govt fueled distraction?
Bill Nye vs Ken Ham (6,000 year old earth) debate
- Thread starter reikoshea
- Start date
- Replies 48
- Views 3K
We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms
Yeah, that's great and all. But creation vs. evolution isn't really the problem. Religion (as a whole) is a problem. It tells us to forget separation of church and state, freedom of speech. It tells us how to think, how to act, what or what not to say, and how to live our sex lives. It tells us to donate 10% of our check to an organization that builds massive, and often quite extravagant buildings without having to pay taxes. If you think politicians don't hide behind the bible and use it against you, you're sadly mistaken.
Wait, so you can't feed the world's starving children with words from your golden throne?
Religion is a plague with no cure. More death, destruction, and rage because my book is a little different than yours.
Figuring out our past can actually help us with the future, though. We still don't fully understand the mechanics of our own galaxy, figuring out how it came about could surely help us to better understand how it works.
We don't even understand how our own planet works, or even how our own bodies work, let alone the galaxy.
Hell, what about gravity... There's no explanation for how it arises. Sure, it's effects (on a local scale) are calculated, determinable, and known. And we're starting to glimpse at how it's transmitted (but that's not proven yet either). But what exactly causes mass to attract to other mass? Ask a physicist and they'll just shrug.
i feel that darkhand just made a good reply for me.
we dont know our physical current world as well as we should. we know enough about the past to get us by, we should be concentrating on figuring out what is here currently, while keeping a closer eye on where it is that we are going vs where it was that everything began. there is nothing wrong with learning the history of things, but seriously, we've past the realm of history when it comes to this stupid debate. its nothing but beliefs and theories. neither of which can actually be proven. you may have evidence that shows evolution was possible, but you don't have definitive proof. but, going deeper than that, you'll never find actual physical evidence about the big bang. the evidence would be hundreds of billions of years gone.
i have not watched the video so im not sure what all they covered, but im sure we all are in agreement that the creationist cannot actually be proven bc it is based on faith. period.
i have been reading a good bit on the big bang, and they are now claiming that if they focus the satellites in one direction for a long enough time, then, theoretically you would actually be able to see the big bang. or something to that affect. i dont buy it one little bit. if it were true, what are the chances of them actually aiming it in the exact right spot to see that? doubt its even worth calculating to such a low number. if the universe has been expanding since the big bang, then you would have to have that camera pointed in that direction for a very very long time to catch light from that long ago. which also makes me wonder: if the big bang was the origination of everything, then that "light" or signature would be at the absolute edge of the universe, not the center, since it was the first thing to happen. it would make sense that it would be the furthest point outward. and if it is in the center, who is to say that the universe has been expanding in straight directions and that it hasnt developed currents that push everything around and make it appear that everything is expanding when, in fact it is only moving around. we dont have the technology to get out far enough to actually see these things, debating about it now is a waste of time. he'll, we just recently had our first item exit our solar system...we think, apparently whether its actually out is up for debate too, bc we dont actually know where the line is.
my big problem with creationists is that they keep focusing on this age of earth thing in years. actual calendar years. thats where i believe they are going wrong and losing a lot of people that would otherwise believe their theories. our current definition of "years" only exists here and now. hasnt always been that way. a year when the earth was first created could have been the equivalent of 50000 years by our current standards. humans have the problem of believing that the universe is dictated by our definition of time. time only exists on earth, because we've created it. time is man made.
so yes, the earth could in fact only be 6000 "years" old, but not by current standards.
then the issue i see with the big bang, is that i feel it confirms the existence of god. where did this "energy" come from that made the universe? if we are talking about true beginnings, then you have to explain where that originated. to which a creationist could reply: "there's god right there, at that point is where god stated 'let there be light'" boom. big bang. god. all together, everybody can hug now.
my views are much simpler: the universe has always been. its infinitely large, and infinitely small. there is no beginning or end. personally, i dont care where humans actually came from, i just care about where we are going. and where we are going, currently, doesnt look so good. so i think people should stop talking about yesterdays weather, and instead worry about tomorrows challenges.
/rant.
we dont know our physical current world as well as we should. we know enough about the past to get us by, we should be concentrating on figuring out what is here currently, while keeping a closer eye on where it is that we are going vs where it was that everything began. there is nothing wrong with learning the history of things, but seriously, we've past the realm of history when it comes to this stupid debate. its nothing but beliefs and theories. neither of which can actually be proven. you may have evidence that shows evolution was possible, but you don't have definitive proof. but, going deeper than that, you'll never find actual physical evidence about the big bang. the evidence would be hundreds of billions of years gone.
i have not watched the video so im not sure what all they covered, but im sure we all are in agreement that the creationist cannot actually be proven bc it is based on faith. period.
i have been reading a good bit on the big bang, and they are now claiming that if they focus the satellites in one direction for a long enough time, then, theoretically you would actually be able to see the big bang. or something to that affect. i dont buy it one little bit. if it were true, what are the chances of them actually aiming it in the exact right spot to see that? doubt its even worth calculating to such a low number. if the universe has been expanding since the big bang, then you would have to have that camera pointed in that direction for a very very long time to catch light from that long ago. which also makes me wonder: if the big bang was the origination of everything, then that "light" or signature would be at the absolute edge of the universe, not the center, since it was the first thing to happen. it would make sense that it would be the furthest point outward. and if it is in the center, who is to say that the universe has been expanding in straight directions and that it hasnt developed currents that push everything around and make it appear that everything is expanding when, in fact it is only moving around. we dont have the technology to get out far enough to actually see these things, debating about it now is a waste of time. he'll, we just recently had our first item exit our solar system...we think, apparently whether its actually out is up for debate too, bc we dont actually know where the line is.
my big problem with creationists is that they keep focusing on this age of earth thing in years. actual calendar years. thats where i believe they are going wrong and losing a lot of people that would otherwise believe their theories. our current definition of "years" only exists here and now. hasnt always been that way. a year when the earth was first created could have been the equivalent of 50000 years by our current standards. humans have the problem of believing that the universe is dictated by our definition of time. time only exists on earth, because we've created it. time is man made.
so yes, the earth could in fact only be 6000 "years" old, but not by current standards.
then the issue i see with the big bang, is that i feel it confirms the existence of god. where did this "energy" come from that made the universe? if we are talking about true beginnings, then you have to explain where that originated. to which a creationist could reply: "there's god right there, at that point is where god stated 'let there be light'" boom. big bang. god. all together, everybody can hug now.
my views are much simpler: the universe has always been. its infinitely large, and infinitely small. there is no beginning or end. personally, i dont care where humans actually came from, i just care about where we are going. and where we are going, currently, doesnt look so good. so i think people should stop talking about yesterdays weather, and instead worry about tomorrows challenges.
/rant.
the debate is crap. it was stated very early in this thread that the debate was lost immediately when Nye agreed to debate someone who is completely unreasonable.
what I take from this thread, is that there is some hope out there. for whatever reason, HS seems to have a strangely large proportion of reasonable motherfuckers. I don't really know a lot of people that really think on a broad scale, and actually use their deeper senses and reason to guide them in daily life, but it seems that here on this website, we have more than a couple logical minds.
along the same lines, every time I see a goddam jesus fish on the back of a car, I immediately assume that the driver is an unpredictable jackass.
what I take from this thread, is that there is some hope out there. for whatever reason, HS seems to have a strangely large proportion of reasonable motherfuckers. I don't really know a lot of people that really think on a broad scale, and actually use their deeper senses and reason to guide them in daily life, but it seems that here on this website, we have more than a couple logical minds.
along the same lines, every time I see a goddam jesus fish on the back of a car, I immediately assume that the driver is an unpredictable jackass.
Over a long enough timeline. These questions can be proven. It still goes back to religion, as a whole. If we do not know (insert problem) about the universe, or human body, we assume that God did it. This is extremely limiting with the brains that we have. It limits progress, and development.
And to go back to the existence of God. For God to exist, you would need something of incredible complexity. And then there arises the question of, where did God come from? People keep thinking of the big bang or evolution as an event with probability. "Where did this come from? The chances of this coming about are astronomical." Instead evolution gives us a timeline and a reason for everything. It tells us that creatures evolve as a process of natural selection from one form to another.
So I view religion as a social problem with humans, that has integrated itself deeply into politics. Others may disagree. But we can't move forward with this bill of rights and a constitution we supposedly have, when we still have people who believe there is an invisible man in the sky. This same man who "tells" us to go against everything this country was founded on (slavery aside).
You're right, the chances of pointing a camera in the exact direction of the big bang probably aren't all that great. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, I don't think anyone can say for certain. That is science though - experimentation and uncertainty. The first flight had uncertainties involved, the first flight to space had uncertainties involved, the first nuclear power plant, etc etc. Part of learning is uncertainty and making mistakes. If we didn't take chances, we'd still be stuck in the stone age.
I agree that the future should definitely be a concern to us. I don't think any logical being would disagree with that statement, but what you have to realize is that at a certain point, past, present and future become one. Evidence from the past helps us better understand the present and future every day.
Doesn't really affect the argument, but the current understanding of the big bang is that there was no single, one-dimensional point where everything arose from... if it was a collision of two or more branes in higher dimensional space, the 'explosion' was 4 dimensional at a minimum (our three dimensions plus time). So things kind of exploded 'everywhere'. That's also why you can look anywhere and see the cosmic microwave background, the leftovers of the big bang.
There was a youtube video I came across years ago that explained the general concept of higher dimensional math in an incredibly easy way, starting with shadows and gradually getting more complex. It made the concept so simple to understand, but I haven't been able to find it since. Of course I'll post it here if I find it again.
There was a youtube video I came across years ago that explained the general concept of higher dimensional math in an incredibly easy way, starting with shadows and gradually getting more complex. It made the concept so simple to understand, but I haven't been able to find it since. Of course I'll post it here if I find it again.
Last edited:
I actually want to go to the creationist museum this guy runs. I don't think I'd be able to pay for a funnier adventure. A few friends have said they'd go too. One even has a DArwin fish tattoo. I'm sure that'll go over well.
The museum is in bumfuck northern KY though. 30 minutes outside Cincinati. Could be a really bad trip if this isn't as funny as I thought, or they just don't let us in at all, haha.
The museum is in bumfuck northern KY though. 30 minutes outside Cincinati. Could be a really bad trip if this isn't as funny as I thought, or they just don't let us in at all, haha.
Right? I can't imagine a flight into Cincy is expensive.
EDIT: Wrong. Newark to Cincy is around $350. Get out of here. Maybe I'll use my miles, haha.
