Moderator: Community Team
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
AndyDufresne wrote:
--Andy
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
Army of GOD wrote:I should stop posting...
betiko wrote:Reported for spamming.
universalchiro wrote:Dr. Michael Shermer, an Evolutionist and publisher of 'Skeptic' debates a creationist. Learn both sides, both men are brilliant and both men do very well presenting their views.
Dr. Matthew Rainbow, a former Christian and evolutionist, debates a young earth creationist. Learn both sides of the debate.
universalchiro wrote:The trolling evolutionist should read once in a while before speaking your thoughts without discretion and prudence. see this thread is a neutral. Neither for nor against either side, just good information from intelligent people. No more, no less.
So stop your trolling, you're embarrassing yourself.
universalchiro wrote:universalchiro wrote:Dr. Michael Shermer, an Evolutionist and publisher of 'Skeptic' debates a creationist. Learn both sides, both men are brilliant and both men do very well presenting their views.
Dr. Matthew Rainbow, a former Christian and evolutionist, debates a young earth creationist. Learn both sides of the debate.
The trolling evolutionist should read once in a while before speaking your thoughts without discretion and prudence. see this thread is a neutral. Neither for nor against either side, just good information from intelligent people. No more, no less.
So stop your trolling, you're embarrassing yourself.
universalchiro wrote:universalchiro wrote:universalchiro wrote:Dr. Michael Shermer, an Evolutionist and publisher of 'Skeptic' debates a creationist. Learn both sides, both men are brilliant and both men do very well presenting their views.
Dr. Matthew Rainbow, a former Christian and evolutionist, debates a young earth creationist. Learn both sides of the debate.
The trolling evolutionist should read once in a while before speaking your thoughts without discretion and prudence. see this thread is a neutral. Neither for nor against either side, just good information from intelligent people. No more, no less.
So stop your trolling, you're embarrassing yourself.
Yes Goran the poll was taken down because of you. Why? You kept, in error insisting you were correct by majority rule. Which is such a rudimentary argument that's its an indictment of evolutionist that didn't tell you to stop. Now watch the video and tell me your favorite argument pro evolution & con creation.
Nola_Lifer wrote:Where does CC get these crazies from??
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ ... 6uluWQayc0
universalchiro wrote:Yes Goran the poll was taken down because of you. Why? You kept, in error insisting you were correct by majority rule.
universalchiro wrote:Which is such a rudimentary argument that's its an indictment of evolutionist that didn't tell you to stop. Now watch the video and tell me your favorite argument pro evolution & con creation.
macbone wrote:I just finished watching the Ken Ham v Bill Nye debate. Ken Ham spends about half of the time grounding his arguments in the Bible, and Bill Nye focuses almost entirely on science. Perhaps it's not a great example.
One interesting argument Nye makes is that if Noah only took 7,000 "kinds" of animals (one canine for every canine species, etc.), in the 4,000 years since the flood, 11 new species would have to appear a day to arrive at the 8.7 million species we have now.
Ken Ham also has no response to how a 9,550 year old tree in Sweden could still be alive if the earth were submerged in water for a year. (The dating methods are off for trees?)
Ham does make a good point that just because creationists are a tiny minority of scientists doesn't mean they're wrong, but he needs better scientific proof. His entire argument about the age of the earth is based on genealogies in the Bible.
denominator wrote:macbone wrote:I just finished watching the Ken Ham v Bill Nye debate. Ken Ham spends about half of the time grounding his arguments in the Bible, and Bill Nye focuses almost entirely on science. Perhaps it's not a great example.
One interesting argument Nye makes is that if Noah only took 7,000 "kinds" of animals (one canine for every canine species, etc.), in the 4,000 years since the flood, 11 new species would have to appear a day to arrive at the 8.7 million species we have now.
Ken Ham also has no response to how a 9,550 year old tree in Sweden could still be alive if the earth were submerged in water for a year. (The dating methods are off for trees?)
Ham does make a good point that just because creationists are a tiny minority of scientists doesn't mean they're wrong, but he needs better scientific proof. His entire argument about the age of the earth is based on genealogies in the Bible.
I watched that live.
I will concede that Ham had a much better presentation than Nye. The amount of money in their presentations was distinctly noticeable, and Ham's arguments work very well when he can Gish Gallop them out that quickly. A lot of the stuff that Nye brought up went over the heads of the audience at the time (partially because it is a stacked audience).
Ham's concept of "Observational" and "Historical" science is such bullshit that you can smell it through the internet. He and his lackeys are the only ones that draw this arbitrary line in science to make it fit with their beliefs. Trying to flip the argument that scientist come in with a belief on historical science is not only false and falsifiable, its offensive to any scientist. Science is science.
The question period is really when Ham starts taking a beating. You can tell he's comfortable running through a speech and throwing a bunch of words and ideas out there faster than you can critically think about them, but the second he has to come up with logical answers he falls short. Nye brings in multiple lines of evidence to make his point, while Ham just keeps stubbornly stating that "there is a book".
macbone wrote:So what's the best debate available on this subject? Is Dawkins vs. Lennox the best presentation of both sides?
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users