BILL NYE THE SATANIC RITUAL
@the guy with one job, BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL
@BlurredLimes v2, !LLIB LLIB LLIB LLIB LLIB LLIB LLIB LLIB LLIB LLIB
@the guy with one job, it's nice to see this distarction before the war down below
I've seen this debate. Evolution vs creationism. It's really good. Btw, bill nye whoops this guy.
@Dr Kriegerstein, do you want debates fueled by nothing more than ignorance and lack of factual back up? This is how you get that.
@Dr Kriegerstein, I'd say less whoops the guy and more straight up embarrasses him.
@Dr Kriegerstein, im a Christian and i watched this debate. That man is an embarrassment to us all
@MorboTheAnnihilator, yah....plus it perpetuates the stereotype that Christians at large disagree with evolution.
@Dr Kriegerstein, I'm Christian and in high school the curriculum taught that creation is a metaphor, and evolution actually happened. The religious part is that evolution only happened because God created life in such a way that it could evolve.
@Wee Lil Taco, where in the bible does it mention the dinosaurs he made?
@AbelFive, Leviticus 32:6
@Wee Lil Taco, I have always thought of it like that, I believe god made every thing with science explanations and it did take thousands of years, and that the 7 days were not earth days since it doesn't specifically say earth days
@AbelFive, there are possible references to dinosaurs. But the Bible doesn't mention all life forms which have existed. Just because it doesn't mention something doesn't mean God didn't make it.
@Killing instincts , Christians typically only dispute macro evolution. Most who have taken the time to learn about the theory of evolution agree that micro evolution occurs.
@MorboTheAnnihilator, look up John Lennox. Way more intelligent than Ken Hamm.
@MorboTheAnnihilator, if you are a Christian or part of any other religion with a creation story and you agree to debate a scientist about it, you probably aren't smart enough to debate it. The very act of agreeing or asking for such a thing shows your intelligence.
@BearDaniels, agreed. I'm still a Christian but at the same facts are facts and I'm not going to let any bias blind me. I always found it ridiculous when people try and debate facts. Like arguing of fire is hot or not. And don't get me wrong, sure there have been mistakes when it comes to science but that doesn't mean we just write everything off as "God did it" and leave it at that. We as a species have been blessed with intelligence (whether from a divine being or not) and we should stop at nothing to further our knowledge. Rant over.
@BearDaniels, you know that science relies heavily on faith, especially the theory of evolution. I'm not going to say whether I believe in it or not, I'm simply saying that faith in creationism is the same as faith in science, since we haven't observed evolution actually occur. Either way, both maintain a faith in something, creationists simply seek to provide an explanation for where matter came from. It's not that far fetched.
@1NutParking, your wrong on your view of how science is seen. In a real scientific community the current knowledge is not believed in, it's accepted. There's a very large difference in that science allows for the proposal of new ideas and it merely accepts what it knows at the current time. But leaves the possibility for new information to replace the old. Creationism is the end of knowledge because it says that a force beyond what we can comprehend created life, and leaves that as fact. Leaving no room for testing, experimenting or challenging that idea
@RogueKnight, but... Macro and microevolution are terms used by creationists to pick and choose what part of evolution they decide to believe, not scientifically useful terms... There's no difference between the two ideas of macro and micro evolution logically- if people accept that one exists, they should be able to use the same logic that led them to that conclusion to find that the other exists, as well. That said, most Christians I know don't dispute evolution at all.
@1NutParking, you should just stop contributing at this point.
@jouze, if you have taken any sort of philosophy course, or even listened to his points rather than writing them off as lunacy immediately, you would understand that logically you have a common denominator with creationists: you both believe and have faith at a core level. Accepting the science is believing in it. Additionally, evolution is not the end all. The question of origins is still left to be answered. Regardless of what a creationist believes about evolution, creationism is more than a cure all, it is a simple explanation of origins that seeks to provide answers where science cannot, as well as incorporate science into its understanding.
@Carmen Sandiego,.macro and micro are yes used by scientists, too, to describe two distinct types of evolution. There is a HUGE difference, logically speaking. One involves minor changes go a species over time. The other involves major changes over time, including changing the type of life form. I dispute macro evolution, but I absolutely believe in micro evolution. The only was I see macro happening is by the hand of God. Not naturally, randomly. It is difficult to debate faith vs. science in many situations, such as with macro evolution. Faith, by it's very definition, doesn't have hard evidence to prove it. Science is based on finding proof,or at least trying. It is difficult to argue with someone who does not have a faith they are a part of.
@1NutParking, no you're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm saying a real scientist merely accepts science as it is, which is different from believing in something, and leaves it open ended to new ideas. I'm saying that evolution is not perfect and may be seen as wrong in some ways in some years but given the litany of information we have now it is the best model. And evolution does not explain the origin of life, because it doesn't actually pertain to the origin of life, there are many other theories working towards that (see pyrite theory). And creationism is a pseudoscience because it uses scientific ideals but in the wrong way. Like I said earlier creationism leaves no room for further growth of knowledge, because it assumes that some higher being is responsible for a phenomena and leaves it at that, it's stating that "oh we may not completely understand this idea so well never truly understand this idea" and leaves it to a force beyond explanation or experimentation
@1NutParking, an example I like to use of the idea of accepting vs believing is that of the laws of physics. It has been mathematically proven that physical models work, therefore they are laws. So for years scientists accepted them as the explanatory model for the way matter and energy behaved. However recently we have been shown that in certain levels or systems they may not always apply so strictly. Like in quantum physics or in cases of extreme heat or compression (immediately after the big bang) and we are now accepting that we may need different ways to model these systems. We accept the new ideas (with a grain of salt of course, as much more testing is needed) and add it to the base of knowledge. I accept that many modern creationists use scientific concepts and ideals but it is the end of scientific learning. And many of the points he uses have been disproven
@1NutParking, yeah you are clearly an idiot, stop posting on the Internet and take a science class.
@AbelFive, the bible also mentions dragons
@1NutParking, science is a tool and it meant to be an observation of events through our flawed senses and other tools. There should not be any belief in it. Scientology however...i actually know nothing about but that point i make is that relying on belief in science for science to work is grossly misunderstanding. I think people have distorted your view a bit.
@MorboTheAnnihilator, how did he embarrass us
@Wee Lil Taco, That is pretty rediculous. As a Christian, How can you simply claim that whatever part of the Bible that you find controversial "is a metaphor"? God doesn't need to use metaphors for what actually happened. He said it happened in 6 days, it happened in 6 days.
@Killing instincts , "and of the rising and the setting of the sun, was the first day." We don't have to conform bro. God didn't need to have his plan take place over thousands of years, that would be pointless. He's the God of the Universe. You agree that he has the ability to force all of creation into being but deny his ability to create life? If he can force the Universe into existence, he can create life in 6 days.
@Malekorath, wow. Um, to what "facts" are you referring to? You do realize that the theory of evolution and carbon dating are wrought with assumptions, right? To claim that they are "facts" simply because a few pundits refuse to believe that there is a just God out there so they tell you that these arguments are sound is extremely foolish. Also, The tactic of trying to belittle your opponents by attacking their faith is a low blow, man. Now bring it on. I believe in Faith, and I believe that we don't have to have all of the answers. So bring on your arguments, let's do this.
@Carmen Sandiego, No well-read Christian I have ever met has supported evolution. There are people who are Christian in name only that don't want to seem stupid so they will compromise on the issue. The mass media and the Progressive domination of the school system like to bully students and people who are not as scientifically inclined into believing in their bull, which is why so many people accept these ludicrous theories as facts. Well read Christians, however, understand that these theories (namely macro evolution and carbon dating) are utterly wrought with assumptions and carry little scientific backing other than the squabbling of pundits that want to manipulate data to fit their Agenda. Exhibit A: "There's no difference between the two ideas of macro and micro evolution logically"-you. That is one of the largest and most generalized assumptions I've ever heard, so much so that it's almost comical. It's like saying that when you look down a road it looks pretty flat so I guess;
@NotAWhale, you'd have a better discussion debating with a rock than debating with a religious person. A rock at least listens. So no thank you I won't argue with you.
@Carmen Sandiego, that means that the world has a flat surface. There is no way that any true scientist would support that kind of generalization as anything more than a theory! Maybe "logically" it makes sense to you. Logically, when you take the anti derivative of 1/(2x+4)^2 it's a natural log, but that's not the case. What I'm trying to say is, if you are dealing with something as complex as the origin of species, it is beyond ignorant to think that because something seems "logical" that it is automatically true and therefore gives you the autonomy to belittle people of faith. Good day sir.
@jouze, *sigh* okay. Look. What we claim to know, is that we have the answer. Your claim is that we never truly have the answer. You say that, under certain conditions, even what we hold as the most solid truth, our laws of physics, can still be wrong or not as accurate in some instances. Therefore (by your argument) Creationism violates scientific theory, as it infers certainty. Creationists are certain that the Bible is the true recording of not only the purpose of human life but its origin. You have a problem with this because it leaves no room for error, correct? No room for further amendment, interpretation, growth, and learning, is this all correct?
@BearDaniels, lol you just contradicted yourself! "I don't want to listen to your argument because you won't believe mine" your problem with religion is that we are stubborn, yet the chief problem you have with us is this very thing! I, sir, am wide open to any suggestion you have that may topple my faith. I will listen to every word, and offer you a counter point. Please, by all means, tell me which of us is being close-minded here; the one who refuses to even hear the opponents ideas and therefore shuts him off, or the one who openly invites debate? I challenge you, sir, to look past your bias and show me your worst.
@NotAWhale, on which planet? Where in the universe? When did the sun rise? When did the sun set? what time? We don't know how fast the earth was spining on the axis or if was going by earth days, unless you can prove ne wrong and tell me the smallest details then I am sticking to my belief, and yes he is God he has existed since the begining, thousands of years can seem 6 days to him.
@NotAWhale, I actually think people like you are scientifically fascinating. Id love to cut open your skull and see what, if anything, fills the cavity between your ears. It's amazing that you can form words without using your brain. But I suppose even a parrot can repeat others. You've simply been told what to think and what to see and like a parrot repeat it without thinking or knowing what you are saying.
@Killing instincts , alright. Are you serious. None of those questions even make sense. Just tell me this: Why would God if he is all-powerful, decide to let the human race develop over millions of years? What purpose would it serve? You realize that you answer is very common and it just so happens to be a cop-out answer, right? You hear something that sounds smart and you get scared for your belief system, so you custom fit your religion to mesh perfectly with this new Idea as to not disagree with anyone. The whole reason that evolution and CD have taken off as they have is because people don't want to believe in the Bible, or in a Just God. It is for this reason that they defend these theories. The Bible says that the same earth that was put into place during creation is the one that we live on today, nothing has changed as far as axis spin or any of that, that's just all ridiculous. I'm really tired right now so I'm sorry if this is coming out in a very aggressive manner.
@NotAWhale, that is only partially correct. It's not that we may never have a true answer. It's given that if new information comes refuting old ideas up we must be open to new ideas and challenging the old ways. And it does not mean that the laws of physics are not the answer. For most every scenario they apply and still hold its just under certain conditions we have to correct for them. And yes the whole idea of being certain is against the ideals of science but also that it leaves the answer as "it's beyond our comprehension", it leaves the end all be all as a higher power which cannot be explained nor further understood. And in science there's always a deeper way to understand something and relate it to other fields and expand on knowledge. But with that there's really nothing you can do with that information. And also don't give me that *sigh* like you are already tired of this argument. I would be happy to debate this with you but not if you're going to hold an air
@Killing instincts , There is a form of Dating in the Bible for the eras. There are 3 eras, each taking about a 1/3rd of the time by order of magnitude. The first era is that of before Christ, in which sins had to be paid for with sacrifices, the second era is of the blood of Christ, so that no man must himself pay (which is our current era) and the third era is that of the millennial reign. This being said, by order of Magnitude the earth cannot be more than between 6,000-10,000 years old. By custom fitting your belief to agree with the atheists or those of different religions you are simply rejecting what God has for us in the Bible. I mean by all means believe what you want, but please don't claim to have biblical backing for your ludicrous theories.
@BearDaniels, alright, great talk bro, simply enlightening the discussion we've had! I'm so glad that we can promote open mindedness in our contemporary society! Gone are the days when men wished to kill each other because of differing beliefs! Oh, wait.
@NotAWhale, ah does notawhale want a cracker!? Do ya? I can have a nice man in a robe give it to you. We'll make a day of it and all the parrots will get crackers from the man in robes.
@NotAWhale, look at our belief for a second
A all knowing being created everything as we know it and we were the speical ones who in the entire universe we were the ones created in his reflection
When you look at any religion, belife, theory they are all ludicrous, and there is nothing wrong with these things, maybe we are all wrong maybe we are all right in a way or another, I really don't think we all have it right though and thats why we shouldn't be attacking each others feelings
@jouze, alright, I'll give you that *sigh* was a real jerk thing to say 😂 I'm sorry. I'm kinda tired so please excuse my exasperation. But let's go. Alright, so basically my proposition to you, now that we have your belief qualified, is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Faith. I agree with your belief that all humans will always want to expand and learn as we grow, so we can't possibly satisfy ourselves with our own work. We can't just say "This answer that we came up with is the right one because we can't find anything that differs with it and it helps me sleep at night." By mans viewpoint, I can see religion looking like this. Just an invented idea that can't be refuted because of it's implications, while also comforting us with the thought of afterlife and redemption. Our way of refuting "science" is with "faith". There is a problem here, however. The respect for science by man is based in the power that we have to problem solve and refute wrong answers and.. (Cont'd)
@NotAWhale, listen I know you aren't a parrot but are even qualified to debate anything? Are you a authority on religion? A pastor? A priest? Give me a reason why I should should listen to you. I think you are just some religiously devout person who wants people to listen to his beliefs on the Internet. Ergo I don't give a crap' what you have to say.
@jouze, okay, so, we derive the power of science from our knowledge, our conclusions, our deductive reasonings, our earthly powers. We use every power at our disposal to understand more. However, the more we understand, the more we realize that we don't know. Therefore what you said makes perfect sense. Trying to give a definitive answer to life's most difficult questions without any argument more solid than "we can't understand it" is infuriating- but here comes the twist- without understanding how faith works. So we established where science derives its power, but faith, on the contrary, derives its power from something much different than man's own understanding. Faith derives its power from man's conscience. We believe that the purpose that drives existence, is based on moral factors rather than scientific ones. And we believe that God has a purpose for us, a righteous one. Where does this belief come from? The Bible, which is God's Holy communication with us. (Continued)
@jouze, so while reading the Bible, we come across moral truths, about our purpose, about how we are to live life, about why we are here, about what happened. Every believer finds the truth of the Bible to match up with a moral compass inside their mind that allows us to access "faith". What we read in the Bible matches up perfectly with this unknown voice in our head that tells us what is right from wrong. Because we trust this voice inside of us, this moral code, more than we trust anything else in existence, we are able to transfer this trust into this book that reflects the truth of our voice, our guide, our conscience. It is from this vantage point that Man can declare faith superior to science. We trust this conscience inside our head more than we trust our own human doings, because we know that this thing inside of us, guiding us about right and wrong, is the only thing in our existence that is Devine. If the Bible matches up with this divinity, then it is also divine.
@jouze, this is the concept that dictates what we know as faith. We know, in our mind, that our conscience is true, for its divinity, and therefore are satisfied with the certainty of the Truth of God's word.
@jouze, by the way, after reflecting back on it, I have a bit of a confession. I struggle with pride, which gives me this haughty air about me when I've been arguing, most noticeable in my *sigh*. I've been doing it in my other arguments too if you look up and read em. It's a real problem. Anyways, I apologize for that. Your civility brought it to light, now it's obvious. So that was my bad, and I hope it doesn't take away from my argument.
@BearDaniels, my power doesn't come from any manly institution such as a church, I have no certificate as a pastor or priest. I only started debating on here actually as I didn't see my side being fought for. I believe my side is right, and I Wouldn't want to leave everyone out of at least hearing what I actually believe to be the truth. I will have to concede with you, as I did with jouze, that I have an issue with arrogance as well, so part of the reason I started to speak was because I wanted to show off my argumentation skills. I realize now that this is very petty and I apologize for it, though I still hold my argument in high regard. But I must say, I do believe my argument holds Devine power in truth. This power is derived from the agreement between my moral conscience, and the book known as the Bible. Every person has a conscience, and it is on that ground that I stake my claim. You have a conscience. And it is for that reason that I try to argue.
@NotAWhale, and I guess that points at at the core of it the difference in the values we were raised on. My thinking is that in many different lights thing may be right or wrong, and that I have ideals and a morality I follow now based on what information I have. But I do not believe in an absolute right because I accept given some new information something I may have viewed as right may be wrong. It is the core difference in accepting vs believing I guess.
But one other thing I'd like to ask about is your belief on the moon and the positioning of our solar system and whether the moon landing was real. Because years ago it was viewed that earth was the center of the universe but of course over time science challenged this and now it has become from what I understand common acceptance in the church that the earth orbits the sun. And I think this will be what we see with evolution over time is that with continued support from the general community and science it will eventually become..
@NotAWhale, accepted by the church. And the question is at what point does the compromise stop and the church decide that it will no longer consider the words of science
@NotAWhale, and after seeing some of the other people you've had to talk with I understand your exhaustion, trying to debate with people who merely resort to personal attacks without analyzing their own selves are a pain and demoralizing
@Killing instincts , I do not believe that my Beliefs are ludicrous. I believe that each person has a moral compass inside them known as their conscience, and I believe that our consciences collectively agree with the Holy Word of the Bible. I don't view my religion as "maybe it's wrong and maybe it's right" because I believe that the power of my conscience reveals the truth of the Bible. It is for that reason only that I find fault with these other people. My Bible was validated by my conscience, which I hold in highest regard to anything. Therefore, I would like to state my disapproval of each other persons argument so that they might know my truth
@jouze, okay, so I got what you said about the sun and the earth, how man was wrong about that and such. But there was no doubting, at any time, of the truth of the scriptures. Again, as we view these things, it is mans interpretation of them. Mans interpretation of the solar system was wrong, mans interpretations of a lot of stuff is wrong. It is not mans judgement, however, that the Bible is correct. We aren't deciding for ourselves that the Bible is true. We are acknowledging a power inside of ourselves, our conscience, and telling it "you win, what do I do" and it is based on our trust in our conscience that we deem the Bible as truth. I also don't want to confuse you on what I mean by "conscience" Bc it's a pretty broad term. I'm not saying that there's a voice inside you saying "yes/no" for everything you do. But it knows when you are doing right, you can feel it, and it knows when you are doing wrong, you can feel it. I encourage you to read the gospels of the Christ. (Cont'd)
@jouze, Read the story, read what Jesus himself had to say. Then look inward, at your conscience, and ask it, "which do I believe?" "Was there any power in what I felt inside about this book? Did my conscience tell me anything?" And ask yourself what you hold in higher regard, the moral voice inside you, or the reasoning of your mind? So you believe in the authority of your conscience, or do you only trust yourself?
@RogueKnight, I encourage you to google macro and microevolution. The first link has a good explanation of the definitions of the two words and also how the terms are interpreted by creationists.
@Carmen Sandiego, looking back at my post I was being a bit of a cocky proud jerk and probably deserved those down votes , but I'd still like to debate you sir
@NotAWhale, I didn't belittle anyone. Like I just said to RogueKnight, I encourage you to google macro and microevolution, that first site really is swell. Also, I'd hope you might learn more about the massive amount of research that supports evolution before dismissing the theory as ludicrous. And, for what it's worth, no well-educated (or even semi-educated) person I have ever met has doubted evolution, be they Christians or otherwise. Facts and faith can coexist--you just can't ignore the facts.
@Carmen Sandiego, I mean my dad, who has masters in multiple degrees and is a certified college professor who taught at the air force academy doesn't believe evolution as a theory is worth a grain of salt, so maybe you simply haven't met that many educated people. And I know what the difference is between micro and macro evolution. But there isn't a way to prove a connection between the two. DNA that is very similar doesn't prove it, genetic mutation doesn't prove it, natural selection doesn't prove it, none of this "research" can positively prove a correlation between macro and micro. There just simply isn't enough data that we could've collected in the past 150 years. Feel free to believe what you want to, but as far as anything man has made, be it research or philosophy, can ever be identified as a fact and not an opinion
@Carmen Sandiego, read... well, the first and second. The first wad a creationist site, the second was from UC Berkeley. Because Berkeley is the bastion of unbiased ideas, right?... anyways, as to the definition of each, they are defined as I believed them to be already. but I don't buy the conclusion. I'm paraphrasing. "We haven't found the boundaries for genetic change which could lead to macro evolution, therefore, you should believe in macro evolution." Umm just because they don't understand or know the limits of something doesn't mean I should believe it. And there is a huge jump in logic between macro and micro evolution. One you have "hey, my great great grandpappy walked on land. No I'm a whale" where the other is "my great grandpappy used to have more hair because he lived in a colder time. And he was smaller because there was less food to promote growth, but we are both the same animal."
@RogueKnight, very true. Nice comparison
@NotAWhale, thanks. I guess you are the great grandpappy... :-)
@RogueKnight, hahaha 😂
@NotAWhale, if macro evolution is "just a theory" how do you explain in-between species? Scientists have found fossil evidence of many different human ancestors alone, usually with a clear progression from one to the other. We weren't originally in the form we are now and we can prove it. Doesn't that alone topple the whole Adam and Eve thing? We also have examples of in between species between fish and amphibians (look up Tiktaalik). How is that not strong evidence of evolution?
@Tina Belcher, You can't imply that Adam and Eve are completely fictitious simply because two species are very similar and even have similar DNA. Very many Animals are similar, as God created them to be. He also allows for minor adaptations, but I don't see how their similarities completely prove evolution or disprove creationism
@1NutParking, breeding is a method of selecting animals to gain specific traits over a period of time that humans do all the time. The only thing is natural selection takes place when natural forces prevent some animals from reproducing that causes changes in their genes over time. So don't say that evolution has not been observed.
Nyeagra, like viagra but for science
God Damn but that Ken Ham guy was a moron.
@I Are Lebo, for real, his Australian accent gives him too much false credibility
@Captain Penis, I fail to see how an accent gives any credibility. I can see how it can take away credibility, though. Someone explaining theoretical physics with a Deep South accent or someone describing macroeconomics while sounding like a bubbly valley girl would be hard to take seriously.
But being foreign doesn't make one smart.
@I Are Lebo, have you seen that American dad episode where Steve and this British kid were trying to get to a nudist beach but the British kid kept coming up with moronic ideas to progress their journey and Steve only listened to him because his accent seemed a sign of intelligence...same concept
@Captain Penis, I haven't seen that episode, but Steve is a moron.
@I Are Lebo, totally
Bill Nye the satanic guy
@The Informant, oh man, clever.
@the guy with one job, Bill Nye the...uh...nevermind
Nye. Nye! NYE!
I'm drunk right now and this scared the shiz out if me
Bill Nye that spastic guy
I thoght the shaking was the bus
@rollingboy, what kind of a bus are you on?
@the guy with one job, A shaky one
I thought the shaking was staying the same.
Hes such an angry old man at this point.
I watched this longer than I should
This post has inspired me to go watch this debate. Thanks, stuckpixel, for promoting learning
I swear to god it made a noise the first time
Can someone do this with that pixel distort thing? Ha...I made myself laugh..