So I finally got to watch this debate and I have to say I learned a lot from both of these guys. Since I don’t gravitate incredibly strongly to either viewpoint I just wanted to share some general critiques that came to mind from both men. :)
Ken Ham: One thing I really enjoyed about Ken is (as I didn’t know before this debate) that he talked about his extensive background and education in science. It gave him some credibility other than being some guy with a website. I also liked some of the spiritual messages he spoke of, even though some of them were irrelevant to the debate. The first thing he did was play some interviews with other creationist scientists - in very respectable fields and positions (one of whom invented the MRI) - who felt they had to hide that side of their belief or even research in order to be taken seriously/not ridiculed. He also pointed out some very strong examples of past scientific mistakes, such as different forms of dating on the same rock leading to millions of years difference in results (or a case when 45,000 year old wood was found encased in basalt that was millions of years old, at least according to the dating); another example he gave was ‘racial science’ which was taught in science textbooks for years and said Caucasians were the highest evolved form of human being, etc. This view was taught in schools based on a “science is objective and infallible” perspective which Ken Ham certainly takes issue with, and I applaud him for that. He managed to work in a lot of statements about not putting people above one another based on evolution/civilizations. Ken makes the very valid point that observable science is different from historical science (we will NEVER know for sure many of the things we assume about the past no matter what either side says). Lastly, he was very polite throughout the whole thing, unlike his opponent.
Cons: Things I didn’t like about Ken’s presentation: first of all, he started rather randomly talking about “biblical values vs. relativist values” in society and relating it to issues like gay marriage and euthanasia. Not only was it unrelated to the debate, but it was offensive to the millions of people who are of different or no faith/religion, or have a different interpretation of the bible (which there are plenty of!). I think he alienated a lot of potential allies from his good points by over-enforcing his ideologies. Second, he simply does not address many of Bill’s arguments. When Bill Nye talks about specific examples to support his point, such as the vast number of species that exist today compared to the quite small number that were supposed to have been on Noah’s Ark, Ken Ham (at least half of the time) gave a vague philosophical response OR gave a scientific response that didn’t properly address the problem area. As the debate went on he became even worse in this regard, talking more about the bible than anything else, or just repeating points he had already made.
Bill Nye: Bill Bye has a good sense of humor and in the beginning of the debate it came out a few times. Also it’s not particularly related to the debate but his bow tie was beautiful as always. :) Bill was definitely more prepared than Ken in terms of examples; he listed some specific findings (for example, of trees that were older than 4,000 years) that really impressed me. Especially when he used examples that were easier for lay people to understand. At some point he talked about how dogs (non-human animals) have consciousness and the joy of discovery, which really gives him points for me as someone who believes animals have souls just like people. He was also very willing to admit when he didn’t know something (such as what existed before the big bang); his humility was not this strong throughout the whole debate, but I still deeply appreciated his openness in that area. He (unlike his opponent) answered questions extremely directly and with supportive facts or references to other scientists. Also, I don’t know for sure if I agree with all his ideologies, (because I don’t know them all) but even when Ken strayed off track into philosophy land Bill kept talking about science and responding to the exact points made by Ken and audience members. Lastly, you can tell he really loves what he does. Every time he talked about a specific example his face just lit up; it was likely inspiring to anyone watching to see that passion for what he was debating.
Cons: I was pretty disappointed in his attitude towards Ken. He kept looking over with this seething look on his face during the Q and A (which Ken never did); on top of that he made some clearly patronizing statements, referring to Noah’s flood (which, despite any of our views on it, millions of people do believe it happened) as “Ken’s flood.” Once he started off a rebuttal by simply saying “that doesn’t impress me.” Even though he stayed on topic, he clearly felt he was above Ken and that science was superior to religion in general; and example of this was when he said that people are religious because they are afraid of dying, and that it provided tremendous “community and comfort,” thereby denying any possibility that it could be true and insulting anyone who is not religious simply for fear of not having an afterlife. Something less offensive but still unfortunate was some of his science tangents which were difficult to follow if you haven’t studied those specific areas. Ironically, while he addressed directly all the points made by Ken for the majority of the debate, when Ken presented concrete evidence for the serious faults science has made, Bill Nye was literally silent. Except for the time he said “maybe the 45,000 year old wood shifted under the rock,” even though it was literally encased in the rock which makes this unlikely or impossible.
“Nations customarily measure the ‘costs of war’ in dollars, lost production, or the number of soldiers killed or wounded. Rarely do military establishments attempt to measure the costs of war in terms of individual human suffering. Psychiatric breakdown remains one of the most costly items of war when expressed in human terms”—Richard Gabriel, No More Heroes (via prophetofjustice)
“These are some of the principles of courtship: ask God’s blessing at the beginning of a relationship; enter it with direction, toward discerning marriage; involve the families; be accountable to others; pace yourselves as you spend time together; and always listen for the Lord’s guidance.”—(via dyannepauline)
“Bisexuals find themselves erased in history. Many famous people―such as Marlene Dietrich, June Jordan, Freddie Mercury, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Walt Whitman―have been labeled as lesbian or gay for their same-sex relationships, yet their long-term relationships with different-sex partners are ignored or their importance minimized. This disrespects the truth of their lives for the sake of a binary conception of sexual orientation. It also makes it more difficult for bisexuals just coming out to find role models.”—
Good to know! Thanks. That’s what’s sad about erasure, for a long fucking time you don’t even know you’ve been erased. Even asexuals have more history than bisexuals, they get a hint from celebrate and the slurs frigid or prude. But bisexuals don’t even have a derogatory history, we have almost no history. Not sure which is worse.
Most people who see nothing wrong with abortion have that belief because they don’t think an unborn baby is a person. They don’t even like the term “unborn baby” because it lends to the idea that what’s in the womb is a person. They usually stick with the term “fetus” because the emotional response generated from discussion of killing a fetus is more palatable than that of killing a baby. But even if they were right about the absence of humanity in a fetus, it doesn’t change the fact that aborting a fetus is a horrific, senseless tragedy.
Just for the sake of the argument, let’s use the term “fetus” and disregard that a quick overview of basic human embryology tells us fetuses are people. But before we can move on, we need to classify fetuses as something else if they aren’t people. So if a fetus is not a person, what is it? Fetuses are alive, no one can deny that. They’re obviously not plants, insects, or bacteria, so the only possibility left is that fetuses are animals.
So, let’s pretend a fetus is a non-human animal. Now that it’s settled, allow me use an example to demonstrate why killing a non-human animal in a similar fashion as one used in a human abortion is still deplorable.
Let’s say I have a puppy but I can’t afford one at this stage in my life (lack of money is a common reason for wanting to abort). What do I do with this puppy?
Since it’s still small, I’m going to cram it in a blender while conscious and liquefy it to a bloody soup, disposing of the concoction in the trash.
That might work for a small puppy, but what about an older dog? It won’t fit in a blender.
How about this then: Without using anesthesia, I’m going to chop each of the dogs legs off, one by one, with a pair of bolt cutters. But the dog is still alive at this point, so the job isn’t over yet. Now, I’m going to pick up a giant rock, slam it down on the dog’s head to crush it, and then throw the dog’s mangled body in a bio hazard bag.
Do you think the methods of getting rid of the dog were disturbing? Who wouldn’t?
If I got caught getting rid of just one dog with either of the two described methods, not only would I be jailed because it’s illegal, my mug shot would be all over the internet accompanied by hateful epithets demanding my torturous death. In my defense, I could argue that it was my right and choice to kill my dog. I could say what I did to the dog was none of the government’s business. I could say the dog was better off dead than leading a less-than-ideal life. However, not one of those excuses would sway a single person.
Exactly the point I was trying to make with some of my earlier posts but they said it better. I respect animal life as much as human life to begin with. I find it so sad when I see “pro choicers” still using the logic that a fetus is not human or not human enough. Their logic makes no sense.
It’s actually a pretty decent article about how the Finnish government set up to give expectant parents a box full of things they’d need (and the box can be slept in, even) or cash grants for later children. It’s actually a pretty decent idea. I’m also poking around and it doesn’t seem like they have terribly many abortions, even though in most cases, abortion is relatively painless to acquire. I wonder if it’s the helping hand of supplies and supplements and 105 paid maternity leave days that helps lower the rates
Wait. What am I talking about? If the 65%-73% of pregnant people that stated their reason was poverty/inability to take time off school or work.. suddenly didn’t have to worry about that, I bet they’d gladly give birth! Of COURSE rates would lower even further. Golly gee!
Not everyone treats marriage as faithfully as you can think. What happens when you end up saving yourself for a husband or wife and then you divorce them (for an example such as physical abuse). Marriage doesn't guarantee you that your relationship is strong, things happen and things go wrong.
I wouldn’t divorce him. I might kill him in self-defense, but I wouldn’t divorce him.
Feminist writer Naomi Wolf takes a whole new spin on porn in her article “How porn is destroying modern sex lives” for the Daily Mail UK. Besides the obvious moral issues with pornography, Wolf argues the physical and psychological effects pornography has on relationships, couples, and the people…
a fetus is a fetus, a baby is a baby. Please do not pull your own emotions into it, it is the terminology. You stated you were an atheist and believed in science, then shouldn't you at least use the term 'fetus'?
Even atheists can feel emotions. Killing an unborn child is an emotional experience. Knowing that I live among people that are not only willing to kill their own children but fight relentlessly for the rights of others to kill theirs saddens me.
The reason you prefer the use of scientific terms when referring to these children is because it makes the killing easier for you to accept. Would it make it easier for you to kill a thirteen year old child by referring to them as an adolescent?
Using scientific terminology as a way to assuage the guilt associated with the killing of a human fetus is no different than using it to marginalize the killing of an adolescent. The simple truth is that regardless of the terms used, abortion kills a real living human being. A human being at a stage of life that each and every one of us once shared.
Late term abortions can be performed up to 24 weeks and you can choose to decline a digoxin shot (which stops the fetal heart) either way they then extract the fetus and it often comes out in pieces...
“One doctor, when he was in the POC [products of conception] room, would talk to the aborted baby while looking for all the parts. ‘Come on, little arm, I know you’re here! Now you stop hiding from me!’ It just made me sick to my stomach.”—
Marianne Anderson, former Planned Parenthood nurse
Does any one else also think it’s messed up that they’re referring to dead babies as products of conception? The language is so intentionally cold and dehumanizing. :( If someone has a miscarriage we say they lost their baby but if it’s an abortion we say “the products of conception were removed from the uterus.”
SCIENCE HAS BEEN WRONG BEFORE AND IT WILL BE WRONG AGAIN. IF YOU FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SCIENCE IS AN ONGOING PURSUIT OF UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD AROUND US BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND NOT AN IMMUTABLE OBJECTIVE TRUTH, YOU MAY HAVE MISSED THE PURPOSE OF SCIENCE COMPLETELY.
“If a person seems wicked, do not cast him away. Awaken him with your words, elevate him with your deeds, repay his injury with your kindness. Do not cast him away; cast away his wickedness.”—Lao Tzu (via purplebuddhaproject)
A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing “sexual services” at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PROSTITUTION IS LEGALIZED POOR WOMEN ARE PUNISHED FOR REFUSING TO BE HOOKERS
”Under Germany’s welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.”
fucking hell, ~sex positivity has now brought a system that will force even more unwilling women into the sex industry.
Just noting that this article is from 2005 and since then full legalisation of prostitution and pimping has apparently led from bad to worse. I found a more recent report:
Initially, the German government thought that legalization would lead to the decrease in sex trafficking, safer conditions for prostitutes, and removal of “some of the stigma from the industry.” But in reality, legalization not only increased sex trafficking of women and children but also failed to change the stigma attached to prostitution for the past few years. A study shows that the majority of prostitutes in Germany prefer to “do the job secretly because they still experience discrimination.” The same study also shows that even the government agencies are not willing to broker jobs or offer retraining as they do for employees in other industries. Further, the health insurance company does not provide special health provisions for prostitutes. In terms of their rights, many prostitutes in Germany are still living in poor conditions and exploited by the pimps and the landlords who take the majority of the prostitutes’ earnings.