Who was in the wrong here?

Who was in the wrong here?

Can i say both of them

anyone who watches this shit

Both, God is real and so is evolution. If you think otherwise you have the iq of a 15 year old

I'm sure I'll get memed at for this but how can a guy like Ken Ham even enter a debate?

He literally just chooses what he believes based on what he wants to be true.

kek did bill nye really do this? did he just spout off some tired, rehearsed talking points? he looks more retarded than the creationist for even doing something like this as if he is qualified. how bloated is his ego?

I don't get what new athiest think they have to gain by debating someone like Ken Ham, who's religious views are not representative of what most people think about god. It's like if I was to discredit conservatives by debating Alex Jones.

>the IQ of a 15 year old
That varies quite a bit.

Reposting because I don't like proofreading until after I post

When you take right and wrong out of it and judge the debate traditionally, as in how well the one side presented their arguments compared to other and how persuasive the arguments are to a truly neutral perspective then Ken Ham dominated that debate. It's amazing how well Bill Nye has tricked so many people into thinking he knows what he's talking about. He is such a jackass.

New Atheists literally only attack strawmen or weirdos like Ham. Give The God Delusion a quick read to see this. Do they ever actually engage in legitimate theological/philosophical/scientific debate? Nope. Do they spout memes at other memers? Yep.

That's how everyone chooses what they believe, just some do it under the guise of "science"

wow really flutters my amygdala

He's not wrong. All information requires at the very least a degree of faith to be regarded as truth.

But the degree is hugely different between science and what Ham does

No

Whilst that is true, the degree doesn't really matter to what I'm saying. Certain knowledge is impossible.

Creationism is completely retarded, but bill nye is a fucking meme that needs to die.

if god isnt real who wrote the bible idiots

1 + 1 = 2

Good point

This actually, same takeaway I had. I came in thinking
>I'm Christian myself but even I wouldn't argue human life literally is as old as described in the bible
But he wiped the floor with Nye. Bill used carbon dating as evidence, Ken pointed out that there is no definitive way to prove carbon dating can accurately measure millions of years of age if we haven't verified this side by side for a million years, or something. Bill had no response, other than "how dare you question this?" and at least three times deflected towards the cameras, asking people to continue funding science programs, in order to gain moral high ground.

this just in, empirical observations require "faith" in the sense that they require us to believe there is an external and that it is governed by consistent laws. yeah, that's a huge amount of faith required for sure

Prove to me that's true.

Neither of them should be listened to by serious minded people. With that said, Nye was the "good" guy in this scenario...if you made me choose.

I already did.

because carbon dating methods are based on the consistent radioactive decay of certain particles. it is a known variable, but ken hamm says "BUT HAVE YOU SEEN IT DECAY AT THAT RATE OVER A MILLION YEARS". honestly it's hilarious to see him argue that from the position he is in. we haven't seen it decay over a million years but we have seen something exactly consistent with that (i.e. things that require very short times to decay)

...

That's circular reasoning. You're saying something is true because you think it is true.

neckbeard for being retarded and/or leeching off of other retards, science dude for debating him giving his retarded view credibility, me for watching it for almost an hour.

BTFO

>when arithmetical addition has been defined

I haven't seem the debate but is his argument that because we didn't see it with our own eyes we have no proof that it happened?
Then the bible is null as well. Were you there when god willed the world into existence? No? Then god didn't do it.

You can't argue with people of faith just like you can't argue with leftists; they operate on emotions and feelings and so by default they already win because they 'feel' that they're right.

Creationism is fucking retarded and so is the false dichotomy of science & religion that americans and atheists love to have, even the pope believes in evolution.

See, way better response than Bill. He came in thinking he was arguing with a creationist strawman, not someone anticipating his high school arguments. Quite a lot of people could have bested Ken in a debate Tbh

Read the Closing of the Muslim Mind by Robert Reilly. The short of it is that Guys like Ken believe that revelation is the only way to know true truth. This necessarily leads to the rejection of philosophy and science since the world is almost arbitrary in the sense that God can instantly change the laws of physics and stuff so we can't really know anything by way of reason. This book is about Muslims but it's perfectly applicable to certain voluntaristic protestant groups like the one Ken is a part of.

How could anyone see themselves beating an Australian shitposter?

...

No, you asked for proof. I merely pointed to the proof that was already there.

Yup, it's completely based on a prior assumption of a relative system of definition created by humans for The purpose of understanding our world.

And how is that proof?

>atheism

That's faith

Bill Nye raped Hamm in the ass and mouth....

But in all fairness you could have a high school debator do the same. Hamm is a jackass. Creationism is a very weak position that's hard to defend on any rational/factual grounds, even if the debator is good...

And even just a few years ago, Nye was still coasting off the strength of his kid's show which most of us grew up on. Nye gained some points with me for besting one of the lead proponents of creationism..... but he lost all his coolness points with his new show where he just shills liberal causes in an obnoxiously preachy manner.

I'd say him besting Ken Hamm could have jumpstarted his ailing career if he coasted off it properly. He could simply had a modernized version of his old show (without all the political preachiness) or he could have done something a bit more like John Oliver's show if he wanted to get preachy (but he'd need some good writers).... but the current show is a septic tank fire that has siphoned away any respectability he may have once had. I'm amazed they've greenlit a second season.

That's libertarianism

That's a definition.

Basic morals have been ingrained in our DNA since we were cavemen travelling in small groups. You don't need a God to tell you that killing other people and generally acting like a shitbag is bad.

Based on what?

>>>reddit

Not just faith, but all belief in general. We conclude from this that objectivity, therefore, is the most logical standpoint because it doesn't require believing based on unproven predispositions.

However, an enlightened individual will realize that objectivity isnt pragmatic because it inevitably leads to, nihilism, which leads to the downfall of society.

The most logical thing, therefore, is to adopt faith in a God, despite your understanding that it can't be proven. This is why high iq individuals (Einstein, Alex Jones,etc) are often religious.

>Basic morals have been ingrained in our DNA since we were cavemen travelling in small groups
Explain China, faggot

It's useful to define it that way.

Evolution or DNA may explain why we act a certain way but it doesn't explain why we should or should not act a certain way. If moral truths are the product of evolution, they are not commandments we are bound to obey but merely helpful suggestions that can assist our "herd" in survival. In other words, science has no way to bridge the gap between "is" and "ought." In other words, science can show us what helps us but it can't tell us why we should.

Based on a system created by humans you fucking idiot.

>Alex Jones
Other than that you don't have to believe in a God to not be a nihilist

Humans are incapable of objectivity. All knowledge is predicated upon some degree of faith.

Alex Jones is not a clever man and should not be trusted.

Most people refer to averages when they say such things

Cultural differences and leftover communist practicise

Whilst I agree that it is useful, it isn't proof of anything. We believe that because it is easier that way.

What do you mean it's not proof?

We defined it, therefore it's true.

Chinks aren't human

Humans are incapable of objectivity and thus certain knowledge. Everything we claim to know is predicated ypon belief of some description.

kek,
unironically this

It's predicated upon subjective on human understanding and thus not a certain fact because we are incapable of obtaining necessary truth.

okay

Define truth and fact.

Definitions do not equal truth. I can tell you my definition of truth but like all definitions it would not equal truth.

>Humans are incapable of objectivity and thus certain knowledge

Source?

So then what are you going on about?

Fuck off with your postmodern trash you retarded new age hippie.

All of what we call truth and knowledge requires a subscription to a belief. We can't know anything.

define truth

Wrong on all counts. But please feel free to continue with your pop-psychology

>science is the belief that you can do something

Bill Nye should have faded into obscurity, dude is just embarrassing at this point

It doesn't matter it doesn't change what I'm arguing

Logic

Is it your belief that truth doesn't exist?

This is some really poor quality trolling, dude. At least be a little bit worth someone's time.

Yes, to humans at least

your arguing semantics in what is not a semantic argument, your essentially straw manning the word true. gravity exists whether or not you believe in it. laws of thermodynamics exists regardless of faith. this is objectively true.

Good argument

Says the guy who's literally spewing pop-psychology garbage.

How can you know truth doesn't exist if you can't define it?

Is the belief that truth doesn't exist a true belief?

but dude muh relativism lmao nothing is true dude we'll never know!!!!!!!!!!

Prove that these laws exist in all parts of reality

The point Bill kept returning to was that belief in a young earth is harmful to scientific progress. Ken pointed out that it doesn't matter what you think of origins, because you all have the same objective facts in front of you, and you can make technology and cure diseases no matter what you think of evolution. He even played a clip of the guy who invented the MRI machine, who believes the world was created by God 6,000 years ago. Bill never gave a real reason why it matters how old someone thinks the world is.

It's hard to have an argument with someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

>what is truth
>pop-psychology

Pick one

>postmodern new age hippie shit
>not pop-psychology

Educate yourself my underage friend.

Tell me about it

i dont see how thats relevant to creationism, you cant in science ask for proof that a negative is not true, this kind of logic is nonsensical.

this is a little better, your right and we also cant be certain our senses are giving us true data but this is not an effective method of living.

>what is truth
>postmodern new age hippie shit

I'm sorry things have gotten so bad for you, perhaps read a book from time to time? It might help

I'm not arguing that creationism is true. In fact, its logically very weak. In spite of this, however, all information requires some degree of faith to be held as knowledge. The degrees however are important, because this helps to dictate what is most likely to be the case, though we can never be sure. What I'm saying is that it can never be empirically verified that the laws we perceive to be true here are true anywhere else. Such an assumption is just that: an assumption. To hold this as truth requires belief.

It is misinformation. Why lie to people that the world is 6,000 years old?

It is not necessarily true, but it's perhaps the most valid belief in this thread.

Where the fuck did all these christfags come from? Is it the Sup Forums contrarianism?

I thought another big part of his argument was also that if you tried to date the same piece of evidence or material with different "established and reliable" methods that you would get drastically different ranges in age

The question is what's the harm in believing it?

> post-90s Bill Nye
> Right about anything

ok and while that may be true it is pointless. your essentially saying that proof or no proof doesnt effect the validity of a statement which is not true, while i agree you cant technically prove anything that make it untrue either, and that doesnt make any belief equally as valid there are still more and less true regardless, again what your arguing is totally semantics and irrelevant to life, one must most past that logic to literally have any thought

So it's not true that truth doesn't exist? A contradictory view isn't valid.