Conquer Club

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.

Reported for spamming.

How many of these threads do we need? I see a merge coming.

Bollocks.

--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:


--Andy

B is correct. All others can burn in UC's hell.

B.

Absolutely B

You fools! A is the true path!

well everybody is entiteled to a opinion... but seriously one more ....

betiko wrote:Reported for spamming.

and flaming/trolling... he remove the voting for the thread he was losing in(less then 15% supporters) and created new one.

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: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.

And how will everyone decide who will win in this debate? If you dont have a voting you can not have a debate Or you are afraid to add a vote(you burn your self on the other thread and you remove it).

P.S. You are not Creationist, you are a LOSER, there is a difference.

B. It's more hygienic since you aren't brushing your hand against the wall where the last person did the same thing with their dirty hands.

Where does CC get these crazies from??

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ ... 6uluWQayc0

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.

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.

noooo this is false. you still have no argument.

I had no idea Bill Nye and Ken Ham debated creation vs. evolution. I'll post this here, but I'm about to listen to it, so I don't know how things turn out. This should be fun!

Nola_Lifer wrote:Where does CC get these crazies from??

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ ... 6uluWQayc0

Great evolutionary link.

I declare the debate over and clearly won by EVOLUTION.

Take that god!!!!

universalchiro wrote:Yes Goran the poll was taken down because of you. Why? You kept, in error insisting you were correct by majority rule.

You want to say that the majority is wrong? Here is some interesting analogy but when I joined that topic support for your claims was @ ~35%, but when you remove the voting that support was less then half, down to ~15%. I'm not saying that I was the reason for that HUGE change, but only that others share same or similar views like me. Even those which whom I dont agree on other subjects

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.

I dont plan to watch the videos lol Since you took the mechanism for decision of who is correct I'm automatically correct, and you are wrong. Anyway its my word against your word. But according to the recent polls your word is supported by less then 15% of the voters.

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.

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".

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".

I watched most of the debate live and was pretty disappointed in both of them. In most cases they just regurgitated talking points about cases and things that the average lay person could easily read or find out in a few minutes of looking around. For a such a high-profile debate, I would've expected better. Additionally, they often seemed to talk past each other using ridiculous attacks that could be easily dismissed, trying to make the other person look unreasonable rather than discussing the fundamental underlying assumptions in each worldview. And besides each having a bachelor's degree, neither of them are really credible scientists. So while it wasn't a terrible debate, it wasn't anything close to the level of a Dawkins vs. Lennox debate.

So what's the best debate available on this subject? Is Dawkins vs. Lennox the best presentation of both sides?

macbone wrote:So what's the best debate available on this subject? Is Dawkins vs. Lennox the best presentation of both sides?

The best debate is the one that never happened.

Wow. There actually exist television debates in which people argue about whether God made the world or not? Are the endless political debates and 'advertisements' not boring enough already?