TruthTellah's forum posts

#1 Posted by TruthTellah (9082 posts) -

@yapapanda: Yeah, I think a lot of people have known about this for a long time now. I even discussed it with someone just last month. They're the lower half of the undead dragon model.

Definitely a kind of Phoenix Down moment. heh.

#2 Edited by TruthTellah (9082 posts) -

I hadn't heard about this until now.

Could you please not post potential spoilers to Dark Souls II in titles? That would be appreciated. A lot of people are trying to avoid hearing more details about DSII before launch, and just placing it in a title means anyone browsing the Giant Bomb forum will see it.

#3 Edited by TruthTellah (9082 posts) -
@gamer_152 said:

I still don't entirely know where I fall on the spectrum of "This legitimises creationism and gives Ken Ham a platform" vs. "This is an opportunity to educate and promote science and scepticism". It's a little scary because I can see how to someone who hadn't been properly educated Ham's points might actually sound like they constitute a valid scientific argument, but you just kind of glaze over after listening to him for a while. At first you can engage with what he says and construct all your own mental rebuttals, but then you just get lost in the sea of cherry picking, arguments from authority, and ridiculous ideas like his belief that we can't use evidence to tell what happened for something we weren't personally there for. Still, it's always wonderful to hear Bill Nye speak. He's a great storyteller, he conjures up so many interesting scientific facts, and I feel like I really learned things from listening to him. I genuinely hope this debate did more good than bad in educating people.

Yeah, I'd say the biggest weakness of the debate was actually Ham's weakness, not anything to do with damage from people hearing his views. I believe there's more value in people actually being challenged in what they think than getting another opportunity to say, "ha! Yes. This is just another extreme fellow whose views don't genuinely challenge my far superior views." The concept of being personally challenged is often lost today with many people, and it's very unfortunate.

Personally, I've heard some preachers make better scientific arguments than Ham did tonight, and that's unfortunate. He tripped himself up by trying to make a scientific argument on the basis of a religious belief. A better effort is made through utilizing the inherent skepticism of logic and reasoning which opens the way for a compelling religious argument. Obviously, his ultimate point was to convey the good news of the Gospel, but he mired it in a scientific discussion where it had little place. A philosophical debate is far better grounds for considering views on the origin and purpose of our lives.

Plus, as some people pointed out in this thread, they might have preferred someone with a differing scientific viewpoint to challenge Bill Nye rather than a simple "Science vs Religion" sort of argument. People need to be challenged, and while he did not seem to adhere to his own argument here, Ken Ham at least started out with a point regarding the necessity of questioning what appears established because popularity does not make reality. And that's absolutely true. Students are not being challenged enough or encouraged how to think critically, and in an age when more and more people just surround themselves with others that generally agree with them, people aren't having their views challenged.

We are stronger when established views, even ones we hold quite dear or absolute, are challenged, and if only to spark some bits of discussion amongst those who disagree, I'm glad they held the debate. Though, I would prefer to see a debate like this involving a competing scientific argument toward a prevailing viewpoint many people viewing the debate may hold; that could spark far more discussion and get people genuinely thinking about why they accept what they accept.

#4 Posted by TruthTellah (9082 posts) -
@truthtellah said:

@slashdance said:
@development said:

Something like 99.999998% of the Earth believe in something not founded on evidence

0.000002% of 7.2 billion is 144. I think you might be a tiny bit off on that one. :p

Yeah, the number should be even smaller than that... ;)

To think I'm one of them... I feel special!

Well, I'd say you likely believe in some things not founded on proven evidence, or you wouldn't be typing in response to me as though I'm really a person behind the text. But sure, we can believe what we want about ourselves. heh.

Some level of faith is built into us even if we acknowledge that it's different from knowledge. Things like our faith in our consciousness or the concept of love or the idea that you aren't going to die before you finish reading this comment. Though, that may rely a bit on a difference of opinion regarding what belief is, but that's an even bigger discussion. :)

#5 Posted by TruthTellah (9082 posts) -

@slag said:
There is no debate, hasn't been for over a hundred years in the scientific community. The amount of evidence supporting Evolution is voluminous. It is scientific theory, not a hypothesis. There is no value in this discussion, and no value in continuing to discuss it. All it's doing is harming our kids and wasting resources. Either Creationists can prove their belief scientifically or they can't. Time and time again they have tried, and they never have come remotely close.

Unfortunately, I can't agree with that, Slag, and I don't think that fits with the reality of the 1900s or the world we live in. You yourself explained some areas where understanding of evolution and the origin of the universe has changed in the last hundred years. Debate has continued and it will continue, and considering that the vast majority of the world still accepts some level of divine intervention regarding our lives and the origins of our universe, it's absolutely a relevant topic of debate and discussion.

A closed-minded, "it's all already solved and does not need any discussion" approach is nearly as bad as Ken Ham's suggestion tonight that no amount of evidence may sway him. That isn't how we deal with issues in science or in our modern world of interactions with differing cultures and individuals. It isn't practical, and it isn't right. You may not agree with Creationists or even like them, but you're even worse than the most extreme amongst them if you genuinely think further discussion of important topics is actually meaningless or harmful. At least they're willing to acknowledge the right of others to believe differently and try to strike up some kind of dialogue.

I'm guessing you just got worked up because you strongly disagree with some of the things you heard tonight, but I cannot support such angry and dismissive comments, especially from someone who has always seemed to me to be on the side of tolerance and humanity.

#6 Posted by TruthTellah (9082 posts) -

@believer258: Dude just change your name to idontknow258, that random number was by far the most distinctive part of your handle anyway. I for one would have an immense amount of respect for a forum poster named idontknow.

I agree. The 258 is important. As your friend, Belieber, I support Idontknow258 or some other incarnation of word+258.

#7 Posted by TruthTellah (9082 posts) -

@development said:

Something like 99.999998% of the Earth believe in something not founded on evidence

0.000002% of 7.2 billion is 144. I think you might be a tiny bit off on that one. :p

Yeah, the number should be even smaller than that... ;)

#8 Edited by TruthTellah (9082 posts) -

So, just based on comments in this thread, this seems relevant...

How excited is everyone to see the new Cosmos series premiere next month? :D

#9 Posted by TruthTellah (9082 posts) -

@crithon said:

@whiteforestparkrangr said:

@truthtellah said:

@dark_lord_spam said:

@themanwithnoplan said:

@dark_lord_spam said:

@eskimo said:

The best thing to do with a crazy person who wants attention is to ignore them.

The best thing to do with any irrational person is to try and bring them to increasingly rational ground.

Leaving chaos alone to itself will only create more chaos. Ever light a fire and watch it get bigger? If you leave it alone, that doesn't necessarily mean it'll go away because you aren't paying attention.

Plus, I don't think Bill went in there unaware of the context of the debate. He was pushing pretty hard for increased funding toward science education, which really does need a larger platform.

Yeah, Nye accepted the invitation(because it was Ham's location and request) because he is well aware of how it could be a useful platform for what he is saying. And it certainly may help bolster his continued efforts to get more funding for science education.

While true, any platform is a potentially useful one (I'm just unsure if Bill actually needed it, what with his popping up on multiple mainstream news channels in the US, as an advisor and informal ambassador for science anytime anything mildly scientific comes up, and his fairly popular public discussions with other noted science educators in recent times, not to mention the huge legacy of his show; he's not exactly hidden away from the public eye), remember that the door swings both ways.

Mr.Canadian Bacon will be selling DVDs for 20$ a pop under the auspices of his Creation Museum. And the reason it will sell? Bill Nye the Science Guy™'s exponentially more respectable and marketable name slapped on the box. "Two Great Science Thinkers...Together at Last" or some other such nonsense reading as the likely tagline.

Ken's totally leeching off of Bill's playboy swagger and I wonder if Bill considered/accepted that possibility going in. I'll be interested to hear Bill's post-debate thoughts and answers to the questions he'll inevitably get on it when this whole thing has had some time to pan out and settle. Because I'd really, really like to think my bro Bill Nye wasn't just "had" by a cynical opportunist as a tool for his own ends.

yeeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhhhh, I saw that title on a few sites. And it made me tilt my head like a confused dog.

But this is how like Bill OReilly thinks he nailed Dave Silverman with "tides come in tides come out." And I'd imagine that over 68 year old, retired unemployed audience also agrees with that, when Daily Show has more viewers with disposable income. I just think that it's not two sides of a debate as many people would like to believe it is, they are growing older and older day by day.

Well, from what I've heard, Ken Ham is actually a decent guy regardless of the fact that he's quite mistaken here. I know some people that like him despite not agreeing with him, and I guess that's because he seems to be sincere in it and not just out to make a quick buck.

Now, there may be some people around him that are more interested in the opportunity of it, but then, the same could likely be said of those sites that ginned up the debate as a grudge match between Science and God when really it was a somewhat mundane and civil debate between rather commonly held science and an extreme form of creationism. I don't think Bill Nye has to justify his decision to be a part of it, as he knew full well what Ham is like; it's not like he's an unknown. Nye probably just thought it would get a lot of people talking about the subject, and frankly, I'd say it was successful in that end.

#10 Posted by TruthTellah (9082 posts) -

@hailinel said:

So how long is it if you take all of the game's content into account and don't just critical path it?

I guess since it wasn't a final version of the game, they couldn't give a solid estimate of that. All they seem to know is that the main quest portion was complete; so, that's what they judged the time off of.