar and i was told to go kill myself. i'm not broken or sad about it but come on. you guys really think that you are on an impartial website about guitars? 

and we are really playing the grammar police? really? it's so old.


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 9, 2014)

^ Dude is butthurt because he tried to call people out and pass himself off as smarter than everyone else in the thread, and instead looked foolish. Try not to begin each post in a thread demeaning everyone and you won't get backlash. 

And FWIW, there are a lot of really smart people on here with "real jobs" besides playing music.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 9, 2014)

davidXL said:


> i am on several forums and this is by far the most difficult forum to try and have a discussion on because of the massive bandwagon effect it has.
> 
> every post i submit i can already hear the the insulting reactions followed by the "you mad bro?" posts afterwards.
> 
> ...



Hey, man. This thread has been pretty chill. I even talked with a creationist in a respectful manner a few pages back!

I, for one, thought your joke was fine 

You want me to scan my degree or something to prove it? You don't have to have a degree in biology to understand evolution anyway, but if you want my CV I could supply one, lol.


----------



## Watty (Feb 9, 2014)

davidXL said:


> i am on several forums and this is by far the most difficult forum to try and have a discussion on because of the massive bandwagon effect it has. every post i submit i can already hear the the insulting reactions followed by the "you mad bro?" posts afterwards.



Uh, what? There's isn't a "bandwagon," there are simply lots of folks here who are of the same mind on topics like this. 



davidXL said:


> so since the satire was not appreciated i will explain,
> 
> by "same close minded opinions from both sides" i meant that this thread is going like all the other threads that have to do with religion or politics on this site. you get the same comments.



You can say that neither side is liable to change their position, which is completely fair and generally accurate. What we're not in agreement on is the fact that you equate the close mindedness of those who believe in creationism with the "close mindedness" (not applicable, as noted above) of those who don't and prefer science to explain reality. This was one reason a lot of folks didn't want the debate to happen in the first place; it seemed to put both positions on the same level from an viability standpoint which is just NOT the case.



davidXL said:


> the mEiosis JOKE was to point out the ignorant comments made by people who claim to know or have studied or be what ever they want to be to make them an expert. (i'm not calling out any one just saying it's obvious that alot of comments made are based off of what their friend told them)



You can't really come back and correct yourself after the fact in this manner despite the error being a simple typo associated with one letter. We all knew what you meant, but given the tone of the rest of your post and the information contained therein, it didn't seem to be sarcasm that caused you to completely miss the actual concept you were trying to convey....hence the reason people jumped on it. I typically proofread every post of mine at least twice before hitting submit, even on mundane things, so the fact that you neglected to correct yourself in this context is kind of indefensible, especially after the fact.



davidXL said:


> didn't get the extra large reference so don't know how you would like me confront the call out.



The last two letters in your handle, regardless of your clarification, are a common moniker for the size "extra large" in the US. It was an "easy target" given that you don't have a username that would be easily equitable with some little kid who thought "S1ipnoT666" was a good title for himself online. 



davidXL said:


> my first post on here was about my experience with buying a custom guitar and i was told to go kill myself. i'm not broken or sad about it but come on. you guys really think that you are on an impartial website about guitars?



Well, it was actually your 14th post (and those that followed), if you want to get technical with it. Also, you got told off by a notorious reseller who makes money off of the fact that he didn't agree with you. Of course he won't support your argument, there's no need to get overly butthurt about a disagreement as minor as that. And I have no idea what you're trying to say in the last bit. We're on a website about guitars around which there is a community made up of individuals that have different opinions. Guitar related opinions are fairly unimportant in the grand scheme of things whereas opinions about where our nation is heading tend to be a bit more important?



davidXL said:


> and we are really playing the grammar police? really? it's so old.



Well, given that we're discussing a "high brow" topic that has a shit ton of real-world ramifications (whole point of Nye's acceptance of the debate in the first place), I'd say using proper grammar might be a pre-requisiste for being taken seriously in the context of the debate. However, you'd get somewhat of a free pass being from Lebanon and most likely being bilingual with English as a distant second to whatever your primary language happens to be.


----------



## EyesPriedOpen (Feb 9, 2014)

Just to throw my two cents in on the whole debate (which was so beyond entertaining for me to watch)...

I find it rather amusing how often Ken would dance around the questions presented, especially when Bill would challenge him to show how his view can predict. Ken would ignore it, then near the end he stated that he listed numerous ways in which he showed this. Tons of avoiding, and TONS of "Well see Bill we have this book called the Bible...."

Since it was being held at Ken's Crazy Creation Temple, I assumed the whole debate would be really skewed against Bill. I found it to be really fair honestly. 

Absolute best part in the entire thing though was one line from Bill, in response to a question (if I remember correctly) about the possibility of a God or other being: "Well, I don't know." THAT is what makes Bill the clear winner for me. He's open to admitting that we don't have an answer to everything, and he strives to find those answers.

I'd also like to mention a question Ken answered that really pissed me off. It really disturbs me when someone is willing to take bits and pieces out of the Bible and take them as fact, then turn around and say you need to take the rest with a grain of salt.

Anywho. Just my


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 9, 2014)

davidXL said:


> and we are really playing the grammar police? really? it's so old.



If you're going to make a reference and then say that anyone who doesn't get it should be limited to two posts a day, you should probably make sure there aren't any glaring spelling errors in it that completely change the meaning of one of the key words .


----------



## The Reverend (Feb 9, 2014)

davidXL said:


> i am on several forums and this is by far the most difficult forum to try and have a discussion on because of the massive bandwagon effect it has.
> 
> every post i submit i can already hear the the insulting reactions followed by the "you mad bro?" posts afterwards.
> 
> ...



If you want to take the intellectual high ground, be damn sure you don't make stupid mistakes. You will be ridiculed, and rightly so. Also, why shouldn't we play grammar police? Logic depends on clear and concise phrasing, and grammar, for the most part, is built on logic. If you can't be bothered to write logically, why would your opinions be constructed with any more care?

If you don't like SSO, don't post here. It's the only forum that I post on because it's largely free of /b/-isms and is generally a well-moderated, good place to argue your opinions, get gear news, and feedback. If you feel differently, act differently. None of us will be sad.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 10, 2014)

```

```



Watty said:


> And to be clear, science is.....BY DEFINITION, open mindedness.



This. This is perfect.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 11, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> my thoughts on this..... laughable.
> 
> normally i would write long post about how i dont think Bill Nye should have even wasted his time, but Pat Robertson already did this so im just gonna post his thoughts on the matter
> 
> ...





> That's not to say that Robertson doesn't believe in creationism at all, however. He puts his faith in a God-guided evolutionary process, declaring "I believe that God started it all, and he is in charge of all of it. But the fact that you have progressive evolution under his control, that doesn't hurt my faith at all."
> 
> Pat Robertson Disagrees With Creationist Ken Ham, Says 'Let's Not Make A Joke Of Ourselves'



This is largely the point I've been making. God(s) is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not young earth creationism is correct because either way it isn't. I don't believe in a God(s), but I don't have to dis-prove its existence either to know creationism is BS. 

To put it in perspective it'd be like dis-proving Noah's ark. If we had proof that that never happened it would not immediately mean that God(s) is make believe. Creationism is just a story from the bible like any other. All of the stories could be dead wrong and God(s) could still exist. I'd question ones motivation to latch on to a faith like that, but either way it has no effect on the existence of God(s) (or lack there of) .


----------



## 12enoB (Feb 11, 2014)

Can we start like an SSO skeptics group or something? 

It's refreshing to see so many supporters of the scientific process all in one place. It gets disheartening when all you have is media showing you the dumbasses of the world.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 11, 2014)

A couple of us (I'm looking at you Flint, Necris and AxeHappy, those were the days...) were arguing quite a lot against conspiracy theories and alt-med a couple of years ago on this forum, and most members on this board turned out to be at least fans of the scientific process. It warmed by shriveled and black skeptical heart to no bounds.

*EDIT* Also of course the lovely USMarine75


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 11, 2014)

^ You hurt me in that place in my chest where my feelings are supposed to be... 

All is well now... carry on.


----------



## The Reverend (Feb 11, 2014)

And of course I receive no mention. Interesting how the black guy just falls through the cracks, eh? What a tragic coincidence....








Or is it......


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 11, 2014)

^ Yeah I'd tolerate it any other month... but not February! How rude.


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 11, 2014)

The Reverend said:


> And of course I receive no mention. Interesting how the black guy just falls through the cracks, eh? What a tragic coincidence....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's all good Rev, I'm not cool enough for the SSO Skeptic Squad either


----------



## Jakke (Feb 11, 2014)

I think the Skeptics' Squad better have membership by self-admittance instead of mention, right?


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 11, 2014)

Jakke said:


> I think the Skeptics' Squad better have membership by self-admittance instead of mention, right?



Certainly.

so: SSOSS?


----------



## Jakke (Feb 12, 2014)

You bet


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 12, 2014)

^ Can we wear cool grey and black outfits with SSOSS armbands?


----------



## hairychris (Feb 12, 2014)

USMarine75 said:


> ^ Can we wear cool grey and black outfits with SSOSS armbands?



You'll have to drive a VW Beetle though.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 12, 2014)

I'll be the Christian member of the Seven String .Org Skeptics Society.

You can call me "Special SSOSS."


----------



## skeels (Feb 12, 2014)

I remain unconvinced that the SSO Skeptics Squad even actually exists.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 12, 2014)

skeels said:


> I remain unconvinced that the SSO Skeptics Squad even actually exists.



Oh ye of little faith.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Feb 12, 2014)




----------



## Jakke (Feb 13, 2014)

Xaios said:


> I'll be the Christian member of the Seven String .Org Skeptics Society.
> 
> You can call me "Special SSOSS."



You can be the christian wildcard


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Feb 13, 2014)

Saw this today


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Feb 13, 2014)

EPIC!!! Rick Roll.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 13, 2014)

I love the direction this is going.


----------



## Pat_tct (Feb 13, 2014)

just want to give a quick opinion on the whole thing.
I know it's basically beating a dead horse but i just want to say it.

I started watching it i think a day or 2 after the actual debate.
both Ham and Nye presented their points in 5 minutes.

Mr Ham throw at least 20 PowerPoint Sheets ant me and talked so fast that it was a pain to listen to him.
Plus he basically said the same thing over and over again.

Mr Nye then started this event with a small anecdote and overall had me listen to him.


then the moderator said that everyone will have 30 minutes to go into their opinion.
And the whole thing was over for me there.
I closed the tab in my browser and stat was it.
I knew that I would not stand to listen to 30 minutes of the debating style of Ham.

Poor job from his side right from the start.
I obviously can't really speak about what they said throughout the whole thing but just the way their first impression was and how they talked.

Nye won that by miles for me. Ham is hard to understand and even harder to keep listening just from the way he talks and presents his stuff.


all i could remember from Ham the next day is "observational vs historical science".... that is all. good job Mr Ham.


----------



## icos211 (Feb 13, 2014)

Just to kick his historical/observational science argument in the balls, I would have brought up how camels weren't domesticated until several thousand years after the events of the bible were thought to take place, but Moses wrote about Abraham and Noah and such traveling with camels because it's what happened in his day, and so he extrapolated that it must have been happening then as well when he and his colleagues wrote the old testament. I think that would have really screwed those imaginings of his about how science works up.


----------



## Andromalia (Feb 14, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Creationists need to take a debate or philosophy course to learn how to formulate proper arguments that are both sound and valid.


They actually don't. Creationists are mostly savvy businessmen making their money off stupid believers of their nonsense. You likely get some true creationist believers in the media fro time to time, but they're just like politicians: they chose to make their career with a specific role and cling to it. What they actually think is irrelevant, they just have a business model. Their arguments and speeches are havily rehearsed and targeting people suceptible to believing that bullshit. 
Why are nigerian scam emails always so badly written ? Not because the scammers are illiterate, but because the scammers actually want to filter out educated people who won't take the bait and just be a loss of time for them. Same goes with scientology etc. If you find their speech is stupid, it's not that they are stupid, it's the fact that you are not the target.


----------



## hairychris (Feb 14, 2014)

Pat_tct said:


> all i could remember from Ham the next day is "observational vs historical science".... that is all. good job Mr Ham.



Yeah, retarded.

So if his house gets burgled and family murdered without anyone else witnessing it he won't hassle the cops to make arrests as there's no way that any evidence they gathered could point to a perp.

He really hasn't thought all this through.


----------



## Alberto7 (Feb 14, 2014)

Read this today (posted by I F*cking Love Science on FB):

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39118/title/Opinion--Confronting-Creationism/

Could never have said it better myself.

EDIT: title of the article is "*Opinion: Confronting Creationism - Five reasons why scientists should stay out of debates over evolution.*"


----------



## Andromalia (Feb 19, 2014)

Mostly agreeing on this. Why bother with creationists, leave them in their ignorance.


----------



## flexkill (Apr 15, 2014)

How can anyone believe in a God that would allow what's happened to Jason Becker happen!?


----------



## hairychris (Apr 15, 2014)

flexkill said:


> How can anyone believe in a God that would allow what's happened to Jason Becker happen!?



Existence of a deity <> existing deity being a dick


----------



## Joose (Apr 16, 2014)

Creationist Cosmos (Funny or Die)


----------



## crg123 (Apr 16, 2014)

^


----------



## UnderTheSign (Apr 16, 2014)

hairychris said:


> Existence of a deity <> existing deity being a dick


Probably how deity X made it happen to him because now he has found the true meaning and purpose of his life... Or something 
I remember my brother being in highschool and a kid he went to school with went swimming in the sea, got caught in strong current and drowned. Very religious parents said at the funeral "we are sad, but this was Gods will and so be it, he's in a better place now"....


----------



## Explorer (Apr 17, 2014)

That "Creationist Cosmos" video is hilarious... and painful.

I remember at some point reading through various parts of the Answers in Genesis website. I was shocked to find a link to an essay entitled, "Proof that the Bible is true."

The essay started pretty intelligently, stating that if you want to prove that something is true, you need to do more than to say that you believe it to be true. Wow! I thought. Does the author actually have some novel proof which I've never heard?

I kept reading, waiting for the concrete proof to be revealed, something beyond faith... and then, in the last few paragraphs, the whole topic went to, "If you read the Bible, its truth will be evident! That's how you know!" 

I call shenanigans! What kind of bait and switch is that?!!

Funny or Die has the right idea. There have been some really funny arguments against Cosmos, a lot of them coming down to, The Bible says differently, so ignore where the evidence leads!

I don't have the resources to make a video myself, but how ridiculous would it become? "Yes, if the universe was only 6500 years old, the light from those other stars and galaxies wouldn't have reached us yet, but Satan or God created that light already on the way. There's no evidence I can point to of that, but you need to reject the need for evidence, and science's willingness to follow the evidence no matter where it leads!"

I've found that one of the best ways to let people make their own choices is to explain clearly what reasoning lies behind certain people's actions. There would be no defense against repetition of the previous paragraph, because that's really the message being preached by the creationists. 

And most people's response would be, WTF?

Getting back to topic, the Nye/Ham debate, at the end I believe both participants were asked what could change their minds. Nye? Evidence. Ham? Nothing.

And Ham's viewpoint really made a lot of people recoil, and look at Ham as a religious zealot who would never be able to consider he might be wrong. With that, they also looked at him as hugely arrogant.

And those moments where the mask slips, and one sees just how deep crazy goes, are what help limit the harm to society by the crazies.


----------



## wat (Apr 17, 2014)

I don't even look at the Ken Ham thing as a "debate" because Ken Ham was arguing from an indefensible position from the get-go. I mean, it's not much different than trying to argue that the earth is flat or that it's the center of the universe. At the end of the day, Ken's argument was reduced to "it says so in the Bible, therefore all your evidence is false".

I've actually been struggling with keeping it together around my Christian friends lately because they often display this sort of misguided attitude towards science that makes me cringe. I never say anything and I just try to steer the subject towards something else because I'd rather just not get into it. 

But with them it's as if current scientific understanding threatens (their understanding/interpretation of) scripture then that alone is actually a good enough reason to doubt the world's greatest minds.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 17, 2014)

wat said:


> ...*Ken's argument was reduced to "it says so in the Bible, therefore all your evidence is false".*
> 
> I've actually been struggling with keeping it together around my Christian friends lately because they often display this sort of misguided attitude towards science that makes me cringe. It's as if current scientific understanding threatening (your understanding/interpretation of) *scripture is actually a good enough reason to doubt the world's greatest minds.*



I'd change that last section to, "scripture is actually a good enough reason to doubt observable evidence." 

I didn't learn, until fairly recently, that Biblical literalists lumped modern astronomy in with evolution as false. (Wut?) Why? Because it leads the unwary into sin by denying Scriptural truth like... *the flat Earth.*

Yup. 

I couldn't find a link to any, but I've seen great one-panel cartoons from fundamentalist Christians where a multi-headed Beast was doing battle with one of the faithful. The heads were labeled things like "Evolution," "Higher Criticism," "Homosex," and... "Modern Astronomy."

My jaw dropped. Really? Modern astronomy is an enemy of Scripture? 

Keep in mind that modern astronomy is what allows cable and satellite TV content distribution to work. The nutcase people are relying on technology which shouldn't work if Scripture were literally true.

Going further, if Scripture is literally true in their interpretation, and the only reason Modern Astronomy and all its fruits work is because Satan is intervening... then every time one of them relies on satellites to communicate the Word to the Faithful, they're joining hands with Satan and embracing His Fruits. 

Cell phones are also the Fruits of Satan's Works. 

And getting products from China, using the paths of the Earth as Sphere.

Most people will embrace a faith only as long as it doesn't overburden them. Not everyone is courageous enough to embrace the path of the Amish or Mennonites. 

I suspect your friends have cell phones. They're good with consuming Satan's Fruits, as long as Satan makes their life easier. 

And that's really where my fundamentalist friends have hit a brick wall with me. They can't tell me that I'm doing something badly when they refuse to fix their hypocrisy. "Really? You think modern science is evil, and that I should renounce it? Then get rid of your smartphone, show me how it's done. Put your money (and convenience) where your mouth is."

And that's really done a lot to cut out the sniping. 

(No, I don't just go there. I'm always happy to treat others with the same respect I would like to receive. I figure, if they are treating me in a certain way, they're using Jesus' Golden Rule, and are treating me as they would like to be treated, so I take them at their word and treat them as they request.)


----------



## wat (Apr 17, 2014)

^ Man, I don't even know if I know anybody who is THAT extreme. The guys I'm talking about are just unsure about things like if the universe is really as big or as old as we think it is because "how do we know god didn't make the light already en route"

Which brings me to a point that relates to your other thread that was locked. I have a friend who has rationalized that God created the universe in such a way that we can never truly unravel the mystery of it's origin BECAUSE then it would take away our free will to believe that God created it.

In other words, God has hidden his fingerprints from his creation because seeing evidence of Him would make ti so we didn't have a choice but to believe him. So yes, I do know people who will make whatever it takes to support their faith.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 17, 2014)

And if any particular God did something with the intention to deceive, that often threatens the stability of the grounding of any particular person's theological viewpoint.

It's like a one-two punch. 

Bam! I lied to you! 

Bam! Because you believed the lie I fed you, using the mind and senses I gave you in My image, you're eternally damned!

Most people don't think well of liars, and then if that liar punished you for believing the lie? Wow!


----------

