Bill Nye vs. Ken Hamm science vs. caveman superstition debate thread

[Human Snorenado]

Quick recap so far:

[helios]

I can't anymore. I just can't. This guy just said that secularists took over the word evolution. I'll tune in when it is Bill's turn to talk.

[helios]

An astronomer believes in a young earth. Just how?

[TakingBackSunday]

why are any of you watching this pointless bullshit

[Barry Egan]

link?

[helios]

Bill all but called the Bible bullshit

[helios]

Oh shit, audience questions

[doctavius bonbon]

It's called the bible, maybe you've heard of it.   

-ham, 2014

[Phoenix Dark]

Ham ended Nye with that Bear Jaw ether


Bears eating broccoli out chea, why can't lions

[Stoney Mason]

This isn't a diss but those white people in the audience looked like they stepped out of the 80's fashion wise. 

[Joe Molotov]

And here's the results: God exists by two falls to a submission.

[Phoenix Dark]

No missing link fossils, no kangaroo evidence outside of Australia. Both sides weren't compelling

[doctavius bonbon]

No missing link fossils, no kangaroo evidence outside of Australia. Both sides weren't compelling

[Himu]

Did bill use the argument that accepting evolution has no relevance towards being theistic? Or the idea that evolution suggests that all of life is connected? After all, Eve did come from half of Adam's rib. Who is to say that life that naturally adapts itself over time wasn't a creation of God? It seems so simple but so many scientists are concerned with proving evolution is true rather appealing to their opponents emotions as believers. Evolution has nothing to do with God and scientists would do a lot better arguing their points  if argued in a way that suggests it doesn't.

I'm an atheist and it is the best argument to use on an anti evolutionist Christian.

[pilonv1]

Please tell me this isn't a legit debate and is purely for entertainment?

[Brehvolution]

God created man to create science to debate God.

[Damian79]

An astronomer believes in a young earth. Just how?

There are alternatives to the big bang theory ya know, some are creationist models too so i guess thats where it comes from.
This is one:
http://www.amazon.com/Starlight-Time-Physics-John-Hartnett/dp/0949906689


Anyway back to topic.  This was a terrible debate with a too broader topic.  This was exposed when Bill Nye basically did a gish gallop and argued form 8 different sides in his 30 minute speech.  After that nothing really went in depth and nothing got answered.  Should have stuck to one thing like astronomy.

[benjipwns]

Like we're just supposed to believe the perfection that is life just randomly came into existence? This is why atheists don't make any sense, why would things be exactly how they are without a strong hand to put them in place? Why would everything be perfectly regulated to maximize human existence? Plus who would have started the evolution in the first place? We're supposed to believe that nobody was there to set things in the right direction?

There's just too many questions to buy into this pseudoscience instead of the airtight Intelligent Design explanation.

[chronovore]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

[Damian79]

Those are so bad.   

[Human Snorenado]

Hey now! There just dealing with challenges to they're beliefs.

[recursivelyenumerable]

I dig the JRPG-sounding waiting room music at the beginning!

[Stoney Mason]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

There is a part of me that would like to punch them in their smug little smiling faces. Conservatives are always concerned about "cultural elites".

That because we need elites to smack some common sense into these idiots.

[chronovore]

Esch, it's worth noting that most of these people refer to themselves as "God fearing." Fear is a default position they understand. They believe that just as God is looking out for them, Satan is personally out to trick each of them, to tempt them away from White-Bearded Space Dad, so everything is a balance between fear and guilt. It isn't a huge leap to think that they are willing to dismiss any proof out of hand; these things are inconvenient for them to assimilate, to process -- and God doesn't want that anyway! He wants them to choose obedience!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

There is a part of me that would like to punch them in their smug little smiling faces. Conservatives are always concerned about "cultural elites".

That because we need elites to smack some common sense into these idiots.

That's just about the least ambivalent thing I've ever seen you post. I like it.

Similarly, I want to respond to them as well. Some of them are easy, like "Because you don't understand the actual definition of 'theory,'" or "the second law is only valid in closed systems with no external sources of energy.  Since the Earth receives continual energy from the Sun, the second law does not apply; and who starts a question with 'does not'?" or "You misspelled 'there,' you sanctimonious cunt," but in other cases I waffle between wanting to sit down, hug them, and then start with some heavy "Son..." action.

And then punch them when they casually dismiss any and all logic which has been laboriously laid out in front of them.

[Stoney Mason]

That's just about the least ambivalent thing I've ever seen you post. I like it.

Similarly, I want to respond to them as well. Some of them are easy, like "Because you don't understand the actual definition of 'theory,'" or "the second law is only valid in closed systems with no external sources of energy.  Since the Earth receives continual energy from the Sun, the second law does not apply; and who starts a question with 'does not'?" or "You misspelled 'there,' you sanctimonious cunt," but in other cases I waffle between wanting to sit down, hug them, and then start with some heavy "Son..." action.

And then punch them when they casually dismiss any and all logic which has been laboriously laid out in front of them.

I have sympathy for people who literally aren't knowledgeable about the world and that's why they fall into ignorance traps. But types like these are the Sarah Palin types who actually make me angry. They aren't ignorant because they haven't had the opportunity to be exposed to knowledge. They are ignorant because they are circle jerking around a phony ideal and then smugly look at you and pretend they are the enlightened ones. They would make perfect Nazi's.

[Damian79]

I am dumb so can you guys explain how something like heat and thermodymanics can be applied to evolution?  They seem unrelated.

[Stoney Mason]

One of Bills biggest mistakes in this debate was failing to highlight Ham's worldview. He spent so much time providing factual information that he failed to rebut many things well, like Ham using the bible as the crux of everything over texts from other places. Someone like Hitchens would have zipped this cat up.

I disagree. And Hitchens would have alienated more people just by his abrasive tone. It's impossible to debate crazy people. All the scientist and rational types can do is point out the idiocy of these people and hope the education system is doing its job so its completely obvious to any rational person. You can't "debate" with somebody who's position is that a magical all knowing creature in the sky and book written thousands of years ago by people is the correct answer to every scientific question.

[Damian79]

I don't really argue for atheism because im not an atheist or really even an agnostic. What I despise is the scientific illiteracy and regressive mindset of some of these fundamentalist troglodytes. My favorite point of Bill Nyes speech is that even if you believe in God, whatever,  its vital that we increase our understanding of the universe in order to stay relevant as a country. Its essential.

Now this is the only thing i agree with Ken Ham on and why he wasted so much time showing these creationist inventors.  To be honest I believe wars are what will keep the US relevant as a country because it is in war time that people put a lot more funding into research.  And thus we dont have much advances in science because we dont have wars.  I guess you can say American Christians are to blame because they generally dont go to wars unless we are fooled into it.  Like the Iraqi wars.

[Damian79]

Well i dunno.  I think that comes from school ethics.  There needs to be a way to make studying hard and working hard cool in schools.  This is an epidemic across schools around the world.  Just infrastructure is not gonna cut it.

[chronovore]

I don't really argue for atheism because im not an atheist or really even an agnostic. What I despise is the scientific illiteracy and regressive mindset of some of these fundamentalist troglodytes. My favorite point of Bill Nyes speech is that even if you believe in God, whatever,  its vital that we increase our understanding of the universe in order to stay relevant as a country. Its essential.

Yes, exactly. It's one of the reasons I find Intelligent Design so threatening. When I see supposed scientists advocating for ID, I panic; it is a form of intellectual laziness or fearfulness on their part. It's confirmation bias, writ large. "Why do eyeballs see everything so perfectly, if they're an accident of random evolution? Because God made them, directing that growth path." Oh, really? Then why do so many animals have superior vision to us? Look at the fucking Mantis Shrimp's eyes, and tell me how perfectly we've got it. We can't even see as well at night as the pets we keep.

When ID proponents are in a research position, by starting from an assumption that our design was guided, close off paths of inquiry into why something would actually have developed that way. Eyes are the way they are, because that's the way they are. Brilliant tautology, friend! Perhaps now you can explain cancer, and how God put that shit in place for our own perfect, intelligently designed benefit, Dick Tracy.

[Damian79]

By infrastructure I mean a lot of things bro. Transportation, clean energy,  etc etc. Its a broad spectrum.

Fwiw I think our educational system is broken. I don't know if Netflix still has it, but you should watch Waiting for Superman whenever you get the chance.

Oh for some reason i thought you meant infrastructure in terms of education for some reason.  My friend made a comment about this in the past, during renaissance period the best minds at the time came within 20 km of Florence.  My point is that trying to get rid of Creationism in schools is a dead end.  You need to get a stronger work ethic going on.  I mean isnt the US a culture of drinking and smoking during the latter parts of the schooling years?

[Damian79]

You dont think that school culture plays a big role also?  Sure parents have a big role but i believe school culture has a bigger role once a kid gets into his teens.  In his/her teens school culture has more of an impact than what parents do.  And there lies the problem.  You go to change who influences the child when he grows up.  Is it the other kid that is screwing around boozing and smoking or the teachers?  Teachers need to regain control of the schools.  Sure infrastructure and education will do their bit but the fact that there is a bad school culture is whats killing intelligent children.

[Shadow Mod]

The biggest problem with intelligent design is it's just a dead end. Why be curious about the complexities of life if you can just handwave it all away with that shit.

[Damian79]

The biggest problem with intelligent design is it's just a dead end. Why be curious about the complexities of life if you can just handwave it all away with that shit.

Actually it isnt.  People who believe in intelligent design tend to think how its done in nature is the best way and thus try to implement how nature does it in new science by first learning about nature first.

[archnemesis]

The biggest problem with intelligent design is it's just a dead end. Why be curious about the complexities of life if you can just handwave it all away with that shit.

Actually it isnt.  People who believe in intelligent design tend to think how its done in nature is the best way and thus try to implement how nature does it in new science by first learning about nature first.

Can you elaborate on this with an example? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[Mandark]

Yeah, that's just not true at all.

You don't see the folks involved in ID "research" actually applying shit like "irreducible complexity" to other fields, and why would they?  It's not actual knowledge, just a bunch of dishonest arguments created to protect their own tribal beliefs.  You wouldn't see great strides in neurosurgery coming out of phrenology.

[Damian79]

I believe it is called biomimicry.

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

Earliest example is Leonardo Davinci, He was most likely a Christian.

[Mandark]

dude

[archnemesis]

That's possibly the worst argument I've read. Looking at nature for inspiration for solving engineering issues isn't evidence for intelligent design.

[Damian79]

That's possibly the worst argument I've read. Looking at nature for inspiration for solving engineering issues isn't evidence for intelligent design.

I never said it was.  It was just a counter argument to the idea that people who believe in intelligent design have no reason to look into nature etc.

[archnemesis]

But that's not an argument for intelligent design at all. Nature being awesome doesn't in any way imply a designer (i.e. God). People who listen to death metal also have a reason to look into nature.

[Damian79]

But that's not an argument for intelligent design at all. Nature being awesome doesn't in any way imply a designer (i.e. God). People who listen to death metal also have a reason to look into nature.

??  I was never arguing for intelligent design.  I never said nature being awesome implies a designer.  I was simply saying that believing in intelligent design is no reason for someone to stop learning about nature.  It was a response to cowbell if that helps.

[archnemesis]

Oh, I have her on ignore so I was only reading half of the conversation. Sorry about that! The problem with creationists (and I do lump ID followers together with creationists) is that they will have great difficulty understanding nature when they reject basic science.

[Mandark]

It's still super dumb.

Is there a thriving biomimicry industry that's fueled by ID adherents?  Or are you going to stick with the one example of a centuries-dead polymath who may or may not have been Christian?

[Damian79]

How can they be?  ID adherents make up like 5% of scientists and creationists make up 2% percent iirc?

[Mandark]

...which rather supports Devo's original point that ID is largely incompatible with further scientific inquiry, no?

Sheesh.

[Damian79]

...which rather supports Devo's original point that ID is largely incompatible with further scientific inquiry, no?

Sheesh.

How does that work?  Just because they are a small number doesnt mean they dont contribute to the advancement of science.  Which is probably why Ken Ham just referenced those creationist scientists.  I mean if they contributed that much to science despite being a small number, doesnt that mean that they do contribute to the advancement of science?  Worst case scenario is that they end up like Ken Ham/Richard Dawkins(AFAIK) that do no real work in the field.

[Brehvolution]

Man put those creationist scientists there to back up creationists beliefs.

[Damian79]

 

the....

Dawkins is a very influential evolutionary biologist. And not just because of his r/atheism fanboys.

Yes but has he made any papers on say germs for example and not philosophy that is peer reviewed since 1997 it seems he switched to philosophy since that time?

Dawkins, R.; Holliday, Robin (August 1997). "Religion and Science". BioEssays 19 (: 743–743. doi:10.1002/bies.950190817.
Dawkins, R. (1997). "The Pope's message on evolution: Obscurantism to the rescue". The Quarterly Review of Biology 72 (4): 397–399.
Dawkins, R. (1998). "Postmodernism Disrobed". Nature 394 (6689): 141–143. doi:10.1038/28089.
Dawkins, R. (1998). "Arresting evidence". Sciences (New York) 38 (6): 20–5. PMID 11657757.
2000s[edit]
Dawkins, R. (2000). "W. D. Hamilton memorial". Nature 405 (6788): 733. doi:10.1038/35015793.
Dawkins, R. (2002). "Should doctors be Darwinian?". Transactions of the Medical Society of London 119: 15–30. PMID 17184029.
Blakemore C, Dawkins R, Noble D, Yudkin M (2003). "Is a scientific boycott ever justified?". Nature 421 (6921): 314–314. doi:10.1038/421314b. PMID 12540875.
Dawkins, R. (2003). "The evolution of evolvability". On Growth, Form and Computers. London: Academic Press.
Dawkins, R. (2004). "Viruses of the mind". In Warburton, N. Philosophy: Basic Readings. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-33798-4.
Dawkins, R. (June 2004). "Extended phenotype - But not too extended. A reply to Laland, Turner and Jablonka". Biology & Philosophy 19 (3): 377–396. doi:10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036180.14904.96.

[Damian79]

Man put those creationist scientists there to back up creationists beliefs.

Thinking back that is probably true.

[Damian79]

: thats irrelevant to your initial suggestion.

Man you weren't kidding about being dumb.

I did say "end" up like them,  though i admit Ken Ham AFAIK never made any papers so i shouldnt have bunched them together.  Unless you are saying philosophy is also field work?

[Diunx]

Did god win?

[Damian79]

Im saying that its irrelevant. Dawkins already had a very influential career as an evo biologist. What does it matter that he changed the focus of his life. Hes 72.

Thats true.

[Brehvolution]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=99843419&postcount=3020

 

[recursivelyenumerable]

I think intelligent design theory could be useful in some ways,
like showing us how to differentiate between pre-ripped and accidentally ripped jeans.

[Human Snorenado]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=99843419&postcount=3020

 

All you really need to know about GAF is that that fucktard is allowed to keep posting there, and I'm perma banned for calling amirox a big blubbering vagina.

[Great Rumbler]

[Himu]

One of Bills biggest mistakes in this debate was failing to highlight Ham's worldview. He spent so much time providing factual information that he failed to rebut many things well, like Ham using the bible as the crux of everything over texts from other places. Someone like Hitchens would have zipped this cat up.

I didn't watch, but my post highlighted this. They always do that, when, emotionally, I feel evolution is something easy to argue even avoiding bringing up science.

[Phoenix Dark]

I don't really argue for atheism because im not an atheist or really even an agnostic. What I despise is the scientific illiteracy and regressive mindset of some of these fundamentalist troglodytes. My favorite point of Bill Nyes speech is that even if you believe in God, whatever,  its vital that we increase our understanding of the universe in order to stay relevant as a country. Its essential.

Yes, exactly. It's one of the reasons I find Intelligent Design so threatening. When I see supposed scientists advocating for ID, I panic; it is a form of intellectual laziness or fearfulness on their part. It's confirmation bias, writ large. "Why do eyeballs see everything so perfectly, if they're an accident of random evolution? Because God made them, directing that growth path." Oh, really? Then why do so many animals have superior vision to us? Look at the fucking Mantis Shrimp's eyes, and tell me how perfectly we've got it. We can't even see as well at night as the pets we keep.

When ID proponents are in a research position, by starting from an assumption that our design was guided, close off paths of inquiry into why something would actually have developed that way. Eyes are the way they are, because that's the way they are. Brilliant tautology, friend! Perhaps now you can explain cancer, and how God put that shit in place for our own perfect, intelligently designed benefit, Dick Tracy.

I don't think most ID scientists see it that way. They want to know how god created things, what laws he put in place, etc. Certainly the founders of many pillars of astrology, science, etc - most of whom were deists or Catholics - weren't content to just say "god did it" and move on.

[CatsCatsCats]

If infinite universes exist, then there's bound to be a God in one of them, right?