Bill Nye is a cool guy. lliB. As far as "you can') observe the past"... by the way] you' re looking at the past right now because the speed of light bounces off
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

Bill Nye is a cool guy


As far as "you can') observe the past"...
by the way] you' re looking at the past right now
because the speed of light bounces off of me
and then gets to your eyes,
is r
and I' m delighted ****** that the peoiple in the
back of the room THAT much younger
than the people in the front.
kid turns slowly youlook at tht,, back of the room
Views: 68761
Favorited: 130
Submitted: 02/10/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to klaskepott E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend


Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#362 - WhitePimp ONLINE (02/20/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#275 - anthsn (02/11/2014) [-]
Wtf is it with people being angry at ken ham?? He might of said some dumb things but he also made some good points. And how can you even know for sure the earth is older than 6000 years, its not like you can go back in time.
User avatar #280 to #275 - removekimchi (02/11/2014) [-]
looks like we got a Master Baiter
#282 to #280 - anthsn (02/11/2014) [-]
I'm not baiting?? I mean I know most ppl like bill Nye but really?? does being different make me a baiter???
#306 to #282 - oyes (02/11/2014) [-]
you can plant a tree, and in 20 years cut it down.
the rings on the inside will count to 20. one for each year.
thus making the rings count the age of trees.

there are trees with more than 6000 rings in them.
#317 to #306 - anthsn (02/11/2014) [-]
#319 to #318 - anthsn (02/11/2014) [-]
Idk you could have made a fake wiki page
#363 to #319 - WhitePimp has deleted their comment [-]
#320 to #319 - oyes (02/11/2014) [-]
Give up fail troll you lost.
#321 to #320 - anthsn (02/11/2014) [-]
why do people keep calling me a troll because I don't agree with them?? its ******* annoying
#323 to #321 - oyes (02/11/2014) [-]
1) in no way did i make a fake wiki page that big in 2 minutes. stfu.

2)i can probably question you on you're faith and you wouldn't have a sweet ******* clue as to what i am talking about because you are full of **** .

3) and if you're not religious then yes that makes you a troll (fail one at that.)
#324 to #323 - anthsn (02/11/2014) [-]
no but I mean you could of made the wiki page before
User avatar #266 - buttgauges (02/11/2014) [-]
God, this man is amazing. I just attended his lecture yesterday at my school and it really made me think about a few things.

Plus he's hilarious.
#263 - tmdarby (02/11/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#261 - mindlogic (02/11/2014) [-]
The sauce please?
User avatar #257 - pyrointheface (02/11/2014) [-]
What would happen if I instantaneously teleported to a planet 50 light years away with the strngest telescope ever and looked at Earth? Would I see it as it was 50 light years ago? Would it speed up the closer I looked?
User avatar #259 to #257 - nymikemet ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
If you went to a planet 50 light years away, and looked through a telescope to earth, you would see earth as it was in 1964 because telescopes basically zooms onto a point of light (The earth with the sun reflecting off of it). the only way it would speed up is if you actually physically went to the earth instead of observing it with a telescope.
User avatar #260 to #259 - pyrointheface (02/11/2014) [-]
So say I was traveling there fast enough to get there in an hour
would it like speed up
User avatar #329 to #260 - traveltech ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
What you'd be seeing are the photons that bounced off of the Earth 50 years ago. I think a metaphor might help here.

Imagine you're standing next to a vat of molasses. Now the vat falls over and the molasses gets on your shoes right away, since you're next to it. Now imagine the same scenario, but you walk past the slow moving flow of molasses and stand somewhere in it's path. The molasses eventually gets on your shoes a few minutes later because it took time to get there. Light works the same way, you're shoes got molasses on them at that point because the molasses finally reached you, even though that wasn't the instant that the molasses spilled. In the same way, you see 1964 not because it's actually 1964 on Earth, but because the light that reflected off of 1964 finally reached you.
#262 to #260 - nymikemet ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
In a way yes but to get there in a hour, you would be traveling faster than light and you wouldn't see the earth in front of you until you slowed down, you would just see a big blur of white light in front of you, like the picture.
#256 - forsakenas (02/11/2014) [-]
No intelligence in your design,
Watch your faith start to decline
I accept all, but you won't
I see clearly, but you don't.
#246 - hybridxproject (02/11/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#243 - doctorprofessornv ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #238 - kanadetenshi (02/11/2014) [-]
That's why i respect Bill Nye so much, he makes children curious and wonder.
User avatar #235 - mewxchii ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
After seeing so many posts of the same debate it's getting rather old.
User avatar #229 - PenguinsOfMars (02/11/2014) [-]
I had a thought last night, if we went faster than the speed of light (theoretically, in Einstein's world of physics we obviously can't) and we went say 3,000 light years away from Earth and looked back at it with an EXTREMELY powerful telescope we'd be able to observe how the Earth was 3,000 years ago? As in we'd be able to see the birth and evolution of civilization from a bird's eye view?
#228 - suprmonkey (02/11/2014) [-]
All this **** with Bill Nye has been really annoying me lately - am I the only one who can see him as he really is? A grown freak of a man who must constantly spout his atheist and proud bull**** probably because he's dealing with the fact that his parents never loved him, lol
#351 to #228 - anonymous (02/14/2014) [-]
He actually never said "God isn't real"
But it's plainly obvious the bible isn't meant to be taken literally.
#277 to #228 - anonymous (02/11/2014) [-]
Pretty much.

Just let the retards that actually think that our very existence is just a coincidence despite the very chaotic nature of the universe and all the requirements for a planet to even sustain life, not to mention the chances for said life to develop such extreme levels of intelligence, believe what they will.

Its just the other retarded extreme to those that genuinely believe all the ********** that's written in a book that was totally not modified by human hands in order to suit their own beliefs during two thousand years or so.
#255 to #228 - jazzytheferret (02/11/2014) [-]
Once when I was a young teen (maybe 13-14) there was this carnival with one of those velcro walls where you put on a suit, jump on the bouncey floor and stick. Now, my town is rather small and this seemed like the coolest thing in the world. Anyways, I put on the suit and did my best flip at the wall. Sad to say, the spot I landed had worn out velcro and I just landed on my head fracturing some of discs in my upper spine . This led to random moments of confusion and disorientation where things and my responses would make absolutely 0 ******* sense. After about 9 months of physical therapy I was rather back to normal but would still get headaches.

Long story short. What happened to you that causes random retard moments?
User avatar #253 to #228 - divinecreator (02/11/2014) [-]
keep his thumbs at zero folks
#236 to #228 - technobanana (02/11/2014) [-]
Kindly remove your self from this planet!
#233 to #228 - catburglarpenis (02/11/2014) [-]
User avatar #224 - IamEllis (02/11/2014) [-]
doesnt even ******* try and he still fascinates kids
User avatar #226 to #224 - catburglarpenis (02/11/2014) [-]
Bill Nye is love.

Bill Nye is life.
User avatar #222 - tombobbusama (02/11/2014) [-]
I really hate how, when there's one or two creationists who act stupid in public, suddenly everyone thinks every creationist is stupid.
It isnt impossible for science and religion to work together, you know.
#264 to #222 - angelwithashotgun (02/11/2014) [-]
Creationism is the complete rejection of evolution, along with any science that doesn't support the bible to the letter

So no, creationism and science cannot work together
User avatar #268 to #264 - tombobbusama (02/11/2014) [-]
No, creationism is the idea that things were created, not just appeared by chance.
There is nothing to say that God couldn't've just created life and let it develop on its own. The Bible is surprisingly accurate scientifically, as long as you dont misinterpret what it's saying. I mean like the whole "earth was made in 6 days" bullcrap. The Hebrew word they translate as 'day' is a figurative 'day', like how you might say an era. Like the Day of the Dead would be a great name for a zombie apocolypse, even if it lasted a month. Language isnt always literal.
User avatar #270 to #268 - angelwithashotgun (02/11/2014) [-]
like Eve being created from the rib of Adam?
User avatar #269 to #268 - tombobbusama (02/11/2014) [-]
also, about your image: if that era was called "the sausage dark ages", would you completely abhor sausages forever? No, because its just a name.
User avatar #230 to #222 - catburglarpenis (02/11/2014) [-]

This concept is explained perfectly in the episode of Futurama entitled "Clockwork Origin", as seen here, in perfect DVD Rip quality explained slowly in Russian: You need to login to view this link

Basically: "What if God set off the Big Bang?"

Was that so hard? Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
User avatar #265 to #230 - angelwithashotgun (02/11/2014) [-]
"What if God set off the Big Bang?"

That isn't really creationism though
Actually, creationists would categorically deny that statement.
User avatar #274 to #265 - catburglarpenis (02/11/2014) [-]
I don't really understand the definition. Do you absolutely have to believe the Universe was created 6000 years ago to be a Creationist? I have no idea.
User avatar #276 to #274 - angelwithashotgun (02/11/2014) [-]
in mainstream creationism, yeah, you do
User avatar #294 to #276 - catburglarpenis (02/11/2014) [-]
I had no idea. Maybe we can't sing Kumbaya. I tired so hard...
User avatar #295 to #294 - catburglarpenis (02/11/2014) [-]
#237 to #230 - technobanana (02/11/2014) [-]
But he didn't because god didn't exist.. I am not going to make exceptions so I don't hurt others feelings.. either stfu or become athiest see if i care..
#242 to #239 - technobanana (02/11/2014) [-]
I am not even baiting good sir. That arguement is false because god doesn't exist I am not going to go "Oh maybe god created the big bang" because that would mean I belive in god... see what I mean? Now **** off
User avatar #271 to #242 - DannyDanger (02/11/2014) [-]
I believe something like God probably exists but I don't believe he/it is anything like how the bible portrays him. Honestly no one can really know for sure, maybe he does maybe he doesn't, he definitely could and it's possible he doesn't but if you tell people that you know for sure that he doesn't you're only making an ass of yourself because there's no possible way you can ******* know that. If you don't want to eventually get punched in the face for being such a bitch of an atheist I suggest you stop shoving your " **** your beliefs" down everyone's throats.
#285 to #271 - technobanana (02/11/2014) [-]
My best friend is a christian really think I care?
User avatar #250 to #242 - catburglarpenis (02/11/2014) [-]
Congratulations, you've proclaimed your disbelief in a higher power on a public forum which never asked you to do so. Now you're gonna go bitch about people shoving religion down your throat while doing the exact same thing.
#267 to #250 - technobanana (02/11/2014) [-]
Thats because my views are not set in ******* imagining some guy in the sky that created the whole universe and saying you have to obey him and all that **** . All i am saying is if you athiest you don't have to live in fear of some higher power and that surely is better.
User avatar #289 to #267 - catburglarpenis (02/11/2014) [-]
Why is God a man to you? Why is he in the sky to you? Why is he "Old Testament"? Why do you have to "fear" him?

Belief in God has nothing to do with any of this crap. We're talking about belief in God, not the bible or religion or whatever.

Also, here's a study saying that belief in God made those who believed 3 times more likely to obey traumatic events, whether or not they believed in the bible and regardless of their religion:

Here's a study that found that people with religious views lead more content lives: You need to login to view this link

And here's a study that found that religious people have greater amounts of money AND GIVE AWAY greater amounts of money, strongly suggests that they have better marriages, and have happier and more successful children:

Here's a bonus link stating that The Vatican is actually the greatest provider of free healthcare on the planet:

So your choice is the choice to give much less to charity AND earn less money, plus lead a less happy, less healthy more miserable life devoid of many of the benefits of religion and belief.

NOTE: I'm a Buddhist, not a Christian. So don't attack my beliefs on this- I'm simply stating that you shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bathwater" simply because you don't like The Westboro Baptist Church- no one does.
User avatar #316 to #289 - kanadetenshi (02/11/2014) [-]
If we're going to use statistics.

Countries whom are least religious happen to be the most peacefull
You need to login to view this link

Over 63 studies have shown that atheists have higher IQ's than religious people and that their intelligence makes them more likely to abandon religion

The happier marriage one is false since atheists have lower divorce rates than religious people

Atheists make up an extreme small percentage of prisoners compared to religious
User avatar #336 to #316 - catburglarpenis (02/11/2014) [-]
Alright, I'll accept the marriage one- what about the others?

So what if countries are more peaceful if they're less happy? Remain safe, but miserable? What kind of tradeoff is that?

IQ has never been a major influence on a person's happiness or success. That honor goes to EI, or Emotional Intelligence. They wrote a book about it: (and yes, I read the criticisms section)

Atheists are imprisoned less. So? How skewed is that study, by the way? Prisoners often "find God" or other such religion while incarcerated, so taking a "snapshot" of prisons without studying prisoners as they come in, is an unfair study.

Again, I am Buddhist, and a "Bad Buddhist" at that (, and therefor I don't report to churches or follow trite rules from ancient religious texts or whatnot- but condemning belief in a higher power and all religion because of a few bad eggs is really throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
User avatar #343 to #336 - kanadetenshi (02/12/2014) [-]
Funny since those peacefull countries also tend to be some of the more happier countries, in fact the happiest country in the world is Norway which is 78% non religious, follower by switzerland which has over 52% non religious people and Canada with 63% non religious people. China on the other hand has 83% non religious people and people are absolutely not happy there at all, so does their hapiness and unhapiness have to do with religion? No, it has to do with the condition of the countries, the reason why people are happier are not because of religions but because of their life conditions which brings me to my point. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

There's a plethora of problems with research into EQ. For a start it contradicts some of our basic understandings about intelligence such as its normality of distribution and inability to be trained or coached. Research into EQ has mainly been conducted using anecdotes or case studies rather than through quantitative methods; probably a result of the fact that as yet there is no satisfactory method to measure EQ. To say it has a bigger influence than IQ of all things is simply irrational and bogus.

If you need statistics to prove how sad atheists supposed are i can use the same logic to show how evil religious people are, again showing how horribly flawed your logic is. And there's nothing skewed about it, prisoners are asked about their religous views before being incarcerated so that's just a poor excuse of you.

For buddhism to be so peacefull you sure make very judgemental assumptions about a group based on subjective statistics. And i never condemned belief in a higher power because of a few bad eggs, i condemn it because it relies on faith rather than evidence which i find dishonest.
User avatar #344 to #343 - catburglarpenis (02/12/2014) [-]
Condemning religion because it relies on faith rather than evidence is the same as condemning Atheism because it relies on faith rather than evidence. Saying definitively that God does or does not exist relies on the very same level of faith because we simply don't know. Making plans for tomorrow relies on the same amount of faith as belief in God simply because you haven't the slightest clue whether you are to live until tomorrow or die today.

You forget the other parts of this correlation vs. causation argument (besides your lack of links to disprove my own)- The religious vs. non religious people involved in the studies in my link were compared in the same countries, so who is to say that just because a country itself is happy, the people in it can't be happier if they involve themselves in some religious practice? All evidence I've given points towards that conclusion- blowing your whole "condition of the countries" argument out of the water.

Without a direct comparison of IQ over EI (not EQ) your argument is as good as mine- at least with Doctor Paul MacLean's Triune Brain Theory it would make sense that the ability to judge and understand your own emotions, influence your emotions, and influence the emotions of others would directly influence your level of success and action in life- at least as seen through that theory.

Was the study conducted by taking the religious views into question as the prisoners were incarcerated or was it self reported at a later time? I didn't know the answer, so I asked the question, but if you are to use this example, here's one for yourself: about 75% of the people joining the Armed Forces in USA are religious in some way: You need to login to view this link

There's nothing horribly flawed about my logic, you're just lacking evidence to the contrary- plus "Bad Buddhists" aren't necessarily peaceful. Remember the fact that belief is no more dishonest than financial planning.
User avatar #345 to #344 - kanadetenshi (02/12/2014) [-]
Atheism doesn't rely on faith, it relies on skepticism. Atheists don't make the claim that god doesn't exist, therefor it's not based on faith, rather they reject the claim that he does based on a lack of evidence. Furthermore there's a difference in faith in things that are falsifiable compared to blind faith in something that is extraordinary and unfalsifiable.

Not exactly, because if religion where to be the direct cause of unhapiness, the statistics would show so in other countries. Why is it that the most unhappy countries are the most religious and the most happy ones non religious? How can a vast minority amount to the obvious majority in hapiness?

Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability, they don't say so about EQ. You need to login to view this link

You do realize that people who join the millitary are generally unhappy and suffer from health problems? Studies have shown that most soliders entering the millitary had PTSD even before they joined. You're only contradicting yourself.

It is horribly flawed, because you use subjective statistics to make a judgemental claim when correlation doesn't equal causation.
User avatar #346 to #345 - catburglarpenis (02/12/2014) [-]
You said it yourself- in the studies I gave you via the links, the comparisons were made within the countries polled, therefor the findings still stand "Correlation does not equal causation" which is the flaw in your argument; you're stating that countries are made less happy by the inclusion of further religious practices, but all the evidence I've given you still stand to the contrary- you're trapping yourself with your own logic and claiming that mine is flawed.

Statistical reliability has nothing to do with success besides which way to measure it. EI makes sense theoretically especially if seen through the eyes of Dr. Paul MacLean's theories, which have few contradictions. They also make sense practically- what is success if not for happiness, and what is happiness if not success? If you have the ability to influence your own emotions and others, then it makes sense that you can be much more successful because you can make yourself happy, and you can make others happy. That applies to any job- people are happier with their car purchases as a car salesman, resulting in repeat customers- people are happy as patients for a doctor, resulting in higher turnover and repeat business through word-of-mouth advertising- people are happier with their mail delivery and your job performance resulting in promotions, happiness results in a reduction of stress which improves health, etc.

The fact stands that even if it's hard to identify those who have "high EI", that doesn't diminish it's quality.

You gave the statistic of having a higher religious inmate composition- I gave the example of a higher religious military recruit ratio. Even if military people are statistically less happy than others, the study in my link still stands to reason that they'd be even more miserable if they abandoned their religious practices.

The irony is where you say it's dishonest to rely on faith, and you provide no evidence for your side of the argument, falling back on "trust me".
User avatar #347 to #346 - kanadetenshi (02/12/2014) [-]
The findings don't stand because if they where true A COUNTRY WITH A MAJORITY OF ATHEISTS WOULDN'T BE RATED THE HAPPIEST. If atheism somehow makes you unhappy then these 78% of unhappy atheists should cause the countries hapiness ratings to drop. Your evidence has completely failed because of this fact.

Hapiness has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence or success. In fact emotions make one more likely to be less intelligent and more irrational.

No it doesn't because first of all your evidence has failed and second of all if their fairy tales truly made them less miserable they wouldn't need the millitary in the first place. If unhappy people and people with PTSD go into the millitary then why don't more of these so called unhappy atheists?

I have provided evidence, and atleast i admit that my evidence doesn't equal causation because i'm just using your flawed logic against you. You on the other hand not only take statistical correlation to make flawed judgements but also refuse to accept that your evidence is wrong.
User avatar #348 to #347 - catburglarpenis (02/12/2014) [-]
Correlation does not equal causation: You even gave the example yourself: "China on the other hand has 83% non religious people and people are absolutely not happy there at all" which means that, well- Correlation does not equal causation. The study still stands- with religious practices, those polled had a great many benefits, outlined in the study and it can easily be extrapolated that the same can apply to anyone in any country.

**** , then you must kill yourself then, because your caps lock key really show your emotions right now, and you might take a dip in pay the next time you go to work. So what is success, per your definition? Wikipedia best describes it as "The opposite of failure" seen here:

If your goal is to be happy and financially successful, then it still stands to reason that high EI will help your towards this goal. You still have yet to dismantle this argument, or provide decent sources.

You're now bringing into question statistics of 1, or general observations made by... you. You're saying "look! I don't see any unhappy atheists in my house/town/whatever!" Who gives a **** why people join the military for the purposes of this argument? The fact stands that 1. More of them do it when they have a religious practice 2. Their religious practices grant them many bonuses, one of which is happiness. You still have yet to dismantle this argument with anything but a correlation vs. causation argument, which you yourself brought up.

And then you act with finality just by saying that I'm just plain "wrong" without providing any links to dismantle the arguments that I've given you. Watch out- this is called "irrational behavior". Also, it seems that acting in contradiction to reported evidence without providing more evidence would be considered "Dishonest" based on the opinion of a FunnyJunk user named... kanadetenshi. Do you read your own words? Must I copy and paste more of yourself proving your argument wrong?
User avatar #349 to #348 - kanadetenshi (02/12/2014) [-]
Exactly, correlation does not equal causation, meaning just because there are statistics that correlate religion with hapiness doesn't mean that religion causes hapiness or benefits.

I used caps locks because it doesn't seem like you where capable of properly reading my comment since you're merely repeating yourself when i destroyed your points.

Being financially successfull and being happy are two completely different things. In order to be innovative and make money you need intelligence, intelligence is gained by logical reasoning, you need a proper IQ to have proper reasoning, not pseudoscience like EI.

Uhm no i didn't make general observations, i cited sources of the happiest countries statistically and they all show that the happiest countries are the least religions, if religion gives benefits then more religious countries should be higher on the list, it's that simple.

I have posted all the sources that dismantled your arguments in the first reply i made. There's a huge difference between not providing links and ignoring my links and refutations.
User avatar #350 to #349 - catburglarpenis (02/12/2014) [-]
I agree- but the studies eliminated all other variables besides religious practice- therefor: it was religion which gave them the benefits they received by all means and definitions of scientific study and protocol. You. Still. Have. Not. Dislodged. This. Argument. you have not "destroyed my points" by using third grade logic.

Here are at least 3 studies stating definitively that high IQ does not equate to success by any means or definition:

You need to login to view this link

The logic I presented earlier stands- through Dr. Paul MacLean's Theory, emotion spurs action so the ability to alter one's own emotion will allow you to accomplish the actions required to excel in a work environment, and by definition- be happy (given that being a person's goal, that would automatically spell success). Beind able to alter toehr people's emotions will lead to more "emotional buying decisions"- accounting for nearly all purchases, including those made by a company (to hire you as an asset or give you a promotion and provide you with more money). The logic still stands. In fact, here's a study backing my point:

You then bring up the correlation vs. causation thing again- China was non-religious and unhappy. Sweden was non-religious and happy. This can be extrapolated to mean that religion does not correlate with a person's satisfaction in being a citizen of a country, but the study still stands that religious practice gives you many benefits, including happiness.

For your last statement, I suggest you look up "The Theory of Projection" as outlined here:

You still have not dismantled my arguments or the links I've provided with anything other than third grade logic.
#300 to #289 - technobanana (02/11/2014) [-]
I haven't got time to read this ********* .
User avatar #303 to #300 - catburglarpenis (02/11/2014) [-]
TL;DR- Choosing not to believe in God and throwing all religion to the side because of a couple bad experiences with religion leads to having less money, being less charitable, having worse and shorter relationships, and less happy and successful children- links in the post above.
User avatar #283 to #267 - DannyDanger (02/11/2014) [-]
"I don't believe there is a god" = makes people uncomfortable but ok that's your opinion

"There is no God, stfu and **** off" = makes people want to choke you because you're an ignorant retarded piece of ****

keep it to yourself = everyone goes on with their lives

just some friendly advice
User avatar #290 to #283 - catburglarpenis (02/11/2014) [-]
thumbed back up.
User avatar #291 to #286 - DannyDanger (02/11/2014) [-]
I'm just letting you know why people are going to keep bitchin for the rest of your life if you keep being the stupid kind of atheist.
#299 to #291 - technobanana (02/11/2014) [-]
You guys. Thank you so much for falling for my bait : D I am an athiest yes and do I have a problem with religion.. yes and no. No because people can think what they like but yes i have a problem when its hurting others or its hateful. Now I know not all christians are like that but there are a fair few..
Believe what you want I just don't care.
User avatar #310 to #299 - DannyDanger (02/11/2014) [-]
Being atheist is fine as long as you don't make too much of a point of it and act like other people are wrong for not being atheist, that's where it crosses the line. Honestly the best way to go in my opinion would be agnostic if you're atheist but don't want it to offend anyone.
User avatar #312 to #310 - DannyDanger (02/11/2014) [-]
It's basically disbelief in God but without the hostility of typical atheism.
#218 - dontgetmadbro (02/11/2014) [-]
I go To a Christian school, and I love this site, so its really cool to see the bias on both sides. At my school a huge amount of people watched the debate and said ham won. And I assume this site is a solid 75percent atheist, and I have only seen one guy, skypatrol, give any credit to Ham. It reminds of the jfk Nixon debate.
I saw it and my two cents is this. Most people, I.e. nonchristians, do not understand the background behind the arguments we use, which is cool. But ken ham is a renowned scholar, so to demean his performance because he "used the Bible" is pretty closed-minded.
Keep it real FJ
#352 to #218 - anonymous (02/14/2014) [-]
I watched the debate in full, and Ken Ham brought up some very intriguing ideas.
However, he also said some very misinformed things- for example, when bill spoke of lions being carnivores and such. KH's response was that "Just because an animal has sharp teeth, doesn't mean it eats meat. It just means that it has sharp teeth."
Name one animal within the fossil record possessing sharp tearing teeth that ate exclusively vegetation.
#356 to #352 - dontgetmadbro (02/14/2014) [-]
I feel ya. Neither o f those guys were skilled debaters. You can google people like ravi zacharias and find some great debates on the evolution/atheist thing
User avatar #240 to #218 - kanadetenshi (02/11/2014) [-]
Because there is no solid background on his arguments, they're nothing more than empy rhetoric. Bill Nye on the other hand didn't argue, he educated.
#248 to #240 - dontgetmadbro (02/11/2014) [-]
See thats what im saying. By that comment, you just throw away thousands of years of history. There are many historical documents that prove that things in the Bible happened, Noahs ark is one for example, and jericho. So to just say that there is no background for a belief in the Bible is a plug line.
User avatar #252 to #248 - kanadetenshi (02/11/2014) [-]
Noah's arc has not only no evidence but is completely inconsistent with all forms of science that we currently have. At best you have documents from the new testament because that was when the bible was actually being written with some historical accuracy, but that in no way proves young earth creationism. By denying evolution and an old earth you are rejecting all fields of cosmology, biology, geology, palaeontology, anthropology, linguistics and physical chemistry.

As a wise man once said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky, a biologist and christian.
#313 to #252 - dontgetmadbro (02/11/2014) [-]
Noah's ark has ALOT of evidence, Just Google it. Also, I read somewhere and heard in a lecture that there are more historical documents that say Jesus lived then the Roman empire existed. > i dunno if that is true, I will try to find out. I never said I was an young earth creationist, I just don't know. But I will say this, Evolution is flawed, and to base your entire existence on it, I.E. be an atheist, is a scary thing because it really handicaps your worldview.
User avatar #314 to #313 - kanadetenshi (02/11/2014) [-]
Ofcourse because googling things from the internet totally proves that somehow an old man could sustain thousands of different exotic animals on a wooden boat with enough food and in an eco system that they couldn't survive in only for them to create inbreds since there's only 2 of each and never show any evidence of migration after the boat landed, when i'm talking about evidence i'm talking about evidence that is actually based on scientific peer-review. And how is evolution flawed when the evidence for it is as large at the evidence for heliocentrism?

Even if Jesus existed that wouldn't say anything about whether he was supernatural or whether creationism is true, Muhammad also existed but that doesn't mean that he flew on a flying horse to the heavens.
#325 to #314 - dontgetmadbro (02/11/2014) [-]
By existed I mean documents stating his resurrection, the key defining aspect of Christianity. And I see your point with the Noah's Ark thing, and I can only say that it is hard to believe, but anything is possible with God.
User avatar #328 to #325 - kanadetenshi (02/11/2014) [-]
There's no evidence of his resurrection, i mean it certainly needs more evidence than mere handful of anonymous religious tracts.

And there's the problem, you can't just give us a make believe story incompatible with science and assume that it makes as much sense as evolution just because you slap god on it. If noah's arc is to be taken serious then it needs to be backed up scientifically.
#339 to #328 - dontgetmadbro (02/12/2014) [-]
I feel ya, but im not feeling like debating this out, but I am willing post some YouTube videos,.
User avatar #341 to #339 - kanadetenshi (02/12/2014) [-]
Every single one of those points are based on anonymous anecdotal evidence rather than actual proper historical evidence, the only actual argument not relying on that was the empty tomb but there are far more logical explanations than revival to rise up from the death.
User avatar #342 to #341 - kanadetenshi (02/12/2014) [-]
Sorry i meant far more logical explanations than revival to explain an empty tomb.
#355 to #342 - dontgetmadbro (02/14/2014) [-]
So tell me, do you ghink Christ rose from the dead?
User avatar #357 to #355 - kanadetenshi (02/14/2014) [-]
No because i don't think he was magical.
#358 to #357 - dontgetmadbro (02/14/2014) [-]
Ok. Well, like thats your opinion man
User avatar #359 to #358 - kanadetenshi (02/14/2014) [-]
Just like it's my opinion that unicorns aren't real.
#360 to #359 - dontgetmadbro (02/14/2014) [-]
I was trying to end this, but it seems like you are trying to make a point with that last comment.
Now I think I know what happens next. I say something like "unicorns arent real cause there is no proof"
Then you say, "there is no proof of Christ either", or something like that.
Cool, but there is alot of historical proof the Christ lived, was put on trial, performed miracles, was hung on a cross. Died and rose in three days.
What I dont understand is that if you're an atheist(which I am assuming). how can you rationalize good and evil and truly justify living a moral life.?
User avatar #361 to #360 - kanadetenshi (02/14/2014) [-]
I can rationalize good and evil through logic and reasoning. Good and evil are concepts we ascribe to specific conditions or actions that motivates these conditions, we generally refer to these conditions as well being. Actions that motivates health to someone's well being are seen as good where as actions that motivate harm to someone's well being is bad.

It's the same with diseases. We use the term healthy and sick as concepts to describe the state your body is in, if your body is in a good physical state we refer to it as healthy, where as a bad physical state is generally considered sick. Same applies to moral actions that cause either pleasure or harm to someone.

Furthermore as a christian you have an even bigger problem with morality. Because you claim that that morality is meaningless unless it is derived from God. But if that is true then is morality good because god says so or does god say it's good because it is morally good? If it's the first one then morality is arbitrary and if the second is true then it was not god that derived good and bad as he bases them on a standard.
User avatar #220 to #218 - inuares ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
If this site was 75% atheist then there wouldn't be nearly as many "fedora" jokes.
#244 to #220 - dontgetmadbro (02/11/2014) [-]
True true, what do you think the breakdown is then?
User avatar #315 to #244 - inuares ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
10%: atheist. 15%: jewish. 7%: muslim. 20%: agnostic 46%: christian 2%: other. 100%: ********
This is my opinion anyway.
#322 to #315 - dontgetmadbro (02/11/2014) [-]
Haha, and what is your definition of ********
User avatar #326 to #322 - inuares ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
#214 - sloot (02/11/2014) [-]
honestly, I think ken ham started off strong until he started the whole "the bible is the reason because **** you" logic. He had some valid points until Bill Nye started asking valid questions, and Ham was obviously dodging and trying to skip over them. However, Nye did loose some credibility as well. He looked very uncomfortable trying to answer a few questions during the Q&A portion.
User avatar #219 to #214 - nicoquitemad (02/11/2014) [-]
In my opinion, it would be natural to appear uncomfortable when your opposition resorts to "it's like this because this old book says so" type arguments. The discussion completely derailed when Ham got to that point. If he had been able to compromise hypothetically for the sake of discussion, I think the outcome would have been very different, much more interesting, and much less uncomfortable/annoying.
#213 - aakn (02/11/2014) [-]
**aakn rolls 050**
#211 - anonymous (02/11/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolls 35** Bill Nye....THE DUBS GUY!!!!
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)