Bill Nye agrees to "debate" Ken Ham

[Gaidin]

I always figured Bill Nye's not there for the crowd anyway. He knows he's not getting an applause.

Actually if it makes you feel any better, the crowd started chanting "Bill, Bill, Bill" after the debate. You can hear it on the Youtube video just before the sound cuts out.

That's friggin' sweet. I guess it would be more accurate to guess that that's what he's walking in expecting then.

[Ziggy Stardust]

"If we come from monkeys than why are there still monkeys?"

QED.

Buzzfeed of creationists from the debate.

[Borgholio]

Some of those questions were actually rather philosophical and intelligent. Some of them, on the other hand, made my brain hurt. "Science is a theory but it's not testable, provable, or observable...unlike Creation. So why is Creation not taught in schools?"

*No, not a typo. She actually said that Science is NOT testable.

[The Vortex Empire]

That one boggles the mind. Testability, evidence and observation are sort of core tenets of science.

Every one of those questions demonstrates a complete lack of any education or knowledge about evolution/cosmology/etc.

"How do you explain a sunset if their(sic) is no God?"

Uh, the Earth spins?

[Borgholio]

Well some of them, such as "What is the meaning of your existence", are not bad questions. That is actually at the core of what religion is all about. But yeah, didn't we learn what makes the sky blue and the sun set back in elementary school around the time we learned the world is round?

The world is round, right?

[Napoleon the Clown]

Well, it's an oblate spheroid. Which constitutes a round object. So yes, the world is round.

[Channel72]

A lot of creationists try to go with the "maybe the Earth was created 'mature'" aspect.

Actually, I once heard some pastor refer to the water-to-wine miracle in the Bible as "support" for a "young Earth that looks old". You see, Jesus turned water into wine, and apparently it was really awesome wine. Therefore, of course, if some scientist tried to chemically evaluate that wine, it would appear quite old (aged), even though it was actually created seconds ago via *magic*. So this same type of principle can apply to the entire Universe!

So yeah, you see - the Universe only looks old! When we see rings on trees, or carbon date rocks - when we see distant stars and supernovae millions of light years away via the Hubble telescope, we're actually seeing events that never happened! The entire Universe is one big hoax, I guess.

Sadly, a lot of creationists seem to think this is actually a clever answer. They don't realize that it turns their God into some sort of giant cosmic trickster, rendering the entire cosmos an untrustworthy illusion.

[LaCroix]

Actually, I once heard some pastor refer to the water-to-wine miracle in the Bible as "support" for a "young Earth that looks old". You see, Jesus turned water into wine, and apparently it was really awesome wine. Therefore, of course, if some scientist tried to chemically evaluate that wine, it would appear quite old (aged), even though it was actually created seconds ago via *magic*. So this same type of principle can apply to the entire Universe!

This is a pet peeve of mine, since that miracle is so easily explained.

They drank spiced wine. The better wine was usually the one with the most spice in it. The wedding went so out of hand that they ran out of wine. So Jesus makes them fill the barrels with water, then makes them pour as much spice as they can find into it and serves it to the guests - they are too far gone to realize that while it's tasting great, it fails at getting them any more drunk than they already are.

Also, think that stuff is great as it's tasty, but you can drink it like water without passing out, and it even makes their dizzy heads a bit better, for some strange reason.
Thus, they reprimand the host for not getting them the "REALLY GOOD STUFF" earlier on...

Just try it the next time someone is so far drunk you're having pity with him or want to prank him - give him a really strong fruit tea with a bit of clove or pepper (so it has an alcohol-like sting to it) and tell him to try this awesome wine you have bought. Needs a bit of preperation to make and let cool, but it usually works fine.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The ""maybe the Earth was created 'mature'" Is a rather new tactics, and to me, shows the increasing desperation of creationists to try and rat ionize their views in a RAPIDLY changing world.

It used to be common for them to go "Carbon Dating? Fossil Record? Tree rings? Measuring the speed of light against the Stars? FEH! Those don't mean anything! It's all random, or those don't ACTUALLY work!"
Except it has got to the point where it is so widely known as FACT that these things DO work, that it's changed to...
"Well God made everything like that ON PURPOSE! um, YEAH he Magically made everything to LOOK like it was made 15 Billion years ago, except he did it only 6000 years ago!!!"

And the main problem of course is that once you accept the "Magic" of the bible, and that "Magic" happens, well ANY explanation no matter how stupid becomes believable. Why is it that every single piece of data on Earth points to it being the same age? Um MAGIC!!!

I am just surprised they haven't tried rationalizing it by saying something like "Oh thats 6000 GOD years, to us it only SEEMS like billions of years!" or something equally stupid.

EDIT: Oh one more thing, on the whole "Water in Wine" business.
That for me is yet another example of how most Religious types understand the Bible far LESS then those that mock it.
Ask most Bible thumpers about "Wine" and they will describe a liquid that basically matchers their modern understand of wine in it's common European form, of being made from grapes and then distilled for several years before drinking.
When of course the truth is "Wine" during the time for when they claim Jesus existed would have been RADICALLY different, IE "spiced wine" as described above.

[Zaune]

"The fossils are a joke the paleontologists haven't got yet." --Good Omens

[Simon_Jester]

The ""maybe the Earth was created 'mature'" Is a rather new tactics, and to me, shows the increasing desperation of creationists to try and rat ionize their views in a RAPIDLY changing world.

It used to be common for them to go "Carbon Dating? Fossil Record? Tree rings? Measuring the speed of light against the Stars? FEH! Those don't mean anything! It's all random, or those don't ACTUALLY work!"
Except it has got to the point where it is so widely known as FACT that these things DO work, that it's changed to...
"Well God made everything like that ON PURPOSE! um, YEAH he Magically made everything to LOOK like it was made 15 Billion years ago, except he did it only 6000 years ago!!!"

And the main problem of course is that once you accept the "Magic" of the bible, and that "Magic" happens, well ANY explanation no matter how stupid becomes believable. Why is it that every single piece of data on Earth points to it being the same age? Um MAGIC!!!

I am just surprised they haven't tried rationalizing it by saying something like "Oh thats 6000 GOD years, to us it only SEEMS like billions of years!" or something equally stupid.

In my opinion that would be less stupid, because it would allow them to gracefully admit "yes, the universe works the way you describe, and this '6000' figure of ours refers to a sort of mystical truth that does not address the same domain of knowledge that is addressed by science.

You can call it dodging the point, but at least it shows someone willing to accept reality, even if they choose their own way of coming to terms with it.

Sort of like something the Dalai Lama once said:

"…in theological discussions with religious leaders, I often ask what their response would be if a central dogma of their faith were disproved by scientific discipline. When I put this question to the Dalai Lama, he unhesitatingly replied as no traditionalist or fundamentalist religious leaders do: In such a case, he said, Tibetan Buddhism would have to alter. Even, I asked, if it’s a really central tenet, like reincarnation? Even then, he replied. However, he said mischievously - it will be hard to disprove reincarnation ! "

It would be very hard to disprove reincarnation, precisely because it speaks of a thing that would be very hard for science to measure, even if it actually exists.

I prefer religions when they are mystical and can acknowledge that observed reality is what it is, while talking about 'higher truths' that are true in a different sense. It's better than having them insist that their 'higher truths' are physical and that if they contradict scientific observations the scientists must be wrong and/or evildoers.

EDIT: Oh one more thing, on the whole "Water in Wine" business.
That for me is yet another example of how most Religious types understand the Bible far LESS then those that mock it.
Ask most Bible thumpers about "Wine" and they will describe a liquid that basically matchers their modern understand of wine in it's common European form, of being made from grapes and then distilled for several years before drinking.
When of course the truth is "Wine" during the time for when they claim Jesus existed would have been RADICALLY different, IE "spiced wine" as described above.

Still a fermented fruit drink, yes? Only without the aging? Because wine isn't distilled; it's just left to sit in a barrel for a long time. Their point is that good wine has to be aged, and for the benefit of the IQ 80 people in their audience they draw an analogy between newly created faux-aged wine and newly created faux-aged fossils.

[Ahriman238]

I thought that went reasonably well, Ham was fairly civil throughout though Bill made him look like a jackass. I am curious about Ham's 45,000 year-old wood encased within 4.5 million year-old basalt example, but likely there is a simple explanation there simply wasn't time for.

Of course, trying to argue that radioactive decay isn't consistent, or that the laws of physics were different then is an... interesting choice of tactics. Likewise the appeal that the past is unknowable, except through the revealed word of God.

I am just surprised they haven't tried rationalizing it by saying something like "Oh thats 6000 GOD years, to us it only SEEMS like billions of years!" or something equally stupid.

Came up in the Scopes trial too, didn't it? Or at least the play based on it. God (the Bible) says he created the earth in six days, but there was no one around to verify, and days are an odd measure to use, since he created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day (though light apparently without source was first.)

[Napoleon the Clown]

The thing about "6,000 year old Earth" that's so absurd is that the Bible never says shit about the age of the Earth. That figure is something calculated by some bishop, whose name I forget and am too lazy to look up, using genealogy stated in the Bible. So very much speculation to that. Then again, quite a lot of the beliefs held by those who could best be described as fundamentalists are found nowhere in the Bible. And they ignore lots of stuff that is in the Bible because it doesn't fit the narrative they've built themselves. How often do they acknowledge that incident with the out of season fig tree being cursed because it bore no fruit? If that isn't petty I don't know what is.

NEC requires God not possess the traits so often ascribed to Him. God is perfect. Lying is a sin. But God deceived us in how he created the world. But that totally isn't lying, man! Somehow. God's logic blah blah blah.

[mr friendly guy]

"If we come from monkeys than why are there still monkeys?"

QED.

Buzzfeed of creationists from the debate.

If a lot of white Americans are descended from Europeans, then why are there still Europeans?

[Simon_Jester]

The thing about "6,000 year old Earth" that's so absurd is that the Bible never says shit about the age of the Earth. That figure is something calculated by some bishop, whose name I forget and am too lazy to look up, using genealogy stated in the Bible. So very much speculation to that.

True. The main problem is that it's one of the few math-like things that can even vaguely be applied to the Bible, so it's like... sacred divine math, in the eyes of a handful of people.

Then again, quite a lot of the beliefs held by those who could best be described as fundamentalists are found nowhere in the Bible. And they ignore lots of stuff that is in the Bible because it doesn't fit the narrative they've built themselves. How often do they acknowledge that incident with the out of season fig tree being cursed because it bore no fruit? If that isn't petty I don't know what is.

Since the story is normally used as a metaphor, I think this may be missing the point- I could easily imagine a Christ figure deciding to ruin a single tree specifically to make a parable about his views of human nature.

NEC requires God not possess the traits so often ascribed to Him. God is perfect. Lying is a sin. But God deceived us in how he created the world. But that totally isn't lying, man! Somehow. God's logic blah blah blah.

Most young-Earth creationists probably don't quite get the idea of science as a means of uncovering hidden truths. They'd say, in a very 'sensible' mindset for pre-technological villagers, that if you want to know something only God was present for, ask him!

So they don't really see it as deception when they get the 'correct' answer by seeking an answer in the 'logical' way, while SECULAR ATHEIST EVIL SCIENTISTS get the 'wrong' answer by seeking an answer in the 'wrong' way.

[Thanas]

"If we come from monkeys than why are there still monkeys?"

QED.

Buzzfeed of creationists from the debate.

If a lot of white Americans are descended from Europeans, then why are there still Europeans?

Because they clearly didn't evolve, DUH.

[Borgholio]

Because they clearly didn't evolve, DUH.

Does de-evolution count?

[mr friendly guy]

"If we come from monkeys than why are there still monkeys?"

QED.

Buzzfeed of creationists from the debate.

If a lot of white Americans are descended from Europeans, then why are there still Europeans?

Because they clearly didn't evolve, DUH.

Ah, but they did. They got fatter. Clearly different from their European cousins. Can't you tell?

[Thanas]

B-B-But the YUROPEANS get fatter too so this clearly proves a great plan behind it. All hail the great Lord McDonalds, his prophet Kebab and the holy spirit clearly-not-chinese-but-lets-call-it-chinese duck.

[Borgholio]

clearly-not-chinese-but-lets-call-it-chinese duck.

Assuming it's even really duck...

[Napoleon the Clown]

The thing about "6,000 year old Earth" that's so absurd is that the Bible never says shit about the age of the Earth. That figure is something calculated by some bishop, whose name I forget and am too lazy to look up, using genealogy stated in the Bible. So very much speculation to that.

True. The main problem is that it's one of the few math-like things that can even vaguely be applied to the Bible, so it's like... sacred divine math, in the eyes of a handful of people.

No argument there. My point was just that they supplement the Bible and probably don't even realize it.

Then again, quite a lot of the beliefs held by those who could best be described as fundamentalists are found nowhere in the Bible. And they ignore lots of stuff that is in the Bible because it doesn't fit the narrative they've built themselves. How often do they acknowledge that incident with the out of season fig tree being cursed because it bore no fruit? If that isn't petty I don't know what is.

Since the story is normally used as a metaphor, I think this may be missing the point- I could easily imagine a Christ figure deciding to ruin a single tree specifically to make a parable about his views of human nature.

Biblical literalists are an interesting lot. They believe that every story in the Bible, even parables, are literally true and happened exactly as recorded in their translation of the Bible. Which is usually the King James, when we're dealing with literalists.

NEC requires God not possess the traits so often ascribed to Him. God is perfect. Lying is a sin. But God deceived us in how he created the world. But that totally isn't lying, man! Somehow. God's logic blah blah blah.

Most young-Earth creationists probably don't quite get the idea of science as a means of uncovering hidden truths. They'd say, in a very 'sensible' mindset for pre-technological villagers, that if you want to know something only God was present for, ask him!

So they don't really see it as deception when they get the 'correct' answer by seeking an answer in the 'logical' way, while SECULAR ATHEIST EVIL SCIENTISTS get the 'wrong' answer by seeking an answer in the 'wrong' way.

Makes enough sense, I guess. Still pretty damn crazy, though.

[Zwinmar]

Finally got around to watching it and found it painful to listen to. The droning of "god" from the sermonizig Aussie was horrendous but worse was his fraud. Seriously? A division between what he calls "historical" and "observable" science? According to his view any science h&r didn't see...like say the Manhattan Project is false because he didn't see it.

[hongi]

"…in theological discussions with religious leaders, I often ask what their response would be if a central dogma of their faith were disproved by scientific discipline. When I put this question to the Dalai Lama, he unhesitatingly replied as no traditionalist or fundamentalist religious leaders do: In such a case, he said, Tibetan Buddhism would have to alter. Even, I asked, if it’s a really central tenet, like reincarnation? Even then, he replied. However, he said mischievously - it will be hard to disprove reincarnation ! "

Note: the Dalai Lama is being serious there, because it is practically impossible to disprove it scientifically. And I mean practically in the literal sense of the word, there is no way for science in praxis to do it, because the Buddhist claim that all beings are subject to a cycle of rebirth is not a scientific claim and does not rely on scientific evidence.

The sole evidence that is necessary for a Buddhist to believe in rebirth is that the Buddha said that he saw it. The Buddha personally saw this process happening via his omniscient insight into the nature of things. But this is not scientific evidence, it is not testable or repeatable or observable, it is a religious claim founded on very different epistemological bases.

The Dalai Lama will only give up a belief in rebirth or gods or karma etc, if science proves that they do not exist, which science cannot. Even a natural explanation for the existence of Mahayana sutras as opposed to the traditional Buddhist account of divine snake beings (the nagas) keeping them safe from the Buddha's time until it was time to reveal them, does not disprove the traditional account, it only make its not necessary. Even if scholars state that the sutras were composed quite recently, even though that may make the nagas 'not necessary' and thus safe to dismiss for people who never believed in the traditional Buddhist account, that will not disprove the traditional story either. It will not convince the Dalai Lama, because it is a religious belief for him that the Mahayana sutras were the words of the Buddha.

[Simon_Jester]

Since the Dalai Lama sincerely believes in souls, he might believe that they could be somehow observed or detected by some means in the future. In which case the transmigration of souls could conceivably be disproven scientifically.

On the other hand, he might take a course that is at once more shaky in its internal consistency, and more sophisticated- in which case, well, what you said.

[hongi]

The Dalai Lama does not believe in souls. Buddhism does not believe in souls, and a Buddhist theologian (if I can use that word) of the Dalai Lama's caliber wouldn't be caught dead saying any such thing. The DL is actually an insightful and very thoughtful commentator and scholar of Buddhist works from his particular tradition.

If you're interested, google the doctrine of anatta. It is a fundamental Buddhist belief that there is no enduring self to be reborn. What then gets reborn is the subject of literally libraries of Buddhist work.