Whenever creationists pull the "where did matter come from?" card, I wish I could be there just to be an ass and mess with them.
Creationist: Where did matter come from?
Me: I don't know, where did God come from?
Creationist: God is eternal, He has always been.
Me: Well, fine then, matter has always been.
Creationist: What makes you say that?
Me: Well, you believe that God created the world because it says so in the Bible, and the Bible is true because the Bible is the word of God, which is true, because it says so in the Bible*, right? ... well then, I believe that matter has always been because I have this little piece of paper in my pocket that says that matter has always been, and here on the other side is says that what's written on this piece of paper is true. So because the text on this paper is true—which I know because the paper says so—I know for sure that matter has always been.
It wouldn't do anything good for anyone, I just want to try it and see what sorts of mind gymnastics they'd pull to defend their claims while dismissing mine.
*Actual creationist logic.
|
Me: Well, you believe that God created the world because it says so in the Bible, and the Bible is true because the Bible is the word of God, which is true, because it says so in the Bible*, right? ... well then, I believe that matter has always been because I have this little piece of paper in my pocket that says that matter has always been, and here on the other side is says that what's written on this piece of paper is true. So because the text on this paper is true—which I know because the paper says so—I know for sure that matter has always been.
"I know the Good Book's good because
the Good Book says it's goodI know the Good Book knows it's good
because a really Good book would..."
In a more serious tone, it boils down to some religious people being incapable of recognizing that they are living by an a priory assumption.
Creationism isn't "toxic" and I'm sure for the most part the intention is not to harm anyone. It's merely crazy.toxic ideology
It isn't?
Tell me more.|
|
Creationism isn't "toxic" and I'm sure for the most part the intention is not to harm anyone. It's merely crazy.toxic ideology
It isn't?
Tell me more.
I mean, honestly, what's the point?
For me, the entire issue with creationists is that they insist to view the world through the predetermined decision to not see anything that conflicts with their religion.
Insisting that they mean harm is doing essentially the same thing, which defeats the purpose. They truly, honestly managed to shut their brains for long enough to accept that the Earth is 6000 years old because of a random collection of numbers (ages of several generations of people) in a book, and they are incapable of facing evidence to the contrary. But what is the harm they are trying to cause? except a nauseating, blinding self conviction they are guilty of nothing. They annoy you, which led you to believe they actually mean harm, but they really don't.
At least, none of those Iv'e heard of. And Kem Ham certainly doesn't mean any harm. He is not "toxic" - please save this word for those who deserve it.
Bottom line is, don't undermine your own criticism by claiming that those you attack are worse than they actually are - if you have a real reason to attack these people, than that reason should suffice to prove your point.
They'll BE guilty of real harm if left unchallenged and allowed to, in essence, preach in science classes. That, I think, is the value of Nye debating this guy, or anyone doing so: setting an example of confronting that nonsense when it jumps the fence to places it doesn't belong.
|
|
They'll BE guilty of real harm if left unchallenged and allowed to, in essence, preach in science classes. That, I think, is the value of Nye debating this guy, or anyone doing so: setting an example of confronting that nonsense when it jumps the fence to places it doesn't belong.
True, they are capable of accidental causing harm. But they certainly don't intend it.
If a dog ruined your lawn, would you say the dog is "toxic"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Insisting that they mean harm is doing essentially the same thing, which defeats the purpose. They truly, honestly managed to shut their brains for long enough to accept that the Earth is 6000 years old because of a random collection of numbers (ages of several generations of people) in a book, and they are incapable of facing evidence to the contrary. But what is the harm they are trying to cause? except a nauseating, blinding self conviction they are guilty of nothing.
Nono, they're trying to insist that OTHERS be just as blind. They are trying to teach their beliefs as fact in public schools. They are trying to spread their ignorance by telling people that to do otherwise is to risk eternal torment.
THAT'S what's toxic.
They'll BE guilty of real harm if left unchallenged and allowed to, in essence, preach in science classes. That, I think, is the value of Nye debating this guy, or anyone doing so: setting an example of confronting that nonsense when it jumps the fence to places it doesn't belong.True, they are capable of accidental causing harm. But they certainly don't intend it.
If a dog ruined your lawn, would you say the dog is "toxic"?
If I were a property owner, and I caught a dog on my property doing his business, I would shoot him in the goddamn face.
But I hate dogs.
|
They'll BE guilty of real harm if left unchallenged and allowed to, in essence, preach in science classes. That, I think, is the value of Nye debating this guy, or anyone doing so: setting an example of confronting that nonsense when it jumps the fence to places it doesn't belong.True, they are capable of accidental causing harm. But they certainly don't intend it.
If a dog ruined your lawn, would you say the dog is "toxic"?
If I were a property owner, and I caught a dog on my property doing his business, I would shoot him in the g~+$@*n face.
But I hate dogs.
What a classy, fun guy you must be.
But I hate dogs.
that explains so much...
The most telling part of the Nye-Ham debate was when both were asked "What would change your mind about this issue?"
Bill Nye, speaking for science: "Verified empirical evidence."
Ken Ham, speaking for religious fanaticism: "NOTHING."This.
Kinda makes the exercise pointless.Hopefully the people in the room were more willing to be swayed by evidence than Ham.
It seems like that's what most debate is about. You're probably not going to change your position, and neither is the other guy. You debate because you're trying to convince the audience.
Also, because it's entertaining.
I've seen this go both ways. For every fundamentalist like Ken Ham, there's also a fanatic who blindly attacks religion and argues that believing in something not yet proven through science is a fool's way of living. Of course, these people are unaware that inductive reasoning and making not yet proven assumptions forms the cornerstone of the scientific process. Ultimately, people attacking people for "blindly" believing in God also blindly believe in science.
Thankfully, this isn't the case with Bill Nye, who openly stated he supported science supporters whose lives are enriched by faith.
The most telling part of the Nye-Ham debate was when both were asked "What would change your mind about this issue?"
Bill Nye, speaking for science: "Verified empirical evidence."
Ken Ham, speaking for religious fanaticism: "NOTHING."
It's not a debate if one side refuses to entertain the opposition's perspective. But again, the point is to convince the audience, not each other.
Of course, these people are unaware that inductive reasoning and making not yet proven assumptions forms the cornerstone of the scientific process.
Do you believe inductive reasoning works. Why or why not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that explains so much...But I hate dogs.
FWIW I like wolves.
I've yet to meet a dog owner--and I've known hundreds--that has any control over their animal. This includes hunters who have done obedience training. I don't like being accosted by strange animals. A few months ago, as I was leaving for work and my neighbor's dogs barged in my apartment door while I was leaving. Not on a leash, owner has no control over his animals, barking like mad hounds.
I feel the same way about humans. If some stranger's kid jumps on me while I'm walking in the park, my first reaction is to punch it in the face.
A few months ago, as I was leaving for work and my neighbor's dogs barged in my apartment door while I was leaving. Not on a leash, owner has no control over his animals, barking like mad hounds.
Try giving them a pet or telling them to sit instead.
EDIT: Except that I don't want them. I want them gone. They're invading my space without consent. It's not cool when people do it, and it's not cool when animals do it.
You want me to pet strange children?
*eyebrow*
Why do i have the feeling that for once i'm NOT the one with the good drugs in the conversation...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Creationism isn't "toxic" and I'm sure for the most part the intention is not to harm anyone. It's merely crazy.toxic ideology
Well people have already stated it basically but I will chime in:
If creationists were happy to keep their believes to themselves, their family, and their church, than yeah, they would be harmless.
But the creationist movement in the states (not sure if you are in the the USA or not) is heavily involved in trying to get textbooks rewritten or dumbed down, as well as trying to push creationism into the curriculum as an equally valid scientific viewpoint on the formation of life.
This if allowed to spread and increase is only going to increase science illiteracy in our country, and produce generations of students who are not really capable of dealing with such new technologies such as gene therapy, etc.
Plus this is part of an entire parcel of poorly thought out faith-based education reforms, so it sort of goes hand in hand with ideas like abstinence-based sex ed, increased censorship of books with "harmful materials, etc.
I am really, honestly and truly grateful at the fortune I had at being born after numerous generations of people who think more carefully than you do.
An insult like that deserves something to back it up.
You are talking as if every major thing to discover in the universe is already known about.
I said point blank there is more stuff to learn and that science isn't complete.
Shrugging off extremely complicated questions (like induction - a concept that I have, personally, proved in a rigorous mathematical way is not always true) as "already solved" when they are really not is an excellent way to never, ever discover anything new.
Yet you have no problem completely dismissing Hams concerns about the validity of science. Why is that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They'll BE guilty of real harm if left unchallenged and allowed to, in essence, preach in science classes. That, I think, is the value of Nye debating this guy, or anyone doing so: setting an example of confronting that nonsense when it jumps the fence to places it doesn't belong.True, they are capable of accidental causing harm. But they certainly don't intend it.
If a dog ruined your lawn, would you say the dog is "toxic"?
Do you really think no creationists seek to cause harm with their beliefs? That their pushing creationism is not linked to broader religious issues - sex ed, abortion and the like?
|
|
Do you really think no creationists seek to cause harm with their beliefs? That their pushing creationism is not linked to broader religious issues - sex ed, abortion and the like?They'll BE guilty of real harm if left unchallenged and allowed to, in essence, preach in science classes. That, I think, is the value of Nye debating this guy, or anyone doing so: setting an example of confronting that nonsense when it jumps the fence to places it doesn't belong.True, they are capable of accidental causing harm. But they certainly don't intend it.
If a dog ruined your lawn, would you say the dog is "toxic"?
I believe serious harm could come of it, but I am pretty sure they do not seek to cause it.
|
|
I am really, honestly and truly grateful at the fortune I had at being born after numerous generations of people who think more carefully than you do.
An insult like that deserves something to back it up.
You are talking as if every major thing to discover in the universe is already known about.I said point blank there is more stuff to learn and that science isn't complete.
Shrugging off extremely complicated questions (like induction - a concept that I have, personally, proved in a rigorous mathematical way is not always true) as "already solved" when they are really not is an excellent way to never, ever discover anything new.Yet you have no problem completely dismissing Hams concerns about the validity of science. Why is that?
I am not dismissing Ham's concernes about the validity of science. Some of his points had some solid ground to work from. Science is not above criticism and it is not nearly 100% valid.
It's Ham's moronic, childish, simplistic idea that all you need to do is ignore 98% of what makes sense and embrace a book that is quite obviously not divine that makes me reject his ideas. His suggested model is much more problematic that the one he criticizes.
It's just that the argument - "your worldview is imperfect and thus should be replaced by a load of c#!p" is not a very good one. If he just stopped at "your worldview is imperfect" I would have accepted his point, replied with a "I know, some very smart people are working on that as we speak", and carried on.
....but, plants CRAVE BRAWNDO.
It's like driving an ice cream truck full of angry bees to a petting zoo which will make you become popular with law enforcement.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe serious harm could come of it, but I am pretty sure they do not seek to cause it.Do you really think no creationists seek to cause harm with their beliefs? That their pushing creationism is not linked to broader religious issues - sex ed, abortion and the like?They'll BE guilty of real harm if left unchallenged and allowed to, in essence, preach in science classes. That, I think, is the value of Nye debating this guy, or anyone doing so: setting an example of confronting that nonsense when it jumps the fence to places it doesn't belong.True, they are capable of accidental causing harm. But they certainly don't intend it.
If a dog ruined your lawn, would you say the dog is "toxic"?
I'm pretty sure that they do seek to cause it. Even if they think it's right.
I couldn't watch the debate in a single run. Got too angry.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Creationism isn't "toxic" and I'm sure for the most part the intention is not to harm anyone. It's merely crazy.toxic ideology
I would argue that it is very toxic. It intentionally puts people against science. It intentionally trains people to go against what humanity has learned about how the world actually works. That makes them significantly less productive members of society and decreases our collective ability to make advances in technology. It causes people to doubt experts and believe those talking out of their ass. It puts quackerty on the same level as actual science. It helps other anti-science movements like anti-vax and anti-global warming to grow and gain legitamecy when the evidence clearly shows they are wrong. This affects political policy and our ability to respond to growing epidemics. It affects how competative we are in the buisness world, since science and technology is one of the few areas the US is still a leader in.
YEC breeds an anti-science culture which is one of the biggest problems facing our country right now.
Perusing this thread reminded me of an anecdote from a Bertrand Russell essay in Why I Am Not a Christian that, alas, I couldn't find.
Jist of it was: there was a debate in South Africa between the Flat Earth Society and a ship's capitain whose only argument about the shape of the earth was that he had sailed around it.
The Flat Earth Society speaker kicked his ass.
They truly, honestly managed to shut their brains for long enough to accept that the Earth is 6000 years old because of a random collection of numbers (ages of several generations of people) in a book, and they are incapable of facing evidence to the contrary.Most creationists are not YECers. It's perfectly possible to reconcile "I believe that all that exists is because of divine will" and "We can base the age of the universe, earth, etc. on physical observation of phenomena". There's your easy argument about why creationism isn't toxic.
Young Earth Creationism is a pretty specific movement. I don't have a problem with calling them toxic. But they're not in the majority of religious people, or even American Christians.
The problem is that most of the first group of creationists I have met/seen don't actually know that YEC even exists. When creationism gets covered or talked about, everyone is refering to the second group. But when polls are being conducted, both groups are being lumped together. This gives the appearance of legitamecy to YEC that they need to push their agenda.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Creationism itself is not toxic.
When it's used to lead people to ignorance, or as a justification for horrible things, it can be. But that's much more up to the intentions of the person using it.
I can believe God created the universe, and not believe He did it 6000 years ago. I can believe in evolution, and believe it's an inherent mechanism of nature He built into the system.
I do not believe the Bible is meant to be taken literally, or to be used as a history book. It's meant as a guide book, with anecdotes and allegory of things that have come before, to help how you choose to live your life. Is it divinely inspired? Yes, I think so. But like so many other things left to humans, it can be corrupted to serve as a means to oppress or subjugate people. How much power you give someone else over you is your decision, though. Think for yourself.
I imagine sometimes that God's forehead is red from all the facepalming.
TL;DR People are a%@*@*$s. They can do mean crap to other people, intentionaly or otherwise. The tools they use to do so aren't at fault, or inherently bad or toxic because of this.
I imagine sometimes that God's forehead is red from all the facepalming.
Being omnipresent, none of this is news to him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few months ago, as I was leaving for work and my neighbor's dogs barged in my apartment door while I was leaving. Not on a leash, owner has no control over his animals, barking like mad hounds.Try giving them a pet or telling them to sit instead.
Yeah, I'm with meatrace on this one. I shouldn't have to pet your dog or tell it to sit and I shouldn't have to shrug off your kid. Keep your animals and kids under control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Creationism itself is not toxic.
When it's used to lead people to ignorance, or as a justification for horrible things, it can be. But that's much more up to the intentions of the person using it.
I can believe God created the universe, and not believe He did it 6000 years ago. I can believe in evolution, and believe it's an inherent mechanism of nature He built into the system.
I do not believe the Bible is meant to be taken literally, or to be used as a history book. It's meant as a guide book, with anecdotes and allegory of things that have come before, to help how you choose to live your life. Is it divinely inspired? Yes, I think so. But like so many other things left to humans, it can be corrupted to serve as a means to oppress or subjugate people. How much power you give someone else over you is your decision, though. Think for yourself.
I imagine sometimes that God's forehead is red from all the facepalming.TL;DR People are a*~$%@%s. They can do mean crap to other people, intentionaly or otherwise. The tools they use to do so aren't at fault, or inherently bad or toxic because of this.
Wikipedia has a bunch of different types of creationism. The US has 40% of the population refusing to believe that humans evolved from primates, with annother 20% unsure. Sure, 1 of the types listed is perfectly compatible with science, but a larger percent of the US population believes the versions that outright reject science - the versions that are toxic. When people complain about creationism, they aren't talking about theistic evolution, which is what you belive. Heck, the second most compatible with science wants to include magic in the scientic method.
YEC breeds an anti-science culture which is one of the biggest problems facing our country right now.
Which is in part WHY it gets funded. Science has some very dire things to say that can be very costly to many business interests.
It's just that the argument - "your worldview is imperfect and thus should be replaced by a load of c#!p" is not a very good one. If he just stopped at "your worldview is imperfect" I would have accepted his point, replied with a "I know, some very smart people are working on that as we speak", and carried on.
And can't Ham simply do the same to you, claiming that the "alleged problems" with his hypothesis are being "worked on" ?
I imagine sometimes that God's forehead is red from all the facepalming.Being omnipresent, none of this is news to him.
I think you meant omniscient...
I know my sister is an idealist. Nothing she says or does suprises me.
I still facepalm. Frequently.
Assuming God has a forehead...
I would argue that most of organized religion is very toxic. Faith in on itself isn't but religion is.
I can't argue with that statement.
I think the fundamental flaw in creationism as it pertains to the literal 6 days of creation was that the interpretation is vague. The supposition that everything from Genesis 1:1-5 happened on day was is debatable. Contextually, all verse 5 talks about is dividing light into day and evening. This could very well refer to that single act on the first day. However, there is no universal time scale from verse to verse. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth." End verse. Genesis 1:2 "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Again, no time reference. Only in verse 5 is there reference to time after the creation of light.
So, creationism itself can be viable in a scientific universe. The assumption of a unifying scale of time between verses is folly as the Bible throughout does not have a consistent time scale from verse to verse, chapter to chapter or book to book. In some places dates are mentioned. In others they are not and they simply skip to the next event. Regardless of what contemporary acceptance of those verses mean, objectively, that acceptance is a thing of interpretation and not ascriptive of the text.
The problem with creationism is that it's too vague on which to hang a scientific thesis. With the account given in the Bible it can neither be proven nor unproven as the events is describes are clearly evident to have happened as we can observe each of them. There is day and night, there are stars, oceans, land, animals, etc. It does not describe the process by which these things came to be outside of the will of God by his commanding them to be so. Given certain ideas of quantum mechanics and consciousness, it could be said God is the universe experiencing itself. So, in a way, all that we have and are could be the will of God but that would mean transforming the view of God from being an external force that we may pray to to being an internal one to existence itself that is a part of us by us merely existing in kind. It could be said, even, that God created science. Proverbs 25:2 says that it is the pleasure of God to conceal a thing and the honor of kings to discover it.
Now, there are problem with the Bible if you stand back and examine it as a whole. In pieces, it is utterly beautiful. However, it contains things we'd call horrors and travesties according to modern views. So, should we accept as the source of objective truth? As a whole, no. In pieces as it makes sense to a situation I think there is much guidance and wisdom within but I also don't think it's an instruction manual on how to live. At best it is a collection of musings. Some of these very well may be the inspired word of God but they were written by man's hands all the same and all should be subject to scrutiny. It's not even all that original in the greater context of holy books categorically as many others contain pearls of wisdom as well.
Our modern times have taken an understanding of observation and process and have done great things with it. This should continue. I don't think we should close ourselves off to potential sources of understanding even if today we think something is utter nonsense. So, debate and revisiting older thoughts and observations should be as encouraged as eschewing them to advance the bleeding edge of understanding. Nothing says those two worlds are even different. Many of our cues for advancement come from old ideas mixed with new perspectives and result in absolute genius.
As to the debate I can sympathize with Mr. Ham. He is sincerely trying to preserve an ancient tradition that is falling out of vogue. I don't think everything we could learn from the Bible has been tapped so I think that is unfortunate. The same is true of other faiths. I would hate to see the day when humanity abandons any faith system and relies completely on cold, hard logic of observation. There should be mystery and wonder in our daily lives and Mr. Ham has that. Even if he is laughed at I think him and those like him can come up with savant like levels of clarity on particular subjects as evidenced by his associate's achievements. Because of that, they should not be discounted.
The old hat always looks tattered, dusty, and worthless. We would be better people to repair the old hat with modern understanding and to use that as a framework to fashion the new. In essence, I guess what I'm saying is never discount where you came from as a people or as a person, and I hope we never forget that.
Wikipedia has a bunch of different types of creationism. The US has 40% of the population refusing to believe that humans evolved from primates, with annother 20% unsure. Sure, 1 of the types listed is perfectly compatible with science, but a larger percent of the US population believes the versions that outright reject science - the versions that are toxic. When people complain about creationism, they aren't talking about theistic evolution, which is what you belive. Heck, the second most compatible with science wants to include magic in the scientic method.
I wouldn't say I believe "theistic evolution", per se. Did we evolve from primates? Maybe. Did we have to in order to be here? Dunno.
The how's simply don't matter to me, aren't important to my personal beliefs, and aren't worth splitting hairs about.I'm not going to go on a rant about monkey hands and bananas or anything...
Wikipedia has a bunch of different types of creationism. The US has 40% of the population refusing to believe that humans evolved from primates, with annother 20% unsure. Sure, 1 of the types listed is perfectly compatible with science, but a larger percent of the US population believes the versions that outright reject science - the versions that are toxic. When people complain about creationism, they aren't talking about theistic evolution, which is what you belive. Heck, the second most compatible with science wants to include magic in the scientic method.I wouldn't say I believe "theistic evolution", per se. Did we evolve from primates? Maybe. Did we have to in order to be here? Dunno.
The how's simply don't matter to me, aren't important to my personal beliefs, and aren't worth splitting hairs about.
I'm not going to go on a rant about monkey hands and bananas or anything...
And that attitude is most consistent with theistic evolution when compared to the other major categories.
I imagine sometimes that God's forehead is red from all the facepalming.Being omnipresent, none of this is news to him.I think you meant omniscient...
I know my sister is an idealist. Nothing she says or does suprises me.
I still facepalm. Frequently.Assuming God has a forehead...
Omnipresent, he's everywhere at all times, that would include the past and the future. It's even in the Bible, that God knows the entirety of all events, past, present and future.
Acts 15:18
Known to God from eternity are all His works
Before creating anything, God knew that the serpent would trick Eve into eating the apple.
Too bad he decided to retire on earth presumably to await his reaping. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the account given in the Bible it can neither be proven nor unproven as the events is describes are clearly evident to have happened as we can observe each of them.
The order of creation is wrong. The bible has fish+birds, then land animals. We know that the order is fish, a really long wait land animals, then birds.
I imagine sometimes that God's forehead is red from all the facepalming.Being omnipresent, none of this is news to him.I think you meant omniscient...
I know my sister is an idealist. Nothing she says or does suprises me.
I still facepalm. Frequently.Assuming God has a forehead...
Omnipresent, he's everywhere at all times, that would include the past and the future. It's even in the Bible, that God knows the entirety of all events, past, present and future.
Acts 15:18
Known to God from eternity are all His worksBefore creating anything, God knew that the serpent would trick Eve into eating the apple.
Cool. So His omnipresence makes Him omniscient?