Jump to content
IGNORED

Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham


iacas
Note: This thread is 3634 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

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

I hope some of those were written sarcastically.

In my bag:

Driver: Titleist TSi3 | 15º 3-Wood: Ping G410 | 17º 2-Hybrid: Ping G410 | 19º 3-Iron: TaylorMade GAPR Lo |4-PW Irons: Nike VR Pro Combo | 54º SW, 60º LW: Titleist Vokey SM8 | Putter: Odyssey Toulon Las Vegas H7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

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

I hope some of those were written sarcastically.

They were randomly chosen people.

:ping:  :tmade:  :callaway:   :gamegolf:  :titleist:

TM White Smoke Big Fontana; Pro-V1
TM Rac 60 TT WS, MD2 56
Ping i20 irons U-4, CFS300
Callaway XR16 9 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S
Callaway XR16 3W 15 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S, X2Hot Pro 20 degrees S

"I'm hitting the woods just great, but I'm having a terrible time getting out of them." ~Harry Toscano

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I hope some of those were written sarcastically.

They were randomly chosen people.

So???  Are "random" people not allowed to be sarcastic? :-P

Also, how are they random?  They all (supposedly) believe very strongly in creation and scoff at science.  Seems like a pretty big coincidence to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

#5 is unassailable.

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamo

I hope some of those were written sarcastically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

They were randomly chosen people.

So???  Are "random" people not allowed to be sarcastic?

Also, how are they random?  They all (supposedly) believe very strongly in creation and scoff at science.  Seems like a pretty big coincidence to me.

Not everyone really understands science, thus those people who don't, scoff it. That's just a part of human nature.

You can go too far with any theory or belief. If you start excluding one for the other, you end up misguided.

:ping:  :tmade:  :callaway:   :gamegolf:  :titleist:

TM White Smoke Big Fontana; Pro-V1
TM Rac 60 TT WS, MD2 56
Ping i20 irons U-4, CFS300
Callaway XR16 9 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S
Callaway XR16 3W 15 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S, X2Hot Pro 20 degrees S

"I'm hitting the woods just great, but I'm having a terrible time getting out of them." ~Harry Toscano

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

#5 is unassailable.

Almost have more respect for that.  The typical apologist quips are sad and seem like more willful ignorance despite acknowledgment of the legitimacy of scientific inquiry and discovery.

#5 ("How do you explain a sunset if there is no God?") is almost better.  Obviously there is no "we didn't observe it" argument against physical explanations of the sunset.  People have been to space and watched the earth spin!  That's more like an explicit declaration that there is no need for argument or discussion of any form of scientific thought or inquiry.  Life and the earth are miraculous.  God creates miracles.  End of discussion.

Matt

Mid-Weight Heavy Putter
Cleveland Tour Action 60˚
Cleveland CG15 54˚
Nike Vapor Pro Combo, 4i-GW
Titleist 585h 19˚
Tour Edge Exotics XCG 15˚ 3 Wood
Taylormade R7 Quad 9.5˚

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Almost have more respect for that.  The typical apologist quips are sad and seem like more willful ignorance despite acknowledgment of the legitimacy of scientific inquiry and discovery.

#5 ("How do you explain a sunset if there is no God?") is almost better.  Obviously there is no "we didn't observe it" argument against physical explanations of the sunset.  People have been to space and watched the earth spin!  That's more like an explicit declaration that there is no need for argument or discussion of any form of scientific thought or inquiry.  Life and the earth are miraculous.  God creates miracles.  End of discussion.

Actually, it was "How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?"  ;)

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

So???  Are "random" people not allowed to be sarcastic?

Also, how are they random?  They all (supposedly) believe very strongly in creation and scoff at science.  Seems like a pretty big coincidence to me.

Not everyone really understands science, thus those people who don't, scoff it. That's just a part of human nature.

You can go too far with any theory or belief. If you start excluding one for the other, you end up misguided.

These are things that go inside of car engines.  One could also argue that bodies are made up of parts, as are models ... anything that is whole for that matter, probably was made up of parts at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

Watching it now.....

Ken Ham probably thinks the ball starts in the direction of the path ;-)

Mike McLoughlin

Check out my friends on Evolvr!
Follow The Sand Trap on Twitter!  and on Facebook
Golf Terminology -  Analyzr  -  My FacebookTwitter and Instagram 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Watching it now..... [SIZE=13px]Ken Ham probably thinks the ball starts in the direction of the path [/SIZE][SIZE=13px];-) [/SIZE]

:dance:

In my bag:

Driver: Titleist TSi3 | 15º 3-Wood: Ping G410 | 17º 2-Hybrid: Ping G410 | 19º 3-Iron: TaylorMade GAPR Lo |4-PW Irons: Nike VR Pro Combo | 54º SW, 60º LW: Titleist Vokey SM8 | Putter: Odyssey Toulon Las Vegas H7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Watching it now.....

Ken Ham probably thinks the ball starts in the direction of the path

LOL

also #18 is completely false.

They've found multiple "Lucy's"

one of them is even older than Lucy...named Ardi.

Joel Holden

https://twitter.com/JHolden138

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Moderator

Some of the greatest scientists in history were people of faith.  Darwin himself studied theology.  My point about the cherry pickers apply to people in power in education who want to impose their personal beliefs on the education of our children.  Why can't you believe in an Almighty power and accept every facet of The Theory of Evolution ?  Of course you can.  They are not mutually exclusive.  It is not an insult to the religious belief of God to accept evolution as fact. Carl Sagan was quoted to say something like "What greater compliment could you give to a supreme being than creating something as intricate and elegant as Evolution"

The Catholic Church accepts evolution.  In fact, it is taught in Catholic schools from Kindergarten.  My son's first science work was on dinosaurs, and they were not around when humans evolved. Evolution is not a theory for atheists only.  And again, people of the fringes of religion (both ends) are always trying to divide us.

Lastly, the guy in #4 would have failed Thermo. Diversity created by mutation and natural selection increases the entropy of the system.

  • Upvote 2

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Creationists:

"But evolution is a theory, and since I don't really know what that means at all, all I know is it isn't concrete fact, why can't we teach words from a book with no source or evidence instead?"

"YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!!!"

"Oh, the Bible said it, so that's fact. Way more reliable than the evidence found from the most brilliant minds on earth."

I've heard these arguments (slightly paraphrased) many, many times. Now, having said that, not all religious people or Christians are creationists. Only the people who take a literal interpretation of the bible (The parts they pick and choose, that is...)

Ryan M
 
The Internet Adjustment Formula:
IAD = ( [ADD] * .96 + [EPS] * [1/.12] ) / (1.15)
 
IAD = Internet Adjusted Distance (in yards)
ADD = Actual Driver Distance (in yards)
EPS = E-Penis Size (in inches)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Creationists:

"But evolution is a theory, and since I don't really know what that means at all, all I know is it isn't concrete fact, why can't we teach words from a book with no source or evidence instead?"

"YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!!!"

"Oh, the Bible said it, so that's fact. Way more reliable than the evidence found from the most brilliant minds on earth."

I've heard these arguments (slightly paraphrased) many, many times. Now, having said that, not all religious people or Christians are creationists. Only the people who take a literal interpretation of the bible (The parts they pick and choose, that is...)

But you can't prove the Big Bang theory either, that is why it is a theory.  That is what I find so ridiculous in all this fuss.  It is two parties arguing about ones belief in different theories.  At this point in time neither can be proven so you are putting your faith in the belief of one or the other.  Even if scientists prove that a "Big Bang" happened, how would you disprove that it was possibly a work of God?

Also, whoever wrote the bible, whether true or not, was also brilliant.  If it is true, they put together a masterpiece of books/stories to help guide humanity.  If false, they put together a work of art that will have fooled billions of people over thousands of years.

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

But you can't prove the Big Bang theory either, that is why it is a theory.  That is what I find so ridiculous in all this fuss.  It is two parties arguing about ones belief in different theories.  At this point in time neither can be proven so you are putting your faith in the belief of one or the other.  Even if scientists prove that a "Big Bang" happened, how would you disprove that it was possibly a work of God?

Also, whoever wrote the bible, whether true or not, was also brilliant.  If it is true, they put together a masterpiece of books/stories to help guide humanity.  If false, they put together a work of art that will have fooled billions of people over thousands of years.

I'll address the two bold portions.

1: There's the quote I love seeing. You know what else is a theory? Maxwell's equations, RF Theory, Gravity, pretty much anything scientific besides math. Good luck posting on the internet, turning on your lights, or talking on your cell phone if you can discredit parts of science just because they're attached to that "theory" word. The amount of scientific evidence you need in order to get "just a theory" accepted is astounding. You need almost overwhelming evidence supporting it. Meanwhile, there's no real scientific evidence supporting a 6,000 year old earth or an ark that could hold every species on the planet through a terrible flood built by 8 people with no shit building experience.

2: You wouldn't. That's the thing certain people on both sides don't understand. The big bang is a highly likely scenario. Believing in it does not discredit or disprove their being some sort of "divine being". Is there a chance that God created the big bang? Absolutely! That's the beauty of it. I'm in no way anti-God, there may or may not be one. I don't know. But I am anti-Bible (the majority at least).

Oh, and to the last part...L. Ron Hubbard is brilliant too I guess...;)

Ryan M
 
The Internet Adjustment Formula:
IAD = ( [ADD] * .96 + [EPS] * [1/.12] ) / (1.15)
 
IAD = Internet Adjusted Distance (in yards)
ADD = Actual Driver Distance (in yards)
EPS = E-Penis Size (in inches)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'll address the two bold portions.

1: There's the quote I love seeing. You know what else is a theory? Maxwell's equations, RF Theory, Gravity, pretty much anything scientific besides math. Good luck posting on the internet, turning on your lights, or talking on your cell phone if you can discredit parts of science just because they're attached to that "theory" word. The amount of scientific evidence you need in order to get "just a theory" accepted is astounding. You need almost overwhelming evidence supporting it. Meanwhile, there's no real scientific evidence supporting a 6,000 year old earth or an ark that could hold every species on the planet through a terrible flood built by 8 people with no shit building experience.

2: You wouldn't. That's the thing certain people on both sides don't understand. The big bang is a highly likely scenario. Believing in it does not discredit or disprove their being some sort of "divine being". Is there a chance that God created the big bang? Absolutely! That's the beauty of it. I'm in no way anti-God, there may or may not be one. I don't know. But I am anti-Bible (the majority at least).

Oh, and to the last part...L. Ron Hubbard is brilliant too I guess...;)

That is the problem.  A theory isn't something that can necessarily be proven, it just means it hasn't been disproven through scientific experiment.  The things you mentioned above are theories simply because they they are the most scientific and elaborate ways to prove them that have not yet been debunked by scientific experimentation.

In similar fashion, that is how most ardent believers of faith view things.  Nobody has truly disproven anything taught in the Bible.  Most people simply want to believe in something.  I would argue that many people of faith believe simply because they don't want to believe that we are born, live a few years, and then die in a vicious cycle of nothingness.

However, my point is that they are still basically theories and each person can choose to believe in whichever they wish too.  As long as I am not forced one way or the other by an outside source I don't really have a problem with religion, or by people believing in science, evolution, etc.

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'll address the two bold portions.

1: There's the quote I love seeing. You know what else is a theory? Maxwell's equations, RF Theory, Gravity, pretty much anything scientific besides math. Good luck posting on the internet, turning on your lights, or talking on your cell phone if you can discredit parts of science just because they're attached to that "theory" word. The amount of scientific evidence you need in order to get "just a theory" accepted is astounding. You need almost overwhelming evidence supporting it. Meanwhile, there's no real scientific evidence supporting a 6,000 year old earth or an ark that could hold every species on the planet through a terrible flood built by 8 people with no shit building experience.

2: You wouldn't. That's the thing certain people on both sides don't understand. The big bang is a highly likely scenario. Believing in it does not discredit or disprove their being some sort of "divine being". Is there a chance that God created the big bang? Absolutely! That's the beauty of it. I'm in no way anti-God, there may or may not be one. I don't know. But I am anti-Bible (the majority at least).

Oh, and to the last part...L. Ron Hubbard is brilliant too I guess...;)

Yep that is how I pretty much see it. If this so called God turns out to be just the supernatural substance that binds all living things in the universe, then that will be a huge let down. I kinda thing humans are conditioned to believe in something all powerful that gives humans a sense of relief that things are not out of control. Still, just pondering.

The big bang is clearly the best theory so far. Just by how the universe is expanding. Maybe the universe will get sucked into the black hole and blow outward in another dimension who knows. Maybe its like K-Pax with out the replay. Get sucked in the black hole get Big Banged on the other side, rinse and repeat.

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

That is the problem.  A theory isn't something that can necessarily be proven, it just means it hasn't been disproven through scientific experiment.  The things you mentioned above are theories simply because they they are the most scientific and elaborate ways to prove them that have not yet been debunked by scientific experimentation.

In similar fashion, that is how most ardent believers of faith view things.  Nobody has truly disproven anything taught in the Bible.  Most people simply want to believe in something.  I would argue that many people of faith believe simply because they don't want to believe that we are born, live a few years, and then die in a vicious cycle of nothingness.

However, my point is that they are still basically theories and each person can choose to believe in whichever they wish too.  As long as I am not forced one way or the other by an outside source I don't really have a problem with religion, or by people believing in science, evolution, etc.

This is the fundamental problem. The creationists trying to get evolution and science thrown out of the classroom in favor of teaching the Bible. Sure, nobody has disproven anything taught in the Bible...but there's no evidence of any of it being anything other than a book. I could write a book tomorrow about magical dragons and flying monkeys...you can't disprove anything in it, but that doesn't mean it's real.

Whether people want to believe it or not, there is a lot of evidence...a LOT of evidence supporting evolution and the big bang theory. Meanwhile, there is no real scientific evidence supporting the majority of the Bible. Matter of fact, again, there IS a lot of evidence that suggests the majority of the Bible is flat out fiction.

These people say "you can't prove it" or "it's just a theory", but then want their Bible taken as concrete fact just because it's the Bible.

The whole "You can't prove it" line is beyond sad. Just like in science, if you want your Bible taught in schools, it shouldn't have to be disproven, you should have to find real evidence supporting it. Just like evolution...

Ryan M
 
The Internet Adjustment Formula:
IAD = ( [ADD] * .96 + [EPS] * [1/.12] ) / (1.15)
 
IAD = Internet Adjusted Distance (in yards)
ADD = Actual Driver Distance (in yards)
EPS = E-Penis Size (in inches)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3634 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • It’s simple. Hook it onto the tee box of the adjacent hole. Get a GIR with your approach. Birdie hole. #5 Hook it to the adjacent fairway Hit green with next shot. Birdie hole. I call it the Bill Method.
    • I’ll have to pay attention more attention to the area when I’m there. I know the area to the left of the bunkers off the tee is fescue/native vegetation but I can’t remember what’s around the tee boxes. Something to consider still is that you can’t see the green from the tee. You can’t even see all three bunkers IIRC. So I could have a line on the drive but still not know where it ends up. I think I’d be a lot more comfortable going with driver if I played here more regularly and had a log in my head of where shots tend to end up like I do at the other county courses. I have never hit driver on this hole off the blue tees. I have done it from the gold, but the length and angle are different, and during casual rounds when I didn’t care that much about score. I’m not sure the best time to try it is the second hole of a tournament. Or at the very least, I’m uncomfortable with the idea and that’s probably enough reason not to do it. I see what you’re saying. Wind is supposed to be pushing out more to the right on Saturday, too. I could probably aim right at the bunker and not end up in it. I don’t think there’s anything near the green other than that tiny bunker that would give me trouble. Well, trouble in addition to my short game deficiencies that is. Yea, me too. All I’m thinking is get it in play, put it near the green, chip on and two putt for 5. I’ll have plenty of opportunities to use my length as an advantage later. You realize all of this theory crafting will be moot when I chunk it off the tee, right? 😆
    • Wordle 1,035 4/6* ⬛🟦🟦⬛⬛ ⬛🟧⬛🟦🟦 ⬛🟧🟦🟧🟧 🟧🟧🟧🟧🟧    
    • However, have you ever considered using small summer houses for such setups? They offer a great solution for creating dedicated practice areas, especially for an affluent audience looking to enhance their outdoor living space.
    • I've played Bali Hai, Bear's Best and Painted Desert. I enjoyed Bali Hai the most--course was in great shape, friendly staff and got paired in a great group. Bear's Best greens were very fast, didn't hold the ball well (I normally have enough spin to stop the ball after 1-2 hops).  The sand was different on many holes. Some were even dark sand (recreation of holes from Hawaii). Unfortunately I was single and paired with a local "member" who only played the front 9.  We were stuck behind a slow 4-some who wouldn't let me through even when the local left. Painted Desert was decent, just a bit far from the Strip where we were staying.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...