So we went ahead and watched that Bill Nye and Ken Ham joint appearance -- really, "debate" is the entirely wrong word -- hosted by the Creation Museum in Kentucky yesterday. If you want to see it, it is on the YouTubes. Half of it was fairly entertaining, and the other half can be effectively simulated by teaching a
I have always wondered why no one presents the concept of evolution via Gregor Mendel and his peas. I know that's really more of an illustration about genetics but why can't agricultural husbandry be used to show that if man can create variations in species through selective breeding, that doesn't it stand to reason that happens in nature too? Ooops I forgot the operative word: reason
Yeah, but God having DNA gets to be a messy proposition with the Xtards. Jeebus having a Y chromosome is a conundrum -- I like telling bible-humpers that Jeebus was actually a woman.
Actually, "historical science" is a perfectly respectable term in science. Geology and archaeology are historical sciences. Ham's bogus reasoning is that you can't know anything for certain if there were no direct witnesses. I bet he'd be a little upset if his house was burgled and the cops said, well, we can't prove anything because there were no witnesses. Incidentally, there are no eyewitness accounts of someone watching the Bible being written.
The question "What would change your mind?" is a great cut-through-the-crap question to see if someone is really interested in the truth. Mostly I get deer-in-the-headlights looks because people have never even thought about it. I meet some people who think the mere fact they believe something is proof. And some people get angry at the mere suggestion that their ideas can be proven wrong.
Congratulations on illustrating one of the worst problems when skeptics take on creationism - complete lack of understanding. If you're going to debate these people you need to make it a major research project, which means reading at least a few dozen of their books. If you do, you'll find that they readily admit there's "microevolution," that is, selection of traits can create significantly different descendants. They have no problem with wolves giving rise to St. Bernards and Chihuahuas. What they deny is "macroevolution." They admit breeding can create different breeds of dogs and cats. What they deny is that any amount of selection can create dogs and cats from some common ancestor.
Sigh... Go do some research, willya? Philip Gosse wrote a book in 1857 called Omphalos (belly button to you non-Greek readers) in which he argued that Adam might have had a navel even if he was created - evidence of a birth that never happened. Gosse argued that God could have created the world in seven days but with the appearance of age, maybe even with fossils in the rocks. By the same logic, the earth could have been created an hour ago with us having memories of a past that never existed. Despite being utterly unfalsifiable, the theory gained little acceptance. Scientists rejected it because it's not testable, theologians because it smacks of deception.
I suppose it's just as well it was Bill Nye and not Neil Degrasse Tyson. I am guessing Tyson doesn't have quite the patience that Bill Nye has.
Say 'It's in the Bible' again. Say 'It's in the Bible' again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say "It's in the Bible" one more Goddamn time!
I watched this, and while Nye did a very good job, I was most disappointed by the fact that not a single mention of any of the myriad creation myths out there that mankind has invented for himself, and why is Hammy so sure his "account" is any more valid than, say, those found in the Rigveda.
I hate that the Creationist Christianists have been able to hijack the discussion (to use Ham&#039;s stupid premise against him) of science to illegitimately reduce the discussion down to a &quot;two-sides&quot; argument, as if they are the <i>only</i> other creation myth out there.
There are a lot more &quot;sides,&quot; you Leviticus-defacing shrimp-eating fucks. Just because every-damn-one, pretty much to a man, dismisses all those other &quot;myths&quot; as just so many primitive tales told by less-civilized rock-chippers and loincloth-wearers, right? This is where a real God would pop in and smite the &quot;knowing smirk&quot; off all the faces, should one of these God-creatures actually exist and give a shit what a bunch of omnivorous apes thought about how they got here. Instead, these bronze-age shepherds&#039; Greatest Hits Scrolls have been unduly legitimized as the one and only single other side, when really, the Yukaghir Shoromboy probably have it dead on.
I need new glassses. I read part of that as &quot; impose an anti-intellectual, anti-sex, antiwoman religion on generations of unsuspecting tomatoes.&quot; I much prefer that route than the current one.
I have always wondered why no one presents the concept of evolution via Gregor Mendel and his peas. I know that&#039;s really more of an illustration about genetics but why can&#039;t agricultural husbandry be used to show that if man can create variations in species through selective breeding, that doesn&#039;t it stand to reason that happens in nature too? Ooops I forgot the operative word: reason
Keep fucking that small feathery dinosaur descendant, Ham.
&quot;Whatever it is, God done it&quot; is not a &quot;theory&quot;. Their problem starts right there.
Yeah, but God having DNA gets to be a messy proposition with the Xtards. Jeebus having a Y chromosome is a conundrum -- I like telling bible-humpers that Jeebus was actually a woman.
With Jeebus around, the fish get to multply without all that nasty sex business.
As a &quot;refutation&quot; of evolution? Only about fifty times a week.
The first rule of tautology club is tautology club.
Actually, "historical science" is a perfectly respectable term in science. Geology and archaeology are historical sciences. Ham's bogus reasoning is that you can't know anything for certain if there were no direct witnesses. I bet he'd be a little upset if his house was burgled and the cops said, well, we can't prove anything because there were no witnesses. Incidentally, there are no eyewitness accounts of someone watching the Bible being written.
The question "What would change your mind?" is a great cut-through-the-crap question to see if someone is really interested in the truth. Mostly I get deer-in-the-headlights looks because people have never even thought about it. I meet some people who think the mere fact they believe something is proof. And some people get angry at the mere suggestion that their ideas can be proven wrong.
Congratulations on illustrating one of the worst problems when skeptics take on creationism - complete lack of understanding. If you're going to debate these people you need to make it a major research project, which means reading at least a few dozen of their books. If you do, you'll find that they readily admit there's "microevolution," that is, selection of traits can create significantly different descendants. They have no problem with wolves giving rise to St. Bernards and Chihuahuas. What they deny is "macroevolution." They admit breeding can create different breeds of dogs and cats. What they deny is that any amount of selection can create dogs and cats from some common ancestor.
Sigh... Go do some research, willya? Philip Gosse wrote a book in 1857 called Omphalos (belly button to you non-Greek readers) in which he argued that Adam might have had a navel even if he was created - evidence of a birth that never happened. Gosse argued that God could have created the world in seven days but with the appearance of age, maybe even with fossils in the rocks. By the same logic, the earth could have been created an hour ago with us having memories of a past that never existed. Despite being utterly unfalsifiable, the theory gained little acceptance. Scientists rejected it because it's not testable, theologians because it smacks of deception.
I suppose it&#039;s just as well it was Bill Nye and not Neil Degrasse Tyson. I am guessing Tyson doesn&#039;t have quite the patience that Bill Nye has.
Say &#039;It&#039;s in the Bible&#039; again. Say &#039;It&#039;s in the Bible&#039; again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say &quot;It&#039;s in the Bible&quot; one more Goddamn time!
/Jules
I watched this, and while Nye did a very good job, I was most disappointed by the fact that not a single mention of any of the myriad creation myths out there that mankind has invented for himself, and why is Hammy so sure his &quot;account&quot; is any more valid than, say, those found in the Rigveda.
I hate that the Creationist Christianists have been able to hijack the discussion (to use Ham&#039;s stupid premise against him) of science to illegitimately reduce the discussion down to a &quot;two-sides&quot; argument, as if they are the <i>only</i> other creation myth out there.
There are a lot more &quot;sides,&quot; you Leviticus-defacing shrimp-eating fucks. Just because every-damn-one, pretty much to a man, dismisses all those other &quot;myths&quot; as just so many primitive tales told by less-civilized rock-chippers and loincloth-wearers, right? This is where a real God would pop in and smite the &quot;knowing smirk&quot; off all the faces, should one of these God-creatures actually exist and give a shit what a bunch of omnivorous apes thought about how they got here. Instead, these bronze-age shepherds&#039; Greatest Hits Scrolls have been unduly legitimized as the one and only single other side, when really, the Yukaghir Shoromboy probably have it dead on.
In suppose it&#039;s countsin the Creationists favor that they no longer use the concept of spontaneous generation.. Do they?
If we don&#039;t understand it, then god did it. If we do understand it, then &quot;yeah humans inspired by god&quot;.
I need new glassses. I read part of that as &quot; impose an anti-intellectual, anti-sex, antiwoman religion on generations of unsuspecting tomatoes.&quot; I much prefer that route than the current one.