Creationist vs Scientist Live Debate

Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

OzPaleAle

Well-Known Member
Joined
8/4/13
Messages
463
Reaction score
122
Interesting Live debate on Youtube at the moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI&feature=player_embedded
 
Creationism. Up there with Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
 
How can this possibly be a proper debate??
Creationists ultimately come down to a point of "I choose not to follow a philosophy of rationale, logic and evidence."
A debate is fundamentally argued on rational points using logic & evidence.
... And furthermore, "Instead, I choose to simply believe some stuff other people have said/written about 2000 years ago"

2c

Edit: spelling
 
It was interesting, some of the debate was not just because this book says this here, they actually have"scientists" on staff "researching" these things and he is using their research to dispute Nyals arguments, as usual always deflecting when it came to Ham to prove any of their positions using their science.
 
technobabble66 said:
... And furthermore, "Instead, I choose to simply believe some stuff other people have said/written about 2000 years ago"
As Nyal kept saying something written 2000 years ago and translated x amount of times to eventually be American English. Surely no chinese whisper style lost in translation, ala and instruction manual translated from chinese, style.
 
Science dose itself no favor's taking part these clusterfucks of ignorance, delusion and dogmatisim.
Its basically lending weight the creationist supposition that there's an argument to even be had in the first place.

Take a look at the laundry list of redundant parts on our own bodies and design flaws, are the trying to prove god was actually a bumbling ****?
Intelligent design?
Oh, the ******* irony.
 
My guess is Nye is taking the soft diplomatic approach. People don't like being told that they are wrong, it just gets their back up. The 'debate' was at the so called Creation Museum, so he was on their turf, so to speak. He could have ridiculed the lot of them but it wouldn't have helped, they would have gone home saying "that stoopid science man is a jerk, he says god isn't real, what a moron! Everyone knows god is real! I didn't evolve from no damn monkey!" ..and them voted in the next election for whoever wants to introduce creationism into school curriculum.
 
Ham's 12,000 animals on the ark doesn't add up if as he claimed there were 2 pairs of every animal listed in the bible (which there weren't according to their stories)
The number would be closer to 300
 
The bible is basically a book of short stories passed down & translated over the centuries. No two bibles are the same, each publisher has their own version. The story about Noahs Ark , as I have read, was that he was to take a pair of each "religous" clean animal with him, which according to old texts was only 7 pairs of animals.
 
So you mean to tell me that humans were not running around with dinosaurs?

What makes it worse is he is Australian :unsure: :unsure:
 
pcmfisher said:
So you mean to tell me that humans were not running around with dinosaurs?
Nope....some creationists beleive the earth is only 9,000yrs old
 
Liam_snorkel said:
Not quite a big enough market for his brand of crazy over here.
If there is a big enough market there the least he could do was spring a few extra bucks for a suit that at least closely fitted him.......
 
Well I just finished it
Certainly didn't sway my view from being 100% believing in evolution...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top