Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Creationisms King Troll wants to end NASA

Page 2 of 3 [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

22 Jul 2014, 3:05 pm

TallyMan wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Quote:
?You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam?s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam?s sin, but because they are not Adam?s descendants, they can?t have salvation,? he explained. ?Jesus did not become the ?GodKlingon? or the ?GodMartian?! Only descendants of Adam can be saved. God?s Son remains the ?Godman? as our Savior.?

By this logic all non-human animals would also be going to Hell.

Only if they have a soul, but that's pretty much ruled out by the experts. Without a soul there is nothing going nowhere. Do aliens have souls? Perhaps not.

http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdo ... heaven.htm


Based on what we know about neuroscience, humans have no souls either, it makes the concept of heaven somewhat mute then. :lol:

The conclusion has most likely been reached after examining a limited sample of neurotypicals.



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

22 Jul 2014, 5:23 pm

Humanaut wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Quote:
?You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam?s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam?s sin, but because they are not Adam?s descendants, they can?t have salvation,? he explained. ?Jesus did not become the ?GodKlingon? or the ?GodMartian?! Only descendants of Adam can be saved. God?s Son remains the ?Godman? as our Savior.?

By this logic all non-human animals would also be going to Hell.

Only if they have a soul, but that's pretty much ruled out by the experts. Without a soul there is nothing going nowhere. Do aliens have souls? Perhaps not.

http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdo ... heaven.htm


Based on what we know about neuroscience, humans have no souls either, it makes the concept of heaven somewhat mute then. :lol:

The conclusion has most likely been reached after examining a limited sample of neurotypicals.


Erm... are you implying that Aspies/Auties have souls but NTs don't? :? Everything we know about brain function indicates that everything about us is entirely based in the bioelectrics of the brain and that there is no "soul". Everything from memories, perception, thought processes, emotions, personality all based 100% on the physical brain. When the brain dies, so do we. There is no magic "soul".


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

22 Jul 2014, 5:59 pm

TallyMan wrote:
Erm... are you implying that Aspies/Auties have souls but NTs don't?

Yes. I thought you knew.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

22 Jul 2014, 11:17 pm

^Ok as this is an ASD forum can you please confirm for myself and others if you are Joking or being serious?


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

22 Jul 2014, 11:34 pm

It's only a working hypothesis, but it doesn't seem to be gaining much traction. I might have to refine it.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

23 Jul 2014, 1:13 am

I think South Park did a good episode on this.

See: there's aliens to convert!



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

23 Jul 2014, 6:26 am

TallyMan wrote:
Why does anyone pay any attention to this Ken Ham? He sounds like a fringe, deranged nut job.


Unfortunately, he has this:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/a-visual-tour-of-the-creation-museum/

Complete with an exit through the gift shop where there are walls of education and curricula for home schooling.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

23 Jul 2014, 6:51 am

sonofghandi wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Why does anyone pay any attention to this Ken Ham? He sounds like a fringe, deranged nut job.


Unfortunately, he has this:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/a-visual-tour-of-the-creation-museum/

Complete with an exit through the gift shop where there are walls of education and curricula for home schooling.


I don't know whether to laugh or be shocked at the propaganda.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

23 Jul 2014, 7:20 am

Janissy wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Why does anyone pay any attention to this Ken Ham? He sounds like a fringe, deranged nut job.


He does sound like that, but (in the U.S. at least) that sometimes gets interpreted as speaking truth to power. When people from the "opposite" side go up against him with rationality, it only strengthens his base since his rational opponents appear to many as the power to whom he is speaking truth. That's what happened when Bill Nye tried to debate him rationally.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ience.html

Quote:
Ham had nothing to lose. When you exist on the cultural fringe and make your living by antagonizing established authority, there?s no form of media attention you don?t love. All Ham had to do was sit still for two-and-a-half hours, sound vaguely professional, and pander occasionally to his base. Sure, if you listened closely, what Ham was saying made absolutely no scientific sense. But debate is a format of impressions, not facts. Ham sounded like a reasonable human being, loosely speaking, and that?s what mattered.


The people in the best position to go up against him are not Bill Nye or other science types. It's people who share some of his beliefs but not so fringe or deranged or nut job. People who are not the power he is opposing.


I don't understand how Ham supposedly won that debate with Bill Nye. Ken Ham didn't even have an argument whatsoever for why his belief that the Earth is 6000 years was supposedly true, other than "the bible says so", while Bill Nye cited tons of evidence that the Earth is billions of years older than that. I thought that Bill Nye absolutely killed it.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

23 Jul 2014, 7:39 am

Jono wrote:
Janissy wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Why does anyone pay any attention to this Ken Ham? He sounds like a fringe, deranged nut job.


He does sound like that, but (in the U.S. at least) that sometimes gets interpreted as speaking truth to power. When people from the "opposite" side go up against him with rationality, it only strengthens his base since his rational opponents appear to many as the power to whom he is speaking truth. That's what happened when Bill Nye tried to debate him rationally.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ience.html

Quote:
Ham had nothing to lose. When you exist on the cultural fringe and make your living by antagonizing established authority, there?s no form of media attention you don?t love. All Ham had to do was sit still for two-and-a-half hours, sound vaguely professional, and pander occasionally to his base. Sure, if you listened closely, what Ham was saying made absolutely no scientific sense. But debate is a format of impressions, not facts. Ham sounded like a reasonable human being, loosely speaking, and that?s what mattered.


The people in the best position to go up against him are not Bill Nye or other science types. It's people who share some of his beliefs but not so fringe or deranged or nut job. People who are not the power he is opposing.


I don't understand how Ham supposedly won that debate with Bill Nye. Ken Ham didn't even have an argument whatsoever for why his belief that the Earth is 6000 years was supposedly true, other than "the bible says so", while Bill Nye cited tons of evidence that the Earth is billions of years older than that. I thought that Bill Nye absolutely killed it.


You watch the youtube clip and think "yup, Nye is making the best case in the best way. He won."

Quote:
There are those who will claim a victory for Nye. He did have his moments. Near the end of the debate, Nye found his footing, speaking passionately about the joys of scientific discovery. Doing so, he highlighted the degree to which creationism is a decidedly incurious, insular worldview. Ham was at a loss for words only once during the whole debate, when an audience member asked what it would take for him to change his mind. By contrast, Nye seemed most alive when talking about all the things that he couldn?t explain. The Ham-leaning audience was skeptical. But for anyone who lives in that uncomfortable middle, who engages with the uncertainty and wonder of a universe they don?t understand; and for anyone who doesn?t have a rigid dogma to fall back on, those moments couldn?t help but make Nye seem like a true champion of the common moderate.


But tragically, the mere fact that the debate happened at all made Nye (or rather, science as a whole which Nye was representing), the loser.
Quote:
But it was too late. Months too late. You don?t need to be Sun Tzu to realize that, when it comes to guys like Ken Ham, you can?t really win. If you refuse to debate them, they claim to be censored. If you agree to debate them, you give them a public platform on which to argue that, yep, they?re being censored. Better not to engage at all, at least directly. Nye may be the last to understand a point that seems to be circulating more widely these days: creationism is a political issue, not a scientific one, and throwing around scientific facts won?t dissuade those who don?t accept scientific authority in the first place.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

23 Jul 2014, 7:54 am

Jono wrote:
I don't understand how Ham supposedly won that debate with Bill Nye. Ken Ham didn't even have an argument whatsoever for why his belief that the Earth is 6000 years was supposedly true, other than "the bible says so", while Bill Nye cited tons of evidence that the Earth is billions of years older than that. I thought that Bill Nye absolutely killed it.

Ken Ham "won" because Bill Nye should have listened to Richard Dawkins:

Darwin's Rottweiler wrote:
Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.

Source:
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/ ... eationists



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

23 Jul 2014, 8:04 am

So as far as Ken Ham is concerned "there is no such thing as bad publicity", any publicity gives air to his views. Even this thread on WP which (indirectly) links to his site helps to promote his Google rankings. It makes it sound like there is a controversy where there is none and consequently those who are more gullible or who know little science are likely to be sucked into his lies. Without publicity his ridiculous creationist museum wouldn't survive. I wonder how many kids pass through the doors of that place and leave brainwashed by his propaganda?


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

23 Jul 2014, 8:15 am

TallyMan wrote:
Without publicity his ridiculous creationist museum wouldn't survive. I wonder how many kids pass through the doors of that place and leave brainwashed by his propaganda?


Unfortunately, Ham is quite good at marketing. The stacks of cash he sucks in via this museum fund his efforts to get the message out to churches, who in turn bring their children (often in busses with whole congregations joining in), which in turn gives him more cash, etc.

With the resurgence of "old time religion," Ham ahs an audience that already believes the garbage, he just provides further validation for them.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

27 Jul 2014, 12:29 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
Without publicity his ridiculous creationist museum wouldn't survive. I wonder how many kids pass through the doors of that place and leave brainwashed by his propaganda?


Unfortunately, Ham is quite good at marketing. The stacks of cash he sucks in via this museum fund his efforts to get the message out to churches, who in turn bring their children (often in busses with whole congregations joining in), which in turn gives him more cash, etc.

With the resurgence of "old time religion," Ham ahs an audience that already believes the garbage, he just provides further validation for them.
I hope an F-5 tornado touches down on the creation museum sparing the countless minds of youth from being brainwashed.


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Brainfre3ze_93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,912
Location: Not here

27 Jul 2014, 1:51 pm

BlankReg wrote:
I normally stay away from discussions like this; but when Pat Robertson tells you you're making Christianity look stupid, you really need to take a good, hard look at yourself and the image you're presenting.


That's hilarious considering he has been one of the best at showing Christianity's stupidity for 20+ years.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

27 Jul 2014, 10:41 pm

Ken Ham, one of atheism's greatest champions. Preach it brother.