Ken Ham & Bill Nye Creationism vs Evolution debate
- Thread starter jhoffy22
- Start date
Here you go:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI"]Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD - YouTube[/ame]
I didn't really watch it. Skipped through to various parts, and when I heard the hard hitting questions like, "if the universe is natural, where did logic come from?", and "if we weren't alive to personally witness the world 10,000 years ago, how can anyone say what happened back then?", I just gave up watching...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI"]Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD - YouTube[/ame]
I didn't really watch it. Skipped through to various parts, and when I heard the hard hitting questions like, "if the universe is natural, where did logic come from?", and "if we weren't alive to personally witness the world 10,000 years ago, how can anyone say what happened back then?", I just gave up watching...
Nope.
I refuse to give creationists more than 30 seconds of my time.
Here's my question, though:
Even if creationists could prove - without a doubt - that a higher power somehow sculpted the fabric of reality in the most arbitrary way possible, how would that lend any credibility to Christianity, specifically?
Nothing discredits religion more than religious people. The sooner they realize that, the sooner they can recalibrate their approach to propagating a faulty epistemology.
I refuse to give creationists more than 30 seconds of my time.
Here's my question, though:
Even if creationists could prove - without a doubt - that a higher power somehow sculpted the fabric of reality in the most arbitrary way possible, how would that lend any credibility to Christianity, specifically?
Nothing discredits religion more than religious people. The sooner they realize that, the sooner they can recalibrate their approach to propagating a faulty epistemology.
Intention of thread wasn't to spark a creationism vs evolution debate. It was simply to bring awareness to a very interesting and entertaining event that occurred.
The question that was most bewildering to me, that we as humans are 100% undeniably incapable of even having the capacity to fathom, was where did the atoms come from that caused the big bang? Our minds don't stretch that way.
The question that was most bewildering to me, that we as humans are 100% undeniably incapable of even having the capacity to fathom, was where did the atoms come from that caused the big bang? Our minds don't stretch that way.
Maybe atoms have always existed. Maybe existence is the default, rather than "nothingness."
I agree that "religious" people shoot themselves in the foot. "Religious" people don't = Christians, though. Some are, some aren't. Christianity in itself is not met to be a foundation of credibility by proof but rather credibility by faith.
Maybe atoms have always existed. Maybe existence is the default, rather than "nothingness."
When we discover a way that matter and energy can create life, I will open my mind to this possibility. Until then, no go
inb4 dark matter...
Still doesn't help their case.
Pretending to know something that's unknowable (or not currently known) by believing in it REALLY, REALLY HARD doesn't give anything credibility.
Again, faith - as Christians/theologians define it - is a pretty terrible epistemology.
It may have been necessary for our progression/survival as a species at one point in time, but it's long since overstayed its welcome.
Any of you guys watch True detective? Matthew Mcconaughey's caracter is great.
"Transference of fear and self-loathing to an authoritarian vessel -- it's catharsis. He absorbs their dread with his narrative. Because of this, he's effective in proportion to the amount of certainty he can project.
Certain linguistic anthropologists think that religion is a language virus that rewrites pathways in the brain, dulls critical thinking."
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RfUj09pWfM"]True Detective - Rust talks about Religion ("What's the IQ of these people?") {Full Scene} [HD] - YouTube[/ame]
Whole scene is great, but if you want to skip ahead it is 2:55.
Sorry Jhoffy for being a bit off topic.
"Transference of fear and self-loathing to an authoritarian vessel -- it's catharsis. He absorbs their dread with his narrative. Because of this, he's effective in proportion to the amount of certainty he can project.
Certain linguistic anthropologists think that religion is a language virus that rewrites pathways in the brain, dulls critical thinking."
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RfUj09pWfM"]True Detective - Rust talks about Religion ("What's the IQ of these people?") {Full Scene} [HD] - YouTube[/ame]
Whole scene is great, but if you want to skip ahead it is 2:55.
Sorry Jhoffy for being a bit off topic.
Religion is 50% conformity, 50% anthropomorphism. Give or take. The kind of thinking that allows us to thrive as a species (e.g. "This non-random thing had to have been made by some conscious entity.") is the same kind of thinking that fucks up our view of the universe. Understanding the cosmos did nothing for survival, but understanding the environment around us did. Can't win both battles.
"If triangles could conceive a God, it would be eminently triangular." -Baruch Spinoza
"If triangles could conceive a God, it would be eminently triangular." -Baruch Spinoza
Best thing on TV right now.
I also liked his bit on human consciousness:
“I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself. We are creatures that should not exist by natural law…We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, a secretion of sensory, experience, and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody is nobody.”
Starts at 1:38
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8x73UW8Hjk"]True Detective - Rust & Martin Car Conversation Scene (HD) - YouTube[/ame]
I tend to agree with the above.
Both Woody and Matt play very contrasting and imo, interesting characters.
As for the debate, I just can't take that stuff seriously.
I also liked his bit on human consciousness:
“I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself. We are creatures that should not exist by natural law…We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, a secretion of sensory, experience, and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody is nobody.”
Starts at 1:38
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8x73UW8Hjk"]True Detective - Rust & Martin Car Conversation Scene (HD) - YouTube[/ame]
I tend to agree with the above.
Both Woody and Matt play very contrasting and imo, interesting characters.
As for the debate, I just can't take that stuff seriously.
Maybe atoms have always existed. Maybe existence is the default, rather than "nothingness."
This is actually the only explanation. Even the big bang theory doesn't explain where we came from because it's still vulnerable to infinite regression.
You still have to explain where that big bang came from since you're operating on the condition that something was created, and if it wasn't created, you are implying you agree that it has always existed. Same goes for God.
So ultimately the irony is that scientists vs creationists is pointless since they actually believe the exact same thing and don't even know it.
tl;dr reality/matter/universe has always existed in some form and can not cease to exist.
Not sure if you're trolling here or actually believe this. Do I need to explain the difference between a physical process, unguided by sentience or intentionality and a deliberate, conscious creation of the universe by a omnipotent god?
History is full of seemingly trivial disagreements between scientists and creationists (e.g. evolution vs. intelligent design), but once the scientific view breaks through, it serves as a catalyst for a deeper understanding of our universe.
The creationist way of thinking is a dead end. There is literally nowhere left to go if God is your starting point. Nothing left to discover and no new paths to take. "It was God, and that's pretty much all you need to know."
With physics as your starting point, the entire universe is open for discovery.
People say science is devoid of meaning and lacks emotional appeal, but I'd rather derive my philosophy from real life than Mother Goose, irrespective of the crudeness of the former and the palatability of the latter.
^ You missed my point 100%. Obviously they're completely different schools of thought.
What I am saying is they both believe in things that are not answers at all to anything, and after doing a lot of self examination of their own beliefs (primarily through infinite regression) will arrive at the exact same conclusions: there was no beginning, no creation, no scientific explanation, etc.
So indirectly they believe the exact same thing.
What I am saying is they both believe in things that are not answers at all to anything, and after doing a lot of self examination of their own beliefs (primarily through infinite regression) will arrive at the exact same conclusions: there was no beginning, no creation, no scientific explanation, etc.
So indirectly they believe the exact same thing.
i believe what he was saying was that its basically the same thing to say "where did the first atoms come from" as it is to say "where did god come from"... they both end up at the same unknowable point.