Godless Apostate

[Makarov]

[troutman]

Originally Posted by photon

Look on these works, ye mighty, and despair!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messa...ve-in-evolutio

Jaye attempts to answer:

Can I have a go, just for fun?
1: Yes, just not in a way that this guy deems positive.
2: Implies Nye believes in a creator and has an emotion regarding it.
3: Implies that trees and humans were created.
4: Implies Earth is an isolated system (heat and radiation from Sun disproves it immediately)
5: Implies that the Sun only exists through God.
6: See Q4
7: What about them?
8: Implies life has a meaning.
9: Yes.
10: Good for her. Maybe she would like to elaborate. If not, I'm not going to hold it against her.
11: Implies all of us dismiss one myth while holding onto others.
12: False. More than one hominid has been found. Further, proof is not determined by the number of pieces of evidence, but by the strength of the pieces of evidence. Example: If there is only one winner of a lottery, does that mean that there was no lottery because we don't have hundreds of "official winners"?
13: Yes. Or more accurately, it doesn't disprove evolution.
14: You don't understand what a "theory" is. Gravity is also a theory.
15: See Q14
16: Down Syndrome. There are many others. Don't assume that an increase in genes equals an increase in evolutionary sustainability.
17: See Q8
18: False. See Q12
19: Yes. But it isn't so much "believing" as it is "knowing" and to label it a belief is a red herring. The energy created by the big bang is still observable today. The evidence is there that the big bang occurred. For example, the "glow" of light waves tell us that the universe is expanding. It is simple to reverse this expansion back to a singe point,
20: Beauty does not equal creation. For all the beauty in the world, there is also a lot of repulsion. Germs, diseases, famine, greed, crime. If a creator created all, it created the bad with the good.
21: The Big Bang was not an exploding star.
22: Does not understand evolution in the slightest. I came from my parents. Why do they still exist?

[Makarov]

15.

View this image ›

Matt Stopera / BuzzFeed

Originally Posted by troutman

14: You don't understand what a "theory" is. Gravity is also a theory.
15: See Q14

In fact, her problem is that she does not understand what science is. Science is a method or system for producing knowledge, not a theory.

Honestly, how can one debate with people who don't even understand the most basic words being used in the conversation?

[dissentowner]

I miss Christopher Hitchens at times like these.

[Knut]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...medium=twitter

Too bad

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Hesla

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...medium=twitter

Too bad

And too stupid. Another wasted life over a steaming pile of

"died in his home after refusing medical treatment,he'd been bitten nine times in 22 years. Each time, he believed, he recovered through faith healing. Coots continued to handle snakes, he said, because it's in the Book of Matthew.I feel in my heart, because God opened it up to me, if I stopped taking up serpents I would die and go to hell. It is in the Bible, and we tell people because it's in the Bible you must believe it."

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Hesla

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...medium=twitter

Too bad

What a moron

[Red Slinger]

Ironically, he's now a Darwin Award nominee.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by photon

Look on these works, ye mighty, and despair!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messa...ve-in-evolutio

I'm now seeing these photos/questions all over facebook and getting laughed at in epic proportions.

22 smiles quickly turned into facepalms

[Cheese]

Whats remarkable about that vote? It was taken at Christian Today's website.
http://www.christiantoday.com/articl...time/35688.htm

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Whats remarkable about that vote? It was taken at Christian Today's website.
http://www.christiantoday.com/articl...time/35688.htm

Surely I don't need to explain why non-scientific online polls are completely meaningless. I wouldn't be surprised if the folks over at /r/atheism or another similar group were responsible for a vote jihad on this.

That's not to say that Ham's views have any intellectual merit whatsoever, but the results of an online poll don't prove anything.

[Cheese]

I didnt suggest one way or the other.I just remarked at the values and location.
Im assuming if the poll is so lobsided on that site and Christians disagreed they would also vote en masse to change that value?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Surely I don't need to explain why non-scientific online polls are completely meaningless. I wouldn't be surprised if the folks over at /r/atheism or another similar group were responsible for a vote jihad on this.

That's not to say that Ham's views have any intellectual merit whatsoever, but the results of an online poll don't prove anything.

The fact that the Christian website calls Ham a "Creation Apologist" and Nye a "Emmy Award winning science educator" tells us which way the whole website leans. I think it's significant in that it shows there are Christians who don't believe in a literal translation

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think it's significant in that it shows there are Christians who don't believe in a literal translation

Is that news to anyone? The overwhelming majority of Christians around the world don't believe that the Bible is a literal account of history. The phenomenon of Biblical literalism is largely isolated to fundamentalist and/or evangelical sects located primarily in the United States, and they're in the minority even amongst Americans.

A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man."

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

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Is that news to anyone? The overwhelming majority of Christians around the world don't believe that the Bible is a literal account of history. The phenomenon of Biblical literalism is largely isolated to fundamentalist and/or evangelical sects located primarily in the United States, and they're in the minority even amongst Americans.



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

Edit: Not really fair to one poster, but some atheists pigeon hole most Christians that way

[photon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Surely I don't need to explain why non-scientific online polls are completely meaningless. I wouldn't be surprised if the folks over at /r/atheism or another similar group were responsible for a vote jihad on this.

Lol I'm almost positive I voted in that poll after seeing it somewhere like that!

[Cheese]

hmmm...guess that makes photon a jihadist...figures.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Ironically, he's now a Darwin Award nominee.

He had a son.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The fact that the Christian website calls Ham a "Creation Apologist" and Nye a "Emmy Award winning science educator" tells us which way the whole website leans. I think it's significant in that it shows there are Christians who don't believe in a literal translation

I'm a theist and a believer in an old Earth and evolution. I think Nye won the debate handily because Ham's point of view isn't supported by logic or evidence.

There are many Christian literalists but also many, many Christians who believe as I do. The Christian site I frequent (not the same one referred to above) may be dominated by old Earth believers. The posts I've read over there agree that Nye won the debate.

Nye is a heavyweight and Ham a lightweight, so not a fair fight. I'd love to see Nye debate Dr. Francis Collins on the existence of a deity and how the universe came about. That would be heavyweight vs. heavyweight.

[Nuje]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I'm a theist and a believer in an old Earth and evolution. I think Nye won the debate handily because Ham's point of view isn't supported by logic or evidence.

There are many Christian literalists but also many, many Christians who believe as I do. The Christian site I frequent (not the same one referred to above) may be dominated by old Earth believers. The posts I've read over there agree that Nye won the debate.

Nye is a heavyweight and Ham a lightweight, so not a fair fight. I'd love to see Nye debate Dr. Francis Collins on the existence of a deity and how the universe came about. That would be heavyweight vs. heavyweight.

I don't think that Nye would much care to have that debate. He didn't debate Ham because he's a Christian, he debated him because he promotes blatant denial of science.