Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 5:57 PM
53 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, xongsmith (5 members, 48 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,498 Year: 3,535/19,786 Month: 530/1,087 Week: 120/212 Day: 36/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3031
32
3334
...
55NextFF
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 466 of 824 (719576)
02-15-2014 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by marc9000
02-14-2014 6:46 PM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
The ultimate rub is actually much of the general public's conclusion about who is being more honest. Just because Nye "indicated" that something can change his view doesn't automatically mean it's the truth. Evidence indicates that evolutionists are just as closed-minded as Christians about their beliefs, despite their assertions about their open-mindedness.

But the evidence actually shows that scientists do change their minds when presented with evidence, and that this includes evolutionary biologists. When, for example, Piltdown Man was proved a fake, the paleontologists bowed to the evidence. When Ostrom (IIRC) showed that birds were descended from dinosaurs, he was able to win over the scientific community to a position they'd previously rejected. And so on. Now, what would it take to convince a Biblical literalist to change even a small detail --- say a seven-day creation instead of six? Eve being made out of a vertebra instead of a rib? Well, we have Ken Ham's answer ...

Bill Nye's honesty further comes into question because of one his main assertions, his main recap about the whole science versus creationism debate - that young people's secular scientific education in the U.S. is so very important in keeping the U.S. from falling behind other countries when it comes to new innovations and discoveries. History should tell him that when new innovations and discoveries are made anywhere in the world, the entire world benefits.

They benefit in that they can buy the new invention. But the inventors also benefit in that they can sell it. If all the new drugs (for example) were to be discovered in China from now on, would our pharmaceutical industry remain as profitable?

Is it more honest to take into account obvious considerations such as this, or to ignore them, as you have done?

---

ETA: I knew this reminded me of something. After Carl Sagan wrote an article about poor standards in American schools, he got letters from schoolchildren one of whom made this awesomely sophisticated point:

Maybe that's good that we are not as smart as the other countries. So then we can just import all of our products and then we don't have to spend all of our money on the parts for the goods.

It appears that today that little kid is all grown up.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by marc9000, posted 02-14-2014 6:46 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2014 8:47 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 467 of 824 (719577)
02-15-2014 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by marc9000
02-15-2014 9:19 AM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
There is no morality in evolution/science.

Falsified by observation.

I often wonder why creationists deny the obvious fact that atheists are moral (and there's some evidence that they are more moral then theists) and refuse to consider the scenarios by which it may have evolved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2014 9:19 AM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 5:50 PM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 484 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2014 8:55 PM JonF has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 468 of 824 (719578)
02-15-2014 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by marc9000
02-15-2014 9:19 AM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
But there are other factors - what are the trade-offs? 50 years ago, when science classes consisted of at least some more creationism and a lot less atheism, kids were bringing squirt guns, realistic-looking toy guns, and in some cases, real guns to school, and no one raised an eyebrow, and no one got shot.

This is, of course, not true. Some school shootings prior to 1964 can be found on this list, which I suppose is not comprehensive because that would be extremely difficult.

Do tell us more about "godly honesty".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2014 9:19 AM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2014 9:09 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 469 of 824 (719586)
02-15-2014 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 465 by marc9000
02-15-2014 9:19 AM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
marc9000 writes:

It's far more than just a case of the rest of the world buying something while the country of origination gets it for free.

The country of origin of an innovation doesn't have to pay for the products that result? Really?

As one simple example,...

Except that what follows is not an example of the country of origin getting the resulting products for free.

...the "weedeater" was invented in the U.S., yet a good case could probably be made that the Japanese build better weedeaters today than does the U.S., and after 40 years since its invention, they don't have to pay one penny for the privilege.

Rather, this is an example of why continuing innovation is so important. Patents have a lifetime and don't provide perfect protection anyway. The only way to stay ahead is to continue innovating, and that's why education is so important.

Ideas can be expounded upon,...

You mean elaborated upon for this context.

...sometimes in ways having to do with less scientific knowledge and more of other factors, like the availability of certain or more plentiful natural resources etc.

Yes, of course, but your point is orthogonal to the importance of education and innovation.

My point is that IMO Bill Nye overstates the importance of only U.S. innovation.

Now you're inventing things Bill Nye never said. He never said that US innovation was the only thing that was important.

But there are other factors...

Yes, of course there are other factors. Again, the presence of other factors does not detract from the importance of education and innovation.

There is no morality in evolution/science. How much does that cost a society?

Assuming we're still talking about education, I'll venture a guess that there's just as much morality in science as there is in Spanish and math, and a bit more than in history and English.

It's not like evolutionists don't feel threatened by honest, Godly men like Ken Ham.

Well, yes, we do feel threatened by men like Ken Ham, but it has nothing to do with their honesty or Godliness. It has to do with the threat they pose to science education.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2014 9:19 AM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2014 9:41 PM Percy has responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1176 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 470 of 824 (719592)
02-15-2014 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by saab93f
02-15-2014 6:11 AM


Re: genetics
Thanks for digging things up - my main point however was to wonder how 40 percent of Americans have such a strong conviction in any mythology.

Because they don't think it is mythology.

In my country's epic the creation story is such that the world was born out of a bird's egg (bluebill or scaup to be exact).

That's a new one.

How do people reconcile the reality and their faith when the difference is gigantic?

Either they reconcile it with there faith through rational reasoning (I am in this camp), compartmentalize it, or reject it all together (the creationists). For those who try to reconcile science and religion such as myself, they see the Bible in some passages as not being literal but rather metaphorical or allegorical (just as much of Revelations is metaphorical). In fact, many Jewish Rabbis/philosophers (past and present) and early Christian philosophers and leaders believed in a more allegorical form of the Genesis creation story. These included St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, John Calvin, and John Wesley. In fact many Jews still accept this allegorical form of creation.

Another point I'd like to understand is how these peeps reconcile their self-assumed moral superiority

Good question. This one I believe is more based out of the human psyche's way of justifying a belief no matter what the cost. It is a defense mechanism to attempt to repress anyone who disagrees with their world view.

and their compulsory need to lie deceit and distort to support their resident mythology.

They don't view their manipulation of facts as lying or deceit. It is kind of like why most people justify telling "white lies" even though they believe it is ethically wrong. Though there are probably some less educated who honestly don't know that what they read off of creationists websites is not real science.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are. - C.S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism


This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by saab93f, posted 02-15-2014 6:11 AM saab93f has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 471 of 824 (719594)
02-15-2014 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by JonF
02-15-2014 9:45 AM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
There is no morality in evolution/science.

Falsified by observation.

I often wonder why creationists deny the obvious fact that atheists are moral (and there's some evidence that they are more moral then theists) and refuse to consider the scenarios by which it may have evolved.

You are missing the point. It's not that people aren't moral, and that includes evolutionists with everybody else, because morality is built into us though it can be distorted in many ways, the point is that the theory of evolution itself promotes an anti-morality, and in its early years it did justify a very ugly racism and Nazism itself. The only reason it no longer does is that people's inherent moral sense saw the problem and corrected for it. But the theory itself does not promote morality, it still works against the morality that made civilization and still contributes to the downfall of the civilization for that reason.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by JonF, posted 02-15-2014 9:45 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by DrJones*, posted 02-15-2014 5:56 PM Faith has responded
 Message 475 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-15-2014 6:23 PM Faith has responded
 Message 478 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2014 7:56 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 479 by Percy, posted 02-15-2014 8:04 PM Faith has responded
 Message 518 by dwise1, posted 02-16-2014 12:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1805
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 472 of 824 (719595)
02-15-2014 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Faith
02-15-2014 5:50 PM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
in its early years it did justify a very ugly racism and Nazism itself.

No people used it to justify racism and Nazism, much like religion has been used by people to justify atrocities

But the theory itself does not promote morality,

why should it?

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 5:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 5:58 PM DrJones* has not yet responded
 Message 474 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-15-2014 6:06 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 473 of 824 (719596)
02-15-2014 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by DrJones*
02-15-2014 5:56 PM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
I didn't say it should nor did anyone else here.

Edited by Faith, :


This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by DrJones*, posted 02-15-2014 5:56 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1176 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 474 of 824 (719598)
02-15-2014 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by DrJones*
02-15-2014 5:56 PM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
why should it?
But the theory itself does not promote morality,

It is how people use this information which makes it moral or immoral. Just as the knowledge of nuclear science by itself is amoral, however the development and use of the atomic bombs using this knowledge was a moral one.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are. - C.S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism


This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by DrJones*, posted 02-15-2014 5:56 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 924 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 475 of 824 (719601)
02-15-2014 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Faith
02-15-2014 5:50 PM


Curse of Cain?
You are missing the point. It's not that people aren't moral, and that includes evolutionists with everybody else, because morality is built into us though it can be distorted in many ways, the point is that the theory of evolution itself promotes an anti-morality, and in its early years it did justify a very ugly racism and Nazism itself. The only reason it no longer does is that people's inherent moral sense saw the problem and corrected for it. But the theory itself does not promote morality, it still works against the morality that made civilization and still contributes to the downfall of the civilization for that reason.

In contradistinction to a God who created races and favors one race over other races. That concept certainly lays claim to the moral high ground.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 5:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 6:25 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 476 of 824 (719602)
02-15-2014 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by shalamabobbi
02-15-2014 6:23 PM


Re: Curse of Cain?
God does not choose between races. You are probably thinking of His judgments on groups that so seriously violated His laws He finally wiped them out. Has nothing to do with race.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-15-2014 6:23 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 477 of 824 (719605)
02-15-2014 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by saab93f
02-15-2014 5:25 AM


Re: genetics
You said that it is only a minority that denies science but isn't it actually so that 40 percent of Americans believe that everything was created in 6 literal days according to Gilgamesh...Genesis?

Source please?

I've see numbers more like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-creationism_n_1571127.html

Forty six percent Americans believed in creationism, 32 percent believed in theistic evolution and 15 percent believed in evolution without any divine intervention.

I'd argue that only the 32 per cent are actually science deniers.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by saab93f, posted 02-15-2014 5:25 AM saab93f has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by saab93f, posted 02-16-2014 5:43 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 478 of 824 (719610)
02-15-2014 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Faith
02-15-2014 5:50 PM


Examples
the point is that the theory of evolution itself promotes an anti-morality

Where?

and in its early years it did justify a very ugly racism and Nazism itself.

For example:

In the light of God's truth the notion of created equality and unaliable right is falsehood and infidelity ... The time has come when civil liberty, as revealed in the Bible and in Providence, must be re-examined, understood, and defended against infidel theories of human rights. - The Reverend F A Ross, "Slavery Ordained Of God"

The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example. - Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

I draw my warrant from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to hold the slave in bondage. - Rev. Thomas Witherspoon, Presbyterian, of Alabama

We therefore hold that abolitionism, which deems slavery a sin and therefore considers every slave holder a criminal and strives for its eradication, is the result of unbelief in its development of nationalism, deistic philanthropy, pantheism, materialism, and atheism. - CFW Walther, Lutheran

Oh, wait, those are examples of something else. Er, how about this ...

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. --- Adolf Hitler, My New Order

... no, still not an example.

Surely we can find a Nazi talking about Darwinism somewhere ... yup. On a list of books to be burned. Along with "Die Literatur des Marxismus, Kommunismus, Bolschewismus" ("the literature of Marxism, Communism, Bolshevism") and "Die liberalistisch-demokratische Tendenz- und Gesinnungsliteratur" ("Literature with liberal-democratic tendencies and attitudes") they also wished to suppress writings "deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklrung eines primitiven Darwinismus [...] ist" ("which contain the pseudoscientific exposition of primitive Darwinism").

They also condemned "Alle Schriften, welche die christliche Religion und ihre Einrichtungen, den Gottesglauben [...] verhhnen, verumglimpfen oder verchtlich machen" ("All works which mock, libel, or make contemptible the Christian religion and its institutions, belief in God ...")

So that's not really an example either. Still, I'm sure you have some examples. Don't you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 5:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2014 8:26 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 479 of 824 (719611)
02-15-2014 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Faith
02-15-2014 5:50 PM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
Evolution, like all science, is amoral. It is people who can be immoral. Such people will always employ whatever tools and excuses they find convenient.

The important question for any theory isn't whether it is moral or honest or has integrity, because those are assignations for people. It makes no sense to apply them to atoms or the weather or the Krebs cycle or fission or mitosis. The important question for any theory is whether it is an accurate representation of reality.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 5:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 8:39 PM Percy has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(3)
Message 480 of 824 (719613)
02-15-2014 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by Dr Adequate
02-15-2014 7:56 PM


Re: Examples
Wait, good news! I found someone who believes in the inferiority of black people, and attributes it to an evolutionary process. He expresses his sentiments in this ... charming ... little ditty.

The poor little fellow who went to the south
Got lost in the forests dank;
His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
And his mind became blank.

Who is this staunch Darwinian? Oh, wait, it's George McCready Price, the father of Flood Geology.

See, as creationists never tire of telling us, they believe in microevolution, and in evolution as a degenerative process. That's just Creationism 101. If they want to use it as a justification for their racist views, there's nothing to stop them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2014 7:56 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-15-2014 8:45 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
3031
32
3334
...
55NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019