Bill Nye Debates Creationist Ken Ham Live 2/4/2014

Reasonable for a P&R thread, at least. Also, I don't know what shortcomings you refer to.

I disagree, but I understand how one could infer it as such.

Even if I did say it, I wouldn't necessarily call it an insult, but hey. Trying not to go there.

edit: I'll readd the part that you conveniently left out of my post:


Even made the important part bold for you to read again.

So. Tides or sunsets: which is the better evidence for god?

Irrelevent.

Neither. Bananas. The answer is bananas.

Meh, I would've gone for kiwi.

Agreed, but maybe from a different perspective. I don't think the two oppose one another as most do. Science is how we find out "how", Faith is how we search for "why".

They go hand in hand in giving us answers, they shouldn't be at odds with one another.

Ham also takes many things of the Bible literally, when the Bible is blatantly written with many anecdotes and parables. Six days may not mean 6 Earth 24hr days.

And he had an equally BS answer when someone pointed out that the modern banana is a product of artificial selection by man.

I found the remark he made about reading "naturally" rather than "literally" to be pretty intuitive albeit cliche.

To those that didn't listen to the entire debate, a question was posed to Ham asking for clarification about interpretations of different scriptures. He answered saying that context is important. Psalms, being poems, are not to be interpreted literally, whereas GELND are meant as historical documents, and as such, should be interpreted literally.

For all the hisses and boos here, I thought Ham did a nice job. Whether he meant to or not, he made observations and asked questions that I found sufficient in broadening my perspective about creationists (not about creation).

Yes but those very same books have pieces that are allusions to other parts of the Bible, and include terms with double meanings. I agree he debated well; I disagree (as a fellow Christian) with some of his views.

I think many Christians fail to realize how many times the Bible has been translated and modified, especially the older books. I don't know if taking even the historical documents literally would be wise.

I agree it has been changed, in fact many Greek words English doesn't even have a way to convey at the same level.

That being said, the overall structure of the stories remains in tact. All the more reason to read much of the Bible metaphorically, though. I believe the book is mostly stories helping to guide us in how we react with one another, and where to put our heart in our thoughts and actions. The other major part is giving us hope both now and eternally.

That said, I don't think the Earth is 6,000 years old...

So basically, your reason is pushing you in one direction and your faith is pushing you in another and what you've settled upon is a compromise between the two. You want to keep your faith but you realize that a lot of just sounds too nonsensical, so you settle on believing that they're just stories. Other parts that don't sound too stupid, you take them literally.

Actually, no. I think it's pretty obvious which parts are allegorical and which aren't. Especially when you consider that a lot of it was written at a time when people didn't have a clue about the workings of the universe.

I don't see how that refutes what I say at all. The parts that are too stupid to be real, you take as stories. The parts that sounds alright, you take literally; and you do it under the guise if it being 'obvious'. Your current belief is nothing more than a compromise between what your reason tells you and what your faith tells you.

Nevermind going back a thousand years when people didn't know better... you can find people alive today who take every story in the bible literally. I've had people tell me that they literally think the earth/universe was created in 7(6) days. I imagine you would believe that too if your sense of reason didn't tell you that that idea was beyond idiotic. A lot of people, including priests I've talked to, have compromised on the idea that a day is just an allegory for some unspecified time frame, even though the bible makes no mention of this in the story of genesis. Pretty easy to rationalize religion since you can just make it up as you go along.

This is part of what I'm talking about when creationists try to "debunk" evolution, and why always have a problem with debates like this, because they don't know what the *** they're even arguing against. It ends up with two people talking about two different subjects; You can't have a reasonable debates if the two people arn't even talking about the same subject. As I said earlier, they don't know the difference between cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution (or they know, and they feign ignorance) which is why these "debates" never go anywhere. To make it simple for the non-scientists in here:

Cosmology: Focuses on the study of how the universe came to be, where it is, where it's going, etc.

Abiogenesis: The generation of life from non-life.

Evolution: Attempts to explain the diversity in biological life.

Every one of these categories has very distinct theories and are different subjects entirely, which is why whenever creationists spout some *** about the Big Bang, the theory of evolution or how rocks turn into human beings overnight all falling under the same broad "EVIL CHURCH OF SCIENCE BLARRRGH" you can instantly tell they have no *** idea what they're talking about.

I understand what you're going for, but there's a flaw in your argument. Subscribing to the belief that there is an omnipotent god more or less means that anything is possible. Believing that God can do something and believing that it was done the actual way the Bible said are two different things. And if I find out I was wrong and it was meant to be taken literally, who cares?

You've seem to go off topic.

I'm not questioning the validity of biblical stories. I'm making observations on what you've chosen to believe.

In other words, whether an omnipotent god being is capable of making snakes talk human language/etc is not relevant to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that, many people, yourself included, seem to be getting away with cherry picking parts of your religion that you like and freely disregarding what you don't like at your leisure, and still claim to follow that particular religion. I'm just calling you out on it.

Either you follow your doctrine or you don't.

And of course, you won't, because you possess just enough reason to acknowledge that most of it is utter nonsense, but not enough to realize that it's entirely nonsense.

By that same logic any group that left the Roman Catholic Church aren't "true" Christians, which was coincidentally the mentality of the RCC for quite some time.

Christianity btw does permit "cherry picking" btw, hence the process/concept of forgiveness and repentance.

I don't think any of it is utter nonsense. Also, you don't even know what my particular religion is or even what I'm supposedly cherry-picking. You're grasping at straws.

Your particular religion or denomination?

Well then tell us, prove me wrong. Have you ever worn a piece of clothing made out of two different fabrics?



Pretty amazing that you'd admit it.

They're just laws handed down from the so-called creator of the universe, rules you must follow if you want to enjoy eternal happiness, else suffer through eternal torture in hell.

But it's not like you have to follow them. Feel free to disobey whatever you want, as long as you later say that you're sorry. If that is really how you think your system works, then you must think god is really, really dumb.

Yes, on multiple occassions. Some experiences below, not all.

1. Georgia Tech has a walkway between the student center and other university buildings. Everyday there would be a Christian group who would try and stop you or walk with you explaining their belief system. One time I was waiting for Mil off to the side in a courtyard area, studying, when I was approached by two girls who sat down and proceeded to question/advise me on my spiritual life. Milamber has more experiences with this group(s) and was told he was going to hell quite a few times.

2. Mil and I were going out to dinner and we ran into his boss and his wife. We were brought over to eat with them and they proceeded to tell us how we should go to their church, how they live their lives in the best Christian way, etc. Slightly uncomfortable.

3. Living in Denmark we were walking back from a football game with lots of other people, very tipsy, when we were waylaid by two guys. We didn't speak Danish at the time and told them this, expecting to continue walking. Instead they both switched to English and we find out they were from Utah spreading the Mormon word. They asked us about our beliefs and if we had accepted God. We asked them how they liked Denmark so far. We talked about that for a moment and then they switched back to the religious aspect. We explained that we were more likely to worship Thor than the Mormon God and they tried to explain how that was wrong. We extracted ourselves without too many fliers being pushed on us.

4. Mil's old boss from the US invites out to dinner with another US colleague. We accept and then get subjected to Christianty preaching for three courses. The colleague explains that while Europeans go to church or say they believe in God, they really don't. Therefore, there is a high need to send more missionaries over here to re-convert Europe back to Christianity. Or something like that. There was wine and I had my glass refilled a lot, so I didn't need to speak. Highly uncomfortable meal.

5. Mil and I bought a house and gutted the inside. We were working one day while waiting for a delivery from the local Home Depot type store. Knock on the door and I answer to a Jehovah Witness. This is not the first time this has happened in DK but usually I answer the door and get rid of them quickly. I have a low tolerance for people who come to my house uninvited, I find it to be very rude. Mil, however, likes to talk if it is about other things besides religion. (He was probably ready for a break from plastering too :p) This pair was one Dane and one guy from London. So, we talked about how we liked DK, how's it different from UK/US, etc for a bit. Then it swtiched back to conversion, we said no. Back and forth for a bit, then the fliers were passed out. They came back regulaly to do this for a bit, however, I think the message was finally received and we haven't seen them for 6 months.

6. When serving/bartending in the States I've had multiple customers try to convert me while I was taking their orders or invite me to their church. I really loved it when they did this and left a flier explaining their God. This said how they only tip 10% because their God will make-up the rest once I accept him into my heart.


Maybe it is because I grew up in the South but Christians (a lot of different denominations) are not shy about trying to convert other adults. At work holiday parties, at Super Bowl parties, at the swimming pool, grocery store (I loved the bag-boy who put a sins flier in my bags after I bought beer at Publix one day), etc.

I can deal with someone who thinks there's something after you die, be it finding a new body, moving to a different dimension or whatever else is there as options. It's reasonable speculation as there are some things we just can't investigate(for now). From what I've seen in this thread, for example, it seems like having a philosophical conversation with Ravael could be a possibility(though oddly he showed the opposite behaviour in the previous religion thread..I'm a bit confused).

Another matter is talking with dogma-driven people. As Jet says, someone who does that just lacks a certain kind of qualities to make it worth debating at all.

Very often. Living in a highly religious part of the world puts me in contact with these things many times. Usually I'm just avoidant, say I don't wanna discuss about it, or just nod and move on, I don't think there's anything to gain from entering a debate with these subjects.
For example my late grandma was very religious, what point would there've been to tell her she's wrong about things and try to reason with science with her? A person of 80 years old isn't going to learn much and besides it gives her comfort so whatever. Did it annoy me when she said some religious things to me? Yes. Did it annoy me to kiss the statue of baby Jesus on xmas? Yes. Should I have fight about it with her? Not at all.

I wonder if it is because you're a woman, Kara, though you say Milamber has had the same problems. I live in the Northeast of the US and always have, so I'll admit that my experiences are limited by that. Actually, I'm originally from New England, a place with a hands-off cultural policy that basically mirrors the Wiccan Rede, so that's a big factor in why I find proselytizers really frustrating.

Side note, I did forget about a couple times the Jehovah's Witnesses have knocked on my door. I politely express my disinterest before they get the spiel underway and they politely leave. With one exception. I once responded to them while covered in sweat and lube and barely wearing a robe as I'd just been engaged in carnal relations with my boyfriend at the time. They didn't even wait for my dismissal and just turned to go instead. That was fun.

You may find it offensive, but multiple studies have shown that religious people tend, on the whole, to be less intelligent than non-religious people. That isn't the same thing as saying a believer is an idiot, but there is a slight but marked difference between the two groups.

Related note, in spite of the common idea that people become more religious as they get older (fear of mortality and all that), recent studies have indicated that religious belief remains fairly unchanged as people age. The interaction between logic and faith and the correlation with intelligence apparently cannot even be overcome by impending threat of death. And, let's be honest, virtually every religion is concerned with death and immortality on some level, though humanist religions tend to preach a different tune than deist religions.



I find the debates about what constitutes true belief to always be futile. I was raised and educated within the sect that is the inheritor of its god (Roman Catholic Church) and my religion teachers had long since lost interest in debating that sort of thing with the many Protestants in our school. Fiat was that you're in a Catholic place (though most of us went there for an education, ironically, because public schools are terrible where I grew up), so you accept the Catholic thing. And Catholic doctrine says that most of the Hebrew Scriptures are allegory, as well as some of the Christian Scriptures.

Hell, every so often I get in a shouting argument with someone about the nature of Revelation: it's a history of the oppression of the Jews written in fantastic language by a known abuser of hallucinogenic mushrooms. It is not a bloody prophecy.

Considering how many Protestants I know who claim Catholics aren't actually Christians, it is rather clear that pretty much every religious person is convinced he or she has a direct line to god and people with other ideas are confused or, worse yet, misled by the Adversary. The Bible is so full of internal contradictions that it is genuinely impossible to follow (and this is why Jewish scholars and rabbis have been debating this ***for thousands of years), which is probably part of why Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Christian Scriptures taking out all the magical thinking. Yeshua ben Yosef had great things to say and most people would benefit to know them, but why tart them up in religious fervor?

You did as it refutes your point. He (1 person) turned because he's lacking in the brains department, that was my statement, nothing more. Stop trying to make my comment something it wasn't. It wasn't an insult on anything, I wasn't called out on anything, you and he misunderstood. I wasn't dissmisive, I was clarifying. Take it as what you wish, I don't really give a ***. It's well documented that there's a severe correlation.


On another note: hail Thor!

They give us different reasoning for answers, which is why I say that they are two different coins in the same hand.

Science tries to prove based on disproving.

Religion tries to prove based on faith.

Both may try to prove something, but they use different methods to do so. The methods are the "coins" I'm referring to.