• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
iacas

Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

118 posts in this topic

Did anyone else watch?

(I don't know if this link will work… it's still ongoing).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

I heard about this a while back when they had a little pissing contest. Should be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I watched the first 45 minutes or so live. Might go back tomorrow and watch the rest. From what I watched, it seemed like most of Ham's argument was that since history before a few thousand years ago wasn't recorded, we can't know for sure what happened. That would indicate that essentially all scientists of the last 500 years have been god-awful (heh) at extrapolation and prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

From what I watched, it seemed like most of Ham's argument was that since history before a few thousand years ago wasn't recorded, we can't know for sure what happened. That would indicate that essentially all scientists of the last 500 years have been god-awful (heh) at extrapolation and prediction.

That's pretty much it. Yet what's written in the bible is unassailable fact (except the parts he didn't like).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

It is like arguing with a lamp post.  What is the point?  Creationists will never change their mind and always cherry pick the Bible to make their point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

It is like arguing with a lamp post.  What is the point?  Creationists will never change their mind and always cherry pick the Bible to make their point.

Bull.  I studied all of this, lost my belief, spent time as an agnostic in doing so but came to a faith in design by natural revelation.  Take it to the "first cause".  Either the Cosmos always was or a Being always was.  Either one takes a leap of faith, everyone should admit that on both sides.  Micro evolution(and mutations) is plenty, macro is not.  I get tired of the lumping of "everyone" in this camp stuff about this issue.  Other than that I really don't want to participate in this thread.  It is overly divisive for no need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

It is like arguing with a lamp post.  What is the point?  Creationists will never change their mind and always cherry pick the Bible to make their point.

Bull.  I studied all of this, lost my belief, spent time as an agnostic in doing so but came to a faith in design by natural revelation.  Take it to the "first cause".  Either the Cosmos always was or a Being always was.  Either one takes a leap of faith, everyone should admit that on both sides.  Micro evolution(and mutations) is plenty, macro is not.  I get tired of the lumping of "everyone" in this camp stuff about this issue.  Other than that I really don't want to participate in this thread.  It is overly divisive for no need.

Agreed. I think there's a lot more common ground than the two sides want to admit. "Naturalism" and "creationism" don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cipher View Post

Bull.  I studied all of this, lost my belief, spent time as an agnostic in doing so but came to a faith in design by natural revelation.  Take it to the "first cause".  Either the Cosmos always was or a Being always was.  Either one takes a leap of faith, everyone should admit that on both sides.  Micro evolution(and mutations) is plenty, macro is not.  I get tired of the lumping of "everyone" in this camp stuff about this issue.  Other than that I really don't want to participate in this thread.  It is overly divisive for no need.

I think Macro evolution does exist. I do think some species are interlinked, i think some are not. It isn't that black and white, but I do think evidence points towards the bible being incorrect on a when the universe was create.

Also the one point Ham kept making was the bible is the only evidence that is dated to the time it happened. He is incorrect in that point.

Quote:
This leaves the question of when these works were created. Scholars in the first half of the 20th century came to the conclusion that the Yahwist was produced in the monarchic period, specifically at the court of Solomon , and the Priestly work in the middle of the 5th century BC (the author was even identified as Ezra ), but more recent thinking is that the Yahwist was written either just before or during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century, and the Priestly final edition was made late in the Exilic period or soon after. [5]

Basically the first 5 books of the Old T, were written in the 5th - 6th century BC. Meaning 600 to 400 BC. That means they were written 2400 to 2600 years ago. That means that there is about a 3500 year gap between when creation supposedly occurred and when it was written down.

So when Ham says that the bible is the only reliable source of information because it is evidence of the time is false. Those who wrote it were either citing some previously written down theories or word of mouth.

Also the story of the great flood is very much linked to the story of Gilgamesh. The first 5 books were written in the Babylonian Empire. Which through history is descendants of the Sumerian Empire, which was ruled by Gilgamesh. So linking the great flood of the Sumerian lore to the bible is an easy fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I will end with this.  Again the question is not a biblical one at all for me as a creationist.  And saying one has evidence while one does not is crap and is being closed minded.  Too many on both sides only look at the evidence that fits their theory.  There is evidence to both and they both take a leap of faith, end of story.  As stated I really don't want to get into this divisive topic any further where usually someones intelligence ends up being insulted, and where people post stupid pictures that say "evidence".  Have fun guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Quote:

Originally Posted by cipher

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

It is like arguing with a lamp post.  What is the point?  Creationists will never change their mind and always cherry pick the Bible to make their point.

Bull.  I studied all of this, lost my belief, spent time as an agnostic in doing so but came to a faith in design by natural revelation.  Take it to the "first cause".  Either the Cosmos always was or a Being always was.  Either one takes a leap of faith, everyone should admit that on both sides.  Micro evolution(and mutations) is plenty, macro is not.  I get tired of the lumping of "everyone" in this camp stuff about this issue.  Other than that I really don't want to participate in this thread.  It is overly divisive for no need.

Agreed. I think there's a lot more common ground than the two sides want to admit. "Naturalism" and "creationism" don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Faith and science are two different things. It's sort of like comparing mathematics and history. If one or more people start using the "facts" from one subject or another to "disprove" the other one, problems occur.

One topic really has nothing to do with the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

[VIDEO]www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI[/VIDEO] It's important to note that: a) Nye is not necessarily an expert on this particular branch of science (he's certainly more qualified than most people, though). b) Ham is presenting not on behalf of "religion" as a whole, but on his particular subset only. That said, I think that to most people, Nye destroyed Ham. The only things on which Nye stumbled (badly) are "what was there before the Big Bang?" type questions. Because… he can't know. For all we know, there is a God and God made the big bang happen, and since he/she/it is all-knowing, knew we'd arrive at exactly where we are right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I will end with this.  Again the question is not a biblical one at all for me as a creationist.  And saying one has evidence while one does not is crap and is being closed minded.  Too many on both sides only look at the evidence that fits their theory.  There is evidence to both and they both take a leap of faith, end of story.  As stated I really don't want to get into this divisive topic any further where usually someones intelligence ends up being insulted, and where people post stupid pictures that say "evidence".  Have fun guys.

I'm with you on this.  Even if you [wisely] left the thread never to return. :-P At some point in history we have to take a leap of faith or simply admit that we haven't the foggiest idea what started it all.

That is my favorite philosophical question to ponder when I want to make my brain explode.  At some point in time, whether it was 500 million, or billion, or gadzillion, years ago, things "started."  Something had to start it.  What?  Why?

Oh, and lastly, prior to that "start" there was "nothing."  What did that look like?  What color was it? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Quote:

Originally Posted by cipher

I will end with this.  Again the question is not a biblical one at all for me as a creationist.  And saying one has evidence while one does not is crap and is being closed minded.  Too many on both sides only look at the evidence that fits their theory.  There is evidence to both and they both take a leap of faith, end of story.  As stated I really don't want to get into this divisive topic any further where usually someones intelligence ends up being insulted, and where people post stupid pictures that say "evidence".  Have fun guys.

I'm with you on this.  Even if you [wisely] left the thread never to return.    At some point in history we have to take a leap of faith or simply admit that we haven't the foggiest idea what started it all.

That is my favorite philosophical question to ponder when I want to make my brain explode.  At some point in time, whether it was 500 million, or billion, or gadzillion, years ago, things "started."  Something had to start it.  What?  Why?

Oh, and lastly, prior to that "start" there was "nothing."  What did that look like?  What color was it?

I could argue that it was monochromatic, but I'm sure that could be subject to many arguments because it was quite possibly before there was light . ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

A friend just sent me a buzzfeed with messages to bill nye from 22 creationists at the debate.  http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bull.  I studied all of this, lost my belief, spent time as an agnostic in doing so but came to a faith in design by natural revelation.  Take it to the "first cause".  Either the Cosmos always was or a Being always was.  Either one takes a leap of faith, everyone should admit that on both sides.  Micro evolution(and mutations) is plenty, macro is not.  I get tired of the lumping of "everyone" in this camp stuff about this issue.  Other than that I really don't want to participate in this thread.  It is overly divisive for no need.

Arguments about the origin of existence of our universe have essentially nothing to do with arguments about evolution of life.  Any honest person, including cosmologists and theoretical physicists, will admit that we don't, and probably never can, know the origins of existence itself.  At least almost surely not with any certainty.  As many physicists have said, the mystery and wonder of these kinds of questions surely leaves some space for belief in God.

But evolution of life is completely unrelated.  The evolution of life requires as a given prior the existence of the universe.  How or why our universe came into existence is irrelevant.  I'm a statistician and computational biologist who does genetic research.  If you think, in believing in purely natural "micro" evolution but asserting that "macro" evolution requires divine intervention, that you're drawing a logical conclusion supported by physical evidence, observation, and experimentation, then you simply do not understand the science or what's been observed.  That's not to call anyone names or question anyone's intelligence.  Most people haven't spent a career studying and working in genetics and biology.  Genetics and evolution are complex and easy to misunderstand (or misrepresent).

It is simply a fact that there are only faith-based, not evidence or observation based, arguments for drawing a distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution where "macro" evolution requires divine guidance.  Evolution resulting in large changes (i.e. new very different species) or complex biological structures simply is "micro" evolution on geologic time scales that boggle the human mind.  It is of course possible that evolutionary changes are guided by God.  But all the constantly increasing evidence continues to show that no divine force at all is needed for evolution to have resulted in our current world.  And there is a massive literature of evidence supporting the conclusion that in fact evolution has occurred in a way that looks very much like the outcome of a random walk constantly bumping up against various geologic and environmental shifts on earth.

One may believe in divine guidance of evolution.  But honesty requires acknowledging that the argument for this is entirely one of faith of a different kind than the "faith" that a non-believer has that in investigating the many questions of genetics and evolution to which we still do not know the answers we will not suddenly make discoveries that completely contradict what 100% of the evidence we do currently have points to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Oh, and lastly, prior to that "start" there was "nothing."  What did that look like?  What color was it?

Obviously periwinkle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Quote:

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

Agreed. I think there's a lot more common ground than the two sides want to admit. "Naturalism" and "creationism" don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Faith and science are two different things. It's sort of like comparing mathematics and history. If one or more people start using the "facts" from one subject or another to "disprove" the other one, problems occur.

One topic really has nothing to do with the other.

The only things on which Nye stumbled (badly) are "what was there before the Big Bang?" type questions. Because… he can't know. For all we know, there is a God and God made the big bang happen, and since he/she/it is all-knowing, knew we'd arrive at exactly where we are right now.

This was my point. Those that don't believe in a God say that everything came from a Big Bang. Bible thumpers say that the Big Bang couldn't have happened because God made everything. Maybe God created everything via the Big Bang.

One of the big places I don't agree with Ham is on the age of the universe. Yes, the bible says that God created everything in 6 days. However, the bible also says that, to God, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day. In other words, time has no relevance for God. So maybe the "6 days" were actually millions of years in "our time".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • Longer or More Accurate?
      That doesn't make it a trick question. People aren't so lousy with accuracy that they're off 200 yards, but their tee shots travel 200 yards toward the target fairly often. The 10% thing helps to adjust them to the proper scale. I hit my driver 270, but I don't miss by 1/4 of that distance (67.5 yards). The wildest 100-shooting golfers are about +/- 10°. Their average is about 7°. 80-golfers are around 6°. 70 golfers probably about 5°. PGA Tour pros are around 3.5°. So 10% of those numbers are 0.7, 0.6, and 0.5°, with 0.35° for PGA Tour players. And yet, give each of them a full 1° (or  14% more accuracy for 100-golfers, 17% more accuracy for 80-golfers, 20% more accuracy for 70-golfers, and nearly 30% more accuracy for PGA Tour players… and they still come up short (or, at the PGA Tour level, only begin to break even). This means that the poll is biased, indeed, but in the opposite direction you think, @Marty2019. The poll could have said "would you choose 25% more accuracy or 10% more distance" and everyone (generalized to groups, not individuals) would STILL be better off choosing the distance. The only "trick" is that people value accuracy way, way too much, to the point where many are happy to take only a 10% improvement in accuracy while even a 25% improvement still can't account for the added value of driving the ball an extra 10% farther.
    • Pace Problem
      Do I think our GM and Pro would adopt what I am suggesting as a course policy? No.  
    • New shoes
      I am looking for a new pair pair of golf shoes.  Since I am a cheapskate trying to stay under $100. Any ideas I like to walk and need them to be waterproof. 
    • Pace Problem
      You (or your mangers) still don't seem to understand that catching another group and playing through them is slower for both groups (and for any groups following them) than if they are all simply required by policy to keep the pace.  The rules are just swell, but playing through should only be something that happens in cases with extenuating circumstances, not a regular habit.  The Rules of Golf were never intended to be used as an excuse for a chronic inability to keep pace with the course. When the course allows certain groups make a habit of playing so slowly that other groups overtake them and have to play through, then you have failed in establishing and maintaining an effective pace of play policy.  That policy is mired in a time warp from the era when courses were never full.  Those days no longer exist and different steps must be taken if a course is really serious about their pace of play.  It's apparent that your course is more concerned about the minority than they are about the majority.  I hope that doesn't eventually bite them in the behind.
    • Pace Problem
      Again, that's been our tactic for seven years, and has not generally worked.  There is not a suggestion made in this thread that we don't do or haven't tried to speed slow groups up.  Some do, but mostly slow groups stay slow. As a rule of thumb, marshaling 18 holes takes about an hour.  If you attempt to "teach" the first time around, and then discover that you're a bad teacher or the slow group is a bad student when you come back around, by the time you "enforce", you have lost half a round of golf and you have forced faster groups to play the slower group's pace. When I see a group going to 9 at 2 1/2 hours, I tend to say, 'Oh, shit." to myself, because I know we've lost the Pace and it's next to impossible to get it back until that group has left the course.  Sadly, because of staffing cutbacks, that's often the case.  When I say something to the GM or Pro like, "If you want a good pace, you have to be out there from the beginning," it is not received well. If, OTOH, our policy is Pace has Priority on the Course, let faster groups play through, and that is what they hear when they pay, and from the Starter, and that's what the sign in the carts' signholder says, they have no leg to stand on the first time the marshal comes by and sees groups piled up behind a slow group. Yeah, I know, it's different than what everyone's used to. But if you always do what you've always done, you always get what you've always got.    
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. TessaEdin
      TessaEdin
      (24 years old)
  • Blog Entries