Evolution vs Creationism Debate

  • Welcome to Skyrim Forums! Register now to participate using the 'Sign Up' button on the right. You may now register with your Facebook or Steam account!

Volsung

Fortune favours the Bold
In case some of you missed it.

These two men are experts in fields that counter eachother - Bill Nye and Ken Ham. What do you think of this debate? If you don't want to watch the whole think I strongly suggest skipping through to 1:50:00 for the questions from the audience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_04S0fYU7FI
 

Anouck

Queen of Procrastination
Bill Nye won. I've heard many creationists trying to defend their cause, and some of them did that very well. But Ken Ham didn't make any sense. He used the Bible as evidence of God's existence. With that same logic, I could say The Hobbit is evidence of the existence of Bilbo Baggins. The Bible is not the evidence, it's the claim. Now, I am not saying God is not real (I know how easy it is to offend anyone on this matter), but there are better pro-creationism arguments than the ones mentioned by Ham.

People tend to pick the side of the person who represents their view. But the fact that you're a creationist doesn't mean Ken Ham was the best debater, and the other way around. I am being objective, and really think the science guy won. :)
 

Seanu Reaves

The Shogun of Gaming
Why can't god created evolution? At the core of it all the only reason they are opposed is due to the original presentation of the idea of evolution all those years ago. As for existence of God. Well its just one of those things. Hahaha
 

Anouck

Queen of Procrastination
Why can't god created evolution? At the core of it all the only reason they are opposed is due to the original presentation of the idea of evolution all those years ago. As for existence of God. Well its just one of those things. Hahaha

That's what many people in the Netherlands think. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old, is not really accepted here anymore.

...But this thread is about the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. It's a long debate, but you can flash forward at a lot. For instance, I skipped the question round the first time I watched it. What's really important, are the 30 minutes both party get to defend their point.
 

Volsung

Fortune favours the Bold
Anouck haha. People may get butthurt, but this is a topic worth discussing - if not for primarily for the discussion the two gentlemen had that was mostly very well argued and it was actually nice to see this being discussed without any sort of belittling or disrespect.

Bill Nye made an extremely good point on the building of wooden boats. I would of liked to see Ken of come back with a better explanation/theory than maybe they were skilled craftsmen.

Thanks for the replies guys - let's (to all) keep this about the discussion itself if at all possible!
 

Anouck

Queen of Procrastination
Anouck haha. People may get butthurt, but this is a topic worth discussing - if not for primarily for the discussion the two gentlemen had that was mostly very well argued and it was actually nice to see this being discussed without any sort of belittling or disrespect.

Bill Nye made an extremely good point on the building of wooden boats. I would of liked to see Ken of come back with a better explanation/theory than maybe they were skilled craftsmen.

Thanks for the replies guys - let's (to all) keep this about the discussion itself if at all possible!

I agree 100%. But like some people say: 'science - questions that may never be answered. Religion - answers that may never be questioned'. Not everyone thinks like that, of course. But some people get offended by just mentioning evolution, and thus questioning creationism. It makes zero sense to get offended over something like that, imo. But on the internet you meet strange people. :p
 

Seanu Reaves

The Shogun of Gaming
>.> like Anouck...

Hahaha. Yeah I can barely watch such debates because it seems unnecessary to me. Seems like people have selective beliefs when it comes to religion in general.

And as a Nineties child I want to say. You can't beat Bill Nye the Science Guy.
 

EpicVakarian

Calibration-Master General
I personally take evolution over creationism. The whole 6000-year-old Earth thing, along with the idea of human beings just being plopped onto a planet instead of adapting to the environment over thousands of years... but I don't have any problems with anyone believing in creationism. I'm fine with that, I just think people should keep their views to themselves and let others decide for themselves.
For instance, if two children go to completely different schools, one teaching purely creationism and the other purely evolution, they'll have entirely different views, because they won't ever have had the chance to make a decision for themselves as to which one makes more sense to them.
And in fact, as far as I know, some people don't like to use logic, they prefer to use instinct and feelings. I understand that. I'm English; when I was younger, England was still fairly religious (in a way), but now, I don't see many Catholic schools or anything like that.
I've been taught that nature doesn't give a plops about you or anything you love, and using that logic and the pure science of nature, I personally think evolution makes more sense.
 

Seanu Reaves

The Shogun of Gaming
I personally take evolution over creationism. The whole 6000-year-old Earth thing, along with the idea of human beings just being plopped onto a planet instead of adapting to the environment over thousands of years...
And in fact, as far as I know, some people don't like to use logic, they prefer to use instinct and feelings. I understand that. I'm English; when I was younger, England was still fairly religious (in a way), but now, I don't see many Catholic schools or anything like that.
I've been taught that nature doesn't give a pl*** about you or anything you love, and using that logic and the pure science of nature, I personally think evolution makes more sense.


That is another problem I think people have. Taking the Bible to literally.
"God made the earth in seven days."
I don't see how you can argue that thought since there wasn't a sun yet to define the period of a day.

I won't lie my families beliefs are very moderate and uses the idea of God to justify such logical occurrences within nature.

Plus I like the idea of "God created Evolution and Science" :D
 

Anouck

Queen of Procrastination
A lot of people are like 'live and let live' and 'stop bitching about religion and evolution'. I see where they are coming from, and agree to a certain extent. Yes, we should be tolerant of other views and opinions - but that does not mean we cannot discuss it.

You see, in the USA the church still has a massive influence on the way the country is ruled. Some may like it, others don't. But I hope most people will agree with me that church and state should be separated. And in theory they might be, but we all know certain laws prove to us this is not the case.

I think it's important to challenge religion. And no, not because I am 'close minded' or 'intolerant of other people's views'. It's just because I think we should challenge, mock, question and doubt everything that holds a certain amount of power. As soon as you cannot do that anymore, you create scary situations. If you look at countries where power is unquestionable, you see dictatorships and other nasty situations.
Also, religious people have the right to believe whatever they want. But they are not entitled to extra respect. All opinions and views are equal, and if we can question everything - then religion too. If that offends you, you should turn off your monitor and get off the internet. Not because I don't respect you, but because you will get offended a lot. Different people hold different views and online you are going to meet those views. And it will be very frustrating to find out about the Netherlands or Finland where a majority of people don't believe in God or even think it's silly to do so (not necessarily my view).

Education is important. And to me, science is a better source for knowledge than the Bible. At least when we are talking about the 'how' of our existence. And people like Bill Nye debating people like Ken Ham, are spreading knowledge and providing people with information. If they refuse to take that information from a man who spent his entire life studying and doing research on this subject, then that's their choice. But in the 21th century knowledge should be available to the ones who seek it.

Amen to that :p
 

EpicVakarian

Calibration-Master General
Well, I also use the spectrum as an argument. Like, if the universe was intended solely for humanity's use, then why are there types of light that we can't see? UV, IR, gamma, X-ray, all that stuff, what's the point if humans can't see it and the world is only for human use?
And (and here's a big point) again; how, ever, are humans going to be able to settle across the universe? Why is the universe so huge, and getting bigger, if humans are the centrepoint of it?
 

Anouck

Queen of Procrastination
Well, I also use the spectrum as an argument. Like, if the universe was intended solely for humanity's use, then why are there types of light that we can't see? UV, IR, gamma, X-ray, all that stuff, what's the point if humans can't see it and the world is only for human use?
And (and here's a big point) again; how, ever, are humans going to be able to settle across the universe? Why is the universe so huge, and getting bigger, if humans are the centrepoint of it?

I agree. But then again, I don't believe in God to begin with. ;)

That is another problem I think people have. Taking the Bible to literally.
"God made the earth in seven days."
I don't see how you can argue that thought since there wasn't a sun yet to define the period of a day.

I won't lie my families beliefs are very moderate and uses the idea of God to justify such logical occurrences within nature.

Plus I like the idea of "God created Evolution and Science" :D

I like that idea as well. Religion, when taken too literally, holds back a society from moving forward. I think science and religion can coexist, but religious people have to embrace scientific facts for that.

The one thing I do think, and I do not mean to criticize you, is that what you're doing is cherry picking. I know so many Christians/Catholics/Protestants who take some parts of their Bible literally, while they don't do that with other parts.
For instance, they like a certain passage about Christians helping the poor. But the page where is being written that 'homosexuals MUST be put to death' - naaaahhhh, they didn't mean it that way! You shouldn't take that literally.
I mean - how do we know what to take literal and what not? To be honest; we don't. People pick what sounds good to them and the shocking bits of the old testament that straight out justify (and in some cases promote) slavery, rape and torture are being ignored.
And of course, those people are way better for a society than people who follow the Westboro Baptist church. I think that, if all Christians 'cherry picked' when reading the Bible, the world would be a happier place. :p It means you don't root your morals in ancient scriptures, but actually have a moral compass of your own.
But still... To a certain extent, you could say it is a form of hypocrisy.

Not meant to you in general, btw. ;) Usually when I speak to my family people get tired of me talking. So when someone does ask me about my opinion........

RELEASE THE KRAKEN!
 

Volsung

Fortune favours the Bold
There are a lot of holes in the bible that people who do not believe will quite happily point out and ask for an explanation, but to be fair to religious people, they're not to know all the answers as we (I'm assuming you guys so far accept science over religion) still do not. The difference is that, generally speaking, we are more likely to admit that we do not know, whereas religious folk will revert to the bible and that it is God.

My main issue has to be that there are thousands of religions out there of which most are very much the same, apart from various changes such as God names etc but mainly the values stay the same. However, if you ask a Christian what they think of Zeus, they will dismiss it completely as false and silly. Why? Because they don't have a book, or can't prove it, or that it's fairly far-fetched? Is that not what most religious are - purely belief systems with no concrete evidence of existence?

tl;dr
 

Andre Marek

You can run, but you'll only die tired...
I think I agree with Epic on this. I can't really get my mind to stop working long enough for me to believe, or even want to believe for that matter, in a God. However, my family is rather religious for the most part so I generally keep quiet on the matter myself for the sake of keeping things civil.

The main reason I don't believe in creationism is because of how nobody can agree on what God actually is. I read an article that explained this perfectly. It basically said that if God were a real being, than everybody would have to agree on the basic facts about him/her/it.

If a group of people from every different culture and every different religion all look at the same tree, say a pine tree, then undoubtedly, they will all agree that it has green needles, that it has a trunk, that it is covered in bark, etc. However, amoung the religions of the world, the definition of God varies greatly. The article also offered an explanation for that. That being that people are not percieving something real. They are percieving something that they imagined and that is why they cannot agree on what IT is. Face it. If I said to you, "think of a dragon." I bet that nearly everyone had a different image in their heads. And personally, if the religions of the world can't even convince each other of what God actually is, then why would I suddenly start to believe?
 

Crooksin

Glue Sniffer
I really liked this debate and love Bill Nye however there is something I would add to this.

Bill Nye was not the right person for this debate, you could tell during the whole thing. It just not his field, he's not biology guy. I feel like someone who specializes in this science could've communicated the ideas much, much better rather than someone who's name is a household one.

You could tell where the other guy was gonna go with his debate the second he started. Using testimonials from scientists not in the biology field means absolutely nothing. He's a respectable guy but I'll pick science every time.
 

Medea

The Shadow Queen
People who actually believe that the earth is only 6000 years old must have a compulsion to ignore everything geology has taught us.

It's not hard to contradict, even with common sense:

You see, there are layers of dirt and rock in the earth's crust that can be measured to find out how old that layer is, just as there are circles in the trunks of trees.

Those layers of dirt contain fossils, which due to common misconception are NOT bones. Fossilized remains are made of stone, and it takes a loooooooooooooong time for organic material to fossilize.

It would not make any sense to say that the earth is only 6000 years old. Ignoring the fact that they say the earth is 6000 years old just because their religion tells them so, if this were true then the accumulation of dirt and sediment would be so much faster than it is now, that you would not be able to walk out your front door tomorrow without stepping in a foot of fresh dirt. By next week, your house would be buried. What I'm trying to say is: If the earth really was only 6000 years old, the changes to the earth would be visible or almost visible in real time.

As far as evolution goes it is not something that we can see in real time either, but I would much rather believe this theory over "Zeus made us". We have found things with science that religion never mentioned. People use to worship the sun. Now we know that the sun is hot plasma, created by nuclear reactions, contained in magnetic fields.

Some creationists use the "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?" argument to try and stump evolutionist theory. Well, the answer to that is a pretty simple one: The egg did, stupid. Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens ever existed. If you put two and two together it kind of makes sense then, that birds evolved from reptiles.

Do you want to see why we should not allow creationism to be taught in schools?

http://melbourneskeptics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Creation_Test.jpg

Believe what you want to. Just keep it out of government and science class.
 

NENALATA

Last King of the Ayleids - RETIRED
Hmmm

The first step in seeing your way through this is to separate the special interests from the facts themselves. Like making Steel.


Religion and Religious minded folks will make up any story and say anything for the sake of their beliefs.

Institutions and Scientifically minded folks will fudge the numbers on any story and publish anything for the sake of their beliefs.

Atheists/Agnostics follow their own set of beliefs and are the inverse of the Religious crowd. Choosing not to believe in God takes almost as much energy as having faith and requires you adhere to certain rules, in other words Atheism is like a Religion in and of itself, the Religion of no god.


Non-life does not give life. This is science 101. Meat does not produce maggots, the maggots are put there by flies.

Everything that is alive, was given life by another living being. Hence, we give life to our (or your) children.

Your body and soul were given to you, passed along by your/our creator(s).

A 57 Chevy does NOT build itself. It was intelligently designed and produced, so it is with every living thing starting from other living things.

So, evolution is the reason "why" and not the "how". What creator who loved his/her creation, would not give said life the ability to adapt and grow?

I'm a programmer. Sometimes when I create a program, it's a good idea to build in some AI so it can learn and adapt to serve it's function.

Everyone was created and no matter what your God is/is not, we all come from the same one.

There are markers and fingerprints of intelligent design on all life that we know of. The universe is full of BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of Galaxies AND mathematicians have proven the possibility of an infant number of "Alternate Universes" / "Realities".

Against all of this, to say that man has no creator, that there is no "God(s)" is rather foolish. Esp when we can barely make it off this world.

And not one of you here can prove that God doesn't exist, because we will never be able to account for everything there is in JUST THIS UNIVERSE. Let alone our own Galaxy.

You will never be able to see with your own eyes, every corner of this universe. It's that vast. Many inventors and mathematicians and yes, even MANY SCIENTISTS had to walk by faith in what they were doing because the "Religious/Scientific Community" are so immature and fools themselves that they PERSECUTE anyone who does not follow their dogma.
 

Recent chat visitors

Latest posts

Top