Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Davros of Skaro

2/4/14 Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

110 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Drayno

After the debate, several creationists were asked to write a message / question for the 'science' side of the argument:

http://www.buzzfeed....eve-in-evolutio

These are a few of my favourites.

enhanced-15285-1391576908-9.jpg

enhanced-14977-1391576919-1.jpg

enhanced-30391-1391576914-1.jpg

enhanced-27109-1391576856-1.jpg

First one: That's like saying "If there's rock and roll, how come there is still the blues?"

Because the one that comes first is timeless.

Second one: *Facepalm*

Not testable? Not observable? And intelligent design is both testable and observable?

Considering faith in a religious context means believing in a being you cannot see, I find this highly idiotic for this woman to criticize science for not being observable.

Third one: Because the scientific data being compiled can be used as a reference point for any predictions that come true; predictions based off of data.

You cannot predict things using the Bible. Unless you're a prophet and prove the entire world wrong with strong supernatural powers that defy any reason.

Fourth one: Elliptical orbit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

After the debate, several creationists were asked to write a message / question for the 'science' side of the argument:

http://www.buzzfeed....eve-in-evolutio

These are a few of my favourites.

Most of them seemed to be "buzz word" answers - "second law of thermodynamics", "noetics" (had to look that one up, lol), "increases in genetic material", etc, that these Creationists have heard over the years as proof-positive of the wrongness of evolution and the rightness of Creationism. One point that is also a "buzz word" answer but is of actual value, is the idea presented by #3 - that God could have created an old earth. If Adam and Eve is true, then Adam was created as an adult, so why not an "adult universe" that was created already old? Of course, that doesn't answer the typical Creationist follow through comments about a global flood that has no evidence to support it. And if taken to an extreme, then it could be argued that the entire universe sprung into existence five minutes ago, or two minutes ago, complete with a history including all the relationships every person had. In real time, it's altogether possible that the universe was created by God a split-second before I hit "Post" on this reply, and everything before this is just part of the history of the universe that God created. So that's a somewhat self-defeating answer.

But look on the bright side - they all had smiles on their faces, and if you're happy who is anyone to sit back and steal that smile from their lips :wub::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol

Most of them seemed to be "buzz word" answers - "second law of thermodynamics", "noetics" (had to look that one up, lol), "increases in genetic material", etc, that these Creationists have heard over the years as proof-positive of the wrongness of evolution and the rightness of Creationism. One point that is also a "buzz word" answer but is of actual value, is the idea presented by #3 - that God could have created an old earth. If Adam and Eve is true, then Adam was created as an adult, so why not an "adult universe" that was created already old? Of course, that doesn't answer the typical Creationist follow through comments about a global flood that has no evidence to support it. And if taken to an extreme, then it could be argued that the entire universe sprung into existence five minutes ago, or two minutes ago, complete with a history including all the relationships every person had. In real time, it's altogether possible that the universe was created by God a split-second before I hit "Post" on this reply, and everything before this is just part of the history of the universe that God created. So that's a somewhat self-defeating answer.

But look on the bright side - they all had smiles on their faces, and if you're happy who is anyone to sit back and steal that smile from their lips :wub::P

I think 'noetics' is one of the new 'buzz words' that we may see more of.

As for #3 - you answered it perfectly well for yourself, there. Except for one major point. If God created a mature Earth 6,000 years ago, then he deliberately made it appear to be much, much older. I doubt most believers would be happy to think of their creator as a great deceiver.

What amazes me is how wilfully misinformed people can remain in the face of repeated corrections. Evolution is only a theory? Why are there still monkeys? This is why I don't believe there is any worth in any respected scientist debating a creationist. As Dawkins said: "It looks better on their CV than it does on mine" (or words to that effect.)

They even managed to trot out the "Were you there?" challenge. I wonder if any creationist criminal has ever tried that defence in court?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

I think 'noetics' is one of the new 'buzz words' that we may see more of.

As for #3 - you answered it perfectly well for yourself, there. Except for one major point. If God created a mature Earth 6,000 years ago, then he deliberately made it appear to be much, much older. I doubt most believers would be happy to think of their creator as a great deceiver.

As I said, it's ultimately self-defeating, maybe the past twenty minutes since I posted my comment hadn't actually happened except in my mind, and what I'm about to post is the first "real" thing that actually happened :P

What amazes me is how wilfully misinformed people can remain in the face of repeated corrections. Evolution is only a theory? Why are there still monkeys? This is why I don't believe there is any worth in any respected scientist debating a creationist. As Dawkins said: "It looks better on their CV than it does on mine" (or words to that effect.)

They even managed to trot out the "Were you there?" challenge. I wonder if any creationist criminal has ever tried that defence in court?

"Why are there still monkeys", I forgot that one on my list of buzz phrases. Ah well, can't get all of them all of the time. Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

The claim that creationism is not a legitimate position regarding the origin of species is strong and clear. There is a little less clarity as to the claim that creationism is not a legitimate position regarding the origin of life, or the universe.

The issue for the creationist is that the latter is not promoted in the bible as being 'where god stops'.

Bear in mind the bible was intended to only be read by the priesthood, and it's contents interpreted by them to an uninformed audience. Martin Luther put the kibosh on that when Protestantism brought the "word of god" to the lay-person with it's translation into the vulgate. Since then, the priesthood has been forced to withdraw it's claims to certain areas of authority with respect knowledge.

This has exposed the biblical scripture as not being the "inerrant word of god", in the eyes of those who are not followers, and forced its body of followers into a position of defending it as largely metaphorical/allegorical with respect it's accuracy about such matters, in order to maintain this facade of "inerrancy".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

Folks also have to remember that there is creationism and then there is Ken Ham's version of creationism which is, at best, a fringe movement even among fundamentalist Christians. It certainly isn't embraced by the vast majority of Christians worldwide.

When someone like Pat Robertson of all people tells you to shut up and stop embarrassing Christians, that should tell us something.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/05/pat-robertson-implores-creationist-ken-ham-to-shut-up-lets-not-make-a-joke-of-ourselves/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

After the debate, several creationists were asked to write a message / question for the 'science' side of the argument:

http://www.buzzfeed....eve-in-evolutio

These are a few of my favourites.

enhanced-15285-1391576908-9.jpg

enhanced-14977-1391576919-1.jpg

enhanced-30391-1391576914-1.jpg

enhanced-27109-1391576856-1.jpg

Phil Plait has a little bit of fun with these in his blog today.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/06/religion_and_science_answering_creationists_questions.html

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

Folks also have to remember that there is creationism and then there is Ken Ham's version of creationism which is, at best, a fringe movement even among fundamentalist Christians. It certainly isn't embraced by the vast majority of Christians worldwide.

When someone like Pat Robertson of all people tells you to shut up and stop embarrassing Christians, that should tell us something.

http://www.rawstory....e-of-ourselves/

Great, one doomsday cultist tongue lashes another doomsday cultist.

The less extreme doomsday cultist says that a 24 hour period for God is different, because

he exists outside space and time.

Well the the "man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day" should of had one these Apologists as

a defense attorney.

Numbers 15:32-36

Penalty for Violating the Sabbath

32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering

sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses

and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been

explained what should be done to him.

35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation

shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the

congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

Derp! Derp! Derp!

post-142153-0-70236500-1391704900_thumb.

post-142153-0-83333300-1391704907_thumb.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf

After the debate, several creationists were asked to write a message / question for the 'science' side of the argument:

http://www.buzzfeed....eve-in-evolutio

These are a few of my favourites.

enhanced-15285-1391576908-9.jpg

enhanced-14977-1391576919-1.jpg

enhanced-30391-1391576914-1.jpg

enhanced-27109-1391576856-1.jpg

All but the third one went full retard.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

Great, one doomsday cultist tongue lashes another doomsday cultist.

The less extreme doomsday cultist says that a 24 hour period for God is different, because

he exists outside space and time.

Well the the "man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day" should of had one these Apologists as

a defense attorney.

Numbers 15:32-36

Penalty for Violating the Sabbath

32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering

sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses

and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been

explained what should be done to him.

35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation

shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the

congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

Derp! Derp! Derp!

My point was attempting to counter a notion that seems to have developed around this event that this was a debate between science and Christians - it wasn't. It was a debate between science and a guy who represents a very small and fringe group of creationists. Sharing the Pat Robertson post was an attempt to show just how fringe Ken Ham and his views are.

Your views of Christianity aside, there is a significant percentage of Christians that are perfectly accepting of evolution - including many Christian who are also scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

My point was attempting to counter a notion that seems to have developed around this event that this was a debate between science and Christians - it wasn't. It was a debate between science and a guy who represents a very small and fringe group of creationists. Sharing the Pat Robertson post was an attempt to show just how fringe Ken Ham and his views are.

Your views of Christianity aside, there is a significant percentage of Christians that are perfectly accepting of evolution - including many Christian who are also scientists.

I understand the reason behind your post, but my stance is that they are all of the same group of doomsday cultists that think God is coming to do the House cleaning.Just because one group is more extreme than the other, does not mean the end ideology is much different.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

I understand the reason behind your post, but my stance is that they are all of the same group of doomsday cultists that think God is coming to do the House cleaning.Just because one group is more extreme than the other, does not mean the end ideology is much different.

We all come to this discussion from different viewpoints and with different baggage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

All but the third one went full retard.

the sad thing is that these people are out there in everyday life - clerks, tellers, teachers, police, housewives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odin11

But look on the bright side - they all had smiles on their faces, and if you're happy who is anyone to sit back and steal that smile from their lips :wub::P

Looking at the pictures a lot of them are not smiles of joy though; they're smiles of smug satisfaction as if they've pulled one over on science. They don't really want to know the answers to their questions and no amount of evidence would ever get them to even think that evolution is true.

Edited by Odin11
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

the sad thing is that these people are out there in everyday life - clerks, tellers, teachers, police, housewives.

Inter Continental Ballastic Missile launch Key holders, hold offices of power, and may own companies that can effect the enviroment.Meanwhile a voice in their Head guides them on a daily basis based on a 2,000-3,000 year old Book.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

I should note though that I am agnostic and I am Buddhist by philosophy. So maybe my opinion is invalid. I am orthodox when it comes to the scientific method though :)

My problem with evolution - and it's a major one - is that it doesn't stop with natural selection. It's obvious that life evolves in this way - according to it's surroundings and needs for survival. My problem is that though there is no proof of how life came to be, evolutionists claim that ground. Not being well informed on this I will gladly look into any source that can show me the process that preceded the moment of life first appearing. How did an amoeba appear? With all the vast machinery of a cell...how was it contrived? What set it in motion or set the parameters for it's existence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odin11

My problem with evolution - and it's a major one - is that it doesn't stop with natural selection. It's obvious that life evolves in this way - according to it's surroundings and needs for survival. My problem is that though there is no proof of how life came to be, evolutionists claim that ground. Not being well informed on this I will gladly look into any source that can show me the process that preceded the moment of life first appearing. How did an amoeba appear? With all the vast machinery of a cell...how was it contrived? What set it in motion or set the parameters for it's existence?

Your problem is not evolution then, its abiogenesis. Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to be, only have life evolved. It just happens to be that a lot of people who are evolutionists also accept some form of abiogenesis.

Edited by Odin11
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

Looking at the pictures a lot of them are not smiles of joy though; they're smiles of smug satisfaction as if they've pulled one over on science. They don't really want to know the answers to their questions and no amount of evidence would ever get them to even think that evolution is true.

They never ask questions that they want to know beyond what fits their book.

I want to know why I cannot find the symbology that proves that the ancient Romans performed one of the most famous forms of execution as described in the Gospels.

I can find all kinds of symbology in Emperor Trajan's Triumphal column, but no proof of Crucifixion.I can find a Nail in a Shin Bone, but no proof the ancient Romans did it, and only two cartoonish Graffiti which proves nothing.Sure you can find writings, but there are also writings of Saints coming out of their tombs, and making themselves known to many people.

Trajan's Column (Italian: Colonna Traiana) is a Roman triumphal column in Rome, Italy, that commemorates Roman emperor Trajan's victory in the Dacian Wars. It was probably constructed under the supervision of the architect Apollodorus of Damascus at the order of the Roman Senate. It is located in Trajan's Forum, built near the Quirinal Hill, north of the Roman Forum. Completed in AD 113, the freestanding column is most famous for its spiral bas relief, which artistically describes the epic wars between the Romans and Dacians (101–102 and 105–106). Its design has inspired numerous victory columns, both ancient and modern.

The structure is about 30 metres (98 ft) in height, 35 metres (125 ft) including its large pedestal. The shaft is made from a series of 20 colossal Carrara marble drums, each weighing about 32 tons,[1] with a diameter of 3.7 metres (11 ft). The 190-metre (625 ft) frieze winds around the shaft 23 times. Inside the shaft, a spiral staircase of 185 stairs provides access to a viewing platform at the top. The capital block of Trajan's Column weighs 53.3 tons, which had to be lifted to a height of c. 34 m.[2]

Ancient coins indicate preliminary plans to top the column with a statue of a bird, probably an eagle,[3] but after construction, a statue of Trajan was put in place; this statue disappeared in the Middle Ages. On December 4, 1587, the top was crowned by Pope Sixtus V with a bronze figure of St. Peter, which remains to this day.

The two sections are separated by a personification of Victory (Victoria) writing on a shield flanked on either side by Trophies (Tropaions.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan%27s_Column

Trajan's Triumphal column (plenty of room to show symbology of ancient Roman War.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Trajan%27s_Column_Panorama.jpeg/250px-Trajan%27s_Column_Panorama.jpeg

Trajan's colomn closer look.

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/relief-detail-view-of-the-trajan-column-rome-bernard-jaubert.jpg

Emperor Trajan gifted with enemy Heads.

http://www.romanianstudies.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Trajan-viewing-his-soldiers-ghoulish-trophies-Trajans-Column.png

Soldier holding enemy Head with Teeth while fighting.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5217/5385084433_6065e9c55e.jpg

Enemy Heads on pikes.

http://garethharney.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/dacian-heads-plate-40.jpg

Divine victoria between two sacred Tropaions.

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/02/df/1b/70/victory-surrounded-by.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

My problem with evolution - and it's a major one - is that it doesn't stop with natural selection. It's obvious that life evolves in this way - according to it's surroundings and needs for survival. My problem is that though there is no proof of how life came to be, evolutionists claim that ground. Not being well informed on this I will gladly look into any source that can show me the process that preceded the moment of life first appearing. How did an amoeba appear? With all the vast machinery of a cell...how was it contrived? What set it in motion or set the parameters for it's existence?

Isn't that like rejecting the existence of water because you don't know how the first atom formed?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

My problem with evolution - and it's a major one - is that it doesn't stop with natural selection. It's obvious that life evolves in this way - according to it's surroundings and needs for survival. My problem is that though there is no proof of how life came to be, evolutionists claim that ground. Not being well informed on this I will gladly look into any source that can show me the process that preceded the moment of life first appearing. How did an amoeba appear? With all the vast machinery of a cell...how was it contrived? What set it in motion or set the parameters for it's existence?

Keep in mind that science can explain, and prove things after the event when dealing with the "Big Bang", and "Abiogenesis."Research these two keywords yourself, and join in the journey of discovery.The writers of the Bible thought that putting your dirty hand in running water, and watching the dirt wash off was a form of Magic.

Just read "Leviticus 14", and ask yourself why people base their beliefs on the Bible.

http://www.biblegate...ch=Leviticus 14

I wish people would go to sporting events, and hold up signs with "Leviticus 14" on it, while acting all stoked.

Hint...Hint...Hint.

Edited by davros of skaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Almagest

My problem with evolution - and it's a major one - is that it doesn't stop with natural selection. It's obvious that life evolves in this way - according to it's surroundings and needs for survival. My problem is that though there is no proof of how life came to be, evolutionists claim that ground. Not being well informed on this I will gladly look into any source that can show me the process that preceded the moment of life first appearing. How did an amoeba appear? With all the vast machinery of a cell...how was it contrived? What set it in motion or set the parameters for it's existence?

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

Here's an interesting approach I ran into recently. Might take a few read-throughs to wrap your head around, but it goes to show that scientists are working hard at the problem. I don't think it's going to be a strike against anyone's religious beliefs if it's confirmed though - those who accept evolution will incorporate it into their beliefs and those who don't will continue to hum loudly with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
promKing

Well scientists know how amoebas came to be, there are a lot of books and documentaries on it most famous by David Attenbourgh.

But of course there are stuff that scientists don't know which doesn't necessarily mean that we should fall in the trap of explaining it with supernatural beings like when it was not known why planets circle around the Sun so it was "explained" with angels pushing them; or that diseases are caused by sins and demons.

But also I think it's not that people are just misinformed it's that science is mostly misused - for building better killing machines and pollution. I mean when I just remember how Einstein was considered little bit crazy by his colleagues because he refused to participate in weapons development which could bring him lots of extra cash.

And once if we reach technical utopia like in Star Trek, when people travel to other planets seeing evolution as something untrue will perish. That what we should perhaps strive to: To Star Trek society and certainly one of the ways would be to push nuclear fusion research. If we had that we would see that today we are just shadows of our future selves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

LOL!

It would have been a laugh riot if this guy debated Ken Ham.

The Heart of the issue.

[media=]

Edited by davros of skaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

For one to correctly form a complete picture of the theory of evolution, one needs to know how it came to be.

One of those 'steps' constitute Erasmus Darwin's scientific poem The Temple of Nature, or The Origin of Society.

It would also be of possible value to identify the environment in which the 'fathers of evolution' moved themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

Post debate interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.