Bill Nye vs Ken Ham creationism/evolution debate

[Kurokikaze]

I saw that last night live and wanted to shoot myself from the overwhelming amount of stupid that dude was spewing... The mental gymnastics the dude was doing to turn his "literal" interpretation of religious text into "figurative" and then go ahead and say "It's in this book and that's that."

[Khalil]

Everyone that clapped at Ham's stupid joke about this magical book that explains everything is idiotic. While I know Bill Nye is a great educator, sometimes you need to get rough with these people and demonstrate how demonstrably clear the evidence for science with regards to the age of the universe, earth and other bodies is accurate. If they don't understand or comprehend, call them out and move on. Their critical thinking skills aren't there.

[Jaybar]

Ham was just juggling the philosophical idea that if a tree falls in the forest with no one to observe that it fell, did it in fact make a sound (or even fall?)

[Tyrath]

You guys ready for some more facepalm?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messa...ve-in-evolutio

[NynJa]

I never thought "a wizard did it" would be used as a serious counterargument outside of a video game or a movie, aka fantasy lands.

[Kurokikaze]

I don't want to live on this planet any more... LOL

[Foxer]

Everyone that clapped at Ham's stupid joke about this magical book that explains everything is idiotic. While I know Bill Nye is a great educator, sometimes you need to get rough with these people and demonstrate how demonstrably clear the evidence for science with regards to the age of the universe, earth and other bodies is accurate. If they don't understand or comprehend, call them out and move on. Their critical thinking skills aren't there.

I don't think half the people who laughed at his bible jokes were necessarily agreeing with him, cause I sure chuckled. Chances are, if you're that into religion, you were more than likely born into it; forced to believe it at one point. Meaning there are people who will just find it impossible to be convinced otherwise, so they're going to take Ham's reasoning for it no matter what.

Buddy has no evidence of anything. I feel sorry for people who are that into that shit though, cause like I said, it's usually something you start believing in before you come into an age of reason. No offense to anyone who's religious but it's a laughable subject when you think about it open-mindedly.

[Khajit]

I'm more dismayed that this even HAS to be a debate. Especially so when one can point out that the whole dominion over the Earth thing means that it could be considered a religious imperative to not be an ignorant shithead about basic science.

2 hours. how the fuck does this require 2 hours. Did Bill Nye actually bring out some fast replicating species (presumably a bacteria)and forcibly evolve it right there in front of everyone?
I really shouldn't be surprised by this sort of stuff but America always finds a way. I'll go watch it when my internet is less jittery

[Kyte]

The worst was the bullshit about Christianity's Bible being the only religious text that attempts to explain the creation of the world, with some history and morals thrown in. The rest I can attribute to him living in his own bullshit little world, but that shouldn't even be true within his own paradigm.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messa...ve-in-evolutio

God damn those are awful.

[Cream Soda]

You guys ready for some more facepalm?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messa...ve-in-evolutio

I like this one
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...91576936-1.jpg

[Meresgi]

While I don't agree a lot (why do people still think the world is only 6,000yrs old?...I mean seriously?) with what Ken Ham said, I consider myself religious but I don't agree with viewpoints on abortion and evolution, and would say Nye easily won this debate, I still find nothing wrong with religion. Yes, it can be a detriment to society when you take it to such crazy levels like Repubs and people screaming about Abortion/Gays/Blahblah but like everything, the crazies are ALWAYS the ones that people notice. There's nothing stopping a scientist from being great and still having a religious philosophy, so long as it doesn't interfere with his work...and a good scientist won't let them happen. Scientific findings are always skewed one way or the other though, mostly for funding, so it's hard to say it would never be skewed or isn't skewed by religion...but if the discoveries/inventions lead to better life...who cares?


I believe students in school should be given both sides, and in a way that doesn't try to discredit one or the other. I'm sure people will flip a shit over that, but why not? Each side should tolerate the non-crazies of each side, and condemn the fuckwads on both sides who flip a shit on everything. In no way should we say "This is better" and force it upon people, let people figure shit out on their own. If they want to go super religious and believe the bible word for word, so long as they arn't being horrible detrimental to the whole, I don't give a shit.

Religion however should never be in fucking politics, laws should never be made based on the viewpoints of a single group.

[Cream Soda]

The problem with religion in school is do you arbitrarily teach Christianity because that's what most people believe in? or how about wait until they're in high school and let them take an elective called world religions?

Evolution is taught because it is science. It follows the scientific processes. There are experiments done, fossils found, and things that support the theory. With creationism (via Christianity), you have "it was said in this book". If you wanted to teach about the process required to get to that conclusion, then you only need about 5 seconds "Hey guys, they wrote it here in this book. And that's the process behind the Creationism model". There's nothing to teach.

Hell, even in my college level bio course, my teacher has to put a disclaimer in the first slide of the first day "I'm not here to tell you whether to believe in evolution or creationism. However, this course is about the scientific processes and methods done that support the theory of evolution. You don't have to believe in evolution but you will be tested on the theory itself". Like really? Should that shit be needed in a college level course?

[Jaybar]

I remember this coming up a year or two ago, but it is impossible to change either person's mind on the subject because their world views are rooted in separate axioms that cannot live together. This wasn't so much a debate whether Evolution is right and Creationism is wrong and vice versa, but rather a lengthy lecture about why each side believes their view is correct*. When you believe in a divine entity like you do the certainty of evolution then your base for understanding the world is set. Obviously the two ideas are completely separate but many theologians have been able to make a convergence in favor of the scientific evidence through new methods of understanding the Bible. So you get a guy who reads the Bible as literal and you find he is so far removed from the other side that there is no branching over or converting.

Bill Nye wins in my mind because I believe in the scientific axioms of our universe, but you will also find many religious figures that agree - they just don't believe the Bible is literal which makes it easier to make amends.

*I did not watch past the question phase so I don't know if the moderator deemed anyone a "conclusive winner" or not

[Kaslo]

The problem with religion in school is do you arbitrarily teach Christianity because that's what most people believe in? or how about wait until they're in high school and let them take an elective called world religions?

Evolution is taught because it is science. It follows the scientific processes. There are experiments done, fossils found, and things that support the theory. With creationism (via Christianity), you have "it was said in this book". If you wanted to teach about the process required to get to that conclusion, then you only need about 5 seconds "Hey guys, they wrote it here in this book. And that's the process behind the Creationism model". There's nothing to teach.

Hell, even in my college level bio course, my teacher has to put a disclaimer in the first slide of the first day "I'm not here to tell you whether to believe in evolution or creationism. However, this course is about the scientific processes and methods done that support the theory of evolution. You don't have to believe in evolution but you will be tested on the theory itself". Like really? Should that shit be needed in a college level course?

Dude did you forget that the word science has been hijacked by secularists?!

[Meresgi]

I remember this coming up a year or two ago, but it is impossible to change either person's mind on the subject because their world views are rooted in separate axioms that cannot live together. This wasn't so much a debate whether Evolution is right and Creationism is wrong and vice versa, but rather a lengthy lecture about why each side believes their view is correct*.

I agree with that fully, it was definitely more "My side is right because (x)" even though they did say they agreed on certain points (At least I know Ken did a few times).

Evolution is taught because it is science. It follows the scientific processes. There are experiments done, fossils found, and things that support the theory.

Oh what i'm saying more is that we shouldn't teach ONE thing as THE ONLY TRUTH. Which is how schools are taught now and children are raised in certain families. Let people go out and figure things out on their own, provide them with knowledge but tell them "This is just one of many possible solutions, here is the data to support this". Critical thinking just isn't taught to children and in schools nowadays. It's just "hey just parrot back all these facts on the test and move on".

[Khajit]

wtf

[Khajit]

They could just teach Christianity under the same subject i learned about Islam, various african,native american,aboriginal,etc cultures and so on in my school. Make some of it part of social studies.
Of course considering the bullshit Americans pull would completely ruin that so the chances of an idiot fucking it all up so that it's not a viable is too high but a very basic explanation of history and basic tenets should be fine.
Honestly most of it should be taught by the family/parents anyway. It's not the school's job to educate a person about religion outside of a purely academic context unless they're a catholic school.

[Cream Soda]

eh, I couldn't comment on that as I haven't sat in that seat in too many years to remember. Can only go by the past 3 years of being a biology bachelor's major and none of evolution has ever been presented as a fact. I guess my teachers just do it right or something

[Byrthnoth]

No, we should teach evolutionary biology with the same authority and validity as organic chemistry because they're similarly well-supported.

There's no logical support for creationism, so it should be taught with the same authority as any other theory that was popular but never really supported. Teach creationism as scientific history, like how we teach about the aethers.

[Jaybar]

They could just teach Christianity under the same subject i learned about...

Yes, religious studies are extremely important as far as cultural studies go. It explains the origins and meanings behind diverse cultures, how they developed, and how their life was shaped by religion. It should be taught side-by-side with history and humanities - separate it for the schools that want to teach it as its own course in theological study (Catholic schools and other denominational private schools).

I learned more about religion and Christianity at my University (private Baptist Institution...highly liberal in today's conservative Baptist standards) than I ever did at my Catholic elementary school, and mostly because religious studies at Uni are not about "This is Jesus, believe or repent" but rather "This is why Jesus and what it means to Jesus as a narrative or literal truth, believe or not" You will honestly find better conversations about the sciences and religion from theologians and those that went to a seminary school rather than the cranks you see and hear on the media because their voice is so loud.