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

[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.

[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]

[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]

[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

[Patrick Chewing]

One malformed question after another holy shyt

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