Bill Nye vs Ken Ham (Creationist Weirdo)

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by groverj3, Feb 3, 2014.

  1. Edika

    Edika SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,952
    Likes Received:
    1,975
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Location:
    Londonderry, N.Ireland, UK
    ^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.
     
  2. asher

    asher So Did We

    Messages:
    8,743
    Likes Received:
    687
    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Location:
    Oakland, CA

    On the surface that makes zero sense as a metaphor.
     
  3. KJGaruda

    KJGaruda Likes a good riff

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    31
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2013
    Location:
    SLC
    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. :2c:
     
  4. 12enoB

    12enoB It's Boner Backwards

    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    30
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    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"?
     
  5. USMarine75

    USMarine75 The man who is tired of the anus is tired of life Contributor

    Messages:
    7,663
    Likes Received:
    8,577
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Location:
    VA
    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... :yesway:
     
  6. JPhoenix19

    JPhoenix19 Playing life by ear

    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    357
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    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.
     
  7. JPhoenix19

    JPhoenix19 Playing life by ear

    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    357
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    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'.
     
  8. Mordacain

    Mordacain Formerly 1-watt brigadier

    Messages:
    5,419
    Likes Received:
    424
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    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."
     
  9. CrushingAnvil

    CrushingAnvil Ironically enough, now in Jesus Land

    Messages:
    8,354
    Likes Received:
    1,279
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Location:
    Wellington, New Zealand
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2014
  10. Mordacain

    Mordacain Formerly 1-watt brigadier

    Messages:
    5,419
    Likes Received:
    424
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    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.:wallbash:
     
  11. Watty

    Watty Naturally Cynical

    Messages:
    3,811
    Likes Received:
    386
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Location:
    Renton, Washington
    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.
     
  12. Cancer

    Cancer Cancer:The Crucifuct

    Messages:
    3,260
    Likes Received:
    281
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Preface: I am not a Christian, haven’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 “Aesop’s Fable” version of evolution, as if the writer was basically knew that he talking to a small child when attempting to explain “where the universe came from”. We have pretty decent understanding of how the solar system was formed, how a “formless void” condensed into the rocky inner planets and the gaseous outer ones. We have the Big Bang, and every visual depiction I’ve seen of it always begins with flash of light (Let there be light, and there was light….). I could go on.

    I’m not the saying the fable is perfect, of course it isn’t (it is a fable after all), but there are parallels, there are places where the metaphor of creation as it’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’t ignore that anymore. I get that they’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’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’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 “God”….

    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."
     
  13. glpg80

    glpg80 √εvil

    Messages:
    1,397
    Likes Received:
    117
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2012
    Location:
    MD
    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.
     
  14. Matt_D_

    Matt_D_ SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    28
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Why the hell did I bother to write this? NO IDEA! :D
     
  15. Xiphos68

    Xiphos68 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,218
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    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...
     
  16. CrushingAnvil

    CrushingAnvil Ironically enough, now in Jesus Land

    Messages:
    8,354
    Likes Received:
    1,279
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Location:
    Wellington, New Zealand
    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.
     
  17. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,248
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    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.
     
  18. Necris

    Necris Bonitis.

    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    935
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Location:
    Somewhere in New York
    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.

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  19. Jakke

    Jakke Pretty wisdomous

    Messages:
    4,365
    Likes Received:
    773
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Location:
    In a van... DOWN' BY THE RIVER!
    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.
     
  20. groverj3

    groverj3 Bioinformagician

    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    1,615
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    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.
     

Share This Page