Captain Jordan said
Personally, I don't see why religion and science have to be diametrically opposed. To me, science tells us the HOW about the Universe. Religion tells us the WHY about the Universe. God created the Universe? Cool. Makes sense, there had to be before the Big Bang. Maybe God sneezed. Or pushed a domino over. Whatever. He started stuff. Six days? Could have felt like it to God. We may have been made in his image, but I'm damn sure God isn't human. He's got to be some being that exists beyond the three dimensions that we exist in. And so on and so forth.

If all we're talking about is observation though, the hypothetical isn't technically relevant. I kind of strongly disagree with the idea Nye is arguing right now -- that you can (with certainty) assume that the laws of nature are a persistent constant. That's a mammoth assumption which by its nature you can't support scientifically -- it might be the best guess and I have no qualms with somebody making it, but when you start to look down on people for thinking otherwise you've made an error.

The counter argument is "you didn't personally observe it, thus you can't expertly speak to this point."

I'd charge Ken Ham to plant a tree in his backyard. Ten years later, he should cut it down and count the rings. There should be enough rings to account for ten years. Then it doesn't matter if you personally observed it or not, you can extrapolate based on the fact that all trees make rings in a similar fashion.

I want Bill to destroy this observation argument like this. Please, please, please!

Captain Jordan said
The counter argument is "you didn't personally observe it, thus you can't expertly speak to this point."I'd charge Ken Ham to plant a tree in his backyard. Ten years later, he should cut it down and count the rings. There should be enough rings to account for ten years. Then it doesn't matter if you personally observed it or not, you can extrapolate based on the fact that all trees make rings in a similar fashion. I want Bill to destroy this observation argument like this. Please, please, please!

That's what I mean. The fact that tree rings currently grow at a rate of 1light/1dark per year, is not disputed. The notion that they always must have is an act of willful belief -- supported, yes, by modern observation, and also not necessarily true throughout history as a persistent fact. More significantly I'd bring this up with regards to the rate of species development -- we know that rate is changing because of human impact on the environment, we've observed that the rate isn't constant, so isn't it logical to deduce that the body of data is influenced by more factors than a simple mathematical average or counting based on years?

I enjoy how this debate is being held with out the argument over whether or not God exists. Good job.

aaaaaaaaaaand my video is too glitchy to watch anymore. Shit.

edit: Yep, I give up.

Shy said
I enjoy how this debate is being held with out the argument over whether or not God exists. Good job.

Here's my question. If Creationism is the only truth, why is the majority of the world NOT Christian?

Captain Jordan said
Here's my question. If Creationism is the only truth, why is the majority of the world not Christian?

Did you not just hear Ken say that "Just because something is the majority, doesn't make it true," as well as his doctor example?

Also Ham totally dodged the asking for evidence other than the Bible by saying "well none of it is valid"

Shy said
Did you not just hear Ken say that "Just because something is the majority, doesn't make it true," as well as his doctor example?

Teehee.

Captain Jordan said
Personally, I don't see why religion and science have to be diametrically opposed. To me, science tells us the HOW about the Universe. Religion tells us the WHY about the Universe. God created the Universe? Cool. Makes sense, there had to be before the Big Bang. Maybe God sneezed. Or pushed a domino over. Whatever. He started stuff. Six days? Could have felt like it to God. We may have been made in his image, but I'm damn sure God isn't human. He's got to be some being that exists beyond the three dimensions that we exist in. And so on and so forth.

I think it comes down to the fact that the nature of science, by general definition, is that it's based in change -- accepting new ideas, re-defining present knowledge, finding new explanations and testing theories (and then replacing old ones once we have better ones). The nature of religion is essentially inert -- steeped in the preservation of history as it is written, unaccepting of any new information which may change previously accepted historical-based 'facts'.

It's only natural that the two are going to butt heads when one is based in preservation and the other is essentially founded in the practice of the opposite. That's not to say that I think people can't pick and choose what suits them from either camp and share beliefs from the two different systems -- arguments only really start (as always) when you get into extremists from either side. Personally, I'm comfortable in the middle of the road, saying that both camps make good points, but neither is perfect or, ultimately, 100% correct. Now, if I say that to a scientist, he would likely agree and and welcome new information as to how we can make the system more accurate through testing and research. If I said that to a religious person, they would find my saying their system is imperfect to be an attack on their belief because it's saying their historical records are wrong, which threatens to break down their whole system. I think this difference in reaction is where we ultimately wind up getting in trouble.

(Edit: And Bill Nye just made reference to the difference above that I just mentioned. Thank you, Bill.)

Ken Ham sure is a cunt. That's twice he's come back with "LOLOLOLOL WE KNOW ALREADY THERE'S A BOOK THAT SAID GOD DID IT"

Here is my question:

Ham keeps talking about how historical science can't be known because it is based completely on assumptions due to the fact that we weren't there at the time. My question is how can he know that the Bible is the word of God? Was he around back when it was compiled or written?

I'm counting how many times Ham tries to lead people.

Beatrix said
I'm counting how many times Ham tries to lead people.

His suit jacket isn't sized properly and it bothers me. The little things.

Shy said
His suit jacket isn't sized properly and it bothers me. The little things.

He reminds me of my skinny ass brother trying to wear suits.

Shy said
His suit jacket isn't sized properly and it bothers me. The little things.

YESYESYESYESYESYESYES!

Ham just said you can't scientifically prove the Earth is young or old. Does that not sort of blow his own dating out of the proverbial water, too? lol

Sherlock Holmes said
Ham just said you can't scientifically prove the Earth is young or old. Does that not sort of blow his own dating out of the proverbial water, too? lol

No, because the Bible is always right.

Sherlock Holmes said
Ham just said you can't scientifically prove the Earth is young or old. Does that not sort of blow his own dating out of the proverbial water, too? lol

He dates it by the Bible, which is the infallible Word of God. Not through science.

Captain Jordan said
YESYESYESYESYESYESYES!

Glad someone else noticed it :p Like Bill Nye is skinnier and he found one that fits. Come on bro.

Sherlock Holmes said
Ham just said you can't scientifically prove the Earth is young or old. Does that not sort of blow his own dating out of the proverbial water, too? lol

Considering he ranted about assumptions and then went on to state that there is only one infallible source which is the book he assumes is the word of his deity and that he assumes is right, not surprising

GREEN IS NOT A CREATIVE COLOR BILL