Jump to content

Creation vs. Evolution: Ken Ham Debates Bill Nye at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky


DonRocks
 Share

Recommended Posts

Nonsense. No debate.

No, there is a debate. And it's a good one.

Watch the entire thing, Mark.

There may be, not millions, but *billions* (yes, *billions*) of people in this world that side with Ken Ham in this debate to some degree.

I think it's important that people watch the entire thing and make up their own minds.

Cheers,

Zeus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's important that people watch the entire thing and make up their own minds.

I think it's important that people not waste their time on such nonsense, unless their intent is to study the mechanics of debating.  For anyone who doesn't believe that evolution actually happens, I have two words: antibiotic resistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's important that people not waste their time on such nonsense, unless their intent is to study the mechanics of debating.  For anyone who doesn't believe that evolution actually happens, I have two words: antibiotic resistance.

I am nearly 100% confident you have not watched this (among other things, Ham doesn't deny evolution).

Bill Nye was just outstanding in this debate. Yes, you could call that "studying debate mechanics," but the subject matter is so compelling, and so important, and Nye presents his points so beautifully, that it is absolutely not a waste of time to watch.

And, considering Ham's (some would say "untenable") position, he held his end up better than you might expect.

I was riveted by this debate for the entire 2 1/2 hours, and it wasn't the mechanics so much as it was the content. You can call it nonsense, but Nye was incredibly effective at debunking what much of the world believes in - this is weighty subject matter of the highest importance, and Nye could have come across as a total snot; but he didn't, not at all. My impression of him has been raised significantly - he methodically, efficiently, and respectfully dismantled the largest and most important institution in the history of mankind. Spending a couple hours watching that is in no way a waste of time.

Personally, I refuse to criticize anyone who takes comfort in religion. You can call it nonsense, but what about, for example, slaves whose *only hope in this world* was counting on an afterlife? Thus, the birth of gospel music - if it wasn't for religion, we wouldn't have gospel. Can you blame those poor people at all for taking refuge in their beliefs? You'll find plenty of people, even here, who scoff at religion and the religious; I am not one of them.

So how am I so sure you didn't watch this? Because you wouldn't have said what you did. And if you think it's nonsense, then it would not be a waste of your time to be fully aware of what's going on in Kentucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is just a theory. Climate Change is just a theory. The Earth orbiting the Sun is just a theory.

I don't get why science is so suspect nowadays. There seems to be an anti-intellectual movement that believes ignorance is a virtue.

The thing that really kills me about this "debate" is that creationism is in textbooks in many schools across the country. We're teaching kids fantasy as fact.

Ham vs Maher - Religulous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I refuse to criticize anyone who takes comfort in religion. You can call it nonsense, but what about, for example, slaves whose *only hope in this world* was counting on an afterlife? Thus, the birth of gospel music - if it wasn't for religion, we wouldn't have gospel. Can you blame those poor people at all for taking refuge in their beliefs? You'll find plenty of people, even here, who scoff at religion and the religious; I am not one of them.

I'm not going to criticize anyone for being religious, but believing some ancient text is literally true is still complete nonsense. Nye and Ham are talking right past each other. They're attempting to argue about two profoundly different subjects-- one based on reality and another on flawed and archaic beliefs (there's a tie in there somewhere with the 2nd Amendment discussion). I guess I think that one can be spiritually religious, or philosophically religious, but by definition one can't be intellectually religious. In other words, there's abstract religious thought, which makes some sense to me, and there's literal religious thought which is absurd and often dangerous.

I don't give a rat's ass if someone wants to believe in the literal word of any religious text EXCEPT when it affects innocent bystanders. Kids being taught history and science that's colored by fairy tales are among those bystanders. So are the people terrorized and murdered by ISIS. I know I'm taking this to extremes by saying that, but the birth of gospel music hasn't hurt anyone, while the literal belief that someone should take it upon themselves to kill those who don't share the same beliefs is a monstrous atrocity.

Ken Ham is fervently trying to move civilization backwards. He's holding up the rest of the class. I'm truly disturbed by that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone who doesn't believe that evolution actually happens, I have two words: antibiotic resistance.

To me, this is a big problem with the Evolution argument: it's not easy. I have no idea what antibiotic resistance is. Not sure if I've ever even heard the words. I might have, but I slept through a lot of school. And don't worry about explaining it to me because I have no interest. Even if I had some interest, it would likely lead to 100 more questions about things I don't understand nor do I really care to know about. Evolutionists can run down an insanely long list that supports their argument, but it's a long list of things that the vast majority of people don't understand. I'm not saying the vast majority lack the ability to understand (even though that might also be true); just that we don't take the time to really understand because we have other things to do.

Creationism, as part of a belief system, has the advantage of being simple: God did it in 6 days because, well, HE'S FREAKING GOD! Yeah, some get into more complex arguments and argue against specific points of evolution and I realize even mentioning "God" can lead to a series of complex questions and discussion. But, creationist are preaching to the choir. They don't need to get into complex details because their audience already accepts the basics.

Personally, I'm a fan of trusting experts. The best argument for evolution, for my own personal beliefs, is that about 99% of those who deeply study the subject agree with it. That is basically why I accept evolution.

There are sheep on both sides of this debate. Sometimes, being a sheep is more efficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why science is so suspect nowadays. There seems to be an anti-intellectual movement that believes ignorance is a virtue.

 

I don't see this; in fact, I see religion as being on the endangered species list. In the late 1940s, television changed everything, but that was only one-way communication. The internet is two-way, and is going to have a *huge* impact on world knowledge (I mean, it already has, but it's just going to keep getting bigger).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am nearly 100% confident you have not watched this (among other things, Ham doesn't deny evolution)....

So how am I so sure you didn't watch this? Because you wouldn't have said what you did. And if you think it's nonsense, then it would not be a waste of your time to be fully aware of what's going on in Kentucky.

I admit to be hasty in my use of the word "nonsense".  It's a hot-button issue for me.

As for the other part, you're right and you're wrong.  I didn't watch it this time.  I did watch part of it when it was current - what, a year and a half ago? - but only part of it, because it was making me sick.  I'll step back, then, until such time as I can watch the whole thing.  I might need to drug myself first.

Personally, I refuse to criticize anyone who takes comfort in religion. 

Did I say anything about that?  I would never do that.  What people do with their religion in their own homes is their concern, not mine. "An it harm none, do what ye will."

I do, however, take strong exception to people using religion to shape public policy - for example, teaching creationism to the exclusion of evolution in public schools.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...