Mokong Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Anyone else watch this? Just finished it myself (broke it up into a few different sittings through the day), interesting "debate".... well not much of a debate, Nye was mostly trying to educated the audience while Ham just made me facepalm every few mins I'll embed the full vid here One thing I can't get over is the way Ham refers to "Historical Science" as in, stuff from the past since we didn't observe it is therefor historical and can't be proven using present day "obversational science". So for example where Nye would say, we can tell the age of the Earth is much older than 6000 years as you (Ham) believes it is because we can date things by looking at things like radioactive decay. To which Ham would reply along of the lines of "well atoms decay at the rate they do today but you weren't around 4000 years ago, they could have decayed at a much faster rate back then....." *facepalm* When Nye brings up (sevral times) scientists finding hundreds of thousands of layers of ice sheets showing that same amount of Winter-Summer cycles or things like some trees that have up to 9000 yearly rings showing they are 9000 years old....everytime these are brought up Ham just ignores them. Towards the end when they get to answer questions submitted from the audience, Hams answer to several of them is "There's this book called the Bible....." Here's something else to cause a few facepalms, found this link, in it 22 creationists from the auidence were asked to write a note or question to the "other side" as it is said in the "artcile" http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio I think this must have been done before the debate, else I'm sure the people who bring up the 2nd Law of Thermidynamics weren't listening in the debate when it came up.... My favourites have to be these ones Yes dumbass that is Illogical! By Gaius Frakking Baltar I hope to Kobol that is a joke!
gaggle64 Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Until fairly recently I was in the "don't give them attention" crowd but creationist evangelists are mass manipulators by necessity so the rest of have no choice but to devote some of our free time challenging them as often as possible when we could be doing and/or celebrating actual scientific & educational progress. You carry on, Mr Nye.
bob Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 But how do you explain the sunset if their is no God?!?!
Agent Gibbs Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 i don't understand people who believe the bible litterally, it contradicts itself and worse still parts of it contradict the word of god (God's all about peace and love but heres this section on intollerance of X) Its teachings, metaphors a generic guide to help you on your path through life , if you believe it It was writen after most events in it took place (hundreds of years after!) hell some bits of it were only written down after the onset of a written language!, it was then copied by monks thousands and thousands of times from one language to another......and we all know that priests are angelic, do no wrong, don;t have their own agenda, so they couldn't have done something wrong accidently or intentionally now could they? The way i look at the bible its a test in itself, to look through it, and find what is right and true within it Science however can exist side by side with it, in the past nobody knew about carbon dating, they thought a thousand years was forever, and had no concept of billions of years, so stories were taylored to how people could understand it. Scientific fact is just that fact people so blinded by their belief that every word in their religious text is true are dangerous and ignorant, just look at Ken Ham, unwilling to consider anything could be wrong in his reproduction bible. on the other hand Bill Nye was happy to repent and change his views if he found evidence to prove the existance that the bible was a fact
Jonnas Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Fanatics just can't be reasoned with. I'm glad people like Bill Nye are still willing to put up with them for the sake of being the voice of reason whenever lunatics speak, just so people won't actually start believing those who speak louder. The thing with these fanatics is that they are so close minded, God himself could appear before them and they wouldn't believe it, simply because they aren't preconceived to believe God could appear before them. They really only believe in themselves, and no one needs someone like that in their society. Sad thing is, it is entirely possible to concile religious beliefs and scientific facts. Popes have done it before (our current one is another example), tons of priests believed in this, plenty of famous scientists and philosophers were deeply religious without letting it undermine their breakthroughs... It's just giving a bad name to the silent majority, which is made up of decent, reasonable people.
Sheikah Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Ha - 'what if the world was created mature'. What if we're all brains in jars? And none of this is real? It's amusing when people argue the hypothetical so hard rather than accept the logical.
Cube Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Ha - 'what if the world was created mature'. What if we're all brains in jars? And none of this is real? It's amusing when people argue the hypothetical so hard rather than accept the logical. Wait, I thought that picture was an argument against creation. Also, is it me, or is this debate simply not really that big over here? When dealing with creation in Religious Education, the teachers said that the whole thing is a metaphor (or something like that). Which brings to another point: Arguments like "But how do you explain the sunset if their is no God?!?!" (as illogical as they are) are completely irrelevant. These arguments have nothing to do with God existing or not existing. In terms of evolution, the big bang and everything, God can still exist in all of that, he can still be the one who created it all at the start of the Big Bang, he could still potentially be "guiding" evolution and humanity.
Agent Gibbs Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 a republican and theirst arguing against Ken Ham..... I agree with his points completely, why can't God be the why and Science is the How he did it
Jonnas Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Also, is it me, or is this debate simply not really that big over here? When dealing with creation in Religious Education, the teachers said that the whole thing is a metaphor (or something like that). The US is much more conservative with religion than Europe (it always was, really). Hence why religious nutjobs are occasionally given the time of day over there.
Fierce_LiNk Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Did not read anything in this thread. Only came in to say that Bill Nye > yoooou/anyone. BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY.
Recommended Posts