Post Nye/Ham debate Facebook debate
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2014, 03:21 AM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2014 03:48 AM by Colourcraze.)
Post Nye/Ham debate Facebook debate
alright guys, this shit is long, so move along if you're not up for it! (But I'd like some feedback if you'll give it Blush )

This all started after the debate, when a friend on Facebook posted this:

OP: Oh, Bill Nye… “Are the fish sinners? Did they do something wrong to develop these diseases?” Do you know NOTHING about the Bible? You’d think he’d study it if he is going to debate it.

Random dude: it was my thoughts as well. He just doesn’t get it.

Me: It’s not a completely invalid question, since Ham’s point was that death and disease came into the world due to sin. So the question then follows why do supposedly soulless, sinless creatures have diseases if they did nothing to deserve such?

Even though I don’t really think the question was that relevant.

OP: Yes, death came into the world bc of sin, but it comes to the just and the unjust. It happens to everyone. Disease doesn’t happen to animals bc they sin, it happens bc sin is in the world now and out [sic] world is no longer perfect like it was in the beginning. I just think that Bill Nye has a skewed perception if [sic] the Bible bc he is too arrogant to study it. He writes it off as fable.
Ken Hamm said again and again that he has studied the textbooks, learned about evolution and what they are teaching the kids, so that he can better prepare himself to a defense. It was not obvious that Bill Nye had spent any time in the Bible, instead, he just countered what he thinks are our issues with evolution.

Me: I think he was answering the question at hand, which was whether the creation model was a viable worldview. For him to answer then it necessitates that he present information which proves his point and offers an alternative, that being evolution by natural selection.

Other random dude: The same comment could be made about Ken Hamm and science.

Random girl: Well, adam and eve lost access to the tree of life, thus causing death. I don’t think you can definitely say that sin caused diseases to come into the world. Unless there’s a scripture I’m missing…

OP: I disagree [other random dude]. I think he was very well prepared. Apparently, our judgements [sic] are all skewed to what we want to think, regardless of what anyone said in the debate.

Friend of OP: that point got to me too- I don’t expect him to understand the whole bible before he debates- if he did, he’d be a Christian Wink, but I felt like it showed his weakness-that’s he’s pompously arguing about things he doesn’t understand and assuming that he knows it all. It was just a very bad argument that pointed to his other fallacious arguments. Another one- he basically said, well if you’re not going to work based on my assumption (based on no facts) that the laws of nature have always been constant, then we can’t work together. …like it was a virtue, when Hamm’s point was basically that: we can’t see eye to eye until we both recognize our underlying assumptions and address them. But Nye changed it slightly- to we can’t see eye to eye until you blindly join in my assumptions. Faith.
To [me] – I think brought up a great point- his question was to present his views about the viability of the creation model. To do that, you have to look at the model. Alternatives would be a secondary response, a counterpoint after the first question is answered. He didn’t look at the model enough to avoid making points that are clearly fatuous. But that’s because he is hanging on to assumptions and his assumptions discount the bible in the first place. So. He assumes the bible is invalid as a source of info, then he attempts to contemplate whether the bible view is valid. But as his base assumptions are that it is not, he doesn’t look at it to analyze whether it is valid, so he can say, it’s invalid because…it’s invalid……THAT is not science.

Me: I don't think Nye was there to debate the bible in its entirety. There are other debates that address that, I'm sure. This was specifically about a young earth model based on the creation story in Genesis vs an old earth model based on the fossil record, astronomy, and DNA. Nye was pretty candid about the things he doesn't know, the things that science doesn't yet know, I certainly don't see him as pompous. You said "after the first question is answered," what's the first question? And which points are "clearly fatuous"? I heard him say the young earth model is invalid because 1) there are trees and cultures older than 6000 years 2) looking at the stars is looking at the past, math tells else they're much older than 6000 years 3) strata in the earth tell us the earth is older 4) fossils tell us the earth is older. It's not necessary to know anything about the bible to present that information, and even if a biblical scholar presented such information, it's not necessary to even mention the bible.

Friend of OP: the first question...being the question you brought up: is the bible view of creation viable. And as he addressed the concept of sin in the world and its consequences, which is only to be comprehended by means of the entire bible picture, he is the one who exited the realm of solo creation and entered theology.

OP: Does Bill Nye not even stop to consider that God most likely created the earth with mature trees, animals, stars, etc.? I'm pretty sure he didn't just throw a bunch of tree seeds on His created earth.

Me: [to Friend of OP], as I mentioned, I don't think the topic of sin in the world was even a relevant question to the debate at hand. The debate being "is the earth 6000 years old or isn't it?"
[to OP], did god also create remnants of ancient writing systems which are ~10,000 years old? These are evidence that people existed, thrived, and wrote about their lives in various places around the world before god even created Adam. Not to mention cave paintings which are up to ~40,000 years old. And that's just human history, literally humans documenting themselves.

OP: But you're basing all of this information on carbon dating, which is at best a theory.

OP's husband: So here's my thoughts.

First, and most importantly, whichever theory you choose to believe, you have to admit it requires a leap of faith. Christianity is built around faith. Christians will fully admit that we can't connect all the dots, and when there are points where the dots don't connect, we have to leave it to a higher power, or something miraculous.

The theory (which is an important point, it is a theory, not a proven fact) of a big bang origin story requires its own gigantic leap of faith. There is no explanation for where these elements or chemicals came from that caused this catastrophic explosion. Did they always exist? Has time always existed? And what are the odds that the exact combination of matter got together in all the right conditions to cause this explosion. Etc. But the issue is, without understanding that, the theory of the big bang, will always be nothing but that, a theory. I personally find it amazing that that leap of faith is perfectly understandable to many, but the idea of a higher power is unfathomable.

Second, it brings up the exact issue that Ham was addressing. He's not insisting that creationism be taught as fact, only that children be taught to use critical thinking, to learn to examine the facts that do exist, and to draw their own conclusions, not have them drawn by an education board. The idea that there may be more than one theory for the origin story. In truth, Bill's cry for us to do away with another concept contradicts what we need as critical thinkers in America. If we only accept what we're told, we never advance in society. It's when we question and find new ways that we find better science. If we always just took what the 1800's or 1700's medical science told us, where would we be now?

So, unless one theory can be proven as absolute fact (which neither can), or has absolute facts to show it as impossible (which neither does), both can be a viable option.

Now, as for Nye, he clearly shows a complete lack of knowledge of biblical ideas and the bible itself. The question of the translation of the bible is sadly misguided. Anyone who does even a basic study can see you can study the bible in it's original language, and we know it to be accurate in looking at how the scribes took painstaking lengths. It's unfortunate that his arrogance clouds his judgment for reasonable thought and grasping true facts. To me, you can't say something is wrong unless you understand it, and he doesn't understand the biblical view. He can't see past his own view to think critically of his own statements. As has been said, you can easily explain why the world could appear to be thousands or millions of years old, while actually being only a few thousand years old. To not be able to even suggest this idea shows a complete lack of critical thinking, or looking for holes and truth in theories. Also, seeing other videos of him outside of this debate has helped form my opinion of his arrogance. I can provide the videos if anyone is interested.

Without wanting to sound exactly like what I'm arguing against, Nye did have some good points that are changeling. The idea that we should find fossils or bones for kangaroos on the path to Australia is a great point. I have no idea what the answer to that would be. That's where I have faith, and believe in miraculous intervention.

Finally, that's the problem is that in a debate like this, we can't bring into play the idea that some things are just miraculous. Do I think Noah was the best boat builder the world has ever seen? No. I think there was miraculous intervention that allowed for the flood story. Of course I can't prove it. That's where my faith comes in.

In the end, when I look at what facts we have, I feel they point to the biblical view of our origins. Is everything answered? No. But is everything answered in the big bang theory? No. So how can it be any more viable than the creationist view?

Sorry this is so long!

Me: First, the Big Bang theory is a theory of origins of the universe, not an explanation for how humans got to be humans. Evolution and the big band theory and two mostly unrelated concepts.

Second, a theory, in science, is not, as we use in casual conversation, something that is guesswork or conjecture. A theory is, from, "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine." As you see, a theory is tested, explanatory, and predictive, which is one thing that Nye continually stated, that science helps us to make predictions about natural phenomenon.

Third, of course there is more than one origin story, every culture has its own myth which describes how the world came to be the way it is, and many people in those cultures believe(d) their stories to be the truth. Many ancient myths are now dismissed as just that, mere myths because of the scientific understanding of the world which humanity has developed throughout the centuries.

Lastly, to [OP], carbon dating is not the only dating method out there, and while it does become less accurate for really really old things, it is a good way to determine the age of many items, anything that is carbon based, like trees. Other dating methods include potassium-argon dating and argon-argon dating which are used for many of the ancient fossils we now have. Thermo-luminescence and paleo-magnetism are also other methods. As far as I know, fossils and sites are dated multiple times using different methods in order to get the most accurate result.

OP's husband: I understand that the theory or origins of the universe and evolution are two different topics. Since my writings were already quite lengthy, I focused on the big bang theory.

I understand the idea behind theory having different definitions in a scientific vs non-scientific setting, but I don't believe that the theory of evolution or the big bang has enough factual evidence to support it being considered a theory in the realm of scientific context. It only exists as a theory outside of that realm, as defined by Miriam Webster: : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events / : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true / : the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject.

What it really comes down to is the scientific method. Asking a question, research, hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, analyzing and drawing a conclusion. Since I didn't discuss evolution last time, let's look at that now. The research says we came from something and we need to know where we came from. Our hypothesis would be we came form single cell organisms which evolved into high level beings. The tests would be looking at what we can see in our present world around us and historical evidences. The result is Microevolution. We can see that yes, a dog may evolve into other breeds. We can see evidence of that. We can test that. But what we can not see is a dog turning into a completely different species. Perhaps it is because we have not been able to observe a dog for millions of years. But the evidence from the past that we do have does not point to this conclusion. Therefore, based on the data we have obtained through historical research and testing, we would have to come to the conclusion that evolution in the form of Macroevolution is not provable at this point in time.

On the other hand, if you insert the concept of creation, the scientific method does not disprove the theory. We can make predictions based off of this theory. Dogs will always be dogs. They may have different breeds, but a dog is a dog. So far, history and the time we have studied dogs has been in line with this reasoning.

I would agree that there are many "myths" that have developed, but they do not provide factual evidences that prove to be correct scientifically like the bible has. For example, we have found time after time that where the bible has stated people or places existed, we consistently find those places. It has proven itself to be an accurate portrayal of history in many proven areas. This is what sets the bible apart from "myths."

As for dating, it was discussed in the debate. It takes a lot of assumptions to trust common dating methods. And still many dating methods have proven themselves to be wildly inaccurate. The example of the wood encased in rock shows the problem with some dating methods. And the response that perhaps the rock slid into the wood (paraphrasing Nye) is simply assured. Yes, two things ~45 million years apart somehow met up and collided into each other. The problem is that he can not look at that situation objectively and see that perhaps we have a problem with our dating system.

And therein is the problem, many make claims of fact, when in reality, they are not proven fact. Many are not able to take a step back and think critically of the original hypothesis based on factual evidences. Too many dots still remain unconnected, and it remains a theory in the loose, unscientific definition.

Me: I'm glad we agree on the scientific method. It is indeed important to test hypotheses and prove them. These distinctions about evolution are fallacious, there is only microevolution. Evolution is small mutations over a long period of time. The reason we can observe things like bacterial evolution is because they have such drastically shorter lifespans than other animals such as mammals. Dog breeding is a poor example, as it is all artificial selection which has given us differing breeds of dogs. There are, in fact distinct species of canines: dogs, coyotes, wolves, dingoes. Speciation is quite different from breeding for a certain size or colour. Speciation can happen when a group is isolated from its relatives for such a period of time that its separate mutations have allowed it to fill a different niche in the environment, such that it becomes a species of its own and can no longer breed with what were once close relatives. This is all due to "microevolution," small mutations over time.

On to the bible, there are also many historic places that we have found that correlate to other myths. For example, many ancient ruins found in Greece are seen in stories about the Greek gods. Pyramids in Egypt are evidence for Ra's existence? Real places are used in stories to make them that much more relatable to the people who hear them. Cities in Israel were used in the stories because it was first told to people in Israel.

As far as dating, I don't know about that particular example that Ham brought up, but there are perfectly natural explanations for why some strata are disrupted: earthquakes, volcanoes, possible animal burrowing, man's digging for resources, farming, random earth uplift events. It could be any number of those things, or it could be someone dated something wrong, unlikely though because as I mentioned before things are dated multiple times in multiple ways in order to ensure accuracy. The assumptions that dating methods work upon are those of radioactivity and observed behavior of atoms. In order to throw out radiometric dating, one must also throw out all of chemistry, which also relies on the study of atoms. I feel comfortable in saying what we know about the periodic table is fact, therefore what we discover about radioactive decay is fact, therefore the dates at which fossils are placed in the earth's history are also fact.

OP's husband:
On your first point about micro vs macro evolution, and looking at bacteria, yes you’re right, we see bacteria evolve. But we don’t see bacteria turning into a fish. I used dogs as an example, but you can use all kinds of different animals. Birds will be birds. Fish will be fish. Bacteria will be bacteria. Again, we don’t see the dog kind turning into the fish kind, or the bird kind. This was brought up in the debate as the research published this year, that there are “ several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models…”

I don’t know of any examples personally where an animal has evolved into a completely different animal. Again, we see animals / bacteria / etc. adapt to environmental situations, but we don’t see them turn into something entirely different. As I said before, maybe it’s because we don’t have millions of years of data to compare and see the overall mutations. But I personally believe that just because microevolution is documented and fact, it still requires a jump to assume that macroevolution is an absolute truth.

As for the bible as a historical record, it also did much more than that. It accurately predicted what would happen, often long before it came to be. I think that’s what sets it apart from mythology. really, if you think about it, what are the odds that the bible could accurately predict everything that it did? In contrast, what are the odds of all the right conditions of the big bang, or the odds of perfect evolution to evolve into human, with higher processing in thought and reasoning.

And when you talk about thought and reason, and morality, it brings up another interesting point. I’m not necessarily saying that this proves anything one way or another, but just a point of thought (since we are looking critically at these ideas). Humans have a sense of morality. But, the idea of evolution does not. It is built on natural selection. So we as people in the evolution model, should just allow the weak to die. Allow decease to die out. Allow mental retardation to die out. But we don’t. We have a moral sense to save people, to keep them alive, to not allow natural selection to run it’s course. In fact, we not only apply this to humans, but animals as well (endangered species, etc). Anyway, just a point to consider.

Also, with the idea of natural selection in the evolution model, the common statement comes up: "if we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?" We are clearly the superior being, so why do they still exist? Perhaps they have not succumbed to natural selection yet, as it has not been millions of years. But we will not be able to know that, until we observe it. We work with speculation, not observation. And to the point above, we interfere with natural selection anyway, and do not allow it to run its course, so maybe we'll never know.

I will not claim to be anything near an expert in chemistry and radioactive elements, but I feel I can not share the same comfort you have in having factual dates. Again, from what I do understand, the dating methods require a large amount of assumptions. And assumptions are just that, not necessarily fact. It needs an assumption that radioactive decay happens at a constant rate, while, in fact it has been recently discovered that that is not always the case. We also assume there was never contamination, and requires events to have happened a certain way in the past. But again, I will fully admit that I am no expert in this field. I just feel there is enough to at least question the methods used. Also, you can find scientists, both creationist and atheists, who will say methods are unreliable.

I want to be clear, it is not my expatiation or purpose here to to say everyone should rally in the streets against evolution and only accept creationism. I only want people to take the time to think critically, and look at the facts for themselves. I think that was part of the point Ham was trying to make. Teach people to think critically, rather than force ideas on people. It’s funny, we don’t want anyone to force any other ideas on people (conservative views on homosexuality, for example) but we as a society can not be open to any other ideas when it comes to the origin story. We can’t try to see it any other way than one single idea. An idea that has holes and gaps all throughout it.

To me, if we can’t absolutely prove evolution, then it means there could be other viable options. And if we can’t absolutely disprove the creationist view, you can’t say it is not a viable option.

Me: The thing about evolution that’s really tough for humans in general to understand is the massive amount of time it takes for observable changes like what you’re talking about (bacteria to fish) to occur because humans have a limited lifespan which makes it hard to fathom millions of years. Evolution is adaptation which comes from random gene mutations. Not all mutations are beneficial to the organism, let alone a mutation that gives an organism a distinct advantage over its peers. What you have called “macroevolution” occurs over time, after beneficial mutation after beneficial mutation until the organism fills a new niche. It’s very easy to see the difference between a current organism and what it was 1,000 mutations ago, but difficult to distinguish between the mutations of only two generations. Because of the slow rate of change, you’re right, a bird or a dog is not suddenly going to become another known species. Mutation is random, but evolution is not random, as I said, it allows an organism to adapt to fill a specific niche. Since the beginning of time, many niches have been filled already. There are organisms covering all parts of the earth, it’s hard to say where an empty niche might be nowadays for an animal to adapt to. Probably, animals are mostly adapting to human activity. Basically, because of our knowledge of “microevolution” (the only kind, as stated before), observing how things have changed and using genetics and fossils, we can extrapolate further knowledge about the origins of life.

A quick note on the single origin of dogs: yes, probably there is a single origin for dogs, since they were domesticated from wolves. So there is probably an ancient wolf ancestor that would be that single origin. But then the wolf and all its relatives had an origin. And that origin had an origin, and so on until we get back to the first little single celled organism.

Since this is already a pretty rounded discussion, I’m going to leave the historicity of the Bible to perhaps another time, as that could be quite a robust topic in and of itself.

Morality is also another issue, but I will say this on the matter: No, nature does not have a sense of morality. We as humans evolved a sense of morality over time. First, it was simple altruism toward family members. If we ensure our offsprings’ survival, we ensure our genetic reproduction. It’s all about genes, and all genes want to do (I’m anthropomorphizing here) is to reproduce. So, altruism toward family members became altruism toward clan and tribe members, which then became entangled with culture and laws and rules and evolution thereof. Other animals have also demonstrated a sense of morality, as in not murdering each other, because it is beneficial to the species that everyone not kill everyone else. Otherwise the species would die out, defeating the genes’ purpose.

Okay, to address your common statement: "if we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?" First, “If Americans came from Europe, why do we still have Europeans?” is basically the same question. Second, we did not evolve from monkeys. All primates, and humans are in the primate family, have a common ancestor. I can’t remember the time frame exactly, but humans and apes diverged a few million years ago. There are fossils that show how humans gradually became bipedal and grew in body and brain size. ( This site is a decent starting point. Take a look at figure 2.

Could you cite the recent discovery about radioactive dating for me? I’m really no expert either, but from what I have learned and what I can find, radioactive decay isn’t predictable as far as the moment it starts, but half-lives of elements are pretty well established and can be cross-referenced with other elements, other known dates, and sediment layers to give a fairly accurate depiction of the subject being dated. Essentially, the things being dated are not simply dated once and all is done. Also, the problems of contamination seem to be well known, which is why scientists are careful of their selections and various methods are used and cross-referenced. At any rate, it is something that I will continue to research.

I am also an advocate for critical thought. In light of that, I have to challenge you on the assumption that we must give equal weight to ideas that we cannot disprove. There are countless things that we can’t disprove, but that does not necessarily lend them validity. Just as you cannot disprove the biblical account of creation, you cannot disprove the Hindu account, the Norse mythology account, the Greek mythology account, or any other. They are fascinating subjects of discussion, but as they are non-falsifiable (can’t be disproved), they are the antithesis of the scientific method and as such, do not belong in the science classroom. One of the best things about science is that if something new is discovered, other scientists can test said discovery and embrace new information. We must simply follow the evidence to the best of our ability.

There are millions of believers around the world who are able to accept the scientific evidence for evolution and retain their belief in a higher power. The two are not incompatible. The origin of the universe is something we don’t know all about yet; many people believe that an ultimate creator began it all. Personally, I’m excited to see what we’ll discover and I can’t wait to see what evidence comes forth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 04:42 AM
RE: Post Nye/Ham debate Facebook debate

I suggest you see a doctor about those facial bruises. They look pretty nasty.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 05:57 AM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2014 08:02 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Post Nye/Ham debate Facebook debate
This discourse covered a couple of posts over several days, so isn't completely coherent or in context... but I thought I would share:

Post by me, shared by Theist:
[Image: T7Zz0R2.jpg]

Theist: Are we standing on the solid rock of truth that is not changing no matter what?! Yes we do! Let then the universe go in and "evolve" but nothing can separate us from the love of God and His true son, Jesus Christ.
Anyone swapping gold for a rock is a fool. Good on ya mate!

Me: Ham's version of "the word of God" is awfully close to "the word of Ken Ham".

Theist: No. Ham is as humble as one can be to childish play in the dirt of Nye, who's worse of in the fact nothing would change his mind. I remember deep hopelessness and fear in my soul before Christ found me. And Unless Christ does find Mr. Nye, he will remain lost.. If a man could convert another man imagine the bragging, the cults and profits that could be made out of it?! I'd trust my back to Mr Ham, not to Mr Nye although I used to watch him ~ 20 yrs ago and loved his tv show

Me: The question to Ham wasn't "What would make you stop you believing in God". It was "What would make you change your mind (regarding a creation model where a few thousand kinds were created independently of each other a few thousand years ago)".

Ham chooses to frame his answer as if it were the first question, but it was not. You said in another post that you accept an old earth. Ham does not. To him you are not a true Christian because you do not believe in the word of Ham. Do you really call him humble?

Theist: Those are not essentials that we don't need to "go to the bank" to resolve, thank God. Ham knows it. I doubt he'd do as you suggest. Not all of us do, read, think, experience live etc exact same lives

Post by me:

Theist: I see no problem with Robertson -and I agree. Except for the part God created it all in 6 (six) days. Obviously God's day ain't of same duration. As we know, going faster then speed of light (go on imagine it) will dilate the time for quantum equiparticle

Me: Ken Ham says you are "so misinformed and deceived":

Theist: I'm not. Not putting the cart before the horse
Gospel is what matters. For me, God's days are same in the meaning, not duration

Me: That's why humble Mr Ham calls you misinformed and deceived. Because you believe the word of God over the word of Ham.

Theist: When King David messed up royally (by counting Israel) Lord gave him choice of punishment: 3 yrs, 3 months or 3 days. David begged The Lord for shortest punishment -not to be given over to men. What Ken Ham or Bill Nye or any other man will tell me doesn't matter as much . Gods word does speak to each one of our hearts 1on1 Ham is not all that bad. He's better then Nye. All Nye was about was his dubious carbon dating and layers layers layers

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
08-02-2014, 07:51 AM
RE: Post Nye/Ham debate Facebook debate
I've actively avoided theists in general in discussing this stuff. So, my question is: has anyone asked a theist why it's acceptable to believe in a virgin birth because a book said so versus it being not acceptable to believe we evolved over time from chimps, despite the evidence we've collected to prove it? Like, if we had an ancient book that was older than theirs that said something like "AND LO THE MAN LEFT FROM THE FAMILY OF CHIMPS AND IT WAS GOOD AND HIS OFFSPRING WERE PLENTIFUL" or something like that, would they then find it 'acceptable' to believe it?

I think I'm probably answering my own question in that, considering they dismiss every other religion out there as incorrect.

It seems to me that if I find myself in a situation like this one, my answer is just going to be hammering the scientific method and that there is no way to disprove or prove god exists, so you can have your beliefs, just keep them out of the science class.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 08:00 AM
RE: Post Nye/Ham debate Facebook debate
You only have to look at responses to the "would you ever change your mind" image going around that I posted above. My theist friend thought Ham was completely right to base his beliefs on the "solid" foundation of a book, and Nye was vacillating.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
08-02-2014, 08:08 AM
RE: Post Nye/Ham debate Facebook debate
I missed that image when I scrolled through. Nice!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 08:23 AM
RE: Post Nye/Ham debate Facebook debate
Why is everybody so down on carbon dating? I don't get it.

And yeah, about the "would you change your mind?" question, I added that to the end of my last post actually. Sums things up pretty well. I haven't had a response back yet, but I m sure it will be something similar about gods perfect unchanging word...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 08:24 AM
RE: Post Nye/Ham debate Facebook debate
(08-02-2014 04:42 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Colourcraze,

I suggest you see a doctor about those facial bruises. They look pretty nasty.


....I don't get it. Is this a turn the other cheek joke? Or do you think I'm being beaten?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 08:30 AM
RE: Post Nye/Ham debate Facebook debate
You're never going to convince a theist that Bill Nye said anything valuable. It's just that simple. Just like Ham admitted, they're so brainwashed that NOTHING is going to convince them they're wrong. All of the theories and science in the world can't show them that they're parents and the church have lied to them their entire lives.

~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
08-02-2014, 08:32 AM
RE: Post Nye/Ham debate Facebook debate
And it's so crazy cause this guy is like "I just wanna encourage critical thinking"

maybe you could try it sometime?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: