Evolution vs. Creationism. Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham.

[ralis]

It's been going on for a while now. The whole reason Pastafarianism arose was to counter the ridiculous intentions of some school board in Kansas.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings

 

Growing up I had young earth, Genesis-literal creationism shoved down my throat so far that I am sad to say I've probably read a dozen of Ken Ham's poorly written and completely illogical books in my life. I'm also not at all surprised that Arizona has some of the schools but I am surprised that California does not.

 

 

We all learn in some way or another. There is some creationism book written by a guy named Morris. I started to read it in college back in the early 80's and never finished it. Part of my religious insanity at the time.

 

Since your are in Sacramento, I imagine you have been to Yosemite which a great place to understand glacial processes. That whole area is awesome!

Edited February 5, 2014 by ralis

[GreytoWhite]

I'm currently in Phoenix but going back to Sac very soon. Yes, I have been to Yosemite and as a child I had a very secular education from the advanced classes (2-3 grade levels ahead) I was entered in. It was a crazy dichotomy and caused much cognitive dissonance for me. One week I'm taking a trip to a nature preserve, being told all about evolution, ecological conservation, and learning biology then the next week I'm given a Ken Ham book and my preacher tells me the universe MIGHT be 10,000 years old if you go by Dake's gap theory... wait what?

[Unlearner]

I was raised in a Catholic family, attended private Catholic schools for 13 years, and was never once taught that the Bible was a book of historical facts, or that evolution was false. I'm not sure where people got that idea, and I'm not even sure who teaches it or why, but it sounds a lot like indoctrination.

[GreytoWhite]

Unlearner IIRC the idea that the BIble was literal, factual truth came about in the 1800s. When the Pope declared his infallibility and himself as the representative of Gaaaawd Almighty the Protestants had little to counter with so they declared that the Bible itself is an unadulterated word for word account of history and all that Gaaaaawd wants. Today this is being used by Fundamentalist Christian groups to indoctrinate their children.

[Marblehead]

... understanding of evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a fact. (I just had to point that out.)

[ralis]

Evolution is a fact. (I just had to point that out.)

 

Did I say it wasn't factually based?

[Marblehead]

Did I say it wasn't factually based?

Hehehe. No, but you used the word "theory". That was enough to inspire me.

[ralis]

Hehehe. No, but you used the word "theory". That was enough to inspire me.

 

Theory is a set of facts.

[thelerner]

Just to be a contrarian I'll say Ham and creationism is right. The earth is only 5774 years old, it began on Sunday October 13, 4115 BC about 12:15ish. Earths geological features, fossils, dna and genetics, nuclear half lifes including carbon dating were created just to fool people like you, unbelievers.

 

Why would the creator go to such effort to fool modern day scientists and thinkers?

Cause he could, thats why.

[Marblehead]

Theory is a set of facts.

I knew you would get back to me on this.

 

Carl Sagan used to get very expressive when someone would call evolution a theory. He would counter, "Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact."

 

I follow his example.

[Marblehead]

Just to be a contrarian I'll say Ham and creationism is right. The earth is only 5774 years old, it began on Sunday October 13, 4115 BC about 12:15ish. Earths geological features, fossils, dna and genetics, nuclear half lifes including carbon dating were created just to fool people like you, unbelievers.

 

Why would the creator go to such effort to fool modern day scientists and thinkers?

Cause he could, thats why.

Hehehe. That ain't gonna' work if you consider that both the Chinese and Egyptian civilizations are older than that.

 

And I'm sure you walked hand in claw with T-Rex.

 

That reminds me, I need to listen to T Rex again soon.

[ralis]

I knew you would get back to me on this.

 

Carl Sagan used to get very expressive when someone would call evolution a theory. He would counter, "Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact."

 

I follow his example.

 

I will get back to you on this when I get home.

[Nungali]

I was taught about evolution in the 2nd. or 3rd. grade. This is fundamentalist dogma being forced on children!

 

http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/sciencetest.asp

 

 

 

 

 

http://aattp.org/florida-christian-school-tells-children-atheists-dont-understand-gravity-because-god-did-it/

 

MAN! you must have a library for you filing system (or a really big house .... or you JUST left school? )

 

 

EDIT:

 

OOOPPS .... I just read the date on that .... then went back to check your post

 

I will defend my stupidity with the stament that ... "WTF ... THAT was from a school in 2013 ... my misperception was it must have been from the 60's or 70's .... and I thought Australia was behind the times ???

Edited February 5, 2014 by Nungali

[Nungali]

Just to be a contrarian I'll say Ham and creationism is right. The earth is only 5774 years old, it began on Sunday October 13, 4115 BC about 12:15ish. Earths geological features, fossils, dna and genetics, nuclear half lifes including carbon dating were created just to fool people like you, unbelievers.

 

Why would the creator go to such effort to fool modern day scientists and thinkers?

Cause he could, thats why.

 

You, my dear sir, are worse than an unbeliever! ... and what is worse than an unbeliever? A heretic! (A heretic is someone who believes what I believe but not quiet in the same way as I believe it).

 

Get your facts straight and stop putting up false information ...." The earth is only 5774 years old, it began on Sunday October 13, 4115 BC about 12:15ish. " It was around 1:20 and that is NOT 12:15ish !

 

What are you up to ? What is your hidden agenda .... the work of he devil ... thats what it IS ! WHY ... I ....

 

<splutter ... pop ... bing... collapses to the flaw and ... pops a vein ... convulses ... fits > Ghhh .. gg ... gggak !

[Marblehead]

I will get back to you on this when I get home.

Okay.

[ralis]

Just to be a contrarian I'll say Ham and creationism is right. The earth is only 5774 years old, it began on Sunday October 13, 4115 BC about 12:15ish. Earths geological features, fossils, dna and genetics, nuclear half lifes including carbon dating were created just to fool people like you, unbelievers.

 

Why would the creator go to such effort to fool modern day scientists and thinkers?

Cause he could, thats why.

 

I hope you are just being facetious.

[Nungali]

Several years back I was a member of the Department of Baha'i Studies attached to Sydney University.

 

I was asked to present a paper on Creation Vs Evolution. I accepted. On the night there was a large attendance ... many from the religious side and many from the scientific establishment. I began by saying that I refuse to engage with the topic. By setting it up as VS is an adversarial set up ... so I have changed to debate topic to Creation and Evolution.

 

I focused on a wide range of subjects; looked at the background material on Darwin, (also his inner view and psychological and 'spiritual' states {as evidenced in his diaries} ) , some of his contemporaries (Robert Broome and others) and looked at the 'higher mind' of 'religion' on the subject ( eg. Vedanta, some of the latter views of the Baha'i leaders, Hermetic concepts, Platonic 'Forms' etc.

 

It lifted up the whole subject and was a much better way of approaching it .

 

However this was NOT some low-brow christian debate against some base 'scientism' in the USA schools system. How sad that children are exposed to this childish approach of adults.

[Nungali]

One issue I am curious about is:

 

There seem to be facts outlining the development within a species.

 

But are there facts outlining the development of a species from another?

[Marblehead]

I hope you are just being facetious.

Of course he is.

[ralis]

Which explanation should be appropriate as to define theory.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory

 

I think Sagan was talking about the common misuse of the term.

[Marblehead]

One issue I am curious about is:

 

There seem to be facts outlining the development within a species.

 

But are there facts outlining the development of a species from another?

That a good question. It is my understanding that once a mutation evolves to the point where it can no longer mate and reproduce with the root species it becomes a different species. This has been discussed RE the fruit flies in Hawaii and the finches of the Galapagos.

[Marblehead]

Which explanation should be appropriate as to define theory.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory

 

I think Sagan was talking about the common misuse of the term.

I recall my having this discussion with someone a while (2 years?) ago.

 

I still don't like calling facts theories.

 

Yes, It is likely the misuse of the word "theory" that causes me to contest its usage.

 

Evolution is a fact. The theory explains these facts.

[ralis]

I recall my having this discussion with someone a while (2 years?) ago.

 

I still don't like calling facts theories.

 

Yes, It is likely the misuse of the word "theory" that causes me to contest its usage.

 

Evolution is a fact. The theory explains these facts.

 

Academics and scientists use the term 'theory' extensively. E.g. 'number theory', 'evolutionary theory', 'theory of relativity' and so forth, as apposed to some half baked speculation of a so called 'theory of ancient aliens' which is stated as fact by the purveyors of such.

Edited March 26, 2014 by ralis

[Marblehead]

See? Hehehe. The theory of Bigfoot. No facts, just speculation.

 

That is why I like:

 

Hypothesis: Speculation

 

Theory: Explanation based on a few facts

 

Fact: What can be proved.

 

Evolution has been proved again and again.

 

Creationism has never included one single undisputable fact.

[ralis]

See? Hehehe. The theory of Bigfoot. No facts, just speculation.

 

That is why I like:

 

Hypothesis: Speculation

 

Theory: Explanation based on a few facts

 

Fact: What can be proved.

 

Evolution has been proved again and again.

 

Creationism has never included one single undisputable fact.

 

Theory of Bigfoot and ancient aliens are discussed on the History channel extensively. I guess it must be true.