Bill Nye vs Ken Ham
-
@mike lucey said:
From the start I felt the debate was never going anywhere.
I think its a waste of time discussing the Bible as a means to explain what we think we perceive around us as the 'faith' element comes into play and when we adopt faith in something we will entertain very little that contradicts the faith in question.
Faith and Science are like water and oil, they really don't mix well.
Mike I agree with you, if everyone thought this way we would not be discussing this, however unfortunately there is a huge percentage of folk here in the states that do believe the bible should be taken literally and used to explain evolutionary science questions.
-
In reality religion is a result of scientific thought.
Way back when fire was an advanced technology, skinny geeky Ugg, while digesting his small share of barely cooked mammoth meat, was ruminating on what made the fire hot. He turned to big beefy Gogg, who didn't know much but was good at lifting heavy things and hitting mammoths, what he thought on the subject. Gogg, being rather thick had no idea, but as he was the one that picked up the burning stick from the lightning strike he said it was a mystical thing from the sky that shouldn't be questioned or it would be taken away. (Or grunts to that effect.) The lesser minds in the group believed everything Gogg told them and allowed him to be the boss. The more the group allowed Gogg to control them the more he pushed the envelope and the more powerful he became. The skinny questioning geeks struggled to keep their place in this society by being useful and not openly questioning the almighty Gogg, while quietly working away at their ideas and questions, often secretly.
So the gradual development of the scientific inquiring mind pushed the more dominant power hungry types to create a back story that allows them to control the group around them.
The evolution of this relationship plays out in every society throughout history. The shaman, the witch doctor, the high priest, the banker, the politician etc etc
I find it particularly amusing that people can be so loud about being free and living in a democratic world etc etc and yet they subjugate themselves to the whims of tyrannical religious leaders of every faith that they have never had the option to vote for.
-
To me, it's fine to be under tyrannical religious leaders, if that's your thing. (And I mean that only as regards to the spiritual realm... zealots and crusaders are another thing entirely.) It shouldn't be something that hurts the world if you believe some religious leader or another.
The problem is, as Pete points out, lots of people take this faith as something practical and descriptive of the physical world around us. Not only that, they force others (like grade school students) to accept it as valid teaching to explain the world. That is definitely something worth pushing back against, and am glad Bill Nye is doing so. -
I agree and would never deny anyone their right to believe in the imaginary friend of their choice.
Interesting though isn't it that in general terms science seeks to answer questions and educate in a non invasive, join in if you want manner whereas religion tends more towards the, you must not ask or question what we say and you must join us or you'll end up somewhere unpleasant.
The rise in power of fundamentalists in any of the multiple sides of this societal dilemma isn't good for anyone. We've had centuries of religious wars interrupted by the decades of nuclear fueled cold war, now we move back into the religious wars .........
-
@box said:
I agree and would never deny anyone their right to believe in the imaginary friend of their choice.
.heh, i told my daughter there's no santa when she was 2 and i've caught flack from every single person (except my brother.. he laughed... but the grandparents? jeez- they want to shoot me for it
)idk, i explained to her that it's okay to pretend like there's a santa and have fun with it that way.. but i just couldn't bring myself to make her believe it as fact.. i've taken a similar approach with her & religion (a bit different though- not a straight up "there is no god".. more along the lines of pointing out that there are a whole bunch of different gods (living in nyc makes this a lot easier for her to recognize).. and that she needs not to believe everything someone tries to feed her (one set of grandparents are your typical southern u.s christians)
basically a sub-attempt at encouraging critical thinking as opposed to rote memorization
-
Jeff. My boys also have religious grandparents that do not approve of my lack of faith/belief, I allow my kids to make their own choices and if they want to attend church then so be it. They do go with the grandparents when on vacation as that always involves a good meal and treats after church. Both boys are not religious however both have learned about the Bible the Koran and Buddhism and if pushed they both said they preferred Buddhism.
My eldest is busy doing the application process for West point and it seems he will have to say he is of some Christian denomination as the recruiter advised that his chances of entering will to slim to none if he says he is non religious regardless of his almost perfect SAT scores and other requirements. What can you do?, nothing.
-
@solo said:
My eldest is busy doing the application process for West point and it seems he will have to say he is of some Christian denomination as the recruiter advised that his chances of entering will to slim to none if he says he is non religious regardless of his almost perfect SAT scores and other requirements.
That's ... weird.
-
I just watched the nearly three hours of that debate. I didn't realise until now that Ken Ham was Australian.
I'm very depressed and am off to shred my passport. The only upside is we managed to transport him to the states.
-
I'm not sure that anyone should take this debate too personally. As I can recall after watching it, it looks kinda "staged" meaning that they prepared this talk-show to be spectacular, knowing what will happen in the end. And mostly Mr. Ken Ham knew that his arguments will be invalid in the end, but still agreed to "play" this, for the amusement of the audience, let's say.
Just look at each other presentations at the beginning which contained references to the opponent's speech.
So, at least partly, this was a little staged. I won't argue here the things told in the debate (unless your name is Ken Ham, one simply CAN'T argue that
), but I will say this was a show for masses. And it had its audience. I enjoyed it.
Just don't shred your passports
)) -
Mmmmmmm ..... Dunno about popping a child's belief in Santa Claus
I think its best to let kids figure it out for themselves as they do eventually. I can still vaguely remember the Christmas that I figured it out for myself. I was about 5 but think I played along as it was a great way of getting nice Christmas presents If I remember correctly the same happened with my daughters but I still ask them if Santa delivered to this day!I very much doubt that mankind will ever get to the bottom (or top) of things. If he does, surly he would then be a 'God' but then again the Bible does say that mankind was made in the 'image' of God!
Of late I have been reading what Robert Lanza has to say for himself. I find his ideas Biocentrism difficult to understand but am getting there.
BIOCENTRISM
*How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe
“Like “A Brief History of Time” it is indeed stimulating and brings biology into the whole. Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work. Almost every society of mankind has explained the mystery of our surroundings and being by invoking a god or group of gods. Scientists work to acquire objective answers from the infinity of space or the inner machinery of the atom. Lanza proposes a biocentrist theory which ascribes the answer to the observer rather than the observed. The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole. The book will appeal to an audience of many different disciplines because it is a new way of looking at the old problem of our existence. Most importantly, it makes you think.”
– Nobel Prize Winner E. Donnall Thomas*...... I'd say Mr Donnall might have said, it makes you think VERY hard! Here is Robert Lanza's site, http://www.robertlanza.com/ Well worth a visit
-
@unknownuser said:
@solo said:
My eldest is busy doing the application process for West point and it seems he will have to say he is of some Christian denomination as the recruiter advised that his chances of entering will to slim to none if he says he is non religious regardless of his almost perfect SAT scores and other requirements.
That's ... weird.
Actually I'm fairly sure it's a violation of the US constitution, which makes it rather more serious than simply 'weird'. There has been a long running scandal at the airforce academy in Colorado along similar lines. Not a few of my friends and colleagues that are alumni have become very disturbed enough that several of the colonels and above have sent pointed notes.
-
@derei said:
I'm not sure that anyone should take this debate too personally. As I can recall after watching it, it looks kinda "staged" meaning that they prepared this talk-show to be spectacular, knowing what will happen in the end. And mostly Mr. Ken Ham knew that his arguments will be invalid in the end, but still agreed to "play" this, for the amusement of the audience, let's say.
Just look at each other presentations at the beginning which contained references to the opponent's speech.
So, at least partly, this was a little staged. I won't argue here the things told in the debate (unless your name is Ken Ham, one simply CAN'T argue that ), but I will say this was a show for masses. And it had its audience. I enjoyed it.
Just don't shred your passports))I'm sure it was staged. Attendance at Mr. Ham's creation "museum" has been dwindling over the last four years, and it is in financial trouble. They've had to nix the Noah's "Ark Park" they had planned on adding. He needed something to try to foster interest in it again.
-
@daniel said:
I'm sure it was staged. Attendance at Mr. Ham's creation "museum" has been dwindling over the last four years, and it is in financial trouble. They've had to nix the Noah's "Ark Park" they had planned on adding. He needed something to try to foster interest in it again.
I read about the project here, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/us/06ark.html?_r=0
Its a pity that its not going ahead. I would have liked to see the Creationists fitting two of every kind with the exception of hermaphrodites of course. I'd be happy enough seeing it done virtually. At least it would generate some 3D work for someone
-
Mike, I for one am glad it is not happening. My understanding was that they had planned on using live animals (could they really acquire two of every animal?). I don't have anything against properly designed and run zoos (I did one as my thesis project in architecture school), but to fit so many animals in their "ark" would require rather small pens, and that wouldn't be right. Plus, I have to admit I am biased against their "museum." Passing off creationism as science is just wrong, and unfortunately there are a lot of people gullible enough to belief their pseudo-science speak. Everyone has a right to believe what they want, but they misrepresent facts.
-
@unknownuser said:
My understanding was that they had planned on using live animals
Wonder where they planned to get the dinosaurs.
-
They don't need dinosaurs, they are a trick of the devil!
-
@box said:
They don't need dinosaurs, they are a trick of the devil!
I kid you not, last week at the pub this topic was discussed with some mates and one of them who is pretty hard right wing mentioned this and he was adamant that bones and fossils of dinosaurs were placed by the devil to confuse Christians, the sad part is this guy is a doctor.
-
Glad to see you embrace a wide variety of friends.
-
@tim said:
@unknownuser said:
@solo said:
My eldest is busy doing the application process for West point and it seems he will have to say he is of some Christian denomination as the recruiter advised that his chances of entering will to slim to none if he says he is non religious regardless of his almost perfect SAT scores and other requirements.
That's ... weird.
Actually I'm fairly sure it's a violation of the US constitution, which makes it rather more serious than simply 'weird'. There has been a long running scandal at the airforce academy in Colorado along similar lines. Not a few of my friends and colleagues that are alumni have become very disturbed enough that several of the colonels and above have sent pointed notes.
probably not a violation (or a prosecutable one) as it sounds more like an under the table deal and i highly doubt they'll leave official traces of someone being denied entrance due to religious background.
sounds nutz nonetheless.
personally, i have problems with authority (i guess that's how it would be described by an authoritarian figure).. i'd never make it past day 1 in a military type academy ..or, i'd never make it in because in this instance, when they start asking about religion etc, i'd be "why do you want to know that!? why is that important? etc"
hammond- application denied! -
Jeff
I agree, like the recruiter said, it would be in his best interest if he did have a religion, he did say you do not have to be a practicing one, just say you are one for the sake of a smooth application process.
Advertisement