2014-02-07, 03:39 AM
Well I finally got a chance to watch the debate in it's entirety. I think both sides brought up some interesting points, but found the "science" supporting Creationism very lacking. I'll grant there are some inconsistencies in science methods, but that hardly discredits all the evidence. I also think Ham's insistence on differentiating the types of science was cumbersome and served to only confuse the discussion. The point that most resonated with me was the point that non-creationist scientists do indeed make assumptions and then use them to discredit creationist scientists. I think that people who believe in the literal word of the Bible are discriminated against and ridiculed for their beliefs unjustly.
The first step to enlightenment in these types of discussions is understanding the limitations on human knowledge. That's why I'm agnostic despite my love of science and vehement dislike of most established religions.
On a personal note, I found Bill Nye's use of his first cousin's son's death tasteless. I happen to have met this child. His name was Tommy and he did indeed die tragically from influenza. What does this have to do at all with the debate? Nothing. I'm probably just overreacting though
The first step to enlightenment in these types of discussions is understanding the limitations on human knowledge. That's why I'm agnostic despite my love of science and vehement dislike of most established religions.
On a personal note, I found Bill Nye's use of his first cousin's son's death tasteless. I happen to have met this child. His name was Tommy and he did indeed die tragically from influenza. What does this have to do at all with the debate? Nothing. I'm probably just overreacting though