AWKWARD ZOMBIE

I know that religion is something of a taboo taboo topic here, since discussions usually spiral endlessly due to its inconclusive nature. However, today Bill Nye (whom we all know) and Ken Ham (I'd never heard of him? but he runs a Creationist organization) debated Creationism publicly and I had a few thoughts on the subjects that I wanted to discuss somewhere. I would have used the taboo topics thread or the 'science is interesting' thread, but I thought the discussion I would like to have is more narrow than taboo topics usually covers and unfit for the science thread, which usually focuses on discoveries or developments. If any mod thinks the discussion would be better held in either of these topics or in any other topic, then by all means it should be moved.

Of course I haven't got any authority to force this, but I would appreciate it if everyone who posts here could watch the video. It's fairly long, and I don't know if the complete video been uploaded yet, but it will be publicly available on debatelive.org for the next few days so it should be easy to watch. (I missed the first hour, but I plan to rectify this tomorrow.)

To start us off, I have an argument against a fairly important portion of Mr. Ham's argument. Often, he attempted to refute Bill Nye's statements about history (celestial movement, tectonic plates' consistency, radioactive decay) by asserting that they were based on assumptions - most frequently, the assumption that we can not be absolutely sure that the processes operated in the same manner or at the same speed in the past as they do today. I find this statement to be debatably true, but I seriously disapprove of its application in a debate. Here's why:

Suppose that someone presents a Bible to you which is very similar (if not identical) to, say, King James’ Bible, with the exception that Genesis recounts the earth’s creation in a different order. This Bible makes assertions which are similar to but objectively different from those contained in the ostensibly 'real' Bible. How do you determine the legitimacy of each text? Do you believe the Bible you are familiar with, or do you believe this new text?
If you stick with the old Bible, then are you not making an assumption about the past, i.e. which Bible was actually written or dictated by God?
And if you choose the new Bible, then are you not denying a teaching of a Bible, and does that not then allow you to deny any teaching in any Bible, and does that not further allow you to deny every teaching in any Bible?
If you do not choose either Bible over the other, then must not at least one still be false, and if one is false, then how can the other one be believed?
Any belief in any Bible must stem from an assumption of some kind.

Note that this is not about disproving the Bible, this is just about demonstrating that believe in the Bible rests on a single, very important assumption, and is therefore no more valid than any Scientific proposition. Agree, disagree?

"You can't prove the past, therefore God did it

Creationists can be scientists too

Science"

-Ken Ham, 2014

Seriously though, how did that dude even get allowed on stage

I don't really see why this wouldn't fit in Taboo Topics, but as long as you guys don't act like dicks then it's fine in its own thread too I guess.

Just, yeah. Don't be dicks.

it's really hard for a creationist to present themself as anything but an ignorant buffoon when placed next to a scientist

I'm not finished watching the video, but I will say in this thread that I believe that creationism and evolution CAN be combined--for example, I believe as a Christian that God created the universe, and I believe that he also created every law of physics, genetics, and nature. I like the theory that God 'programmed' natural selection and evolution.

Also, I have a hard time taking 'young earth' creationists seriously.

One of the questions Ken got asked was something along the lines of "If you were presented a piece of concrete evidence showing the earth is older than 4,000 years old, would you admit you're wrong?" and his response was "No, because that can never happen." It's not even what he believes at that point. It's just that he's so close-minded to not even be open to the idea that he's wrong.

Ken Ham got a question from the audience that asked him "should everything in the Bible be taken bodaciously" and listed a couple of things paraphrased from the Bible like men having multiple wives and people being stoned for touching pig skin. A valid question, in my opinion.

Ken Ham responded by saying that "we have to define our terms" and that he doesn't know what that question specifically meant by using the term 'bodaciously'.

Ken Ham, could you stop dodging questions? Or at least be more subtle about it, wow. You're just making yourself look silly by acting like you don't know the definition of 'bodaciously'.

Why was this even done? That creationist guy specifically said he wouldnt change his mind because he had faith or whatever, and wouldnt actually answer any difficult questions about his faith. If Creationists cant defend their ideas with anything better than "You cant PROVE God didnt do it", why do people even seriously entertain the idea of teaching creationism in schools? This whole debate was a farce from start to finish

The thing is that this entire discussion is about whether you should credit science or religion with how the world works. Science is about observation and formulating how things work based on this verifiable evidence. Religion works by believing things in the absence of or sometimes even despite evidence. When someone tells you they believe things that are observably wrong, despite all evidence, all they do is discredit themselves for all further discussion on the matter.

I applaud Bill Nye for his efforts at teaching and trying to make people see reason, but there's no reasoning with someone who flat out tells you they're not believing what they can see.

Science and religion do not belong in the same discussion. Religion =/= morality.

That's really all I have to say about this.

I thought it was also a little odd that Ken Ham kept going off on tangents that were in no way related to the debate at hand

The bit about how Christians shouldn't believe the earth is billions of years old seemed particularly irrelevant

my favorite part was when Bill took between a third and half of his opening statement to talk about bow ties

To me the entire premise of the debate was idiotic, yet the debate was extremely interesting. I have studied many different religions and was raised christian. I concur with Cori with science and religion being mixed together. I believe in divine creation but if there was a God then I don't see why his actions couldn't be explained by science. Even Isaac Newton said something about being able to explain HOW gravity works but not WHY it does what it does.

I have debated and discussed Science and religion with many people, and with those who choose to side with religion I have experienced the same things that Nye did last night. "Things proving that science is true" which is then rebuttled with "I choose not to believe that because I don't want to"

I am reminded of a few quotes, I forget who said them but "People are trained to believe not to know. Belief can be manipulated, only knowledge is dangerous." " Never argue with a stupid person, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

I am choosing to stay away from my beliefs as far as religion goes as much as possible and merely focusing on the debate, and I suggest you chaps to do the same. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, just like you.

Not when theyre trying to make their beliefs a part of social policy, that is actively damaging. Creationism should not be taught as a fact, nor should it be considered a "science". Keep God in Church and keep the actual scientist in education.

Since this happened near where I live, I heard it on the local news yesterday morning and my response to it was "Oh Bill no. No. You should know as well as anyone else that this is a waste of time.".
One thing my mom said to me that makes a lot of sense about all this is that Ken Ham and his "museum" get free publicity from this "debate".

Bill Nye agreeing to do this debate confuses me so much.

Maybe he thought it would be fun. Maybe he thought that this trying to be taught to children was worrying.

It's important to remember that neither of these people went into this debate thinking they would change the other person's mind. Bill's purpose and goal here was to explain his beliefs to the audience and those watching online, and to explain to them why he thought these things were so important. At some points you can see that he's bodaciously pleading to the people there and those watching to consider his points, and question what they themselves see is the irrefutable answer.

He did this, as he does most things, to illustrate how important it is to appropriately educate the youth of the world.