http://debatelive.org/
Anyone watch the 'big' debate last night?
To me, it was like watching the Superbowl all over again.
Anyone watch the 'big' debate last night?
To me, it was like watching the Superbowl all over again.
Creationist vs Evolutionist
- Thread starter Luv_Studd
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Lizard Of Oz
Demented Avenger
Why he did not ask her about any evidence for creator. Every time I ask, I am presented some drawn pictures and single book, that was rewritten few times. And its proven that many stories in it are copied from older books, but yet they claim its true story from our creator. So was he petty chief that could not make up any original story and copied them over?
Ps. She is one annoying bitch, from that stubborn and dumb ones tribe.
![[GU]elmur_fud](/data/avatars/s/47/47919.jpg?1425583194){kind=avatar}
[GU]elmur_fud
I have balls of Depleted Uranium
Quite bluntly neither is really qualified to debate this topic. Two people with bachelor degrees... great they are as well educated as I (I just lack the piece of paper) at least my field of study was geology. Ken Ham is close-ish but he is hardly somebody academia takes seriously where Bill Nye's background is in engineering. Where I wouldn't call either a dunce they hardly seem qualified making this just one big farce...
Additionally the premise of the debate 'Is creation a viable model of origins in today's scientific era?' was never truly addressed that I heard. (Though I only watched about 70% of it) They debated Ken Ham's model sure but not what creationary geologists actually theorize. Ken Ham is considered tantamount to a profiteering clown (majorly speaking) by the academic community in general and not just evolutionists.
Simple things such as the age of the earth.
Calculated by James Ussher, Bishop in the Church of Ireland, from 1625 to 1656. No real biblical basis for it. He calculated it off the genealogies in Genesis and made some amusing assumptions to reach his conclusion.
Bill Nye proposed that the layers of the earth (using the grand canyon as illustration) prove a flood couldn't have happened because larger animals would have swam to the top (an over simplification yes but an inaccurate one)... I lost a little bit of respect for the man there tbh. In a flood they only swim to the top while they can, once they drown or are drawn under by under currents (soon to be followed by drowning to be sure) they sink to the bottom, are battered, and sometimes torn apart). In a flood things such as bodies and debris tend to get caught in deeper areas and quite often are buried by sediment. That said no actual creationary scientist worth a crap believes that every layer with fossils came from a single flood and/or catastrophic event. It's not even biblical to assume that.
I don't mean to be disparaging towards either but that was seriously a facepalm and a waste of time.
Here is some just some random perfectly sound geological research can you guess who the creationists in this project are?
http://ftp.llu.edu/lbrand/research-pisco.html
Additionally the premise of the debate 'Is creation a viable model of origins in today's scientific era?' was never truly addressed that I heard. (Though I only watched about 70% of it) They debated Ken Ham's model sure but not what creationary geologists actually theorize. Ken Ham is considered tantamount to a profiteering clown (majorly speaking) by the academic community in general and not just evolutionists.
Simple things such as the age of the earth.
Calculated by James Ussher, Bishop in the Church of Ireland, from 1625 to 1656. No real biblical basis for it. He calculated it off the genealogies in Genesis and made some amusing assumptions to reach his conclusion.
Bill Nye proposed that the layers of the earth (using the grand canyon as illustration) prove a flood couldn't have happened because larger animals would have swam to the top (an over simplification yes but an inaccurate one)... I lost a little bit of respect for the man there tbh. In a flood they only swim to the top while they can, once they drown or are drawn under by under currents (soon to be followed by drowning to be sure) they sink to the bottom, are battered, and sometimes torn apart). In a flood things such as bodies and debris tend to get caught in deeper areas and quite often are buried by sediment. That said no actual creationary scientist worth a crap believes that every layer with fossils came from a single flood and/or catastrophic event. It's not even biblical to assume that.
I don't mean to be disparaging towards either but that was seriously a facepalm and a waste of time.
Here is some just some random perfectly sound geological research can you guess who the creationists in this project are?
http://ftp.llu.edu/lbrand/research-pisco.html
Can science prove why humans are logical thinkers as opposed to the vast majority of animal life on Earth? Why, not how, did the human brain evolve to its level of intelligence where others did not? Can science prove why we question our world, our universe, whether or not we have a "creator"?
Obviously it cannot (at the moment). Therefore we should put our faith into a few special books written 2000 years ago when people thought the world was flat, storms were repercussions of sin, and nobody knew how cook shellfish or pork safely.
Considering we vastly out number every other large animal on the planet, I'd say intelligence, thumbs (object manipulation), bipedal locomotion (high vantage point, high endurance), lack of fur (can adapt to all environments, since our base environment is the hottest) and speech is what lead to where we are now.
There is a lot of intelligent animals out there, but the rest of their body make up does not reward an even higher functioning brain. In the case of humans, everything just fell into place.
Nightmare, that is not the point. Man has questioned his existence from the moment he found that he could question it, be it from a philosophical or religious point of view.
Figuring out why and how stuff works is why we are succesful. You are doing it right now, trying to figure out why we evolved as we did. It's just our natural curiosity.
Want a better example? We've initiated experiments that we understood so badly, that we actually had numbers telling us we might ignite our atmosphere and kill every living thing on the surface of the planet. We did it anyway.
Want a better example? We've initiated experiments that we understood so badly, that we actually had numbers telling us we might ignite our atmosphere and kill every living thing on the surface of the planet. We did it anyway.
Not worth the braincells to watch it.
It's like Theism vs Atheism:
"My unprovable assumption is more valid than your unprovable assumption!"
It's like Theism vs Atheism:
"My unprovable assumption is more valid than your unprovable assumption!"
'Why' is a usually a stupid question in the natural sciences. The very idea of 'why, not how' presupposes an intention where there is no evidence of one, so by asking that question you are sloppily inserting an Intentional Being, based on nothing but your predisposition to see agency in the world.
Once you fully discover the 'how', you may begin to notice that any possibility of 'why' is increasingly beyond your ability to uncover, if it exists at all.
Edit: Summary of the debate:
Last edited:
This
From a pure debate perspective, both men were terrible. There were multiple eye-rolling moments from both men's opening arguments, so I stopped watching.
Then what was your previous statement? A slight on the questions we have not reached yet? Do you realize that in every single point in time when we breached the limit of our knowledge god was invoked, only to be proved false later? Your questions can easily be replaced with ones like "Why is the sky blue? Has Science answered that one yet?", albeit taken back a few hundred years.
Even Newton did it. When gravitational systems became too complicated even for his invention of calculus, he invoked God claiming he was keeping our solar system stable.
So why do you insist on subtly invoking a higher explanation after spewing forth a bunch of random "holes"? This is such a typical use of rhetoric used in the anti-evolution crowd. Spew forth as many facts/ideas/holes, whether or not they are related, then quickly imply or invoke a higher being as the only viable solution. Which ironically (considering your mention of philosophy), does not follow any traditional form reasoning or philosophical (Categorical Syllogism) logic. Being uncertain of a yet-to-be-tested hypothesis (such as your "questioning our...universe") does not mean a separate claimed hypothesis without evidence itself is true.
[GU said:
You do know that the only reason he brought up the grand canyon is because there are people that believe it is proof of the flood and proof against evolution? I think you are taking his "swim" analogy too seriously. He was only trying to mention how each layer of fossils correctly identifies with the era of the rock layers that are found around each one.
I fail to see what was so eye rolling about this or his desire to see the United States remain on the frontier of technology, which it will not the more we reject education on the topic.
Last edited: