Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. Your president or your opinion of him has nothing to do with anything anyone else is talking about here.
It's the same mentality.
Quote:
I don't care about your hangups over having a black president even if they mattered.
It would actually be the other way around. Obama, his church, the Rev. who married the Obamas and baptized their children, and his spiritual mentor of 20+ years would be the ones having hangups over whites, if the same mentality some of you are applying in regards to ID were to apply in this matter.
God is comparable to Santa Claus. Both are watching you all the time, knowing if you've been bad or good, and both will reward or suitably punish you in the end.
It's the exact same story.
I can draw the same similarities between Santa Claus and our current President...
My point is that people taking that position are being purposefully smug and condescending. Debating by calling your opponent an idiot or deluded does nothing to move the conversation forward, and I'd expect more from the side who claims the intellectual high ground.
I just got to watch most of the debate and it was very interesting. I went into this on the side of Nye and I come out of it the same. I will say though that Ham at least conducted himself fairly respectably and was not the caricature of a creationist that I thought he would be. Regardless, I always find it interesting how he and all creationists try to use selective bits of science to try and disprove science. And yet when questions like "what proof would make you believe that the world is older?"' are asked he can only dismiss the question because if he gives an answer and it is then shown to him he would have to give up his world view, which of course he will not do at any cost. When the same question is put to Nye he says, "easy, just show me the evidence and I will be happy to change my view." This is exactly why fundamentalism is such a pox on humanity. There is no evidence, no proof, no explanation that can change the fundamentalist's viewpoint from his current position without them opening up their belief system to the possibility that there is another explanation.
Another issue is Ham was asked repeatedly to show how his viewpoint could be used to accurately predict the future, which is what science tries to do. Again he could not answer or just would not answer it.
Lastly, another very telling moment for me is when Ham was asked if his view of the bible was a literal interpretation of it. Ham's response was basically that the parts that he agreed with were a literal interpretation but other parts, like being able to have multiple wives or touching a pigs skin deserves a stoning were just parables or poetry. That's a very difficult metal hoop he has to jump through in order to hold tight to his view of the world. "It depends on what you define literally as," he said. If he is asking our interpretation of the word "literal" then how can we possibly accept his interpretation of the tens of thousands of words in the bible as "the truth?" And Nye did a great job asking him why is it that we have to believe his interpretation of the Bible? Why is it his interpretation of it is the only correct one? Of course he had no answer for that. Speaking of which, why is it that a book that was written over two thousand years ago by people that spoke ancient Aramaic, was written in ancient Greek, translated into countless languages that have changed dramatically over the millenia possibly have the exact same meaning in modern English as it originally had? Shouldn't bible literalists be able to fluently understand ancient Greek if they truly want to know the word of god then? If they don't take the scientists views of the world as accurate then how can they possibly take the countless HUMAN interpreters of the bible as absolutely accurate?
Last edited by biggunsmallbrains; 02-06-2014 at 03:20 PM..
Enough merit for Bill Nye to engage in a scientific debate with one.
Dunno about that. I engage denialists in order to show the home audience their claims are garbage. Could be Nye has the same attitude. Also, I think it's this Ham guy who thinks his views have merit. Nye thinks it's his views that are the way to go. Hence, debate.
Dunno about that. I engage denialists in order to show the home audience their claims are garbage. Could be Nye has the same attitude. Also, I think it's this Ham guy who thinks his views have merit. Nye thinks it's his views that are the way to go. Hence, debate.
P.S. Nye's right.
How noble.
Ham probably just wants to educate others on creationism, the dishonesty being taught about evolution, and through that lead others to salvation.
I just got to watch most of the debate and it was very interesting. I went into this on the side of Nye and I come out of it the same. I will say though that Ham at least conducted himself fairly respectably and was not the caricature of a creationist that I thought he would be. Regardless, I always find it interesting how he and all creationists try to use selective bits of science to try and disprove science. And yet when questions like "what proof would make you believe that the world is older?"' are asked he can only dismiss the question because if he gives an answer and it is then shown to him he would have to give up his world view, which of course he will not do at any cost. When the same question is put to Nye he says, "easy, just show me the evidence and I will be happy to change my view." This is exactly why fundamentalism is such a pox on humanity. There is no evidence, no proof, no explanation that can change the fundamentalist's viewpoint from his current position without them opening up their belief system to the possibility that there is another explanation.
Another issue is Ham was asked repeatedly to show how his viewpoint could be used to accurately predict the future, which is what science tries to do. Again he could not answer or just would not answer it.
Lastly, another very telling moment for me is when Ham was asked if his view of the bible was a literal interpretation of it. Ham's response was basically that the parts that he agreed with were a literal interpretation but other parts, like being able to have multiple wives or touching a pigs skin deserves a stoning were just parables or poetry. That's a very difficult metal hoop he has to jump through in order to hold tight to his view of the world. "It depends on what you define literally as," he said. If he is asking our interpretation of the word "literal" then how can we possibly accept his interpretation of the tens of thousands of words in the bible as "the truth?" And Nye did a great job asking him why is it that we have to believe his interpretation of the Bible? Why is it his interpretation of it is the only correct one? Of course he had no answer for that. Speaking of which, why is it that a book that was written over two thousand years ago by people that spoke ancient Aramaic, was written in ancient Greek, translated into countless languages that have changed dramatically over the millenia possibly have the exact same meaning in modern English as it originally had? Shouldn't bible literalists be able to fluently understand ancient Greek if they truly want to know the word of god then? If they don't take the scientists views of the world as accurate then how can they possibly take the countless HUMAN interpreters of the bible as absolutely accurate?
Ham probably just wants to educate others on creationism, the dishonesty being taught about evolution, and through that lead others to salvation.
And yet, by his ignorance of science, he is pushing away people from salvation. "Check your brain at the door" is not a great marketing tactic to follow a religion.
I can draw the same similarities between Santa Claus and our current President...
My point is that people taking that position are being purposefully smug and condescending. Debating by calling your opponent an idiot or deluded does nothing to move the conversation forward, and I'd expect more from the side who claims the intellectual high ground.
Yeah, but here's the thing. Show me where I called anyone an idiot or deluded.
That being said, you can't deny the parallels between Santa and God. It's the exact same story of an all-powerful being watching you, weighing your transgressions and meting out punishments.
If you want to compare Obama to God or Santa, knock yourself out. No thin skin off my nose.
And yet, by his ignorance of science, he is pushing away people from salvation. "Check your brain at the door" is not a great marketing tactic to follow a religion.
What did he say during that debate that would suggest he is ignorant of science?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
