• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bill Nye Vs. Ken Hamm

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
mus19o3.jpg
 
Why do you guys argue this stuff?

If people want creationism and religion to be taken as a science thats fair enough. They just have to apply scientific principles to it.

As soon as they can prove god exists and some of the mechanisms by which he acts THEN you can debate the stuff thats in that book.
 
WelshBloke said:
Why do you guys argue this stuff?

If people want creationism and religion to be taken as a science thats fair enough. They just have to apply scientific principles to it.

As soon as they can prove god exists and some of the mechanisms by which he acts THEN you can debate the stuff thats in that book.
Click to expand...

They're trying very hard to get this taught in public schools, right now.
 
WelshBloke said:
Why do you guys argue this stuff?

If people want creationism and religion to be taken as a science thats fair enough. They just have to apply scientific principles to it.

As soon as they can prove god exists and some of the mechanisms by which he acts THEN you can debate the stuff thats in that book.
Click to expand...

Because we apply scientific principles to it and prove that it doesn't belong in the science text book but these fucking loonies refuse to listen and still insist that they're correct when they're hilariously wrong.
 
mnewsham said:
One of my favourites. Fry and Hitchens at the same time is simply astounding.
Click to expand...

I was actually quite surprised that so many were swayed. Usually people are set in their ways and such people often reject reason. It's refreshing to see most in that audience at least, did not.
 
WelshBloke said:
Why do you guys argue this stuff?

If people want creationism and religion to be taken as a science thats fair enough. They just have to apply scientific principles to it.

As soon as they can prove god exists and some of the mechanisms by which he acts THEN you can debate the stuff thats in that book.
Click to expand...

You don't even need to apply scientific principles to it. Very basic logic 9 times out of 10 defeats their argument.
 
darkswordsman17 said:
You don't even need to apply scientific principles to it. Very basic logic 9 times out of 10 defeats their argument.
Click to expand...

My point (which I didn't explain very well at all) was more that you let religious people leap into the debate and express their ideas without making them support their arguments from the beginning.

If their "theory" needs God in it then they have to prove the existence of God first. Debating little snippets of the Bible is pointless unless they can show some proof of its author.
 
WelshBloke said:
My point (which I didn't explain very well at all) was more that you let religious people leap into the debate and express their ideas without making them support their arguments from the beginning.

If their "theory" needs God in it then they have to prove the existence of God first. Debating little snippets of the Bible is pointless unless they can show some proof of its author.
Click to expand...

They think they've proved the existence of god. Or, claim it to be self evident. Or, go ahead and try to teach their version of religion in public schools despite the lack of any proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top