My thoughts on this debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2014, 10:54 AM
RE: My thoughts on this debate
(05-02-2014 10:49 AM)kellyrm Wrote:  
(05-02-2014 10:47 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  I caught the beginning and need to finish tonight. I did find the whole visual presentation aspect of the debate to be different, and somewhat an "over the top attention getting" scheme. Hitch, Harris, and Dawkins never need 100 ppt slides to get their point across. Also, the scientists that were shown to be creationists never elaborate on what science they use to support the creation concept. Can't wait to finish watching.

It gets better~some of those slides are the only "proof" offered Tongue I'm gonna make my husband sit down tonight and watch it, might do him some good since he's religious out of plain ignorance Tongue

I would love to get my wife and youngest son to sit down and watch it with me, but not too optimistic on them commiting 3 hours for it. I will supply popcorn and drinks for both as a perk, but the knowledge gained will be my victory.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2014, 10:55 AM
RE: My thoughts on this debate
(05-02-2014 10:54 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(05-02-2014 10:49 AM)kellyrm Wrote:  It gets better~some of those slides are the only "proof" offered Tongue I'm gonna make my husband sit down tonight and watch it, might do him some good since he's religious out of plain ignorance Tongue

I would love to get my wife and youngest son to sit down and watch it with me, but not too optimistic on them commiting 3 hours for it. I will supply popcorn and drinks for both as a perk, but the knowledge gained will be my victory.

I don't count on my husband sitting through the whole thing either...but it's worth a shot. If I put it on the TV, he's gotta at least hear bits and parts of it Tongue

~Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2014, 11:10 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2014 11:14 AM by kellyrm.)
RE: My thoughts on this debate
[Image: tumblr_m9ld8bUy271rt5q34o1_500.png]

~Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kellyrm's post
05-02-2014, 11:14 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2014 11:39 AM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: My thoughts on this debate
(05-02-2014 10:23 AM)kellyrm Wrote:  Whew...religion for dummies? Through my conversations on FB today about the debate, I've learned that a lot of theists didn't know that the bible said the earth wasn't billions of years old, almost none of them know who Ken Ham is, and only a few knew about ANYTHING that was mentioned during the hours of debate...which is sad. So, basically, religion is a lack of education...brainwashing right? But you can't tell them that, bc their god is gonna get me for it Tongue

It is funny (in a sad way) that so many Christians support Creationism and defend its right to be taught in schools simply because they are Christians, and they (think they) know it's teaching a Christian based view of science, so what could be the harm?

I got in an argument with a theist friend of mine over this exact thing. She readily admitted she had no idea what it taught, but believed it taught a perspective she agreed with, as a Christian. She knew nothing about it, yet the propaganda seems to be working because her only argument for it was basically "If we really want to teach children they should hear all the theories. It’s not scientific to ignore other theories".

To the point you made...instead of arguing with her about why it's not science, and does not belong in the classroom, I simply taught her what it does teach.

Despite being a funddie herself, she had no idea about the claim of the earth being 6,000 years old. She didn't believe the bible says that. It doesn't actually, but it can be inferred by adding dates of individuals births and the age they were when they had their children, and the age that child was when they had theirs, and so on. It all links up pretty well. Their is a little more to it, but those are the bones of it. So I taught her this, and it was hard for her to accept, but it's was biblically there if you look. So she didn’t like that because it did not make sense to here and had to be wrong, but she couldn’t deny that the bible appear to strongly infer a 6,000 year old earth.

She rejected evolution, but then I explained the super version of evolution that would have had to happen after the flood to get all the animal species we now have today, according the Creationism (I'm sooo glad Bill pointed this out, because that's one of my first gotos when debating Creationist). I pointed out that there are stars millions of light years, or more, away and that light would still yet to have reached us and wouldn't reach us for millions of years if young earth is true, (our sky should be far darker at night if true) so either "God" in the beginning of the universe, and only then for some reason, bent the rules for the speed of light, (which I explained how that would actually have destroyed all life in the universe if he did), or he would have had to create light already enroute, including from stars that must not have ever even existed as they are supernova but too distant to have ever actually been there. Just light looking as though it was from a star, but for a star that never existed. But "God" made it look as though it did.

I even convinced her that human evolution has had to have happened because of the undeniable evidence, of which I shared with her. She herself could not deny we evolved, and that was a very hard thing for her to accept. Though I still have yet to get her to accept human evolution further back than “monkeys”, but she knows how it works now, so I think really she was just saying that she doesn’t want to think about it passed monkeys.

I went on and on with it, giving many examples. This was actually over the course of a number of days, but it went on and on until, and this is key, I could tell it was making it difficult for her to believe her own bible was without error, because she was being exposed to the truth of what it's wrong about. I explained, scientist never normally address what's in the bible. But if Creationist have their way, scientist will have no choice but to do so because Creationist will be forcing them to. And, I told her, if you want your kids to continue to grow up and believe the bible, teaching Creationism will force them to question things about the bible that they otherwise would not have worried or though about, and for which science has answers and evidence to disprove.

From this conversation she realized that Creationism in the classroom is dangerous, not from my perspective of dangerous to science, but from her perspective of it being dangerous to her own and her kids' religious belief.

She's still Christian, but does finally agree that Creationism has no place in science.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
05-02-2014, 11:19 AM
RE: My thoughts on this debate
(05-02-2014 11:14 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(05-02-2014 10:23 AM)kellyrm Wrote:  Whew...religion for dummies? Through my conversations on FB today about the debate, I've learned that a lot of theists didn't know that the bible said the earth wasn't billions of years old, almost none of them know who Ken Ham is, and only a few knew about ANYTHING that was mentioned during the hours of debate...which is sad. So, basically, religion is a lack of education...brainwashing right? But you can't tell them that, bc their god is gonna get me for it Tongue

It is funny (in a sad way) that so many Christians support Creationism and defend its right to be taught in schools simply because they are Christians, and they (think they) know it's teaching a Christian based view of science, so what could be the harm?

I got in an argument with a theist friend of mine over this exact thing. She readily admitted she had no idea what it taught, but believed it taught a perspective she agreed with, as a Christian. She knew nothing about it, yet the propaganda seems to be working because her only argument for it was basically "If we really want to teach children they should hear all the theories. It’s not scientific to ignore other theories".

To the point you made...instead of arguing with her about why it's not science, and does not belong in the classroom, I simply taught her what it does teach.

Despite being a funddie herself, she had no idea about the claim of the earth being 6,000 years old. She didn't believe the bible says that. It doesn't actually, but it can be inferred by adding dates of individuals births and the age they were when they had their children, and the age that child was when they had theirs, and so on. It all links up pretty well. Their is a little more to it, but those are the bones of it. So I taught her this, and it was hard for her to accept, but it's was biblically there if you look. So she didn’t like that because it did not make sense to here and had to be wrong, but she couldn’t deny that the bible appear to strongly infer a 6,000 year old earth.

She rejected evolution, but then I explained the super version of evolution that would have had to happen after the flood to get all the animal species we now have today, according the Creationism (I'm sooo glad Bill pointed this out, because that's one of my first gotos when debating Creationist). I pointed out that there are stars millions of light years, or more, away and that light would still yet to have reached us and wouldn't reach us for millions of years, (our sky should be far darker at night if true) so either "God" in the beginning of the universe ,and only then for some reason, bended the rules for the speed of light, (which I explained how that would actually have destroyed all life in the universe if he did), or he would have had to create light already enroute, including from stars that must not have ever even existed as they are supernova but too distant to have ever actually been there. Just light looking as though as star was, for a star that never existed. But "God" made it look as though it did.

I even convinced her that human evolution has had to have happened because of the undeniable evidence, of which I shared with her. She herself could not deny we evolved, and that was a very hard thing for her to accept. Though I still have yet to get her to accept human evolution further back than “monkeys”, but she knows how it works now, so I think really she was just saying that she doesn’t want to think about it passed monkeys.

I went on and on with it, giving many examples. This was actually over the course of a number of days, but it went on and on until, and this is key, I could tell it was making it difficult for her to believe her own bible was without error, because she was being exposed to the truth of what it's wrong about. I explained, scientist never normally address what's in the bible. But if Creationist have their way, scientist will have no choice but to do so because Creationist will be forcing them to. And, I told her, if you want your kids to continue to grow up and believe the bible, teaching Creationism will force them to question things about the bible that they otherwise would not have worried or though about, and for which science has answers and evidence to disprove.

From this conversation she realized that Creationism in the classroom is dangerous, not from my perspective of dangerous to science, but from her perspective of it being dangerous to her own and her kids' religious belief.

She's still Christian, but does finally agree that Creationism has no place in science.

This story makes me all kinds of happy. I know there's atheists out there that think we should "live and let live." I'm not one of them. I believe religion is bullshit and holding us, as a society, down. I would love nothing more than for it to disappear completely, and I spent way too much time pushing that agenda. Call it a waste, or silly, or whatever~but it's absolutely awesome when you can talk somebody out of what they've been brainwashed into believing with a few simple facts. Most "Christians" don't have a damn clue WHY they believe what they do, they're just taught to do so~so showing them some truth is usually all it takes Smile Good for you!!

~Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2014, 11:41 AM
RE: My thoughts on this debate
(05-02-2014 11:19 AM)kellyrm Wrote:  This story makes me all kinds of happy. I know there's atheists out there that think we should "live and let live." I'm not one of them. I believe religion is bullshit and holding us, as a society, down. I would love nothing more than for it to disappear completely, and I spent way too much time pushing that agenda. Call it a waste, or silly, or whatever~but it's absolutely awesome when you can talk somebody out of what they've been brainwashed into believing with a few simple facts. Most "Christians" don't have a damn clue WHY they believe what they do, they're just taught to do so~so showing them some truth is usually all it takes Smile Good for you!!

Well I'm just glad you can even read what I wrote. I wrote it very sloppy because I don't have time to double check what I write right now. But then I did reread it and it wasn't the best. But as long as the point get across I guess.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2014, 11:50 AM
RE: My thoughts on this debate
(05-02-2014 11:41 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(05-02-2014 11:19 AM)kellyrm Wrote:  This story makes me all kinds of happy. I know there's atheists out there that think we should "live and let live." I'm not one of them. I believe religion is bullshit and holding us, as a society, down. I would love nothing more than for it to disappear completely, and I spent way too much time pushing that agenda. Call it a waste, or silly, or whatever~but it's absolutely awesome when you can talk somebody out of what they've been brainwashed into believing with a few simple facts. Most "Christians" don't have a damn clue WHY they believe what they do, they're just taught to do so~so showing them some truth is usually all it takes Smile Good for you!!

Well I'm just glad you can even read what I wrote. I wrote it very sloppy because I don't have time to double check what I write right now. But then I did reread it and it wasn't the best. But as long as the point get across I guess.
Haha I spend hours a day talking to the geniuses on FB and in religious circles~your post was perfect compared to what I'm used to deciphering my way through Tongue

~Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2014, 12:08 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2014 12:15 PM by Clueless Morgan.)
RE: My thoughts on this debate
(05-02-2014 09:53 AM)kellyrm Wrote:  I never saw Ken actually answer a question...he would just reiterate the bullshit he already said before.

I actually think that was a smart tactic for him, seeing as he was preaching to the choir; it also a tactic expertly employed by Nye in his show BNtSG - repeat information and concepts over and over and over and over, drill it in to your audience's heads, if you repeat a concept or information, it makes your audience more likely to remember what you were repeating.

Just look at the kinds of things Ham was repeating in his opening and 30-minute presentation alone: science is religion, scientists are trying to indoctrinate your kids, repeating distinctions in science that don't actually exist, legit scientists can be creationists (implying that creationism is therefore legit), etc. He was pushing a specific message to an audience that was already on his side, instill or reinforcing to them ideas that they should "look out" for in Nye's presentation, and telling them to arm themselves against the evil indoctrination of satanist-scientists so they're not led astray.

Frankly I think it was a brilliant tactic.

(05-02-2014 09:55 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  I took this the other way, it was a partisan home crowd for Ham and I felt they laughed with him. And a lot of Nye's jokes fell on deaf ears.

I noticed this, too; poor Bill couldn't even eek a smile out of most of that audience. Both debaters were using jokes to get the audience on their side and to get the audience to let their guards down, but they weren't giving Nye so much as an inch.

Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Clueless Morgan's post
05-02-2014, 12:13 PM
RE: My thoughts on this debate
(05-02-2014 10:32 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Found this from the ID-fans.

Refreshingly balanced review of the debate.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution...am-debate/

From the post:
Quote:Overall, I appreciate Bill Nye’s willingness to engage in a respectful public dialogue with people he disagrees with. The world would be better off if that happened more often.

Except that this would regularly give creationists an equal platform with actual evolutionary science lending them legitimacy which would be a travesty.

Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Clueless Morgan's post
05-02-2014, 12:25 PM
RE: My thoughts on this debate
I actually liked the format of the debate. I despise so-called debates that become shouting matches. I was watching one such debate with Ken Ham where he just monopolized the whole discussion and didn't seem to allow others to speak.

But that was a debate amongst theists I believe....


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: