Humanity's Origin Debate: Bill Nye (Evolution) vs. Ken Ham (Creationism)

[HardwoodLegend]

Did anyone tune in?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271383099/creationism-vs-evolution-the-debate-is-live-tonight

[Meticode]

Click on link, it says the debate will beginning in 11 minutes even though it started at 7PM EST. I'm guessing they're replaying it. I'll tune in incase any of it is interesting.

[miller-time]

I watched bits of it. It was ok. The young earth creationist debate is too ridiculous to even pay attention to anymore.

[gigantes]

i suppose this kind of debate has some use for teenagers.

meanwhile, the vast majority of people over a certain age have long ago decided how they want to evaluate the issue... as in, reason vs. psychological need.

[chosen_one6]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI&feature=share

30 minutes into the replay and I feel Bill Nye already won haha. Still watching.

[bladefd]

Ham is simply a bible-nut.

Case in point:
Ham was asked what evidence he has other than bible. I was curious what he would say. He played around the question for over a full minute (2 min limit) before he asks for that question to be repeated. Then he responds the question with more, more & more bible. Ham responds further by saying "We weren't there so we cannot prove other [scenarios]." I guess the word of god in bible doesn't require anyone to be there. That's the only "evidence" he has.

We do not have to be there to prove something. We do not need to have a human record of the tree 9,600 years ago to know that it is 9,600 years old. Evidence (tree rings) speaks for itself.

If we had to be there to prove it, I would ask him this: we were not there when god created light & adam and eve. Using his logic, we cannot prove that god created light or the stars.

[bladefd]

i didnt watch it, probably will later

but does Ken talk about Noah's ark at all in the debate?

Yes. Quite a bit actually. He tries to refute the fossil evidence that Billnye points out multiple times with the bible. Bible is all Ham has as evidence.

[chosen_one6]

This is my case and point. :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

From the debate Ham used scientific data to help support him, but the second you hear the word Bible everything he said previously just went right out the window.

Have you actually watched the whole debate?

[Patrick Chewing]

Evolution cannot be proven. The Evolutionist uses the same "blind faith" the Creationist does. Interpretation of both is key here to forming your judgment.

We cannot create life here on Earth from nothing, and science cannot prove that life was created from something else. Just because you dug up a rock and found a fossil doesn't mean that some sort of evolutionary process took place explaining the mere existence of at least humanity's presence. Our presence here on Earth is still very much unknown.

[Patrick Chewing]

From the debate Ham used scientific data to help support him, but the second you hear the word Bible everything he said previously just went right out the window.


But you're discrediting what he is saying, the science he is showing you, based on your preconceived belief that Bible is rubbish and doesn't account for anything historical. How did you get to that point in believing that Bible was rubbish is what I'd like to know. Aside from the obvious "miracles" that Jesus performed that people like you I'm sure will never believe, there is actual science in the Bible that no man past or present can discredit.

[Swaggin916]

Evolution cannot be proven. The Evolutionist uses the same "blind faith" the Creationist does. Interpretation of both is key here to forming your judgment.

We cannot create life here on Earth from nothing, and science cannot prove that life was created from something else. Just because you dug up a rock and found a fossil doesn't mean that some sort of evolutionary process took place explaining the mere existence of at least humanity's presence. Our presence here on Earth is still very much unknown.

Yea actually the chemical reactions that got life started have been explained... And you are right it doesn't get started from nothing. You need ingredients... and we had them. Evolution was simply the process after that. It's all laid out there with a gazillion experiments and observations from a ton of people to back it up.

[DonDadda59]

i suppose this kind of debate has some use for teenagers.

meanwhile, the vast majority of people over a certain age have long ago decided how they want to evaluate the issue... as in, reason vs. psychological need.

Basically.

What next, a debate on what causes thunder & lightning- electrostatic discharge or Zeus being pissed off?

It's 2014 for ****'s sake :biggums:

[DonDadda59]

dawg, u cant prove zeus ISN'T real

i win

Damn. Caught me slippin. I yield.

[chosen_one6]

Basically.

What next, a debate on what causes thunder & lightning- electrostatic discharge or Zeus being pissed off?

It's 2014 for ****'s sake :biggums:

You can't prove the spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

I win.

[chosen_one6]

My opinion?

I believe in God.

But the bible was written by man and man is not without sin. So how can everything in the bible be 100% creditable?

Boom, roasted.

[KingBeasley08]

Anyone that believes in creationism in today's day and age is a nut. Straight up and simple. And this is coming from a guy who doesn't discount the possibility of a God and has supported Christians from angry Athiests here.

Evolution has been proven. Only people that don't support it don't even know how it works

"how can ppl come from monkeys wen da monkeys are still around" :facepalm

[Patrick Chewing]

Yea actually the chemical reactions that got life started have been explained... And you are right it doesn't get started from nothing. You need ingredients... and we had them.


But if nothing is nothing and will always be nothing, then how can you explain these "ingredients" and who or what "had them"?

When and how did nothing turn into something?

Sure, I can create another human here on Earth by means of our reproductive organs, if these are the ingredients you speak of. But what ingredients account for the first humans? For the first species? And again, if there was nothing before something, when and how did these ingredients come about?

[KingBeasley08]

But if nothing is nothing and will always be nothing, then how can you explain these "ingredients" and who or what "had them"?

When and how did nothing turn into something?

Sure, I can create another human here on Earth by means of our reproductive organs, if these are the ingredients you speak of. But what ingredients account for the first humans? For the first species? And again, if there was nothing before something, when and how did these ingredients come about?
None of the things you're talking about has to do with evolution. Evolution is just the idea of genetic mutations existing and natural selection leading to the strongest genes to survive. Out of which, over time, many species formed. That's evolution as opposed to creationism which literally is saying that humans and all animals were created out of nowhere which we know is false due to fossils of human ancestors.

[JohnFreeman]

But if nothing is nothing and will always be nothing, then how can you explain these "ingredients" and who or what "had them"?

When and how did nothing turn into something?

Sure, I can create another human here on Earth by means of our reproductive organs, if these are the ingredients you speak of. But what ingredients account for the first humans? For the first species? And again, if there was nothing before something, when and how did these ingredients come about?

They are actually working on how to make something from nothing. They already have pictures of the big bang at the exact point of the universe's birth.

[DonDadda59]

And you still ain't eatin butt

Against my religious beliefs you heathen.

Also, I was gonna watch a few minutes of this farce then I realized it went down at the creation museum. Turned it off immediately. Why would the science guy even bother going HERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uaz9Ks338c4)?

If you want people to take your cause seriously, don't get a guy who watches the Flintstones like it's a documentary to make it for you :facepalm

[Patrick Chewing]

That's evolution as opposed to creationism which literally is saying that humans and all animals were created out of nowhere which we know is false due to fossils of human ancestors.


But the fossil record does not prove evolution in humans. Humans have been humans since the first human. There is no precursor fossil record showing that it mutated into human form or anything of the sort.

[KeylessEntry]

Evolution cannot be proven. The Evolutionist uses the same "blind faith" the Creationist does. Interpretation of both is key here to forming your judgment.

We cannot create life here on Earth from nothing, and science cannot prove that life was created from something else. Just because you dug up a rock and found a fossil doesn't mean that some sort of evolutionary process took place explaining the mere existence of at least humanity's presence. Our presence here on Earth is still very much unknown.

No, they do not use the same "blind faith". Unlike the magic described in the bible, we can actually observe evolution occurring around us. Evolution is the reason there is a growing problem of antibacterial resistant bacteria, evolution is the reason that some weeds have become immune to herbicides. There are many real world examples of evolution in action, there is no real world evidence for any of the bullshit believed by creationists.

[Wavves]

My opinion?

I believe in God.

But the bible was written by man and man is not without sin. So how can everything in the bible be 100% creditable?

Good on you.

Just went on twitter to check out what some people are saying about the debate and found a girl who said this,

"I'm sorry but GOD created the earth in which we live in, read the bible...The end"
:facepalm

[DonDadda59]

Don't ever use Bill Maher as a creditable source. :oldlol:

F*ck Bill Maher, did you see the Triceratops with the saddle on its back at the 'museum' where this 'debate' was held?

http://www.theology21.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/23994_5402.jpg

C'mon Brah.

[KingBeasley08]

But the fossil record does not prove evolution in humans. Humans have been humans since the first human. There is no precursor fossil record showing that it mutated into human form or anything of the sort.
Actually, that's false. There are fossils from millions of years back that detail early humans. Our bones and brains were similar to that of a chimp and over time, natural selection led to those with bigger games surviving at a higher rate till homo sapiens came around

[DonDadda59]

:oldlol: the kid in the back is like "fvk yea!"

Don't know why he's so damn excited. According to Professor Ham and his creation museum, that shit happened all the time.

Yabba.
















Dabba.


























Do.


:facepalm

[chosen_one6]

the new Noah movie that is coming out will prove the truth and end all debate

Just stealing money from the sheep that believe that garbage.

[gigantes]

:lol

My belief comes from exactly what it is, a belief, I choose to believe in something.

One of my favorite quotes is from an Agnostic speaker who came to my campus.

He said, "There is no explaining the Universe without God, and there is no explaining God without the Universe. The Universe is something that must have laws, like evolution being the prime example. Without set laws, like anything, it would fall apart. Prove to me God didn't make these laws and I will prove to you that he did."

I think that is an excellent way to approach science and religion.
he sounds like a crashing bore, TBH.

i see very little relationship between a hypothetical

[DonDadda59]

the new Noah movie that is coming out will prove the truth and end all debate

F*ck Noah, he's the reason I'm taking the subway tomorrow instead of stuntin on my T-Rex.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kxifkuQw2r4/UBLdJmmjE-I/AAAAAAAAAnw/wj1ini4F6NM/s1600/Dinosaurs-Noahs-Ark.jpg

[chosen_one6]

:lol

My belief comes from exactly what it is, a belief, I choose to believe in something.

One of my favorite quotes is from an Agnostic speaker who came to my campus.

He said, "There is no explaining the Universe without God, and there is no explaining God without the Universe. The Universe is something that must have laws, like evolution being the prime example. Without set laws, like anything, it would fall apart. Prove to me God didn't make these laws and I will prove to you that he did."

I think that is an excellent way to approach science and religion.

No one can prove there is a higher power. No one can disprove there is a higher power. It is entirely FAITH based. It's all in the mind. It's a thought process created by man. If it were a universal thought process, every group of people past and present would have very similar religions. That's not the case though, and there's a reason for that.

[Patrick Chewing]

No, they do not use the same "blind faith". Unlike the magic described in the bible, we can actually observe evolution occurring around us. Evolution is the reason there is a growing problem of antibacterial resistant bacteria, evolution is the reason that some weeds have become immune to herbicides. There are many real world examples of evolution in action, there is no real world evidence for any of the bullshit believed by creationists.


Macroevolution, evolution on a larger scale from species to species (i.e. ape to human) is not observable. It would only be an assumption and not a fact to state that humans and animals evolved from some other species.

[KeylessEntry]

Macroevolution, evolution on a larger scale from species to species (i.e. ape to human) is not observable. It would only be an assumption and not a fact to state that humans and animals evolved from some other species.

Because macroevolution is just multiple micro changes over a very long time scale. The bottom line is that the mechanisms behind evolution can be observed in action, while zero evidence for creationism can be observed.

The study of evolution is a core part of every biology degree offered by major universities in the United States, but you cant study creationism anywhere other than bible colleges. That should tell you something right there.

[Akrazotile]

Often times scientists purport their "best current guesses" as facts, and people in the public looking for an intellectual edge grab it and run to message boards and shout it out to appear superior to the religious.

Truth is, we dont know our origins. Nobody does. Its certainly worth studying and exploring, but making debates about it into live spectacles only satisfies our primal urge to compete over things and be declared victorious. It doesnt really advance the cause of understanding.

[HardwoodLegend]

Often times scientists purport their "best current guesses" as facts, and people in the public looking for an intellectual edge grab it and run to message boards and shout it out to appear superior to the religious.

Truth is, we dont know our origins. Nobody does. Its certainly worth studying and exploring, but making debates about it into live spectacles only satisfies our primal urge to compete over things and be declared victorious. It doesnt really advance the cause of understanding.

The purpose of the debate is not to compete and declare a victor. Since it's worth studying and exploring as you say, the debate is attempting to determine which model is a more viable method in the educational system. What is the point of having creationism in schools anyway? There are a plethora of creationist theories about our origin, so which one deserves a spot in the textbooks? And, why can't children just discover all of these on their own elsewhere?

[FKAri]

Basically.

What next, a debate on what causes thunder & lightning- electrostatic discharge or Zeus being pissed off?

It's 2014 for ****'s sake :biggums:

But what causes electrostatic discharge? The electromagnetic force. What generates the electromagnetic force? Zeus. Checkmate.

[Akrazotile]

The purpose of the debate is not to compete and declare a victor. Since it's worth studying and exploring as you say, the debate is attempting to determine which model is a more viable method in the educational system. What is the point of having creationism in schools anyway? There are a plethora of creationist theories about our origin, so which one deserves a spot in the textbooks? And, why can't children just discover all of these on their own elsewhere?


In my personal opinion creationism does not have a place in academic textbooks, because there is very little elaboration on the basic concept or empirical evidence to study. That doesnt mean that the general suppossition is not right, nor that it is right. Just that it is not compatible with typical academic study. Creationism inherently takes a position that cant be proved, and evolutionary science seeks to determine what can be proved. They are different approaches, but so far neither has produced an irrefutable solution, and my belief is that neither ever likely will. However the scientific method is useful learning for practical, everyday applications of life. Not to mention there are some aspects of evolution that are undeniable, and it's something that is interesting and stimulating to explore further.

There are many things at the atomic and galatic levels that seem to defy scientific and mathematic explaination, and yet we know them to exist. In my experience people that are supremely assumptive about the purely scientific origins and nature of life are talking way over their head. They learned a basic outline of a theory or a sample of scientific data, and start walking around like theyre suddenly the almighty gatekeeper of lifes secrets. Reminds me of the classic 'just heard Immortal Technique for the first time yesterday - walks around today like the all-time hip hop authority' deal.

I am a firm science enthusiast. That doesnt mean I have to view it as unimpeachable. Similar to how one can watch a basketball game, without HAVING to be for one team or the other. Just observe and allow things to unfold as they will.

[Akrazotile]

Because macroevolution is just multiple micro changes over a very long time scale. The bottom line is that the mechanisms behind evolution can be observed in action, while zero evidence for creationism can be observed.

The study of evolution is a core part of every biology degree offered by major universities in the United States, but you cant study creationism anywhere other than bible colleges. That should tell you something right there.



Here we have a fugazi.


He thinks he knows. But he doesnt know.

Somewhere, Socrates is laughing.

[longhornfan1234]

Christians today against evolution = medieval Christians against a heliocentric universe.

Thousands of years and still haven't learned a damned thing. Idiots.



I wish the Christfags would form their own party and stop ruining the Republican party.

[Meticode]

I listened to it for about an hour and I gave creationism it's fair shot, but I can't get past the fact that they're basically saying humans and dinosaurs walked earth during the same periods. They're ignoring a ton of evidence that clearly shows the earth is older than 6000 years. From fossils, to dinosaurs appearing in a specific part of one continent and are on another continent as well when they were connected together as a bigger land-mass that takes millions of years.

I almost laughed when Bill Nye drew the diagram of kangaroos coming from the middle east to Australia and us not ever finding any kangaroo-like fossils in that area, but magically some how they ended up in Australia from the Middle East where the Ark is believed to have settled.

[rezznor]

Christians today against evolution = medieval Christians against a heliocentric universe.

Thousands of years and still haven't learned a damned thing. Idiots.



I wish the Christfags would form their own party and stop ruining the Republican party.
first time i have ever agreed with you on anything politics related

[Akrazotile]

I listened to it for about an hour and I gave creationism it's fair shot, but I can't get past the fact that they're basically saying humans and dinosaurs walked earth during the same periods. They're ignoring a ton of evidence that clearly shows the earth is older than 6000 years. From fossils, to dinosaurs appearing in a specific part of one continent and are on another continent as well when they were connected together as a bigger land-mass that takes millions of years.

I almost laughed when Bill Nye drew the diagram of kangaroos coming from the middle east to Australia and us not ever finding any kangaroo-like fossils in that area, but magically some how they ended up in Australia from the Middle East where the Ark is believed to have settled.


Well, if I tried to explain calculus to someone who was unfamiliar with it by drawing a diagram of humans and dinosaurs, they would probably think calculus is pretty absurd as well. Just because the explanation is poor or insufficient in your estimation doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is wrong.

All I can tell you is that people tend to divide up between two polar ends, and argue back and forth about whose right, when the truth is usually somewhere in between. People either think 9/11 was a Reptilian conspiracy with controlled demolitions plotted by secret society of illuminati, or they think it was fairly and accurately explained as a pure terrorist attack by angry muslims. And they argue back and forth all day long. People think the Earth was made 7,000 years ago and humans and dinasaurs were chillin together, or they think it's a foregone conclusion that a lightning spark created the organic sentience from which we come.

Usually the reason people pick one side from which to argue against the other is because the other side is usually an easy target, because it's usually wrong. The answers are more vague and more elusive than we'd like to admit, but when "the other" side thinks they know all the details, it's easy to poke holes in their theory and declare some sort of victory.

Well WOOOPADEEE DOOOOO MISTER MAGOO.

I don't know what that means. That concludes the train of thought for this post.

[Akrazotile]

What I can tell you is that KeylessEntry is without a doubt the all-time authority on the mysteries of reality and existence and perception and experience. This guy clearly has all the answers. One of his posts even had the word "science" in it so he MUST be right about everything. We are truly blessed to have contact with a sage of the this magnitude on. What's comforting to know is that his infinite wisdom, absorbed through tireless minutes of watching The Universe on History Channel HD, provides such clarity and direction to our journey through lifes paradoxes.

Based KeylessEntry, please share more of your keen, complex scientific expertise with us. We will be forever grateful. That is, provided 'forever' even exists. Which I've actually been meaning to ask you.

[CelticBaller]

Religious debates are pointless and stupid

[bladefd]

All I can tell you is that people tend to divide up between two polar ends, and argue back and forth about whose right, when the truth is usually somewhere in between. People think the Earth was made 7,000 years ago and humans and dinasaurs were chillin together, or they think it's a foregone conclusion that a lightning spark created the organic sentience from which we come.

Usually the reason people pick one side from which to argue against the other is because the other side is usually an easy target, because it's usually wrong. The answers are more vague and more elusive than we'd like to admit, but when "the other" side thinks they know all the details, it's easy to poke holes in their theory and declare some sort of victory.


The question is though: which side is more viable? Evidence and the ability of falsification speaks volumes. Also, no scientist with any credibility will say that 'lightning spark created organic sentience'.

A biologist will probably say something along the lines of "Yes, we do have sentient life forms on Earth. We know some mechanisms of how carbon-based organic molecules could be formed from just individual atoms. How those organic molecules become as complex as life we know it is something we do not know how that happened EXACTLY, but it is our field's goal to figure it out"

That, to me, is not a foregone conclusion. What is foregone conclusion is a theologist standing up, saying "We have life because god created it. If you want to know more, read the bible" then sitting down with his hands crossed. That is a foregone conclusion, and it alarms me. That is the exact opposite of science. What sort of message will that send? "We do not need to know anymore because of GOD. We already know everything there is to know because of GOD. Our past, present & future is all GOD. Glory to GOD."

[Take Your Lumps]

I almost laughed when Bill Nye drew the diagram of kangaroos coming from the middle east to Australia and us not ever finding any kangaroo-like fossils in that area, but magically some how they ended up in Australia from the Middle East where the Ark is believed to have settled.

Kangaroos can jump. Really far.

[fpliii]

Christians today against evolution = medieval Christians against a heliocentric universe.

Thousands of years and still haven't learned a damned thing. Idiots.



I wish the Christfags would form their own party and stop ruining the Republican party.
:applause:

[Micku]

the new Noah movie that is coming out will prove the truth and end all debate

We will finally learn the truth of how did the termites, fleas, and woodpeckers ate. I'm sure they didn't get all 4,000 of termites tho! How about dem leaches and parasites?

/joke

This debate isn't really new if you watch other debates, but it gives the students and other people who haven't heard of the topic something to go by. Imo, Bill Nye had more charisma, but fumble on his words a lot and had a lot of information to cover. Ken Ham is a good debater when dodging a few questions and keeping to his point. He didn't fumble on his words as often.

But I must say...when Ken ham mention that we measure meteorites of the age of the Earth, wouldn't that in turn reflect the age of solar system and universe? And Bill Nye didn't attack him for using the bible as a reference source of truth as often as he should and discuss the literal meaning vs interpenetration compared that to the science itself that you can constantly test. And the fact that he said God created the stars, does that mean God is in the nebula or created the nebula to create stars? And the fact that light is a speed, and we constantly looking into the past is evidence enough that we could observe the past using science. Everything that we see is in the past anyway.

I like the end of the debate when they asked Bill Nye a question of where did atoms come from, and he simply said that he didn't know while Ken Ham would point to the bible and say God did it. This is a fallacy because it's only based upon his belief that the bible is true or God exist. I don't know answer to the origins is the most honest answer, and the only true answer currently.

[Meticode]

Well, if I tried to explain calculus to someone who was unfamiliar with it by drawing a diagram of humans and dinosaurs, they would probably think calculus is pretty absurd as well. Just because the explanation is poor or insufficient in your estimation doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is wrong.

All I can tell you is that people tend to divide up between two polar ends, and argue back and forth about whose right, when the truth is usually somewhere in between. People either think 9/11 was a Reptilian conspiracy with controlled demolitions plotted by secret society of illuminati, or they think it was fairly and accurately explained as a pure terrorist attack by angry muslims. And they argue back and forth all day long. People think the Earth was made 7,000 years ago and humans and dinasaurs were chillin together, or they think it's a foregone conclusion that a lightning spark created the organic sentience from which we come.

Usually the reason people pick one side from which to argue against the other is because the other side is usually an easy target, because it's usually wrong. The answers are more vague and more elusive than we'd like to admit, but when "the other" side thinks they know all the details, it's easy to poke holes in their theory and declare some sort of victory.

Well WOOOPADEEE DOOOOO MISTER MAGOO.

I don't know what that means. That concludes the train of thought for this post.
Didn't understand, but okay.

[miller-time]

I wish the Christfags would form their own party and stop ruining the Republican party.

I don't think it is the believers that is the problem. It is the political party itself which uses divisive issues to pick up those voters. They are magicians, essentially using hot button religious issues as distractions while working against the best interests of their voter base.

[Patrick Chewing]

I don't think it is the believers that is the problem. It is the political party itself which uses divisive issues to pick up those voters. They are magicians, essentially using hot button religious issues as distractions while working against the best interests of their voter base.


Oh lord. Please explain further.

[ballup]

I zoned in and out of the debate. It wasn't anything too intense as I felt both sides had weaknesses such and running around in circles of the question or making a not as strong counter.

[CavaliersFTW]

http://memeguy.com/photos/images/summary-of-bill-nye-and-ken-ham-debate-86645.jpg

[CavaliersFTW]

My opinion?

I believe in God.

But the bible was written by man and man is not without sin. So how can everything in the bible be 100% creditable?
God was invented by man. Just like Santa Clause.

[Patrick Chewing]

God was invented by man. Just like Santa Clause.

And man was created by who? what?

Endless debate I'm afraid. But if you want to think you came from apes, be my guest.

[CavaliersFTW]

And man was created by who? what?

Endless debate I'm afraid. But if you want to think you came from apes, be my guest.
Malformed question. There is no reason whatsoever to assume a 'creator'. Which unfortunately has lead you to the incorrect assumption that this is an 'endless debate'. It isn't. There is no debate to be had.

[CavaliersFTW]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g173_ocHMfI/TdAddb1m1TI/AAAAAAAACoQ/4kCl7zLVnwA/s1600/raptor+jesus.jpg

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Patrick Chewing]

Malformed question. There is no reason whatsoever to assume a 'creator'. Which unfortunately has lead you to the incorrect assumption that this is an 'endless debate'. It isn't. There is no debate to be had.


What facts do you provide to prove that you are right and everyone else that disagrees is wrong? Do you have evidence that we came from nothing? Can you disprove God? Were you there to witness?

[CavaliersFTW]

What facts do you provide to prove that you are right and everyone else that disagrees is wrong? Do you have evidence that we came from nothing? Can you disprove God? Were you there to witness?
One malformed question after another holy shyt :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Patrick Chewing]

One malformed question after another holy shyt :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

These are not malformed questions. If you were to go in front of audience and lecture to them that there is no God and man created God, the only way the audience will automatically agree with you is if they were brainwashed or were hypnotized to believe everything you said.

However, that is not reality. The audience will undoubtedly expect you to provide anecdotal evidence for the claims you had brought forth. So again, what evidence/proof, whatever you want to call it, do you have that shows indisputable truth that man created "God"?

[CavaliersFTW]

These are not malformed questions. If you were to go in front of audience and lecture to them that there is no God and man created God, the only way the audience will automatically agree with you is if they were brainwashed or were hypnotized to believe everything you said.

However, that is not reality. The audience will undoubtedly expect you to provide anecdotal evidence for the claims you had brought forth. So again, what evidence/proof, whatever you want to call it, do you have that shows indisputable truth that man created "God"?
They are all malformed questions actually :cheers:

[Patrick Chewing]

They are all malformed questions actually :cheers:


Typical response and expected behavior. When asked the simple questions, the only thing they know how to do is deflect.

Enjoy your existence, ape boy.

[miller-time]

So again, what evidence/proof, whatever you want to call it, do you have that shows indisputable truth that man created "God"?

Every God, a specific God, or just the vague notion of some "higher power"?

[Patrick Chewing]

Every God, a specific God, or just the vague notion of some "higher power"?


As a Christian, I don't necessarily believe that God has a persona, or a face. I believe in a "higher power" that is neither man, beast, anything, but everything. An existence of something so extraordinary that created the known world and universe and all its elements, and created us individually for a purpose. Also, don't let the word, "Christian" sway you or change your opinion in any way. I'm a logical man. There was no Christianity before Christ or during. Only after. So religious labels are insignificant to me. It's the actual message and divinity that I care about.

Furthermore, in historical contexts, the mention of a God or Gods, or higher power dates back thousands upon thousands of years and stretches across miles and miles and continents. My question to non-believers is, were they all in on it? Did they all send letters and envoys to one another to create a fictional God in the sky? Doesn't seem plausible at all. Humanity's problem (if you want to call it that) is our quest for knowledge. Yet, for all the science we have out today, there is still enormous gaps and questions left unanswered about origins. Science explains to us what we're made of, but for all the science we have, we just don't know how it got there.

[russwest0]

-Says he's Christian
-Says God isn't a higher power but is everything in the universe

:oldlol:

[DCL]

it's 2014 and there are still humans debating if the entire universe is 6,000 years old. :facepalm

[16X]

And man was created by who? what?
Man was created by sex. Your parents haven't had the talk with you yet?


Endless debate I'm afraid. But if you want to think you came from apes, be my guest.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0mswntzP61r3jsrko1_400.jpg


Humans ARE apes, so I don't know where we would possibly come from other than from other apes :confusedshrug:

[MightyWhitey]

God was invented by man. Just like Santa Clause.
So you know for sure that there is no God. Please explain yourself further.

[MightyWhitey]

it's 2014 and there are still humans debating if the entire universe is 6,000 years old. :facepalm
But why should this bother you? What do you care what someone believes?

[CavaliersFTW]

But why should this bother you? What do you care what someone believes?
What mankind believes today effects our livelyhood tomorrow.

I'd like to continue mankind's trend of innovation and discovery through science, and not be impeded by some 21st century freaks who believe a book written 3,000 years ago by desert savages who didn't know where rain comes from is literally true.

[CavaliersFTW]

So you know for sure that there is no God. Please explain yourself further.
We don't know for sure there is no god anymore than we know for sure there is no Santa Clause

:cheers:

[AlphaWolf24]

http://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/bald-uakari.jpghttp://ih3.redbubble.net/work.2120019.3.flat,550x550,075,f.jambo-the-bald-chocolate-chimpanzee.jpghttp://www.perlmanpages.com/bsmovies/gfx/quest4a.jpghttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/BKlPC8ACMAAPjsT.jpghttp://lifeboat.com/images/big.brain.alien.jpg

Look around...Evolution is everywhere!!!.....


(Tj still got a huge azz head)

[KingBeasley08]

Eh I find creationists to be idiots but I don't care if someone believe in God. Their choice tbh, forcing an opinion is just as obnoxious

[MightyWhitey]

What mankind believes today effects our livelyhood tomorrow.

I'd like to continue mankind's trend of innovation and discovery through science, and not be impeded by some 21st century freaks who believe a book written 3,000 years ago by desert savages who didn't know where rain comes from is literally true.
You assume that Creationsim is vast and large in the Western World when it's quite the opposite.

[CavaliersFTW]

You assume that Creationsim is vast and large in the Western World when it's quite the opposite.
Clearly you haven't been to U.S. States like Kentucky, North Carolina, etc

[MightyWhitey]

We don't know for sure there is no god anymore than we know for sure there is no Santa Clause

:cheers:
You assume much on God and your assumptions are purely ridiculous.

[MightyWhitey]

Clearly you haven't been to U.S. States like Kentucky, North Carolina, etc
Clearly you haven't provided adequate proof that these Creationists pose a problem with scientific and human advancement.

[Patrick Chewing]

Eh I find creationists to be idiots but I don't care if someone believe in God. Their choice tbh, forcing an opinion is just as obnoxious


You are confusing creationists with radical religious fanatics. The two couldn't be more further apart. Like I explained earlier, you can take me for example. Religion is not a necessity if you believe in a deity and believe that this deity created everything on Earth at least.

There is no concrete evidence for the contrary, so the real idiots are the ones that call others idiots when they have no proof to back up their claims.

[fpliii]

You are confusing creationists with radical religious fanatics. The two couldn't be more further apart. Like I explained earlier, you can take me for example. Religion is not a necessity if you believe in a deity and believe that this deity created everything on Earth at least.

There is no concrete evidence for the contrary, so the real idiots are the ones that call others idiots when they have no proof to back up their claims.
I'm not going to post again in this thread so feel free to not respond, but note that a lot of the scripture in the Bible is borrowed (read: plagiarized) from creation myths, parables, and other stories (supernatural or otherwise) that predate Judeo-Christian faith. Not really up for debate, either.

Believe what you want if it makes you a better person and helps you live a better life.

[Patrick Chewing]

I'm not going to post again in this thread so feel free to not respond, but note that a lot of the scripture in the Bible is borrowed (read: plagiarized) from creation myths, parables, and other stories (supernatural or otherwise) that predate Judeo-Christian faith. Not really up for debate, either.



This is known. The Bible can be considered merely just a guide book on how one should live their lives. It is also a historical reference book. Are there embellishments? Sure there are. Embellishments are a part of every day life. No one here is debating that the Bible is the be all and end all of religious virtue, or that it is the spoken word of God. The Bible doesn't necessarily have to be considered a "Christian" book. It's got a little bit of everything.

This whole thread has had a debate on who is right and who is wrong, but not one person that has posted here in favor of Creationism has been a Christian radical wanting to thump a bible in someone's face. Those people are in the same class as atheists who go out of their way to tell you that there is no God and that religious symbols offend them. They're crazy.

[Akrazotile]

God was invented by man. Just like Santa Clause.


Was reality invented by man as well?

[Dbrog]

So you know for sure that there is no God. Please explain yourself further.

You know for sure there is no Santa Clause? Please explain yourself further.

[Dbrog]

What I don't understand about Ken is he keeps saying we can't observe the age of the earth and yet we see that trees gain a ring every year...and they have more rings than what he claims. Then he states that you can't use the same rules for the present as the past since we were not there to "see" it. Hell, HUMANS have been around longer than he caims. You can't have this unprovable logic in a debate. If you admit to not being able to predict the past due to it being unobservable, you therefor admit that any and ALL ideas about the past could be correct. I could say that we all used to be bubbles who could breath in space and stayed alive by inhaling rocks and then we eventually turned into humans and i would have the SAME EXACT validity as the claim that a creator exists. Does he not see the problem here?

Perhaps it's I who don't see the problem. Maybe his point is precisely that no one can know...but then why would he speak with such authority about creationism? The contradictions are overwhelming. That said, I thought his presentation was actually more focused and articulate that Bills.

[Akrazotile]

If you admit to not being able to predict the past due to it being unobservable, you therefor admit that any and ALL ideas about the past could be correct. I could say that we all used to be bubbles who could breath in space and stayed alive by inhaling rocks and then we eventually turned into humans and i would have the SAME EXACT validity as the claim that a creator exists. Does he not see the problem here?

Perhaps it's I who don't see the problem. Maybe his point is precisely that no one can know...but then why would he speak with such authority about creationism? The contradictions are overwhelming. That said, I thought his presentation was actually more focused and articulate that Bills.

According to particle physics, this is true. Erwin Schr

[DonDadda59]

Anyone see this?

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/tech/2014/03/18/ramos-big-bang-evidence.cnn.html

I read an article (might've been on CNN as well, can't remember) where the author claimed that the discovery was proof of the Judeo-Christian creation story.

[miller-time]

This is known. The Bible can be considered merely just a guide book on how one should live their lives.

This should be the bible for you then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible


It is also a historical reference book. Are there embellishments? Sure there are. Embellishments are a part of every day life.

There are embellishments and then there are flat out lies. The Egyptians for instance didn't own Jewish slaves that built the pyramids, in fact there is no evidence of any Jews or Hebrews living in Egypt any time before the pyramids were completed (slave or not). None of the events in Exodus are found anywhere. Either in ancient records or modern archeological findings. An embellishment might be if there were 10,000 slaves and saying there were 100,000. In reality there were no slaves at all!

[Akrazotile]

This should be the bible for you then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible



There are embellishments and then there are flat out lies. The Egyptians for instance didn't own Jewish slaves that built the pyramids, in fact there is no evidence of any Jews or Hebrews living in Egypt any time before the pyramids were completed (slave or not). None of the events in Exodus are found anywhere. Either in ancient records or modern archeological findings. An embellishment might be if there were 10,000 slaves and saying there were 100,000. In reality there were no slaves at all!


:facepalm Steve, ban this anti-semite plz

[MMM]

Believe in god but not creation

[miller-time]

Believe in god but not creation

You mean you don't believe in young earth creationism? But you still accept that God put everything into motion?

[MightyWhitey]

Anyone see this?

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/tech/2014/03/18/ramos-big-bang-evidence.cnn.html

I read an article (might've been on CNN as well, can't remember) where the author claimed that the discovery was proof of the Judeo-Christian creation story.
Glad you took time out of your hollywood career to post this for everyone.

[DonDadda59]

Glad you took time out of your hollywood career to post this for everyone.

You're welcome :cheers:

[MightyWhitey]

You're welcome :cheers:
100 more posts then you ballin bruh. 10,000 by tomorrow. Post more pictures with dinosaurs.

[DonDadda59]

100 more posts then you ballin bruh.10,000 by tomorrow.

Zeus willing. I hope to one day enter the ISH pantheon with the likes of GOBB and Zen :bowdown:


Post more pictures with dinosaurs.

Done. Some personal favorites:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zQofJZ8mRDw/UJAPzq1mUoI/AAAAAAAAhqo/n8VRhKK0d_E/s400/jesusdino05.jpg

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.dailydawdle.com/images.dailydawdle.com/xjesus-dinosaur6.jpg.pagespeed.ic.Qmg7s2oqgT.webp

Little know fact- the original Aramaic Gospels claimed Jesus was coming back for his raptor, not the rapture.

[MightyWhitey]

Zeus willing. I hope to one day enter the ISH pantheon with the likes of GOBB and Zen :bowdown:



Done. Some personal favorites:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zQofJZ8mRDw/UJAPzq1mUoI/AAAAAAAAhqo/n8VRhKK0d_E/s400/jesusdino05.jpg

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.dailydawdle.com/images.dailydawdle.com/xjesus-dinosaur6.jpg.pagespeed.ic.Qmg7s2oqgT.webp

Little know fact- the original Aramaic Gospels claimed Jesus was coming back for his raptor, not the rapture.
Awesome man. Are you doing this on gran mamas rocking chair or in Mr. Drummonds limo thats taking you to the set of Goosebumps?

[DonDadda59]

Awesome man. Are you doing this on gran mamas rocking chair or in Mr. Drummonds limo thats taking you to the set of Goosebumps?

Daddy Warbuck's yacht.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Christians today against evolution = medieval Christians against a heliocentric universe.

Thousands of years and still haven't learned a damned thing. Idiots.



I wish the Christfags would form their own party and stop ruining the Republican party.
Meh, Christians and conservatives have an incredible knack for impeding progress, maintains the status quo, and being on the wrong side of history...each and every time. They're a match made in heaven.