then all religion with origin stories should be banned according to you.
And that’s fucking bullshit and you know it
Science class should only have information discovered by the scientific method. Science is not a current events class.
Watching this debate reminded me of how much I like Bill Nye, he mentored under Carl Sagan how cool is that? I need to marathon Cosmos and then Bill Nye The Science Guy now.
I agree. 
The human race deserves it.
~K.
It’s sad to me you can’t see how horribly ambiguous that terminology is and how dangerous something like that can be.
If you allow governments to force parents to let their kids learn something under penalty of losing their kids what’s to stop someone from changing the curriculum to something along the lines of North Korea where you can use it as a propaganda engine? If the parents try to argue or teach their kids this is BS it well now you can take their kids under law for trying argue with the system. The sheer amount of political horse crap that could be pulled is outrageous. As it stands there is already a high degree of political fudging in science that we have to force out constantly.
Hell an example you might already know about is how the Catholic Church bashed everyone over the head with their “truth”. An unchallengeable system is a dumb idea that’s been shown time and time again to always lead to problems.
As far as quantifiable evidence, the problem with that is you just because a theory has “quantifiable evidence” does not inherently make it correct. It makes it “less wrong” which is a concept many people even those among science supporters fail to get and any scientist will tell you that. Even if you have 100 pieces of evidence that prove you right, you only need 1 piece of evidence to prove you wrong. In fact some of the most BS lies told using science are ones where evidence is cherry picked or partial truths.
What I don’t want to see is for anyone to think scientific theories are unchallengeable. Everything is always changeable if you can find something to challenge it with (which is where creationist often screw up is this part) in fact that’s led to some of the biggest scientific discoveries of the last 150 years. Quantum mechanics arose out of the fact that Newtonian mechanics failed fucking miserably to describe sub atomic particles even though it worked beautifully for many years for every day physics. When you force that a student "has"to learn something or else they will be taken away from their parents it gives the sense of being unchallengeable which isn’t science at all. Sometimes the truth is not what’s popular and I always want to promote the ability for someone to challenge previously held beliefs if they can provide good evidence.
I want science education to be as accessible as possible and I want people actively promote it, but the last thing I want to see is it shoved down people’s wind pipes by force of law. If you honestly believe your method is superior then let it win out by showing it is better. You don’t need the law to do it.
Notice how I mentioned Gregor Mendel? Obviously I know there were religious members who had honest scientific pursuits (Lemaitre, Sayana, Newton, etc.), but their contemporaries aren’t concerned with scientific pursuit but shifting ideologies and moralities, which are now are happily being adopted in order to curry favor with a more progressive majority.
And yes in the grand scheme religion and science do contradict, because their functions are completely different. Genuine scientific pursuit is independent of dogma- hence why a religious person can follow the scientific method and still reach the same result as a secular scientist, because the method is what makes science, science.
I already posted a clear contradiction earlier that deals with the foundation of the Judeo-Christian faith (a mistranslation would distort the validity of these sacred texts regardless), and honestly it would be a waste of time to cite further examples, I’m sure fishjie has a robust catalog he can post.
As as a person claiming me to be closeminded it’s ironic you not only didn’t watch the debate, but also admitted to not reading the bible. I was born in the faith, and read the bible in its entirety front to back; I also went to bible school where studied for many years, which is why I found the myriad of illogical and contradictory tales strewn within its pages. So yeah, I’m not some soapbox atheist trying to get cool points for being worldly and “radical”.
I thought people woukd agree God created early life it evolved. Middle ground
it’s only nonsense to you. i believe in both science and religion, it doesnt mean i was abused or even forced that way.
the problem is you guys believe everyone is forced in a certain to believe. Just you grow up with it, doesnt mean you have to accept it your whole life. I wasnt forced into believing in god, i was introduced to it as a kid but it wasnt something they forced upon me. i chose to continue to believe as i got older…everyone has a choice. This isn’t something to blame on the parents. you can walk both roads.
bills originally wording wasn’t “forced” it was “taught” they aren’t the same things. you guys are implying it is, which you can’t.
Which is why feminist shouldn’t be allowed to raise anything amirite!!!
Watched it live, and I found Nye to be a decent debater. Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson would likely have handled the situation better, but I am content with Nye. The moderator ruined the “debate”, as moderators often do. This should’ve been a moderator-less “debate”. I’m sure that if Nye would’ve gotten the chance to refute Ham’s mostly brainless points, it would’ve been better.
This all said, of course there is no real debate here. - Ham does it for the exposure and money, and Nye because he wants to educate the public. - I very much doubt that Ham believes his own words, and willingly acts illiterate for the sake of the money.
As for the Bible. It is a fine book, full of contradictions from the “flawless” deity of christianity, and some good ripped-off moral advices from older (usually the pagan) religions. For example marriage. Ham totally credited the christian deity with it, when we know that it, as a matter of fact, is stolen from the pagans.
Of course the “god”-thing is nonsense. It is not hard at all to downright disprove omnipotence as it in itself is self-contradictory, and as such no all-powerful deity exists. That aside, I find it intellectually dishonest of Nye to not present this to the public. Then again, Nye stated that he had no quarrel with religious belief, although he should, and the statement made me incredibly worried.
Religion is luckily dying, fast. Science is progressing, very fast. And less and less folks go to church.
It will likely take a few more centuries, but I don’t doubt that in the end, we will come together as one and eradicate religious belief for the sake of a saner, more peaceful, more literate, and more understanding humanity.
Don’t take this wrong. I’m not saying that religious folks are dumb. I’m saying they are intellectually dishonest/stubborn/close-minded, and very possibly wrongly educated. (I’m looking at you, USA. And especially you, Texas state board of education (indoctrination).)
Should Nye have done this however? - No. Ham gets exposure to keep teaching downright false things, which is not just wrong, but incredibly immoral. Add to that, he gets loads of money.
There is no debate when the scientific facts point in one specific way.
- A very strong Atheist and anti-theist.
Ken Ham is an Australian.
Thus concludes my rebuttal.
SCIENCE VS CREATIONISM who ever wins, no one cares
YOU FAIL
Like the religious individual that does not understand science, you do not understand religion.
Religion is a tool to state a more spiritualistic human need. Something so abstract, that its metaphysical. It’s beyond physical wants, or understandings. It’s created to cope with the harsh reality of life. Your born, you live, you suffer mindlessly, everybody you love dies, you die alone. Science will never be able to console or lessen the impact of death. Science makes the notion of death, that much more cold and inhumane.
Religion isn’t inherently evil, it’s a tool, like science.
Science is a tool. We can build nuclear weapons, bilogical agents with no cure, machines that kill. Or we can create near infinite energy, biological agents to heal, or machines that make life better. Religion is the same thing in that respect.
You are no better than the fundamentalist, because you yourself are one in both form and function with your rhetoric.
Thor taught me that Religion is just science we don’t understand yet guys.
Bullshit doesn’t work on me, nor does personal attacks. Next time you may want to include evidence.
Obvious troll is troll.
I’m not going to lie you are the type of Atheist who give atheist bad names.
Wikipedia says you’re pretty wrong.
Though the citations attached are hardly the most ironclad sources one can pull from.
In plain terms, creationism is basically a disbelief in evolution, and the age of the earth. They’re people who take genesis, the flood, babel and the lot literally. Most will argue the earth itself is only a few thousand years old. It’s the most baffling form of apologetics, and honestly if I was of any strong faith at all, I’d basically consider any touting this crap to be heretics.
Stop reminding me. He’s not our problem anymore.
But i just showed historical sources that it can. Has no one here bothered to research the writings of early church people like St Augustine, Gregory and many more? Evolution was clearly a form of theology concerning the creation of man. To add more, every person who goes into seminaries to venture in a career in Christianity (whether a theologian, or priest), Evolution is a major to be taught. I never understood why atheism see’s evolution as some counter or answer against the existence of god, because even darwin himself was not atheistic during his research. I find Spec’s post ironic, evolution has observable fact, if that’s the case then if we go by history, then evolutions observable facts are additional points for creationism because it was originally made to bring more theology to it. Besides, we already have observable facts anyway and not the contrary.
As what i referenced with early Christian theology, In Augustine’s book, he teaches that Genesis is not in chronological order. Eden, and everything that we know about it has never been denied as metaphorical even before modern science started. The fact that atheists still use the creation story in genesis as scientific errors shows so much ignorance (no disrespect). Adam was a hebrew title that translates as Man, Eve being a hebrew title that translate as Earth therefore the story of Adam and Eve renders as Man and Earth… These teachings were hundreds of years before Newton, Galileo, and Darwin so why is it criticized as an failed scientific approach?
This is the main thing i disagree with atheism. I know you can’t deny that there are atheists who do make statements. I think a belief in a god can be disproved, and things that are not true can be disproved too, just look at the pagan gods of the ancient times like Zues, Ra. I think that atheists are just as required to provide a case… in my mind, it’s like this. A Man looks at a painting, he says there had to be a painter who created this art. Another man buts in and says “no that is an assumption, you’re stupid, provide evidence that there was a painter”… Why would that other man raise doubt that a painter made the painting and why isn’t the painting good enough evidence of a painter. On what grounds does the other man have to show that i need to rethink something? The other man has to provide to show why the first guy’s conclusion is stupid. Likewise, atheists need to show why concluding to god is unscientific, fictitious, and a reason to doubt as rational because we just haven’t seen language, order or any working system just happen with out intelligent intervention.
@Fishjie: “Who is honest about the bible would know that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. for one thing, where does the soul come from? did it evolve?”. It’s in the books of Augustine and Gregory as i referenced. Evolution was part of christian theology long before modern science dressed it up as a non-creationist argument.
" God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation but not static. God endowed it with the capacity to develop. The 2nd was to strike the idea that after the fall in Eden, a detachment between god and the universe happened (which caused the imperfection) that life had to start progressing biologically and spiritually in order to regain or return to the perfection that God orginally created him to be. "
you said
you say religion is the cause of problems, and getting rid of it will = a better world. Which is absolute bulshit and you know it. If it isn’t religion, it’s race, if it isn’t race it’s wealth, if it isn’t wealth it’s resources, if it isn’t resources it’s nationality.
you also said that it worries you an intellectual doesn’t have beef against religion, effectively stating that he should have beef with religion. You also say that you are happy that religion is dying. Your are an extremist, no different than a fundamentalist.
lol, you just did imply they are stupid. Only a moron would believe in a system that keeps the world from being a
and lol at the don’t take this the wrong way, when you just attacked religion, stated it’s a cause of many problems and needs to die. Stop your passive aggressive pussy ass bullshit that’s so common with F tier atheists.
You fail, your an idiot, and your the type of atheist that’s no different than a fundamentalist because you argue with the same extremes they do. Just on different sides. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, therefore because.
You have absolutely no ground to stand on to make such accusations or claims. It’s no different than what fundamentalists believe.
EX
The death of religion will usher in a new era where everybody is saner, more peaceful, more literate, and more understanding humanity.
Believe in God and love one another as god intended so we can live in era where people are saner, more peaceful, more literate, and more understanding humanity.
atheists like yourself make legitimate atheists look like morons. Take notes, read what the religion’s primary function is, and then read how man has used religion to cement individual power and pervert it. A tool is a tool.