Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Evolution vs Creationism debate

profile picture
ianj
Posts: 536 - Karma: 167
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

Starts in about half an hour. Should be interesting to hear.
Feb 4 2014 6:24PM
232 96
profile picture
Obi-Wan-Jenobi
Posts: 951 - Karma: 119
Christians who have done there homework will know that the bible does not say the earth is exactly 6000 years old. As well they will know that evolution is just a mechanism and in no way disproves Christianity.

Signed a christian, who has done his homework and gets annoyed at the ones who have'nt.
Feb 4 2014 8:13PM
6 2
profile picture
El_Barto.
Posts: 11630 - Karma: 24,465
God aint real bro
Feb 4 2014 8:14PM
8 4
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
I don't think Nye is trying to disprove Christianity as a whole... just the idea that the earth was created in 7 days and pop people show up.
Feb 4 2014 8:14PM
0 0
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
Click for larger image
Feb 4 2014 8:17PM
0 1
profile picture
DizzyG
Posts: 698 - Karma: 296
How did so many people not get this joke? lol
Feb 4 2014 8:17PM
2 1
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51261 - Karma: 157,424
I don't think I can listen to that dude speak anymore. Actually made it through a good chunk listening to bill nye talk. Shut it off when the other guy was doing his and just did it again.
Feb 4 2014 8:21PM
0 0
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
Is it just me or is he just burning through his points super fast. I feel like he was just going so fast and I couldn't follow any of it.
Feb 4 2014 8:22PM
0 0
profile picture
Dr.Dealgood
Posts: 2587 - Karma: 1,352
I agree with that.

Creationism as Ham is arguing, and Nye is counter-arguing is that there are just too many incongruities with its tenets compared with what we do actually know.

But I think his larger argument is that this perspective is limiting and presents fundamental risks to our science and technology literacy, thus impacting society in the long term.

uh oh -- Nye's at bat.
Feb 4 2014 8:23PM
1 0
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
Nows the best time to listen, they're going back and forth after those LONG presentations of their general arguments.


8000th post.
Feb 4 2014 8:27PM
0 0
profile picture
MontanaMountains
Posts: 385 - Karma: 699
I really believe noahs ark happened
Feb 4 2014 8:29PM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11953 - Karma: 12,292
So what proof does christianity offer to support your claim?
Feb 4 2014 8:31PM
0 0
profile picture
HitTheJim
Posts: 787 - Karma: 399
As much as i prefer this to blind religious following, it's still just a poor attempt to incorporate religion into what we now know as near scientific fact. People will cling onto religion as long as possible and will do anything to try to give their faith validity.
Feb 4 2014 8:37PM
1 1
profile picture
.Capn.
Posts: 1454 - Karma: 152
Initial points were fine for both speakers. All of the rebuttals were total shit. This whole debate doesn't even need to happen, it's just getting frustratingly static from both sides.
Feb 4 2014 8:38PM
0 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9210 - Karma: 5,357
obviously a Ham supporter that asked Nye what happened before the big bang. He obviously doesnt have a factual, dead on answer as to what happen.

And he still gives a good answer of what we know and how we're trying to figure it out.

inb4 Ham says oh, but you weren't there. also god made it.
Feb 4 2014 8:43PM
3 0
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
Pretty much exactly what he said. Lolz
Feb 4 2014 8:44PM
0 0
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
Hes proving himself wrong. Majority also believed that god created the universe at one point.... Now majority believes that its science.
Feb 4 2014 8:46PM
0 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9210 - Karma: 5,357
Ok, all these bullshit questions to Bill Nye like where did consciousness come from or what happened before the big bang are obviously written by creationism people. The strategy of asking questions that have no answers is low and shows you can't make points.

inb4 god made it. 
Feb 4 2014 8:50PM
1 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9210 - Karma: 5,357
fucking called it, every answer of his is going to be you know there's a book.
Feb 4 2014 8:51PM
0 0
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
Is anyone else annoyed by Hams body language compared to Nye? Ham just stand and looks at the audience. Nye looks and is so interested in Ham and is really listening to him.



And what a good fucking question.
Feb 4 2014 8:52PM
4 0
profile picture
smallmtskier
Posts: 254 - Karma: 41
-_- thats the point. It works both ways.
Feb 4 2014 8:52PM
0 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9210 - Karma: 5,357
I was going to say it's a waste of a question, but its good to see that Bill can say "I don't know, if you can figure it out that'd be great though". I think i'm more annoyed that people wrote those probably with the express intention of being like "ha, he'll have to say I don't know, that means we're right!".
Feb 4 2014 8:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Dr.Dealgood
Posts: 2587 - Karma: 1,352
I lol'ed.
Feb 4 2014 8:58PM
0 0
profile picture
Goku
Posts: 8119 - Karma: 4,221
I can't even begin to believe that there are actually people that believe the things that are coming out of Ham's mouth
Feb 4 2014 9:02PM
3 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9210 - Karma: 5,357
Ham's not answering the questions. And is lawyering stuff, stop arguing what the words mean and answer the questions. Literally only means one thing, you do exactly what the words say.
Feb 4 2014 9:14PM
2 0
profile picture
masonstehle
Posts: 13 - Karma: 25
Can Ken Ham explain how dinosaur bones have been discovered that were not on the ark, and that have been dated well past his supposed age of the Earth?
Feb 4 2014 9:25PM
0 0
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
Correct me if im wrong but isn't there another book like that.... the Old Testament?
Feb 4 2014 9:26PM
0 0
profile picture
masonstehle
Posts: 13 - Karma: 25
^^^***dinosaur bones have been dated past his supposed age of the Earth, phrased that wrong with the ark.
Feb 4 2014 9:30PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51261 - Karma: 157,424
Dinosaurs aren't real you idiot. Evil people stuck pig bones in the ground to try and test out faith.

Feb 4 2014 9:30PM
5 0
profile picture
masonstehle
Posts: 13 - Karma: 25
my bad dude
Feb 4 2014 9:32PM
0 0
profile picture
SFB
Posts: 8895 - Karma: 26,346
one time when i was like 8 i dug up a huge bone, i was so stoked because i thought it was totally a dino bone.so, we took it to the musuem and they said it was a horse bone. so dissapoint.
Feb 4 2014 9:37PM
2 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51261 - Karma: 157,424
At least you didn't dig up one of your old pets.
Feb 4 2014 9:41PM
2 0
profile picture
SFB
Posts: 8895 - Karma: 26,346
i dug up my dead hamster once, i dug a lot of holes as a kid.
Feb 4 2014 9:43PM
2 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
Hey guys, did I miss anything? Sorry I was kind of busy.
Feb 4 2014 9:45PM
10 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,325
I missed a good portion of his presentation unfortunately and didn't hear much pertaining to dinosaurs and the ark.
His main argument on radiometric dating is that we can't say that decay rates have stayed constant through history. He also points out that there's different methods of dating that will yield different results for a specific sample. This is true, but a completely useless statement.

The more I think about Ham's ideas and arguments against science, the funnier they get. Too bad there's probably no creationists on NS.
Feb 4 2014 9:46PM
0 0
profile picture
masonstehle
Posts: 13 - Karma: 25
Yo bill whats good son
Feb 4 2014 9:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Obi-Wan-Jenobi
Posts: 951 - Karma: 119
The claim that evolution and Christianity can co-exist?
Feb 4 2014 9:51PM
0 1
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
If you want to have some fun, check out #teamham on twitter

Click for larger image
Feb 4 2014 9:58PM
4 0
profile picture
Mr.Sloth
Posts: 5091 - Karma: 13,469
Yasssssss
Feb 4 2014 10:56PM
1 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9210 - Karma: 5,357
even if the different dating methods don't agree, i'm pretty sure every single one of them has stuff being older than 6000 years so...
i guess he's saying if they dont match each other then they might not be accurate but meh.
Feb 4 2014 10:56PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,325
He's grasping at straws. Bill Nye pretty much started laughing after he was questioned on the credibility of radiometric dating. All of Ham's ideas are pretty desperate, it's pretty hard to not come to the conclusion that the earth is old as fuck if you look at the fossil record. He knows this.
Feb 4 2014 11:09PM
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5214 - Karma: 6,494
Newschoolers is so one sided when it comes to this argument that I won't even say anything


Love all you guys anyway tho
Feb 4 2014 11:20PM
1 1
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,122
{ creationist mind } ∈ ΓΈ

LOLOL
Feb 4 2014 11:22PM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,122
∀ creationist arguments ∃ scientific argument | science explanation ≥ religious explanation
Feb 4 2014 11:24PM
1 1
profile picture
ThaLorax
Posts: 21061 - Karma: 8,366
I'm about an hour into the thing an it's so difficult listening to Ham's circular arguments.
Feb 4 2014 11:32PM
1 1
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
The Q&A is good.
Feb 4 2014 11:33PM
1 0
profile picture
cheaaaaaa
Posts: 830 - Karma: 630
Just have to say this to someone....

His fundamental flaw is his belief that "observational science" is differentiated from "unobservable science" by its proximity to the present; that is to say that valid "observations" are from the "present" and that which is (by his definition) unobservable is from the past. Because of the speed of light we can only observe the past!!!!!!!!! With that, we have no capacity to observe the present nor the future (of course until a given event has already happened... and extrapolations aside). This renders both the "observational" and "unobservable" sciences as both based on past observations, and its unreasonable to conclude that a given observation (extrapolated or not) is invalid purely based on the subject of interest's proximity to the present.

Pretty sure billy mentioned this
This other dudes a fucking idiot.
Feb 4 2014 11:53PM
0 1
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,500
His body language is so beta, also I lost it at the favorite color question.
Feb 4 2014 11:55PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)