Author Topic: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham  (Read 4010 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1666
  • Darwins +69/-0
  • Polyatheist
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #58 on: February 08, 2014, 04:57:53 AM »
On behalf of Australian atheists, I would like to apologise for Ken Ham and his behaviour. How he managed to escape the lunatic fringe is anyone's guess. 
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #59 on: February 08, 2014, 08:17:26 AM »
I wish Nye had known a little more about the Bible.  E.g., "Mr. Ham, in the 11th chapter of Genesis, there's a story about a king and his people, who wanted to build a tower to Heaven.  It says that God went down and looked, and in 11:6, he says, 'Nothing they conceive in their hearts will be impossible for them.'  Now, I predict that you're going to find some way to say that Genesis doesn't really say that it's possible to build a tower out of mud-brick with slime for mortar that can reach Heaven, or that God actually has to come down and look before he can find out that a construction project like that is under way. 

"I predict that you would never seriously attempt to take literally the things Jesus says about money, even while you take what Leviticus says about homosexuality literally--while conveniently ignoring what Leviticus says about eating shrimp wrapped in bacon.  What this means is that you're not just reading the Bible as if it was a scientific treatise or car repair manual and believing what it says.  You're picking and choosing which parts you want to believe and apply to support your political positions on sex and marriage, and which parts you want to ignore or 'interpret' away.  You, Ken Ham, and your followers are doing the picking and choosing so that you can--as you stated in the beginning of this debate--establish your claim to 'authority' to legislate sexual behavior.  That's no valid basis for a scientific model of cosmic origins."

I agree. When Ken Ham said, "Uh, Bill, I . . . I just want to let you know that there . . . there actually is a book out there that actually tells us where matter came from", it would have been nice to have a Sam Harris or a Christopher Hitchens on stage to slap that shit down and scold that motherfucker for poisoning children's minds.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1348
  • Darwins +101/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #60 on: February 08, 2014, 08:38:30 AM »
On behalf of Australian atheists, I would like to apologise for Ken Ham and his behaviour. How he managed to escape the lunatic fringe is anyone's guess.

When did that happen??
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1348
  • Darwins +101/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #61 on: February 08, 2014, 08:40:18 AM »
I wish Nye had known a little more about the Bible.  E.g., "Mr. Ham, in the 11th chapter of Genesis, there's a story about a king and his people, who wanted to build a tower to Heaven.  It says that God went down and looked, and in 11:6, he says, 'Nothing they conceive in their hearts will be impossible for them.'  Now, I predict that you're going to find some way to say that Genesis doesn't really say that it's possible to build a tower out of mud-brick with slime for mortar that can reach Heaven, or that God actually has to come down and look before he can find out that a construction project like that is under way. 

"I predict that you would never seriously attempt to take literally the things Jesus says about money, even while you take what Leviticus says about homosexuality literally--while conveniently ignoring what Leviticus says about eating shrimp wrapped in bacon.  What this means is that you're not just reading the Bible as if it was a scientific treatise or car repair manual and believing what it says.  You're picking and choosing which parts you want to believe and apply to support your political positions on sex and marriage, and which parts you want to ignore or 'interpret' away.  You, Ken Ham, and your followers are doing the picking and choosing so that you can--as you stated in the beginning of this debate--establish your claim to 'authority' to legislate sexual behavior.  That's no valid basis for a scientific model of cosmic origins."

I agree. When Ken Ham said, "Uh, Bill, I . . . I just want to let you know that there . . . there actually is a book out there that actually tells us where matter came from", it would have been nice to have a Sam Harris or a Christopher Hitchens on stage to slap that s**t down and scold that motherfucker for poisoning children's minds.

That sux.  Bill's response should have been "See, Ken, it is exactly that kind of thinking that is the opposite of science.  You have started with your conclusion given to you.  It stifles all inquiry and curiosity to have the answer given to you.  Science is much more challenging than that!  You should be ashamed of yourself for encouraging kids to take the easy way out."
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1350
  • Darwins +454/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #62 on: February 08, 2014, 11:09:59 AM »
I agree. When Ken Ham said, "Uh, Bill, I . . . I just want to let you know that there . . . there actually is a book out there that actually tells us where matter came from", it would have been nice to have a Sam Harris or a Christopher Hitchens on stage to slap that shit down and scold that motherfucker for poisoning children's minds.

Yeah, I do wish Nye had been able to go a little "meta" on Ham when he pulled that crap.  "No, Mr. Ham, your book doesn't explain where matter or logic or consciousness came from.  Where did consciousness come from?  'This book says God made man in his image.'  OK, where did God's consciousness come from?  'Well, he was just always there.'  Where did God's logic come from?  'Well, he was just always there.'  Where did the power that God used to create matter-energy come from?  'Well, he was just always there.'  And so on, right?  So, your model doesn't explain any of those things or tell us how they actually came to be, it claims they were always 'just there.'  So, your model actually has no answers to offer when it comes to the question of origins."

Or when Ham tried to claim that [his version of] Christianity owns the patent and trademark on logic and natural regularity: "It's funny that you would say that Mr. Ham.  The Bible never mentions the 'laws of logic' or natural regularity, and it never claims that Yahweh invented them.  The 'laws of logic' that you're talking about were formalized by Aristotle, a pagan Greek.  So if we want to attribute their existence to a deity, it would have to be Athena or maybe Zeus.  Natural regularity was formulated by a chain of pagan Greek and Roman philosophers like Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, Epicurus, and Lucretius.  So should we credit all of the Olympian deities with creating natural regularity, or do you have one or a few that you prefer?

"Also, are you really going to suggest that Yahweh invented logic and natural regularity?  How would that work?  Was there some point where he's sitting around, watching the four-sided triangles go by, being Yahweh and Isis and Odin and Kali and Quetzelcoatl at the same time and the same respect, adding two and two and getting a different random number each time, until he finally says, 'That's enough of that!  Henceforth, pi shall not be 42!  Henceforth, I shall be Yahweh and not Ahura Mazda and Durga and Nephthys all at once!' 

"But even that requires that natural regularity already exist.  It presumes that when Yahweh says something, reality conforms itself to his words.  That is a natural regularity!  Otherwise, it would be possible for Yahweh to say 'Let there be light!' and have the words turn him into a purple opera-singing bowling ball instead of spawning light.  In order for you to even utter the word 'Yahweh' with the intention of communicating anything, Yahweh has to be an entity of a specific nature--Yahweh, and not anything or anyone else--with certain attributes that make him Yawheh, and so on.  So natural regularity and logic have to be present before there can be a 'Yahweh' in any meaningful sense.  They're ontologically prior, so he can't be invoked as their explanation."

   
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #63 on: February 08, 2014, 02:27:41 PM »
On behalf of Australian atheists, I would like to apologise for Ken Ham and his behaviour. How he managed to escape the lunatic fringe is anyone's guess.

I think you may have meant to say "escape the lunatic asylum", as it seems rather plain that he has not escaped the lunatic fringe, but rather exemplifies it.

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #64 on: February 08, 2014, 03:02:49 PM »
I agree. When Ken Ham said, "Uh, Bill, I . . . I just want to let you know that there . . . there actually is a book out there that actually tells us where matter came from", it would have been nice to have a Sam Harris or a Christopher Hitchens on stage to slap that shit down and scold that motherfucker for poisoning children's minds.

Yeah, I do wish Nye had been able to go a little "meta" on Ham when he pulled that crap.  "No, Mr. Ham, your book doesn't explain where matter or logic or consciousness came from.

Exactly. The most basic problem with Ham's claim was that it is just plain false. A creationist might point to the very first line of Genesis ("In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."), and say that this explains where matter came from. But does it? If I say that I've created the world's best apple pie, do you take this to imply that I made an apple pie materialize out of nothing, or do you take it that I arranged and processed existing ingredients into the form of an apple pie? What about an artist who creates a stone sculpture? Do you assume that he made it materialize out of nothing? Is there ANY context where that would be a reasonable assumption? And yet, to validate Ham's claim, one would have to take this assumption as being not only reasonable, but necessary. Thus, even completely leaving aside the lack of evidence and the fallacy of putting a conclusion ahead of any reasons to reach it, Ham's claim is still revealed as pure bunk. The Bible does NOT say where matter came from.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1350
  • Darwins +454/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #65 on: February 08, 2014, 07:33:31 PM »
If I say that I've created the world's best apple pie, do you take this to imply that I made an apple pie materialize out of nothing, or do you take it that I arranged and processed existing ingredients into the form of an apple pie?

Yea, verily, as St. Sagan (pbuh) hath spoken[1], "If you want to bake an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the Universe."  And so it came to pass, that Willie the Squirrel-God created the Universe, along with logic, natural regularity, and comedy.  I think he's also responsible for Saturday nights.

What?  It's no nuttier (*rimshot*) than Ham's "model."

Ham's Creationism is fractally wrong.  At the start of the debate, he said that it was all about "authority" (the "authority" of Yahweh on his side vs. the "authority" of man on the other), and that this in turn is the "foundation" for [Ham's preferred concept of] marriage and sexual ethics ("one man and one woman," abortion is murder, etc.).

1) If your ultimate source for claims about Universe is "X is true because the Boss says so!" then you're not merely doing science wrong, you're not doing science, period.  The whole purpose of the scientific method, not to mention all those expensive satellites, particle accelerators, computers, chemists' glassware, etc. is to sweep aside claims to authority, politics, biases and the like as much as possible, and set things up so that Universe can speak for itself.  It doesn't work perfectly, of course...it just works lots better than anything else we've ever tried.

2) The Bible did not descend from Heaven on a ray of light to a soundtrack of angelic choirs.  The books that constitute it were written by men, copied, re-copied, and re-re-copied by men, translated, re-translated, and re-re-translated by men, and selected for "canonization" out of a larger pool of similar texts--by men.  It's men, men, men, all the way down.  Ham's claim of "authority" rests on treating all of those men as if they were infallible Gods.  In science, if you don't like the fact that the Andromeda Galaxy is two million light-years away (or that the speed of light is a constant, etc.), you're welcome to repeat the measurements yourself and show that the accepted results are wrong.  In Bible-worship, you've got nothing at all but the Authority of Men.

3) There's a theological term for treating a human-created artifact as if it possessed the attributes of divinity: Idolatry.  There's another theological term that arguably applies to the practice of treating said divine object as one's personal ventriloquist dummy, and that would be Blasphemy.

4) Ham made it clear in the debate (and the displays of his "facility" do likewise) that the whole purpose of Creationism is to provide a prop for Republican social policies.  If those policies cannot be defended on their own merits, so that they must be propped up by the claim that Adam and Eve rode around on cuddly herbivorous Tyrannosaurs...then Creationism stands as Ham's public confession that those policies are complete and utter rubbish.  Lousy politics.

5) Creationism's "foundation" is the act of treating some verses of Genesis as a literal scientific treatise (seven "days," counting up the years in the genealogies, the Eden story of the second chapter) while treating other verses of the same text in the same context as metaphor or otherwise OK to ignore (the "windows" in the firmament that let the Flood waters pour down when opened, and stop the rain when closed, the Moon as a "lesser light" when it's actually a mirror reflecting the Sun's light, the stars being created "for times and seasons and to give light upon the Earth" when all but a few thousand of them can't even be seen by the naked eye, Yahweh's purpose for creating humanity being "to dress and keep" the Garden, i.e. take care of the environment). 

This is not only bad textual interpretation (or perhaps I should just say bad reading comprehension) it is bad theology, at least if you ask the majority of Christians and Christian institutions (e.g. the Roman Catholic church and several of the major Protestant denominations).  By claiming that Noah's ark and vegetarian Tyrannosaurs represent the capstone in the arch of Christianity (contra the Apostle Paul who said it was the resurrection of Jesus, 1 Corinthians 15:14-19), Ham and his ilk spawn crises of faith that otherwise wouldn't happen every time some precious church kid gets exposed to the real world.  Thanks Mr. Ham!  We New Atheists appreciate your support!  When Pat Robertson, a man known for casting healing spells through television screens and claiming to deflect hurricanes tells you to STFU because, "Let’s be real, let’s not make a joke of ourselves," some really close examination of oneself and one's positions ought to be in order!

Heck, is Creationism even a good money-making scheme anymore?
 1. Mr. Ham: there's a series of videos out there...
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #66 on: February 08, 2014, 07:40:09 PM »
I agree. When Ken Ham said, "Uh, Bill, I . . . I just want to let you know that there . . . there actually is a book out there that actually tells us where matter came from", it would have been nice to have a Sam Harris or a Christopher Hitchens on stage to slap that shit down and scold that motherfucker for poisoning children's minds.

Yeah, I do wish Nye had been able to go a little "meta" on Ham when he pulled that crap.  "No, Mr. Ham, your book doesn't explain where matter or logic or consciousness came from.

Exactly. The most basic problem with Ham's claim was that it is just plain false. A creationist might point to the very first line of Genesis ("In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."), and say that this explains where matter came from. But does it? If I say that I've created the world's best apple pie, do you take this to imply that I made an apple pie materialize out of nothing, or do you take it that I arranged and processed existing ingredients into the form of an apple pie? What about an artist who creates a stone sculpture? Do you assume that he made it materialize out of nothing? Is there ANY context where that would be a reasonable assumption? And yet, to validate Ham's claim, one would have to take this assumption as being not only reasonable, but necessary. Thus, even completely leaving aside the lack of evidence and the fallacy of putting a conclusion ahead of any reasons to reach it, Ham's claim is still revealed as pure bunk. The Bible does NOT say where matter came from.

Right! And the "In the beginning" part needs a lot of explaining. At best it could imply, I guess, that there was a god who came into existence and simultaneously created the heaven and the earth, and at some point after that made it appear that there were other things created before the earth(including the sun and other stars), even though the Bible explicitly says that they were created after the earth.

Even then one could counter-argue, "In the beginning there was nothing. Then, God created the heaven and the earth. Then, God created the stars. Then, God made it look like light came before the earth . . . just to be an asshole."
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #67 on: February 09, 2014, 04:08:02 AM »
Poll on Christian Today website: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/bill.nye.vs.ken.ham.debate.live.stream.free.watch.online.creation.vs.evolution.debate.here.start.time/35688.htm

Currently at 8% Ham, 92% Nye. Can't put much stock in self-selected polling, of course. Despite the poll being on a Christian site, the numbers could very well be driven by links to it from atheist sites.

I've been watching this poll over the last few days, and interestingly, that 8% to 92% ratio has been exactly the same every time I've looked, even though the number of votes has increased from about 12,000 at the time I posted, to about 46,000 at present. This seems odd because I would have expected at least some small movement, not the exact same percentages every time. Earlier in the day that I made the post, the numbers had been changing from about 32:68 (from memory, could be off a point or three) to the 8:92 ratio at the time I posted. This seems plausible, as the early voters may have been regular visitors to the Christian site, and therefore more favorable to creationism, while latter voters are people who saw the poll mentioned in articles elsewhere on the web or facebook shares or forum posts like mine, and therefore more likely to include people who are not favorable to creationism. But for the percentages to remain exactly the same over the course of the following 4 days and an accumulation of nearly 4X the number of votes, seems odd.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Retired Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #68 on: February 09, 2014, 08:25:11 AM »
I think Nye blabbered on about how America needs engineers and science too much, and instead should used arguments against creation, like how he should of did.

I mean, sure, every country needs engineers and science, but that is irrelevant to a supernatural creation argument.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +93/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #69 on: February 09, 2014, 10:31:44 AM »
This debate, as have a number of others I've seen, bugged me a bit in that for the most part, there was not a lot of specific back-and-forth on actual points raised, but rather each point just became a platform for each of them to wax on about their big picture agenda.

There are so many smaller points, it seems, which might not seem overtly to stump the creationist. After all, they do have a huge stock of prefabricated apologetics to cover most of the common questions, and the wider the scope, the more plausible they can sound. But if there was more actual discussion, so many more of the finer points of evolution and how at odds they are with simple "godditit" when really looked at could be brought up and maybe do more to make the casual viewer think.

For instance, when talking about the "types" of animal that came off the ark, Ken Ham made the point that there is enough information and diversity in the genes of each "cat" (for example) to lead to all the various other species, so only one type of cat was necessary. And while Bill Nye did counter with some very nice figures on exactly how many new species of animals would have to arise per day between then and now to account for the diversity we see now (which I don't recall Ham responding to, but I may have missed it), he didn't go back to mention that while each individual animal may hold the information needed for this sort of microevolution, a parent set of just two animals would just result in so much inbreeding and NOT offer the genetic diversity needed to actually set that into action. And at the Flood point in the narrative, there is not even the excuse that inbreeding would not be a problem since god created each animal perfect, thus providing pure genes with no inbreeding problems. By the time of the flood, many generations of corrupted post-Fall animals would have been multiplying merrily away.

Then, there could also be many other points brought up, such as the genetic similarities between completely different "types" which can act as a virtual road-map to evolution; the anything-but-perfect structures within various animals which would never have been designed that way by a competent creator but which fit perfectly into the process of evolution; the similarity of so many animals from mammal to bird to reptile and amphibian in their embryonic stages...the list could go on and on, but most of these things never seem to get touched on.  And I'd have loved to see how Ham might have responded to a barrage of these types of questions if the debate structure allowed for it.

It seems, at least from my point of view, that any way one slices it there is much more valid criticism to be levelled at creationism than against evolution. The only real point creationists bring up to counter evolution is that it just seems too perfect to have happened by chance.



Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #70 on: February 09, 2014, 12:03:17 PM »
I think Nye blabbered on about how America needs engineers and science too much, and instead should used arguments against creation, like how he should of did.

I mean, sure, every country needs engineers and science, but that is irrelevant to a supernatural creation argument.

Yeah. Why do we need to care about the future when Jesus is coming soon, and the condition of the earth and its societies won't matter?

Just kidding. I didn't mind his mentioning of that stuff because he is trying to get through to the creationists who, even though they shouldn't care(because God will do whatever is His will), care about the United States being #1. Also, their conservative political candidates seem to care about America's future, or at least like to pretend to care.
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Retired Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #71 on: February 09, 2014, 06:43:57 PM »
I am not saying that science is not important (it REALLY is).

But Nye talked about it too much, when he could of been stomping Ham's arguments.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +93/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #72 on: February 09, 2014, 07:24:37 PM »
I am not saying that science is not important (it REALLY is).

But Nye talked about it too much, when he could of been stomping Ham's arguments.

Sorry, but wasn't the whole "could of" thing just discussed (on another thread) just earlier today? Urgh. Big pet peeve.

Otherwise, yeah. As I mentioned before, both of them went on too long with their own agendas instead of actually debating some specifics which might have given the arguments some extra weight.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Retired Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #73 on: February 10, 2014, 04:19:52 AM »
My apologies if the same thing was discussed earlier.

But now I am discussing it.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1666
  • Darwins +69/-0
  • Polyatheist
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #74 on: February 10, 2014, 07:26:25 AM »
On behalf of Australian atheists, I would like to apologise for Ken Ham and his behaviour. How he managed to escape the lunatic fringe is anyone's guess.

I think you may have meant to say "escape the lunatic asylum", as it seems rather plain that he has not escaped the lunatic fringe, but rather exemplifies it.


The lunatic fringe being Queensland, Australia. Our version of the Bible Belt.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Retired Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #75 on: February 10, 2014, 07:30:15 AM »
I ponder...how does the most boganistic country make a creationist nutter?
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +93/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #76 on: February 10, 2014, 08:03:32 AM »
My apologies if the same thing was discussed earlier.

But now I am discussing it.

Not the topic itself. I think there may have been a mention of it elsewhere, but not sure. In any case, I'd never tell someone what they could or couldn't discuss, especially in a thread where it was on topic.

I thought my bolding the "could of" in your quote, and then restating it, plus agreeing with what you had said in your post otherwise made it clear that I was only reacting badly to that little figure of speech, but apparently we had some miscommunication there. I do apologize, actually, for the fact that I had somehow assumed you had been part of the conversation, in another thread, of common pet peeves in language usage. However, going back, I don't see you there.

That being said, I do still seem to recall someone else mentioning the use of "should of" where it should be "should HAVE" to you some time in the past week or so.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #77 on: February 10, 2014, 02:10:30 PM »
apparently some shitheads creationists were holding up signs with stupid questions for Bill Nye.  This guy has answers for them:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/06/religion_and_science_answering_creationists_questions.html
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2334
  • Darwins +434/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #78 on: February 10, 2014, 04:20:23 PM »
apparently some shitheads creationists were holding up signs with stupid questions for Bill Nye.  This guy has answers for them:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/06/religion_and_science_answering_creationists_questions.html
I liked this response:
http://m.imgur.com/gallery/PbBTk

It's rather smarmy but made me chuckle.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13011
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #79 on: February 10, 2014, 05:09:15 PM »
apparently some shitheads creationists were holding up signs with stupid questions for Bill Nye.  This guy has answers for them:

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


I think one of the main problems in these debates is that you have atheists arguing for Evolution when it should be a Christian arguing for Evolution. Of course protestant Christian fundamentalists won't take anything by an atheist serious because they're godless but place a Christian who believes in Evolution (preferably a protestant since many protestants feel Catholics are all deemed for hell) and see how that debate goes.

Because right now, in my opinion, these Creationists see Evolution as atheist doctrine.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1990
  • Darwins +83/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #80 on: February 10, 2014, 07:29:27 PM »
apparently some shitheads creationists were holding up signs with stupid questions for Bill Nye.  This guy has answers for them:

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

My favorite is from "maximize" in one the comments below the gallery:
Quote
If we came from British people why are there still British people
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +93/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #81 on: February 10, 2014, 07:47:15 PM »
apparently some shitheads creationists were holding up signs with stupid questions for Bill Nye.  This guy has answers for them:

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

My favorite is from "maximize" in one the comments below the gallery:
Quote
If we came from British people why are there still British people

Oh, that's perfect. I'd give you a +1 if it was original :)

Offline shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1962
  • Darwins +110/-2
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #82 on: February 10, 2014, 09:08:50 PM »
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/06/religion_and_science_answering_creationists_questions.html

Screwtape, thanks for that link - in the link, this:

Quote
One of the most important experiments in evolution is going on right now in a laboratory in Michigan State University. A dozen flasks full of E. coli are sloshing around on a gently rocking table. The bacteria in those flasks has been evolving since 1988–for over 44,000 generations. And because they’ve been so carefully observed all that time, they’ve revealed some important lessons about how evolution works.

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a-new-step-in-evolution/

Interestingly, at the same time in 1988 graduate students started watching the head of a pin to count the number of angels dancing on it - to the date - zero.    (Sorry, I made that up)      :$ - these embarrassed smiley faces have stopped working
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #83 on: February 21, 2014, 12:47:45 PM »
In other Bill Nye news, Nye to debate Texas representative Louie Gomhert on gravity:
http://www.juancole.com/2014/02/science-gohmert-gravity.html

Quote
David Gregory’s Meet the Press today hosted a debate between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on whether gravity is just a theory.

“Sure,” Gohmert said, “things fall down all the time. But that doesn’t mean gravity is a law. Look at the Leaning Tower of Pisa. It’s still there after hundreds of years. Things don’t always fall down.”

(continues)

In case anyone missed it, this is satire.  Though, if Gomhert is not the stupidest person in congress, he's in the top three.  He is that dumb.  So is David Gregory, by the way.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Brad the Bold

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Darwins +17/-0
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #84 on: February 28, 2014, 09:19:24 AM »
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/world/Creation+Museum+founder+Bill+debate+emboldened+supporters/9562753/story.html

So for all of us that worried that Nye was bring undeserved attention to Ham.

Ham confirms it was a huge windfall for his Creation Museum.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #85 on: February 28, 2014, 10:00:08 AM »
I hope someone rubs Nye's face in this and he learns to not promote these troglodytes
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Bill Nye plans to debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham
« Reply #86 on: February 28, 2014, 10:01:08 AM »
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/world/Creation+Museum+founder+Bill+debate+emboldened+supporters/9562753/story.html

So for all of us that worried that Nye was bring undeserved attention to Ham.

Ham confirms it was a huge windfall for his Creation Museum.

After the ark, they should build the 50 foot magnifying glass and elevator to nowhere.  ;D

Of course the 50 foot magnifying glass will mistakenly direct sunlight towards the ark. oops.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks