Ken Ham & Bill Nye Creationism vs Evolution debate

[BlueYonder]

If the world is about 6,000 years old, how come the book with the talking snake is missing descriptions of dinosaurs and other extinct species? Was a T-Rex on the Ark?

The event was a winning night for quackery. They sold out the debate hall, and sent a lot of free traffic/donations to the Jesus rides a dino theme park where it was held.

 

[bodiddley]

The debate between religious creationists and darwinists will continue to get absolutely nowhere and will continue to be a waste of time until people are willing to be open to the notion the extraterrestrials may have been involved in both the evolution of our species and the founding of our early religions.

Until then it will serve as a nice quick ego boost for anti-religious types Lolz

 

[Jameel]

"Never believe or read anything brandonbaker says." - Jameel

 

[GimpSpack]

I don't think it's shaming intelligence so much as shaming militant atheism's conceited confidence in it's absolute correctness.

To me, the only fully mature and responsible stance is Agnosticism. Sure, you can lean one way or the other. But if anyone claims to know for certain, they've leaped the gap from knowledge to certainty by invoking our friend, faith.

Of course, we eventually need to grab on to some kind of axiom so we have a guide in our research, if we're actually researching and practicing science and spirituality and not just sitting on the sidelines on the internet being dicks. Notice I said science AND spirituality. Let's not be lopsided faggots.

100.

I fully understand the stigma attached to atheism. That's why many atheists prefer the term "UnTheist."

Personally, I prefer the term, "I-Don't-Fucking-Know-ist."

But if anyone claims to know for certain, they've leaped the gap from knowledge to certainty by invoking our friend, faith.

Couldn't agree more. I just hate it when Christian philosophers try to use that (very accurate) observation to justify belief in their favorite flavor of deity.

"Well, you have faith in science, so faith in God is justified!" (as if there aren't varying degrees of faith that can be used in vastly different contexts).

All I know is that if the Judeo-Christian God actually exists, He/It isn't worth worshipping. I can think of some human beings I know personally who have more moral/ethical wherewithal than the Creator himself.

I don't what's more frightening:

The possibility that we're all involuntarily stuck in a morally retarded deity's experiment/game/test (with dire eternal consequences)...

...Or that billions upon billions of people base their entire lives around pure fantasy.

:crap:

 

[JimmyRose]

The thing was painful to watch. Got a bit sad when they announced Ham is from where I live and has degrees from where I studied

 

[Jameel]

Why haven't you guys meditated your way to enlightenment???

 

[SkyFire]

Can't beat that.

Oh ya?

 

[cassius]

Can't beat that.

Did you read the other ones? Ohhhhh, they beat that. I bet these folks got top marks at the McDonald's School of Fries and Burgers.

 

[TStarnes]

"Well, you have faith in science, so faith in God is justified!" (as if there aren't varying degrees of faith that can be used in vastly different contexts).

My problem with that statement is faith, by definition is belief without proof, however science is the exact opposite. It is belief through proof.

You don't have faith in science. At most you can have a belief in science.

 

[liams]

Ken Ham's positions are so ludicrous, even Pat Fucking Robertson is telling him to shut up.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWAbr-SoMAs]RWW News: Even Pat Robertson Attacks Creationism As A "Joke" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jhoffy22]

Without proof, this is an exercise in futility and always will be. Militant, belittling atheists and enthusiastic Christians with a self proclaimed degree in theology charge each others crystals.

Christians beliefs tell them that is it there responsibility to testify to others, what excuse do atheists have for the constant militancy and belittlement without being provoked? Neither have proof, one has what they view in their mind as a responsibility that if not taken care of will result in consequences.

 

[GimpSpack]

Without proof, this is an exercise in futility and always will be. Militant, belittling atheists and enthusiastic Christians with a self proclaimed degree in theology charge each others crystals.

Christians beliefs tell them that is it there responsibility to testify to others, what excuse do atheists have for the constant militancy and belittlement without being provoked? Neither have proof, one has what they view in their mind as a responsibility that if not taken care of will result in consequences.

Many atheists believe the belief in God (or gods) is simply a symptom of poor reasoning, unquestioned social conditioning, and an inability to be emotionally/intellectually honest with oneself.

Obviously, they think (with good evidence often times) the cognitive errors that result in religion often spill over and negatively affect other parts of society as a whole. So they see their crusade against religion as a humanistic effort.

Also, atheists don't need to prove that God doesn't exist. If I told you there were fairies that deliver thoughts from the cosmos into your head (which result in good ideas), why would it be your job to disprove that? Wouldn't the burden of proof naturally fall on me? And if I offered terrible evidence, would you not be justified in rejecting my claim about Idea Fairies? Now what if word spread and millions of other people started to believe in magical Idea Fairies. Wouldn't you feel obligated - for the sake of the species survival (which depends heavily on our ability to perceive reality as accurately as possible) - to get involved and seriously question this shit?

The problem I see is this:

Everyone's always trying to sit on the fence in regards to theism/atheism. I've been doing that most of my life. It's safe that way. But I feel like eventually, for sanity's sake, you have to admit that there is either
1) A higher power (or higher powers), a spiritual realm, etc..
2) No transcendent realm or higher power.

The process you use to determine the validity and accuracy of both possibilities will greatly affect how you deal with other parts of your life.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[boatBurner]

Good debate. This thread, not so much.

 

[vikingred]

Bill Nye the science guy, oooh chugga ahh chugga oooh chugga ahh. Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6OQkj1Tloo"]Bill Nye the Science Guy theme song - YouTube[/ame]

SCIENCE RULEZ!

 

[fingers]

Oh ya?

evolution is a theory based on inferences which you believe in, which means you're working on... duh duh duh... faith. Bill nye made some compelling arguments and is a very intelligent and eloquent individual. however a large portion of "intelligent" and "enlightened" individuals "neck beards" quote scientific theory as fact because they never did the research on their own and just listened to what their teachers said like the kids who argue republican and democrat only because of what their parents told them when they were growing up. Easy example carbon dating is quoted by a vast majority of peoples solely educated by the public school system up to high school and that's it and never thought to ask how they could be sure carbon dating is accurate what so ever. and what about parent atoms, no no thought went into question it. The strongest christians (which i am not christian) are the ones whom question their beliefs and the continuity of their faith constantly. In all actuality it's nay impossible to deny the existence of a higher level consciousness

 

[cassius]

You guys know it's turtles all the way down, right?

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Where is your God now?

 

[Avalanche]

Nothing discredits religion more than religious people.

For a religion which teaches, "follow our principles & tenets, then you'll be a better person... than those other people over there", then 100% true.

But at least for the predominant religion here in the states & the subject matter in the debate, the poor behavior of it's followers actually reinforces the religion's central point.

 

[drave]

The strongest christians (which i am not christian) are the ones whom question their beliefs and the continuity of their faith constantly. In all actuality it's nay impossible to deny the existence of a higher level consciousness

0/2.

 

[REIMktg]

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.

It would probably be a good idea to re-analyze your line of thought here.