• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bill Nye Vs. Ken Hamm

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
rudeguy said:
I'll cover this because its one of the great pieces of misinformation out there.

The way things were communicated back then were much, much different than now. People didn't have books. Books existed but the vast majority of people did not own them. The way things were communicated was orally. People would gather to retell things. Yes, some parts of the information changed but there were always parts that could not be changed. These were the heart, the meaning of the information. If one of those pieces was changed, the orator would be stopped and corrected. This would basically shun him and prevent him from ever lecturing again. So he had great reason to get things right.

People did not carry around scrolls and books and tablets. That just wasn't how it worked back then.
Click to expand...

and you know this because you were there to observe every retelling?

or perhaps it says so in a book?

or perhaps it must be that way since that is how it works today?
 
waggy said:
hmm i want Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. hopefully my local library has it.
Click to expand...

It's really good. There should be a copy in your system. Also, the author did a BBC documentary on it that's available through netflix snail mail.
 
Obviously there is doctrine in Christianity that is adamant. By definition it demands belief in the fallen state of man and the need for redemption. Those core beliefs (and others) MUST stand up to scrutiny. A huge hurdle for most folks is that many of them aren't available to scrutiny, to proof or disprove. As far as aliens and other such things, there is no proverbial dog in the race for orthodoxy as the Bible is silent on extraterrestrials (with the SLIGHTLY possible exception of one verse). If they they did appear and proved that they created man, I agree there would be a problem.
You have to realize, if Christians believe the Word of God is infallable, then it must be true forever. That would naturally mmean continuing translation as older manuscripts are found and now-modern science sheds light on old passages the meant nothing to the autographers (I.e. He sits above the circle of the earth. Meaning a not-flat planet, 2000 years before it was proven).
Unfortunately this debate is practically impossible because of the loud mouth fundamentalists being SO loud that their outlandish beliefs become strawman for all Christians.
 
Gigantopithecus said:
No, he is honest. He truly believes what he says. Which means he is delusional.
Click to expand...

I see it as both delusional and dishonest. He is lying to himself. He actively rejects rationale and reason, actively rejects facts that debunk his junk "science." He's not just gullible or something. He is actually dishonest.
 
rudeguy said:
I'll cover this because its one of the great pieces of misinformation out there.

The way things were communicated back then were much, much different than now. People didn't have books. Books existed but the vast majority of people did not own them. The way things were communicated was orally. People would gather to retell things. Yes, some parts of the information changed but there were always parts that could not be changed. These were the heart, the meaning of the information. If one of those pieces was changed, the orator would be stopped and corrected. This would basically shun him and prevent him from ever lecturing again. So he had great reason to get things right.

People did not carry around scrolls and books and tablets. That just wasn't how it worked back then.
Click to expand...

Oh it is? Er, what part of what I posted are you saying is "one of the great pieces of misinformation"?

You don't say. You mean, humans existed before computers? What's this books you're talking about? Scrolls? Aren't those video games? 🙄

(If you can't tell I'm basically saying no shit, because, get this, that's very well known and not in any way misinformation or whatever the hell you seem to be under the impression it is. This might be the most baffling thing you've posted about this yet.)

Do you just assume that everyone else is as ignorant about history and...so many other things as you are? What I love is how you're unwilling to take all of this other information about various topics where there's literally tons of information (first hand even!), but then you cop this condescending attitude over something that you assume other people don't know and that that's all it takes for your information to be correct. Like, that alone shows how its not 2nd or 3rd hand information so it can't be dismissed in the same manner as you do.

Ignoring your nonsensical history lesson, again, literally listening to opinions is going to be worse than 2nd or 3rd hand information here (do you really need to have it be explained why?), so your rationale that that other information is dismissible but whatever info you're getting isn't in the exact same way is logically wrong, as in the basics of what you're saying don't make fundamental sense as far as coherent thought goes. You dismiss your own argument and you don't even seem to understand that. You're literally saying something is wrong, then using something that is even worse as far as your own rule for what makes it wrong, as your argument for why what you're saying is valid.

Again, please, actually read what you write out loud to yourself before you reply as you literally are just posting foolishness that basic understanding of logic is able to defeat.
 
ThinClient said:
I see it as both delusional and dishonest. He is lying to himself. He actively rejects rationale and reason, actively rejects facts that debunk his junk "science." He's not just gullible or something. He is actually dishonest.
Click to expand...

Well, nuts, I am not a psychologist. That just sounds like too much effort to me.
 
darkswordsman17 said:
Oh it is? Er, what part of what I posted are you saying is "one of the great pieces of misinformation"?

You don't say. You mean, humans existed before computers? What's this books you're talking about? Scrolls? Aren't those video games? 🙄

(If you can't tell I'm basically saying no shit, because, get this, that's very well known and not in any way misinformation or whatever the hell you seem to be under the impression it is. This might be the most baffling thing you've posted about this yet.)

Do you just assume that everyone else is as ignorant about history and...so many other things as you are? What I love is how you're unwilling to take all of this other information about various topics where there's literally tons of information (first hand even!), but then you cop this condescending attitude over something that you assume other people don't know and that that's all it takes for your information to be correct. Like, that alone shows how its not 2nd or 3rd hand information so it can't be dismissed in the same manner as you do.

Ignoring your nonsensical history lesson, again, literally listening to opinions is going to be worse than 2nd or 3rd hand information here (do you really need to have it be explained why?), so your rationale that that other information is dismissible but whatever info you're getting isn't in the exact same way is logically wrong, as in the basics of what you're saying don't make fundamental sense as far as coherent thought goes. You dismiss your own argument and you don't even seem to understand that. You're literally saying something is wrong, then using something that is even worse as far as your own rule for what makes it wrong, as your argument for why what you're saying is valid.

Again, please, actually read what you write out loud to yourself before you reply as you literally are just posting foolishness that basic understanding of logic is able to defeat.
Click to expand...

But...he listens to podcasts...
 
shadow9d9 said:
But...he listens to podcasts...
Click to expand...

Heh, there are some very informative, scholarly sound podcasts on the net. Unfortunately, none of the ones he posted are worth a crap 🙁.

Srsly Rudeguy, Christian and biblical (real) history is really fascinating. Expose yourself to real historians, not apologetics, and you'll learn a lot.
 
LookBehindYou said:
But, but, you didn't SEE the tree grow. So how do you really know how long it took to grow?

😛
Click to expand...


I can imagine that maybe science is wrong about one or several aging methods (for the sake of argument) but I can't imagine that starlight, tree rings, rock layers, fossils, snow ice layers ALL undergoing a rapid stage of rate increase or rate slowing and all appearing to be as consistent as they are. Its so ridiculous to believe in a young earth that I can't even word my point properly because I have to type out absurdities in an understandable way, and that's hard.
 
KeVqfZR.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top