Bill Nye VS Ken Ham Debate On Earth Origins.

Discussion in 'General Off-Topic Chat' started by Tom Bombadildo, Feb 5, 2014.

  1. Tom Bombadildo
    OP

    Tom Bombadildo Honk!

    pip Contributor
    GBAtemp Patron
    Tom Bombadildo is a Patron of GBAtemp and is helping us stay independent!

    Our Patreon
    10,817
    10,939
    Jul 11, 2009
    United States
    I forgot
    For those who don't know, last night Bill Nye and Ken Ham were involved in a debate on the origins of the origins of the Earth, and to be more specific, creationism vs evolution. DO NOTE I DO NOT WANT THIS THREAD TO BECOME A RELIGIOUS DEBATE THREAD, THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. IF YOU CAME HERE TO POST ANYTHING REGARDING RELIGION PLEASE LEAVE NOW. THIS IS PURELY A DISCUSSION OF THE DEBATE AND THAT'S ALL. ANY RELIGIOUS BASHING WILL BE REPORTED AND REMOVED.

    Now that that's out of the way...here's a link to the video for the debate. It is 2 hours and 45 minutes long, so this may be a long watch.



    I'm curious as to what others think about the debate, I myself am currently only an hour in but I find both Bill and Ken's arguments to be well thought out, unlike other creationist/evolutionist "arguments".

    Thoughts?
     
    BortzANATOR and chavosaur like this.
  2. pyromaniac123

    pyromaniac123 ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็(ಠ益ಠส็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็

    Member
    2,001
    1,671
    Sep 24, 2011
    >Thread about debate which is about creationism vs evolution
    >Expects thread not to turn into religious debate

    ok then
     
  3. Tom Bombadildo
    OP

    Tom Bombadildo Honk!

    pip Contributor
    GBAtemp Patron
    Tom Bombadildo is a Patron of GBAtemp and is helping us stay independent!

    Our Patreon
    10,817
    10,939
    Jul 11, 2009
    United States
    I forgot
    This is a discussion about the debate, not whether one religion is better than another. It's certainly reasonable to ask for people not to be dumb-cunts...but knowing GBATemp...:)
     
    BortzANATOR likes this.
  4. Haloman800

    Haloman800 a real gril

    Member
    1,737
    524
    Dec 18, 2009
    United States
    Regardless of the outcome/debate itself, Ken Ham is a better public speaker/debater. I think they both made some good points (Just finished watching it).

    edit: Tom Bombadildo I like your Knights Templar avatar/sig
     
  5. xcrimsonstormx

    xcrimsonstormx He called me a Nerd, I called him an Ambulance.

    Member
    580
    38
    Jun 9, 2013
    United States
    The Internet
    I am personally a creationist believer, but in regards to Ken Ham being a better speaker I disagree. Personally Mr. Ne seemed to connect with the crowd a little easier mainly because he has been on national television multiple times. As for Mr. Ham he is the founder of a museum not a public speaker. Just my 2 cents.
     
  6. Danny350

    Danny350 Member

    Newcomer
    18
    7
    Sep 14, 2009
    United States
    Evolution uses science as a backbone, Creationism uses the Bible as a backbone. Doesn't seem probable to show people all the evidence that evolution has whenever they cast it away as nonsense because it doesn't match the Bible. If the main argument you have is "It doesn't say that in the Bible!" why waste your time on people not willing to listen? Evolution is understood to the point that we(people with a scientific understanding) know it's true, we may not have all the answers, but we got a pretty good idea of how these things work.

    Saying Humans were around with Dinosaurs is total nonsense, unless you have real evidence of Humans existing in that time frame of the earth you're going to look foolish. We have nothing to suggest such a unrealistic idea. If we find a 65 million year old Human fossil, or even Human tools we could consider the idea, but we have never found anything like that.

    If you want to think the Earth is only a few thousand years old, don't expect scientist to agree with such a unrealistic idea. You don't mix Science with Religion, IT WILL NOT WORK.

    If you have "Faith" and accept all the young earth ideas, Nobody can stop you, please just don't expect the people with real evidence to respect people believing things without any good reason. Keep it out of the classroom and keep it in Church.

    Whenever the "Creation Scientist" start providing real proof(aka not from the Bible) and start studying real science, maybe they will come up with 1 argument that makes sense.

    Evolution is a major part of our understanding of biology, and medicine. It works, and it makes sense.

    Science has no hard proof of how Abiogenesis happens, so if you want to think a God created life, that part of science is still unknown. Go for that, not the parts like Evolution that we understand quite well.

    I have no problem with people having a religion, or "personal relationship with God" just don't expect people without these convictions to throw away all of the hard work of discovering and understanding evolution because "It's not in the Bible..."
     
    kupo3000 and chavosaur like this.
  7. Gahars

    Gahars Bakayaro Banzai

    Member
    10,254
    17,404
    Aug 5, 2011
    United States
    New Jersey
    I haven't had the chance to watch it yet, but I hope Bill Nye began every argument with, "Consider the following."
     
  8. Foxi4

    Foxi4 On the hunt...

    pip Reporter
    23,640
    21,704
    Sep 13, 2009
    Poland
    Gaming Grotto
    I'm afraid I'm with Nye on this one, despite being a Christian myself. I can't really "accept" that the Earth could possibly be 6000 years old and gone through a world-wide flood when all the tangible evidence points to the contrary. Biblical stories are just that - stories. There may be some truth in them, most is probably made up in the process of thousands of years of oral and written tradition and editing, but that doesn't really matter - they're not meant to be taken as historical accounts anyways. They're supposed to build a system of values, they're moralistic, they can be interpreted in a variety of ways and that's a good thing. They're a basis of belief, not a biology or history coursebook, and I really fail to see why people would take them as such.
     
  9. Oswarlan

    Oswarlan GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    148
    35
    May 28, 2013
    United States
    I just couldn't take anything that Ham was saying as even remotely believe-able. The entire time he was basing his arguments off of the bible, instead of science that we can verify and back up. Even with Ham supposedly being a better speaker, I don't see it at all. It may be my bias towards science, but I enjoyed Nye's side of the debate far more. It totally has nothing to do with growing up with Bill Nye the Science Guy. Nothing at all.


    Edit:
    Warning: Spoilers inside!
     
    kupo3000 likes this.
  10. Thanatos Telos

    Thanatos Telos random stuff

    Member
    842
    187
    Sep 13, 2009
    United States
    The way I see it (as a follower of another Abrahamic religion), it's 6000 years to God, but WAY more to everyone else. (Time scale can be different for different organisms)
     
  11. Foxi4

    Foxi4 On the hunt...

    pip Reporter
    23,640
    21,704
    Sep 13, 2009
    Poland
    Gaming Grotto
    That's one way of looking at it. I personally consider God to be timeless - why would he/she/it be bound by the laws he/she/it created? :)
     
    Thanatos Telos likes this.
  12. Thanatos Telos

    Thanatos Telos random stuff

    Member
    842
    187
    Sep 13, 2009
    United States
    That also works well. :lol:
     
  13. Tom Bombadildo
    OP

    Tom Bombadildo Honk!

    pip Contributor
    GBAtemp Patron
    Tom Bombadildo is a Patron of GBAtemp and is helping us stay independent!

    Our Patreon
    10,817
    10,939
    Jul 11, 2009
    United States
    I forgot
    Finished the debate a couple hours ago, I have to say Ken Ham wasn't very convincing at all. As Foxi above said, he was basing all of his "facts" and "evidence" on biblical stories, using the "You weren't there, therefore you don't know. But the writers of the bible were there, therefore they know and that's a fact" argument the entire way through...
     
    Foxi4 likes this.
  14. CompassNorth

    CompassNorth Denko (´・ω・`)

    Member
    501
    171
    Oct 18, 2011
    United States
    Seattle, WA
    Have you never played dark souls?


    Anywho thanks posting this, will check this out when I can watch videos
     
  15. Foxi4

    Foxi4 On the hunt...

    pip Reporter
    23,640
    21,704
    Sep 13, 2009
    Poland
    Gaming Grotto
    The fun part being that except for the New Testament, the writers of the bible weren't there for the most part, at least if the accounts of, say, Genesis are supposed to be taken literally. If there was only Adam and Eve, only Adam and Eve "knew what happened". It's impressive what kind of stories you can create over centuries of "bush telegraph" and gossip, intermingling various mythologies in the process. :P Of course I won't dispute the existence of "the first humans" - to procreate, there must've been a first couple... but the rest of the story is a matter of symbolism more than anything else.
     
    Maxternal likes this.
  16. Vengenceonu

    Vengenceonu Revenge is beneath me but accidents do happen.

    Member
    2,205
    1,938
    Jun 20, 2013
    United States
    The C Standard Library
    I skimmed through the debate and read reviews of it and i think Nye won.

    Ham adamantly stated nothing was going to change his mind while Nye said only solid evidence would change his mind. The purpose of a debate is to observe 2 or more things from different angles and then explain why you are right while ALSO being open to another's opinion. If your not even going to look at something from a different POV then you've already lost.


    Sidenote: I love Nye's combacks.

    Ham: Fish didn't have disease until adam and eve sinned in the garden of Eden.
    Nye: Are fish sinners?

    Ham: Animals didnt kill until after Adam and Eve. Thry were all vegetarians.
    Nye: I dont know much about lions but i don't think their sharp teeth were made for chewing broccoli.
     
    kupo3000 likes this.
  17. Saturosias

    Saturosias Sakura-sō Resident

    Member
    594
    290
    Dec 27, 2010
    United States
    Better debater? He dodged about half of Nye's points with "if I counter that it'll take me hours" and he literally ignored a question asked directly to him: "What evidence do you have to support Creationism besides the Bible?" Nye took every single one of his points head on. Ham does not represent Christians, he represents a small minority of them that take an American English translation of the Bible literally when it's of use to them and poetically when it contradicts concrete observations. Nye's approach was extremely tactical, not targeting Christians or the Bible but Ken Ham's overwhelmingly under-supported, contradictory 'arguments' based off of literal English words in the Bible.

    I personally found Ham's entire argument to be stupid, trying to turn it into a dictionary contest. He keeps using the argument "you weren't there, historical science is a fallacy" and yet, the Bible was written by various authors of whom Ham has never spoken to, is of events and "miracles" that are [not one of them] concretely verifiable like many other events in recorded history, and is about the past.

    Nye's point of this debate was not to persuade fundies/Creationists away from their viewpoint, because they simply won't be -- he was trying to recruit (however small or large in number) the younger generation with more knowledge surrounding them in this day and age into the field of science, to innovate.



    "Hypothetically, if we have concrete proof the earth was older than 4,000 years old, would you believe it?"
    HAM: "You can never prove the age of the earth."

    He said a hypothetical question was impossible. Wow, what a good debater right there.
     
    kupo3000, hhs and Vengenceonu like this.
  18. xcrimsonstormx

    xcrimsonstormx He called me a Nerd, I called him an Ambulance.

    Member
    580
    38
    Jun 9, 2013
    United States
    The Internet
    In a sense though he is right. We really never can tell how old the Earth is without a time machine.
     
  19. hhs

    hhs You will not like the outcome of this encounter

    Member
    293
    111
    Apr 15, 2011
    The problem with the debate is that the entirety of Ham's debate was addressed way back in the 1590s with Cartesian skepticism. We can trust methodological natural data in the present to tell us about the past. If we buy into Descartes evil demon of doubting sensory data entirely then we can draw no conclusions of truths or universals of any kind. Without generalization we cannot fine tune predictions.

    Without predictions and generalizations nothing is falsifiable and we can't learn anything or make anything.
     
  20. Saturosias

    Saturosias Sakura-sō Resident

    Member
    594
    290
    Dec 27, 2010
    United States
    How does any of that relate to him refuting a hypothetical question itself? They asked if he'd believe it IF they had concrete proof, and he just says they won't have any. It's just another question dodge.

    "Do you take the entire Bible text literally?"
    HAM: Let me dodge that question by spending the next minute defining the term 'literally' in an abstract and incorrect way.
     
    kupo3000 likes this.