LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksanybody know where this debate will be streamed tonight? (tonight for the US)
Thanks
67Likes
1
Post By exchemist
1
Post By PhDemon
2
Post By mat5592
2
Post By Flick Montana
1
Post By Trivium
1
Post By Flick Montana
1
Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
2
Post By PhDemon
4
Post By Flick Montana
1
Post By GoldenRatio
6
Post By Flick Montana
1
Post By Busy Bee
2
Post By KALSTER
2
Post By KALSTER
1
Post By adelady
1
Post By astromark
4
Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
1
Post By Harold14370
1
Post By Flick Montana
2
Post By KALSTER
1
Post By adelady
1
Post By grmpysmrf
1
Post By KALSTER
1
Post By Lynx_Fox
1
Post By grmpysmrf
1
Post By Lynx_Fox
1
Post By grmpysmrf
1
Post By billvon
1
Post By billvon
1
Post By pyoko
1
Post By adelady
4
Post By GoldenRatio
2
Post By Dywyddyr
1
Post By John Galt
2
Post By Dywyddyr
1
Post By Dywyddyr
1
Post By Flick Montana
1
Post By Flick Montana
1
Post By Robittybob1
2
Post By Flick Montana
2
Post By Dywyddyr
2
Post By Flick Montana
February 4th, 2014, 12:48 PM
anybody know where this debate will be streamed tonight? (tonight for the US)
Thanks
No, but I'd be interested to learn how it turns out. My guess is the scientist will be portrayed as "losing", at least to the satisfaction of the creationists, as they will be too stupid/brainwashed to see the problems.Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
I really do not think taking on a creationist showman in a TV "debate" is a sensible strategy. For a start, it creates the false impression that the opposing positions are equal in some way. And then there is the risk of being portrayed as losing, especially if complex ideas are required. We all know how TV has dumbed down politics to superficial "soundbites. Far better, in my view, to focus on the long haul of good school education, good museums, proper TV discussion with non-creationist theologians, etc etc. It will take a generation, but science will win through.
But I wish the guy luck, nonetheless.
I agree, debating with the loons just gives them more credibility than they deserve.
Reminded me of this:
spEak You're bRanes » The Worst Show On Earth
I heard of this debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye and I thought that it was a waste of time and effort.
Even if I knew if and where it would be streamed, I cannot watch it.
Yet, it seems that the debate is simply to raise awareness that creationism is still a problem (in the U.S.).
In the words of Zack Kopplin:
(...) Nye agreed to this debate, he wants to raise awareness that "this belief [in creationism] is still among us" and it is a political issue that cannot be ignored. Creationism still "finds its way onto school boards in the United States".
This debate isn't about the world of real science. In the scientific community, the support for the theory of evolution is unquestionable. Instead, this is about alerting the whole population that creationism is still an issue and that teaching it to students is a moral wrong.
Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; February 4th, 2014 at 05:21 PM.
Awesome thank you. I checked you tube but couldn't find a link. I guess I was searching the wrong words.
A part of me wants to watch purely because I grew up on Bill Nye. Another part of me wants to avert my eyes, cover my ears and go, "NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH...." until it's over because bearing witness to humanity's great breadth and depth of ignorance (and it's surly love-child intolerance) makes me feel physically ill.
Best way to debate a creationist: 'hahahahahahahhahahaha'
To be fair, this could be SLIGHTLY better than most creationist debates. This creationist attempts to employ science and logic in his efforts to explain creation. THAT can at least be refuted, whereas blind faith cannot. If nothing else, at least Nye can demonstrate the lack of scientific support found in anything the Creation Museum has done. Their evidence is based upon mythology and the God of the gaps ideology. Basically, they're standing on sand. Shouldn't be hard for Nye to debate that part.
My only concern is when these talks degrade into simply quoting scripture. You cannot debate that with science. It just doesn't work.
From the Atheism Facebook page:
PS: Gish Gallop refers to, according to Rationalwiki, the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.
It's going to be nothing more than publicity for a lying POS and confirmation for idiot creationists.
I also look forward to the opportunity to help counter the general censorship against creationists' view of origins. While we are not in favor of mandating that creation be taught in public school science classes, we believe that, at the very least, instructors should have the academic freedom to bring up the problems with evolution.
Even though the two of us are not Ph.D. scientists, Mr. Nye and I clearly love science.
Three (four?) obvious lies already in the run-up to the debate from the half-wit.
Did you expect honesty?
i think he expected something reasonable and/or sane.Did you expect honesty?
A reasonable and/or sane cretinist... Now you're just being silly...
Ugh, watch the second video if you're in the mood for having your ears bleed. Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight : The Two-Way : NPR
I am tempted, yet I shall not click.
I watched a couple minutes before my brain started rejecting the information like it was a kangaroo spleen.
Good grief no.Did you expect honesty?
I just wonder why someone, supposedly smart, would bother to involve himself with such a liar.
There are worse parts of a 'roo
Kim Woodburn Eats a Kangaroo Testicle - I'm a celebrity 21/11/09 - Day 6 - YouTube
WARNING: don't watch if squeamish or you are eating.
Personally, my belief is this:Good grief no.Did you expect honesty?
I just wonder why someone, supposedly smart, would bother to involve himself with such a liar.
The debate is already over. It took place over thousands of years of human thought. Today, we have a deep enough understanding of science to say, quite confidently, that there is no more debate to be had. The same is really true for people of faith as well. Raised to believe that the Bible is infallible, there is no piece of evidence, even be it vast and overwhelming, which could change their minds. If all else fails in the face of said evidence, simply deny it. For these people, too, the debate is over before it began.
However, there is a sect of people out there to whom Bill should speak; people who are confused, who feel lost between these two worlds. Perhaps they have been going to church, but they question their beliefs. Perhaps they don't fully understand evolution, but are genuinely open to the idea. Perhaps recent events have left them unsure as to which way they prefer to accept their perception of our reality.
He needs to use not only his understanding of science, but his skills as a popularist of science to convey why science and its understanding of the world is so powerful. Don't waste time refuting the babblings of a fool. Rather, politely and respectfully address those out there who can still be educated on the matter. To do anything else in this so-called debate would be a waste of time and likely end in mockery, which I fully expect from Ham (who hasn't a leg to stand on), but not from someone like Nye. He can do better.
I would love to teach creationism in school. I would make children write reports on odin and zeus as the allmighty creator, just to piss the christian parents off.
Exactly how I feel. I watched about 5 minutes of Kent Hovind spouting his crap to an appreciating adult audience the other day again and I could barely contain the complex mix of emotions stirring up. I had to switch it off. I just can't put into words how it feels. I just want to run away and live in the woods until I die of old age.
It really is a strange cocktail of feelings.Exactly how I feel. I watched about 5 minutes of Kent Hovind spouting his crap to an appreciating adult audience the other day again and I could barely contain the complex mix of emotions stirring up. I had to switch it off. I just can't put into words how it feels. I just want to run away and live in the woods until I die of old age.
At first, I usually feel angry. Primarily because I feel attacked. Especially when I feel attacked using a perversion of my own beliefs. I'm sure this is the same way people of faith feel in these "debates". We immediately go on the defensive. When someone like Ham uses "irreducible complexity" and says something like the human eye somehow defies evolutionary probability, I cringe. Even worse, I physically recoil when they break out the argument that all of the parts of an airplane, when placed on the ground, will eventually form a working 747 with nothing more than some time (and then proceed to laugh at us for the idea they made up and attributed to us).
Partway through the debate, I start to feel sorry for the people who blindly applaud that which supports their beliefs yet flies in the face of reality. They claim that science has all of these flaws, yet God is infallible. It makes me wonder how someone who is unable to see the difficulties inherent in their own ideals can function in the world. If you run over a pedestrian with your car because you blew a stop sign, was that God's will, thus clearing you off all wrong? Science, on the other hand, DEMANDS that we be skeptical of our results and requires us to address all flaws and weaknesses in the argument. It can be difficult to be wrong, but if we're not sometimes wrong, we will never improve.
Finally, when it's all over and I'm laying there in bed trying to lower my blood pressure by unsuccessfully attempting to think about something else, I just feel sad. I wonder what future generations will make of us. Are we just monkeys with guns to them? Will our civilization eventually be looked at with bemused disdain like we do the "ignorant" peoples who worshiped Pharaohs and Zeus?
I end up waxing philosophic about the great squandered potential of our little race of bipeds. How much we could do if we could just get past that one biological inconvenience; we're lowly animals. We're nothing divine. We're just jumped-up primates who got our hands on things that explode and managed to communicate by scribbling nonsense on rocks and in sand. Why can't we accept what we are and make the best of it?
Basically, I get bad dreams and indigestion. One could wonder why I still waste my time on things like this. I guess it's one of those scientific-minded human failings; curiosity. Oh, to not be bothered with such a burden. Must be nice.
Oh man. I didn't know the format of the "debate". There is a 30-minute presentation by each debater to clarify their side. Is this really 30 minutes of Ham's anecdotal "evidence" of scientists who believe in God? Maybe I SHOULD go shovel the drive with my wife...
Anybody up for a game of billiards?There are worse parts of a 'roo
Kim Woodburn Eats a Kangaroo Testicle - I'm a celebrity 21/11/09 - Day 6 - YouTube
WARNING: don't watch if squeamish or you are eating.
Apparently, the definition of science is "knowledge." lol.
I don't get the astronomer who says there is no evidence that the universe is older than 6,000 years.
Would that not mean, using modern understanding of physics, that we could not see any photons which had been travelling for more than 6,000 years at the speed of light? Am I wrong in my understanding that the Milky Way alone is just over 100,000 light years in diameter? Would that not mean we couldn't even observe the entirety of the stars in our own galaxy? How could we possibly observe another galaxy orders of magnitude farther away?
Is Ham's entire argument going to be based on high school level misunderstandings and lies? I'm having a hard time sitting through this.
I am so embarrassed that the creationist nutter is Australian.
On behalf of rational and reasonable Australians, I'm so sorry for inflicting this idiot on you.
Ham: "God invented marriage."
I almost punched my monitor. He likes talking about hijacking terms. Theists hijacked "marriage".
I'm glad I'm not watching it, it sounds harder to stomach than the 'roos nuts.
The problem with live debates is you can't fast forward the stupid bits.
Very well said again.It really is a strange cocktail of feelings.Exactly how I feel. I watched about 5 minutes of Kent Hovind spouting his crap to an appreciating adult audience the other day again and I could barely contain the complex mix of emotions stirring up. I had to switch it off. I just can't put into words how it feels. I just want to run away and live in the woods until I die of old age.
At first, I usually feel angry. Primarily because I feel attacked. Especially when I feel attacked using a perversion of my own beliefs. I'm sure this is the same way people of faith feel in these "debates". We immediately go on the defensive. When someone like Ham uses "irreducible complexity" and says something like the human eye somehow defies evolutionary probability, I cringe. Even worse, I physically recoil when they break out the argument that all of the parts of an airplane, when placed on the ground, will eventually form a working 747 with nothing more than some time (and then proceed to laugh at us for the idea they made up and attributed to us).
Partway through the debate, I start to feel sorry for the people who blindly applaud that which supports their beliefs yet flies in the face of reality. They claim that science has all of these flaws, yet God is infallible. It makes me wonder how someone who is unable to see the difficulties inherent in their own ideals can function in the world. If you run over a pedestrian with your car because you blew a stop sign, was that God's will, thus clearing you off all wrong? Science, on the other hand, DEMANDS that we be skeptical of our results and requires us to address all flaws and weaknesses in the argument. It can be difficult to be wrong, but if we're not sometimes wrong, we will never improve.
Finally, when it's all over and I'm laying there in bed trying to lower my blood pressure by unsuccessfully attempting to think about something else, I just feel sad. I wonder what future generations will make of us. Are we just monkeys with guns to them? Will our civilization eventually be looked at with bemused disdain like we do the "ignorant" peoples who worshiped Pharaohs and Zeus?
I end up waxing philosophic about the great squandered potential of our little race of bipeds. How much we could do if we could just get past that one biological inconvenience; we're lowly animals. We're nothing divine. We're just jumped-up primates who got our hands on things that explode and managed to communicate by scribbling nonsense on rocks and in sand. Why can't we accept what we are and make the best of it?
Basically, I get bad dreams and indigestion. One could wonder why I still waste my time on things like this. I guess it's one of those scientific-minded human failings; curiosity. Oh, to not be bothered with such a burden. Must be nice.
For me part of it also is the more general trend of people apparently believing things for reasons they can't explain to you beyond the first two or three questions. I have a hard time trying to figure out why people don't really care about cold hard truth, about reality. And I see it everywhere.
My brother is no idiot, but he will quickly give his opinion on a matter and then be unable to explain the origin of that opinion if pressed a bit. When it comes to science, science enthusiasts and scientists, he has an odd and ignorant impression of it all and I have been unable to really improve his naive and preconceived ideas about it. You see that kind of thing all over the place and it can drive me nuts. You can just never get past some barrier in order to impart enough knowledge so that people can understand certain issues better.
I have been starting to suspect that it is just a way of thinking that some people are simply incapable of, weirdly, and it is something that is probably learned early on as a permanent part of your personality, like some talents. It is not a general intelligence (whatever that means) thing either. I have seen the same kind of behaviour in people all the way up to the super geniuses (think Langan). After that it appears to be a nearly impossible task to get people to think in that way, like kittens needing human interaction during the first few weeks or they'll never be tame. You get the occasional person that develops an interest in "sciency" things then later on, but they will never really understand much of it properly or with the correct basics, even when they might be convinced they do. We have seen countless of these people come on here.
I then watch Kent Hovind being all cocky and inaccurate, with a whole audience of people who don't know any better believing every word he says and it feels like my head is going to explode, with me feeling sad and angry and offended and disheartened and exasperated and sympathetic etc all at the same time.
I have also had some weird dreams about this stuff. My best friend is religious, but also very emotional inwardly and he easily gets lost in movies (horrors absolutely terrifies him), but smart as a whip. In my dream he was a part of a cult, with the whole cult mentality and fanaticism and trying to convert me, with me being flabbergasted and disappointed in him. I realised afterwards just how close some people's religious belief parts of their psyche seem so close to that of a cult mentality to me.
I guess on some level I feel kind of lonely as well, being surrounded by people who simply don't understand me and other like me, and then I feel guilty for categorising people into the naively ignorant category, while excluding myself (being slightly less ignorant, but not naively so).
In the end I have to cling to the hope that humanity will one day rise above all of this, even if it takes another few hundred years. I just wish I could see it.
The above is some of the reasons I get pissed off when a theist claims I am taking the easy, more indulgent road, one of an obstinate child who just wants to do what he wants. It would be so much easier if I could just switch off my critical thinking faculties and allow myself to get swept up in the fervour of religious belief. I still remember what that feels like, but despite all of it, I still choose reality and the quest for understanding what that is. I just can't be anything else ever again.
It's the same old same old. Nye isn't being profound and Ham is using the same tired old talking points.
Do you think creationists understand profound?It's the same old same old. Nye isn't being profound and Ham is using the same tired old talking points.
I found myself answering for Bill Nye and getting annoyed that he didn't make the points I was thinking.
Here is a summary of "the tame debate" for those, like myself, who did not watch it live.
Bill Nye the Science Guy attempts to prove evolution once and for all in debate with creationist | Mail Online
nye looks noticeably pissed at about 1:41 mark
I rather liked the format (so far) instead of a couple dudes interrupting each other and screaming nonsense at each other
So far Ham is getting his ass handed to him. I doubt the christians are seeing it that way though
Damn some Athiests are F*CKED up right now!!From the Atheism Facebook page:
PS: Gish Gallop refers to, according to Rationalwiki, the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.
For those who want to know how it went but can't bear to watch the horrible thing, there's a record of a live blog. Including the answers to the questions submitted in advance by the audience.
Predictably it ends up with "I can't believe I sat through 2 hours and 45 minutes of that."
Live-blogging the Nye-Ham spectacle » Pharyngula
For those of tender years or delicate ears, the comments get quite a bit ruder than we allow here.
It is easy for the mind of a educated person to see the clear scientific view at work here.. It is astonishing and deeply troubling to here of such as Mr Ken Ham.. I am alarmed that such ignorance can be tolerated.. The numbing down of the young would be the way back. Not the way forward. That Mr Nye did not start shouting at him is itself a amazement. I found the whole thing a worry.
I only hope that a great education system will eventually overtake such as this.. Well it worked for me.
A poll on news site Christian Today shows that 92% of ca. 15000 respondents think that Nye won the debate.
I suspect such feelings give us a tiny inkling of what it was like to be someone on the Left at the time of the McCarthy witch hunts, or a Jew in the early stages of Nazi Germany. You know the demagogue is talking utter falsehood, but there is a whole construction of ideas that needs dynamiting at several points…and you also fear the audience is lapping it up, as it feeds their irrational prejudices.Very well said again.It really is a strange cocktail of feelings.Exactly how I feel. I watched about 5 minutes of Kent Hovind spouting his crap to an appreciating adult audience the other day again and I could barely contain the complex mix of emotions stirring up. I had to switch it off. I just can't put into words how it feels. I just want to run away and live in the woods until I die of old age.
At first, I usually feel angry. Primarily because I feel attacked. Especially when I feel attacked using a perversion of my own beliefs. I'm sure this is the same way people of faith feel in these "debates". We immediately go on the defensive. When someone like Ham uses "irreducible complexity" and says something like the human eye somehow defies evolutionary probability, I cringe. Even worse, I physically recoil when they break out the argument that all of the parts of an airplane, when placed on the ground, will eventually form a working 747 with nothing more than some time (and then proceed to laugh at us for the idea they made up and attributed to us).
Partway through the debate, I start to feel sorry for the people who blindly applaud that which supports their beliefs yet flies in the face of reality. They claim that science has all of these flaws, yet God is infallible. It makes me wonder how someone who is unable to see the difficulties inherent in their own ideals can function in the world. If you run over a pedestrian with your car because you blew a stop sign, was that God's will, thus clearing you off all wrong? Science, on the other hand, DEMANDS that we be skeptical of our results and requires us to address all flaws and weaknesses in the argument. It can be difficult to be wrong, but if we're not sometimes wrong, we will never improve.
Finally, when it's all over and I'm laying there in bed trying to lower my blood pressure by unsuccessfully attempting to think about something else, I just feel sad. I wonder what future generations will make of us. Are we just monkeys with guns to them? Will our civilization eventually be looked at with bemused disdain like we do the "ignorant" peoples who worshiped Pharaohs and Zeus?
I end up waxing philosophic about the great squandered potential of our little race of bipeds. How much we could do if we could just get past that one biological inconvenience; we're lowly animals. We're nothing divine. We're just jumped-up primates who got our hands on things that explode and managed to communicate by scribbling nonsense on rocks and in sand. Why can't we accept what we are and make the best of it?
Basically, I get bad dreams and indigestion. One could wonder why I still waste my time on things like this. I guess it's one of those scientific-minded human failings; curiosity. Oh, to not be bothered with such a burden. Must be nice.
For me part of it also is the more general trend of people apparently believing things for reasons they can't explain to you beyond the first two or three questions. I have a hard time trying to figure out why people don't really care about cold hard truth, about reality. And I see it everywhere.
My brother is no idiot, but he will quickly give his opinion on a matter and then be unable to explain the origin of that opinion if pressed a bit. When it comes to science, science enthusiasts and scientists, he has an odd and ignorant impression of it all and I have been unable to really improve his naive and preconceived ideas about it. You see that kind of thing all over the place and it can drive me nuts. You can just never get past some barrier in order to impart enough knowledge so that people can understand certain issues better.
I have been starting to suspect that it is just a way of thinking that some people are simply incapable of, weirdly, and it is something that is probably learned early on as a permanent part of your personality, like some talents. It is not a general intelligence (whatever that means) thing either. I have seen the same kind of behaviour in people all the way up to the super geniuses (think Langan). After that it appears to be a nearly impossible task to get people to think in that way, like kittens needing human interaction during the first few weeks or they'll never be tame. You get the occasional person that develops an interest in "sciency" things then later on, but they will never really understand much of it properly or with the correct basics, even when they might be convinced they do. We have seen countless of these people come on here.
I then watch Kent Hovind being all cocky and inaccurate, with a whole audience of people who don't know any better believing every word he says and it feels like my head is going to explode, with me feeling sad and angry and offended and disheartened and exasperated and sympathetic etc all at the same time.
I have also had some weird dreams about this stuff. My best friend is religious, but also very emotional inwardly and he easily gets lost in movies (horrors absolutely terrifies him), but smart as a whip. In my dream he was a part of a cult, with the whole cult mentality and fanaticism and trying to convert me, with me being flabbergasted and disappointed in him. I realised afterwards just how close some people's religious belief parts of their psyche seem so close to that of a cult mentality to me.
I guess on some level I feel kind of lonely as well, being surrounded by people who simply don't understand me and other like me, and then I feel guilty for categorising people into the naively ignorant category, while excluding myself (being slightly less ignorant, but not naively so).
In the end I have to cling to the hope that humanity will one day rise above all of this, even if it takes another few hundred years. I just wish I could see it.
The above is some of the reasons I get pissed off when a theist claims I am taking the easy, more indulgent road, one of an obstinate child who just wants to do what he wants. It would be so much easier if I could just switch off my critical thinking faculties and allow myself to get swept up in the fervour of religious belief. I still remember what that feels like, but despite all of it, I still choose reality and the quest for understanding what that is. I just can't be anything else ever again.
It's a horrible feeling.
Wow, it's a little early for Godwin's law to kick in, isn't it? If 92% of people on a Christian site think Nye won the debate, after what seems to have been a rather lackluster performance on his part, maybe there aren't that many creationists around after all. Maybe we aren't headed for a new dark age and a return of the Spanish Inquisition after all.
It's was a rather boring spectacle. Neither one of them made it worth watching. Nye wasn't nearly animated enough. He didn't make science sound exciting at all. In the end, I felt disappointed and I would have better spent my time shoveling the drive with my wife.
It was all lies and fiction from Ham and the same tired old fallbacks for Nye (most of which were probably over the heads of the science uneducated anyways).
That's 92% of people on that one site. National polls say about a third of Americans are strong believers in creationism, which, if memory serves, is about the number of people who believe in Bigfoot as well.....
And while the creationist movement IS affecting policy in the US, what I as a non-American am more concerned about is the effect those movements have in other parts of the world. Places like Uganda, where new anti-gay legislation has been passed, are directly campaigned to by these movements and there are missionaries being sent all over. My uncle was a missionary in Swaziland along with his pastor wife and they regularly received funding and young missionaries from these American groups. Before long he was preaching about some of the nonsense Kent Hovind had been coming up with.
The more they dress up the ridiculous nonsense they come up with to try and lend credence to their preconceived ideas as science, the more they sow seeds of doubt about mainstream science and the more they spread their gospel of intolerance, the more damage they are doing globally. Their influence IS growing globally and it is deeply unsettling.
Haha, yes, but I'm not for a moment suggesting that, merely that the feeling of frustrated rage and bewilderment that Flick Montana describes may a small-scale version of what such groups would have felt.
The response in this case has to be to teach, teach, teach and to use one's voting rights assiduously.
But I do think his open, plainly stated "we don't know", "we can find out" type statements were absolutely right for that audience. They're not really used to the idea that you don't have a single reference to go to to find out anything and everything. Having someone calmly saying that it's perfectly alright not to know all the answers instantly is a good thing. And Nye didn't let himself get dragged into arguing Ham's points on Ham's terms.Nye wasn't nearly animated enough. He didn't make science sound exciting at all.
Citation needed. That sounds way, way, way out of whack.
Citation needed.And while the creationist movement IS affecting policy in the US,
Citation needed.what I as a non-American am more concerned about is the effect those movements have in other parts of the world. Places like Uganda, where new anti-gay legislation has been passed, are directly campaigned to by these movements and there are missionaries being sent all over. My uncle was a missionary in Swaziland along with his pastor wife and they regularly received funding and young missionaries from these American groups. Before long he was preaching about some of the nonsense Kent Hovind had been coming up with.
The more they dress up the ridiculous nonsense they come up with to try and lend credence to their preconceived ideas as science, the more they sow seeds of doubt about mainstream science and the more they spread their gospel of intolerance, the more damage they are doing globally. Their influence IS growing globally and it is deeply unsettling.
[QUOTE=Harold14370;522539]easily verifiable. look at the text book situation coming out of Texas. Texas decides to Kick Madison out of the History books cause he's not Christian enough. Unfortunately, because the amount of Books that Texas buys it makes it cheaper for other states to by those same books so Texas, for the most part sets the book buying policies for the rest of the US states.
May I present to you, "The Gablers" who basically tried to get Math kicked ouot of school because once a kid learns that there are no absolutes he will turn to a life of crime.
Mel and Norma Gabler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pretty sure Kansas or Oklahoma made "creationism" mandatory if the schools were going to teach evolution... there are plenty in cites.
it's in the news... Well, not network news but it's easily found if you do a search for it.Citation needed.
Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Here is a direct link to a 2012 Gallup poll: In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human OriginsCitation needed. That sounds way, way, way out of whack.
Those figures there are much worse still.
The 33% figure was by a Pew poll mentioned in an article here: Bill Nye Creationism Debate Could Be Troubling [Video]
Bigfoot: http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-co...3.04_Myths.pdf
There is a constant battle about the teaching of ID and creationism in American schools.Citation needed.And while the creationist movement IS affecting policy in the US,
Which citations do you need? That creationism denies various branches of science? Visit the AnswersinGenesis website.Citation needed.what I as a non-American am more concerned about is the effect those movements have in other parts of the world. Places like Uganda, where new anti-gay legislation has been passed, are directly campaigned to by these movements and there are missionaries being sent all over. My uncle was a missionary in Swaziland along with his pastor wife and they regularly received funding and young missionaries from these American groups. Before long he was preaching about some of the nonsense Kent Hovind had been coming up with.
The more they dress up the ridiculous nonsense they come up with to try and lend credence to their preconceived ideas as science, the more they sow seeds of doubt about mainstream science and the more they spread their gospel of intolerance, the more damage they are doing globally. Their influence IS growing globally and it is deeply unsettling.
Should I find a reference that Creationists funded my uncle and spread creationist ideas? Do you want his contact details? Note, this is not about the good they are doing (they do a lot of good), but about the misinformation that is being spread.
That they actively do missionary work in third world countries?
If creationism teaches that various branches of mainstream science should not be believed and in fact does missionary work in third word countries, then my contention stands on the face of it.
Uganda:
Straight Man's Burden, by Jeff Sharlet | Harper's Magazine
Uganda's New Anti-Homosexuality Law Was Inspired by American Activists - The Wire
That's surprising, I admit. But is there any kind of a trend toward creationism?Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Here is a direct link to a 2012 Gallup poll: In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human OriginsCitation needed. That sounds way, way, way out of whack.
Those figures there are much worse still.
The 33% figure was by a Pew poll mentioned in an article here: Bill Nye Creationism Debate Could Be Troubling [Video]
True, there's a battle, mostly overblown. You said it's affecting policy, but the Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that creationism can't be taught in public schools.Bigfoot: http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-co...3.04_Myths.pdf
There is a constant battle about the teaching of ID and creationism in American schools.Citation needed.And while the creationist movement IS affecting policy in the US,
I wanted a citation to show that the influence is growing.Which citations do you need? That creationism denies various branches of science? Visit the AnswersinGenesis website.Citation needed.what I as a non-American am more concerned about is the effect those movements have in other parts of the world. Places like Uganda, where new anti-gay legislation has been passed, are directly campaigned to by these movements and there are missionaries being sent all over. My uncle was a missionary in Swaziland along with his pastor wife and they regularly received funding and young missionaries from these American groups. Before long he was preaching about some of the nonsense Kent Hovind had been coming up with.
The more they dress up the ridiculous nonsense they come up with to try and lend credence to their preconceived ideas as science, the more they sow seeds of doubt about mainstream science and the more they spread their gospel of intolerance, the more damage they are doing globally. Their influence IS growing globally and it is deeply unsettling.
Should I find a reference that Creationists funded my uncle and spread creationist ideas? Do you want his contact details? Note, this is not about the good they are doing (they do a lot of good), but about the misinformation that is being spread.
Anti-homosexual laws aren't directly related to creationism are they? Also, I see very little evidence of any American evangelist influence on the new law.That they actively do missionary work in third world countries?
If creationism teaches that various branches of mainstream science should not be believed and in fact does missionary work in third word countries, then my contention stands on the face of it.
Uganda:
Straight Man's Burden, by Jeff Sharlet | Harper's Magazine
Uganda's New Anti-Homosexuality Law Was Inspired by American Activists - The Wire
then why does the battle continue to rage on?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#United_ States
Perhaps not. But they both are from the same well spring of religious based intolerance. For example, Putan is a Devout Christian with his conservative base in Orthodox community. Bishops in Uganda were directly involved in framing it's draconian anti-homosexual laws (though Catholics straddle the line between evolution for most life and creationism for humans). Evangelical Baptist community in the US is at the lead for resisting teaching of evolution as well as giving any rights recognition homosexual marriage. There's a rather strong causal relationship between Abrahamic religion creationism and a number of social issues including anti-homosexuality.
--
As for your original question about it being on the rise...I could find no evidence to support that. There's is however plenty of evidence that shows that creationism/IT still has far too much influence with Americans, with less than half believing in Evolution, and studies of High School biology teachers showing only about a 3rd openly teaching evolution (ie. actually teach biology) which unfortunately is the only science many students get. (I gather than things are much better in the EU--where biology is actually taught).
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 5th, 2014 at 03:45 PM.
It's only "raging" among the chicken little fear mongers.then why does the battle continue to rage on?
Teaching the criticisms of evolution. Isn't that sort of what this thread is about? Isn't there a link to a video by a creationist? Did you start the thread to spread creationism?
Your quote is from 2005. One of the references in the Wikipedia article was this 2005 Washington Compost article.
Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens (washingtonpost.com)
There they were spreading fear about a so-called rising tide of creationism spurred by George Bush. Did any creationist legislation get passed in the last 9 years?
Except that it's not. you actually have people who have hijacked school boards and have added creationism to the curriculum. even though, according to you the supreme court has said no. BTW the supreme court has NOT ruled on creationism... maybe individual sate supreme courts but not the US federal Supreme CourtIt's only "raging" among the chicken little fear mongers.then why does the battle continue to rage on?
Chicken Little apparently lives in Tennessee
Creation and evolution in public education in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are you retarded? cause that would explain so much. No this thread is not about the criticisms of evolution, it's ultimately about where the Nye debate was going to broadcast, after that it's about the absurdity of creationism. teaching criticisms of evolution with creationism in mind does not support evolution. Why do I have to explain this?
What? do you even know what you're talking about? How do you get that I'm trying to "spread creationism" by posting a link to a quote that shows creationism is being taught even though, according to you the supreme court has said that is not allowed.
,
Yes they were "spreading fear" to keep legislation from being passed. You are unreal.
How funny that it's "spreading fear" when it's simply reporting but you can't spot the real lop sided fear mongering out of your chosen party. Simply amazing
Yes LOTS of it.
Most of push for school voucher programs in the US are an attempt to circumvent the Federal education funding which stipulates states that receive it shall not teach religion in public schools. Here's a handy map that show just a few examples of where this is happening:
Interactive Map: Voucher Schools Teaching Creationism | BillMoyers.com
Other laws have been more direct such as Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) which is models after the Discovery Institute documents which allow (even encourage) teachers bring other than science-based materials into the classroom under the disguise of teaching critical thinking (how ironic).
--
And perhaps most devastating to US education is there's enough pressure about the subject that most biology teachers, which should be leading the charge towards teaching evolution and sound reasoning are either creationist themselves and never should have been certified at science teachers or choosing to avoid the topic regardless of the ongoing legal struggles. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110127141657.htm
Read as "Charter Schools."Yes LOTS of it.
Most of push for school voucher programs in the US are an attempt to circumvent the Federal education funding which stipulates states that receive it shall not teach religion in public schools.
And God invented gays! Thus God invented gay marriage.
The Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
And, for those of you who weren't depressed enough. Here's a compilation of the ideas of the creationists who attended the debate - written in their own hands. (You might want to stop the world and get off if you look at all of them.)
22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution
EDIT: A word of advice. Don't read the comments.
Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Does anyone have a link to transcript of the debate? I have limited bandwidth.
Also, here's an article from Slate that I think makes a good point about the debate. The author says "He (Ham) insists evolution is anti-religious. But it’s not; it’s just anti-his-religion. This is, I think, the most critical aspect of this entire problem: The people who are attacking evolution are doing so because they think evolution is attacking their beliefs.But unless they are the narrowest of fundamentalists, this simply is not true."
Although the empirical evidence is (and should be) important in the debate, he argues that convincing half of America (yes, half) to reject or at least objectively examine Creationism depends more on convincing them that evolution is not about proving the existence or non existence of God. No amount of evidence regarding fossils, or the evolution of eyeballs or wings, or antibiotic resistance, or DNA, will change this.
Do you think he's right or wrong? I'm not entirely sure.
Creationism debate: Should we engage anti-science?
O M G!
I think #5 is my favorite
#7 completely illustrates the glazed over eyes of the true believer
#11 used the wrong "their" should be "there"
#15 Moron!
#17 the purpose of paying a fat hairy sweaty tattoo guy to put a whole in my lip that god forgot to.
#19 There are certain levels of faith, clearly... or at least it should be.
Damn shame these questions weren't asked, Nye would've crushed all of their faith.
The only thing missing was O'rielly "Tide goes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication. You can't explain that"
Last edited by grmpysmrf; February 5th, 2014 at 11:14 PM.
Well, we are discussing a debate about creationism, aren't we? Little children might be reading this thread and accidentally hear about creationism. Their tender minds will be contaminated and they will not be able to handle this information. They'll lose any chance to ever learn about science. I'm sure something like that will happen in Louisiana when they are allowed to be exposed to such discussions in school. We should censor this thread, or somehow make sure children are not exposed to it.
Are you retarded? cause that would explain so much. No this thread is not about the criticisms of evolution, it's ultimately about where the Nye debate was going to broadcast, after that it's about the absurdity of creationism. teaching criticisms of evolution with creationism in mind does not support evolution. Why do I have to explain this?
I know a lot of devoutly religious people have no problems with acknowledging evolution, geology, astronomy and still sticking to their belief in their god. Along with the whole parcel of the concept of sin, salvation, the afterlife and all that goes with it. They feel no need for a young earth nor for literal readings of the bible to bolster those beliefs.
This bloke points out how the creationist christians are, even though they may not know how or why, absolutely right to see the concept of evolution as undercutting their religion.
Conversion on Mount Improbable: How Evolution Challenges Christian Dogma - Mike Aus - RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net
Your forgiven. After all you gave us steve erwin.
And america gave the world westboro baptist church. So, in the end. It all balances out.
You think little children are reading this? Well, ... if we're talking intellect I suppose you make a good point (Finally!) with your appearance in the thread.Well, we are discussing a debate about creationism, aren't we? Little children might be reading this thread and accidentally hear about creationism. Their tender minds will be contaminated and they will not be able to handle this information. They'll lose any chance to ever learn about science. I'm sure something like that will happen in Louisiana when they are allowed to be exposed to such discussions in school. We should censor this thread, or somehow make sure children are not exposed to it.
Are you retarded? cause that would explain so much. No this thread is not about the criticisms of evolution, it's ultimately about where the Nye debate was going to broadcast, after that it's about the absurdity of creationism. teaching criticisms of evolution with creationism in mind does not support evolution. Why do I have to explain this?
Nobody is talking about censoring creationism, just keep it in your churches and out of School. How does the bumper sticker go? "I promise not to think in your churches if you promise not to pray in my school"? Yeah, that.
You can help yourself to a big ol' heaping plate of idiot in your church. Just stop passing legislation that demands stupid be practiced in public.
I wonder... What is the church to school ratio in America...? I'm thinking there are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa* aaaaaaaaaay^x10 (yes, that's my unit of measurement) more churches than schools. So, wouldn't it be "smarter" ("Smart" being used loosely) in this instance to wander into a church of your choice and hear a "scholar" of creationism tell you everything you wanted to know rather than getting an over worked public servant half ass their attempt to recount creationism, all the while hoping to appease all different religious sects with the correct version of creation?...you know... "real Science?"
About 4.5 times more.
In a 2004 poll, a whopping 61% of Americans believed Noah's Ark literally happened.Citation needed. That sounds way, way, way out of whack.
Most Americans take Bible stories literally - Washington Times
Are you really underestimating the stupidity of Americans? My Christian relative believes in Bigfoot and ghosts; another Christian relative believes in Bigfoot, ghosts, alien abduction stories, and Mothman; and a third believes president Bush is a shape-shifting demon from the bible named Osmodius.
Here is the link. You can skip the 13 minute wait by moving cursor of the player until you hit the moderator with introductions.
Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - YouTube
That seems a reasonable possibility.
I could make a series of remarks about the stupidity of people who use stereotypes, but instead I'll just ask you to be more civil in your posts.Are you really underestimating the stupidity of Americans?
I must admit I'd never heard of Osmodius. But I find there is indeed a "king of demons" called Asmodius (or Osmodeus, or various other spellings) mentioned in the OT Book of Tobit. We learn something every day.In a 2004 poll, a whopping 61% of Americans believed Noah's Ark literally happened.Citation needed. That sounds way, way, way out of whack.
Most Americans take Bible stories literally - Washington Times
Are you really underestimating the stupidity of Americans? My Christian relative believes in Bigfoot and ghosts; another Christian relative believes in Bigfoot, ghosts, alien abduction stories, and Mothman; and a third believes president Bush is a shape-shifting demon from the bible named Osmodius.
In real science and religion debates there are some terms which are considered to be bad sport, saying "hay look at this guy, he's a scientist and he's religious!" and "you cannot not prove it therefore if must be true" Ham did all of this plus more.
I have friends who are religious and some who are creationist and even they don't like this moron.
Could you give a source for that.About 4.5 times more.
When I try searching for it I get bogged down in student teacher ratios or stuff about sunday schools etc.
What sources did you use? My sources (census.gov and some religion university) indicated it was closer to 2.3About 4.5 times more.
At one point Ham backed up his belief in the Bible because he claimed there was no other book that gave such a complete recount of the origins of everything.
I really wish Nye had a copy of Hesiod's Theogony on him. Or anything by Homer, really.
450,000 churches.
98,817 schools.
Regardless of whether it's 4.5 or 2.3, neither figure particularly qualifies as "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa * aaaaaaaaaay^x10" more.
Being someone who is both an ardent evolutionist and also a Christian I must admit the article is well worth reading and shows how difficult it is to marry these two ideas together.
I am writing to say I did not agree with his final conclusion though.
I believe there is a way through the problem so that in the final outcome it is possible to have religion, faith and believe in evolution as a fact.They too, know that evolution impacts everything, and as more and more people come to see the beauty and power of Darwin’s insights, they know that humanity will inevitably leave religion behind.
The question is: why would we want to?
I do not see it as so black and white. I can find room and tolerance for ideas 'I' understand as highly improbable.
~ Slowly but relentlessly the pendulum will swing and a enlightened society will evolve into 100% acceptance of the evolutionary path.. It's not about being clever with your word soup or being smarter and quicker than the opposing team.. It is a mater of probability. What is more likely to be true.. The deeper the study, the better your understanding and that a 'Cherry picking religious view is the result. When you reach a point where 'SOME' of what you read just can not be true. Then the question rises as to weather any is... and that interpretations and re-written text might not be what was written and said. In that debate Mr Ham reminded Mr Nye repeatedly about a book. With ALL HONESTY that book has been found as unsupported. That the Noah's Ark story got wheeled out as proof and that the Kangaroo was amusingly used as a point well displayed.. Utter nonsense is still nonsense.
It is however only a well reasoned argument that we can be a little tolerant of what has been a fear driven indoctrinated view.
Amusement is found..
Agreed. Marriage is between a man and woman, not science and religion.The question is: why would we want to?
The problem is that these people take scientific achievements and then go hunting for some ludicrous interpretation within the Bible that can explain how it happened. As Nye pointed out (a bit flaccidly for my taste) what they CANNOT do with the Bible is tell us how something will turn out based upon biblical evidence.
It's easy for Ham to say that the Bible explains how the tectonic plates moved from where they were when the Earth was created 6,000 years ago to where they are today. What the Bible DOESN'T do is tell us where those plates will be in 100 millions years. That is something only science can manage. The best the biblical literalists can manage is 20/20 hindsight and that wasn't even an impressive quality 6,000 years ago when Jesus was riding around on velociraptors.
Speaking of Noah's ark - if there were just that number of types on the ark 4000 years ago and we have all the species we do now Ken Ham is the biggest advocate of evolution around. Even evolutionists wouldn't say mutations occur at that fast rate.
Chalk it up to gaping discrepancies he refuses to address.
His nonsense about animals having original "kinds" and never evolving into other lifeforms is painfully stupid. How does he explain the mule or coyotes?
yes actually mutations can occur at that rate. see nylon eating bacteria and apple-maggot flies
You couldn't resist, could you?
If only all life was capable of going through genetic change at a bacterial rate...
Frankly, I'm surprised you could.You couldn't resist, could you?
| « reasoning | Afterlife/Paradise legend » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
