1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. 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.

Creationist vs Evolutionist

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Luv_Studd, Feb 5, 2014.

  1. Luv_Studd

    Luv_Studd Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 1999
    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    6
    http://debatelive.org/

    Anyone watch the 'big' debate last night?

    To me, it was like watching the Superbowl all over again.:rolleyes:
     
  2. KaL976

    KaL976 *nubcake*

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    5
    Tl:dr Creationists are retarded.
     
  3. Bi()ha2arD

    Bi()ha2arD Toxic!

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,808
    Likes Received:
    0
    There you go.

    [m]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8[/m]
     
  4. Nevzat

    Nevzat Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    in my point of view evolutionists are evil
     
  5. Rambowjo

    Rambowjo Das Protoss

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,073
    Likes Received:
    5
    u wot

    Ken Ham is not arguing against evolution, he's arguing against nearly every discovery science has ever made. It can be extrapolated that nearly all technology he uses in his daily life would be impossible, if his claims were true.
     
  6. Lizard Of Oz

    Lizard Of Oz Demented Avenger

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 1998
    Messages:
    10,593
    Likes Received:
    15
    Here's a summery of the debate:

    Nye:
    [​IMG]

    Ham:
    [​IMG]


    More stuff:
    [​IMG]
     
  7. nawrot

    nawrot New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. [GU]elmur_fud

    [GU]elmur_fud I have balls of Depleted Uranium

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    31
    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
     
  9. KaL976

    KaL976 *nubcake*

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    5
    We have a smiley for that...

    :y5:
     
  10. Zur

    Zur surrealistic mad cow

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    11,702
    Likes Received:
    4
    Evolutionists are wrong. We didn't evolve, we smurdged from the bacteria to our present form. Put smurdgism in your dictionary !
     
  11. Balton

    Balton The Beast of Worship

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    13,376
    Likes Received:
    91
    I say Murphies Law is right, shit happens so here we are :)
    Darwin just figured the gist of it :y5:
     
  12. Crotale

    Crotale _________________________ _______________

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,535
    Likes Received:
    12
    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"?
     
  13. N1ghtmare

    N1ghtmare Sweet Dreams

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,411
    Likes Received:
    12
    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.
     
  14. Rambowjo

    Rambowjo Das Protoss

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,073
    Likes Received:
    5
    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.
     
  15. Crotale

    Crotale _________________________ _______________

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,535
    Likes Received:
    12
    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.
     
  16. Rambowjo

    Rambowjo Das Protoss

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,073
    Likes Received:
    5
    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.
     
  17. Selerox

    Selerox COR AD COR LOQVITVR

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 1999
    Messages:
    6,583
    Likes Received:
    35
    Not worth the braincells to watch it.

    It's like Theism vs Atheism:

    "My unprovable assumption is more valid than your unprovable assumption!"
     
  18. cryptophreak

    cryptophreak unbalanced

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    60
    '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:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2014
  19. Renegade Retard

    Renegade Retard Defender of the newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  20. N1ghtmare

    N1ghtmare Sweet Dreams

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,411
    Likes Received:
    12
    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.

    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: Feb 5, 2014

Share This Page