Christ Centered Gamer

Why is that important? I never have known of a requirement of a debater needing to be an expert in the opposing stance.

Here is a blog post that sums up a lot of how I felt about the debate. (Full disclosure: it's an atheist blog, and the author is a friend of mine.)

I love that blog post.

ArchAngel wrote:Why is that important? I never have known of a requirement of a debater needing to be an expert in the opposing stance.

Because they're debating apples and oranges. Biblical Creationism is faith-based. If all your answers come down to "Because God" then there's nothing to debate. Doesn't matter what the opposing field is, because ultimately everything is answerable by "because God."

Now, if Ham wanted to take up a position of skepticism of Evolution and not base that on the Bible, THEN we'd have a relevant discussion. As it was, he was firing torpedoes at an airplane. Same thing in reverse. If Nye had wanted to argue that the Bible teaches Evolution then fine, that would be a relevant discussion too. As it was, he was firing heat-seeking missiles at a submarine.

Right, and I agree with your distinction and that's they aren't even comparable and why Creationism shouldn't be in the science classroom, just as I expect that Evolution not being required to be taught in the church pulpit.
But, the two issues butt up against each other as opposing explanations for origins, so here we are.
And although you may not agree with me on this, you expressed a very serious issue I have with faith.

As a funny note, when Ken Ham insists on the many creationist scientists but keeps referencing the same 3-4 people, I keep hearing "There are dozens of us! Dozens!"

We're watching this tomorrow night. I've always loved seeing debates like this. My friends have been talking about this debate all week but we were busy last night and missed it.

Yeah this is why I didn't want to watch the debate... Too many facepalms.

Pat Robertson weighs in…

Well that's better than some of the nonsense he's spewed recently.

Pat Robertson surprises me at times. I'm glad.

I... did not expect that from him at all.

I watched the whole debate and I thought that it went ok in that it presented each side to the other a little bit. As to arguing the actual debate topic, it somewhat failed. I was frustrated at the lack of knowledge that each side had of the other, Bill would say things about the Bible that were completely untrue and Ken would not address subjects that Bill brought up and used the time more as a time to evangelize rather than to debate.
I appreciated the arguments brought up by both and if nothing else it helped to serve their own causes, evolutionists will see that they won the argument and creationists will see that they won the argument so I see that no one actually won and I don't see a way that anyone could actually win that argument.

Bottom line, I am glad that they had the debate as it brought awareness to both sides rather than people just going along with whatever they grew up with or "believe." I fully believe that everyone should study and strive to understand what they "believe" in. Wither it be a belief in God or lack there of.
I am a follower of Christ, believer in the Bible. Not because I just go along with whats around me, but because I research, analyze, and study each subject. I analytically look at the world and the only conclusion I come to every time is that the Bible is true. And to throw in there my Bible reference: Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

ArcticFox wrote:Because they're debating apples and oranges. Biblical Creationism is faith-based.

My thoughts exactly. Which is why most debates on the nature of the universe \ origins should boil down to atheistic creation (i.e. spontaneous \ chance ) vs. theistic (aka planned or intelligent design) creation. Because both of those positions can be argued more objectively.

ArcticFox wrote:Because they're debating apples and oranges. Biblical Creationism is faith-based.

And. . .

LAVA89 wrote:My thoughts exactly. Which is why most debates on the nature of the universe \ origins should boil down to atheistic creation (i.e. spontaneous \ chance ) vs. theistic (aka planned or intelligent design) creation. Because both of those positions can be argued more objectively.

If there weren't apples and oranges, there would be no debate. Apples don't debate apples. The major conflicting points (as I recall) are these:

- science can extrapolate into the past just as all light that enters our iris is from the past VERSUS science is divided into operation and historical
- the evidence for Deep Time is displayed in geology, ice cores, tree rings, radiometric dating and starlight VERSUS "you weren't there and you are making assumptions"
- the evidence in the fossil record supports gradual development of complexity VERSUS "it was from the flood"
- the flood story is scientifically impossible for numerous reasons VERSUS I believe in the flood and we are generating scenarios to fit the biblical story

I favor Nye's position, but my point is that their was some meat to this debate even if they didn't cover the entirety of the nuances behind it.

Mordock24 wrote:I appreciated the arguments brought up by both and if nothing else it helped to serve their own causes, evolutionists will see that they won the argument and creationists will see that they won the argument so I see that no one actually won and I don't see a way that anyone could actually win that argument.

To some extent this is true. Hopefully it encouraged a spirit of questioning like you said later.

A little after debate commentary

http://liberallogic101.com/?p=7083