/sci/ - Science & Math

Let me ruin it for you.
>But scientists have done research and they've found this
>No. Where's the proof?
>The research is evidence. All these papers are evidence.
>No. But where's the proof?
>RIGHT HERE!
>That's great and all but where's the proof?
>Fine, fuck you then.
>See, you can't prove anything! I'm right!

>>6320951

>caring about the fedora vs plebeians debate

go to /pol/ you don't belong here

>>6320956
Pretty much..

>>6320957
Fuck off to /b/ with that ridiculous fedora meme and never come back.

>>6320956
Too much this.
Guy like Ham and Ray Comfort and so many apologist are not debating for real. They don't acknowledge points or evidence, they just chant their mantras.
Just watch it for the comedy, (bible as evidence lelel) and try not to be sad that so many people will be convinced by Ham

>>6320957
What is your IQ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgGwnbFJBNU

I can't stop laughing.

Stop calling this a "debate".

Nye shouldn't be doing this cause the fact that he steps on the stage with Ham just automatically gives creationism some degree of credibility (by showing it is a debatable subject). It is not a debate. The debate ended years ago.

>>6320996
>some idiots posted rude comments on my video
>this proves creationism
my sides

>>6320996
maybe it's the Christians suppressing the truth.
DIDNT THINK OF THAT DID YOU KEN

>>6321003
>>6320983
Do you guys seriously think that debates are more than entertainment?

>>6322642

Why isn't this faggot permabanned yet?
https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S6320951#p6320951

>>6322644
https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S6237016#p6240519
https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S6266664#p6266670

This is why.

http://youtu.be/mRMmV-c2uDM

It's going to be a trainwreck. You can't debate these people, they're just looking for a platform to spout their catchphrases.

>>6322811
Fuck, he's sexy.

>>6322838
What is this I don't even?
He looks like a redneck Fu Manchu

>>6322913
Dude be freaky looking,
But he's pretty interesting despite his goblinesque apperance.

Honestly, do you think logic is the right tool to use to sway creationists away from irrationality? All this does is entrench them deeper. People derive a sense of purpose and emotional fulfillment from religion. When you argue against it you are a threat to them because you are trying to take something from them without offering anything in replacement. They can't even conceive of how they could live without it. The best you can do is show them how it is possible for a godless atheist to have passion and fulfilment without deriving it from a god. How do you see beauty in a Universe without a creator? Once they learn how to do that, then they will wake up one day and realize their irrational beliefs are redundant. Starting with the irrational beliefs is putting the cart before the horse.

>>6322838
I love him

some atheist kid in my class was talking about this the other day. i'm also non-religious, but i definitely don't want anything to do with this.

>>6320951
Debating the age of the earth is interesting, but why do you drag religion into this? The simple issue is "What is the age of the earth?". Whether it was made by God, Gods, Big Bang, Aliens or something else only deals with "how it was made", not "how long it has been around". The thing is the age as people commonly refer to it is largely based on correlative extrapolation data which is by no means "proof" for either side. Both could talk till they where blue in the face, neither would really "win" do to lack of direct data. And that is before anyone brings in the concept of "faith" which be definition lacks "proof".

Also why do you imply a connection between illogical thought and God. The original reason for developing the scientific method was to better know God through logically analyzing the world he created. We need to understand the actions of an individual doesn't represent the whole group, especially when their actions violate the rules they claim to follow. Such actions would be as bad as a scientist only using one data point for a tend line.

>>6323454
>Debating the age of the earth is interesting, but why do you drag religion into this?
Because the people who don't accept the age of the Earth are religious fanatics.

>>6323465
Being a religious fanatic isn't necessary to hold that belief though.
>The people who don't accept the age of the Earth are religious fanatics.
If I were to not accept the age of the Earth, I am automatically a religious fanatic. That obviously does not make sense.

>>6320996
i don't understand his point
so someone was rude to him so he's right

>>6320951
This is like a phd in economics debating an anarcho-primitivist.

This legitimatizes anarcho-primitivism as a study and this is bad. Bill Nye should never have agreed to this, there's no point debating someone who doesn't believe in evidence.

>>6323454
plants were never an element lol >>>/vp/

Guys, honest question here. If we can't prove God exists, why can't we prove that God doesn't exist?

>>6321003
At least cite where you plagiarized your information, dickhead. http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2014/1/16/why-bill-nye-shouldn-t-debate-ken-ham

>>6323492
I think its supposed to stand for the earth, ergo, dirt and rocks.

>>6320951
Love how open minded and data gathering this post is. Just like evolution.

>>6323495
Skepticism.

>>6323481
One side is calm, reasonable, willing to look at all the evidence, is not emotionally involved, and does not chimp out when the other side speaks.

The evolutionists chimp out, harass, call names, yell, scream, selectively leave out evidence, draw bogus conclusions, and basically act like children.

When one side is willing to sit down and debate, and the other side can do nothing but call people names, it's pretty clear who's confident, and who is not.

>>6323495

Because God is. God is the Great I Am. You cannot "prove" that God does not exist; can you imagine the exhaustive search of everything that is that would require you to develop technologies massive enough to begin to fathom the likelihood of finding God on our own?

>>6323492
Actually an number of cultures (i.e. Chinese) considered Wood a classic element (sometime combing all planets under it). Although it the trend of combing planets with the element Earth makes more sense for the picture.

Admittedly not how I would have done it, nor the best picture to start with. But I couldn't find a better picture as most where like the one for this post, which is a such false binary propaganda I was tempted not to post it at all.

Why is it so hard to find pictures that encourage thinking rather then some trash with targeted emotional responds with polarizing wording?

>>6321003
Of course it's a debate. Your bias cannot turn a debate into something other than what it is; it is not, for instance, a cooking show.

>>6323524

>>6323527
Pictures speak to emotions; they draw out emotions, in ways words do not. In your picture, for instance, I note that the ReligiOFF scenario is not Dachau, a gulag, or the Killing Fields.

>>6320996

So, he's funny to you? Funny how? Funny like a clown, funny? He amuses you? The way he talks? You saying he talks funny?

>>6323524

>>6323454
The bible has staked out a specific position.

It first makes the claim that it is the infallible Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, regardless of the men authoring each book within.

It then draws a genealogy in Luke from Jesus backwards all the way to Adam. It also includes genealogies forward from Adam, making it possible to be fairly certain, especially with historical clues, that the line from Jesus to Adam was about 4,000 years long.

Jesus makes further statements in the bible that God created mankind "in the beginning", and "on Day Six". Thus there is no "aeons" or "ages" in Genesis, just an orderly creation of the universe in six 24 hour days, by an omnipotent supernatural being.

So there you have it. The bible states rather conclusively that the world is fairly young; about 6,000 years +/- 500.

"Science" has attacked that for centuries now, to the point where people like yourself assume "we now know better" and that the earth is millions, if not billions, of years old.

These two theories, if you will, are mutually exclusive, and the pitiful attempts to merge them are rather easily discarded by both sides.

If the earth is young, and it is, the bible is confirmed as being right, as usual.

And as usual, the attacks against the bible, and against God Himself, will ultimately fail.

>>6323078
this, I was pleasantly surprised, seems like a cool guy

>>6323539
>>6323544

Big enough?

>>6322811
Wow. This ugly ass dude has already conceded defeat, has already made excused for Bill Nye losing the debate, and has already, oh, I don't know, hit every branch of the ugly tree on the way down.

>>6323544
>to the point where people like yourself assume "we now know better" and that the earth is millions, if not billions, of years old.

LOL

I actually believe in the young Earth idea and believe the Bible. However I do not support my stance with the Bible, as it is a faith based text. I have no proof the Bible is true or God is real, but I have faith it is so. I admit it took me years to resolve this apparent contraction, but it is actually simple when one looks more carefully at what faith really is.

I do however support the idea we have no idea how old the earth is based on my understanding of science. I have found plenty of evidence to show we don't know how old it is. While I do not have the evidence to show the earth is young. I do use the Bible as a a personal reference given the lack of other data and reject the adapted versions that meet in the middle.

>>6323551
He's not saying that Bill is wrong, he is saying that he is going to be in a situation where he wont have the high ground. Like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Or being prosecuted by a crooked court.

>>6323624
>but it is actually simple when one looks more carefully at what faith really is.
Can you please share that with us?

I was actually going to ask you what you thought faith even meant before I saw this line

>>6323813
Faith is the ability to believe something you cannot see.

Everyone has faith.

Everyone uses faith.

Every day.

>>6323826
>believe what people tell you without looking at the obvious contradictions and fallacies in how it's written. Also, don't question it, just go along with it.

There. Faith.

>>6323526
You'd have to first prove that God exists. The burden of proof is on those who claim it's existence, not on those who question it.

Their "proof" is their faith, and a single, dated book. Nothing observable, nothing testable, just a text that they regard as an interpretable truth.

>>6323826
>Faith is the ability to believe something you cannot see.
Ok, I can go along with this definition.
Can you clarify now what you mean by belief?

I ask because I took belief and faith as synonyms. If you want to separate them you will need to define both.

>>6323813
Sorry I took so long.

Faith is to believe something when there is no evidence or even contradictory evidence. This is why we have terms like "blind faith". Because it don't involve substantiation people sometime think less of it. Under some definitions if the faith can be "proven" then it is no longer considered a faith but is now "fact" as there is an implied substantiation in the proving.

>>6323850
Belief is an acceptance of something to be true or at least true enough. Similar to the starting assumptions in a theory. Beliefs often, but not always, seem reasonable at first glance and are needed for other things.

One critical problem with all of this is the idea of truth, which goes into a huge mess that has plagued philosophy for as long as anyone can remember. Is there absolute truth, can it be obtained? At what point does a fact become a fact or even a truth. This can lead to madding things like the "brain in a vat" (pic).

A part of this is that under certain points science itself can be viewed as a faith. Where theories are just beliefs and so on. The problem with this is assuming we know knowing is very dysfunctional, and assuming we know everything prevents new discoveries which could be useful. As God is viewed (at least in the Catholic Church) to be absolute truth the scientific method was developed so we could get closer to God by finding parts of his truth.

So everyone is forced to find some kind of standard to use, less nothing ever get done and we argue about definitions all day. A good mini example is "correlation doesn't equal causation" yet we use "correlation equals causation" all the time because it works most of the time. Ideally we would never use "correlation doesn't equal causation" as there is no true backing for it, but because it works for most things it becomes a functional belief as with just about everything else.

Does that help a bit? I suggest reading on philosophy as that covers this better.

>>6323928
>Where theories are just beliefs and so on
I thought you might say something like that.

But it's not true. Maybe some people or scientists believe in a theory, that doesn't make it ok. Believing in anything is just a crutch if you're too lazy to keep in mind what the truth is.

For example, is the universe completely random or do things behave according to laws? We actually cannot know for sure, and I don't "believe" it's the later, I simply accept that for the former to produce our universe it has incoprehensibly low odds, so if I were a scientist investigating things I would probably go with the later on a hunch (a very well founded hunch) not a "belief".

Of course a creator of some sort is one possible explanation of producing our universe. Setting religion aside, a deity is actually a real possibility. Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that, regardless of what they think personally.
I don't "believe" in one way or the other, and for you to do so is a very poor way to get at real answers. I'll consider anything anyone has to say about the idea of there being a creator or not as long as it is logically sound.
The idea of a creator itself is logically sound (even though it raises a lot more questions than it would potentially answer).

You're free to take that as your 'preferred choice' (i.e. what you would bet money on, or what you cross your fingers for and hope turns out to be correct) but assuming it is correct and calling it "belief" is the biggest mistake mankind has ever made. I think that word "belief" is something that gets abused so much and the people using it don't really know what they are implying with it.

If you really want to you can still go around considering yourself a "believer", but don't you dare go telling people that everyone does because I sure as hell don't "believe" in anything and you don't have my permission to tell people I do.

>>6323956
>Of course a creator of some sort is one possible explanation of producing our universe. Setting religion aside, a deity is actually a real possibility. Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that, regardless of what they think personally.

While this is technically true, the implications of it are really absurd to me.

There would have to be something capable of creating the Universe, presumably consciously. Thats far more absurd than and unlikely to me than any of the naturalistic theories for the creation of the universe, simply because those require far less as a starting point.

Simply put, the existence of a Deity powerful enough to create the Universe (and that it is the uncaused cause) is exponentially more absurd than The Big Bang Theory.

>>6323967
But you're arguing liklihoods, not possibilities.

Regardless of what you said, it still remains a possibility. This is the point I was trying to make to that guy, while I agree with you I don't "believe" that there is no creator.

You're right that it's highly unlikely, (occams razor and whatnot), but what purpose does belief serve? Why do you need to take it that extra step? I'm just fine stopping there, stating that it's unlikely and that is my worldview, it contains all possibilities with some being more likely than others... Because that's the truth about what we know.

If you go along believing things at every junction (where possibilities diverge you take a particular stance) you will find that you are inevitably going to be wrong about some things. If you're ok with that then fine. I'm not.

I don't need belief. Like I said it's just a crutch.

>>6323928
Hey you! Yeah I see you! Please stop rambling on about your god because the debate has nothing to do with god vs science. The debate is about creationism vs science. So please untie your panties and go back to /pol/ with your religious thoughts because it isn't relevant. You're turning the thread into another theism vs atheism debate. Fuck off.

Thank you.

>>6323956
>But it's not true. Maybe some ...
>For example, is the universe ...

If you aren't a believer then you must have either found truth or a third option outside of all known systems.
You admit that your best option still has incoprehensibly low odds of being wrong. Well that is good enough to say you aren't a believer for the majority philosophy structures, it doesn't meet all conditions.

Take gravity for example. Even a young child knows what gravity is and accepts it as fact. Even in the most basic simplification we can observe things falling down in a very predictable and repeatable fashion. So gravity is a fact under common, functional, scientific and many other philosophy structures. Even I say I know gravity to be real, true and factual. However gravity as with everything else doesn't meet ALL truth requirements for ALL cases, therefore gravity is a belief. Now talking about gravity and many things as beliefs gets problematic in some ways, so we don't go into that level of over questioning everything. The problem arises in some other ways.
Three things come to my mind, which are related. One it favors existing facts and rules. We mock things like the earth being flat, but look at how much it took for 5-fold crystal patterns to be recognized as fact. Two is how it changes discussion like the one we are having right now. If I were to open with the claim that you believe in gravity you would get angry and this would affect the whole discussion. This partly why rather then discussing our standards and definitions and then talking out the rest, we use different standards and definitions so "agreeing to disagree" or "preferred choice" is how thing often get ended even if we actually have the same opinion with just different wording. The last is how odd things like politics and religion get treated in a special way. Like how the "free markets will fix it" is sometimes true, sometimes false, or half true. Yet we rarely talk down into such non-binary details.

>>6324056
I suggest you read my first post >>6323454. I started out trying to avoid theism vs atheism debate as it has next to nothing to do with the original argument which is "How old the Earth is?".

In fact even in the post you cite, I was merely answering questions on faith and belief. Neither of which don't involve God. Although I do admit (and apologize for) going into the philosophical parts boarders on rambling, but is unavoidable at times.

Now I did mention the connecting between the church/God and the scientific method, but I find this to be a point of interest as it directly goes against the annoying argument of theism vs atheism. If anything I am trying to impart some civility as I am tired of things like >>6323465 as well as the opposite.

So I ask that you more carefully read my posts and note I only give my thoughts when asked or they are relevant. Also the question "How old the Earth is?" has nothing to do with god vs science, creationism vs science or even theism vs atheism. It only has to deal with "How old the Earth is?". How did you even get creationism involved in this? I would think this would be a debate on the merits of geological dating methodologies and data integrity. How has nobody mentioned carbon dating yet?

I would like it very much if you worded your constructive criticism more polite and clearly. There is no reason to use profanity in this type of discussion.

Sincerely,
A fellow poster

>>6324108
I don't "believe" in gravity though. I covered that with my example of the universe being random. I know that in a hypothetical universe in which every particle just takes a random position all the time at any given moment one possible outcome in the set of all possibilities is the current configuration of our universe. Just as in the next second one possible outcome in the set of all possible random configurations is one that looks almost exactly the same except that a ball I threw in the air earlier is a bit lower (maybe it's even made of different particles this time but we can't tell that)

It's sounds ridiculous of course, but it still remains as a possible explanation for gravity (i.e. under this solution gravity would just be a coincidence)

Why do I need to "believe" that there is some real force called gravity when the truth is good enough. I don't need to pretend that gravity is a 100% fact, I can settle for 99.999999...%

and before you say that I 'believe' it's 99.99..(whatever)% you should know that I am of course of the mindset that these liklihoods are just working hypotheses and subject to change.

>>6320951
>Hopefully this will help a few more lost souls graduate from the primordial swamp of illogical and baseless god belief.
People don't go to these types of debates seeking understanding... They just want to reaffirm their beliefs. That's the sort of crowd they attract.

>>6324221
Well your argument structure is very well made. Your point about working hypotheses is the right way to think about these things.

But the issue is that under the strict definitions it comes out like 99.99...% = believe and 100% = fact.

I agree that strict definitions are overbearing in common settings. But we need to at least state the distinction so I don't go using strict definitions and you go using functional definitions and we argue needlessly as we actually agree but are just using different definition standards, as I think is the case here.

>>6324245
I don't understand why acknowledging something being 99.9% true implies that I believe in it though.

If you just want to talk standard definitions I'm not sure belief and fact are in the same ballpark. Something is either a fact or it is not, there's only 2 sides to that coin.
As for belief, you either believe in something or you don't.

I don't think their definitions imply that something is either believed in or it's fact. Those are different concepts.

>>6320957
/pol/ here. We don't want your autism /sci/, we fucking hate fedoras. Keep them over here, they give normal atheists a bad name.

>>6323826
We all use faith every day. To predict weather…to tell time…to handle money. Faith is more than formulas and equations. It’s logic; it’s rationality. It’s using your mind to solve the biggest mysteries we know.

>>6324253
You don't, unless you are dealing with a person who uses the strict terminology, like I do for these special cases as I find such things to be important.

Under such strict rules fact (common fact, not "true" fact) is just substantiated belief, typicality through repeatable results. But substantiated belief is still a belief as it does not account for EVERY POSSIBLE SITUATION TO BE TRUE as "true" fact does.

Now if you are referring to "true" fact, then yes they are different concepts. But I assumed you were not as it is both uncommon and inconsistent with the observation you have been using the functional definitions in the other cases.

I am getting tired of this as we seem to agree on the core ideas, but differ on semantic choices. Which while important in some cases such semantic choices take a lot of time to resolve. More then I am willing to give right now sadly. (A small part of me wonders if you draw a negative connotation to the word "believe"?)

In hopes of re-railing this thread

"How old the Earth is?"

>>6324268
This made my day. All these people calling themselves fedoras, out there giving legends like Humphrey Bogart a bad name. Not to mention normal atheists who count as people, unlike these fedora freaks.

>>6323826
I don't believe in anything i cannot see. By see I am including stuff that I can take measurement of IE through a microscope or Geiger counters etc. If it cant be proven to exist I don't believe it. I don't believe in consciousness for example. I don't believe in anything existing outside the natural laws. I am not saying it isn't possible. But it is currently untestable the amount of possibilities are endless so it is a totally useless point of discussion.

My question about all of this is
why is the title of this thread "super bowl"?

>6000 year old "theorists"
>so called biblical evidence is based off some guy guessing how long the kings mentioned in the bible reigned and adding it up
>people take this seriously

Protestantism is the worst thing to happen ever

>>6320956
>>6320956
>>6320956


>queue fox news applause

>>6324338
Let's ignore the Bible for now and you tell me why you think the earth is old?
(I am also wonder why you say "Protestantism is the worst thing to happen ever" but that is a bit too off topic)

>>6324293
A misposted thread? I mean this whole "debate" is setup like a spectator sport. So clearly OP meant to post in /sp/

>>6324355
Sorry, will the Fox News Sport Robot work? It goes good with another part of my post. Also I should hope the "debate" shouldn't go so poorly as there is a lot of data to properly discuss, but odds are it will go down like that anyway.

>>6324830
>why you think the earth is so old?
Maybe God sees the earth, when aging in days, as aging in millions of years.

Think about it.

If God is an omnipotent being, time does not pass in the same way it does for men. Therefore, it makes sense to conclude that God's idea of "days" and "times" is different from man's idea.

Somewhere in the Bible it says that God remembers to stay His anger because men are alive in one breath and gone in the next. 80-100 years gone in one inhale/exhale. If this is truth, regardless of the fact that it comes from a source based on faith, doesn't it make sense to conclude that God does not see time the same way as men?

The Earth could very well be as old as scientists have said it is, and the Big Bang could be the creation of the universe by God. Everything just flowed slower for us, while it took God 6 days (or 13.x billion years) to create man.

Anyone have thoughts on my hypothesis?

>>6324862
Edit:
Maybe God sees the earth, when aging in millions of years for us, as aging in days for Him.

>>6324862
>Anyone have thoughts on my hypothesis?
Lrn2hypothesis

>>6324862
I find such a thing a clever compromise to make everyone happy and hear this idea very often.

However I personally don't like it as I see it as an alteration of the Bible. The Bible is open for interpretations, I can't say I know the true word of God, so I could have it all wrong. But given what I do know, it doesn't make sense to me to have such an interruption, especially when it aligns with outside motives of many of the people who are suggesting the change.

So while I think it is clever, I respectfully thing it is not a good idea. Don't take it personally, I am just given my opinion. Also you might want to look at how a hypothesis is structured, /sci/ is picky about things like that given it kind of matter for these things.

>>6324284
Faith isn't a word that has to imply belief in any supernatural force. You do have faith in something as evidenced by the fact that you haven't killed yourself.

I'm an atheist and we need to learn the value of things like faith so we can communicate with the religious and understand them.

We have this tendency to reject the word faith out of hand because it's become so steeped in religious meaning. We've become reactionaries against religion and anything attached to it.

We have to realize we do still use faith whether we like to admit it or not. We don't derive faith from god anymore, we just shift the faith to ourselves.

I have faith that my success exists in the future. I can't touch it or measure it now because it exists in the future. I will be able to prove it exists when I get there. But, for now I must have faith that getting out of bed in the morning and continuing to work will eventually bring me to my goals.

Self confidence is a form of faith. Going out into the world every day is a risk. You could make all kinds of mistakes. But, self confidence is faith that even if you do make mistakes you'll be able to cope with them. You'll figure something out, maybe even turn a negative into a positive.

We have to teach the religious alternate sources of faith before we ask them to give up their belief in god, their current source of faith.

>>6324988
>>6324862
Religion is for the ill-minded.

Just stop it

>>6324988
Perhaps a better word would have been theory, in that case.

>>6324997

>Faith isn't a word that has to imply belief in any supernatural force.

It is now.

Religious people have completely stolen the word "faith" just as gays have done to the word "fabulous".

>>6324997
Thank you. I am a Christian, but I absolutely agree with you on these matters. Just because we don't agree with someones view point doesn't mean I can't have a civil discussion with them. In fact such discussion I have found to be very rewarding as an outside observer can help me stop and think about things I take granted, and I can do the same for them. Plus it is never hurts to have a better understanding of a different view point. If it weren't for such things I may as well be a robot, as I wouldn't be thinking about my actions and why I choose them. (Of course this implies the assumption of free will, which some disagree with)

>>6325006
Now I have met a few ill-minded people who are religious, but what makes you say what you said?

>>6325014
I agree. But, the very fact that religious people "own" the word means you get attention when you use it in this unusual way. Tell religious people you do have faith in something. Then when you describe your faith to them they actually listen because you are speaking their language. It's a novel concept for them to allow oneself to be the source of faith.

They grow up intuitively valuing faith because really you do need it. Atheists often ask the question why faith in god is seen as a virtue among the religious. It's not faith in god per se, it's faith itself. Faith is a virtue because it allows you to act in absence of evidence that the future holds success. Faith in a god is a just a roundabout way of having faith in oneself. The religious have faith that god will guide them to good outcomes if they act virtuously.

As atheists we need to think about what shape our faith takes so we can communicate it to the religious and show them how we live and that it's possible to have faith without having it granted by an external agent. We have to show them that you are allowed to take control and grant faith to yourself and those around you. I know all people who describe themselves as atheists do have strong faith in something because they all seem extremely motivated and industrious. Think about, it characterize it and learn to communicate it.

I'm not well versed in this stuff at all, so I would like to hear /sci/s opinion on agnosticism. I have never understood it's place in this matter. Is it as simple as you don't care if there does or does not exist a deity or deities? Or that we are unable to know? To me it's always been a cop-out, play it safe type of answer to the big question. You don't ever really displease anyone by saying your agnostic

>>6325053
On a similar note, do you guys hope we ever find out if there is god(s)? I don't. I feel like it's the endgame for so much of our motivation. If we definitively knew one way or the other, I think the productivity of humanity would decrease sharply - e.g. space travel could see a loss in interest

>>6320951
already happened on Futurama lol. just as the first comment points out.

>>6325053
While I see why someone would say it is a cop-out, I think it is counterproductive to demand that everyone take positions and draw a line in the sand. We are just further promoting tribalism and tribalism is fundamentally incompatible with modern civilization.

>>6320951
Bill Nye the shill guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asnaykgZE8M

>>6325123
A shill would be someone who tries to put the blame on UFOs rather than taking it on himself.

>>6325053
I think agnostics believe something is out there, some higher form of consciousness or deity, but they don't know what specifically it is. The key word is specific.

>>6325053
Here's a rough approximation of what these mean:
Theist -> God exists
Atheist -> God doesn't exist
Gnostic -> Know
Agnostic -> Don't know

Gnostic Theist = I know God exists
Gnostic Atheist = I know God doesn't exist
Agnostic Theist = I think God probably exists
Agnostic Atheist = I think God probably doesn't exist

On the topic of questioning the actual debate itself, who else is going to watch it live? Do you think Bill is really going to wreck this guy or is Ken going to back up his evidence? What evidence will Bill bring to the table, and what evidence will Ken bring to the table? Will there even be a winner?

>>6325249
>is Ken going to back up his evidence?
>what evidence will Ken bring to the table?
You really think a creationist is going to bring evidence to the table?

Here's what you can expect from the debate:
Bill will present a number of scientific facts, theories, etc. Ken will apply the "God of the Gaps", argumentum ad ignorantiam, false equivalences, etc. Depending on the make up of the audience and their already established opinions either Ken or Bill will win. It's how all of these inane debates go and I don't see why Bill would even bother lowering himself to be on stage having a "debate" with such a fucking idiot.

>>6325249
I'm going to watch it, but I'm a bit worried about it for the reasons in this video
>>6322811

I think bill will destroy him of course.. I mean how hard is it to debate a 6,000yr old earth idea when you've had this much time to prepare.

The question is will the opposition even realize they've been destroyed. People like Ken Ham don't keep their position for very long if they aren't very good at dodging points other people have made by changing topics or using other logical fallacies that make is sound like they're arguing good when in fact they are terrible, and being altogether unreceptive of what other people have to say.
(or just being the loudest person in the room so the other person doesn't even get a chance to talk, but hopefully with this formal setting at least he won't be able to do that)

>>6325237
Is it so wrong to just be agnostic?
I think science, in the context of all things and not just religion, would approach everything agnostically, especially when many of the worlds most powerful forces are still considered 'phenomena'

>>6325264
>Is it so wrong to just be agnostic?
I never implied it was.
Agnostic just means you don't know. It doesn't tell you anything about what it is specifically you don't know.

>>6325071
reminded me of a joke:

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

>>6325071
One thing to always keep in mind is that more than likely the result of our universe is NOT unique.

For example if I you have the number 8 how was it constructed? Was it 4*2? 1+7? 2*2*2? etc...

It's possible we could learn everything there is to know about the universe, even if we could _prove_ that it's possible for a universe to come from nothing we still can't rule out the possibility that it was made by a creator. Just as proving you can make 8 with 2^3 won't prove that that's how it was done.

Perhaps there is even more than one way for our exact universe to come from nothing... with completely different mechanisms.
So it may just never be possible to know.
(for the record, even if an omnipotent being came and told us it was the creator how do you know you can believe it? Although I probably would. But it's just something to think about)

>>6325261
> I mean how hard is it to debate a 6,000yr old earth idea when you've had this much time to prepare.

A lot harder then many know. My debate class (which included 3 Geophysicists grad students) dragged on for 6 hours (in a 4 hour class) on this with the young earth group technicality winning on as they soundly disproved the old earth idea, although many called it a tie as neither could soundly prove their stance.

The supporting evidence for the old earth argument is all extrapolated correlations, which fails to meet the standards of many other types of science. Geology has a lot of guess work and reapplication of data. But the problem goes both ways as it doesn't really support the young earth idea either.

If this debate goes like the others I have seen I expect a both sides to fold from lack of strong evidence. However the setup for this seems to have sensationalize to it so let's hope it at least doesn't fall apart into a shouting match.

Why doesn't academia just completely ignore these fundamental faggots?
Why are ANY attempts being made to engage them at all?
It seems pretty obvious that no force on earth is going to change these people's minds.
Why bother?

>>6320996
>what is galileo gambit

>>6325912
I suppose it is because Bill and others want to introduce the science to people who never get a chance to hear or see it. If even 1 viewer is convinced by this debate that creationism is wrong then it was worth it. Their is no losing these debates as the science is the truth the other side is fantasy. Eventually the creationists will come to this realization.

>>6325883
Wow I have never considered this before. Maybe I'm just high as fuck right now but that's seriously making me think about some shit right now

I have started praying to Jesus that Ken Ham starts swingin at bill. He looks like he the type that would.

Bye is saying this is high school science stuff but ham is no idiot. Hes not ignorant of the science. Its the most awful thing about ham, he actually has a lot of knowledge so he seems all the more dishonest for it rather than I'll informed and dumb like most creationists. If nye thinks ham will struggle with the science of the discussion will be basic level evolutionary biology stuff then he's gonna get fucking mauled.

>>6325912
Because the have power and are able to teach this crap to kids. Its a bit of a hobsons choice. Without the challenge they can carry on pushing it in places they can get influence and by challenging them it feeds their publicity and they can use the controversy created to their advantage. Many don't care about science but do care about this argument. Scientific arguments are useless to those people they don't understand or like to feel that someone is proving their beliefs on their behalf. To understand the topic would take effort. I've managed in the past to convince a few creationists to change their minds in face book groups. One on one conversation and some gentle exposure to the dishonesty and basic explanations of evolution and the strawmen works but only for those with an honest curiosity

>>6325261
Ham is not a believer in a 6000 year old earth. I've heard him say as much. He is done at. Its a point that is missed to try and tear the movement apart. The yecs need to be informed that many of their hero's think the 6000 year idea is wrong. Get them debating the age of the earth amongst themselves.

>>6325123
Lol he so mad.

what is this shit that im watching? christians bombarding everyone that's not christian?

>>6327449
nvm, it's not a debate
still, the guy wants to start a new crusade

>>6323126
I don't understand why nobody is commenting on this post. He makes a really good point and I think it's something most of us have not thought of before. Religion gives a sense of community and escape in tough times, among other things. Trying to destroy that will only make them defensive. Thanks, Anon.

>>6327712
But that behavior is not acceptable. Maybe in the middle ages,
but if we are going to survive as a species and not kill ourselves we need to put a stop to that.

It's not ok to think something is true because it makes you feel good. There are other coping mechanisms that are less detrimental to everyone they come in contact with.

and if it just brings out some dark inner killer hiding within them that only their "belief" was holding back, well then maybe that's a good thing. Let them do a little bad to expose who they really are so those people can be locked up or put to death, and we'll finally be rid of that plague on humanity

>>6327720
This post makes me euphoric.

>>6327773
>It's not ok to think something is true because it makes you feel good.

But he's right.

>>6327712

"Religion gives a sense of community" is code-word for "Religion keeps out outsiders"

>>6323496
>multiple people can't have formed the same opinion on their own

>>6323488

Fedora faggot detected.

>>6325256

If someone is afraid to debate someone it obviously means they're wrong and they're full of shit.

>>6320996
I wonder if that guy even really believes what he's saying. It seems to me like he's just trying to convince people religion is right. I'm just confused why he would want to do that
>owns a "creationism museum"
Nevermind, it's pretty obvious why he wants people to believe in creationism

>>6328078

Two good reasons why it would be sensible for this to not take place.

1. You can't really debate someone over a matter of faith. Not an adult anyway, you might be able to talk a kid over but once they've decided to reject logic and evidence any change is only going to come from the inside.

2. From what I've read this guy is a crazy fringe element even among Christians, and engaging with that sort of group only serves to legitimize an opinion that wouldn't otherwise gain much traction. Like that American reporter the other month that managed to start a new vaccination scare by engaging with a tiny group on her show that was made up of the ten or so people in the entire world who actually had this batshit idea.

I hope Bill Nye completely destroys him with facts and logic.

Where can I watch the debate?

>>6328762

The unfortunate thing is, facts and logic have no effect on Young Earth Creationists. They're the internet trolls of the debating world, anything you say and do WILL be used against you.

But the question remains as to whether those facts and logic disprove the existence of a god. Like it or not we have not even begun to scratch the surface of what the universe has to offer. I simply cannot rule out the fact that we might not have all the information we think we have.

>>6324862
>If God is an omnipotent being, time does not pass in the same way it does for men.
>implying

Two no name faggots arguing over shit that has no proof either way.

Sure to be a fascinating watch⸮

>>6329857
That was my point. You can't prove God exists but you can't prove God doesn't exist. It depends on what you put your faith in, in the end.

>>6329857
>shit that has no proof either way.
They're arguing over the validity of the theory of evolution, which has a fuckton of evidence.

>>6329907
It isnt about god. Its about creationism. You can prove the age of the earth... Or at least more accuratly prove one claim. As well as evolution. Nothing to do with god.

>>6329937
It is true God isn't a part of this argument. But to say one can prove (or disprove) the age of the earth or evolution is a very hard sell if you stop and think about it.

Also if people are going to keep saying the earth is so old on this thread, they are going to need to at least present better arguments then "the science says so", unless we also start considering "the Bible says so" to be a reasonable counter point.

>>6329843
Not all Young Earth Creationists are like that. Please don't clump the fanatic with the moderates like that.

>>6330164
>they are going to need to at least present better arguments then "the science says so", unless we also start considering "the Bible says so" to be a reasonable counter point.

What is science based on? Compare that to what the bible is based on and it should be clear how fucking retarded that sounds.

>>6330213
Wow, I think you completely missed the point. The point is how people keep saying (or at least very strongly implicating) X is better then Y, but don't go into any detail on why that is true or at least grounds to be considered true. Not to mention the lack of details goes so far as some posts one can't tell what they are trying to say.

For example your post can be read many different ways, such as
A. What is science based on? (a bunch of know nothing lab coats) Compare that to what the bible is based on (the all powerful creator of everything) and it should be clear how fucking retarded that sounds (conclusion: trust God over know nothing lab coats).
OR
B. What is science based on? (a bunch of highly intelligent scientists with years of supporting data) Compare that to what the bible is based on (a bunch of dead idiots from ancient history) and it should be clear how fucking retarded that sounds (conclusion: trust intelligent scientists over some dead idiots).
OR
C. Something else entirely (conclusion: you could stand to work on your communication skills)

>>6320951
>canned ham

If I wanted to could I attend this in person? I live in the area.

>>6323454
>The original reason for developing the scientific method was to better know God through logically analyzing the world he created.

No, that was given as the reason because at the time, culture was dominated by God-belief. Suggesting God had nothing to do with physical phenomena was heresy, and could get you tortured and burned alive. Really. Read some fucking history, retard.

>>6320957

You're entitled to your opinion, however, there are millions of children around the world being held hostage by "adults" who are in reality twisted cult followers doing such things as mutilating genitals and terrorizing young minds with religious threats and oppression.

So, where's the debate?

>>6330164
No. All Young Earth Creationists, by their very nature, are liars and frauds.

>>6330983
well according to debatelive.org (which is one place you can see the stream)

it'll be in about 6hrs

>>6330946
You seem to be ignoring all the many many cases where the church actively initiated and invested in scientific R&D both before and after the formal development of the scientific method. There are numerous Bishops and others who aided in scientific advancements. The church was the pro science powerhouse back in the day.

You seem to have the false assumption that God and science are incompatible. Suggesting God had nothing to do with physical phenomena wasn't done back then because the commonly head belief was that God created the rules all physical phenomena followed, therefore learning about them was to better know God's rules and even God. The threat of torture was not nearly as widely used as you make it sound because it was not needed as most early scientists were born, raised and firm believers that they were doing it for God. Stop and think about it, it makes very little sense to threaten and torture people who are already strong supporters of everything you want.

Now on a darker note there where many cases of torture and these actions can't be over looked if we want to learn from them, but you should note most were in times of wars and against foreigners. Also oddly enough some of the scientific studies where on how to torture people without killing them, which also led to developments in trauma medicine that later saved countless lives. So while that is not the nicest of backdrops it does also count as the church supporting science.

The other problem with your claim is how it rolls all of the churches history into one statement, the church (or more accurately churches, as there is more the just the Catholic church) have had many different stances over time. Some were dark and torturous others were open and pro scientific advancement. I was referring to the original purpose as common around 1101 -1200 AD which was formally declared. Although given the large number of cases over time I could make a strong counter case against you broad claim.

this is just publicity for their failing museum

>>6331040
Son, the scientific method was properly invented during the Enlightenment, when people specifically took God out of the equation for explaining things.

>>6320951
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcb9CUVmHiw

LINK TO THE INTERVIEW WITH FORMER DEFENSE MINISTER OF CANADA PAUL HELLYER:
http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/%D1%81anada-minister-defense-ufo-959/

Direct access to the Kevlar quote in question which Bill so inelegantly directly sidestepped/avoided:
"PH: They are here among us and I'm not afraid because in most cases, as far as technology is concerned, they are light years ahead of us, and we have learned a lot of things from them. A lot of the things we use today we got from them, you know -- led lights and microchips and Kevlar vests and all sorts things that we got from their technology and we could get a lot more too, especially in the fields of medicine and agriculture if we would go about it peacefully. But, I think, maybe some of our people are more interested in getting the military technology, and I think that's wrong-headed, and that's one of the things that we are going to have to change, because we're going to have to work together, all of us, everywhere on the planet. "

>>6331052
If you mean it modern iteration, then yes it was properly invented during the Enlightenment. If you go farther back you could argue Aristotle started this whole thing way back when, although human inquiry in general is likely as old as humanity.

However you seem to miss the degrees of which God can be considered a perfectly valid option. Just because we stop say "God did it." for every simple question (like why does the sun rise) doesn't fully remove God from the equation for explaining things. In fact God (or Gods, Aliens and other things) are a perfectly acceptable scientific theory under even the strictest rules of scientific study. Ignoring this option would actually be a deviation of scientific study. Not to mention the surprising number of advanced scientist that openly express a belief in a higher power, which directly goes against the ideas that more science equals less religion.

>>6320951
*tips fedora*

>>6331053
>Bill so inelegantly directly sidestepped/avoided
Maybe it was because it was so /x/ and baseless?

>>6331143
>>>/b/

>>6323126
You say these words:

I firmly believe that the fact that over the course of hundreds of millions of years, when the first organism divided itself to make a copy, then have that copy divide, change, and mutate floating in the most potent solvent ever seen through volcanic wastes, frigid ice ages, into something as wonderful and beautiful as an animal through insurmountable odds such as meteor impacts, and other natural disasters, to build huts, castles, houses, skyscrapers, and rockets to breach the heavens, then come back to Earth to come here and have this debate with you is an infinitely more rare, insightful, and wonderful thing than a deity simply wishing something to be, and it simply is.

I refuse to believe that I am to thank a being for creating us and the world. I would rather believe that throughout the eons, life scraped, scratched, breathed, reproduced, and fought its way to the present and earning its right to life rather than simply being gifted it.

>>6323544

Nothing precludes the possibility of the days being other than '24 hour' days. The 6th day refers to the creation of man and that is the only definition given.

>>6331142
Saying "god did it, we're done" doesn't help us understand or model the world any better. Even if it actually was the case, it's useless to consider.

so, how many hours until and where is a link?

>>6331231
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

bout 3:40

>>6331213
Well it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
There are many cases where "God did it, we're done" actually helps things, although this typically is in a more personal acceptance setting and written off as the placebo or externalization effect. The point is it matters by what metrics you are using (as is so often the case).

I will say that pursuing a better scientific understanding of our world is a worthwhile endeavor, even if I have mixed opinions on how that knowledge is used. And that is part of the thing, we have the understanding we need to solve the vast majority of the world problems right now. Sure more understanding would be nice, but how much do we need and are we even capable of obtaining total understanding at all?

Also it is a useful thing to consider as it plays a part in us understanding where we are in the universe in the greater sense, which has been a big question through all of history. While such things may not give us nice things in how we normally measure "better", such peace of mind is none the less a value people want (although some point out we can physically induce similar effects with drugs which raise some interesting questions I rarely heard people talk about).

>>6320996
>Atheist insults him in a comment
>Aha see I'm right!
>disables comments

Checkmate everybody he just retired as champion

>>6323544
>It first makes the claim that it is the infallible Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, regardless of the men authoring each book within.

Under the inspiration and influence of God, it's appropriate humans were used to write the bible, because Humans are reading it. That does not mean it isn't the Word of God, as the two are not mutually exclusive.

>It then draws a genealogy in Luke from Jesus backwards all the way to Adam. It also includes genealogies forward from Adam, making it possible to be fairly certain, especially with historical clues, that the line from Jesus to Adam was about 4,000 years long.

The infallible Word of God needs to cite human sources for credibility? That's a contradiction you cannot rightfully impose on the Bible.

>Jesus makes further statements in the bible that God created mankind "in the beginning", and "on Day Six". Thus there is no "aeons" or "ages" in Genesis, just an orderly creation of the universe in six 24 hour days, by an omnipotent supernatural being.

Firstly, Moses wrote Genesis, not Jesus. Secondly, you assume the term "day" referred to a 24 hour period, which is not true. The word day used in Genesis is a Hebrew word denoting a collective time period, similarly to how literary works may include phrases such as "In Shakespeare's day" or "In my day." Hence, the term day as used here does not mean 24 hours, further evidence being the fact that the 7th day of God's rest has not ended yet.

>So there you have it. The bible states rather conclusively that the world is fairly young; about 6,000 years +/- 500.

You should try to understand things before you disbelieve them.

Gonna watch this thread blow up again when the debate is all finished.

>>6320951
Pop-sci and creationism? Wow why am I not watching this.......

>>6330610
Best post in the thread.

>>6325123
Bill Nye shouldn't have argued against hearsay and speculation with hearsay and speculation. I really hope he doesn't do that against Canned Ham.

>>6331336
I'm sure he got shit tons of flak for this by the scientific community. Guaranteed he won't do the same here. He'll probably bring a whole load of shit to bare with all the publicity this debate is getting.

Bill Nye might be a bit vocal, but he sure as shit ain't stupid.

>>6323126
I think there are beliefs and such to fill the void of religion but people are lazy and would rather just find something fast like the contemporary christianity/neo-platonism.

>>6323526
The problem with this argument is that when people are given this option they instantly say "Oh okay then my version of god from bronze age middle east exists then! I need to follow some of his rules and then force others to!" Just because we can't prove god doesn't exist 100% does not mean that your specific interpretation of god that can oftentimes be harmful to peoples lives should be encouraged and forced onto people by the government.

>>6325123
Thats not even shilling its just very obvious reason. What this guy is saying is fucking crazy and bill nye responds with logic and reason. The guy has absolutely no proof and nye points it out.

>>6320996
Most of what this guy is saying isn't absurd--he's defending an absurd position, but if your reaction to this is "TOP KEK SO IGNORANT," you're probably under the legal age to view this website.

Listen to this in particular
>They [the atheists] are saying we reject the bible, we reject God's word. Really it's a clash of two world views, the clash of the absolutes of Christianity, based on God's word, and Moral Relativism, based on man's words.

Is there anything wrong with these statements?
My point is that this guy isn't a complete pushover. He's not suggesting that educated people who "support evolution" are outright lying, he's insisting that they have ignored a line of evidence because they refused to consider it. Of course that doesn't matter at all, because this will still boil down to the same thing as always:
>Muh science
>Muh proof
>Muh falsifiability
>Muh certainty
>Ok Ladies and Gentlemen, I think you have heard enough to make your own conclusion; the right one.

>>6331395
> the clash of the absolutes of Christianity, based on God's word, and Moral Relativism, based on man's words.

This is not a true statement. A better statement would be the clash of contemporary men's words vs. a book written two thousand years ago by men and their words.

>>6331368
Agreed, I have my belief structure which I am willing to tell all who want to listen about. But I think is very harmful for me to force such things on others. Personal rule structures and public rules structures nearly never align just right because people are different. The problem comes when these two worlds over lap like in public education.
The real question is how do we resolve this?

By using academia to find out what is relevant. Biology pretty clearly states that the most likely origin of humans and creatures in general is evolution. So, if we want to teach biology in schools we therefore must teach evolution.

>>6331400
Are you arguing that this is a disingenuous statement because he says the bible is "god's word?" Unless you believe in another god who didn't write the bible, this is absurd. It's like saying "Avada kedavra (or w/e it is) isn't a curse used by Voldemort, because Voldemort doesn't exist! Checkmate!" If you don't believe in the Abrahamic God, then God is a character in a book. That book is the bible, it refers to itself as god's word.

>>6331416
>It's like saying "Avada kedavra (or w/e it is) isn't a curse used by Voldemort, because Voldemort doesn't exist
pic related

Say that spell DID exist. If voldemort didn't exist, then saying "it isn't a curse used by voldemort because voldemort doesn't exist" is DEFINITELY a true statement.

Anyways, I think that guys point was that his statement
> the clash of the absolutes of Christianity, based on God's word, and Moral Relativism, based on man's words.
is assuming that "gods word" is even a real thing. You cannot make that your starting point, that's often where religious people fail in their logic.

We know "mans word" is a real thing however, so that is an adequate starting point. So his point was:
>A better statement would be the clash of contemporary men's words vs. a book written two thousand years ago by men and their words.
You should think of it from the opposite side, because it's "mans word" (something concrete) clashing with something unknown ('god's word')

>>6331437
>Say that spell DID exist. If voldemort didn't exist, then saying "it isn't a curse used by voldemort because voldemort doesn't exist" is DEFINITELY a true statement.
Change it do "Harry Potter celebrates [a secular form of, if you want to be anal retentive] Christmas" then. You would find that most people would agree that this is a true statement, and if you said "haha! You are ignorant because you don't even know Harry Potter isn't a real person!" most people would come to believe exactly what I originally asserted--that if you have these kinds of reactions, you are probably underage or at least immature.

>assuming that "gods word" is even a real thing
Why do you assume that "man's word" is a real thing. Just as there are atheists who do not believe in any gods at all, and Deists (etc.) who do not believe in any divine intervention, there are people who hold a philosophical belief that other thinking beings do not exist, let alone speak words, or that if other thinking beings did exist, it would be impossible to know them because one could not accurately share one's thoughts with them. The problem with any of these positions is that they are unfalsifiable. There is no conceivable experiment that could convince someone to change his mind about the existence of god or the veracity of solipsism. Wittgenstein told us that about that which we cannot reason, we must pass over in silence. So for the purposes of a reasonable discussion, we wouldn't take any of these positions for granted. You won't get anywhere saying "you're wrong because God doesn't exist" and I won't get anywhere saying "no, you're wrong because you don't exist."

With this in mind, I don't see how you can refuse to even allow someone to describe "The Bible" as "God's Word" when "God's Word" is just another name for "The Bible." That's like a creationist refusing to call science "Science," because "Scient" means "to know," and scientists don't really "know" anything!

>Science and God
I don't mind religious people in science, as long as they don't try to skew things to make it support their religious views its perfectly fine.

>>6331482
First of all, you don't get to change your original statement and then say my point can be argued against.
>Say that spell DID exist. If voldemort didn't exist, then saying "it isn't a curse used by voldemort because voldemort doesn't exist" is DEFINITELY a true statement.
Is a true statement. Period. There is no arguing against it.
If someone doesn't exist (given) then they cannot have used that spell whether the spell itself exists or not.

>Why do you assume that "man's word" is a real thing
Is this philosophy? Assuming you're not throwing some philosophical crap at me to dodge the point then I would say
Because I'm a man and I use can speak words, and I'm surrounded by others. This is a direct observation and as such it is a very appropriate point to launch logic from.
The quote from Ken Ham that you were defending is starting from "gods word" as an axiom. Then this guy >>6331400 was simply telling you that it is more appropriate to use man's word as an axiom.

If you want to use gods word as an axiom then that is fine. But we can reject your axiom. You can also reject the axiom that "mans word" exists but then honestly I would just think you're being silly because you can easily observe "man's word" around you any time (go walk down the street and say 'hi' to someone)

>>6331517
>Is a true statement. Period. There is no arguing against it.

Let me use some 6th grader logic to counter that then.

No proof of such a thing exists. Period. Voldemort isn't real, thus if he is the only one who knows it, and the only one that can prove it, then it is an unknown.

Unknowns in science do not equal one or the other. They are not true, they are not false. They are un-fucking-known. Get your weak ass argument out of here.

>>6331517
I would like you to know that I do not believe in any type of creationism or any supernatural events in history at any time. However, someone who does believe in God might tell you that the existence of God and the status of the bible as God's Word is just as apparent as your "axiomatic" Cartesian demonstration of your own existence. There is no logical way to refute this, it's pure metaphysics.

Unfortunately, the fact that someone believes in an unscientific (unfalsifiable) position, such as the existence of God's word, does not provide a route to refuting any of their statements only incidentally related to this belief. The statement that this "debate" is a clash of absolutes between those who believe in God (and the Bible, literally) and those who reject the divine as a cause is neither ignorant nor stupid.

>>6331532
And before you blather on about "it's an existential truth" it doesn't matter. Humans know nothing about existential truths, and in a philosophical debate, impossible to determine. Either way, you're wrong. Period.

>>6331532
No, if the statement that he is not real is a GIVEN, then you can conclude that he didn't use any spells.

It doesn't matter what the spell is, whether it's real or not.. He didn't use it because he didn't exist (as a given)

I can also tell you that he never used the internet, never ate ice cream, and never drove a car.

>>6331548
Er, very sorry, must've clicked the wrong post.

>>6331482
Was the guy I was attempting to give the argument to. Quite inebriated you see.

>>6331548
>>6331553
Nevertheless, if you asked almost any person in the English speaking world a question about a Harry Potter character, most would answer you in the same way. If I said "Does Ron Weasley have red hair?" a reasonable person would not say "no-he-doesn't-exist-you-ignoramus," he would say "yes."

Why is Nye even giving such an insufferable twat the time of day?

Never debate with idiots.
Stay chill America.

Are you guys cool with me making a new thread with the link to the stream?

I figure this thread's been around for some days and a lot of people ignore it without realizing there will be a live stream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

That thread would be replacing this one.

>>6331565
Because ignoring them doesn't work, and we unfortunately can't just genocide them. While debate will do nothing to change the ones with severe brain damage/delusions, some of those on the fence can be shown the truth, and those who live under the tyranny of the religious can be encouraged to step up.

>>6331573
He says he's doing it to increase awareness that these idiots exist and affect policy.

>>6331560
While your example is sound, you must remember, we are not dealing with reasonable people (and while I know for a fact I'm bringing this rant in a totally different direction, I will simply stop here and concede.)

>>6331040
>The church was the pro science powerhouse back in the day.

This is some silly horseshit you're shovelling. The fact remains that men of science were more likely to profess belief in God than contradict the status. That we know. But what we don't know is how many men thought, to themselves and in the confidence of others, what errant superstition and bullshit the concept was, and how interesting it was that there seemed to be no divine presence in the world at all. The reason is quite clear, sir. Professions of athiesm could have you killed quite quickly. Even if this was not your intention, much of what might be regarded as scientific inquiry could be taken as heresy. The historical record is filled with example after example. I am generalizing because that is the only way to refer to such a pervasive and thorough phenomena.

Read a great book about the foundations of atomic theory conceived prior to 0 AD by a greek philosopher. The story of the repression of "Atomists" makes for a great read. In fact it won the Pulitzer in 2012. Read "The Swerve" by Greenblatt"

>Lucretius’s epic poem On the Nature of Things – written in the first century B.C. – is a description of the theories of what has become known as Epicureanism. Epicurus, a Greek philosopher who developed and taught a philosophy of life around 307 B.C., believed pleasure – achieved through living modestly and understanding the world – to be the greatest good. This emphasis on pleasure has been grossly and erroneously distorted to include hedonism. While accepting God, followers rejected superstition, divine intervention and an afterlife. The Epicurean philosophy flourished in Roman times but languished after Emperor Constantine due to differences with Christianity.

"Languished" here euphemistically stands in for having your severed testicles nailed to the church's door.. "on a darker note"... retard.

>>6331577
In this argument, people who would "unreasonably" answer the question about a Harry Potter character are analogous to people (say, "edgy atheists") who refuse to engage in a discussion with someone who takes the Bible for granted. I hope that's what you meant when you said that we aren't dealing with "reasonable people."

>>6331579

Sorry, the reference is here:

>Stephen Greenblatt’s The Swerve, which won The National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize, chronicles the remarkable story of Poggio Bracciolini’s discovery of the last existing copy of Lucretius’s On the Nature of Things.

BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL

The stream is starting in 20min I believe

>>6331581
The examples are totally different though.

Even you (the asker) are fairly certain that whoever you ask about ron weasleys red hair is going to have in mind that ron weasley didn't exist.
They don't answer that way because they assume that you (the asker) also knows that he's not real and so your question is simply one about the property described on a fictional character by the author.

When you ask someone about god it's pretty much assumed by everyone that we are discussing the idea of a literal being. Not a character in a story. and so you are more likely to get responses that put doubt to the question.

>>6331593
more like 10 minutes. It starts 10 minutes before the hour.

anyone streaming this so I can chat with some anons while its going down

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

Stream is here. Get in everybody. Comments are disabled though naturally.

>>6331609
>125k people watching

holy shit

>>6331607
It's on youtube so we could probably stream it on instasynch.com
just make a room

>>6331609
Thank fuck, we don't need to see all the butthurt christfags have seizures on their keyboards.

so this is essentially /sci/ vs /pol/

>>6331609
I love how bill is just identified as 'the science guy'

Somebody make a live watch thread or a synch room or something like that!

>>6331614
Thanks for the hot tip.
I have never made a room so I dont know how.

PREPARE TO TIP LIKE YOU NEVER TIPPED BEFORE

Is /sci/ watching this anywhere?

>>6331618

It's been his nom de guerre for over 20 years now.

I request a sticky for the length of this debate.

>>6331623
and in this moment I am enlightened. not by the phonieness of any camera manipulation, but by the hopping of my own legs.

>>6331622
http://instasynch.com/rooms/mearo-

>>6320951
pol pls go

>>6331632
>http://instasynch.com/rooms/mearo-
everyone get in here

This is gonna be fucking hilarious

well i was gonna watch Mean Girls 2 but i guess i'll check out the debate
always interesting to hear what kind of guys people are listening to

this is that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOla3TyfqQ

>>6331625
There's a youtube channel that's streaming it live in HD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

I help run a streaming site but we're not restreaming it because it degrades the quality. Which is lousy given that it's in HD. We're all just using our chat and watching the youtube channel.

>>6331647
link to chat?

>>6331648
just use thread

I really Hope Bill gets so angry he punches Ken Ham

I came here just to see if there was a thread about it. I'm excited as shit, not even cause I want to see religion get told. Just out of interest to watch and learn.

>>6331659
>has a desire to learn
niqqa, why is you even on /sci/?

polite sage

>>6331655
Thats what I'm hoping for too!

>>6331648

I would just use the thread. Not that there's anything wrong with the people at my streaming site but they're not really /sci/ people.


Also it just started.

creation 'bout to get bodied

>Model of origins.

That's not what evolution's about, yo.

IT BEGINS

>closing in on 300k viewers

It's happening right now guys!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

LLLLLLLET'S GET READY TO RRRUUMMMMBBAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL

>Bill with a mac

Come on son.

Oh god, the ad for that creationist museum at the beginning. The cards are going to be *so* stacked

HAM WON THE COIN TOSS

TAKE THAT ATHIESTS

>Ham won the toin coss

Proof that God's on his side

ham's gonna get hammered

This will be great to put on in the background.

>still debating religion
>thinking you will change someones mind one way or the other

>>6331686
Debating can be fun even if you don't win

goddamit BILL BYE HAS THE GHOST OF SAGAN ON HIS SIDE

>>6331680
this

bill is about to get blown the fuck out because of his terrible public speaking ability
ham does this shit on a weekly basis, nye hardly ever does this

>creation museum

how is this even a thing
holy fuck america

>>6331688
no it can't. debate me faggot

Why do Christians always have Macbooks? I know these ones were provided to them, but it's a point that holds true in many situations.

>But I'm a Nazi
What?

dis nigga Ham going ham

bill nye mech engineering
vs
ham lol environmental science degree

>>6320951
>engineering
>applied science
None of them are qualified to talk about biology, lel.

>>6331697

>aussie

>>6331695
debate this
*unzips dick*

>>6331699
BIOLOGY FAG

>>6331686
This isn't debating religion it's debating creationism, which most Christians don't even belief in

There is a new planet 4th row from the front, on the left side.

>>6331689
you mean satan right :^)

>>6331692
I honestly hope Bill flakes because the reddit fedora buttmad will be far more entertaining than this tired debate.

>I'd like you to meet a revered scientist who's a creationist

Here we fucking go

Stuart Burgess confirmed for robot

fucking robots

Here's how I'm guessing this is going to go:

>Did you personally dig up dinosaur bones?
>No
>So you put your faith in the fact other scientists dug up those bones just like I put my faith in God.

>>6331705
>*unzips dick*

god that sounds painful

Oh my god I literally called this. I literally said earlier in this thread that he was going to bring up the latin root of the word science.

Fuck, that engineer's at my university. Wonder what the staff at the biology department think of that.

Science has been "Hijacked by secularists" - Ken Hamm

>YOU WEREN'T THERE

Why?

Only in America can this bullshit actually happen.

>>6331713
I think it's going to be a lot more subversive than that. Apologists aren't dangerous because they're wrong, they're dangerous because they don't care whether they are.

>>6331714
DO NOT POST THE GIF

>ATHEISM IS A RELIGION - Ken Ham

>>6331722
I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS A PICTURE TO GO WITH IT

POST THE PICTURE

>>6331713

What if Bill Nye actually digged up dinosaur bones?

>the religion on atheism

>>6331707
>pretending you can be a Christian and believe in evolution just to give credibility to your religion
>lel, pathetic

"we weren't there" - Ken Ham

>Science overlooks the supernatural
No fucking shit.

>>6331716

Maybe they will wash their hands more often??

What the fuck does the afterlife have to do with evolution?

Fish galloping, are we?

I don't get it. This guy is advocating that Christian Creationism should be taught in schools. But what about the Hindu story of creation or Buddhism? Don't they have a fair shot?

I knew he'd use a tiny scrap of a lengthy Bill Nye video. I fucking knew it

>>6331728
>>lel, pathetic

who are you quoting

>Ken Ham moving the goalposts this fucking hard

> They arbitrarily define science as naturalism and outlaw the supernatural
this is going to be stupid.

Bill Nye starting off with the bowtie argument

BOW TIES CREATED THE EARTH CONFIRMED

Fuckin' bowties magne

Please, Bill. *Please* let this bowtie analogy actually help make your case. Somehow

>>6331740
A classic move, he is playing the long game.

>Bowties prove evolution
Ok Bill.

NYE, SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT BOW TIES
BIOLOGY DAMMIT

>bowties

Bill

Bill what are you doing

>Talking about bow ties
BLUNDER OF THE CENTURY

Ham
>these are my points

Nye
>Bowties are cool

holy fuck nye's losing already

>>6331740

Ah yes, the bowtie argument.

What the fuck is he talking about?

>>6331751
>>6331750
>>6331749
>>6331748
>>6331746
>>6331745
>>6331744
>>6331742

BASED BILL IS ABOUT TO DROP SOME FUCKING SCIENCE

>oh no, the physical sciences aren't representing our NON-PHYSICAL NIGGERSHIT
>bow ties
>what the fuck is happening

>>6320951
Ken Ham: U CANNOT KNOW NUFFIN
Bill Nye: HURR GOD NO REAL

>Bill going off topic

CREATIONISM WINS

>CSI proves evolution
FUCK FUCK FUCK WHAT IS HE DOING

>CSI: Petersburg

CSI...

Bill Please.

I want him to destroy Bill just so you fucks learn that debate != fact.

>>6331731

Its supernatural until science explains it, then its nature.

>for a a full year

Bill please you're breaking my heart

what the fuck is he talking about

Rough start. He's bringing it back.

>CSI is real science

Bill noooo

GET IT TOGETHER BILL, COME ON

>fossils found in layers
>onions have layers
>ogres have layers
Shrek confirmed as God

>>6331707
A christian who does not believe the bible is pretty much not a christian.

>animals crossing over into other animals
BILL STOP USING THEIR LANGUAGE, HAMS GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT SHIT

Bill bringing it back with the "even other religious people think you wack" argument

>pulling the 'murica fuck yeah' card

based bill

OH GOD. WHAT WAS THIS.

>>6331770

Shrek is love, Shrek is life.

Have you accepted Shrek into your anus yet?

>30 minutes
Jesus Christ I thought this was going to be crossfire.

>>6331772
This is what happens when you can't debate. It doesn't matter if have the facts, you will get destroyed by a good speaker.

>dem lack of claps

30 mins of KEN FUCKING HAM

>one person clapping

>30 minutes
what the fuck how long is this thing

>those tiny claps

THE BALL IS OUT OF YOUR COURT, BILL

*tips bow tie*

Bill Nye is like a diesel engine, once he gets warmed up, he'll run forever.

>>6331783
>2 FAGGOT NON BIOLOGISTS DIDN'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION
>CREATIONISM IS NOW REAL

>>6331783
goes until 9 est

is it possible to say more times science in a sentece?

>guys, guyss, look at all these non biologists, this totally isn't an appeal to authorities

>Creationists can be great scientists
>MRI Scanner man

And how the fuck is the guy who made the MRI in any way qualified to argue evolution?

dem introductions
Who is doing the debating here?

>look at these people who are smart and believe in god

>>6331789
To be honest, Bill Nye is an engineer himself, he shouldn't be doing this debate.

Holy fuck he just keeps going "MUH CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS"

>Ham
>WE HAVE FUCKING MRIS HAVE U SEEN THIS SHIT
>God - 1
>Nye - 0

>>6331789
to
>>6331781

>LOOK AT ALL THESE SCIENTISTS WHO ARE RELIGIOUS
>THAT MEANS I'M RIGHT, RIGHT?

>these appeals to authority

bill can do the fucking same ham, youre not convincing anyone except stupid people

>>6331794
Then again, Bill Nye ain't really qualified for the debate either. Everything is fucked

HERE ARE SOME RARE SCIENTISTS WITH RARE BELIEFS AND THEY ALL INVENTED STUFF SO THAT MEANS GOD IS REAL!

the fuck

this is pure fucking Appeal to Authority

>I invented ______
>I am a professor/have a degree in ______

>I believe in creationism

how is this relevant?

how does this lend merit to an argument?

Note the proliferation of beards on Ken's team

its biblical

>there are young Earth creationist scientists

>Ham made a fucking slide show
>with other scientists arguing his point

I'm pretty sure Bill was never under the impression that the other person would be preparing a slideshow, this puts him at a disadvantage regardless of his argument.

I don't think anyone ever said that young Earth scientists can't do science....this MRI guy argument is irrelevant...

GUYS, HE MADE A GEAR SET
AND BELIEVES IN JESUS

HOLY SHIT I'm CONVINCED

>Entire debate is based on biology and geology
>No biologist or geologist on the debate

Man, this is a typical appeal to authority. He's not even mentioning reasons the bilblical account could be plausible.

>>6331797
I agree, he will get his ass slammed, I wish Ken Ham wasn't a total kike and didn't suck up all the cash from the debates and went against Dawkins.

Also,
I thought he was an astrophysicist

>>6331797
>he shouldn't be doing this debate.

No actual biologist would take a debate like this (save for Ham himself, who is an insult to the name of biologists).

If Bill got ahold of every scientist that don't believe in creationism, we'd be here for a coupla years, your frauds ain't shit Ham

>>6331807
It's not.

Fuck this shit, it's all just a mix of appeal to authority and argumentum ad populum. GG fuck off, this is boring.

>non christian science is stealing from christian science
oh god this is going to be bad

>>6331807

because bible thumpers are all supposed to be backwoods niggers or something

ISAAC NEWTON BELIEVED IN ALCHEMY AND HE DISCOVERED THE LAWS OF GRAVITY. YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST, FOLKS, ALCHEMY IS REAL. I'M GONNA GO MAKE SOME GOLD.

>Asks Bill a question
>Continues his own argument anyway

>>6331813
Can someone murder burn down the museum? You'd be scoff-free according to Ken Ham

>HURR IT WAS IN THE PAST AND NO ONE SAW IT, GOD SMITED MY MUSEUM

>>6331824
It's a timed debate, fag.

I'm fucking bored already.

Wait, did that fucking astronomer just say we can't discount creationism because when he looks through a telescope, there's nothing that proves the earth is older than 6,000 years? No, fucking really?

>>6331827

new thread

>>6331823
I have some lead if you need some.

>>6331826
>scoff-free

>>6331833
>>>6331827 →
Are we out of room already? This thread still has a good amount of bumps left in it

>>6331824
bill will write that shit down and weave it into his planned response when he gets his 30 minutes

lol is this really his whole argument

WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT MRI SCANNING SCIENTISTS AND HUBBLE TELESCOPES.
EVOLUTION YOU FAGGOT
THEY CANNOT DISCUSS BIOLOGY

You weren't there a billion years ago, so you can't prove the earth is that old. Since you can't prove it because you weren't there, praise God!

Somebody shoot this fucker.

>>6331837
oh shit, i thought the bump limit was 300. 4chan x has that little red number up in the upper right corner that says the bump limit has been reached

whoops

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BIOLOGY, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

>Can you think of any machines that would work on the molecule-to-man hypothesis?

...All of them?

Also, all those Nye vs Ham caricatures

>evidence for evolution
science
>evidence for creation
a book written in the bronze age by goat farmers

I really hope nye mentions dinosaurs
theropods and their fuzzy feather coatings are going to be bitch to explain

>PREDICTIONS BASED ON THE BIBLE
>evidence confirming GENERALIZED BULLSHIT

This ham is such a ham

This fucking nigga is contradicting himself.

There's a giant thread on /b/ btw.

>>>/b/530798138
Also
>He's not debating the 6,00 years. He is debating that you can believe in the 6,000 years and still benefit society.

>>6331847

Yeah, his attitude is basically the same as that Islamic scholar who basically killed science in the Middle-east a thousand years ago with his idea that the world is the way it is because God wills it to be that way, but he might change the rules at any moment.

>>6331579
Professions of athiesm and professions of science are two different things. Why is that such a hard concept for people to understand.

As for the idea their whole life was an act to stay safe I must ask about all those private diaries and correspondents released at or after their deaths. They are what, detailed fabrications to make sure their corpses aren't tortured?

If you notice many of the few persecution cases which did happen to scientists happened because they had no political sense. Same things happens in the science community as well. Sure physical torture might be far less common due to new government laws, but the whole ruining their lives is still there and in some ways worse. If you are judging it by persecution, sure the church has done it but check out the science community as well. I got to talk with Dan Shechtman, those are horror stories, at least he finally got credit.

What do you want to debating exactly? I think the topic has been drifting the last few posts.

Ham is actually doing alright. He could take the philosophical approach on the bible and reason through the impossibility of its predictions and formation, but that would only win him the debate in a very small circle of people.

What he is doing with this widely publicized debate is actually attempting to diminish the image that creationists cannot be scientists or what have you. It is actually a smarter strategy in the big picture.

>Dogs will always be dogs
Wolfs, anyone? Anyone???

I just want to watch them talk to each other in a debating fasion

>>6331902

true, thats probably why hes doing this.

>teaching evolution is indoctrination

>>6331946
That'll be after their little 30 minute introductions, right?

Andrew Fabich, PhD,

>Liberty Christian University has been Training Champions for Christ through Christian Education.

>tfw Ham is actually convincing me
W-what's happening to me, /sci/?

>>6331911
>also foxes
>also hyenas

>>6331976
you're letting his polished presentation convince you. Listen to what he's actually saying.

>>6331976
You're being swindled by bells and whistles. Or he's giving perfectly coherent, proper points.

How about you wait til Nye's rebuttal, and you decide for yourself

>you can't observe the age of the earth
nigga

The "logic" this guy is using so vague and general that it can be used to discount anything he, himself, cannot literally observe with his naked eye.

>>6331976

Your mind is too open.

Or, just wait until Nye gets his chance.

>>6331902
>Ham is actually doing alright.

Ham is no yokel, he knows what he's doing. But what he's doing is flimflam.

>"YOU CAN'T OBSERVE THE AGE OF THE EARTH"

How the FUCK is there a difference between observational and historical science? You're just observing the PAST, retard.

>based on the bible
>take genesis as literal history
there goes your argument

>>6331976
He is combining real science with his bullshit and pretending the real science actually supports his point by cherry picking only the bits that he can present in a manner that fits his narrative and ignoring the majority that does not.

>why is there death
>genesis

>God invented marriage

>why did jesus christ die on the cross
>genesis
he didn't exist yet dingus
checkmate

I came late...
Can someone explain difference between historical and observational science to me?

>>6332132
>dingus>dingus>dingus>dingus>dingus>dingus>dingus>dingus>dingus>dingus>dingus>dingus

kill yourself faggot

>God created marriage between one man and one woman
Well Ham just lost the gay crowd

Bill looks like he's watching a dog try to drive a car and just doesn't know how to respond to it.

>>6332145

>>6332059
This. The best lies are always those that are half-true.

>b-but think of the children!
top lel

>>6332145
ham is saying that historical is shit that has happened in the past and observational is whats happening currently.

>>6332145
He's spent his whole time giving alternate definitions.

Observational = things we can see directly now, like the Earth is round.
Historical = things we cannot observe directly and so we have to figure out through induction. Like the age of the Earth.

His whole argument seems to hinge that we can't know "historical" science for sure.

> naturalism -> moral relativism -> ???? -> euthanasia

Might as well add

> ???
> Profit!

>>6332213
does he not know we can observe beams of light that are millions of years old?

>>6332233
Ahahahaha, no.

Dude's argument against radioactive dating was "I agree that radiation works like that, but you can't know; you weren't there".

>they are 9000 years old
how would you know?
you didn't see it?
> 680000 cycles
how do you know?
you didn't see it?

>>6332184
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWAK0J8Uhzk&list=PLzamY_fSNkMKF8xbFwFl3MBIn0-8IsBuE&index=2

Pokémon confirmed.

>>6332324
top lel

>>6332324

> Australian land-bridge

Bill is crushing it

Love the audience shots... a lot of blank headlights out there.

BILL NYE THE BLOWING YOU THE FUCK OUT GUY

>>6332183

>MUH PRO-LIFE

Exodus 21:22 states that a fine must be paid for anyone that causes a woman to miscarry in a fight. There is some ambiguity in the translation of "miscarry" in this verse.

However, there is no ambiguity in the rules from older books of law (the Code of Hammurabi and the Hittite Laws, specifically) which explicitly concern the termination of the embryo. These are the laws upon which Exodus 21:22 were based.

>Shithawks fan
fucking dropped.

Debate over, Ham wins.

>>6332357
they're tuning out what Nye is saying.

>>6332367
butthurt horsie fan detected

>Taken by spacecraft, in space!

Fascinating.

>>6332381
I cringed at that part of his speech as well.

>>6332381
>>6332428
Why though?

>>6332381
>>6332428
whats wrong with his argument?

>>6332406
>implying

>>6332442
>>6332439
Filename

>>6332453
Oh. haha

Nye obviously made this presentation by himself while Ham has artists and a team that worked on his.

>>6332453
NUMBER of new species.
Am i really missing something here?

>>6332439
>>6332406

I'm not that guy but I'm pretty sure the issue is that it doesn't take into account the exponential nature of growth. It assumes that growth is linear.

It probably would've taken too long or been too mathy to explain a proper model.