Bill Nye vs Ken Ham creationist debate - Feb 4, 2014

ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Bill Nye vs Ken Ham creationist debate - Feb 4, 2014

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rhdl0rdht8

I like Bill but I don't think it should take place at the creationist nauseum. I understand their "donations" are off. Also, I think Bill feels a need to be in the limelight.

I will still have to watch it when it is available and hate myself for doing it. It will be like watching him on "Dancing With The Stars". Sad

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:ex-minister

Vastet wrote:
ex-minister wrote:

 Vastet,

why are you saying radioactive dating is very limited? I haven't heard that before from a non YEC. Do u not trust using other elements besides carbon? I thought they all were within 1% accuracy even done correctly.

if what you saying is true then how can we know the earth is 4.6B yrs old? Is Ham right?

 

what about that thing Ham said a 12k year piece of wood was buried in rock millions of years old? Nye dismissed it saying the rock shelves moved the two parts together then Ham corrected him by saying the wood was embedded.

I'm not saying the method is limited. But the materials are. Carbon is useless for dating anything more than 45,000 years old. Completely useless. Similarly, uranium is useless for anything less than 10,000 years old. Elements decay at different rates. Which is why we use different elements to date different time periods. When Ken said that different methods give different results he was right. But Bill had the opportunity to explain why that is. Unfortunately he didn't take it.

I agree. Bill should have hit that point when it popped up.

That alone would crush the "The Earth is 6,000 years old" because items found in North America from the Clovis Period would be dated back to 10,000-12,000 years ago.

I would have brought a list of all the items that they can date and every time Ken hit that subject I would have pulled out the list and said, "here, they can date [insert element] is dated to...."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: what does that

iwbiek wrote:

what does that mean, "intellectually honest"? again, this is what i was talking about in another thread. ever since the middle ages, man has got it in his head that we're somehow "cheating" if we don't swallow our ideologies whole.

People have a ulterior motives and hidden agendas. The people that enter this debate will all say their only interest is the children. They want the children to have a good science education or in the case of theists to get them eternal life. Because it's 'for the children' we're supposed to believe their motives are pure and unselfish.

But if peoples' beliefs and motives were so pure, certain things would flow from that. An atheist would fight to keep religion out of science class. A Christian wouldn't want evolution creating doubt that could lead to loss of salvation for the little ones.

But the real motive of those motive of atheists and theists that are OK with teaching evolution alongside creationism is just to get along. It's political. That is why it is so easy to poke holes in their arguments.

If someone really believes the bible, one should behave like Ken Ham. One can criticize his belief in the bible but not his anti-evolution teaching stance.

iwbiek wrote:

everybody, theist and atheist, throws around words like "cherry-picking" as a pejorative, but i advocate it as the rational faculty at work.

But when you're sick, do you want a doctor that 'cherry-picks' medical data to come up with a treatment or do you want a rigorous and consistent method of determining the truth of what is best for you?

I think 'cherry-picking' is the survival faculty at work. The political instinct of making allies and destroying adversaries all the while presenting your motives as altruistic.

When I worked for corporations, the supposed motivation of everyone was the company's bottom line. One always presents your agenda as increasing sales or reducing cost. But of course, everyone's real motive is personal survival. To move up the corporate ladder, to not be fired, to minimize work, to CYA. But one must play along with the game. So it is with life in general.

I don't think there can be many 'intellectually honest' debates because like you, nearly everyone buys into the delusion of unselfish motives. I don't think anyone is doing it 'for the children'.
Personally, I find this delusion more damaging than religion. I don't think there can be intellectual honesty until there is honesty about people's real agenda.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: Because it's 'for

EXC wrote:
Because it's 'for the children' we're supposed to believe their motives are pure and unselfish.

Ridiculous. There's nothing unselfish about wanting your kid to grow up believing what you believe. Selfless would be letting the kids decide for themselves.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:EXC wrote:It

iwbiek wrote:
EXC wrote:
It seems like if one is intellectually honest, you'll either be a nutty "the earth is only 6000 years old" fundy or a "religion is poison" atheist. The moderate theists and atheists are cowards, only interested in not offending anyone than seeking the truth.

what does that mean, "intellectually honest"? again, this is what i was talking about in another thread. ever since the middle ages, man has got it in his head that we're somehow "cheating" if we don't swallow our ideologies whole. everybody, theist and atheist, throws around words like "cherry-picking" as a pejorative, but i advocate it as the rational faculty at work. we ought to have enough sense to take what's beneficial and leave the rubbish. then again, for those who like to debate it's frustrating because it makes it difficult for us to draw assumptions about a person's position. i think that's why so many don't like it.

There really isn't anything inherently rational about being honest or anything irrational about lying. Indeed, I think a strong argument could be made that honesty is often irrational. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I actually thought Ken did make some good points, but he was mostly just spouting bs. I thought Bill was nearly perfect. There was only one thing I thought he could have addressed that he didn't address, and I was disappointed he didn't because he could have skewered it in 30 seconds or less. The whole dating thing. Ken made a good showing that Bill let slide. It would have taken very little time to point out that carbon dating is simply ineffective when dealing with time scales beyond a few tens of thousands of years. And to further point out that each dating method will give different results precisely because different elements decay at different rates, and thus you just can't use every element to date every time period. Other than that I thought Bill did far better than I expected.

What was Ken's good points?

First, understand that I'm speaking as if I didn't know (almost) everything they were talking about already. Which is likely the case for many people who watched the debate. #1: dating methods. Ken was right, he just wasn't completely right. #2: splitting science in two (observational/historical). Pure bs, but Bill let it slide so... #3: the thing about the boats, where Ken said that a culture or two solved the twisting problem with interlocking hulls. I'm not actually sure if that's true or what the full details are, but it sounded good. #4: the evolution shrub vs tree. Ken is wrong but if you don't know how it works his explanation is plausible. I'd have liked for Bill to deal with that but he probably didn't have time.

I was going to write a reply to each item but after I started to collect data on tree rings, coral rings, soil cores, etc, I just [facepalm] myself and thought "are these YEC's worth my time?

Of course the answer is "No".

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:But when you're

EXC wrote:

But when you're sick, do you want a doctor that 'cherry-picks' medical data to come up with a treatment or do you want a rigorous and consistent method of determining the truth of what is best for you?




oh please, we're talking about ideologies and philosophical systems, not data. religions per se don't deal in data at all. you said any "intellectually honest" christian would be a YEC, which is just plain silly.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I found this article on the

I found this article on the debate. I thought it was pretty well written.

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/ham-on-nye-the-high-cost-of-winning-an-evolutioncreation-debate/


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I like the math after the

I like the math after the flood

8 people, 4 women, 4 men, started to repopulate the world.

Those 4 women would need to push out a baby every 9 months until the day they died. Then accounting for the birth of male babies verses female babies, your cutting your birth potential and on top of that, having brothers impregnate their sisters, cousins and such. Not to forget mentioning birth defects, death at birth, etc. That alone makes it absolutely impossible to repopulate the world in 4,000 years.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
1 in 4 American's do not

Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That's kind of scary.

That's kind of scary.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That's kind of

Vastet wrote:
That's kind of scary.

I suspect that most of those people come from West Virginia.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
CSPAN aired the debate last

CSPAN aired the debate last night.

Oh but lets not call religion poison guys, it isn't like Ham isn't dumbing people down with his bullshit. Ham is doing the right thing. We all know science is Jesus based. Nye is such a prick for challenging such absurdities, why cant he just allow Ham to peddle his poison? DAMN YOU NYE!

Oh I get it, when you cuss you are on a Jihad. When you don't cuss no one ever takes even mere questioning as blasphemy.

As I have said and will continue to say, no one, no atheist or theist living in the west has any right to bitch about merely being offended. What offends me is when people are more concerned about being offended, than actuall oppressive laws, or physical violence, and even bad use of logic like what Ham peddles.

Ham is the asshole. He cares more about propping up a myth than actual science. It is like selling "Thor makes lightening" science ficition. To expect me to play nice with such crap is absurd.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You're a complete fucking

You're a complete fucking moron.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline

ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You're a

Vastet wrote:
You're a complete fucking moron.

 

  Vastet, at  least Brian37 can take some comfort in knowing that despite the wide variety of opinions among our members he has been able to single-handedly unite the vast majority of atheists on this forum in a shared hatred of his perpetual whining.  

 

                        Good job Brian, one thing we can all agree on ...you are annoying as hell.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Now it seems Ken Ham is

Now it seems Ken Ham is suing the state of Kentucky for not giving his theme park an a tax-incentive worth up to $18 million dollars.   (Apparently the junk bonds he was selling before didn't raise the necessary capital).  Ham does not accept that his for-profit organization is ineligible for tax incentives because it applies discrimination in its hiring -- all employess are required to sign a statement of faith.  

From Answers In Genesis' statement:

...the state was so insistent on treating our religious entity as a second-class citizen that we were simply left with no alternative but to proceed to court. This is the latest example of increasing government hostility towards religion in America, and it’s certainly among the most blatant.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Now it

zarathustra wrote:

Now it seems Ken Ham is suing the state of Kentucky for not giving his theme park an a tax-incentive worth up to $18 million dollars.   (Apparently the junk bonds he was selling before didn't raise the necessary capital).  Ham does not accept that his for-profit organization is ineligible for tax incentives because it applies discrimination in its hiring -- all employess are required to sign a statement of faith.  

From Answers In Genesis' statement:

...the state was so insistent on treating our religious entity as a second-class citizen that we were simply left with no alternative but to proceed to court. This is the latest example of increasing government hostility towards religion in America, and it’s certainly among the most blatant.

What an ignorant pile of shit Ken Ham is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
This is good. A bureaucrat

This is good. A bureaucrat is doing his or her job correctly, and AIG is wasting millions of dollars failing to succeed in legally breaking the law. I like this a lot.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: This is good.

Vastet wrote:

This is good. A bureaucrat is doing his or her job correctly, and AIG is wasting millions of dollars failing to succeed in legally breaking the law. I like this a lot.

Read this crap. These people just do not freaking get it.

http://www.kentucky.com/2015/02/08/3683876_noahs-ark-park-seeking-only-equal.html?rh=1

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:...the state was so

AIG wrote:
...the state was so insistent on treating our religious entity as a second-class citizen that we were simply left with no alternative but to proceed to court.

Lmfao! A for-profit religious entity? Okay Ken.

Sucks to suck, bro.

AIG wrote:
This is the latest example of increasing government hostility towards religion in America, and it’s certainly among the most blatant.

Oh yeah, cause the U.S. government is soooo hostile towards Christianity. And your business attempting to commit tax fraud speaks for all religion in the country.

Yeah.....no.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Kind of a shame, I'm looking

Kind of a shame, I'm looking forward to visiting the park, good comedy is hard to come by. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Kind of

Beyond Saving wrote:

Kind of a shame, I'm looking forward to visiting the park, good comedy is hard to come by. 

 

lol I was thinking the same... 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
as a kentuckian, i say fuck

as a kentuckian, i say fuck this place. i will never set foot there.


(brian calling me a hypocrite in 3...2...1...)

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:as a

iwbiek wrote:
as a kentuckian, i say fuck this place. i will never set foot there.
(brian calling me a hypocrite in 3...2...1...)

I'll betcha the bar tab that I could get enough quality bourbon in ya to make you change your mind. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:iwbiek

Beyond Saving wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
as a kentuckian, i say fuck this place. i will never set foot there.
(brian calling me a hypocrite in 3...2...1...)

I'll betcha the bar tab that I could get enough quality bourbon in ya to make you change your mind.&,nbsp;



hoss, you don't want to know what all you could change going that route...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson