Is Bill Nye wise ????????

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:21 am

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
"In fact, I gave one clear piece of “evidence.” Using the evolutionists’ method of dating rocks, I gave the example of supposedly 45,000-year-old wood in supposedly 45-million-year-old rock! This is just one of the many examples you could give to show the dating methods are not reliable—they have problems because they are based on fallible assumptions."
No, you did not - you PROFESSIONAL LIAR. You - very briefly - offered a highly questionable YEC claim.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby cathy » Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:13 pm

Well here's the thing - if Ken is being allowed to continue the debate alone on his website - why isn't Bill Nye (or any other scientific individual). Surely it is unfair for Ken to carry on saying things now Bill Nye is no longer present to respond to them. :evil:

Why aren't the objections to Kens dredged up answers being given equal space.
cathy
 
Posts: 3659
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:31 pm

Nye has a Facebook page where he sometimes comments, a page for comments by him not supporters, but I imagine he may have better things to do than rebut there all the drip drip 'answers' (aimed at any supporters who might have been unconvinced by Ham's performance or impressed by Nye's) that AiG claim to have had all along, but which Ham mysteriously failed to produce on the night - either through forgetfulness or because he knew they would sound ridiculous (apart from that wood in igneous rock thing and 'catastrophic plate tectonics').
https://www.facebook.com/billnye

The public perception is that Ham lost the debate. He did NOT show that he has a viable model of origins for the modern scientific era.

Whether he also successfully demonstrated "that the battle over origins is a clash of worldviews because of different starting points" is I think largely irrelevant.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Will Bob Sorensen stop lying for Jesus and Ken Ham?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:38 am

Hypocritical liar and YEC Bob Sorensen - who falsely accused me of 'misrepresenting' Ken Ham here in December 2012 when I critiqued a Ham blog about David Montgomery, but who has TOTALLY IGNORED an email from me to him and other YECs asking him to EXPLAIN HOW I 'misrepresented' - has written this on Ham's Facebook page:
"I saw in an atheist forum where they were saying that since you were posting responses long after the debate, it means you know that you lost. How's that for "reasoning"? But they do not address the fact that Bill Nye the I Don't Do My Homework Guy was using bad evidence that had been addressed by creationists — sometimes *decades* previously! -CBB".
(a) This is not an 'atheist' forum as Bob knows, but he wishes to MISLEAD people;
(b) If Ham thought he had won the debate he would be SAYING so - instead the AiG website are making excuses which imply either that Ham had AiG 'answers' but failed to give them because he forgot, because they would take too long to outline within the debate constraints, or because he realised that they would sound ridiculous because they are not SCIENTIFIC or RATIONAL answers.
Of course, if Bob quotes THIS he will either QUOTE-MINE it or else try to TWIST it (without giving the link). Or simply accuse me of 'Ad hominems'.

Since you are READING this community forum Cowboy Bob - once AGAIN please will you send me an email answering the following question:

Please EXPLAIN for the benefit of fellow young Earth creationists and also myself exactly WHAT 'misrepresentation' my highlighted BCSE community forum comments of December 2012 contained (they are a screenshot in your Piltdown Superman blog post dated 9 March)?

If you do NOT, that will be PROOF that you CHOSE to make a FALSE statement about me for personal or religious 'gain' (in a place where I cannot defend myself ie you also did so in a cowardly manner). The choice is YOURS.

Meanwhile, self-publicist Ken Ham STILL has not finished trying to restore his credibility after that debate failure:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -wont-stop

Apparently it was all a victory for God and there are worldwide conversations taking place about origins. God is pleased with Ken Ham even if atheists are not. Actually I think in a way they ARE - see the various post-debate blogs posted at the Richard Dawkins Forum for Reason and Science. Do the bloggers sound angry that Ken Ham somehow 'won' the public debate or that Bill Nye somehow 'lost'?

Even if there are gospel opportunities because the debate happened, which does not bother me in the slightest because I am not anti-Christianity despite my own bad experience of God/'god', I suspect there are no truthful statements being made anywhere to the effect that Ken Ham presented a viable scientific model of origins for the current era and that Bill Nye did not.


PS I am as much entertained by Sorensen's behaviour as angered by it. It helps convince ME that his version of God is either non-existent or is evil.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Will Bob Sorensen stop lying for Jesus and Ken Ham?

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:03 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:PS I am as much entertained by Sorensen's behaviour as angered by it. It helps convince ME that his version of God is either non-existent or is evil.


I doubt if you have quite grasped what is going on there, Ashley. The entire US fundamentalist/religious right movement is an appeal to emotion. It is not an appeal to reason, rationality, intellect or knowledge. It is a movement that sees everything in terms of pure black or white.

As a consequence paranoia is rampant amongst the hard religious right of the USA. As are, of course, the martyrdom and persecution complexes. Needless to say, the fundamentalists all hate each others' guts.

Whilst the term Poe usually applies to creationists, the concept is equally applicable to the hard religious right in the USA.

Sorensen is a jerk who isn't worth bothering with.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:46 pm

cathy wrote:Well here's the thing - if Ken is being allowed to continue the debate alone on his website - why isn't Bill Nye (or any other scientific individual). Surely it is unfair for Ken to carry on saying things now Bill Nye is no longer present to respond to them. :evil:

Why aren't the objections to Kens dredged up answers being given equal space.


Exactly Cathy.

As someone who engaged in competitive sports for a long time Cathy, it's a bit like constantly asking your opponent for a rematch after you've lost. You simply accept defeat and shake your opponent's hand.

Droning on and on about what you should have done makes people ignore you after while. You just don't go there if you want to maintain any credibility.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4337
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:34 pm

Note: following a private message I would have been prepared to transfer my post above to the Sorensen thread in Conversations - but that probably makes little sense now given that there has been a response to it (partly quoting from it) it earlier today.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:22 pm

Someone, using a pseudonym, has placed this video onto Ken Ham's facebook page. It's rather good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpi699cuBe0
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:27 am

Very nice. Posted by Baud Bits but it sounds like Potholer54 - not inappropriate when discussing strata!
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby cathy » Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:53 pm

Someone, using a pseudonym, has placed this video onto Ken Ham's facebook page. It's rather good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpi699cuBe0
Very good indeed. Is it still there or has it been discreetly removed ha ha.
cathy
 
Posts: 3659
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:06 am

cathy wrote:
Someone, using a pseudonym, has placed this video onto Ken Ham's facebook page. It's rather good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpi699cuBe0
Very good indeed. Is it still there or has it been discreetly removed ha ha.


I can no longer see the link.

Today someone has made this comment on the AiG Facebook page (in discussions of Ham's blog post for 18 March):
"Except in laboratory experiments that confirm evolution..... And, like, the entire fossil record. I am a Christian and believe that God wants us to discover and learn, not accept blindly. Genesis is clearly a moral lesson about sin, not literally how the Earth was formed. The young earth thing, with ice cores, ancient tree rings, evidence of continental drift, etc. is demonstrably false. I really wish you people would stop, as you give Christianity a bad name."

The response from other contributors? "Tree rings, ice cores, and continental drift do not demonstrate an old earth. AiG has articles debunking all of those ideas." Though someone else has then commented "They want to make up bull to discredit items such as tree rings".

Funny how God seems to want Christians to be fighting amongst themselves by creating a world that does not match that described in Genesis ...
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

New highly dishonest AiG initiative to try and discredit Nye

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:58 pm

And trying to make excuses for the failures of Ham.

Podcast 'What Do Ice Cores Reveal About the Age of the Earth?' (Steve Ham and Andrew Snelling.)
https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis (I HAVE listened; Snelling wants to replace reasonable uniformitarian assumptions with totally barmy catastrophist special pleading - as USUAL since 'creation science' is RELIGION and Bible apologetics nothing more nothing less. He also claims that Bill Nye and co could not correctly interpret US snow layers from the 2013-14 Winter. LIAR.)

The answer to the podcast question is NOTHING. Apart from the fact that the Antarctic and Greenland ice cores CANNOT have been formed in just 4,500 years. They CANNOT. Thus Earth is OLDER than 4,500 years. Duh.

Further proof if it were needed that these biblical Christians are ENEMIES of science.


PS
By the way one of Cowboy Bob Sorensen's 'fans' (I refer here to Wilson, Gordons and Morris) has told me by Facebook: "You're hopeless and worthless trying to make a name for yourself in that pitiful forum when nobody even gives a rat's ass what you think. Get a life, loser." I sense an insecure person whose fantasy opinions are under some kind of THREAT. The only way they can deal with the threat is to falsely libel those who disagree with them and pronounce them to be 'liars'. Another of the infamous three has demanded by Facebook that I shut up. And now the third one is having a go at me on my Facebook page: ""He's questioning whether some people he thinks are wrong really are Christians." No, he [Sorensen] didn't say that. Caught you lying again". The HYPOCRITE is LYING because Sorensen DID say "Sometimes I wonder if those people actually are Christians".
http://biblicalcreationandevangelism.bl ... tians.html

I told the TRUTH. As I ALWAYS try to do. Telling lies about creationists - as well as being unnecessary - simply confirms them in their bigoted worldview and their total contempt for all other opinions.

LYING FRAUDS who pretend that black is white 'for Jesus' or for some other cause (or to blacken other people's reputation in a rather desperate attempt to uphold their own) totally deserve to be EXPOSED as frauds.

This is NOT about attacking Christians or about trying to stop Christians being believers.

It's about exposing aggressive, bigoted and frankly cowardly pseudo-scientific charlatans. Who speak for nobody but themselves.

What pathetic attempts to brand me a 'liar' will the likes of Sorensen, Wilson, Morris, and Gordons come up with next?

Or will they Shut Up?

Young Earth creationism - nastiness in defence of biblical Christianity regardless of a world of evidence that shows their beliefs are wrong.


PPS
The LYING crap that Gary Jonathan Morris is sending to my facebook page:
Him: "Your conscience is GONE, not clear. You're a loonie. "At the Facebook page 'Question the Question Evolution Project' I have just asked the following question" Good luck with that, it's dead and a failure. "He's questioning whether some people he thinks are wrong really are Christians." No, he didn't say that. Caught you lying again."
Me: "READ THIS LIAR MORRIS (I'm also exposing your hypocrisy at the BCSE community forum):
http://biblicalcreationandevangelism.bl ... tians.html"
Him: "No, calling people liars doesn't make them liars, you have to prove it. I saw that article and it's good but you misrepresented it unless you just can't understand it with your drug riddled brain. Funny, you call me evil but that article you pretend you read shows that it doesn't matter because you don't even have a moral standard to call anyone evil by. "It's about exposing aggressive, bigoted and frankly cowardly pseudo-scientific charlatans. Who speak for nobody but themselves." Didn't someone say that you ran and cried under the bed because you were challenged to a debate? Got no reason to call someone a coward you liar"; and "Didn't tell your cronies at that forum that you're posting to a failed page that nobody cares about. Guess you have to start your own hate page, join the party, liar."
Me: "Any honest person reading this will readily see that Morris is the liar and I tell the truth. That is all I care about. Please stop wasting my time and destroying yourself in the process"; and "And if you are referring to Jason Petersen re 'debates' NO I don't do formal internet debates on topics chosen by other people - which is what Petersen wanted. But Petersen RAN AWAY from informal debate on the BCSE community forum and then pretended it was a 'victory' for TQEP. I suggest you do your homework before calling me a 'coward', Gary. The cowards are the people who CENSOR opponents instead of engaging with them. Such as Young Earth creationists."

If he is calling himself a 'Christian' then I beg to DIFFER.

Or is it 'Christian' to falsely call people 'liar' over and over again? Perhaps all these brainwashed hate-filled fact-denying cretins want is ATTENTION. Thus if he or others post more false accusations I will post the refutations of them at my Facebook page and only refer to any particularly nasty or loony accusations on this community forum (where the cowards dare not try to justify themselves as it is much easier to make false accusations and falsely libel people elsewhere).

The fact that so many liars hate evolution and are YECs seriously undermines the attempts by AiG to secure intellectual respectability and trust for their claims.

Oh, and MORE bile from Morris: "I see that you didn't quote all of Wilson's comments, that makes you a liar again, liar." PROVE it, moron. Partly quoting someone and quote-mining them out of context to give a false impression of their statements are TWO different things.

Young Earth Creationism - creating atheists since 'The Genesis Flood'. They are so bigoted they cannot objectively assess their own behaviour. Though some of them are not real Christians of that I am sure.

[EDITED POST - NOW FINAL.]
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Nye on WHY he debated Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:38 pm

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bill_nyes ... ham_debate
An interesting read.

By the way I have received NO acknowledgment at all of my recent comments about that downright misleading (first) Steve Ham rebuttal podcast (with liar Andrew Snelling) that I made both to the Bill Nye Science Guy email address and on one of his facebook pages. Though I imagine somebody - if not Nye himself - may have read my comments at the latter page. Perhaps they are taking the view that they do not wish to be drawn on post-debate AiG podcasts as what really matters was the debate itself. Or perhaps so many emails are sent to Nye that many of them are either not read or they are read but are never acknowledged (especially when the person sending the email is somebody they have never heard of and not even in the US) ...

I expect we will be treated to a Ken Ham response about how Mr Nye "still does not understand the distinction between operational and historical science".


EDIT: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/post ... eam_ref=10
From the latter link: "it's really a desperate con job on the part of evolutionists who can't defend their evolutionary fictional story...the narrator of this PBS series does his best in clutching at straws in trying to indoctrinate the public that he has a transitional form...".
You can tell from the way people like him write that Ham is an irrational liar, propagandist and ideologue who hates unbiblical facts and theories (and those who dare share those facts and theories) and whose mind is closed tight shut. They over-do the shrill rhetoric. Because they think science - whether correct or incorrect (as it sometimes is) - sends people to hell ie science is the ENEMY despite them hypocritically claiming to 'love' it.

As the debate with Nye revealed to the world.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:14 pm

Well, this is what we HAVE got (just skimmed):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... lelinkedin

"I believe he is trying to get the public to believe that AiG is some sort of cultic fringe group!"
"Also, I did not deny climate change. I observed that there had been climate changes ever since the Flood of Noah’s time."
"So, who won the debate?"
"I await the answers."

Ham's words - I post nothing more.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:36 pm

However - at the above Ham article, and at his blog post highlighting that article, I do NOT see this link:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bill_nyes ... ham_debate

I just see the Nye article's title, a reference to the Skeptical Enquirer and also to the Huffington Post (which printed an abbreviated version), and then those bits of what Nye wrote that Ham is taking issue with... Most of which are not that much to do with what actually happened during the debate ITSELF. Where - according to Nye - "By all, or a strong majority of, accounts, I bested him".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron