RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,521
Posts: 5,512,182
Members: 25,138
Currently online: 502
Newest member: Tosty82

TrekToday headlines

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 11 2014, 12:52 AM   #91
Timelord Victorious
TARDIS Janitor
 
Timelord Victorious's Avatar
 
Location: Germany, Earth, the Solar System
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

Oh, we are posting funny things now?



Timelord Victorious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11 2014, 08:51 AM   #92
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

Well, in defense of creationists, Darwinists don't have a very good explanation for why we would've climbed down from the trees, other than we realized that living in a tree really sucks when you get down to it. In fact, living in a tree is really pretty stupid for anything bigger than a bird or a squirrel. Sure, as a tree dweller you get to poop on ground dwellers, but isn't there more to life's hierarchy than that? Is the fun of dropping a turd on some other animal's head really worth foregoing pottery, farming, metallurgy, and aerospace engineering? Swinging on a vine is fun, but is it really all that? And it's not like living in trees protects you from the wrath of Zeus, because above all he seems to despise tall trees.

But still, Darwinists haven't offered a convincing account of how the first ground dwellers convinced their breeding cohorts to get down out of the trees.

"I say there. Do you realize you're in a f***ing tree?"

"Yes, and if you come closer I'll poop on your head."

"Do you have any life goals, or is pooping on my head pretty much it?"

"I can poop on your head and swing from branches."

"Delightful. Well, I'm down here on the ground where all the cool stuff is. Flint, gazelles, tasty berries, running water, pretty much the entire future of Western civilization."

"We have free bananas."

"Yes, but you don't have banana farms, because to make a banana farm you'd have to come down here and plant a bunch of banana trees."

"Well, you build the banana farms and then we'll live there and eat the bananas."

"Now why would I do that?"

"Because it's socialism! It's fairness! Why should you horde all the bananas?"

"But I haven't actually planted the banana trees yet. This is all hypothetical."

"My tribe, poop on the heads of the greedy capitalist exploiters!!! They're trying to trick us down with imaginary bananas!"

"Oh bollocks. I'm heading onto the plains to seek my fortune."

There's really no way Darwinists can sidestep that situation.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11 2014, 09:37 AM   #93
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

Well, I don't have anything funny to add, but I did watch this debate recently. A friend at work recommended it.

I found the whole thing fascinating. I was raised as a Christian, but over the past year, my faith in the Bible has steadily waned. But even at my most fundamentalist, I've never been a YEC.

Anyhow. I find my personal beliefs becoming quite secular, leaning towards the idea that some creative intelligence started everything out via the Big Bang and then everything unfolded as per Science.

But, even though I think Genesis is, at best, metaphor, I would hope that people who argue against it would not do so from their own position of ignorance.

This post is a perfect example:


Yminale wrote: View Post
J. Allen wrote: View Post
The risk there, though, is that when you go off message, you might dilute your point in the process.
I agree with you but I think Nye was making that point when he said about the billions that didn't agree with Ken Ham. It just was a clunky argument.

I also respect Nye for staying with the science but some theology would have hit Ham in the gut.

1. Genesis is full of inconsistency. Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 is the most famous. God created man and woman together in 1:1 and then created woman AFTER man in 1:2. Also God orders Noah to originally save 6 pairs of the sacred animals and then orders Noah to save a pair of every animal. Good Grief Lord which is it.

2. Ark means box that holds something sacred. It does not mean boat.

3. People lived HOW LONG back then. Let Ham explain that.

4. On the first day God created the Sea and the Sky. Uh how can you do that without creating a planet first.

5. If stars came at the same time why are they different ages.

6. Why does God hate DINOSAURS!!!

Etc. infinitum.
To address these numbered points:

1: Gen 1:1 and 1:2 have exactly nothing to do with the creation of humans of any gender.

The verses read: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 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."

You may be thinking of Gen 1:26-28 where God creates male and female in his image, and then Gen 2:7 and 22 where God creates Adam from the dust of the earth and then creates Eve from Adam's rib. These are not two different stories, but rather, follow the style throughout Genesis where the different sections of story have their own introductions and sometimes retelling of events in a different context. Usually these sections begin with a phrase like "This is the history of..." or similar.

Such so-called contradictions are usually the result of people giving the text the most cursory of examinations. If you think about it, it's really a very insulting attitude to both the ancient people who wrote these books and all those who believed in them up to our own times to suggest that they all just latched on to something so riddled with internal flaws as people like you suggest.

2: You are correct in calling out the Ark as being a box and not a boat. Though, I do still think A Great Flood did happen, I don't personally believe The Great Flood ever covered the entire surface of the earth... certainly not 4,000 years ago. However, certain of the details do seem more plausible to me if the vessel was a simple box shape and not anything at all boat shaped.

3: The Bible does claim extraordinary life spans for humans of ancient times. I doubt it. Though I'm sure Ham's explanations would be entertaining.

4: What you (and, ironically, most YECs) seem to have missed is that Gen 1:1 says that the heavens and earth WERE already extant before the time of the start of the first creative day.

And, you again demonstrate your own ignorance of the matter with this one. The second "day" brings "The Expanse" which is the atmosphere, though, again, the "Heavens" or sky had already existed since way back "In the Beginning" at Gen 1:1. On the next day, "Seas" were made in the sense that the dry land was raised above the surface of the already existing watery deeps of Gen 1:2. Both really are, in that sense, already assumed in Gen 1:1,2 and were extant before the first "day" which was the making of light. (and lest you think the ancient Jews were all illogical pea-brains... the Hebrew terms for "create" and "make" have subtle yet definite differences which make it all a lot more internally consistent than you might assume. The definitions allow it all to have been "created" "In the beginning" and the later "making" to refer to how these things effect the surface of the earth where the human audience would be standing... Well... there's a lengthy explanation here but it would go beyond the scope of this topic).

5: The making of stars and the moon and sun on the fourth creative day (note, not the creation of them) clearly demonstrates the ancient cosmology people of that time and place believed in. Though, thanks to the difference between ancient Hebrew "create" and "make" I was able for a long time to rationalize all of this as a poetic description of how current science describes star system formation. Now that I'm less tied to those beliefs, I'm much more ready to say that they just had their own ideas that worked well enough for what they were up to in those days.

6: Why does God hate dinosaurs? The Bible makes no mention of them, as no one in those days knew a thing about them. To the faithful, what possible importance would dinosaurs even have to the topics discussed in the scriptures? The Bible is silent on plenty of sciences, but no one claims God hates electricity simply because He failed to inspire any of his men to write about it. If your comment is about why should they have all been wiped out... well I had my own ideas about this when I was faithful. As the Bible is silent on it, feel free to imagine whatever makes the most sense to you why he made and then destroyed them. YEC's ideas are pretty hard to swallow given the evidence.

--"etc. infinitum"...? I'm not sure how your education failed you with these two very common Latin phrases. Both are similar in usage, but "et cetera" (lit. "and the rest") and "ad infinitum" (lit. "to infinity") aren't usually contracted in this unusual manner.

ANYHOW... the point I'm trying to make here is that if you're trying to persuade people to accept mainstream science over Biblical literalism, then you might have more success if you come across as less of an ignorant jackass while doing so.

Bear in mind, I can tell you from personal experience that the Bible actually does hold up pretty well by itself. I didn't lose my faith over internal inconsistency. For me it was that the details of Biblical history DO NOT line up with the physical evidence of history left in the ground. But you aren't going to win anyone over by telling them how dumb they are to have read a book, especially if it's a book that you have no knowledge about.

Posts like what I quoted above aren't doing anyone any favors.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11 2014, 03:13 PM   #94
N-121973
Commander
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

I watched it last week on Youtube and I thought it was very interesting, and terrifying at the same time. The fact that there were people working on the Hubble Space Telescope who believed that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE was only 6,000 years old, gave me cause for concern. Like some on here I didn't feel that Bill Nye quite delivered the KO (not that it would have changed the minds of any YECs) on the otherhand he clearly performed better than Ken Ham who at times resorted to Bible thumping.

I will give Mr Ham one bit of credit, at no point did he outright say when confronted with an anomaly in the Biblical accounts, that we're not meant to understand it, its all part of God's plan (at least I didn't detect that). Nor did he say when confronted with such things as the 9,000 year old tree or the ice core samples, "God made them to look that old". Playing evil's advocate (in possibly more ways than one ) he could have pointed out that Adam and Eve were created as fully-formed adults - at least I imagine they were and that that's how God did it with the 9,000 year old tree. Now don't get me wrong, his arguments were no less absurd and seemed to hinge on the idea that none of the dating methods from today could be used in the distant past because such measurements haven't remained constant through time. For instance, in the past tree rings appeared at a rate greater than one year per year.

I think there were a couple of places where maybe Mr Nye could have administered a KO, the upper jaw and the solar plexus . No seriously, Mr Ham brought up the laws of logic a couple of times, well given the central Biblical event (apart from the creation itself of course) was the Flood, had I been Bill Nye, I would have to that.

We've all heard of Occam's Razor, aka Murphy's Law, to quote wikipedia: "among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected". Applying that to the Flood, the story falls down.

Lets assume that God can do all that the theists say he can do, including creating an entire universe and its physical laws in only 144 terrestrial hours and making it appear approximately a quarter of a million times older than it actually is by simply willing it into existence. And lets assume that he feels after awhile that humanity has strayed too far from his preferred path. How does he go about resolving this? Well he has a lot of options being omnicient, obvious one, is to alter people's behaviour via mind control, classic example -
"You don't need to see his identification, these aren't the droids you're looking for."
Or there's the Ebenezer Scrooge approach, and scare people into changing their lives.
Nope instead he chooses genocide, deliberately sparing the lives of a fortunate few who he deems worthy based on their behaviour (and I suspect also the quality of their genes).

So how does he go about killing all the humans? A virulent plague perhaps that only kills those who've let God down? Or maybe a storm of meteors? Or how about having all the people deemed worthy of survival, paint their doors with lamb's blood, lock their doors and windows one night with orders not to come out of their homes until morning and then unleash the destroyer he would employ a few centuries later to kill the Egyptian first born, upon the wicked? Or why not just click his fingers and be done with it that way?

No instead he chooses an unnecessarily complicated method that involves a man with no apparent background or skills in naval or marine architecture, building a boat that dwarfs any wooden boat ever built, has him round up two of every KIND (Mr Ham's words) of every land and air animal, numbering many thousands from every corner of what Mr Ham contends was still Pangea. Plus his extended family but minus dinosaurs, wooly mammoths, rhinos, sabre-toothed cats, giant sloths, bigfoot and not forgetting proto humans and neanderthal man. And solve all the logistical problems that would ensue for the year they would be cooped up together. Then he floods the surface of the whole planet in a torrential downpour lasting approximately 960 hours causing Pangea to break apart into the current form of the continents, using water which had to be conjured up out of nowhere as there apparently isn't enough water on Earth to begin with to produce the quantities of rain water required.

Lets be honest, it doesn't hold any water (see what I did there ). No if Mr Nye had used that kind of logic, Mr Ham would have been forced onto the defensive, but he didn't. Another way would have been to bring up ETs. When they were asked during the Q and As what would change their minds, I instantly thought of aliens. If a spaceship landed and aliens got out and reaffirmed the creation story, somehow the chances that an identical account of the same thing springing up on two planets light years apart would have to be at least re-evaluated. And if a spaceship landed and aliens said they'd been observing/visiting Earth far longer than YECs contend the universe has been around, then they would be forced to evaluate their views.

One more note, someone mentioned earlier about belief systems that can be checked, specifically how within a certain mountain

gturner wrote: View Post
The idea stems from a thought I had upon reading the Popul Vu, the Mayan creation story, which was actually much more scientifically accurate than Genesis, holding that the universe is made of a four-fold symmetry (built with strings), and that different physical forces were the result of different gods, and that mankind's direct ancestors are monkeys. It also better handles things like disease and horrible death, which some gods find very amusing, and it is scientifically testable because it holds that we each have a spirit animal living inside a known mountain in Mexico, which could be explored by mining or drilling if you don't get sued by a bunch of lawyers whose spirit animals are worms, spiders, and cockroaches that might be killed during the process.
Unfortunately it doesn't necessarily work like that. I read in Andrew Chaikin's excellent book on the Apollo programme that after their expedition to the Moon, one of the Apollo 14 crew visited a school in Nepal and in a Q & A session with some of the children, he was asked: "When you were on the moon, who did you see?"
They obviously replied that they hadn't seen anyone on the Moon because there was nobody there. They later learned that some Nepalese believe the Moon was where the spirits of the dead go and after they left the teacher is supposed to have told the children to disregard that answer.
N-121973 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11 2014, 04:14 PM   #95
Alidar Jarok
Everything in moderation but moderation
 
Alidar Jarok's Avatar
 
Location: Norfolk, VA
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

gturner wrote: View Post
Well, in defense of creationists, Darwinists don't have a very good explanation for why we would've climbed down from the trees, other than we realized that living in a tree really sucks when you get down to it. In fact, living in a tree is really pretty stupid for anything bigger than a bird or a squirrel. Sure, as a tree dweller you get to poop on ground dwellers, but isn't there more to life's hierarchy than that? Is the fun of dropping a turd on some other animal's head really worth foregoing pottery, farming, metallurgy, and aerospace engineering? Swinging on a vine is fun, but is it really all that? And it's not like living in trees protects you from the wrath of Zeus, because above all he seems to despise tall trees.

But still, Darwinists haven't offered a convincing account of how the first ground dwellers convinced their breeding cohorts to get down out of the trees.
I'm not entirely sure you understand evolution. Those who were better at walking on the ground probably walked on the ground because they were better at it. They got better at it through a random gene mutation.

Given that there are plenty of monkeys that hop around on the ground or sway awkwardly, bipedalism is clearly better than that. It also gives advantages in carrying food and the like - particularly if they mated for life and cared for one another (this is at least one theory I've heard for bipedalism, but it's not exactly provable).

The issue isn't "why did they go on the ground," the issue is "why were the ones on the ground better at survival." However, most apes tend to be on the ground these days so clearly there were some advantages.
__________________
When on Romulus, Do as the Romulans
Alidar Jarok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11 2014, 04:44 PM   #96
Yminale
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Democratically Liberated America
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

Albertese wrote: View Post
To address these numbered points:
You wrote a very long post stating that 1.) we shouldn't take the Bible literally and 2.) the Bible isn't perfect. Well DUH! The point is the more you think about science and read the actual history of the Bible, the less the theistic world view makes sense.
__________________
This Space for Rent
Yminale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11 2014, 04:52 PM   #97
Yminale
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Democratically Liberated America
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

N-121973 wrote: View Post
We've all heard of Occam's Razor, aka Murphy's Law, to quote wikipedia: "among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected". Applying that to the Flood, the story falls down.
.
People need to be careful using Occam's Razor. It's an interesting tautology but flawed. For instance evolution has more assumptions than creationism. Creationism only requires God, while evolution requires a whole assortment of events. The other flaw is that you know all the assumptions beforehand.
__________________
This Space for Rent
Yminale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11 2014, 08:23 PM   #98
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

Months ago I asked the question, why is it an "either or" debate at all? Why can't evolution be seen as one of God's many tools? Is he supposed to control everything at every second? Rain, wind, gene mutations? I guess meteorology is witchcraft as well, because weather doesn't evolve either, thunderstorms are all made by God personally. Wouldn't it be enough to believe that S(HE) created the universe and set up specific rules and mechanics after which the world functions? I don't get why some people are so desperately trying to force the idea of God into the world view.

Also the idea that it's ridiculous to think that the universe big-banged out of nowhere, but it's okay to think that the universe was created by a God that - surprise - came out of nowhere. That additional level doesn't change ANYTHING about the notion that, in the beginning, something came out of Fucking, NW.



Heck, those who say Earth is just 6000 years old deny EVERYTHING. Biology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics, general physics, sociology, archeology, fuck, they disagree with everything.
I guess after the previous plans of keeping the folk stupid via illiteracy didn't work out, religious sects are now counting on those who deliberatly do not read.

Last edited by JarodRussell; February 11 2014 at 08:36 PM.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11 2014, 08:39 PM   #99
B.J.
Rear Admiral
 
B.J.'s Avatar
 
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

__________________
B.J. --- bj-o23.deviantart.com
B.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11 2014, 08:41 PM   #100
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

Kinda the thing. Religion and philosophy is supposed to answer the WHY, not the HOW.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11 2014, 09:06 PM   #101
Solstice
Sexy Wizard
 
Solstice's Avatar
 
Location: I'm so lost T_T
View Solstice's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Solstice Send a message via AIM to Solstice Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Solstice Send a message via Yahoo to Solstice
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

Go tell that to the religious nutters who feel threatened by science. Science isn't telling anyone "your gods don't exist." Science simply isn't concerned with the topic, as it's not scientific.
__________________
Robert Maxwell
I has a blag.
I put on my robe and wizard hat...
Solstice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11 2014, 09:49 PM   #102
Jedi_Master
Rear Admiral
 
Jedi_Master's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

Young Earth Creationists have - in their misguided religious fervor- have done even more damage to the Bible's reputation. Somehow they have found a way to ignore what the Bible ACTUALLY says, refuse to allow thought about who the Genesis account was written for, what Biblical Hebrew means,etc.

A few factual points about the Genesis account.

Genesis 1:1 states that "In the beginning (a translation of a Hebrew word that is not bound by any specific time frame orstart/end point) God created the heavens and the earth"

So in one single verse, the people who believe that the physical universe AND the earth are only 6,000 years old are shown to be believing a falsehood. The Bible is shown to be in agreement with the scientific discoveries that the universe and our planet are very, very old.

Then verse 2 switches perspectives. As Genesis was written for a pastoral, migrant people who had no concept of human flight, were not accustomed to looking at things from a "birds - eye" view, etc Moses described events from the perspective of a person standing on the level of the ground: the earth's atmosphere clearing so that the light of the Sun, moon, and stars would appear, the volcanic and other geological forces causing continents "dry land" to appear, plant life growing and flourishing, animals being created to fill the earth and finally humans.

Well how could each of these events happen in a 24 - hour period?

They didn't. The Hebrew word translated "day" does not refer to a 24 - hour period but rather a period with a defined beginning and a defined end but NOT a defined length. So the Bible does not support the notion that things were created in 24 hour increments. Not only does such a teaching ignore logic and science it also ignores the original languages in which the Bible were written.

There are millions of sensible, honest Christians who DO NOT follow this artificial and insensible construct called "Young - Earth" creationism.

P.S. The Bible states that GOD brought the animals to Noah, not that he sent Noah to go get them.
Jedi_Master is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 12 2014, 12:43 AM   #103
Davros
Fleet Admiral
 
Davros's Avatar
 
Location: Kaled bunker, Skaro
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

Jedi_Master wrote: View Post
P.S. The Bible states that GOD brought the animals to Noah, not that he sent Noah to go get them.
But that doesn't explain how the flightless Kiwi bird got from Turkey to the island of New Zealand after the floods.
__________________
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society," -Oliver Wendell Holmes
Davros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12 2014, 12:52 AM   #104
Timelord Victorious
TARDIS Janitor
 
Timelord Victorious's Avatar
 
Location: Germany, Earth, the Solar System
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

Davros wrote: View Post
Jedi_Master wrote: View Post
P.S. The Bible states that GOD brought the animals to Noah, not that he sent Noah to go get them.
But that doesn't explain how the flightless Kiwi bird got from Turkey to the island of New Zealand after the floods.
Of course god zapped them all back afterwards and poofed the whole ecosystem back into existance so all the animals could commit incest for the next centuries without starving.
Timelord Victorious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12 2014, 01:06 AM   #105
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

Alidar Jarok wrote: View Post
Given that there are plenty of monkeys that hop around on the ground or sway awkwardly, bipedalism is clearly better than that. It also gives advantages in carrying food and the like - particularly if they mated for life and cared for one another (this is at least one theory I've heard for bipedalism, but it's not exactly provable).

The issue isn't "why did they go on the ground," the issue is "why were the ones on the ground better at survival." However, most apes tend to be on the ground these days so clearly there were some advantages.
One big change is that monkeys can barely reproduce at a replacement rate, because the mommy monkey has to keep one arm free to hold onto the tree, so she can't have another baby until the first one is independent. The other option was to grow three arms. This also means that monkey childhood can't drag out too long or it very adversely impacts the reproduction rate, because only one offspring can be "in queue" at a time.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.