[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 17 KB, 300x300, 1391817932199.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6341178 No.6341178[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

The whole creationism/evolution debate is really the age old question of length vs girth. Think about it. One view has a lot of material/data shortened to a small amount of time, and the other is a lot of material/data stretched out over a long amount of time. What I'm trying to say is Ken Ham has the chode.

>> No.6341183

Stop calling this a "debate". There is no "debate".

>> No.6341185

>>6341183

>There is no "debate"

Top pleb/10

>> No.6341341

Bill Nye got #rekt

>> No.6341392

Oh Bill Nye!!
Ken Ham has rustled Bill's Jimmies

>> No.6341394

Ha. My PI was talking about the Bill Nye incident today. What happened?

>> No.6341398

>>6341394
you should watch the debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

and see the consequences of not preparing it.
Even if you're a great guy you'll get #rekt by a BIBLICAL christian

>> No.6341400

>>6341394
He got his ass #rekt by a creationist who thinks the world is 6000 years old.

He should've never picked the fight. Debating with hardline creationists is something you need experience and political finesse to pull off.

I feel so sorry for him... and the fact that this will undoubtedly create more creationists in the world.

>> No.6341403

Bill Nye fell for an easy trap. He figured because his position is obviously correct and true, that it would be easier to debate for it. In reality, debate has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong, and it's just verbal sparing.

If they were writing academic papers, Bill Nye would win simply by dint of having a defensible position, but debates are more like talk shows, where the better speaker wins, always.

>> No.6341407

>>6341398
>should not watch

ftfy

>> No.6341411

>>6341178
I admire people like Ham and Hovind they are truly a inspiration

>> No.6341416

>>6341403
>In reality, debate has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're right or wrong, and it's just verbal sparing.

to be fair, the average 4channer makes that mistake constantly anyway, coupled with a painfully incorrect belief that you can change the opinion of the person you debate with if only you argue hard enough.

>> No.6341423

>>6341416
>To convince someone of the truth, it is not enough to state it, but rather one must find the path from error to truth.

Wittgenstein.

People forget this. "This is true" doesn't work. You need to make an argument the person you're talking to can understand. If the person doesn't understand genetics, occam's razor, or even what evolution really is (The amount of times creations say "Random change can't result in such complexity" would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Evolution is NOT random, it has Natural Selection) you can't just start citing facts. You have to bridge a gap in fundamental understanding, that evidence is good and simple, evidence based hypotheses are better than "God did it all".

>> No.6341430

According to the large majority of watchers, including the visitors of christiantoday.com, Bill Nye won this debate. They hosted a poll, and got 92% for Bill Nye as "Who won the debate", out of 50,000 responses. He didn't get #rekt. The fact that he kept his cool the entire time while all Ken Ham could come up with is "There's a book that says..." said a lot about his character and motives, and I think that rubbed off on the crowd. I think he did an amazing job.

>> No.6341435

>>6341430
The only people saying Ham won are Evolutionists who didn't pay attention to the debate,

>> No.6341434

>>6341423
early or late

>> No.6341437

>>6341434
Come again?

>> No.6341452

>>6341435
I don't know if he 'won' but Nye was weak. He opens with some lame anecdote about bow ties? -Boo! Later makes a 'joke' about his ex boss? -Boo. Far too goofy.

>> No.6341457

>>6341423
Actually doesn't Occams razor fail here? Isn't "God did it." the simplest explanation?

>> No.6341460
File: 130 KB, 1279x2088, rong_science_guy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6341460

I made a couple of these for your pleasure, /sci/
I hope you enjoy them.

>> No.6341463
File: 800 KB, 1366x768, nye_say_another_word.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6341463

Nye just looks fucking pissed for the entire debate after Ham does his initial schpiel.

>> No.6341465

>>6341460
>>6341463
there you go i was waiting for this to show up

>> No.6341467

>>6341465
Was I seriously the first to do this?
I'm genuinely surprised.

>> No.6341468

>>6341457
>Occam's Razor is often phrased as "The simplest explanation that fits the facts." Robert Heinlein replied that the simplest explanation is "The lady down the street is a witch; she did it."

This post is helpful to explain the basics
>http://lesswrong.com/lw/jp/occams_razor/

The gist is, god only SOUNDS simple because it's a three letter word. When you try to predict anything using God as a hypothesis you find it would be insanely complex, more so than the entire universe, seeing as God is omnipotent and omniscient. "God did it" isn't simple at all.

>> No.6341471

>>6341457
I think Occam's razor specifically means the simplest salient explanation, not the simplest one period.

>> No.6341470

>>6341437
Wittgenstein

>> No.6341469

>>6341468
This is obvious, but the greentext is from the given link, not your post.

>> No.6341473

>>6341470
It's from Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough

>The commentary was initially published in 1967, with an English edition in 1979. Wittgenstein wrote the text in the summer of 1931, which represented his earliest efforts to compose what would eventually become the Philosophical Investigations.

So early I guess.

>> No.6341476

>>6341473
Or maybe not early, sorry, I misread the article.

I assume you know more about Wittgenstein than I do, I just liked the quote.

>> No.6341477

Bill Nye won the debate, Ham just gave a series of logical fallacies.

"I can show you a list of peer reviewed scientists who agree with me, therefore it must be good science!"

"dating methods arnt perfect so you cant use them as evidence!"

"you cant prove to me that lions were not vegetarians for a few days"!

"we have the same evidence but disagree on it, both sides have equal value!"

Bill wasn't perfect but how can you lose to that?

>> No.6341482

>>6341477
Don't forget the most important one.
"Historical science/Were you there?"

>> No.6341487

>>6341482
to be fair Ham had the better slide show. and to also to be harsh, I once took a intro astronomy class, and after an hour of the professor explaining how we know the big bang happened, background radiation and all that, the lecture was air tight, and some woman told me she thought it was bogus, I was like what the fuck? how can you ignore all that evidence, so I guess there are probably alot of people who will believe ham because he had nicer slides.

>> No.6341508

>>6341477
The list of scientists was in the context of Nye had just argued that creationists cannot be good scientists.

>> No.6341512

>How do you explain how conscientious arose?

>Well there is a book...

#dont bam with the ham

>> No.6341519

I think the one who one the debate is actually Tom Foreman

>> No.6341521

Nothing like an H. Erectus in a suit arguing against evolution.

>> No.6341534

>>6341178
..listen, nigger, I'll tell you what's really the reason for there being a creationism/evolution debate:
We're not mature enough yet, as a race, to leave childish things behind.

>> No.6341540

>>6341178

Chode is a euphemism for the area between your balls and anus. Perhaps you mean chud.

>> No.6341557

>>6341452
Bill Nye's intent going into the debate wasn't to convince Ken Ham. It was to raise awareness to the rest of the world that there are still people this dumb out there. This is why he kept addressing the internet viewers. He explained this in some other video before the debate.

>> No.6341560

>>6341557
Doesn't this hav to opposite effect?

>A creationists debated Bill Nye
>Huh, I guess Creationism must be a valid belief, Bill Nye would never debate an astrologist (Would he?)

>> No.6341583

>>6341560
No, it would have if he'd actually spent time debating Ham's re-definition non-sense.

>> No.6341585

>>6341540
No, the euphemism for the perineum is gooch. Chode means stubby dick, and chud is a 1984 American horror film.

>> No.6341687

So how did the Debate go?

>> No.6341717

>>6341585
Taint is the only euphemism for perineum I've heard.

>> No.6341722

>>6341452
He made a few bad jokes. If that's what you're taking away from the gigantic pile of evidence Nye dropped on Ham's head, you're more than slightly retarded.

And the way he phrased the boss joke made it clear that he was just making the joke because he knew it was bad.

>> No.6342226

>>6341717
Yes, that's another one.

>> No.6342238

>>6341183
This.

The debate doesn't actually exist outside of some American circles that refuse to believe what people find out about the world.

>> No.6342240

>>6341183
This.

Now intelligent design vs evolution would have been a more interesting debate.

Personally I think the ancient alien theory doesn't get enough attention. While I know evolution is true it is not out of the realm of possibilities that this planet was seeded.

>> No.6342246

>>6342240
Well, the ancient alien theory really just goes back to the same problem of "where did these aliens come from?"

Just like putting God in ANY theory just begs for the question "where did God come from?" to be asked.

I think it's best to assume that there isn't an external factor involved until it shows up. Otherwise it's just too easy to push the problem away.

>> No.6342245

>>6341457
>"God did it." the simplest explanation?
But it's not an explanation, it doesn't explain anything.

>> No.6342257

>>6342246
>Well, the ancient alien theory really just goes back to the same problem of "where did these aliens come from?"

Evolution on other planets.

But you are correct, then the creationist outlook would still be the same.

>> No.6342273

>>6341183
So much this.
All my this.

>> No.6342975

>>6341557
>there are still people this dumb out there
Well, I am not going to say the earth is 6,000 years old... But Ham is correct when he states that if you are basing age on Carbon-14 dating, that dating includes assumptions that we do not know are actual facts.

First and foremost, we still do not know what causes spontaneous radioactive decay. Without that knowledge, we cant state as a proof that C14 decays at a constant rate. But we assume it does since we havent found an example otherwise. (yet)

We also do must assume that C14 is always created in the same ratio with C12.

While Ken is right to point out these 'assumptions' he still didnt provide a theory or evidence that supported a 'quicker' decay for C14, or a more abundant supply of C14 to account for a 6000 year history of the earth.

Bill Nye's bandwagoning & appeals to the crowd is where I feel he lost the show to Ham.

>> No.6342991

I'm sorry, but creationism just doesn't make sense to me. If you look at nature all you see are cycles, nothing is "created" by nature. Nature is just a load of cycles, which is why a cyclic multiverse theory seems to sit better in my head than creationism. I don't know though, that's just how I feel about the whole situation.

>> No.6343013

>>6342975
There is a whole lot more going on than carbon dating, that is just one tool a geologist might use in determining the age of a formation.

I suspect its all controlled opposition and because Jesuits and Vatican still wield so much power, the dialect won't be going away any time soon. In fact most of the violent reactionary revolutions through the last 2000 years are precisely because of this theocratic patriarchal dogma. It's an unbalanced approach to philosophy in general, is a giant yoke on civilization and today threatening the natural world in many ways. Nature doesn't care is the important thing we need to understand, if the smart monkey puts a bullet in his head over popular religion and holy lands from 2 millennium ago. Rome just needs to let go, but they never will.

>> No.6343021

>>6342975
>First and foremost, we still do not know what causes spontaneous radioactive decay. Without that knowledge, we cant state as a proof blah blah blah horseshit

We dont know how gravity works, either. And yet we can make INCREDIBLY ACCURATE PREDICTIONS, because of the fact that gravity always works the same way as has always been observed.

Same fucking story for spontaneous radioactive decay. Your argument is thoroughly unconvincing.

>> No.6343026

>>6342975
>We also do must assume that C14 is always created in the same ratio with C12

This is patently false. There are tons of methods used to check for and correct various discrepancies in these ratios.

Its like you didnt even bother to read the wiki article at the very least before coming here to shitpost.

>> No.6343047

>>6343021
>We dont know how gravity works, either.
We also assume gravity is constant throughout earth's history as well. but there no proof that its always been 9.8m/s2

>>6343026
you, entirely, missed the point. We do not know, for a fact, that this ratio is *constant* through-out the billions of years the earth has been around.

>> No.6343056

>>6343047
>We do not know, for a fact, that this ratio is *constant* through-out the billions of years the earth has been around.
It hasn't been exactly constant and nor is it assumed to be. We know this because we can measure historic levels with ice cores.

>> No.6343070

>>6343047
>tells anon he missed the point
>misses the point completely

wow. who would have seen the fail coming. from a creationsist faggot, no less.

anon was pointing out, quite correctly, that C14 and C12 ratios are NOT assumed to be constant, and that there are indeed a number of corrections and ways to double or triple check those corrections.

radiocarbon dating is an extremely rigorous science, unlike your arguments.

>> No.6343071

>>6343047
>we also assume gravity is constant

occams razor, dipshit. as well as the fact that there is no suitable theory to explain or predict the never before seen changes in natural laws.

>> No.6344752

>tfw the stream wasn't available in my country

Can someone sum up the debate for me?

>> No.6344796

>>6344752
Common sense scientific knowledge vs "muh bibble".

>> No.6344799

>>6343056

How do you know the ice cones are "historic"?

>> No.6344802

>>6344752
Nye ignores the actual debate and talks about science education. Ham recites creationist nonsense.

>> No.6345250
File: 185 KB, 950x713, delk-track.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6345250

>>6341411
>I admire people like Ham and Hovind they are truly a inspiration

I agree, Kent Hovind is the reason I believe in the young earth creation account.
The guy always has evidence to back his theories, and he is an excellent teacher.

Ken said in the debate that "we have the same evidence" I agree with that. Evolutionist sees dinosaur fossils and creates a theory, and assumes this is correct. So they dismiss any other theories, and ignore evidence that is in opposition to their theory. (pic related)

If anyone is interested in the creation account of dinosaurs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsQIF7Yh3hI

>> No.6345280

>>6341341
>>6341392
>>6341394
>>6341398
>>6341400
samefag

>> No.6345291

>>6345250
Go away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCoH1Uf3ZCg

>> No.6345296

>>6345250
This guy is a screwball.

>> No.6345299

>>6345250
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY

>> No.6345309

>>6345250
Ken Hovind is a lunitic who isn't accepted by the scientific community, not because scientists are afraid of his ideas, but because he is a complete moron doing psuedoscience.

A religious nutjob has an agenda, while the scientific community objectivly scrutinize the world.

>> No.6345386

I cant even believe that this debate happened. Its only for plus for creationists. It shows people that creationism is the same level theory and has the same probability to happen as evolution.

Maybe next time scientists should do a debate with hollow earth theorists.

>> No.6346941

>>6345386
Come on, it was a fun event.

>> No.6349093

>>6341183
Wikipedia calls it a debate and a controversy.

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

>> No.6349100

AMERICANS OF THIS BOARD STOP MAKING RELIGION THREADS, NO ONE, I REAPEAT: NO ONE FUCKING CARES ABOUT RELIGION IN THE REST OF THE WORLD

this should be bannable

>> No.6349110
File: 181 KB, 582x651, retarded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6349110

>>6349093
THE ADVANCED WORLD DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK

>> No.6351400

>>6341183
That's true. Creationism is irrefutably true. Humans don't "evolve" progress - they freely choose and jump in spurts. God created the world likewise. Why would an all-powerful Creator need to "evolve" His Creation into existence?

Especially, this debate at best resolves into agnosticism for the "scientific evolutionist", because there is no functional difference in observing a world created by an all-powerful God AS IF it evolved, vs. the world actually evolving on its own.

Given that there is the possibility of debate, evolution has never been proven as fact and is a dubious theory, which will likely be explained away by future research.

>> No.6352567

>>6349100
>>6349110
This isn't about religion. This is about science.

>> No.6352590

>>6351400
>they freely choose
meine seiten

>> No.6352982

>>6349110
>not in the USA
>call yourself advanced
ITT: butthurt poorfags

>> No.6353068

>>6352982
You aren't rich you fucking faggot.

>> No.6353222

>Think about it. One view has a lot of material/data shortened to a small amount of time, and the other is a lot of material/data stretched out over a long amount of time. What I'm trying to say is Ken Ham has the chode.

Science has all the same material as Ken Ham, it just examined it so it could find out which bits to discard because it was bollocks.

>> No.6353246

>>6352567
>I'm not shouting, he is!

>> No.6353392

>>6351400
I smell a troll. There is definitely one among us. You do realize this is /sci/? Go to /x/ or some shit...

>> No.6353441

>>6341398
>#rekt by a BIBLICAL christian
Um... what?

>> No.6354155

>>6351400
Shitty troll.
0/10

>> No.6354317

>>6341178
wow the people on /sci/ are just as ignorant and arrogant about their understandings as creationists.

Everyone should move forward together

>> No.6354371

>>6341540
>area between your balls and anus
That would be the "taint."

>> No.6354373
File: 160 KB, 736x1209, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6354373

I would just like to take this small moment to remind you all that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has had no problem with evolution from the day Darwin published his book, and continues to pump cleric scientists out of her seminaries who actively argue against creationism and for chemical evolution, micro evolution and macro evolution.

That is all

Continue on

>> No.6356047

>>6354317
I'm sure they were being "ironic".

>> No.6356083

>>6354373
Yeah, Catholics are generally pretty open to scientific thought. It's the damn Creationist Baptists who generate the idea of Christianity as anti-science and pro-stupidity.

Jesuits 4 lyfe.

>> No.6357990

Has there been an official poll? Who won the debate?

>> No.6359603

>>6357990
Both won because both learned something.

>> No.6359663

>>6354373
>from the day Darwin published his book
I'm having a particularly hard time believing this little tidbit.

>> No.6359699

>>6341178
Daaam. He looks just like Moriarty from SH 2009.

>> No.6359710

>>6343013
The Catholic church officially supports evolution. Go read Vatican II.

Creationists are mostly protestants.

>> No.6361716

>>6359663
When did he publish his book?