Humanity's Origin Debate: Bill Nye (Evolution) vs. Ken Ham (Creationism)

[Patrick Chewing]

No, they do not use the same "blind faith". Unlike the magic described in the bible, we can actually observe evolution occurring around us. Evolution is the reason there is a growing problem of antibacterial resistant bacteria, evolution is the reason that some weeds have become immune to herbicides. There are many real world examples of evolution in action, there is no real world evidence for any of the bullshit believed by creationists.

Macroevolution, evolution on a larger scale from species to species (i.e. ape to human) is not observable. It would only be an assumption and not a fact to state that humans and animals evolved from some other species.

[KeylessEntry]

Macroevolution, evolution on a larger scale from species to species (i.e. ape to human) is not observable. It would only be an assumption and not a fact to state that humans and animals evolved from some other species.

Because macroevolution is just multiple micro changes over a very long time scale. The bottom line is that the mechanisms behind evolution can be observed in action, while zero evidence for creationism can be observed.

The study of evolution is a core part of every biology degree offered by major universities in the United States, but you cant study creationism anywhere other than bible colleges. That should tell you something right there.

[Akrazotile]

Often times scientists purport their "best current guesses" as facts, and people in the public looking for an intellectual edge grab it and run to message boards and shout it out to appear superior to the religious.

Truth is, we dont know our origins. Nobody does. Its certainly worth studying and exploring, but making debates about it into live spectacles only satisfies our primal urge to compete over things and be declared victorious. It doesnt really advance the cause of understanding.

[HardwoodLegend]

Often times scientists purport their "best current guesses" as facts, and people in the public looking for an intellectual edge grab it and run to message boards and shout it out to appear superior to the religious.

Truth is, we dont know our origins. Nobody does. Its certainly worth studying and exploring, but making debates about it into live spectacles only satisfies our primal urge to compete over things and be declared victorious. It doesnt really advance the cause of understanding.

The purpose of the debate is not to compete and declare a victor. Since it's worth studying and exploring as you say, the debate is attempting to determine which model is a more viable method in the educational system. What is the point of having creationism in schools anyway? There are a plethora of creationist theories about our origin, so which one deserves a spot in the textbooks? And, why can't children just discover all of these on their own elsewhere?

[FKAri]

Basically.

What next, a debate on what causes thunder & lightning- electrostatic discharge or Zeus being pissed off?

It's 2014 for ****'s sake

But what causes electrostatic discharge? The electromagnetic force. What generates the electromagnetic force? Zeus. Checkmate.

[Akrazotile]

The purpose of the debate is not to compete and declare a victor. Since it's worth studying and exploring as you say, the debate is attempting to determine which model is a more viable method in the educational system. What is the point of having creationism in schools anyway? There are a plethora of creationist theories about our origin, so which one deserves a spot in the textbooks? And, why can't children just discover all of these on their own elsewhere?

In my personal opinion creationism does not have a place in academic textbooks, because there is very little elaboration on the basic concept or empirical evidence to study. That doesnt mean that the general suppossition is not right, nor that it is right. Just that it is not compatible with typical academic study. Creationism inherently takes a position that cant be proved, and evolutionary science seeks to determine what can be proved. They are different approaches, but so far neither has produced an irrefutable solution, and my belief is that neither ever likely will. However the scientific method is useful learning for practical, everyday applications of life. Not to mention there are some aspects of evolution that are undeniable, and it's something that is interesting and stimulating to explore further.

There are many things at the atomic and galatic levels that seem to defy scientific and mathematic explaination, and yet we know them to exist. In my experience people that are supremely assumptive about the purely scientific origins and nature of life are talking way over their head. They learned a basic outline of a theory or a sample of scientific data, and start walking around like theyre suddenly the almighty gatekeeper of lifes secrets. Reminds me of the classic 'just heard Immortal Technique for the first time yesterday - walks around today like the all-time hip hop authority' deal.

I am a firm science enthusiast. That doesnt mean I have to view it as unimpeachable. Similar to how one can watch a basketball game, without HAVING to be for one team or the other. Just observe and allow things to unfold as they will.

[Akrazotile]

Because macroevolution is just multiple micro changes over a very long time scale. The bottom line is that the mechanisms behind evolution can be observed in action, while zero evidence for creationism can be observed.

The study of evolution is a core part of every biology degree offered by major universities in the United States, but you cant study creationism anywhere other than bible colleges. That should tell you something right there.

Here we have a fugazi.


He thinks he knows. But he doesnt know.

Somewhere, Socrates is laughing.

[longhornfan1234]

Christians today against evolution = medieval Christians against a heliocentric universe.

Thousands of years and still haven't learned a damned thing. Idiots.



I wish the Christfags would form their own party and stop ruining the Republican party.

[Meticode]

I listened to it for about an hour and I gave creationism it's fair shot, but I can't get past the fact that they're basically saying humans and dinosaurs walked earth during the same periods. They're ignoring a ton of evidence that clearly shows the earth is older than 6000 years. From fossils, to dinosaurs appearing in a specific part of one continent and are on another continent as well when they were connected together as a bigger land-mass that takes millions of years.

I almost laughed when Bill Nye drew the diagram of kangaroos coming from the middle east to Australia and us not ever finding any kangaroo-like fossils in that area, but magically some how they ended up in Australia from the Middle East where the Ark is believed to have settled.

[rezznor]

Christians today against evolution = medieval Christians against a heliocentric universe.

Thousands of years and still haven't learned a damned thing. Idiots.



I wish the Christfags would form their own party and stop ruining the Republican party.

first time i have ever agreed with you on anything politics related

[Akrazotile]

I listened to it for about an hour and I gave creationism it's fair shot, but I can't get past the fact that they're basically saying humans and dinosaurs walked earth during the same periods. They're ignoring a ton of evidence that clearly shows the earth is older than 6000 years. From fossils, to dinosaurs appearing in a specific part of one continent and are on another continent as well when they were connected together as a bigger land-mass that takes millions of years.

I almost laughed when Bill Nye drew the diagram of kangaroos coming from the middle east to Australia and us not ever finding any kangaroo-like fossils in that area, but magically some how they ended up in Australia from the Middle East where the Ark is believed to have settled.

Well, if I tried to explain calculus to someone who was unfamiliar with it by drawing a diagram of humans and dinosaurs, they would probably think calculus is pretty absurd as well. Just because the explanation is poor or insufficient in your estimation doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is wrong.

All I can tell you is that people tend to divide up between two polar ends, and argue back and forth about whose right, when the truth is usually somewhere in between. People either think 9/11 was a Reptilian conspiracy with controlled demolitions plotted by secret society of illuminati, or they think it was fairly and accurately explained as a pure terrorist attack by angry muslims. And they argue back and forth all day long. People think the Earth was made 7,000 years ago and humans and dinasaurs were chillin together, or they think it's a foregone conclusion that a lightning spark created the organic sentience from which we come.

Usually the reason people pick one side from which to argue against the other is because the other side is usually an easy target, because it's usually wrong. The answers are more vague and more elusive than we'd like to admit, but when "the other" side thinks they know all the details, it's easy to poke holes in their theory and declare some sort of victory.

Well WOOOPADEEE DOOOOO MISTER MAGOO.

I don't know what that means. That concludes the train of thought for this post.

[Akrazotile]

What I can tell you is that KeylessEntry is without a doubt the all-time authority on the mysteries of reality and existence and perception and experience. This guy clearly has all the answers. One of his posts even had the word "science" in it so he MUST be right about everything. We are truly blessed to have contact with a sage of the this magnitude on. What's comforting to know is that his infinite wisdom, absorbed through tireless minutes of watching The Universe on History Channel HD, provides such clarity and direction to our journey through lifes paradoxes.

Based KeylessEntry, please share more of your keen, complex scientific expertise with us. We will be forever grateful. That is, provided 'forever' even exists. Which I've actually been meaning to ask you.

[CelticBaller]

Religious debates are pointless and stupid

[bladefd]

All I can tell you is that people tend to divide up between two polar ends, and argue back and forth about whose right, when the truth is usually somewhere in between. People think the Earth was made 7,000 years ago and humans and dinasaurs were chillin together, or they think it's a foregone conclusion that a lightning spark created the organic sentience from which we come.

Usually the reason people pick one side from which to argue against the other is because the other side is usually an easy target, because it's usually wrong. The answers are more vague and more elusive than we'd like to admit, but when "the other" side thinks they know all the details, it's easy to poke holes in their theory and declare some sort of victory.

The question is though: which side is more viable? Evidence and the ability of falsification speaks volumes. Also, no scientist with any credibility will say that 'lightning spark created organic sentience'.

A biologist will probably say something along the lines of "Yes, we do have sentient life forms on Earth. We know some mechanisms of how carbon-based organic molecules could be formed from just individual atoms. How those organic molecules become as complex as life we know it is something we do not know how that happened EXACTLY, but it is our field's goal to figure it out"

That, to me, is not a foregone conclusion. What is foregone conclusion is a theologist standing up, saying "We have life because god created it. If you want to know more, read the bible" then sitting down with his hands crossed. That is a foregone conclusion, and it alarms me. That is the exact opposite of science. What sort of message will that send? "We do not need to know anymore because of GOD. We already know everything there is to know because of GOD. Our past, present & future is all GOD. Glory to GOD."

[Take Your Lumps]

I almost laughed when Bill Nye drew the diagram of kangaroos coming from the middle east to Australia and us not ever finding any kangaroo-like fossils in that area, but magically some how they ended up in Australia from the Middle East where the Ark is believed to have settled.

Kangaroos can jump. Really far.