Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, February 05, 2014

True to his passionate and animated TV persona, "Science Guy" Bill Nye tapped on the podium, threw up his hands and noted that science shows the Earth is "billions and billions" of years old in a debate at a Kentucky museum known for teaching that the planet's age is only 6,000. Nye was debating Creation Museum founder Ken Ham and promoting science in the snappy way that made him a pop culture staple as host of Bill Nye The Science Guy in the 1990s.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

REARENDHAT

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Responding to an audience question about where atoms and matter come from, Nye said scientists are continuing to find out.

Ham said he already knows the answer.

"Bill, I want to tell you, there is a book that tells where atoms come from, and it starts out, 'In the beginning ...,'" Ham said.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Two pretentious #$%^suckers offering to waste my time?

No thanks.

Read A History of Western Philosophy, by Bertrand Russel.

#1 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-02-04 07:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

I predict a draw.

#2 | Posted by Ray at 2014-02-04 07:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Shut up Bill

#3 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-04 07:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bertrand Russell the cynical jerk?

I'd rather see Bill hand out an education.

#4 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 07:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ha ha ha ha ha.
Shut up Bill

#3 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN

I spoke too soon. Both are presenting. Very well.

#5 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-04 07:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

This "debate" sucks.

#6 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nothing useful will come from this.

#7 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-02-04 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ham has not presented anything new at all.

Just typical distortions and innuendo used by the usual Creationists hacks.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm still waiting for any evidence for Creation. All I hear is poking holes in Evolution.

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-02-04 07:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#8 | POSTED BY JPW

He keeps talking about taking Genesis literally but hasn't mentioned the long lifespans (930 for Adam and 950 for Noah for example).

Also seems to be focused too much on the idea that creationists can't be scientists.

#10 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-04 07:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

This Australian bloke isn't even debating creationism vs. evolution. He's talking about social conditioning and a million other things, but he's not talking about evolution.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-04 07:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Also seems to be focused too much on the idea that creationists can't be scientists.

He was focused too much on proselytizing his preferred version of morality.

I started watching in the middle of his presentation, but what I saw offered more of the typical canards of evolution=moral relativism that actual evidence for why Creation is the better model.

Overall, I grade Ken Ham's presentation with an emphatic F.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 07:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

What No ancient Aliens Intervention Theory?? Not So Creative Is he.

#13 | Posted by reitze at 2014-02-04 07:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm annoyed by this Ham "bloke".

#14 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 07:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

#12 | POSTED BY JPW

Yah, he went on to that in the middle, but the beginning he trotted out a few creationist scientists to prove ...something...

#15 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-04 07:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

did God create Man... ? or did Man create God?

#16 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2014-02-04 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

@ LOHOCLA

I wonder if Nye is going to bring in the big guns like Francis Collins and Robert T. Bakker?

#17 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

F UR seahawks Nye!

#18 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 07:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

I wonder if Nye is going to bring in the big guns like Francis Collins and Robert T. Bakker?

#17 | POSTED BY TOR

Dunno who they are (I'm more IT than science) but the rate Nye's going he may not need to.

#19 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-04 07:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

but the rate Nye's going he may not need to.

I was afraid this might go badly.

But Nye is indeed kicking some serous ass...to those who think rationally of course.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 08:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is Seattle still winning?

#21 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-04 08:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is Seattle still winning?

#21 | POSTED BY ZED

If the analogy permits Nye to be Seattle and Hamm to be Denver, then yes,it's about as one sided so far. :)

#22 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-04 08:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

@ LOHOCLA

Collins mapped the human genome and runs the NIH.

Bakker is a Professional Theologian and Palentologist.

#23 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 08:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Moses rode the Red Sea on a raptor...

#24 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-02-04 08:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

What I think sucks is that Nye is on topic and kicking arse, but the Creationists are not going to care because it is not what they believe.

#25 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-02-04 08:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

@TOR

Gotcha. Ahh, actually I think Ham brought Collins up in the beginning because he was an atheist. (Names go in one ear and out the other). The Gnome reference clicked my light on.

#26 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-04 08:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

@Rearendhat, pretty much.

#27 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-04 08:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bill Nye is not a "true believer" therefore anything he says does not really count.

Sorry Scientists.

That's just the way it is.

#28 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-04 08:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Collins mapped the human genome and runs the NIH.

Craig Venter might disagree with the first part LOL

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 08:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#29 | POSTED BY JPW

Just backed the video up, it was Venter he brought up, not Collins. (See what I mean about names? no retention whatsoever)

#30 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-04 08:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Venter the creep/thief can suck my hairy pair.

#31 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Great presentation by Nye!

#32 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-02-04 08:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dude. Whatever you may think of him (I think he's an arrogant ass personally), he's pretty f'in brilliant and has used a large portion of his personal fortune to further science.

I guess he's more deserved to be arrogant than anyone I can think of IMHO.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ham sounds like he's sort of off his game...as if he didn't expect the ass whooping he just received.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 08:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"pretty f'in brilliant"

No doubt.

He also however worked for the HGP for multiple years yes?

#35 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

He also however worked for the HGP for multiple years yes?

Yup. IIRC he split off onto his own because the people running the project were adamantly staying dedicated to a singular, slow method.

Venter went off and did it by his own method and finished slightly quicker than the established, slower method.

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 08:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is like a repeat of the Superbowl...

#37 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-02-04 08:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

So Ham's argument is "God did it, the Bible says so"?
Brilliant

#38 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-02-04 08:23 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Chances are Venter took all the information he could get his hands on when he left the HGP.

#39 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 08:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ham isn't even debating.

He's just pontificating and doing a bad job.

#40 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bill Nye is way too polite.

#41 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-02-04 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Nothing ate meat before the flood? Did I hear that correctly?

#42 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-04 08:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Chances are Venter took all the information he could get his hands on when he left the HGP.

They're very different methods.

I'd have to look into it as my memory is fuzzy, but IIRC the basic concepts were primer walking vs contig formation/sequencing (if you want to look up those two concepts).

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 08:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ham's breath must be horrendous right now with all the bull[...] he's spewing.

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

@ JPW

He does have the personality associating with that kind of act.

PS I think he was using a "pogo stick" method and the HGP was using a "shotgun" method.

#45 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 08:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Nothing ate meat before the flood? Did I hear that correctly?"

Yep.

I guess all those bite marks on dinosaur bones don't exist.

#46 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 08:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

PS I think he was using a "pogo stick" method and the HGP was using a "shotgun" method.

*shrug*

When this is done I can go back to refresh my memory.

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 08:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL I'm sorry, but Bill Nye puffing his chest saying "tear it up" is pretty hilarious.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 08:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"When this is done I can go back to refresh my memory."

Don't bother.

Venter and Collins decided they had better things to do than look in the review mirror.

We might as well do the same on this matter.

#49 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 08:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry this absurd kind of discussion neither informs nor changes minds. It will inevitably divide us as the originators intended.

Should we debate option 1 or 2? Those who have not read the scrolls and Big Books say option 1 is not really valid, while option 2 says that the Torah or Bible Old testament is fact.

Believe what you want about it and then STFU and keep religion and government separate, and debate the stuff that is open to debate and change in belief and not cast in a stone tablet.

#50 | Posted by Robson at 2014-02-04 08:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ham can't possibly believe the crap he's saying.

It's all about money, guaranteed.

rwd

#51 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-02-04 08:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

I guess all those bite marks on dinosaur bones don't exist.

#46 | POSTED BY TOR AT 2014-02-04 08:35 PM | FLAG:

Silly heathen. Dinosaurs never existed at all. It's simply God's test of your faith.

#52 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-04 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Don't bother.

Venter and Collins decided they had better things to do than look in the review mirror.

We might as well do the same on this matter./i>

Well, you piqued my interest on it so I'm looking anyway.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 08:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ken Ham might as well be Goatman arguing against global warming. "There's not enough evidence."
Yes there is, dummy, what there's not enough of is your ability to comprehend it.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-04 08:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Interesting

God bless Bill Nye for going to the Creation Museum.

I wish more Christians went to the atheist houses of worship.

#55 | Posted by kirk at 2014-02-04 08:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

The flood changed all those plate tectonics things! Same with the sediments! Things just moved really, really fast with the flood!

#56 | Posted by YAV at 2014-02-04 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's a great observation Snoof. Ham does argue like a DR righty. "I believe what I believe and no amount of evidence can convince me otherwise."

#57 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-02-04 09:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ken Ham... bravo.

#58 | Posted by takitez at 2014-02-04 09:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Bill's wandering a bit.

He's too lost in his own dork brain lol

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 09:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Creationism...yeah..uh huh right. I'll just ignore science and logic.

#60 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-04 09:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Silly heathen. Dinosaurs never existed at all. It's simply God's test of your faith.

#52 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2014-02-04 08:56 PM | FLAG:

Cite that or stop making things up.

#61 | Posted by kirk at 2014-02-04 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nice headline.

May as well read "Tyler Cowen Debates Marxist."

I guess I don't see the point in any scientist debating with someone whose position is based primarily on a faith-based system, rather than one based on science and research. To find evidence of creationism in contemporary science, you have to really want to find it. So much so that you do, in places where others wouldn't.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-04 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Silly heathen. Dinosaurs never existed at all. It's simply God's test of your faith."

LOL

People who really believe than need to meet Robert "Jurassic Park" Bakker.

en.wikipedia.org

#63 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ken Ham... bravo.

#58 | Posted by takitez

Ahhhh our first self-flaggelating moron shows up.

No surprise at his username.

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bill Nye says there is room in science for religion.

I bet no one here agrees.

Tell me I'm wrong

#65 | Posted by kirk at 2014-02-04 09:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Saw this a while ago, long but I thought worth a watch.

www.youtube.com

#66 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-04 09:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

cafeteria Christian. He takes some parts of the Bible literally (naturally in his vernacular), but...

#67 | Posted by YAV at 2014-02-04 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here's what I'd say from a Christian perspective that can be predicted:

"We will NEVER find life coming from non-life."

And people who believe that ONLY that which we can observably measure exists will usually predict that we WILL find life coming from non-life.

And that is why these things should be discussed, laid out for all to see and hear.

#68 | Posted by kirk at 2014-02-04 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did he just say there's no contradictions in the Bible?

#69 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Bill Nye says there is room in science for religion."

Sure there is.

Funding, morality, encouragement....

#70 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ham never mentioned what he thought could be predicted, am I correct?

#71 | Posted by kirk at 2014-02-04 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

JPW, no "contradictions", not no "paradoxes"

#72 | Posted by kirk at 2014-02-04 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

...because people are too dumb to know when the BIble is a "story" about humans, poetry, or factual.

Cafeteria...

#73 | Posted by YAV at 2014-02-04 09:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

ahahahaha!

Nye just divorced Ham's understanding of reality from all other forms of intelligent design!

#74 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 09:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

In today's world we can replace Creationism with Fox News. Neither is true, both are designed to make a population manageable and both can be completely disproven by science and logic but they both have a loyal following that no number of facts will ever convince the believers of their folly. If both didn't create so much pain and suffering I wouldn't care at all, but they do so I do.

#75 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-04 09:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Ham just stepped on his less than evolved dick with his cave fish example.

#76 | Posted by YAV at 2014-02-04 09:25 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Ummmm isn't the Torah essentially the OT?

#77 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 09:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

And now the "Come to Jesus!" call.

#78 | Posted by YAV at 2014-02-04 09:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

In today's world we can replace Creationism with Fox News

Yawn.

At least wait until it's done to inject your hackery.

Damn, that's about as off topic as KBM.

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 09:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yav, Im glad you caught that!

#80 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-02-04 09:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill!

#81 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

JPW, no "contradictions", not no "paradoxes"

Sounds like a willful tomato tomatoe.

#82 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

#80 - former "born again Baptist." I know the drill. Even event is about saving souls. The forum is immaterial.

#83 | Posted by YAV at 2014-02-04 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"At least wait until it's done to inject your hackery."

Not hackery when the same Foxbots are also the Creationists, and they are. That you can't see the connection makes me think you are probably one of THEM.

#84 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-04 09:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni I can vouch for JPW not being one of "them".

#85 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"Danni I can vouch for JPW not being one of "them"."

Fine, I'll take your word on that but sorry comparing Creationism with Foxbots which are both based on faith without regard to facts is a valid comparison and is NOT what KBM does and I will stand by that comparison. There is a connection between the two whether or not JPW wants to acknowledge it.

#86 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-04 09:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Fine, I'll take your word on that but sorry comparing Creationism with Foxbots which are both based on faith without regard to facts is a valid comparison and is NOT what KBM does and I will stand by that comparison."

It would be even more valid if your chosen media outlet was Democracy Now! or Mother Jones. Or Worldnet Daily. Would be almost analogous if your comparison was with MSNBC.

Don't like opinioned news outlets? Might I recommend something British; BBC or the Economist. They may have their own nuances that only a Brit would understand, but they don't seem to be carry any sort of American political polarization.

#87 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-04 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, still think the superbowl analogy applies.

Just repeating "its in the bible" as proof and repeating "Well...there is a book" as a rebuttal doesn't really mean anything to me. Especially when you factor in the cherry picking the parts you like and brushing over the ones you don't.

#88 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-04 09:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did Ham and Nye both manage to avoid mentioning Hitler and Nazis?

#89 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not hackery when the same Foxbots are also the Creationists, and they are.

I don't disagree with that (I'll let the "one of the THEM" comment slide).

I just think the pinata is full of plenty of candy by just limiting it to Creationists. There's no need to inject politics as well.

#90 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 09:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dinosaurs never existed at all. It's simply God's test of your faith.
#52 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2014-02-04 08:56 PM | FLAG:

Cite that or stop making things up.
#61 | POSTED BY KIRK AT 2014-02-04 09:06 PM

I'll cite the same source the bible does, absolutely nothing at all.

#91 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-04 09:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni I can vouch for JPW not being one of "them".

Thanks Tor.

It's not as if I was very supportive of Ken Ham during the rest of the thread...

#92 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 09:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

people who believe that ONLY that which we can observably measure exists will usually predict that we WILL find life coming from non-life.

Define "non life" and "life".

Creationists are the morons claiming existence came into being thanks to magic.

#93 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-04 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"no need to inject politics as well."

To give some historical context to both subjects President Wilson thought that biologos had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt long before the scopes trial.

#94 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 10:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

And before any talk of Noah starts up do remember that "the world" use to be much smaller as proven by this ancient "world map" that only shows Europe, North Africa, and West Asia.

www.armenian-history.com

#95 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

comparing Creationism with Foxbots which are both based on faith without regard to facts is a valid comparison

Good lord. So is comparing you to a monkey, but you don't see me bringing that up.

How obsessed does someone have to be with Fox News to start babbling about it in a creation thread? I think you need a break from politics.

#96 | Posted by JOE at 2014-02-04 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

How obsessed does someone have to be with Fox News to start babbling about it in a creation thread?

Not if you view Fox News to be the source of information for all creationists.

#97 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-04 10:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a waste of time. They might as well debate the existence of leprechuans.

#98 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-04 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Not if you view Fox News to be the source of information for all creationists.

Which would be incorrect, unfortunately. I wish it was so easy.

I only objected to it because this is a watershed topic, and one that has few public debates to boot.

Cheapening it to a Repub vs Dem concept when there's tons of other crap doing the same thing is a problem IMO.

#99 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"watershed topic"

It's a rare thing that CNN puts a (non-political) debate on their front page.

the debate is also a hot topic on twitter.

How often are matters of science a matter of significance there?

#100 | Posted by tor at 2014-02-04 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wheres an honest debate going to occur?

At the end of the day Ken Ham will dismiss Bill Nye as a nonbeliever. He will also pass by the exhibit of Jesus riding a dinosaur.

Bill might as well have had the debate with my dog.

#101 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-04 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think this debate MAY have done society some good.

It surely softened up some hardliners on both sides.

#102 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 10:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Bill might as well have had the debate with my table."

FTFY

#103 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-04 10:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"It would be even more valid if your chosen media outlet was Democracy Now! or Mother Jones. Or Worldnet Daily. Would be almost analogous if your comparison was with MSNBC. "

YOu lump Worldnet Daily in wiuth Democracy Now and MOther Jones does not,i n any way, make that a valid comparison. Worldnut Daily is a well known site for idiots while the other two I challenge you to provide proof that they ever lied or made up stories. That's the whole problem, on our side we need facts to back up our talking points, on the right they don't.

#104 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-04 10:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Bill might as well have had the debate with my dog.

You're missing the point if you think Bill did this to convince Ken Ham he was wrong.

Do you honestly ever think I "debate" reitze about vaccines because I think I'll change his mind? No. I do it because allowing him to spread his crap without a rebuttal creates an image of accuracy or being correct. The target is NEVER the person you're arguing with directly.

#105 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 10:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

How often are matters of science a matter of significance there?

On twitter? next time Miley shoves a graduated cylinder up her •••• it will be on twitter.

#106 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-04 10:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

That's the whole problem, on our side we need facts to back up our talking points, on the right they don't.

You're a naive fool if you think you've never parroted a distorted talking point in your life.

#107 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 10:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

On twitter? next time Miley shoves a graduated cylinder up her •••• it will be on twitter.

LOL

#108 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 10:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think this debate MAY have done society some good.
It surely softened up some hardliners on both sides.
#102 | POSTED BY TOR AT 2014-02-04 10:32 PM

Both Sides of what? the creationists table?

#109 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-04 10:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#105 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2014-02-04 10:41 PM | REPLY

Point well made.

#110 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-04 10:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

@ clownshack.

Militent atheists and militent y.e.c.'s.

It may just be a few kids but it's an improvement.

#111 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You're a naive fool if you think you've never parroted a distorted talking point in your life."

poaaibly ao but we don't make a philosophy out of it. For crying out loud the Right parrots disproven and even ridiculed talking points as if they are Gospel all the time, it's what they do.

#112 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-04 10:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

poaaibly ao but we don't make a philosophy out of it. For crying out loud the Right parrots disproven and even ridiculed talking points as if they are Gospel all the time, it's what they do.

Yeah...no argument on that one.

#113 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-04 10:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

2:21:07

The Nye v Ham debate gets deep.

#114 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-04 11:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

watch what you say..Rcade is watching..sorta like god, but more d^*^% like

#115 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-02-04 11:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

but much shorter

#116 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-02-04 11:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#65 | POSTED BY KIRK
"Bill Nye says there is room in science for religion.
I bet no one here agrees.
Tell me I'm wrong"

Okay. You're wrong.
Why would think that no one here would agree with Nye's suggestion?

#117 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-02-05 12:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ham makes me think of the author of this article.

www.pbs.org

#118 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-05 01:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

"YOu lump Worldnet Daily in wiuth Democracy Now and MOther Jones does not,i n any way, make that a valid comparison."

Meet you for happy hour? I'll buy.

#119 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-05 02:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Didn't get a chance to look closely at it when it was on the screen but came across this on imgur about the debate.

imgur.com

#120 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-05 03:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

#120 - that's hilarious! Ham tried to pawn that off as credible!! The "Niagra Falls" Process?
Hundreds of "Physical Processes" but counting isn't one of them? There are 39 on the slide, even though his numbers go to 53 (being generous since you can't read the bottom of each of the 3 columns).

What a charlatan.

#121 | Posted by YAV at 2014-02-05 06:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

"YOu lump Worldnet Daily in wiuth Democracy Now and MOther Jones does not,i n any way, make that a valid comparison. Worldnut Daily is a well known site for idiots while the other two I challenge you to provide proof that they ever lied or made up stories."

So it's a case where progressives are always right, conservatives are always wrong? In one fell swoop you've just destroyed any credibility you may have had. With progressives as well as independents, I suspect.

Mother Jones posts a headline stating that unemployment has decreased by X amount under Obama. Worldnet posts that X number of people have left the workforce. Who is telling the truth?

Both are. But both are presenting the story in a manner that best suits their respective audiences. This Dual Narrative is applied to alomost every relevant political activity. Obamacare. Progresssive narrative says that it provides low income people with access to insurance. Conservative narrative says that it causes people to lose their insurance plans and increases costs for others. Again, both are true. But Mother Jones is not likely to construct an in-depth narrative on the fact that millions of people lose their plans, or millions more see the cost of those plans quadruple. For several reasons. First of all, it erodes the notion of ACA as being a wholly benevolent program. Second, many MJ readers probably don't care that wealthier americans are being forced to pay for someone else's insurance. At the same time WND would likely focus on the fact that, even under ACA, many millions are still without insurance, not addressing the fact that millions now do have insurance due to ACA.

"That's the whole problem, on our side we need facts to back up our talking points, on the right they don't."

I don't think you have the sides divided appropriately. Your side is the one that is going to accept the partisan party line as scripture. Whether it be from WND or Mother Jones. The other side, my side, is the one that's going to question the official story, regardless of where it comes from.

Why do I feel like this was all a big waste of my time...


#122 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-05 09:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Yeah...no argument on that one."

Any moreso than progressives?

Do you really wanna touch this one?

#123 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-05 09:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

In all fairness Danni, I would be more than willing to post lies presented by Mother Jones, if that's really something you need to see for yourself.

#124 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-05 09:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Mother Jones posts a headline stating that unemployment has decreased by X amount under Obama. Worldnet posts that X number of people have left the workforce. Who is telling the truth?"

If you report how many people leave the workforce it might be nice to also report how many of them are boomers who are retiring. I NEVER see that point made by those who desire to discredit the Obama Recovery from the Bush Depression.

#125 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-05 09:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

"If you report how many people leave the workforce it might be nice to also report how many of them are boomers who are retiring. I NEVER see that point made by those who desire to discredit the Obama Recovery from the Bush Depression."

That's becasue they make up only one segment of those who are leaving the workforce. It's a vaild point, worth mention, but doesn't wholly explain the decrease in labor force participation, which in turn explains the decrease in unemployment.

To truly be "fair and balanced," both sides must be presented. Consider Amy Goodman at Democracy Now!, who in 1998 wrote a scathing article on the cooperation between Nigerian Security Forces and Chevron in attacking and killing community activists who had occupied an oil platform as a form of protest against Chevron's policies. What she didn't take into account was the position of the Nigerian government, which was that these activists were effectively commiting piracy and kidnapping, and force was only used after negotiations provded to be useless.

So who was right? Was Amy Goodman going to bring up the government. Not in the article she wrote for Democracy Now! In fact, the position of the Nigerian government was completely omitted. Why? And according to the article, the real culprit was Chevron, who had ferried the Nigerian troops in their corporate helicopters. This despite the fact that armed groups had a history of attacking western oil interests in that region.

You don't seem to be particularly interested in hearing both sides. You're certainly not going to get that from Mother Jones or Democracy Now!


#126 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-05 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

And even your statement regarding the "Bush Depression" speaks volumes? Both about your opinions on the "Obama recovery" and the "Bush reccession." More of the progressive=good/
conservative=evil narrative that is both simplistic and unrealistic.

#127 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-05 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

I really love this new approach that past events do not necessarily follow the same scientific laws as the observable present. I think Bill should have attacked that idea mire forcefully. If the Earth was only 4000 years old then humans have been here "observing" the whole time. And no one here noticed the laws of physics, biology and geology rapidly changing during any if that time?

All this debate "proved" was that no amount of scientific evidence can ever change the mind of a "true believer" and they need never look at it because the Bible has all the answers they need.

"The is a book out there..." Mr Ham there are a lot of books out there.

#128 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-05 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Ken Ham has convinced me. The Bible is correct. Science is all bunk. My eyes finally have been opened.

#129 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-05 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

I that see my Kindle technology did not do me any favors.

#130 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-05 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sounds like Nye lost the debate.

kgov.com

#131 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-02-05 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"That's becasue they make up only one segment of those who are leaving the workforce. It's a vaild point, worth mention, but doesn't wholly explain the decrease in labor force participation, which in turn explains the decrease in unemployment."

3,650,000 people hit 65 years old per year.

#132 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-05 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Sounds like Nye lost the debate."

Care to elaborate?

That link proves nothing.

I would say they both won. The True Believers will be inspired to flock to the museum and bring loads of money. (Ham's real objective)

The children of Kentucky got exposed to Science. If just as few get inspired enough to go get a real education and get a degree in engineering, biology, or math we may stay competitive with the rest of the world after all.

#133 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-05 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fine, I'll take your word on that but sorry comparing Creationism with Foxbots which are both based on faith without regard to facts is a valid comparison

#86 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-04 09:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Coming from the most miopic and partisan person on the DR - this deserves a funny flag. I would say an idiotic flag but the DR doesn't have that option.

Ham is an idiot. The majority of Christians don't claim the earth is 6k years old. The majority of Christians do not take the bible word for word literally. Catholic education (in the here and now) teaches that the bible should be read from a first century perspective if taken literally. Full of symbolism and simile. Unlike DANNI who is mostly full of BS.

#134 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-02-05 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

the Obama Recovery

#125 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-05 09:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Talk about creationism!

#135 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-02-05 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

* Genomes that Expose the Error of Neo-Darwinism:

So, genetic studies have revealed that:
- An elephant shrew is closer to an elephant than to other shrews
- Horse DNA is closer to bats than to cows
- Mouse DNA is the same as 80% of the human genome
- Sponges share 70% of human genes including for nerves and muscles
- Kangaroo DNA unexpectedly contains huge chunks of the human genome
- Gorilla DNA is closer to humans than chimps in 15% of the genome
- Neanderthal DNA is fully human, closer than a chimp is to a chimp
- The chimp Y chromosome is "horrendously different" from our 'Y'
- The human Y is astoundingly similar all over the world lacking the expected mutational variation
- Mitochondrial Eve "would be a mere 6000 years old" by ignoring chimp DNA and calculating by mutation rates
- Roundworms have far more genes than Darwinist predictions,19,000, compared to our 20,500 genes
- The flatworm man-bug "ancestor" genome has "alarmed" evolutionists and is now dislodged from its place at the base.
- Snake DNA contains a quarter of the cow genome
- The leading evidence for Darwinism, junk DNA, is vanishing, as the journal Nature reports function for 80% of human genome, moving toward "100%"
- Genomes so challenge common descent that PNAS reports horizontal gene transfer must have "transformed vertebrate genomes"
- "Genetic diversity exploded in recent millennia" when "vast number of human DNA variants arose only in the past 5,000 years."
- Whale and bat DNA share identical astounding sequence: Ha! A wonderful discovery has documented the same echolocation genetic sequences existing in both the bat and whale genomes! Wow! wow! Wow! wow!
- The journal Nature reports that the vast majority of the diversity in the human genome has not accumulated over a million years but over only 200 generations. Likewise, the genome-wide diversity of the Dutch is explained in only 70 generations! Researchers also at the Max Planck Institute showed that Australian Aborigines did not require tens of thousands of years for their genetic (and linguistic) diversity, but only 4,000 to 5,000 years! Just like we creationists have been saying all along! Welcome aboard guys! :)

#136 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-02-05 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sounds like Nye lost the debate.

that's hilarious! A link to a creationist website touting Ham won!

You creationists are one funny bunch.

#137 | Posted by YAV at 2014-02-05 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ham's argument can be summed up by the following:

"We were not there. So we don't know what happened. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that god did it."

Wow. Awe inspiring.

#138 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-05 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

#136 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-02-05 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't know what any of those things mean. Did you know "whole" milk is 96% fat-free?

Think about that for a bit and then you might understand what those "% identical" things actually mean.

#139 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-02-05 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Consider Amy Goodman at Democracy Now!, who in 1998 wrote a scathing article on the cooperation between Nigerian Security Forces and Chevron in attacking and killing community activists who had occupied an oil platform as a form of protest against Chevron's policies. What she didn't take into account was the position of the Nigerian government, which was that these activists were effectively commiting piracy and kidnapping, and force was only used after negotiations provded to be useless.
#126 | Posted by madbomber

The average Democracy Now listener is sufficiently educated to understand the Nigerian government is a puppet state for oil interests.

The average MadBomber is not, for he laments the "bias" when the painfully obvious isn't spoon-fed to him.

#140 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-05 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#138 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

I posted a link upthread of Neil deGrasse Tyson of a discussion he had about Intelligent Design.

The gist of it was when the science couldn't adequately answer the question, Intelligent Design was the fallback answer.

Until the next guy was able to explain it, then when he reached his limit, again Intelligent Design.

And so on.

#141 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-05 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

- Neanderthal DNA is fully human, closer than a chimp is to a chimp
#136 | Posted by tmaster

You don't think about these things before you post them, do you?

#142 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-05 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ham is an idiot. The majority of Christians don't claim the earth is 6k years old. The majority of Christians do not take the bible word for word literally. Catholic education (in the here and now) teaches that the bible should be read from a first century perspective if taken literally. Full of symbolism and simile.

#134 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum

How convenient that they are allowed to pick and choose which parts of their holy book to believe.

That ridiculous talking snake part? Oh that's just a metaphor.
The anti-gay stuff? Oh that's literal, we gotta obey that.
The don't eat shellfish part? Oh that can be ignored.

That's not a religion. It's a buffet of ignorance.

#143 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-02-05 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't think about these things before you post them, do you?

#142 | Posted by snoofy

He didn't read or think about any of it.

He just C&Ped it from kgov.com

No thinking required.

#144 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-05 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The average Democracy Now listener is sufficiently educated to understand the Nigerian government is a puppet state for oil interests."

Of course. Because they're progressives, and there couldn't be any other possibility than an evil capitalist oil company opressing the proletariat in the name of accruing an obscene amount of profit.

"The average MadBomber is not, for he laments the "bias" when the painfully obvious isn't spoon-fed to him."

Of course again, because the average Madbomber is not a progressive. And therefor must be a knuckledragging Neanderthal, incapable of understanding the complexities of global politics.

You currently have about as much credibility as Danni. That takes effort. Not that I totally understood your last statement. Poor grammer. Another thing you and Danni appear to have in common.

#145 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-05 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

No thinking required.

That statement has been trademarked by creationists.

You will be hearing from their lawyer, aka God.

#146 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-05 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

And therefor must be a knuckledragging Neanderthal, incapable of understanding the complexities of global politics.
#145 | Posted by madbomber

It sure seems that way some times.

Are you really not aware that the Nigerian government has sold out Nigeria's oil wealth to enrich themselves?

Maybe you should read this "Mother Jones" you speak of. Might help to close some of those gaps in your knowledge.

#147 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-05 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Are you really not aware that the Nigerian government has sold out Nigeria's oil wealth to enrich themselves?"

That's the way neo-colonialism works. No need to occupy, just bribe officials. And this is the result:

blog.amnestyusa.org

#148 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-05 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

In fact, the position of the Nigerian government was completely omitted. Why?
#126 | Posted by madbomber

It couldn't possibly be because the position of the Nigerian government was provided for them by Chevron.

My, you're thick.

#149 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-05 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's the way neo-colonialism works. No need to occupy, just bribe officials. And this is the result:

blog.amnestyusa.org

#148 | Posted by nullifidian

Come on, that's biased.
It was the Nigerians who did this to other Nigerians.
Just like slavery, you know?
It was Africans selling Africans.
They did it to themselves!

#150 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-05 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

hat's the way neo-colonialism works. No need to occupy, just bribe officials.
#148 | Posted by nullifidian

To be fair, the occupation becomes unnecessary after the natives instituted "Western" "Democracy."

You know, the form of government where everything is auctioned off to the highest bidder. Just like in America.

#151 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-05 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Are you really not aware that the Nigerian government has sold out Nigeria's oil wealth to enrich themselves?"

Are you really not aware that militant gangs have for years attacked oil platforms in Nigeria, destroying billions in property and kidnapping hundreds of people? Unless you are of the opinion that piracy is an acceptable form of protest, you can't accept the DN piece as being anything more than one-sided journalism. And that's OK. but don't pretend that it's any different from what you might find in WND.

"It couldn't possibly be because the position of the Nigerian government was provided for them by Chevron.

My, you're thick."

I'm a knuckledragger, remember. Too ignorant to accept the neomarxian line as scripture.

It's not possible to for a non-progressive to be anything but. Which is why you progressives have a moral obligation to, um, take care of us. In one way or another.

#152 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-05 03:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Are you really not aware that militant gangs have for years attacked oil platforms in Nigeria, destroying billions in property and kidnapping hundreds of people?"

Yes, it's called resistance to imperialism. Kind of like the Founders did at the Boston Tea Party and other places. Kind of like how John Brown fought slavery.

#153 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-05 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nulli, Snoof,

It makes no difference to me. if you're that convinced of you're own righteousness, it's not really my place to argue. It's part of your faith, and I doubt I'll have any more chance of cracking it than Bill Nye did of cracking ken Ham's.

#154 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-05 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem is religious people don't understand science and the concept of burden of proof. The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.

If I claim that I saw Thor's hammer which proves Thor is real I need to prove it. Me writing a book about it isn't proof.When you read Moby Dick do you think that's proof that the story is real? No, you don't. In fact if someone made that claim that Moby Dick is true you would probably think he was crazy or didn't get out much.

So you can say that the Bible is your proof but it's not. It's the same proof as you get in Moby Dick.

There are ways to prove things and it's called math, measurements, weighing things, observation, et al.

Christians don't have any concept of that. It's beyond their understanding. Education is done by choice so only those educated will get it. Christians are typically uneducated.

#155 | Posted by pragmatous at 2014-02-05 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

As are people who generalize out of their rear orifice.

#156 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-05 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I don't understand why anyone would want the old testament to be true. I remember sitting through religious instruction as a kid and being very confused as to why God is such a bad guy. It was a great relief to me when I realized there really isn't a petty, jealous, all powerful grown baby in the sky who is watching everything we do, looking for another excuse to smite us.

#157 | Posted by Sully at 2014-02-05 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag:


There are ways to prove things and it's called math, measurements, weighing things, observation, et al.

Christians don't have any concept of that. It's beyond their understanding.

#155 | Posted by pragmatous at

Parochial and bigoted.

#158 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-05 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Didn't watch the debate myself. Saw some excerpts later. The Creationist argued like a Middle Schooler and so did Mr. Nye.

Dull, uninforming, and jejune.

#159 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-05 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

#157

Someone missed the entire NT in class.

#160 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-05 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

#159

Same here.

Not being a, "Young Earth" creationist, as most Christians aren't, and believing that there is no real contradiction between evolution and the bible, as most Christians do, or since I see more confirmations of science than contradiction in those texts... ie; having recorded several millennia ago that the earth is round and hung in the sky on "nothing".... I didn't have a dog in that fight.

I did however instead find a collection of the old route 66 TV programs from the early '60's on a website.

My time was better spent.

#161 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-05 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Anyone ever read "Book of the Damned", by Charles Fort?

#162 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-05 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

It came at the cost of being trounced by Nye, who managed to show not only how downright absurd Young Earth creationist beliefs are (noting, for instance, that there is a 9,550-year-old tree in Sweden that is itself several thousand years older than Ham thinks the Earth is), but to demonstrate the extreme nature of Ham's brand of creationism. In one of the best lines of the night, Nye emphasized that "billions" of religious people around the world accept science, adding, "the exception is you, Mr. Ham."

Most of all, Nye allowed Ham to undermine himself before the audience. By in effect preaching, rather than sticking to scientific assertions, Ham demonstrated what we've always known about creationism, and what many canny anti-evolutionists have sought to conceal: It's a religious doctrine, not a scientific one.

And then, well, there were the lions. Ham's particular theology requires him to believe that before Noah's flood, all the animals were vegetarians. "I have not spent a lot of time with lions, but I can tell they have teeth that really aren't set up for broccoli," Nye countered.

"Just because an animal has sharp teeth, it doesn't mean it's a meat eater, it means it has sharp teeth," Ham answered, unbelievably.

In the end, the most important thing about this debate, which drew dramatic attention, is that it was thoroughly disruptive of the evolution-creationism status quo. We've been in a rut in this battle for too long, with school boards and lawmakers continuing their stealth anti-evolution attacks (rarely admitting, as Ham so plainly did, that they're driven by religion) even as scientists wring their hands about American anti-intellectualism from the safety of their college towns.

Last night, in contrast, it all hung out. We saw what Young Earth creationists really, really think. They believe in vegetarian lions and an Earth younger than its oldest-living tree. And for most Americans, there's just no way that makes any sense.

Mother Jones

#163 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-02-05 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just bring it up because it still gives science fits, more so since science increasingly goes over to Fort's thinking.

Fort distills Darwinian evolution: That which survives, survives.

Reductionism with razors. Nice to see the radical materialists get a dose of their own.

I'll bet Mr. Nye never read the book.

#164 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-05 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Unless you are of the opinion that piracy is an acceptable form of protest
#152 | Posted by madbomber

Curious to read your barometer on this one.
Was the Boston Tea Party an acceptable form of protest?
A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.

#165 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-05 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nulli, Snoof,
It makes no difference to me. if you're that convinced of you're own righteousness
#154 | Posted by madbomber

All I'm convinced of is your willfully blind ignorance.

Your insistence that there are two equally meritorius "sides" to every story gives kooks who say the moon landing was a hoax equal footing with Buzz Aldrin.

And only a total moron would do that.

#166 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-05 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

How convenient that they are allowed to pick and choose which parts of their holy book to believe.
#143 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I believe in the book of Math but I don't believe in the books of Algebra and Calculus so I don't take them literally as they are full of nothing but symbolism.

#167 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-05 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mr. Wizard didn't buy that baloney, either!

#168 | Posted by PhilipNoir at 2014-02-05 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice."

It was both. The Brits probably didn't hold the same view as the colonists, but neither one was intrinsically right or wrong.

"Your insistence that there are two equally meritorius "sides" to every story gives kooks who say the moon landing was a hoax equal footing with Buzz Aldrin. And only a total moron would do that."

I would submit that only a moron could maintain the argument that him and his were universally correct, while all others were universally wrong. To me, it shouldn't take a whole lot of critical thought to understand this concept. That there are two sides to everything. What constitutes a miserable day for a beach bum is considered much differently by a farmer.

But either you get it or you don't. My dear old mom is a devout evangelical as one could ever hope to find. I once tried to debate the flood myth (which she does not regard as a myth, but rather as a historical fact). When I brought up the fact that all that water would have had to have come from, and returned to, some place other than the surface of the earth, she simply said "well, god did it."

In many respects, you're very much like my mother. It's not a bad thing, but there are some subjects that I know she will never be able to approach rationally, or with any sort of critical thought.

#169 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-05 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Educate yourself, Madbummer.

Poison Fire (2008)

www.filmsforaction.org

#170 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-05 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Earth's history as in the geologic column?
Interesting since the geologic column does not really exist.

#171 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-05 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

God of the Gaps.
That's what I was trying to recall.
God of the Gaps. Science can't explain that observation? Only logical conclusion is that God did it. That was effective for a millennia, maybe longer. Can we move beyond it? Please, Mr. Ham? Can we move beyond the God of the Gaps theory?

#172 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-05 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Anyone ever read "Book of the Damned", by Charles Fort?

#162 | Posted by Zed

Science is not a defacto religion much as you might like it to be. It is about coming up with a way of perceiving and understanding the true nature of reality. And being able to replicate discoveries so that others can study and prove or disprove them as well.

Science is not about worshiping a deity (or anything else).

#173 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-05 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Science is not a defacto religion much as you might like it to be.

#173 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-

This wasn't Fort's point (did you read the book?). Fort's point, one of them, is that reality is always defined by excluding other reality. His point was also that, since science does much of the defining, they also do much of the excluding.

As true now as when he wrote it.

#174 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-05 07:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"As true now as when he wrote it."

Yup, total idiotic crap then, total idiotic crap now.

#175 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2014-02-05 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Science is not a defacto religion"

If only everyone understood it's not God.

#176 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-05 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

total idiotic crap then, total idiotic crap now.

#175 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2014

Your doctoral dissertation, I believe.

#177 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-05 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This wasn't Fort's point"

This was one of his points. (the book is in the public domain and is free and I have a copy on my kindle) Science only "excludes" religious doctrine as it is NOT provable or reproducible in a lab.

Saying that the origin of intelligence or life itself is all explained in the bible does not actually explain anything and is lazy thinking.

Science does not attempt to deny a God. It tries to provide a test or a theory that would prove or disprove one. If you have done any work or studies in Physics you would notice we have come full circle and actually have a theory called the Big Bang whereby something is created from nothing. This annoys scientists and thrills Theists to no end. But, just saying that well, God did it, is only bumping the problem up one level and is not a satisfactory solution to a scientist. And so they continue to look for a solution to the dilemma.

#178 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-05 07:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Saying that the origin of intelligence or life itself is all explained in the bible does not actually explain anything and is lazy thinking.

#178 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014

Then I'm pleased that I, Charles Fort, and my church aren't lazy thinkers.

#179 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-05 07:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Science does not attempt to deny a God. It tries to provide a test or a theory that would prove or disprove one.

#178 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-05 07:

Then science doesn't really understand itself at all.

#180 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-05 07:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Educate yourself, Madbummer."

From the article you provided.

"Communities fight back with non-violent means and win over Shell in a Nigerian court."

The Nigerian government wasn't going after people for non-violence. Quite the opposite. Unless, again, you see no difference between non-violent protest and piracy/kidnapping.

As something of a traditional anarchist, you might not.

#181 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-05 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If you can approach the world's complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine, and your own mundane preoccupations will shrink to proper size, not all that important in the greater scheme of things. Keeping that awestruck vision of the world ready to hand while dealing with the demands of daily living is no easy exercise, but it is definitely worth the effort, for if you can stay centered , and engaged , you will find the hard choices easier, the right words will come to you when you need them, and you will indeed be a better person. That, I propose, is the secret to spirituality, and it has nothing at all to do with believing in an immortal soul."

― Daniel C. Dennett, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon"

#182 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-02-05 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Nigerian government wasn't going after people for non-violence. Quite the opposite. Unless, again, you see no difference between non-violent protest and piracy/kidnapping."

Nonsense.

"The Nigerians fought peacefully for decades. They organized, they protested, and they created large united movements fighting for justice. They became effective, and so their leaders were murdered and arrested by government and private oil company hit squads. In 1995, after leading a protest movement against Shell, activist Ken Saro-Wiwa was infamously executed at Shell's behest."

#183 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-05 08:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"see no difference between non-violent protest and piracy/kidnapping."

The American revolutionaries kidnapped loyalists and tortured them with tar and feathering. They did not confine themselves to non-violent protest and neither should the Nigerians.

#184 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-05 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#143 | Posted by SpeakSoftly
"How convenient that they are allowed to pick and choose which parts of their holy book to believe."

Convenient? I'd call it necessary. And far more reasonable than insisting the everything between the covers is somehow literal and unassailable. I'd also call it PROGRESS.

Why shouldn't someone, of any faith, pick and choose which parts to believe, which parts are more relevant, and which parts ought to be consigned to the dustbin of the history in which they were born?
There is NOTHING in scripture which overtly states that Christians must, as a necessary part of their faith, take everything in the Bible literally, or follow every word.

The all-or-nothing argument you're referencing here is right up Ham's alley, and reflects a view that is held by a minute minority. Every group, religious or otherwise, has its whackjobs.

"That ridiculous talking snake part? Oh that's just a metaphor."
Yeah. It is. It's a creation myth.

"The anti-gay stuff? Oh that's literal, we gotta obey that."
Actually, no, that's called not understanding or respecting the context in which it was written. Besides, there's a vast chunk of Christians who don't buy into the anti-gay stuff.

"The don't eat shellfish part? Oh that can be ignored."
Of course it can be ignored. It was written by and for a specific group of people in a specific time.

Literalists are, in my opinion, adamantly against picking and choosing because, once you've decided that one part isn't to be taken literally for all time, they're terrified that the whole of their faith would crumble.

#185 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-02-05 08:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Charles Fort, and my church aren't lazy thinkers.

#179 | Posted by Zed

Glad to hear it. Ham is obviously a lazy thinker if he believes we cannot see the past and that only the currently Observable Science is valid. All he needs to do is look up. We can see millions of years into the past and we can see that the laws of physics still work now as they did then. We can even watch stars and planets being formed (hundreds of millions of years ago)and we have yet to witness a solar system and planets fully forming in six days.

I enjoyed how Charles Fort was amazed and marveled at the many meteorological phenomena that we now have scientific explanations for. Can we explain every single event? Not likely. You need to have enough evidence and leads to follow and the events he has described are long over. And it is quite possible that observers of the time drew the wrong conclusions (as UFO witnesses do today). It doesn't mean we need to be able to think of these things in a "unthinkable" way. It just means we need more evidence to draw a proper conclusion.

As Bill Nye asked.... does creationism have the ability to predict future events based on its version of reality? Perhaps you can name one reproducible event creationism has predicted as a result of its "theories".

Science can predict the future based on past events.

We do it every day.

#186 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-05 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Factsheet: Shell's Environmental Devastation in Nigeria"

ccrjustice.org

#187 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-05 08:30 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Re 183: Thanks for posting the info on Ken Saro-Wiwa, Nullifidian. I didn't know about that shameful incident. Also #187.

#188 | Posted by madscientist at 2014-02-05 08:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

In many respects, you're very much like my mother. It's not a bad thing, but there are some subjects that I know she will never be able to approach rationally, or with any sort of critical thought.
#169 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

What the hell are you smoking? When have I ever been irrational in this thread or any other?

#189 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-05 09:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

When have I ever been irrational in this thread or any other?

#189 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2014-02-

The last time you posted. ;-)

#190 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-05 09:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What the hell are you smoking? When have I ever been irrational in this thread or any other?"

When you made the claim that Mother Jones or Democracy Now! were more legitimate news outlets than Worldnet Daily.

It's not that Democracy Now or Mother Jones are not legitimate. But I am not going to treat them as scripture, or completely disregard them, simply because of their intrinsic political bias. Seemingly, you would.

Does Fox News put a slant on their stories? Of course. But not nearly to the extent that MJ or DN Do. Do they lie? No. They just choose to admit certain aspects that don't fit with the narrative they're trying to present. It's not right or wrong, but it is limited in it's absolute newsworthiness. and like I said earlier, if it's news you want, stick to the BBC or the Economist.

#191 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-05 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have not once mentioned World Net Daily. Check your facts, chief.

#192 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-05 09:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have not once mentioned World Net Daily. Check your facts, chief.

#192 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

True, but you had plenty to say about World Nut Daily. :-)

#193 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-05 09:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

But while were on the topic, Mother Jones is far more credible than World Net Daily, and if you haven't figured that our by now, well, you are your mothers son.

#194 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-05 09:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'll bet Mr. Nye never read the book.

#164 | Posted by Zed

This wasn't Fort's point (did you read the book?).
#174 | Posted by Zed

You're sounding an awful lot like Ken Ham, zed.

#195 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-05 10:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"But while were on the topic, Mother Jones is far more credible than World Net Daily, and if you haven't figured that our by now, well, you are your mothers son."

I thought you wanted to be regarded as capable of rational thought.

I guess I was wrong.

#196 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-05 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do they lie? No. They just choose to admit certain aspects that don't fit with the narrative they're trying to present.

Oh that's right, using stock footage of a better attended even in a different season while reporting on an under attended event was just a mistake.

#197 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-05 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nulli,

This is a prefect example of Kuhn's idea that two paradigms can't communicate.

For instance, per DonnerBoy, BillNye asks "does creationism have the ability to predict future events based on its version of reality? Perhaps you can name one reproducible event creationism has predicted as a result of its "theories"."

So what? The question that isn't answered or asked is what is the paradigm trying to solve. Science and Religion aren't trying to solve the same problems.

I am not a creationist, but they are being asked to solve problems using a paradigm that is trying to answer a different question.

Fascinating stuff......

#198 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-02-05 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

When I want "Real" News, I go to ThinkProgress.org.

No biased news for me, please.

"Oh that's right, using stock footage of a better attended even in a different season while reporting on an under attended event was just a mistake."

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about. The use of stock footage is quite common. I saw something last week on the news regarding military forces in Southwest Asia. It showed an F-14 taking off of an aircraft carrier.

The F-14 was retired by the Navy in 2006.

Was this some sort of attempt at deception? I suppose it could have been. Not gonna say it wasn't. But so far as I could tell, it didn't detract from the narrative they were trying to present anymore than if they had shown an F-18 taking off in the present day.

#199 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-05 10:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mad,

www.google.com

#200 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-05 10:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pat Robertson on the debate: "To say that it all came about in 6000 years is just nonsense, and I think it's time we come off of that stuff and say this is impossible...Let's be real, let's not make a joke of ourselves."

Ouch!

#201 | Posted by YAV at 2014-02-05 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was a good debate. In the end it seemed that Ken Ham like so many Christians is afraid to die. He admitted he had a hard time thinking that this is it? Sad commentary for an accomplished man. Clinging to the hopes that a capricious and vindictive god will find favor with him. Anthropomorphising the omnipotent... while discussing logic. Yeah right.

I've always liked Bill Nye's enthusiasm for science. I like the idea of infinite possibilities . It was cool for him to say he didn't know the answers to the whys but enjoyed the quest. Good for him.

#202 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2014-02-05 11:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

I thought you wanted to be regarded as capable of rational thought.
I guess I was wrong.
#196 | Posted by madbomber

You are looking stupider and stupider.

WND is currently running a story, their lead actually, with the headline "Super claim: God intervened in Super Bowl"

Mother Jones has a lead story "The Koch Brothers Left a Confidential Document at Their Last Donor Conference -- Read It Here"

Again, and at the risk of redundancy, you are a complete and utter moron if you perceive these two stories -- and these two sites -- as two sides of the same coin. One is journalism, the other is about as journalistic as Reader's Digest.

#203 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-05 11:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have not once mentioned World Net Daily. Check your facts, chief.
#192 | POSTED BY SNOOFY
True, but you had plenty to say about World Nut Daily. :-)
#193 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-05 09:52 PM

While I have no doubt that I smell great to you, I can assure you you're sniffing around the wrong jock.

#204 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-05 11:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Snoop,

Not sure where you are going with #204.

With #193 my intent was good-natured banter; nothing derogatory.

#205 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-06 12:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The question that isn't answered or asked is what is the paradigm trying to solve. Science and Religion aren't trying to solve the same problems. "

I think that's pretty much implicit in Nye's point.

#206 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2014-02-06 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

You're sounding an awful lot like Ken Ham, zed.

#195 | Posted by jpw at 2014

I think a Creationist preacher is an easy job if you can get it. I think that a popular science personality is an easy job if you can get it.

Both men should read more. Having done so, you'd seen neither on TV the other night.

#207 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-06 07:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

I enjoyed how Charles Fort was amazed and marveled at the many meteorological phenomena that we now have scientific explanations for.

#186 | Posted by donnerboy

1) Fort wasn't marveling at meteorological phenomena. He was making "the damned" go walking.

2) Yeah, man. If not for Fort and people like him there would be no explanations for these phenomena. Now.

3) Fort didn't dislike science. He did argue that it is a reactionary institution. Like religion, in the eyes of many scientists.

#208 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-06 07:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Again, and at the risk of redundancy, you are a complete and utter moron if you perceive these two stories -- and these two sites -- as two sides of the same coin. One is journalism, the other is about as journalistic as Reader's Digest."

I ewnt and read the WND article. It was an editoral. In no way shape or form was it being presented as a legitimate news story. Not something I want or need to read, but really no different than the tripe at Mother Jones:

Headline: "A Fracking Company Got This Woman Banned From Her Grocery Store"

Only when you reads the artile, you find that it was a court who issued the injenction against the woman, barring her from property that is owned or leased by the company. What's not mentioned in the MJ article is her history of trespassing on company property and confrontation with workers or company representatives. In fact, she led trespass tours on the property.

So why wasn't than mentioned in the MJ article?

Journalistic integrity? Yeah. Right.

But if it's for a progressive cause, does inegrity really matter? Apparently not.

#209 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-06 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Poor Bill Nye. I could have taken this creationist dipwad apart like a buttery scone. Science people never understand what they're dealing with. Number 1 if you're as smart as Bill Nye, don't do these debates. The audience is stupid and your opponent is stupid. You don't know how to speak stupid so already you've lost. I however, speak fluent stupid. He should have called me. Oh well.

#210 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-02-06 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Madbomber,
You are arguing moral equivalence and trying to kill the truth by the death of a thousand cuts.
Rosa Parks actively sought arrest and was chosen by the NAACP because she was a charismatic person, a poster child for the cause.
Do you think that's as relevant as her arrest, as relevant as the policies of segregation and Jim Crow themselves?
Clearly it is not.

You're slowing down the Rodney King tape so the beating doesn't look like what it is.

#211 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-06 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

MadB you never answered if the Boston Tea Party was an acceptable form of protest. In fact you waffled on that one too.

So what's your answer? Not the Brits, not the colonists, your answer.

#212 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-06 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do(es) (Fox News) lie? No.

#191 | Posted by madbomber

Actually, Yes. They've gone to court to protect their right to lie.

#213 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-02-06 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#213 newsworthy.

#214 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-06 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Actually, Yes. They've gone to court to protect their right to lie."

Maybe it would help me out if you provided some examples.

I can provide some "lies" from Mother Jones, if you wish.

"You are arguing moral equivalence and trying to kill the truth by the death of a thousand cuts."

And you are trying to argue against moral equivalence based on your own personal bias. That it's OK for Mother Jones to omit details that others might consider relevant, therefor conflicting with the desired narrative, because the narrative is noble and just. At least in your opinion.

"Rosa Parks actively sought arrest and was chosen by the NAACP because she was a charismatic person, a poster child for the cause."

I'm sorry. Are you trying to present Vera Scroggin's trespassing as being analagous to Rosa Park's sitting at the front of the bus? She was on private property which she been told repeatedly that she (or her tourists) were not allowed on. If you tell me to stay out of your yard, Snoof, it's not my place to decide unilatlerally that I can.

But again, you're of the opinion that the ends justifies the means. Progressive political outlets needn't present the entire story because they are the good guys. But when conservative outlets operate in the same fashion, then it's a bad thing.

#215 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-06 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here ya go...

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre's claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so

www.relfe.com

#216 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-02-06 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I however, speak fluent stupid.
#210 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-02-06 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your post history makes that abundantly clear.

Meanwhile, those of us with functioning logic centers noticed that the audience applauded Nye a LOT, and Ham rarely got more than a chuckle. It should tell you something when even the audience that was hand picked by the Creation Museum favored Nye.

Well, it tells those of us cognitively proficient that, anyway. People like you, however, spew nonsense like "Poor Bill Nye".

YOU would have tried to engage Ham on his own level, because YOU think you are above everyone and use words like "Sheeple". You, like Ham, underestimate everyone that is not yourself. Okay, Ham underestimates them because he is an idiot and therefore assumes everyone else is, also.

You underestimate people because you seem to think you're the only sentient human in a giant room full of sheep and wolves.

#217 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-02-06 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

And don't tell me your statement treated Nye as an equal either, because it didn't. You placed yourself head and shoulders above that "poor" idiot, so deluded by the situation. You just placed him above the rest of the "sheeple".

You should stick to things like your very first blog entry here. When you pass off the experiences of others as your own, you look so much smarter than you actually are.

The fact is, Nye DID disassemble Ham, and only the genuinely stupid people didn't see that. Few if any in attendance live didn't see it.

And you.

#218 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-02-06 05:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Actually, Yes. They've gone to court to protect their right to lie."
Maybe it would help me out if you provided some examples.
#215 | Posted by madbomber

Maybe it would help if you bothered to keep yourself informed about current events.
Then you might be able to have informed discussions about current events.
Of course, facts might be harmful to your world-view, so proceed with caution.

I can provide some "lies" from Mother Jones, if you wish.

I doubt you could, but it's not even germane. Because what you cannot provide is Mother Jones going to court to sue for their right to lie.

Still waiting to hear if the Boston Tea Party was an acceptable form of protest. Trespass on private property, destruction of private property... chances are if you say this is acceptable protest, you're lying. Hence your refusal to answer such an easy question.

#219 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-06 06:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Progressive political outlets needn't present the entire story because they are the good guys. But when conservative outlets operate in the same fashion, then it's a bad thing.
#215 | Posted by madbomber

Sorry, which conservative media outlet story are you referring to, that didn't present the entire story? Is there some part of the WND "Broncos Lost Because They Fired Tebow" story that's being held back, that would even make it approach the threshold of actual news?

You're very good at arguing with your own caricature of me. The only problem is that your caricature is wildly inaccurate.

#220 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-06 06:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Both men should read more. Having done so, you'd seen neither on TV the other night.

A pretentious assumption.

#221 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-06 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Boston Tea Party?
Bueller... Bueller...

#222 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-06 07:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

The bible is a work of fiction.

It tells people they must obey the church.

It was a tool used to control people.

Free your minds of it.

#223 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-06 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

1) Fort wasn't marveling at meteorological phenomena. He was making "the damned" go walking.

As he would probably say...We are all Damned and none of us are Damned.

2) Yeah, man. If not for Fort and people like him there would be no explanations for these phenomena. Now.

People like him? You know he sounds like he had just dropped acid and was just coming down when he wrote that book.

Many people besides him think outside the box. He lived in a time and a place where very few people thought like him. Now we have cities of people trying to think outside the box.

Here is a link you might enjoy if you are not aware of it. Be sure to check out the Archive link at the bottom. Enjoy your journey.

apod.nasa.gov

#224 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-06 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Boston Tea Party?"

Are you Autistic or something? Do you have some sort of mental blockage that prevents anything beyond one-dimensional thinking?

Whether or not the Boston Tea Party was justified or not is wholly and completely subjective. Like pretty much everything else in the world.

#225 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-06 08:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Whether or not the Boston Tea Party was justified or not is wholly and completely subjective.
#225 | Posted by madbomber

Let me know when you're prepared to apply that standard to Nigerians.

I never pegged you for a moral relativist. Though it's a testament to you intelligence that you are.

#226 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-06 09:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's not subjective about the Boston Tea Party is the trespassing on private property and the destruction of private property.

She was on private property which she been told repeatedly that she (or her tourists) were not allowed on. If you tell me to stay out of your yard, Snoof, it's not my place to decide unilatlerally that I can.
#215 | Posted by madbomber

But when you replace "yard" with "boat," it is your place to unilaterally decide that you can.

There must be some subtlety I'm overlooking. Something which makes trespassing on a yard wrong, but trespassing on a boat and throwing the contents overboard okay.

#227 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-06 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Whether or not the Boston Tea Party was justified or not is wholly and completely subjective. Like pretty much everything else in the world."

The moral justification for the Boston Tea Party has never been in doubt an you're right many other things in this world deserve equal protest. What made the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution stand out was the courage that it took for a colony to stand up to the most powerful military in the world at the time. The Boston Tea Party was about courage not justification. It inspired a revolution, and after several years of horrible sacrifice we won. We had to repeat the victory in 1812 but, in the end, the American's courage won the day. That is what we celebrate on July 4. That is what we ask ourselves when we look at other nations, why don't they do what we did? If America were presented today with the same colonial governance we'd do the same thing again. A good reason our politicians should reject in totality the TPP, Americans will simply not stand for it and it could create a revolutionary moment.

#228 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Let me know when you're prepared to apply that standard to Nigerians."

Of course it is. In reality, I'm going to trend more towards the Nigerian villagers than the government. But at the same time you can't discount the fact that there were armed pirates in the area who were destroying billions in property and kidnapping hundreds.

"But when you replace "yard" with "boat," it is your place to unilaterally decide that you can."

Entering a boat without permission (or an oil platform) is generally regarded as piracy.

"There must be some subtlety I'm overlooking. Something which makes trespassing on a yard wrong, but trespassing on a boat and throwing the contents overboard okay."

Who says it's OK to board a ship and throw stuff off of it? Almost certainly, the Sons of Liberty destoryed the Brit tea because they knew that the average tea consumer couldn't give a whit whether the tea came from Britain or from hell. They just wanted tea.

"If America were presented today with the same colonial governance we'd do the same thing again. A good reason our politicians should reject in totality the TPP, Americans will simply not stand for it and it could create a revolutionary moment."

You're a walking contradiction. You start by defending the actions of the colonials in throwing the tea overboard, yet reject the position of the TPP, who see themselves as being in a very similar position today.

What's the difference, other than your own preferences and bias?

#229 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-07 09:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

There's like, seven threads going on here.

#230 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-02-07 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

You start by defending the actions of the colonials in throwing the tea overboard, yet reject the position of the TPP, who see themselves as being in a very similar position today.

What's the difference, other than your own preferences and bias?

#229 | Posted by madbomber

The TPP (whoever that is) see themselves as rebelling against taxation without representation?

Unless this movement is limited to Washington, D.C., I think their perception of themselves is just a wee bit overblown.

But I could be wrong. When this TPP grows the pair required to actually destroy some property, we can revisit this issue.

Also I hope this commentary was illustrative of some of the differences, independent of preference and bias.

#231 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-07 08:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

You know, I think OWS destroyed a bit of property, and trespassed too. Maybe they're a bit better choice to carry the torch than this milquetoast TPP.

#232 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-07 08:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort