GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV

Debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham

Austin_hull

Austin_hull

Für Die Liebe Des Autos
1) No one answered the real question of the debate.
2) Nye's answers to SEVERAL questions were "I dunno...that's a mystery"
- You really wanna believe in something that literally can't explain the origin of what it claims?
3) Ham is a genius. So is Nye. They both debated on about a 3rd grade level. Nye was making a PSA for "science in today's kids", and Ham just tried to shove religion down Nye's throat. Neither one of them talked about the Laws of Physics, and the one Law of Thermodynamics that they talked about, was irrelevant. I don't need "God and religion" to prove that evolution isn't a viable solution to the question "Where did the earth come from?" There is intelligent design. Whether you want to believe in a "God" or not, is up to you, but you just cannot not deny the fact that evolution leaves WAY too much to speculation.
4) Ham didn't answer Nye's questions, because it wasn't about answering Nye's questions, it was about answering the viewer's questions. (At least at the end)
5) Religious or not, I'm not gonna shove my beliefs down anyone's throat, but I was THOROUGHLY disappointed by both men.
 
FaLLeNAn9eL

FaLLeNAn9eL

JESUS HATES FLAT TIRE
I don't know about you but I think it's admirable to admit that you don't know the answer to questions. Also, you can't really fault the guy for not knowing the answer to some of the questions. We're at a point in time where science doesn't have all of the answers but it's not like they're simply giving up and leaving it at that.
 
dustinwark

dustinwark

Miesian
Austin_hull said:
1) No one answered the real question of the debate.
2) Nye's answers to SEVERAL questions were "I dunno...that's a mystery"
- You really wanna believe in something that literally can't explain the origin of what it claims?
3) Ham is a genius. So is Nye. They both debated on about a 3rd grade level. Nye was making a PSA for "science in today's kids", and Ham just tried to shove religion down Nye's throat. Neither one of them talked about the Laws of Physics, and the one Law of Thermodynamics that they talked about, was irrelevant. I don't need "God and religion" to prove that evolution isn't a viable solution to the question "Where did the earth come from?" There is intelligent design. Whether you want to believe in a "God" or not, is up to you, but you just cannot not deny the fact that evolution leaves WAY too much to speculation.
4) Ham didn't answer Nye's questions, because it wasn't about answering Nye's questions, it was about answering the viewer's questions. (At least at the end)
5) Religious or not, I'm not gonna shove my beliefs down anyone's throat, but I was THOROUGHLY disappointed by both men.
Click to expand...

1) Which was?
2) That's called science! If we knew all the answers, there would be no reason to keep experimenting.
3) Ham is a genius? I haven't seen any evidence of that. BOOM OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE. You misunderstand; no one claims evolution is the solution to the question "Where did the Earth come from?" Magic doesn't leave too much to speculation?
4) It was a debate between the two men, it was ABSOLUTELY about answering each other's claims.
5) Thanks for sparing us.
 
B

Buffgli

Ready to race!
You can't use one to explain the other. Science and religion don't go together because one uses empirical data to draw conclusions about observations made in the environment around us; creationism doesn't have hard evidence so there is no point of even having such a cockamamie debate, rendering the debate irrelevant.

The one commonality between the two is that not everything is explainable in science nor religion.

/thread


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top