{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/4/2014 11:59:52 PM
124
Bill Nye Creationism Debate Livestream (Get in here)
-
1 ReplyKen Ham: - It's true because the Bible is correct. The Bible is the word of God and he's magnificent and stuff and that's all there is to it. - I won't address your points because God is great. - Check out my website. - Here's a bunch of people with PhDs in engineering, and here's a guy who invented the MRI scanner. What they've said is correct because... look! PhDs. - You can't prove it because you weren't there. - I don't literally believe the Bible, but I "naturally" do. - There's a book that answers all your questions. It's called the Bible... which is true. - Even though this is a creation debate, I'm going to spruik my views about how abortion is wrong, anything other than man-woman marriage is wrong, etc... - "Evolutionists", "Secularists", "Atheists" - Don't forget to check out my website. I do experimental computer science where everything is [pretty much] absolute (computers are generally closed systems, and controlled by laws dictated by humans). Anything I put forth and make a claim about I have to support with high quality evidence. However, it is not the only thing I have to provide. I also have to justify why the methodology I've chosen to adhere to in my study is the most appropriate one to use - why is the process I've used to measure, gather, etc... my results is suitable. The conclusions I draw from my results also needs to be justifiable, but I also need to make sure that I show humility and not overstep my bounds on what I can support. That, in my opinion, is the fundamental difference between the creationist argument and the scientific one: the standard of proof. Essentially, you can take the Bible's word for some position, because it says it's right (or you "feel" it's correct) - because [i]the Christian god supposedly says so[/i] (remember, it was written and translated by fallible human beings) - or you can view it from the scientific viewpoint. That you can examine the results from which the conclusions were obtained. That you can criticise the methodology and explain why it's wrong/bias/produces incorrect results/etc... (you can even propose an alternative that you believe - and can justify - will produce correct results). You can examine the source for potential biases, COIs (conflicts of interests), etc... and criticise them. As far as I'm concerned, there really is no contest here. In this day and age we should demand a higher standard for such claims like those about the origin of our existence, and Bill Nye was absolutely correct when he mentioned about the need for scientists to embrace that idea; [url=http://www.researchtrends.com/issue22-march-2011/tipping-the-balance-the-rise-of-china-as-a-science-superpower/]it wasn't a scare tactic[/url].
-
1 ReplyPlaying this whenever Nye starts talking is really amusing.
-
2 Replies
-
1 Reply
-
Can't fry the Nye.
-
Kind of a pointless debate. Ken Ham isn't the face of Christianity, nor is he even the face of creationism. No reasonable Christian would ascribe to Ham's views.
-
I don't trust him. He looks like a date rapist
-
3 RepliesScience and creationism are BOTH wrong. We came from shreks swamp.
-
-
-
Both speakers did a poor job.
-
Relevant flowchart.
-
I have much more respect for religious people who don't follow a dumb fcking book
-
The only reasons why religion exists is, first, to help ancient ignorant people to live good productive lives, and second, to help those same simple people explain things they had no way at the time of understanding. The purpose of the bible was to compile a collection of short stories and anecdotes that those simple, ignorant people could have read to and interpreted for them and then contemplate how those stories related to their personal issues, then apply the interpretation of those bits to enrich their little lives and the lives of those around them. Another thing the bible did was create a sense of community. Remember, back when this tome was relevant the vast majority of people couldn't read so the process of gathering often and sharing the stories together was literally the only thing these people had to discuss with each other besides goat pellets and rocks. I think the many creators of the bible would be shocked and baffled that in this day and age, with all we know now, that so many otherwise normal people could be so insecure as to make up thier own "science" to deliberately cripple the thinking capacity and ultimately the potential success of their own children rather than adapt to the wondrous knowledge of our new world. To Interpret those ancient, *twisted words literally is to destroy the true intended purpose of the books creators. [i](*Through centuries of translation, and personal interpretation by those translators)[/i]
-
15 RepliesEdited by JLx24: 2/5/2014 2:10:06 AMQ: What if something proved the earth was older than 6,000 years old, would you still believe in god etc. Ken Ham: It is impossible to prove the age of the Earth. -_-
-
Edited by THUNDERCHILD: 2/5/2014 10:55:46 PMI watched this live. Hopefully a few of the brighter kids from some of those embarrassing southern states will take the challenge and start to question the nonsensical curriculum that's becoming more and more common down there (I saw a copy of an elimenary-school "science" quiz that insisted Adam and Eve hung out in the garden of eden with dinosaurs). People are entitled to their own beliefs and opinions, not their own facts.
-
Oh dear. It's people like this Ham guy that contribute to the negative stereotype surrounding Creationists.
-
bill is right... there are Christians who arent agreeing with ken. though i think ken had a few good points, he's trying to explain the natural by the super natural. which is never appealing to just about anyone.
-
Edited by Magical Robot: 2/5/2014 2:43:17 AMWhat is annoying is that one creationist can claim to represent every creationist, and not be called out on that arrogance. I don't want anyone representing me or my views, because naturally they can only state their beliefs. I believe in a God, but I also believe that my knowledge of the universe is a big chunk of nothing in comparison to it's actual scope. I like to take the neutral ground of admitting that I don't know, I have my beliefs and views, but they are vague, seeing as many pieces of the bigger picture are missing, which is why science is so fascinating to me. I can go into more detail but that would make a really long post. In short, I believe that there is some truth to the bible, just not what is normally expected. There is always more than meets the eye regarding the universe. So in a way you could say I'm an agnostic with some religious opinions.
-
holy, bill nye the science guy is tearing it up, it's actually pretty comical if you think about it... I liked his quote about how there are Christians that disagree with Ham
-
1 ReplyThat was no debate. That was public humiliation for that spewer of bullshit, Ham.
-
My god bill just rapped his face. Mfw he said we cannot prove the earth is over 6k years...
-
Jeez... I'm Catholic and this Ken guy is incredibly cringe worthy to watch. There's having faith in something and then there's being an ignorant ass.
-
2 RepliesMay I ask what the -blam!- observational and historical science is?
-
Nearly fell asleep while Ken Ham was spewing about how he's right because he said so, and not presenting any evidence on the subject. Bill Nye just murdered him with facts.
-
That wasn't a debate
