• 178 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Edited by Colourful_Hippie (4351 posts) -

So this just became known to me all of 10 minutes ago. Apparently there's going to be a debate between Bill Nye who will obviously back science and Ken Ham who will be the supporter for creationism. I'm just giving a heads up to those who don't know because I had no idea about this. It should be fun to watch anyways, last time I heard anything about Ken Ham was back when that Religulous movie came out by Bill Maher where the guy was talking about that creationism museum he built.

EDIT:

It's on now

#2 Posted by mercutio123 (471 posts) -

This is going to be a shitstorm. I love it already

#3 Posted by NegativeCero (3001 posts) -

That sounds like it's made to be a trainwreck. Thank, I'll give it a look.

#4 Posted by believer258 (11898 posts) -

Oh boy.

(I should probably change my name someday because it's so easy to assume I'm still a Christian and haven't lapsed into agnosticism or skepticism or whatever the hell you want to call "I don't fucking know".)

But yes, this seems interesting.

#5 Edited by Aegon (5600 posts) -

This seems ill-advised.

#6 Posted by wrecks (2255 posts) -

Debating a creationist is like ripping your own tongue out and repeatedly bashing it against a brick wall. But I wish Bill luck!

#7 Posted by ILikePopCans (752 posts) -

This seems like the recipe for cringe.

#8 Posted by mercutio123 (471 posts) -

@believer258: Still a Christian? If you don't mind answering what caused the flip?

#9 Posted by Random45 (1199 posts) -

@wrecks said:

Debating a creationist is like ripping your own tongue out and repeatedly bashing it against a brick wall. But I wish Bill luck!

I think you're understating it honestly.

#10 Edited by TruthTellah (9032 posts) -

I'm not super familiar with Ken Ham, but I've heard he's a rather nice fellow. I imagine Nye and him can have a decent back and forth. Hopefully people in this thread can attempt to keep it as civil as they do.

I lean more toward Nye, and I'm a fan. But I also don't fully agree with what he usually says about evolution. I kind of wish it was more of a debate between a guided evolution and a random evolution person, but this could still be interesting.

#11 Posted by crithon (3192 posts) -

oh god, the guy who made the creationist museum. Oh boy.

Because Carbon dating should be questioned because the bible is FACT!!!! :P

#12 Posted by Vuud (1991 posts) -

I'm certain we'll get some answers to the deepest mysteries of the universe and existence itself from one of these two assholes.

#13 Posted by Spoonman671 (4633 posts) -

This seems stupid.

#14 Posted by drugged (44 posts) -

There's no worthwhile debate to be had. What's the point?

#15 Posted by TruthTellah (9032 posts) -
@vuud said:

I'm certain we'll get some answers to the deepest mysteries of the universe and existence itself from one of these two assholes.

Hey now. Disagree with him or not, Bill Nye is no asshole.

#16 Edited by mercutio123 (471 posts) -

The first 5 minutes has made me decide to seek that Prof. from Bristol Uni, seeing as the science block is about 100 yards away from me, I should be able to jump out of a bin at him.

#17 Edited by crithon (3192 posts) -

wellllllll, he's using the bible as fact aganst Nye's words, this is over.

#18 Posted by eskimo (477 posts) -

People shouldnt do shit like this. All the athiest folk can slap each other on the back about how smart they are, but it's never going to have any impact on people who believe creationism. The end result is that it raises the profile of lunatics like Ham by elevating them to the same level of credibility as those they debate. The best thing to do with a crazy person who wants attention is to ignore them.

#19 Posted by believer258 (11898 posts) -

@believer258: Still a Christian? If you don't mind answering what caused the flip?

No.

Not really a science reason. Kind of a science reason. I just took a step back and wanted to look at religion in general, and found that I'd rather stay in that step back for now. That's a step back from atheism, too, I'm not willing to declare that the existence of God or a creator being of some sort is impossible, or even unlikely. And this particular view of religion has served me quite well, actually.

I also have a certain friction with a handful of Christian beliefs. For instance, I don't believe that homosexuality or sex outside of marriage should be an issue, and I don't like the idea that God, almighty as he may be, can righteously give us free will and then turn around and demand that we marry one partner of the opposite sex (or any other number of things that might be brought up). And I'm not even gay, I just think people should be able to do what they please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone without worrying about being damned. To anyone reading this, it's a completely off-topic issue and I will not get into in this thread, so for the love of Go... reason, don't pull this into an argument. It's not an argument to be had in this thread. This is about science, not morality, I'm just stating a notable reason for stepping away from faith.

I also did not bring a ton of positive experiences back from other religious individuals that I have met, but I have brought a ton of positive experiences away from reading the Bible. Large parts of that book are still largely relevant and will always remain relevant and well-worth learning as long as humanity exists.

#20 Posted by TooWalrus (13197 posts) -

This Ken Ham guy is pretty eloquent, even when arguing over irrelevant semantics. Meanwhile, Bill Nye is talking about Bow-ties and cracking wise and somehow weaving that into his argument.

#21 Posted by crithon (3192 posts) -

Deuteronomy 22:11

"Do not where clothes of wool and Linen Woven together."

well, if your using the bible as fact, and this is a line written in it.... I guess we are all horrible sinners. That or either itching a lot, because of the facts of this book is so solid.

#22 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11726 posts) -

Bill Nye has already lost by implicitly acknowledging young-earth creationism as a viable opposing viewpoint, and I say that as someone who thinks that there doesn't need to be any contradiction between the theory of evolution and religious belief.

#23 Posted by crithon (3192 posts) -

dear god, this is horrible "well I know people who study science and are christians" well, I know grown adults who collect minnie mouse statues and they are functioning adults and I don't loose respect for them. Check mate

#24 Posted by TheHBK (5483 posts) -

Creationism? Are they fucking serious?

#25 Edited by Colourful_Hippie (4351 posts) -

I really hope the backbone of Ken's argument isn't to keep listing successful scientists who also believe in creationism

#26 Edited by development (2315 posts) -

I listened to Nye's opening statement, and now Ham is giving his introduction. He already said things like "we need to define science," and is now handpicking few scientists who are stubborn enough to support creationism. Can't watch this. Now he just rattled off 12 facepalms in 10 seconds. Can't watch. I wish Bill Nye luck.

#27 Posted by crithon (3192 posts) -

I really hope the backbone of Ken's argument isn't to keep listing successful scientists who also believe in creationism

growing up, I knew a christian mother who would paint star trek spock paintings. Check Mate!

#28 Posted by SlashDance (1814 posts) -

"I know 3 stupid scientists who believe the earth is 6000 years old. This proves I'm right."

#29 Posted by Aegon (5600 posts) -

@crithon said:

Deuteronomy 22:11

"Do not where clothes of wool and Linen Woven together."

well, if your using the bible as fact, and this is a line written in it.... I guess we are all horrible sinners. That or either itching a lot, because of the facts of this book is so solid.

Those rules are only for people within the covenant (aka Jews). If you're an observant Jew, you make sure you don't wear an article of clothing that has both wool and linen together (aside from one exception).

#30 Posted by TheHBK (5483 posts) -

Dude, so because we were not there, we can't prove murders through crime solving. This Ken Ham is full of shit.

#31 Posted by crithon (3192 posts) -

"I know 3 stupid scientists who believe the earth is 6000 years old. This proves I'm right."

that, and we don't fight over everything in every single second because we don't believe in the same thing.... that's pretty much his point.

#32 Edited by believer258 (11898 posts) -

Guys, I think that Ken Ham was pointing out other scientists who are Creationists to go for some credibility. I'll agree that it was a feeble attempt at doing so, but he wasn't using it as a proof for his central argument.

He should have instead leaped right into constructing an introduction to his argument.

EDIT: Nevermind, he's still fucking doing it.

I'm behind you guys a bit, I paused it for a bit to go do something else.

#33 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4351 posts) -

@thehbk said:

Dude, so because we were not there, we can't prove murders through crime solving. This Ken Ham is full of shit.

The logic hoops you have to jump through to support the logic behind creationism as an absolute for what happened in our past are pretty fucking ridiculous and will continue to get more outlandish as time and technology progresses

#34 Edited by Feller13 (31 posts) -

Unless Bill shoots this idiot in the face to shut him the fuck up, then this will just be a waste of time.

#35 Edited by crithon (3192 posts) -

@aegon said:

@crithon said:

Deuteronomy 22:11

"Do not where clothes of wool and Linen Woven together."

well, if your using the bible as fact, and this is a line written in it.... I guess we are all horrible sinners. That or either itching a lot, because of the facts of this book is so solid.

Those rules are only for people within the covenant (aka Jews). If you're an observant Jew, you make sure you don't wear an article of clothing that has both wool and linen together (aside from one exception).

correct, there's a lot of lovely rules in this book that people pick and choose which to fallow. So recently I repaired the roof of my mother's house. There's a bible passage where it instructs me to spread goat blood all over the roof.... what if I befriend the goat? What if him and I are buddies and become bestest of friends, I mean I'm not sure if I trust Jesus' carpentry skills to advice goats blood when I'm trying to fix my mother's leaking roof.

#36 Posted by alwaysbebombing (1585 posts) -

@mercutio123 said:

@believer258: Still a Christian? If you don't mind answering what caused the flip?

No.

Not really a science reason. Kind of a science reason. I just took a step back and wanted to look at religion in general, and found that I'd rather stay in that step back for now. That's a step back from atheism, too, I'm not willing to declare that the existence of God or a creator being of some sort is impossible, or even unlikely. And this particular view of religion has served me quite well, actually.

I also have a certain friction with a handful of Christian beliefs. For instance, I don't believe that homosexuality or sex outside of marriage should be an issue, and I don't like the idea that God, almighty as he may be, can righteously give us free will and then turn around and demand that we marry one partner of the opposite sex (or any other number of things that might be brought up). And I'm not even gay, I just think people should be able to do what they please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone without worrying about being damned. To anyone reading this, it's a completely off-topic issue and I will not get into in this thread, so for the love of Go... reason, don't pull this into an argument. It's not an argument to be had in this thread. This is about science, not morality, I'm just stating a notable reason for stepping away from faith.

I also did not bring a ton of positive experiences back from other religious individuals that I have met, but I have brought a ton of positive experiences away from reading the Bible. Large parts of that book are still largely relevant and will always remain relevant and well-worth learning as long as humanity exists.

If more people were like you, we wouldn't have such hate for religion. It's just when the bible is cherry-picked and used as a tool of hate and bigotry do all religious people take the heat.

I'm also not a Christian. Just so people don't get the wrong idea.

And unfortunately I've never had a good experience with anyone religious, especially after telling them I subscribe to an Eastern belief system.

#37 Posted by believer258 (11898 posts) -

"Non-Christian scientists are taking (paraphrased) their stuff from Christians"

Huh!?

I... what?

#38 Posted by alwaysbebombing (1585 posts) -

Who the hell is this Ken Ham guy? Did escape from the crazy house?

#39 Posted by MormonWarrior (2590 posts) -

@believer258: Remarkably on-the-nose usernames come back to bite you a bit, eh? I didn't anticipate using this site more than GameSpot when I first made a profile in 2008 but I only use this profile and don't bother with any other sites anymore. I mean, I'm still a very active Mormon but the username is...goofy.

I may watch clips of this some other time. I was a chemistry/biology major a few years back, and I definitely have my skepticism about the incredibly dogmatic approach a lot of the science community takes when it comes to evolutionary theory...not that I claim to understand how everything works just because the scriptures say that God created everything. We don't know how he did that. But then, science is also supposed to be very skeptical and fluid since things change and understanding improves.

Bill Nye's dismissive attitude and offensive comments about religious folks have made me sour to him in general, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate his arguments. It will be interesting to hear.

#40 Posted by crithon (3192 posts) -

Who the hell is this Ken Ham guy? Did escape from the crazy house?

nope, he's got a lot of money and built a nice museum of the flintstones. Except without the beautiful design work.

#41 Edited by crithon (3192 posts) -

Observational science, that's like saying "I can't see radiation, therefore I believe it's god telling me to not go to Chernobyl." That's the worst excuse to be lazy, and we need to build geiger counters so we don't die.

#42 Posted by ThunderSlash (1722 posts) -

I don't see the point of this debate. It'll all just result in a giant flame war.

#43 Edited by WhiteForestParkRangr (51 posts) -

Personally I think it's the wrong move for Bill Nye, as one of THE main public ambassadors for science and math education and an all around awesome dude, to give this guy the attention, validation, air of legitimacy, what have you, that he so desperately seeks by entertaining (and publicly acknowledging, whether intentionally or not) his delusion that he's someone actually worth formally debating on any sort of meaningful level except maybe theologically/Biblically, and even then he'd be considered a literalist/extremist.

There is NO debate on the creationist issue in the scientific community or even in the general public/political sphere outside of a few far right whack-a-loons, so why lend further credence to their bullshit theory (and simultaneously inflate their egos) by pretending it's a big enough issue/problem to even warrant debate?

The type of creotard personified by Ken Ham rarely ever debate honestly and/or in good faith, and Bill's simply too nice and congenial a guy to call him out every time he misrepresents/straw-mans his position and/or his morality, willfully repeats the same old creationist canards/lies again and again, or bases his arguments on hollow emotional appeals to the audience. His only intention is to sow doubt and discord, intentionally lowering the bar of generally accepted standards, thereby proportionately raising his own.

Dude's 100% image, artifice, and emotional gratification. Zero substance, and that type of attitude subtly appeals to people's most base lizard-brain urges of telling those "brainy, stuffy, emotionally sterile, lab-coat wearin' authority figure beta-males" where they can stick their so-called "scientific rigor" and "critical thinking".

I figure Ken gets exactly what he wants from this whether or not he comes out looking good or bad, which is simply more recognition and leg-room/bargaining chips to root himself in and further exert and promote his bunk agenda in the overall discourse/public consciousness. He acknowledges it himself with, "Having the opportunity to hold a cordial but spirited debate with such a well-known personality who is admired by so many young people will help bring the creation-evolution issue to the attention of many more people, including youngsters.".

#44 Posted by crithon (3192 posts) -

man Ken Ham gets long time to talk.

hehe, his type of logic is like saying "Well Star wars is historically accurate because it says long time ago"

#45 Posted by Make_Me_Mad (3091 posts) -

This guy went off the deep end a while ago, but now he's REALLY lost it.

#46 Edited by believer258 (11898 posts) -

WHY IS HE TALKING ABOUT MORALS!?

OK, look above. See where I mentioned that I hadn't met many religious individuals that I really liked? This attitude that atheists and agnostics are morally lesser to Christians is a big part of that. I hate that.

#47 Posted by pweidman (2333 posts) -

This fellow Ham is into the literal interpretation of the Bible, while juxtaposing science as indoctrination, which strikes me as hypocritical. What would be so much more interesting would be a comparison of spirituality and science. This makes for controversy, and some fascination I guess. Moot argument from my view, and probably most people I'd guess, at least most with no agenda at all.

#48 Posted by crithon (3192 posts) -

@whiteforestparkrangr: Your right, it gives him legitimacy, but you always have to challenge people like this because majority of people get lazy and always need to question everything.

#49 Edited by crithon (3192 posts) -

@pweidman said:

This fellow Ham is into the literal interpretation of the Bible, while juxtaposing science as indoctrination, which strikes me as hypocritical. What would be so much more interesting would be a comparison of spirituality and science. This makes for controversy, and some fascination I guess. Moot argument from my view, and probably most people I'd guess, at least most with no agenda at all.

AMEN! "Why are there dead things in the ground if not for the first sin by adam and eve." Praise Jesus, he nailed it.

#50 Posted by HeyGuys (389 posts) -

Why anyone would even bother debating Ken Ham is a mystery to me.