Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 526 of 824 (719668)
02-16-2014 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by Faith
02-15-2014 8:39 PM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
Of course, Creationism is the real promoter of immorality. We see it here all the time. In fact we have an example right here.
quote:
The thing about evolution is that the idea implies different levels of evolution between races, implying in those days inferiority versus superiority, at least it did to those who first encountered the idea right after Darwin, including Darwin himself.
This is an outright falsehood. The racial hierarchy was normal thinking before Darwin. The most that can be said is that some appealed to Darein's theory to "explain" what they already believed. The theory itself implies no such judgements, and the whole idea of "different levels of evolution" is itself widely regarded as nonsensical.
quote:
As I said, people have a built in moral sense and that's what finally did away with that sort of thinking,
I have to say that yours seems to be malfunctioning. My morality won't let me be a creationist. Lying is really, really hard for me.
quote:
but it can't be denied that it's still there IN the theory itself if somebody decided to come along and exploit it.
It certainly can be denied, there's nothing in the theory about different levels of evolution.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 8:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(3)
Message 527 of 824 (719669)
02-16-2014 4:29 AM


It's an odd thing creationists try to do with evolution; attempting to discredit the theory by discrediting the discoverer. They need a way of establishing in their minds a reason - any reason - to dismiss it. It's even odder when its known that Darwin was a very decent bloke from a good and respectable, Christian family. And as for his alleged racism, his views were extremely enlightened for his time:
He learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who had accompanied Charles Waterton in the South American rainforest, and often sat with this "very pleasant and intelligent man".[21]
But I often wish that he been a murderer and child rapist that eat black babies for breakfast so that we could put aside this silly prejudice.
The discovery is independent of the discoverer.
"Ohm's law states that the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the potential difference across the two points."
This would remain true even if Lucifer himself had told us about it.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 528 of 824 (719671)
02-16-2014 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by NoNukes
02-15-2014 7:14 PM


Re: genetics
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.
Sorry, should've checked the numbers but I thought that a ballpark figure was enough to support my point.
I'd argue that there is nothing ONLY in 32 percent. That is horrible in fact because it means that 100 mio Americans are seriously deluded.IMO they are "saved" from physiartic treatment mainly because of the popularity of their particular delusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by NoNukes, posted 02-15-2014 7:14 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 529 of 824 (719674)
02-16-2014 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 525 by dwise1
02-16-2014 1:12 AM


Re: Darwin's racism
What is this, a scene from Blazing Saddles?:
Great movie, very politically incorrect for today however. One of the best ways of ridding society of racism and stereotyping is through ridicule and comedy aka SNL, Late Night comedy, etc.
Besides, since when have Christians ever listened to Jews? Nu?
There are still some of us out there. Besides, my brother in law is Jewish.
Iwhich the Jewish owner of this sketch remarks that Christians have no idea how to interpret Scripture properly. 'Nuff said?
Very true statement. Many Christians are oblivious to how to translate Scripture accurately. If you ask most of them what exegesis is, they would look at you funny. Many Christians do not realize that the Jews have tons of rabbinical writings explaining how the OT should be interpreted. Basically these are Jewish commentaries of the OT, i.e. the Talmud, Midrash, etc.

"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 525 by dwise1, posted 02-16-2014 1:12 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 530 of 824 (719675)
02-16-2014 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 494 by marc9000
02-15-2014 9:41 PM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
marc9000 writes:
The country of origin of an innovation doesn't have to pay for the products that result? Really?
This kind of ridiculous question speaks volumes about the closed-mindedness and haughtiness of evolutionists.
Really? Here's what you said:
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.
I responded with skeptical sarcasm (not "closed-mindedness and haughtiness"). It was an invitation to explain what you really meant. Care to try again?
Education isn't the only thing that promotes innovation. A thing called liberty also figures prominently.
You are again rebutting a claim not made. No one claimed that only education can promote innovation, but I'm glad you mentioned liberty. Would this be the same kind of liberty that would permit stem cell research?
Now you're inventing things Bill Nye never said. He never said that US innovation was the only thing that was important.
It was the summary of his entire debate. Here's how he finished up;
quote:
...The process of science, the way we know nature, is the most compelling thing to me. I'd like to close by reminding everybody what's at stake here. If we abandon all that we've learned - our ancestors - what they've learned about nature and our place in it, if we abandon the process by which we know it, if we let go of everything people have learned before us, if we stop driving forward, looking for the next answer to the next question, we in the U.S. will be out-competed by other countries, other economies, now that would be okay I guess, but I was born here, I'm a patriot, and so we have to embrace science education, and to the voters and taxpayers who are watching, please keep that in mind, we have to keep science education in science / science classes.
Why don't you point out for me where in that paragraph Bill Nye said that innovation was the only thing that was important. Mike, I think you're having trouble drawing a simple distinction. Saying a thing is important is not the same thing as saying it is the only thing that is important. Had Bill Nye said that only innovation was important then I would agree with you that he left out a few things, but he didn't say that.
Science is the only thing he's focused on, he seems oblivious to non-scientific things that "people have learned before us", like the threat of tyrants, the value of liberty.
How is not mentioning things outside the focus of the debate being oblivious? Did Ken Ham mention tyrants and liberty in his summary?
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.
Well that's a bad guess, because Spanish and Math specialists don't attempt to convince the public that society would be better if their favorite subject is used to trump and downplay the traditional values and morality of Christianity.
This is just you making false accusations again. Christianity is no more "trumped and downplayed" in science class than it is in Spanish and math class, and history class certainly leaves Christianity with a big black eye. And depending upon how much liberty exists in English class, that's where the biggest attack on Christian values lies.
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.
They don't actually pose a threat to actual science, they pose a threat to atheism and liberalism.
It's like you live on a foreign planet. Where do you get this stuff?
I'm neither an atheist nor a liberal, but I see no reason they should feel threatened by Ken Ham. But I do see a Creation Museum in Kentucky that is miseducating kids. Seems like a threat to science to pretty much everyone but you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2014 9:41 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by marc9000, posted 02-16-2014 4:14 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 531 of 824 (719676)
02-16-2014 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by Faith
02-15-2014 10:16 PM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
Faith writes:
That sort of thinking is *not* in the theory, but it's a popular misreading of the theory that some life is more "evolved" than other life, and it is that idea that can be exploited.
The problem is that apparently Darwin himself misread his own theory in this way, which rather gives credence to the others who did the same. I guess you could argue that Darwin himself didn't fully understand his own theory.
Coyote appropriately notes that Darwin's theory did not spring fully grown from the womb, but Darwin did not "misread his own theory" in this case. He accepted prevailing thought that the African races were inferior to the white races, which has nothing to do with evolution. Believing this Darwin speculated how evolution might have produced such an outcome. Of course it turns out the black races are not inferior to the white races, rendering such speculation moot.
As Coyote said, Darwin didn't get everything right, but he developed his theory in the 1840's and 1850's, well over 150 years ago when the fossil evidence was sparse and before the genetic mechanisms behind inheritance had been discovered.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 10:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 532 of 824 (719677)
02-16-2014 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by marc9000
02-15-2014 8:55 PM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
There is no morality in evolution/science.
Falsified by observation.
Source? When humans are thought to have evolved by exactly the same process as animals, where is morality any kind of testable, falsifiable science?
I wasn't clear. It is a fact that non-theists have morals very similar to theists in many ways, and there is some data that suggests they are more moral than theists. What Percentage of Prisoners Are Atheists? Pew Forum Offers An Answe.
So don't blame any lack of morality on atheism or religion or any scientific theory. Blame it on the immoral people.
I often wonder why creationists deny the obvious fact that atheists are moral
In a uniform, prescribed way? Tell me more.
No, not in a uniform prescribed way. In somewhat varying ways just like religionists, and not prescribed formally but in a manner created by evolution and society.
(and there's some evidence that they are more moral then theists)
Let's see that evidence. Not just a few cherry picks, but uniform, prescribed ways that they are more moral, and the source from where they derive that morality.
See above. There is no uniformity in any group's morality, there's variation, and prescribed ways are not necessary. The source is evolution and society.
Lay those scenarios on me, and I'll consider them. I've never noticed them put fourth on forums such as these before.
Way off topic, but I've seen it lots of places, such as here
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2014 8:55 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by marc9000, posted 02-16-2014 4:28 PM JonF has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 533 of 824 (719678)
02-16-2014 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 524 by Faith
02-16-2014 12:58 AM


Re: Darwin's racism
From the evidence you gave I'd say it wasn't Christianity but Hollywood.
But that wasn't the first time I'd heard anyone claim that black skin is the Mark of Cain. I had heard that from Christians several times before having seen that movie. All that that movie did was to draw from and present a part of Christian tradition.
In Curse and mark of Cain, Christian association of the Mark of Cain with black skin was made early in Syriac Christianity. The Southern Baptists used the Mark of Cain as part its justification for racism, which was still running rampant in 1966 when that movie was made. The Mark of Cain was used into the 1960's to bar blacks from being ordained. In its founding, the Mormonism adopted the common white Protestant belief that the Mark of Cain was black skin and also adopted the belief that the Curse of Ham was also black skin.
Of course, if they actually believed their Bible, then they'd know that Cain's descendants had all be wiped out in the Flood. Though Ham's weren't.
So then, no, it wasn't Hollywood, but rather Christianity. Not only that, but it was Protestant Christianity.
Though the Southern Baptist Conference did apologize in 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Faith, posted 02-16-2014 12:58 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 534 of 824 (719679)
02-16-2014 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by Faith
02-15-2014 8:39 PM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
As I said, people have a built in moral sense...
Tell Marc9000. He thinks (as do many creationists and Christians) that morality must be prescribed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 8:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 535 of 824 (719680)
02-16-2014 12:01 PM


Edited by Admin, : Fix utube code.

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 536 of 824 (719688)
02-16-2014 3:36 PM


Watch this evolutionist liberal pastor use evolution to be racist.
Oh wait. He's not liberal, nor an evoutionist and he certainly isn't using evolution (or Darwins theory) to fuel his hate and his seat at the top as the most racist pastor in America.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by saab93f, posted 02-16-2014 4:04 PM hooah212002 has not replied
 Message 541 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-16-2014 5:08 PM hooah212002 has not replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 537 of 824 (719690)
02-16-2014 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 536 by hooah212002
02-16-2014 3:36 PM


But it's okay because he is an honest godly man, right?
It is nothing short of amazing how the religion of love (tm) can produce hoards of hateful and inhumane preachers...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by hooah212002, posted 02-16-2014 3:36 PM hooah212002 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 538 of 824 (719691)
02-16-2014 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by Percy
02-16-2014 9:20 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.
I responded with skeptical sarcasm (not "closed-mindedness and haughtiness"). It was an invitation to explain what you really meant. Care to try again?
Here's what you said in message 464;
quote:
True, when someone somewhere invents something then the whole world can buy it, but...
Your implication here, however slight, was that the "whole world" has a different.....access to an invention than the "somewhere" that it is invented. Further;
quote:
Bill Nye's (extremely obvious) point is that a country's quality of life depends upon its ability to compete with the rest of the world, and education is key to a country's competitiveness. The greater a county's flow of innovation the greater its wealth.
Now you mention a country's "wealth" as being beneficial to having innovations developed within, making your slight implication above even less slight. When your implications combine with Bill Nye's hysteria that the U.S. is doomed if innovations aren't home-grown, then I started off a point about how there is far more to the whole equation than just a well defined access issue, economic or otherwise. I started off with this sentence that has you so captivated;
quote:
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 words "FAR MORE" were the focus of what I was saying. (wow, this place is an exercise in word processing) NOW, we have two possibilities. 1) Either your reading comprehension is so basic that you genuinely didn't understand how my actual point followed the words "far more" or 2) you're using the standard atheist (WHOOPS, I mean evolutionist) tactics of understanding a good point, but going off down a largely irrelevant rabbit trail to try to frustrate someone who doesn't share your worldview. To compliment your actual reading comprehension, I suspect it's number 2.
You are again rebutting a claim not made. No one claimed that only education can promote innovation,
It doesn't have to be directly stated to be strongly implied. Bill Nye is clearly a one-subject guy, his entire presentation was about science and nothing else.
but I'm glad you mentioned liberty. Would this be the same kind of liberty that would permit stem cell research?
Not when a particular liberty clashes with the moral beliefs of the majority of people in a society where they have a political voice. I was thinking more about things like nuclear power, genetically modified foods, alternative energies, just a few examples of things that the political party he donates his money to strongly opposes. Oh, and the fourth amendment too, something that the president he donated his money to is now being (quite legitimately) sued by a senator for flagrantly violating. I wonder if he thinks there can be more innovation when innovators have to succumb to an increasingly heavy hand of government regulation, and/or the redistribution of the wealth that innovators generate.
Why don't you point out for me where in that paragraph Bill Nye said that innovation was the only thing that was important.
He never said anything else! He mentioned what our ancestors learned, that he was born here, that he was a patriot, then made a bee-line to ONLY innovation that comes from science.
I think you're having trouble drawing a simple distinction. Saying a thing is important is not the same thing as saying it is the only thing that is important.
What he promotes as important competes with other things that are important. He promotes science to a level that reduces other important things to almost nothingness.
Christianity is no more "trumped and downplayed" in science class than it is in Spanish and math class,
Some people swallow this politically correct mantra because it's said over and over and over and over again in almost every scientific venue out there, but that doesn't mean it's still not laughable to many people.
marc9000 writes:
Percy writes:
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.
They don't actually pose a threat to actual science, they pose a threat to atheism and liberalism.
It's like you live on a foreign planet. Where do you get this stuff?
There's plenty of evidence for it right here on earth.
I'm neither an atheist nor a liberal,
Yes, I know, you're perfectly neutral. Good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by Percy, posted 02-16-2014 9:20 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Percy, posted 02-17-2014 7:53 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 539 of 824 (719692)
02-16-2014 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 532 by JonF
02-16-2014 11:22 AM


Re: This debate was typical creationist pap vs science
I wasn't clear. It is a fact that non-theists have morals very similar to theists in many ways,
I agree with that, the reason being that even non-theists were created by God. If you don't agree, where do you think non-theists get their morals? The same evolutionary process that DID NOT give any morals to animals?
Here is the best statement on your link about prisoners beliefs;
quote:
Atheists *might* constitute a larger percentage of prisoners than we previously thought but we really have no idea:
How anyone seriously thinks prisoners can be trusted to answer questions truthfully is beyond me. Doesn't it make sense that prisoners are going to claim to be Christian in hopes of getting off easier because of it? That many of them could be skilled enough to fake out the chaplains that contribute to these findings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by JonF, posted 02-16-2014 11:22 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 542 by JonF, posted 02-16-2014 6:58 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 540 of 824 (719694)
02-16-2014 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by Faith
02-15-2014 10:43 PM


Re: Trashing Darwin?
Faith writes:
I don't consider it trashing Darwin to mention his racist attitude.
Portraying anyone in a way that is both negative and wrong would be considered "trashing" them by most people. Darwin was not untypical of his time and probably a good deal better than most, such as Southern ministers of the time who would justify slavery based on negro inferiority and the necessity of white paternalism for their survival. Darwin abhorred slavery and would have been considered enlightened for his time.
Another way of looking at it, if you don't consider it trashing Darwin, then you shouldn't consider it trashing all of 19th century Europe to mention their racist attitude.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 10:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by Faith, posted 02-16-2014 6:59 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024