Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
- Thread starter Mathias
- Start date
And that makes all the difference.
This. It has as little relevance to reality as Ymir being carved up by Odin to create the Earth.
The fact that you viewed that as a personal insult speaks more to you personally than it does to my statement. If you believe that it's possible for billions upon billions of species to be wrangled up into a small arc, that's your business. However, it does speak to your ability to separate facts from metaphors.
Bowielee, it seems to me that you are throwing rocks in a glass house. You felt personally attacked and insulted when I attempted to have a civil discussion on the value of gay marriage to our society, and continued to complain about it until I relented out of respect for your personal beliefs.
Now you broadly characterize Christians who hold certain beliefs as insensible, and then as I point out the insult you essentially say, "if the shoe fits..."?
Is it not possible for you to share your beliefs without calling into question the other persons ability to reason?
Now you broadly characterize Christians who hold certain beliefs as insensible, and then as I point out the insult you essentially say, "if the shoe fits..."?
Is it not possible for you to share your beliefs without calling into question the other persons ability to reason?
I'm not interested in debating evolution and creationism because it's an argument I've been having on the internet since I was 13. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Your beliefs are not equatable to my sexuality and basic right to be treated equally. If that's what you're trying to say, then you truely are insensible. If you want to call my atheism insensible, go to town.
Since I feel I had a part in this, too, I guess I had better jump in. What I bolded in Bowie's post was all about people being sensible, not Christians or Creationists in particular. Sensible people, regardless of their beliefs, understand metaphor and do not bend interpretations to fit with their values, then use that skewed view as irrefutable proof of something being true. Doesn't work, I don't care if it is in science or religion.
I don't think steinman fits into this category, but as I'm sure you're aware, there are a lot of Christians who think they're being oppressed by your basic right to be treated equally, because of your sexuality.
An old thread.
Yeah, but not a current one.
Can I just say that I really want this thread and discussion to keep going? Provided we can remain respectful and tactful, of course. But I know when it comes to religious beliefs (or lack thereof in Bowie's case), it becomes a heated debate. We're all good people here and I hope we can have a respectful discussion this.
Personally? Well, for one, I'm watching this debate very closely and find it fascinating. I'm a former Catholic and consider myself agnostic, which is basically that I believe there's some sort of unfathomable higher power out there, but I have no clue who or what it could be. I think it's interesting that similar stories or parables have popped up in multiple religions in different parts of the world, and personally, I think there's something to that: a shared belief that there's something else beyond our observable eyes. I'd like to personally believe that the people that have passed on went somewhere else and maybe even check up on us once in awhile to see how we're doing. I'd like to believe I'll go there some day, myself, partly because I'm terrified of dying.
As far as science is concerned, though, I think there's enough scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution, the Big Bang, and that the earth is billions of years old. At the same time, I can also believe that there is higher power that gave everything a little push. That the idea of "And then there was light" could be a parable to the Big Bang. I think the same could be said for a number of stories from the Bible.
So in a way, I personally support both theories...to a point. I really don't think the earth is only 6,000 years old, though. There's not enough science to support that and too much science to discredit it.
Personally? Well, for one, I'm watching this debate very closely and find it fascinating. I'm a former Catholic and consider myself agnostic, which is basically that I believe there's some sort of unfathomable higher power out there, but I have no clue who or what it could be. I think it's interesting that similar stories or parables have popped up in multiple religions in different parts of the world, and personally, I think there's something to that: a shared belief that there's something else beyond our observable eyes. I'd like to personally believe that the people that have passed on went somewhere else and maybe even check up on us once in awhile to see how we're doing. I'd like to believe I'll go there some day, myself, partly because I'm terrified of dying.
As far as science is concerned, though, I think there's enough scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution, the Big Bang, and that the earth is billions of years old. At the same time, I can also believe that there is higher power that gave everything a little push. That the idea of "And then there was light" could be a parable to the Big Bang. I think the same could be said for a number of stories from the Bible.
So in a way, I personally support both theories...to a point. I really don't think the earth is only 6,000 years old, though. There's not enough science to support that and too much science to discredit it.
Supply evidence of creationism and I'll hear it. That's just not what will happen, though. Time and again we've seen this debate and it always ends the same way, the scientist comes out with scientific evidence to support their claim and explain why it's the most reasonable conclusion while the creationist trots out the bible and tries to present it as evidence.
I'm sorry, Stienman, no one is saying you can't have your beliefs or that your beliefs are wrong. They ARE saying if you can't support the beliefs with something other than religious zeal it can't be put forth as a valid scientific theory. That's where this debate makes everyone here roll their eyes.
I'm sorry, Stienman, no one is saying you can't have your beliefs or that your beliefs are wrong. They ARE saying if you can't support the beliefs with something other than religious zeal it can't be put forth as a valid scientific theory. That's where this debate makes everyone here roll their eyes.
Where was disrespect shown after you said that? The only thing I see would be this:
And he had an "if" clause.
From my own spiritual and religious point of view, I don't equate someone disagreeing with my beliefs or seeing them as stupid to be the same as the basic human rights being ignored. But you might consider that irrelevant since my religion isn't yours. You have every right to.
Damn my english language skills. This is the kind of conversation I would like to participate.
I'm agnostic. And one of the reasons I'm agnostic and not atheist is ...baseball.
A long time ago, my father gave my brother and I a baseball bat and a ball. We didn't know anything about baseball except that you are supposed to hit the ball with the bat. So a group of friends started their own version of baseball... with 6 bases. I knew there is only 4 bases in baseball and I was angry because they weren't playing the way the game should be played. The problem is that I didn't know anything else about the game, and my version would not be much closer the the real game. In the end, everybody was having fun, except me. What difference would it make for those kids if they played the game the way I believed it should be played? The same goes with faith. There are people who are happy with their faith (or lack of it) and there are people who are angry because they know the others are wrong.
I'm agnostic. And one of the reasons I'm agnostic and not atheist is ...baseball.
A long time ago, my father gave my brother and I a baseball bat and a ball. We didn't know anything about baseball except that you are supposed to hit the ball with the bat. So a group of friends started their own version of baseball... with 6 bases. I knew there is only 4 bases in baseball and I was angry because they weren't playing the way the game should be played. The problem is that I didn't know anything else about the game, and my version would not be much closer the the real game. In the end, everybody was having fun, except me. What difference would it make for those kids if they played the game the way I believed it should be played? The same goes with faith. There are people who are happy with their faith (or lack of it) and there are people who are angry because they know the others are wrong.
Last edited:
Just an addendum to what I've said:
Creationists take "6 days" as scientific fact, but who's to say that God works on the same timetable as we do? Who's to say 6 days for God isn't 6 thousand, or 6 million, or 6 billion years? Who's to say that Adam and Eve couldn't have been some form of primate, not humans?
As I said, I like to think there's something to be said for both points of view. Neither side can certainly say, without question, what happened to cause to Big Bang or what happens when we die. NO ONE living has that answer and no one who has passed on has come back to tell us. Probably because Heaven is too awesome. I can't imagine what the bike trails are like up there.
Creationists take "6 days" as scientific fact, but who's to say that God works on the same timetable as we do? Who's to say 6 days for God isn't 6 thousand, or 6 million, or 6 billion years? Who's to say that Adam and Eve couldn't have been some form of primate, not humans?
As I said, I like to think there's something to be said for both points of view. Neither side can certainly say, without question, what happened to cause to Big Bang or what happens when we die. NO ONE living has that answer and no one who has passed on has come back to tell us. Probably because Heaven is too awesome. I can't imagine what the bike trails are like up there.
So I just finished watching the entire debate. Really fascinating stuff, honestly. From both sides. It bothered me that Ham continued to avert answering Nye's questions about scientific fact and reasoning, such as the 9,000 year old tree or how quickly creationists believe the Grand Canyon was formed. Like I said, I think science has proven most of creationist's beliefs incorrect, but there are still the biggest questions that neither side can infallibly answer.
However, one thing bothered me most towards the end: Ham states that the Bible is the only book or source that tells you about the creation of the universe, the creation of marriage, the afterlife, etc. Which would be true...if you left out the Qur'an, the Torah, the Kojiki, the Book of the Dead, Babylonian and Sumerian tablets (from which I believe also has a VERY similar story to Adam & Eve and pre-dates the Bible by several thousand years), Native American beliefs, Greek mythology, etc.
There are literally THOUSANDS of other texts out there in various formats from hundreds or thousands of different religions and beliefs. Christianity may be the most dominant religion in the world, but it by no means the one and only one that people find the cornerstone of their faith.
However, one thing bothered me most towards the end: Ham states that the Bible is the only book or source that tells you about the creation of the universe, the creation of marriage, the afterlife, etc. Which would be true...if you left out the Qur'an, the Torah, the Kojiki, the Book of the Dead, Babylonian and Sumerian tablets (from which I believe also has a VERY similar story to Adam & Eve and pre-dates the Bible by several thousand years), Native American beliefs, Greek mythology, etc.
There are literally THOUSANDS of other texts out there in various formats from hundreds or thousands of different religions and beliefs. Christianity may be the most dominant religion in the world, but it by no means the one and only one that people find the cornerstone of their faith.
The difference being that science can be amended to reflect new information.
The crux of the difference came in the form of a question towards the end. "What, if anything, could make you change your mind?"
The creationist's answer HAS to be, by definition of faith, nothing.
The scientist's answer HAS to be, by definition of science, anything that changes the provable facts.
Or some new guys write a book saying that God spoke to them with new stuff/rules.
What? It worked the first time right?
Re: the conflict here, I can't clearly say if anyone did anything wrong and where, but in general I find it's better to call the opinions or beliefs insensible, unreasonable or whatever, rather than the people holding them.
At first I couldn't see the difference between Stienman's example and what was happening here, so let me spell it out for whoever doesn't see it either. One has implications only in the realm of opinions (it's an 'academic' discussion, if you will) whereas the other has consequences in the real world, on people being denied rights (the original discussion was presented as 'academic', but it's a discussion that can never be purely theoretical because it has very inmediate consequences in the lifes of people). Almost everyone got this already I guess, but just in case.
Re: the video itself, I wasn't going to watch it because every time I've seen Ken Ham argue against evolution he's driven me up the wall. Many of his arguments ARE stupid (the crocoduck, ffs, or using wrongly interpred thermodynamics which as I physicist I can't stand). Buut seeing Nick's opinion I guess I'll start watching and see what happens.
At first I couldn't see the difference between Stienman's example and what was happening here, so let me spell it out for whoever doesn't see it either. One has implications only in the realm of opinions (it's an 'academic' discussion, if you will) whereas the other has consequences in the real world, on people being denied rights (the original discussion was presented as 'academic', but it's a discussion that can never be purely theoretical because it has very inmediate consequences in the lifes of people). Almost everyone got this already I guess, but just in case.
Re: the video itself, I wasn't going to watch it because every time I've seen Ken Ham argue against evolution he's driven me up the wall. Many of his arguments ARE stupid (the crocoduck, ffs, or using wrongly interpred thermodynamics which as I physicist I can't stand). Buut seeing Nick's opinion I guess I'll start watching and see what happens.