Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Bowielee

Bowielee

I agree 100% with you @Bubble181, that people on either side should break down their beliefs and understand why they have them. Personally, it took me years of study and contemplation to reach the place I have. No matter what side of the actual god debate you fall on, you should at least make sure that you understand why you believe it.

Just saying "because I just believe in it" or "because I just don't believe in it", to me isn't a satisfactory answer to why you hold the stance that you do on the matter.

Also, be careful, your first statement about literal creationists is similar to what ended up with me being called belittling.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
CrimsonSoul said:
Ah philosophy, also known as "Would you like fries with that?"
Click to expand...
I remember a girl in high school who fancied herself quite the deep intellect once asked our teacher, "I'd like to major in philosophy, but what do philosophers do these days?" and as a reflex I blurted out "Starve." Everybody thought it was funny but her.
 
Terrik

Terrik

I had a friend who went to the Air Force Academy, washed out, and THEN majored in philosophy. He never recovered.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
I have a friend who majored in Philosophy. He got a job at Union Pacific and makes twice as much as me. Some jobs don't care what your degree is in as long as you have one.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

And all kidding aside, if you have a good education* in philosophy, it does give you some useful skills. I can easily read in 4 languages (if you're reading Kant in English you're doing it wrong :p), you learn to properly and quickly analyze texts, to quickly follow other people's train of thought and method of thinking, you're at least supposed to be able to look at subjects from different perspectives, and it helps you formulate your own thoughts more clearly. I admit I'm bad at that last part :p

Oh, and, while I don't have the time to go look it up, there's an article around somewhere where it's stated pretty clearly that philosophy is pretty much management but with crappier pay (buzzwords and all that jazz). The studies really are alike in a lot of ways.



*Just learning by rote is useless except as the skill "quickly learning things by heart", and if that's all you want, go study law :p
 
CrimsonSoul

CrimsonSoul

Bubble181 said:
And all kidding aside, if you have a good education* in philosophy, it does give you some useful skills. I can easily read in 4 languages (if you're reading Kant in English you're doing it wrong :p), you learn to properly and quickly analyze texts, to quickly follow other people's train of thought and method of thinking, you're at least supposed to be able to look at subjects from different perspectives, and it helps you formulate your own thoughts more clearly. I admit I'm bad at that last part :p

Oh, and, while I don't have the time to go look it up, there's an article around somewhere where it's stated pretty clearly that philosophy is pretty much management but with crappier pay (buzzwords and all that jazz). The studies really are alike in a lot of ways.



*Just learning by rote is useless except as the skill "quickly learning things by heart", and if that's all you want, go study law :p
Click to expand...
Ahhh... So you'll know if they want fries with that and you won't have to ask... And you can serve guest from other countries.. Awesome! :p
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

CrimsonSoul said:
Ahhh... So you'll know if they want fries with that and you won't have to ask... And you can serve guest from other countries.. Awesome! :p
Click to expand...
Quite so. And since I'm Belgian, they'll be decent fries, too, not those soggy matches Americans like to claim as "french fries" :p

(now, move aside because you're holding up the next customer)
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Bubble181 said:
Quite so. And since I'm Belgian, they'll be decent fries, too, not those soggy matches Americans like to claim as "french fries" :p
Click to expand...
This is a strong argument. There are several "gourmet" fries places in NYC who basically just serve variants of Belgian fries with a long, long list of alternative toppings.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

The gallery

Before going there, please accept that I am offering this "science of sarcasm - creationist questions explained" only and solely as humor, and I do not in any way, shape or form, wish to use this a "source" or a form of "evidence" in favor or against anyone or anything, nor does this website or its pictures correspond with my personal view(s) on the matter. If you are likely to be offended by sarcastic "translations" of questions, are insecure in your faith/belief or otherwise think that you will not be able to shrug off anything you might find offensive in this link, please do not follow it.

That said:


 
tegid

tegid

Meh, they don't seem very funny to me. Of course, I'm to busy raging against the mislead mentions of thermodynamics (damn you Ham :fu:)
 
Mathias

Mathias

figmentPez said:
And how is that different from the majority of the population who will never participate in peer review of science? (there is a difference, I just want you to spell it out, because I'm not sure you've thought this through.)
Click to expand...
Because the evidence and peer review is still there regardless of the lay persons understanding of it... I have no doubt a lot of people "take the scientists' " word for it, but the evidence is still there. Yes, there are things like journal paywalls, and access to primary data may be limited. Academia and politics aren't perfect, but as an amateur person in physics, for example, I can do my research to my heart's content and come to similar conclusions about, say, relativity that others have already said. It's there for me. The proof is also in the technology. Scientific findings are put to the test all the time by engineers to make cars work, to make rockets, to make medicine, to conserve the environment, etc... To quote Richard Dawkins, "It works. Bitches." I actually found it sad that Ray Damadian is a staunch creationist who rallies against the progress of science when his invention of MRI depended completely on the findings of Paul Lauterber and Peter Mansfield.

You've hit the nail on the head as to why science education is so vital, and why I respect dude's like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson for trying to make science and critical thought part of our human culture.

I've gotten into arguments about creationism with friends and family many times. They all share the similar sentiment that I 'believe" in evolution not creationism. I hate using that word. I don't believe in evolution, I look at the model and understand that it's probably how reality works.[DOUBLEPOST=1392297343,1392296826][/DOUBLEPOST]
Dave said:
I have a friend who majored in Philosophy. He got a job at Union Pacific and makes twice as much as me. Some jobs don't care what your degree is in as long as you have one.
Click to expand...

I have a buddy from college who majored in Philosophy with a focus on debate and logic. He's a high priced lawyer.
 
tegid

tegid

Relating those questions from people after the talk, Phil Plait (Bad Astronomer) answers them here:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...science_answering_creationists_questions.html

I only skimmed through it, but some of his points are interesting. At the very end he says this:

"Because science isn't a belief system. Scientists don't believe in evolution; we trust that it's the best way to describe how we came to be. And we do that because it's earned that trust."

which I found interesting related to the discussion here. I think if you use 'trust' instead of 'believe' you lose a lot of the semantic discussion some of you had.
 
Officer_Charon

Officer_Charon

When we go to court, there are certain things that are accepted as givens, not requiring an expert witness to testify as to their truths. I can't recall the legal term at this time, and am skiving off work to post this here, so I'm not going to try and marshal my sleep-deprived thoughts to dig it up - It's somewhere in my notes on traffic RADAR.

I am not a physicist, nor am I a mathematician. Were I to go in front of a court and be asked to explain how RADAR works, I would be unable to, beyond the basic theory. My case would be lost, and any and all effort employed in the prosecution of said case deriving from a traffic stop based on RADAR would be for naught.

Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has had expert testimony that has been documented and verified by several expert witnesses that shows that RADAR, as applied in a speed detection capacity, works, and works consistently when operated correctly. Thus, we may accept that RADAR is a truth, in a courtroom. It has been proven, before I ever got there.

This is not faith, but it sounds an awful lot like it, doesn't it? I'm accepting as given the words of those who have come before me.


Honestly, I had more, but I can't get my head straight right now. I stay out of religious discussions, because I neither have a horse in the race, nor do I care to enter one. It is not something that is important enough to me to care about. This is not to take away from anyone for whom faith and religion IS important - but it's not for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top