Nye vs Ham debate

[areksnumbr1sxylady]

I still cant believe we are still arguing about this...

With new species popping up left right and center, god must be working over-time....

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

Does it? Clearly?

Then why does the language used alter depending upon the source material and the interpretation mean that various positions can be derived from them. For example, in the Hebrew, Adam can be interpreted as both Man and Mankind, as well as being both sexes at once prior to Eve.

Also where is your observable proof for this, you state categorically that Moses wrote Genesis and the Pentateuch, yet you also advocate Ken Hams position that unless observed it has no validity...did you, or anyone observe Moses write the Pentateuch, or observe the Creation of Man, or the Expulsion from Eden?

Do you not see the inherent flaw in ascribing to a literal interpretation of what is clearly a metaphorical text...how do you explain the inherent contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2? You say they were written by the same Man, yet the are contradictory if you follow a literal position.

Honestly I would love to contribute to these threads in the depth and eloquence that Castiel does, however I fear I shall just have to read his posts, and agree with what he says instead.

 

[SPG]

I still cant believe we are still arguing about this...

With new species popping up left right and center, god must be working over-time....

You cant argue with them, its impossible you can denounce anything they say via scientific method quite easily and you hit the wall of "Faith" which is utter ******** in its own right and they start all over again.

What need is another reformation but even more hardcore.

Quite simply i hate religion and i have nothing but pity for those that are blinded by there "FAITH" of having to believe in something to be able to be nice to there fellow human kind.

 

[MrRoper]

Do one chap, you're just gonna bang on about trivial matters.

How very Christian of you, your go must be proud... nice dodge by the way

 

[dirtychinchilla]

So I finally managed to watch the whole debate (and haven't read the whole thread). It was excellent, but it really annoyed me that Bill Nye didn't ask Ham how he could justify all his talk about observational science, and not having seen events taken place in the past, like the formation of the earth, 4.something million years ago, yet spoke heavily about how The Bible was correct and historically accurate...has he observed Jesus in the past?!

Edit: seems this is what Castiel is discussing, sorry for repeating a point.

Also, the guy is just a moron. He has his point of view. I don't agree with it, but the fact that he goes around saying that critical thinking by children should only pertain to The Bible, by which he means just read and believe what The Bible says, and don't pick holes in it.

 

[Amleto]

How did Ham get away with saying laws are constant now, predictable now, observable now, but magically changed at some point to make geological science unreliable. Idiot.

 

[Castiel]

To me yes to you perhaps not.

I would suspect that the truth is somewhat the opposite, as you cannot answer the questions put to you, instead relying upon simple statements like the above instead.

Proof that God exists?, i can not make another believe what i believe, all bible writers were inspired by God's active force, others believe whatever they want to believe.

That wasn't the question...the question relates to the position you ascribe to requiring observable evidence, but your inability to actually provide such..which put you in a contradictory position both personally and within your interpretation of scripture.

I believe Moses wrote genesis, if someone can show who else wrote the account then they can show us can't they?.

However, you said that you agree with Mr Ham, so where is your observable evidence? Do you not see the flaw in this line of reasoning?

Also it is widely accepted that the Pentateuch was built from four original sources (designated JEDP) and that they were written at different times by different authors. It is commonly known as The Documentary Hypothesis, if you wish to look it up.

 

[tbyeah]

It was ridiculous, Ham basically admitted I have no idea what happened so I'll believe this unverified book. And then just refused to acknowledge evidence that Nye was showing that proved otherwise.

 

[tbyeah]

mavity is observable, testable, repeatable, provable but molecule-to-man evolution is not and neither is one species evolving into another completely different species.

mavity is only "observable, testable, repeatable, provable" because of the data and evidence supporting it. It is a theory; we do not fully understand the finer workings of it, especially at a quantum level.

It is the EXACT same with evolution.

 

[Johnnytoxic]

I cannot wait until alien / proof of life is found somewhere somehow. It is what's required for the world maybe to start thinking as one.

 

[Nitefly]

Moses, if you are reading, did you write genesis?

 

[Stretch]

His argument reminds me of the flat earth forums which are also very entertaining for similar reasons but also very frustrating.

Wow, I never realised such a place really existed.

Is this site a joke?

This site is not a joke. We are actively promoting the Flat Earth Movement worldwide. There are, admittedly, several non-serious flat earth posters, but they are fairly easy to identify.

I often find myself wanting to ask the same question about creationism.

Is flat earth theory connected to a religion?

Flat earth theory is neither officially nor unofficially associated with any religion. Throughout the ages various religious institutions have championed a flat earth model for the world. Unfortunately this leaves us with the vestigial thought that flat earth theory and religions are symbiotic. They are not, even though many religions today, both mainstream and otherwise, still teach its followers that the world is flat. While they are not incorrect, believing in a flat earth isn't contingent upon believing in a deity or being a part of any religion.

Haha, even the nutters over at the flat earth society are keeping their distance

 

[Combat squirrel]

I mean, how can you reason with someone that denies evidence directly in front of them, the natural reaction is to throw your hands in the air and just give up.......yet people in every day life exist that just flat out deny actual factual things observed day after day after day in both the local environment and global environment ..........people how do we deal with this? How do you reason with an individual that served up evidence ........is unreasonable.........how do u reason with the unreasonable ? THATS the real question, the evidence speaks for itself.

 

[Skeeter]

That broken laws of thermodynamics argument annoys me every time I see it. I wouldn't mine a debate based on well formed arguments, but repetition of the thermodynamics rubbish just shows a swaith of blind repetition rather than an understanding of what they are saying. I wonder if any of those people could actually recite the second law of thermodynamics.

And the "Science is a theory" argument too. Arghhh! Idiots!

 

[Mr Badger]

Wow, I never realised such a place really existed.

I often find myself wanting to ask the same question about creationism.

Haha, even the nutters over at the flat earth society are keeping their distance

The idea that someone has a computer and Internet access but still genuinely believes the Earth to be flat is a bit hard to swallow. Surely a wind up or full on delusion?

 

[Skeeter]

The idea that someone has a computer and Internet access but still genuinely believes the Earth to be flat is a bit hard to swallow. Surely a wind up or full on delusion?

I think these things are sustained by people thinking its 'cool' to be part of a group. When I was a kid I used to say aliens were real and that we never went to the moon because I thought it was cool to say it.

I soon grew out of it.