umirano Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Reputable scientists have widely-varying theories. Don't jump the gun and claim they all believe evolution. Are you aware that a large movement among "reputable scientists" are beginning to believe that life was seeded and genetically engineered on earth by extraterrestrial beings? (Alan Watson, discoverer of DNA was among them.) Where would you classify this theory along the spectrum? Evolution? Creation? Hmm... I highly doubt the veracity of your claims. There is no Alan Watson among "the discoverers" of the DNA. There is a James Watson. No where can I find those extraordinary claims you're saying he made. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
maiden of rohan Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 So when Alan Watson discovered the double-helix strands of DNA and claimed that "aliens" made it and planted it here, he was making a dumb and unfounded idea? As Umirano posted below, Alan Watson did not discover the double-helix. James Watson and Francis Crick did. This right there tells me that you do not know what you are talking about. It was actually Francis Crick who believed that DNA came to Earth via a process called panspermia which is the belief that intergalatic sperm traveled to Earth on a comet or a meteorite. This is not possible-considered that by the time it reached Earth, it would have decayed. However, this does not invalidate his brilliant work on DNA. Smart people can have dumb ideas. There is absolutely no foundation for his beliefs. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
M30USA Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 As Umirano posted below, Alan Watson did not discover the double-helix. James Watson and Francis Crick did. This right there tells me that you do not know what you are talking about. It was actually Francis Crick who believed that DNA came to Earth via a process called panspermia which is the belief that intergalatic sperm traveled to Earth on a comet or a meteorite. This is not possible-considered that by the time it reached Earth, it would have decayed. However, this does not invalidate his brilliant work on DNA. Smart people can have dumb ideas. There is absolutely no foundation for his beliefs. LOL, I actually laughed. A co-discoverer is still a discoverer. And, yes, I knew that. I've taken more BS and MS level science courses than I'd care to list here. This discussion is not productive and I'm wasting my time. Hope you have a good day. Link to post Share on other sites
Keenly Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 LOL, I actually laughed. A co-discoverer is still a discoverer. And, yes, I knew that. I've taken more BS and MS level science courses than I'd care to list here. This discussion is not productive and I'm wasting my time. Hope you have a good day. According to that persons post, he is a not a co-discoverer... but a different guy. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
M30USA Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 According to that persons post, he is a not a co-discoverer... but a different guy. For crying out loud, mixing up a first name is a petty point. It's not even related to the topic. This is why I will not remain in this discussion. Again, I hope you all have a good one. Link to post Share on other sites
maiden of rohan Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 LOL, I actually laughed. A co-discoverer is still a discoverer. And, yes, I knew that. I've taken more BS and MS level science courses than I'd care to list here. This discussion is not productive and I'm wasting my time. Hope you have a good day. You're wasting your time because Alan Watson did not discover DNA. James Watson and Francis Crick did. As my previous post stated, it was Francis Crick who believed in panspermia with no evidence and no foundation to base such beliefs on. So on two points, you are wrong. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
TheFinalWord Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Christian Today asks it's readers to vote on "who won" the debate WATCH Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate VIDEO in FULL HERE: Who won Creation vs Evolution debate? [POLL] | Christian News on Christian Today You have to vote to see the results. As of ten minutes ago 27,101 votes. Ken Ham 8% Bill Nye 92% Did I mention this was at Christian Today ? In case I didn't, this was a vote on the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Creation vs Evolution debate held by the readers of Christian Today web site... And yet, you are NOT christian, and obviously had to vote to get the results, i.e. trolling might explain these paradoxical percentages. Overall, I question that validity of the sampling method used in this poll. Nevertheless, I watched and do not think either "won". The debate was boring, to be honest. Anyone that follows this topic has no doubt witnessed much better debates between scholars of specific academic disciplines on these topics. I also do not think you have to be a young earth creationist to believe the bible in a literal sense. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Author mukkrakker Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 Reputable scientists have widely-varying theories. Don't jump the gun and claim they all believe evolution I think 99% is a pretty defining statistic. But as always facts don't appeal to your point of view. Alan Watson, discoverer of DNA was among… Even creationist get his name right! 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Author mukkrakker Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 This discussion is not productive and I'm wasting my time. You say that every time the facts prove you wrong, now why is that? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Allumere Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I'm Christian. Was raised Catholic and moved over to the Christian route a few years back. I'm not of the conservative or ultra-conservative flavor nor would I be consider myself progressive (I do understand the confusion regarding how each flavor has there way to get it right). I think evolution and creationism are applicable in regards to the world and universe. I am not a fan of trying to use the Bible as a science book although there are some that have done a decent job of actually trying to map things (i.e., 1 day = 1000 years_ etc.) IMHO, it's much better to view as theological with the emphasis more on the why things are/ and origins from God's viewpoint then how cells divide. The details have no bearing on the intended message (i.e., we accept numerous inaccuracies between the books in the Bible but because there is no contradiction in terms of meaning/intent they are not viewed as detractors). Link to post Share on other sites
Keenly Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 It was my understanding that a debate moderated is supposed to ensure that questions asked are actually addressed instead of being stumbled around until time tuns out. Am I wrong in thinking that ? I also thought it was kind of unfair how the moderator forced bill bye on two different occasions to use over half of his time explaining what the meaning of the question was before he could answer it (second law of thermodynamics question) Link to post Share on other sites
TheyCallMeOx Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I'll be honest: I didn't know what the heck Ken Ham was talking about. I always felt like he wasn't actually answering the questions. Bill Nye seemed to actually answer the question, and it seemed like Ken Ham was just trying to be a smart-ass. I wasn't satisfied with the debate. Link to post Share on other sites
maiden of rohan Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I think Ken Ham delivered the crushing blow to his own side when he and Nye were asked, "What would change your mind?" Ham answered, "Nothing." Nye answered, "Evidence." It simply proves that Ham and others like him are not remotely interested in evidence, that no matter what the evidence, they're still going to believe whatever nonsense it is they want to believe, and that is that. It further proves the point that reputable scientists should stop "debating" with these hacks. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
Author mukkrakker Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 it seemed like Ken Ham was just trying to be a smart-ass Pat Robertson agrees with you: "Pat Robertson implores creationist Ken Ham to shut up: ‘Let’s not make a joke of ourselves'" Pat Robertson implores creationist Ken Ham to shut up: ?Let?s not make a joke of ourselves? | The Raw Story 1 Link to post Share on other sites
misternoname Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 The debate was akin to a rational person trying to have a conversation with a schizophrenic. No matter how logical you explain realty, the schizo still hears voices and sees pink elephants. It was amusing but frankly a waste of time. Nye made perfect sense, Ham came across as a loon. Link to post Share on other sites
TheFinalWord Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 On a serious note, I wonder if Bill Nye could win in a dance off against Ken Ham? At least that would be entertaining! Bill Nye and Tyne Stecklein - Jazz - Dancing with the Stars 17 - YouTube Link to post Share on other sites
M30USA Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 The debate was akin to a rational person trying to have a conversation with a schizophrenic. No matter how logical you explain realty, the schizo still hears voices and sees pink elephants. It was amusing but frankly a waste of time. Nye made perfect sense, Ham came across as a loon. Was Jesus Christ "akin" to a schizophrenic for making his claims about God that were "akin" to pink elephants? Psychologists and historians have analyzed Christ and say that he showed no signs of a mental disorder. Link to post Share on other sites
Author mukkrakker Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 Psychologists and historians have analyzed Christ and say that he showed no signs of a mental disorder. Was he on a couch or a chair, cos I think that effects the results... 2 Link to post Share on other sites
maiden of rohan Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Was Jesus Christ "akin" to a schizophrenic for making his claims about God that were "akin" to pink elephants? Psychologists and historians have analyzed Christ and say that he showed no signs of a mental disorder. Did they use a medium to do that or did he just pop by their office one day? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
misternoname Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Had Christ lived today would his declaration of being the son of god not be taken with some skeptical thoughts? They said David Koresh, Jim Jones, Sun Myung Moon, etc. were all crack pots. Why would I believe Jesus Christ over any of them? IMHO Jesus Christ was a very wise, spiritual man that ruffled a lot of feathers. A great leader...yes. Son of a mythical god? Nope. If there is indeed a higher power he (or she) either has way too much to do to worry about our little planet or he (or she) whipped us up as an experiment. If there really was an all knowing LOVING god, there would be no war, no disease, no famine and there certainly wouldn't be umpteen different religious disciplines fighting over the same celestial being. None of it makes any sense to me. As a true agnostic, I believe (when it involves religion) in nothing because nothing has ever been proven to me. Trust me, if Jesus showed up at my door and gave me empirical proof that Christianity was 100% correct I'd be thumping that bible. Same goes if the Budha or Mohammed or Abraham showed up. Link to post Share on other sites
M30USA Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Did they use a medium to do that or did he just pop by their office one day? The same way, for example, that Dr. John Mack of Harvard could psychoanalyze Lawrence of Arabia and write a biography. Are you all trying to sound obtuse? I don't mean this offensively. You keep throwing out these pseudo-humorous side comments. Link to post Share on other sites
maiden of rohan Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) The same way, for example, that Dr. John Mack of Harvard could psychoanalyze Lawrence of Arabia and write a biography. Are you all trying to sound obtuse? I don't mean this offensively. You keep throwing out these pseudo-humorous side comments. It's called a joke. Edited February 12, 2014 by maiden of rohan 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Author mukkrakker Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 I don't mean this offensively. Who took offense? We were just wondering if "He" came to them or they time machined back to "Him"… curious minds and all that… Genes and therapy: From the Lab to the Couch: Personalized Psychiatry in the Genomic Era ? NOVA Next | PBS 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Philosoraptor Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I watched the debate and honestly I felt bad for Ken Ham. He looked like a fool and his pants weren't even on the ground. I'm totally open to the possibility that a deity set the universe in motion. But I don't get where a deity always existing and somehow creating everything has any stronger backing than the universe always existing to begin with (big bang theory or not). To say that the universe needed something to create it also asks the question "what needed to create the thing that created the universe?", and that becomes a never ending cycle. Again, I feel bad for Ken Ham. Scientific uncertainty does not equal scientific doubt. A man of knowledge can acknowledge that there are always mysteries out there. It's not something you can just put a band-aid over and claim that everything you don't understand and claim that everything your opponent says is incorrect. There is no knowledge there, just ignorance. I don't subscribe to any particular religion personally, but do believe in some higher power. I can't tell you what it is. But I don't believe if I live a respectful life with no ill will towards others, but don't believe in any specific deity (if they are real), that I could possibly be punished for doing my best to offer kindness to others. Link to post Share on other sites
Madman81 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Was Jesus Christ "akin" to a schizophrenic for making his claims about God that were "akin" to pink elephants? Psychologists and historians have analyzed Christ and say that he showed no signs of a mental disorder. Obviously it's possible that he had a mental disorder, but we'll probably never know, so let's assume he didn't. So, Christ's pink elephant-type claims were really no different in species from any of the claims made by any other people living 2,000 years ago who also knew nothing of science, thought illness was caused by demonic possession, believed the world was flat, and had no clue what caused volcanoes and earthquakes. They had no idea how to explain the things they saw in life and the world around them, and created stories to help explain them. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts