Rocket442Olds Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Just watched it as I was at the hospital this week with my new daughter. I'd say it was a subpar debate, by two folks who aren't really great at organized debate so that was somewhat expected. I like Bill Nye as an educator and think he hit on some great points, but you could tell he was falling into too many rabbit holes that Ham had laid down for him. What I don't understand, errhh scratch that, I understand it completely but it still annoys the **** out of me, is that in a debate that is supposed to be a diversity of life issue (evolution vs creationism) the religious just move the goal posts 14 times to things outside of anything evolution and then use words like "darwinist" and "evolutionist" to group a normal person who understands these theories into a larger group that is so wide-sweeping it makes no sense to do so. I live in New York State, and dislike a lot of what happens here government-wise, but I am so happy I don't have to deal with the lunacy of religious folks trying and succeeding to indoctrinate my children with their beliefs bundled up to pretend to be science. I have to point folks to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial quite often when they wonder why I get annoyed by christians pushing their religion down childrens throats trojan-horse style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Change your understanding of the bible, or believe in the god that fakes evidence. The other option is to deny evidence. That's not a good option. Your children will be ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGoonie55 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Or form your own conclusions based upon reading the bible (or not) and studying science (or not). The two can coexist, or exist in your minds stand alone. This is solely an individuals choice. I am obligated to teach my children both. They can make up their own minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 What's so great about the bible? So many de-conversion stories start with "and then I decided to actually read the bible for myself". Personally, I like the Ancient Greek mythology much better... Funny story - my mother in law wanted to teach my children stories from the bible. I said well, if it's the word or god, let's read it from the source, let's read the Old Testament. She stopped asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I liked the begats for bedtime stories. zzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGoonie55 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 "I don't understand why others feel that/believe that/own that...so I'll just bash it....'MURICA!" Back on topic, new earth creationism vs evolution in schools. I think there is a vast majority that agree, mention creationism as an opposing view - but keep it out of schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket442Olds Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I think there is a vast majority that agree, mention creationism as an opposing view - but keep it out of schools. There is a large difference between an "opposing view", and a alternative theory that holds weight and answers more questions than evolution. It doesn't come close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGoonie55 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 There is a large difference between an "opposing view", and a alternative theory that holds weight and answers more questions than evolution. It doesn't come close. My beliefs aren't in question here. Nor are yours. There was a huge tangent of religion vs non-religion which has been beat to death in other threads, I was just trying to get this back on course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The religious are the most arrogant, self-centered and intellectually dishonest people in existence. I think the most wonderful part about your post is that you were able to write this without even a shred of self-consciousness or sense of irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket442Olds Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 My beliefs aren't in question here. Nor are yours. There was a huge tangent of religion vs non-religion which has been beat to death in other threads, I was just trying to get this back on course. Your point being? I was directly responding to your message, saying that one of these is a scientific theory that holds weight, while the other isn't a valid theory theory at all. Not sure how that isn't part of this debate, considering something that is taught in a science classroom should be the most logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGoonie55 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Precisely my point. This isn't a bash religion thread. There is 'separation of church and state" at question here. Not your nor my beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 If you realized that some of it should not be taken literally, you should also realize that none of it should be taken literally. I think there is a good reason why Ken Ham draws the line too far from reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGoonie55 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 It seems I'm not the one taking the Bible so literally, then using that literal take against others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 If you realized that some of it should not be taken literally, you should also realize that none of it should be taken literally. I agree. I think it's high time we did this with all writing. If we're going to take Doris Kearns Goodwin's latest Presidential biography as literal fact, then by Jove we should use that same lens to analyze George Orwell's Animal Farm! "Author's purpose" and "context" are just code words for chaos. Thanks for taking a principled stand against lily livered picking and choosing! I think there is a good reason why Ken Ham draws the line too far from reality. Yes, as I noted, it benefits both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist atheists to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I agree. I think it's high time we did this with all writing. If we're going to take Doris Kearns Goodwin's latest Presidential biography as literal fact, then by Jove we should use that same lens to analyze George Orwell's Animal Farm! "Author's purpose" and "context" are just code words for chaos. Thanks for taking a principled stand against lily livered picking and choosing! I was just talking about the bible... I think Ken Ham is right in that giving up any literalism puts all literalism in question. Not that taking these ancient stories literally was a defensible position to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGoonie55 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Agreed, most of the quoted statements from Christ himself were parables meant to instill meaning rather than a history lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I was just talking about the bible... Yes, I know. Fundamentalists of all stripes enjoy treating the Bible as a single book, rather than the collection of writings, written by a variety of authors, in a variety of times, for a variety of purposes, in a variety of historical settings, and with a variety of styles, that it actually is. It definitely makes things simpler. I think Ken Ham is right in that giving up any literalism puts all literalism in question. I'm sure you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 If you realized that some of it should not be taken literally, you should also realize that none of it should be taken literally. I think there is a good reason why Ken Ham draws the line too far from reality. I don't think you really want to take the position of it is all true or all not true. Using best practices, even non-believers end up concluding that people like Jesus, Peter, and Paul were real and at least parts of their stories are true (e.g. Paul did travel around the Roman empire trying to convert people to Christianity. He was impriosned for his beliefs etc.). **EDIT** As techboy pointed out below, I quoted the wrong post so I've changed it so that I'm quoting the right post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I don't think you really want to take the position of it is all true or all not true. To be fair to alexey, in that particular post, I believe he was saying that Young Earth Creationists need to either change their understanding of Genesis or believe in a God that created a world that looks old even if it's not, not that you have to take all of the Bible hyperliterally, or none of it. That was a different post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Change your understanding of the bible, or believe in the god that fakes evidence. The other option is to deny evidence. That's not a good option. Your children will be ashamed. This I actually agree with, probably not to the limit you would push it, but over all yes.Change your understanding of the Bible (I'd say stop defending an errant reading of it) or believe that God fakes the evidence. Or deny the evidence (try to muddle up the discussion with irrelevant issues and pretend there is debate). 1/2 a kilometer per year, that's how fast South America would have moved away from Africa, but apparently it stopped when we started paying attention. Must be like the angels from Dr Who! What's so great about the bible? So many de-conversion stories start with "and then I decided to actually read the bible for myself". And there are just as many that began their life of faith by saying, "I'm going to read this Bible and prove it wrong." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotfire Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 This thread is about a debate whether young earth creationism should be taught in science class. Ken Hamm and his followers are arguing that. He is arguing the evolution of species is false. He is arguing that the earth is physically a few thousand years old. He is arguing that very significant parts of well established science which underpins engineering and technology in our modern society is incorrect. Evolution as science is mutually exclusive from young earth creationism. I guess the debate was titled that way to generate excitement, and I honestly haven't watched it yet. I imagine it's an entire debate between Bill Nye and a guy who barely functions as a human being. Nobody can deny that Ken Ham is a bad representative of religion in general, whereas Bill Nye is one of the faces of science in our day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 If you realized that some of it should not be taken literally, you should also realize that none of it should be taken literally. I think there is a good reason why Ken Ham draws the line too far from reality. That's simply absurd.Let's take a biography for example (not saying the Bible is one just using an example) just because the author uses literary devices such as metaphor, or allegory that aren't supposed to be taken literally then by your logic none of it should be taken literally. That thinking is just as absurd as the Fundamentalist who believes the entire thing needs to be taken literally. The reality is that there are many different literary devices employed throughout scripture, just because allegory is used in one place does not mean the entire thing is allegory. To suggest that would simply stand in denial of the different literary devices that exist. Honestly, your arguments have been much better than this one, this is not a good argument at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I was just talking about the bible... I think Ken Ham is right in that giving up any literalism puts all literalism in question. Not that taking these ancient stories literally was a defensible position to begin with.I'm sure you were just talking about the Bible, because even you see how absurd it is when your logic is applied in other places. You want to treat the Bible differently because if you can isolate it then you get to create all your own rules about it in order to reject it. That is simply intellectually dishonest.Add to that the archaeological evidence that back up much of the history of Israel and your absolutist argument simply becomes laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 That is the basis of why this "debate" has not been resolved. People who believe without evidence or in the face of overwhelming evidence should not be respected at all. They should be mocked and ridiculed as intellectually dishonest at best or completely ignorant at worst. Someone who believes in a young earth, talking snakes, virgin births, a 600 year old man putting a mating pair of each animal on a boat and other absurdities should rightfully be ridiculed. The religious are the most arrogant, self-centered and intellectually dishonest people in existence. They think that a supernatural dictator converses with them, they think everything is built and designed for them, they overwhelmingly believe that the end of times will occur in their lifetimes. These people should be ridiculed, mocked, shunned and made to feel like the idiots that they are whenever they publically discuss their beliefs. The tide is already turning in that direction and will exponentially grow with passing years as more and more Americans identify as religiously unaffiliated. MEANWHILE IN THE LEGION OF DOOM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 ASF, Let me clarify. How do we decide which parts of the bible should be taken literally? I see no other reliable way other than comparing it to reality... And in reality we don't seem to observe any supernatural stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.