Bill Nye VS Ken Hamm (Creation Museum)

[Rev. Iconocclesiastes]

Seems like you guys have not been around to see that not all christian types take a word for word literal aproach to creation. I dont and know of others that dont as well. Yes there are those that will debate until blue in face that the earth is 6000 years old... Even an antiquity Jewish sage defends it by saying that during the flood something makes it impossible to see past rightly. If I come across it I will share it. However, I see the whole of the allworld or universe as being billions of years old and the earth as very old to. I do believe and I say believe as in science and faith can and do work together like Einstein and Tesla have demonstrated in their works. I believe that there is a creator, nothing that can be defined anymore than anyone can explain and understand everything in seen and unseen space. Light has a speed limit, so we have only seen as far as that limit has allowed. Our planet has been around a few billion years and man as we know perhaps about 20,000 years. It is, as far as I seen in science not been proven of any middle stages of primate to upright man with speech ability. Random mutation in an nearly over night theory is one I have heard but, that would mean we should take Marvel super heroes serious as possible. I believe that the creative force caused things to happen at certain times and by whatever means and purpose it put forth. Not being hung up or pushing this creative force has been part of select scientists that do hold belief in it and have no problem being helpful in great break throughs in science and discovery.

Hamm, to me represents a portion of bleivers, not all. He can do it till he is blue in face, but at the end of day we have to move along and deal with where the pins lay. We can point finger and say anyone that believes in higher power is like Hamm or any of the others on the literalist belief represent all of them. Or we can just say, nice opinion, and move on... Cant be getting our Walter on, nor worrying about this shit argument. Some believe in higher power some dont, but it has no bearing on being dude if one does or doesn't. Just as many Christians are uptight let, Dudeism in any of its many different members become so uptight and condescending.

Personally, I do not believe in the literality of the most OT, and I certainly believe that the Earth is a whole lot older than a mere 6000 years.  And has anybody here ever heard of Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino)?  He's even more loopty-loo than Hamm.  I wish that Hamm would just shut up, personally.

[Shagbeard]

Just as many Christians are uptight let, Dudeism in any of its many different members become so uptight and condescending.

I think faster than i type so quick edit
Just as there are many Christians that can be quite uptight, let not Dudeism in any of its many different members become so uptight and condescending.

[Rev. Iconocclesiastes]

Just as many Christians are uptight let, Dudeism in any of its many different members become so uptight and condescending.

I think faster than i type so quick edit
Just as there are many Christians that can be quite uptight, let not Dudeism in any of its many different members become so uptight and condescending.

Amen to that, man.

[Hominid]

Maybe not all the trouble Icon, but most.  It is in God's name (or Allah, pick your deity) that men believe they are RIGHTEOUSLY doing his will by actually doing evil.  Politicians and corporate evils are perpetrated by people knowing they are breaking the law with immoral acts, so that's different.  Religious ferver can account for too much of the world's suffering... Think of the Spanish inquisition, the spread of Islam by the sword in the dark ages (the dark ages themSELVES were a result of the church becoming the defacto ruling force for centuries), 9/11, honour killings, stonings and beheadings in the name of Allah, abortion doctor slayings and clinic bombings...

Before you blame the people, not the religion, I point you to the Old Testament where entire cities of men, women, and children killed and raped all under God's direction, because they weren't his worshippers, or the chosen ones.  The Koran explicitly directs followers to kill infidels, and gives advice on how to properly beat your wife.  I can follow up with specific references if you want, but I gather you know what I'm talking about.  Religion is evil, and moderately religious people only give safe harbour to the "extremists" who are only doing what their sacred writings are telling them to do...

Couple short videos to underline my point:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxEUY

[Rev. Iconocclesiastes]

Religion is evil?  Well, in a sense I would agree with that, and I reckon that Jesus Christ Himself would too. 

Jesus was not about religion.  And in my estimation, Jesus was not here to establish a religion, either.  In fact, JC was very much anti-religion (and anti-establishment in general), in my sight.  That's why I do not subscribe to "Churchianity", and do not think of myself as being very "religious".  Jesus said to the Pharisees (the "religious authorities" of His day), "You're like whitewashed sepulchres: fair without, but full of bones and corruption within."   

Hominid, I am not going to show you any more NT Bible verses in order to demonstrate my point, either, lest you accuse me of "preaching" or "Bible-banging".  I'll just close with a quote from C.S. Lewis (himself a Christian, and a former atheist):

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[Masked Dude]

I watched the debate, but I don't think it did any good. I lump the YECs along with people who believe aliens manipulated our DNA: Wackadoodles. They use one tiny piece to make silly claims that prove some asinine idea. Most religious people I know -- Christian and other -- admit that holy books cannot be taken literally. Thankfully Ken Ham doesn't speak for most Christians.

My opinion:
They're two independent things. There are valid religious scientists just there are valid secular philosophical thinkers. To me, science says How and religions say Why. There's no reason the two should have issues.

Science says stars are nuclear furnaces. Religions say God / Adonai / Allah / Brahma made them.
Science says organisms live, reproduce, and die. Religions say it's because their god(s) have a step-by-step process leading to something else.

They need to leave each other alone. The few YECs should not tell science and the world that Earth is only 6000 years old and then use selective literalism in the next breath. The few scientists should stop trying to prove gods are fake; it isn't your duty.

For a lack of better terms, both sides have zealots. The bad thing is, the media loves a good story. They will only showcase the loudmouths. Bill Nye isn't anti-theism. Ken Ham isn't stupid. While Nye is fine with believers, his issue is with education. Ham on the other hand speaks for a small minority and wants his way only.

I dated a wonderful, brilliant lady who was very religious. But she believes dinosaurs are fake fossils. Now, I don't think 90% of other Christians in the world think that, and none of the Christian dudes here. I would never tell her she's wrong as it's not my duty.

In summary, they can live together as long as the zealous loudmouths on both sides get out of the way.

[Rev. Iconocclesiastes]

Read up on Kent Hovind (aka "Dr. Dino"), if you'd care to.  Now, that guy is a total nutbug who makes Hamm look like Einstein by comparison. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

[Masked Dude]

That's scary. But I'll look into it. Thanks.

[Hominid]

Actually, that's a pretty good response Icon, I get where you're coming from - I used to be the same way.  But I'm the opposite now: I was a Christian (born again, bible-bashing fundamental evangelical), now I'm what I call an atheist, but with a hint of spirituality.   (Edit - not saying YOU are a bible-bashing fundie...)

There is indeed a huge difference between being a follower of Christ, and a follower of religion, however it also has it's contradictions that were too unsettling for me, and I had to leave that belief system behind to rid myself of the massive cognitive dissonance it caused.

Being a peaceful, loving Christian is in contradiction to Jesus' words - I think you know where I'm going with this.  Jesus said - "Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be of his own household."  - Matthew 10:34-36  Actually, the rest of the chapter pretty well says he is THE only way.

More: "I came to bring fire to the earth and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division" .Luke 12:49-51

That sound all lovey dovey to you?  He's more concerned that people follow him ONLY; everyone else can LITERALLY go to hell.  Well, fuck him.  I don't believe he ever existed anyway... many scholars are now doubting the historicity of Jesus due to the sheer lack of any real evidence.  If you try and cite Josephus, his reference to the messiah is a proven forgery, added in later by the church fathers who needed to have a small shred of secular confirmation of the new testament's content.

I respect anyone trying to be peaceful and dudelike, and you don't need religion to be either.  I've met many very loving atheists, many loving Christians.  I've also met very evil atheists, and very evil Christians (...they were wolves in sheep's clothing, and they knew it).  That's not my point.  My main issue is how pure devotion to God or any deity leads to justified evil. All Abrahamic faiths provide an abundance of teachings to fill any zealot with enough righteous indignation to justify evil in the name of good. 

So, no more cognitive dissonance.  Evidence, logic, reason, and common sense keep me from ever taking ANYTHING on faith again.  We need to be sceptical and critical thinkers, not believe in things unseen just to make us feel good about ourselves.

IMDO.  ;-)

[Rev. Iconocclesiastes]

Wow, Hominid, maybe if you are patient with me I'll one day be a truly enlightened, intellectually independent,  and fully self-actualized human being, just like you.

But seriously though: you come across as a very "preachy" and evangelical atheist; it's as if you think that it's OK to preach atheism to me (and to others) but I have to be very careful about how I choose my words here, lest somebody accuse me of pushing my beliefs on others (or otherwise accuse me of being "preachy"). 

Can you see how I see this as a hypocritical double-standard? 

Look, I'm not trying to get you to think like me, so please give me the courtesy of not trying to get me to think like you.

Dudeism does not have to equal atheism/anti-theism.  I stand by that statement.  There's room for all of us here.

[Hominid]

What I wrote isn't preachy any more than someone describing why they crossed the floor from republican to democrat.  Republicans like guns'n god.  Democrats are a little more liberal free-thinking.  If you see that as preaching, knock yourself dead. If the ruling principle is to simply and ONLY get along as people, then we'd both be wrong.  There's nothing inaccurate or wrong in what I said, I was stating obvious and known facts; seeing that as preachy is your problem dude.

I'm not equating dudeism with any label other than what it calls itself - not sure where you get I'm trying to say otherwise.  Yes, there's room for us all, but there's also room for good lively debate.

[Rev. Iconocclesiastes]

Republicans like guns'n god.  Democrats are a little more liberal free-thinking.

As I am sure that you realize, he world is not so black-and-white, nor as simple as the way you are presenting things.  I like guns (and have some in storage back where I am from) and God too, but I also like cannabis and voted for Obama twice (and I voted for Clinton twice, too).  I am VERY free-thinking, too.  My regard for partisan politics is about as high as is my regard for organized religion (that is, not very high at all).  I'm as eclectic in my political outlook as I am in my spiritual/religious outlook.  You came across to me as very condescending with respect to people of faith, Hominid, and a tad hostile too.  But that's just my perception.

[Masked Dude]

In the interest of keeping our peace, may I suggest the thread stay focused on the Nye-Ham debate?

I know threads always go on tangents, but should we keep this one on track? (And before anyone says otherwise, that's not aimed at anyone in particular since so far it has stayed peaceful.)

[Shagbeard]

Tumbleweed

[The_Sleevez]

I think at the end of the day everyone here is basically seeing the same thing from slightly different angels. Probably why we are all attracted to dudeism in the first place ( that and the oat sodas). Whatever the group religion, politics, corporations, anytime you get a group that sees only their way as right and everyone else is wrong. People lose touch with their basic humanity to chase the higher " group purpose" and it's that unquestioning singel mindedness that is the source of a lot of the worlds problems.