BILL NYE VS KEN HAM: TONIGHT AT 7 PM

[pocaracas]

[Zen Badger]

You know, where real scientists base their conclusions on the evidence.
As opposed to creation"science" where the evidence is twisted, distorted and generally fucked up by mentally diminutive cretinist morons who've had their chromosomes painted on in order to conform to a Stone Age fairy tale written by goat fucking savages that thought bats were birds. So that they can attempt to give credence to their delusion that the creator of the infinite universe is their special friend.(and incidentally, fleece the gullible masses of even more money in the process)

That objective science.

That’s interesting because I’ve never seen the term objective science used in that way before in scientific literature (which leads me to believe you just made that definition up). What makes someone a real scientist? You do realize that it is logically fallacious to redefine a term in a self-serving manner right? I am feeling very charitable and wanted to give you a little heads up before you answered this question.

That's fine Stat, don't bother addressing my point about about creation scientists being two faced liars for jesus.

Did Ham mention instant light speed or is even he not stupid enough for that?

That’s the position AIG adheres to. It’s not a stupid position at all if you know a thing or two about relativity; which obviously you do not.

No Statler, it is a fucking stupid position, and anyone with real knowledge of relativity knows that.
AIGs position is based on a pathetic need to make their fairytale appear real, nothing else.

[Justtristo]

I don't know why Bill Nye wasted his time debating people like Ken Ham, indeed any creationist for that matter.

The best way of dealing with creationists is not take their views seriously and whenever possible ignore them. That is how flat earthers and geocentrists are treated by everybody else.

[Chad32]

The point was likely because this is one of the few ways you can reach out to an audience that may not be as fundie as people like Ken. People like me who just needed to hear things from outside my bubble to get me going towards a more truthful path.

[Rampant.A.I.]

[orogenicman]

I would like to dedicate this post to Luckie, since she loves long posts.

-SW

<snipped>

Waldorf word salad of the year. Congratulations.

[DeistPaladin]

Regulation of a practice by any authority is an indication of acceptance or approval by the authority of the practice.

Really? So the fact that we have laws regulating and pertaining to adultery means we morally accept adultery?

We have laws regulating adultery? Really? Like, you can cheat with certain people but not others and, by staying within these rules, not end up violating our marital contract? You see, I always thought that committing adultery was grounds for divorce and your estranged spouse could use that against you in legal proceedings but obviously I was mistaken.

I’ll even one-up you, not only did Yahweh regulate polygamy but he ordained that it would happen, and yet it was still evil for men to do it. How do you like that?

Well, I'd like it better if you'd explain the paradox. Was Yahweh unable to make his desires known? Was he able to lay down many detailed rules about sex, from when a woman is "clean" after her menstrual cycles to "don't have sex with your wife's sister" but not something as simple as "one per customer"? Was he powerless to go against the culture of his "chosen people"?

I’ll need a verse. I get paranoid whenever you try to tell me what the Bible says.

You should know me better.

1 Kings 15:5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

The Lord loved David as a nearly perfect man, who's sole sin was his moment of weakness when he had Uriah killed and had sex with his wife. The Bible does NOT say, "...and also the fact that David took more than one wife, a practice that ran against the Lord's rules on strict monogamy in marriage".

Matthew 19:3-8 makes it clear that God regulating something does not mean God approves of it (i.e. divorce).

Which contradicts Mark 10:11 which says divorce is never allowed but let's keep this discussion to the OT when polygamy was practiced. By the time of the NT, Greeco-Roman civilization had introduced monogamy to Judea.

One man and one woman is part of the created ordinance in Genesis 1.

Where?

Please do better than...

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

This passage is saying "don't be a mama's boy". It doesn't preclude cleaving unto more than one woman and the ancient Hebrews certainly didn't.

Deuteronomy 17 says taking multiple wives will lead a man’s heart astray.

The context of the chapter is about remaining true to the worship of Yahweh and there is some concern in the OT about foreign wives leading men astray, to worship other gods. It also forbids the accumulation of great wealth, as this will also corrupt the hearts of men.

Read a couple chapters later and Deut 21 discusses what to do if you like one wife more than another or even hate one wife, how shall you treat your children with them.

Deut 21:15-17 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

Mark 10 explicitly says marriage is made to be between one man and one woman and that it was that way since creation.

...or it was that way since Judea's culture changed under pagan influences and subsequently the nature of their god changed to fit the new culture.

[Minimalist]

[Angrboda]

I don't know why Bill Nye wasted his time debating people like Ken Ham, indeed any creationist for that matter.

"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."
~ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis


Creationism has flourished in the shadows, taking over low level government positions on school boards and city councils because nobody perceived them as a threat there.... until they started cleansing the classroom of good science and substituting "fair and balanced" treatment.

Bill Nye is the perfect person to have such a debate, as his name recognition drew out people who otherwise wouldn't have bothered.

[Justtristo]

The point was likely because this is one of the few ways you can reach out to an audience that may not be as fundie as people like Ken. People like me who just needed to hear things from outside my bubble to get me going towards a more truthful path.

Forgive me I am not from the bible belt of the USA, indeed where I live (Australia) is the total opposite of that part of the world.