Bill Nye vs Ken Ham creationism/evolution debate

[NynJa]

I guess not a Preist/Pastor/Reverend either, but I'd kick it with God for a day given the chance

"God, why havent you let the Leafs win the cup in over 40 years"

[Aragon of Odin]

hahaha, touche!

[ronin sparthos]

It's funny how people believe this, if the water covered everything, where did it go?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lunar_bukkake_hypothesis

[Myrrh_Quetz]

Just finished watching the debate with my GF. We both had a headache after listening to Ken Ham. During the "Literately" question, I have never wanted to punch someone more. That and his whole Argument of "Were you there? You can't know". I wish Bill threw that fucking excuse back at his face.

[Ghost_Wheel22]

I guess not a Preist/Pastor/Reverend either, but I'd kick it with God for a day given the chance

Oddly enough, NDT kicked it with God with one of his StarTalk shows recently.

[Kohan]

Pretty sure I spent monday through friday an hour a day for weeks to learn about science when I was a kid.

Don't get me wrong the phrase "indoctrinated by science" IS stupid...just I found your comment hilarious.

.....gdi, didn't even think of that.

(they still didn't talk much about evolution)

To be fair, you did mention Sunday, and her contrasting example involved Monday through Friday, so you could say you've escaped incorrectness on a technicality.

In spirit, though, your comment wasn't wrong, and this has to do with what the term "indoctrinated" means. While you're being taught about a subject, you're being encouraged to learn about and explore it, but you aren't expected to produce anything more than a passing grade at the end of the semester—after that, you can forget about or go against whatever you learned, if you wish.

Meanwhile, if you're indoctrinated into something, that means you're forced to learn it, not ask questions about it, and are expected to abide by it eternally.

This is why everyone on the side of creationism or any similarly bonkers belief is always using "indoctrinated" incorrectly when criticizing people who prescribe to critical thinking.

[Kyte]

Just finished watching the debate with my GF. We both had a headache after listening to Ken Ham. During the "Literately" question, I have never wanted to punch someone more. That and his whole Argument of "Were you there? You can't know". I wish Bill threw that fucking excuse back at his face.

You could look into Bill's eyes at that point and see his kindred shell eroding away, weakening whatever powerful sealing jutsu was used to keep him from destroying that man.

[Necronus]

It's funny how people believe this, if the water covered everything, where did it go?

That's the problem with debating against anyone whose beliefs are grounded in pure faith. The story doesn't need to follow the laws of physics because we're debating the existence of someone who presumably supersedes physics. I mean, honestly, if we were to presume the existence of God, then there's literally no story too crazy to not be true. It doesn't mean it is true ... but there's no way you could argue against it.

As an atheist, often times people are taken aback when I say I have religious beliefs. I tend to start by saying "I don't believe in God, but if he did exist, I believe he doesn't interfere with our lives and ... blah, blah, <insert how everything I accept to be true to be still true within the scope of God existing>". That's the closest you can get to a debate, simply try to tell them how what you believe can still hold true in a God based universe ... because you can't actually argue logically against what they believe (logically from a faith based perspective)

I guess I tend to play devil's advocate better than most. But if you were a fan of Star Trek TNG, try to think to yourself, how did the first person Jean-Luc called at Starfleet HQ react when he said "Sooooo ... we just encountered an omnipotent being who can literally rewrite physics on a whim". Cause lets face it, Q in that show isn't unlike what a God would be like in RL. (Edit: not necessarily talking about his personality or flagrant abuse of power of course .. lol)

[Waraji]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...182042100.html

Biblical scholars have long been aware many of the stories and accounts in the sacred book were not written by eyewitnesses, and according to new research, further evidence of that historical distance has appeared in the form of a hump-backed camel.

New research using radioactive-carbon dating techniques shows the animals weren't domesticated until hundreds of years after the events documented in the Book of Genesis. The research was published by Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen, archaeologists from Tel Aviv University in Israel. They believe camels were not domesticated in the eastern Mediterranean until the 10th century B.C.

And yet, the hump-backed creatures are mentioned repeatedly alongside Abraham, Jacob and Isaac, indicating the Bible's writers and editors were portraying what they saw in their present as how things looked in the past, says a New York Times article by John Noble Wilford:

These anachronisms are telling evidence that the Bible was written or edited long after the events it narrates and is not always reliable as verifiable history. These camel stories "do not encapsulate memories from the second millennium," said Noam Mizrahi, an Israeli biblical scholar, "but should be viewed as back-projections from a much later period."

Via National Geographic:

While there are conflicting theories about when the Bible was composed, the recent research suggests it was written much later than the events it describes. This supports earlier studies that have challenged the Bible's veracity as a historic document.

The biblical angle wasn't the focus of the recent research, though, just an after-the-fact observation.

The question over "phantom camels" is not new one, according to TIME magazine. Biblical scholar William Foxwell Albright "argued in the mid-1900s that camels were an anachronism."

In an opinion piece for CNN, Joel Baden writes that there was no deception intended on the part of the Bible's authors.

"Biblical authors," Baden writes, "simply transplanted the nomadic standards of their time into the distant past. There is nothing deceptive about this. They weren’t trying to trick anyone. They imagined, quite reasonably, that the past was, fundamentally, like their present."

A similar conclusion was reached by Smithsonian.com author Colin Schultz, who wrote, "these findings don't necessarily disprove all the stories of the Bible. Rather, knowing that there are camels where there definitely shouldn't be shows that the Bible's authors, working thousands of years after the events they were describing were supposed to take place, took a modern lens to these ancient tales."

Too bad they didn't go so far as to discredit the whole thing.

tl:dr - Science has dis-proven the idea that Camels (appearance as they are today)* existed during Genesis. Sorry I only read the first two sentences.

Edit*

[Ksandra]

I am honestly fascinated, how they hell can carbon dating tell if something was domesticated or not?

Wild camel had tusks or some shit?

[quannum]

The method is explained in the neogeo article, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ology-science/

[mightyg]

Basically the carbon dating was used for, you know, the dating. then they determined whether the camel was domesticated based on wear on the Camel's joints. Turns out you can figure out when the first camels were used as beasts of burden that way. SCIENCE!

[Ksandra]

That's really cool. But makes me wonder how many camel bones they have for testing and whether this was a good sample size or just media reporting science.

I am always kinda skeptical of this shit because I used to love the fuck out of dinosaur stuff when I was a kid AND APPARENTLY EVERYTHING I LEARNED WAS WRONG.

RIP brontosaurus, RIP.

[BaneTheBrawler]

APATOSAURUS UP IN THIS BITCH WOOOOO

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c6...rus_LeCire.png


YEAH BABY

[wipers]

That's the problem with debating against anyone whose beliefs are grounded in pure faith. The story doesn't need to follow the laws of physics because we're debating the existence of someone who presumably supersedes physics. I mean, honestly, if we were to presume the existence of God, then there's literally no story too crazy to not be true. It doesn't mean it is true ... but there's no way you could argue against it.

As an atheist, often times people are taken aback when I say I have religious beliefs. I tend to start by saying "I don't believe in God, but if he did exist, I believe he doesn't interfere with our lives and ... blah, blah, <insert how everything I accept to be true to be still true within the scope of God existing>". That's the closest you can get to a debate, simply try to tell them how what you believe can still hold true in a God based universe ... because you can't actually argue logically against what they believe (logically from a faith based perspective)

I guess I tend to play devil's advocate better than most. But if you were a fan of Star Trek TNG, try to think to yourself, how did the first person Jean-Luc called at Starfleet HQ react when he said "Sooooo ... we just encountered an omnipotent being who can literally rewrite physics on a whim". Cause lets face it, Q in that show isn't unlike what a God would be like in RL. (Edit: not necessarily talking about his personality or flagrant abuse of power of course .. lol)

You had me till Star Trek.

[Necronus]

You had me till Star Trek.

Why's that? You simply hate Star Trek and didn't get the reference, or did you think it was a bad comparison?

[Tyrath]

Somebody's response to those creationist questions I posted.

http://imgur.com/a/PbBTk

[Psion]

Loved the metamorphosis one. XD

[myreality]

Somebody's response to those creationist questions I posted.

http://imgur.com/a/PbBTk

Thanks for that, it really gave me a good laugh.

[archibaldcrane]

Apparently he's going to debate a climate change denier next.