Discussion on Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate?

[Guest]

Anybody have anything to say?

[DarrenP]

Bill Nye has already won. End of discussion. 

[Osmium]

Bill Nye wins automatically.

 

[Jun-Kun]

Anybody have anything to say?

 

Shinobu won

[Guest]

Shinobu won

What episode of Monogatari is your profile gif from

[Jogostar]

This thread will go downhill...

I didn't like how Ken Ham just dismissed all the proven facts from Bill Nye, by saying "The Bible says so".

It was like watching Einstein arguing with a Pigeon.

[Osmium]

This thread will go downhill, as soon as a creationist arrives...

I didn't like how Ken Ham just dismissed all the proven facts from Bill Nye, by saying "The Bible says so".

It was like watching Einstein arguing with a Pigeon.

 

I feel like creationists give christians a bad name... 

[Jogostar]

I feel like creationists give christians a bad name... 

we should cut back on saying stuff like this, it will just startle the creationists.

And I myself am Agnostic, so there never can be prove that there isn't one. ^^

[Osmium]

we should cut back on saying stuff like this, it will just startle the creationists.

And I myself am Agnostic, so there never can be prove that there isn't one. ^^

 

I am not sure if I have seen many creationists here. But then again I don't have a habit of starting religious arguments.

[Jogostar]

I am not sure if I have seen many creationists here. But then again I don't have a habit of starting religious arguments.

Christians wil get butthurt, too because it's basically the same.

[Guest]

Just like any other debate between creationists and scientists, to be honest. Creationist makes claim, scientist is forced to explain why that's bullshit, creationist claims victory because the Bible says so.

I just got a good idea

[Osmium]

Christians wil get butthurt, too because it's basically the same.

 

Pope JP II (I think it was him) ruled it is not un-christian to believe in the big bang or evolution so yeah I'd say there is a difference.

[Jogostar]

Pope JP II (I think it was him) ruled it is not un-christian to believe in the big bang or evolution so yeah I'd say there is a difference.

yeah, but it's based on the same book.

and there is another point that I didn't like abour Ken Ham, he believes in some stuff in the bible, but other stuff he himself finds ridiculous.

[Ertman]

This thread will go downhill...

I didn't like how Ken Ham just dismissed all the proven facts from Bill Nye, by saying "The Bible says so".

It was like watching Einstein arguing with a Pigeon.

This.

[Jun-Kun]

What episode of Monogatari is your profile gif from

 

Monogatari Second Season: Episode 9

Ka ka ka

 

Just like any other debate between creationists and scientists, to be honest. Creationist makes claim, scientist is forced to explain why that's bullshit, creationist claims victory because the Bible says so.

 

It's that damn circular logic that I hear every single time there's a debate.

 

[Volbet]

This thread will go downhill...

I didn't like how Ken Ham just dismissed all the proven facts from Bill Nye, by saying "The Bible says so".

It was like watching Einstein arguing with a Pigeon.

I didn't think Ken Ham said "The Bible says so" as an argument. Which was what I had feared. Insted Ham just keept repeating "Well you have to assume that X is constant, and therefor it is faith". Ham essentially tried to set up evolution as a faith based position. This is somwhat unlike Ham, and actually took me by surprise a bit.

 

This ultimately lead to Ham having a very bad debate, since he never argued from his own point, but only tried to combat Nye's points. 

 

The problem with Ken Ham is that he knows what evolution have to say, and he know the proof that supports it. Ham just decides that the Bible is correct in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Becuase for him it's a question of authority and not facts.

[Jogostar]

I didn't think Ken Ham said "The Bible says so" as an argument. Which was what I had feared. Insted Ham just keept repeating "Well you have to assume that X is constant, and therefor it is faith". Ham essentially tried to set up evolution as a faith based position. This is somwhat unlike Ham, and actually took me by surprise a bit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

have you seen the last 45 mins of the debate? all of his answers were basically "the bible says so" just in a unecessary long way.

[Volbet]

have you seen the last 45 mins of the debate? all of his answers were basically "the bible says so" just in a unecessary long way.

I did see the whole debate, I might have missed some of last points though. I am going to rewatch the debate later, so I might just be proven wrong. 

If you mean the question round, i consider that a separate part from the debate itself. But yes, there Ham just said ´Bible says this, therefor it is correct.´

[Jogostar]

I did see the whole debate, I might have missed some of last points though. I am going to rewatch the debate later, so I might just be proven wrong. 

If you mean the question round, i consider that a separate part from the debate itself. But yes, there Ham just said ´Bible says this, therefor it is correct.´

yup, I'm talking about the question round.

[Guest]

[Guest]

image.jpg

@Jogostar

[Jogostar]

@Jogostar

[nicholaswillems]

 

Sums it up, really.

[ConfusedDolphin]

The primary thing that annoyed me about Ham's argument was he began by saying that his creationist view for life was simply a different interpretation of the scientific evidence but the argument for his views is that he starts with the bible and then he looks for observations which support the bibles account of creation which is the wrong way round

 

For example when we look back on history we have literary sources for historical events and we have archaeological evidence. Literature should always be treated with suspicion if there is no physical evidence to support the claims. The Bible is a text that makes some very extraordinary historical claims which are for the most part completely unsupported by all other historical and archaeological sources. 

 

Not sure If that was pushing it to far into the realms of a war  

[Crabtr]

As I said in the other thread (how many threads about this are there now?), I feel pretty let down. I really wanted a good, thought provoking debate but Ken Ham was just slightly better than pathetic. He argues that observable science is what should determine our answers so Nye gives him observable evidence (tree rings, soil layers, ice layers) but then he retreats to his standard "you weren't there so you can't know" and "but the Bible says" assertions. He kept with the round-logic but never attempted to establish the Bible's credibility. Ham leaving the podium while Nye was responding to him was rather upsetting too, very scummy move.