Creation VS Evolution

This is happening right now. Bill Nye vs Ken Ham in a debate on Evolution versus Creationism. Should be very interesting.

http://debatelive.org/

Sadly, im doing homework and dont have time to watch it.. But I'll leave my vote right here [video=youtube;aDaOgu2CQtI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI[/video]

Nerd fight!

It's interesting to hear both sides.

However on topics such as this, I think it's best to just agree to disagree.

I highly doubt that Billy Nye will be persuaded to believe creationism or vice-versa.

Ken Ham is going to get slammed.

Bill Nye the Science Guy
Bill Nye the Science Guy
Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill
Bill Nye the Science Guy
(Science rules)
Bill Nye the Science Guy

Well that was interesting.

Although the bulk of the debate [to me and In my own opinion] was:

We don't know vs Trust in Bible's Words.

But still entertaining. I liked how Ken Ham brought up the point that even though scientists claim that the Earth is so sold, yet they have never dated anything to that age that specifically was from Earth [ oldest things dated were apparently meteorites] I dont know how much truth is in this statement.

Well that was interesting.

Although the bulk of the debate [to me and In my own opinion] was:

We don't know vs Trust in Bible's Words.

But still entertaining. I liked how Ken Ham brought up the point that even though scientists claim that the Earth is so sold, yet they have never dated anything to that age that specifically was from Earth [ oldest things dated were apparently meteorites] I dont know how much truth is in this statement.

I don't see how that disproves the age of the earth. Moon rocks were also used in dating the earth, and the formation of the moon was after the formation of the earth.

One of the best points Mr. Nye brought up on the age of the Earth was the simple fact that we have a tree that is 9556 years old in Sweden and yet Mr. Ham claims that the Earth is around 4000 years old. Tree dating is a proven science so I do not understand how they get around that one item.

I don't see how that disproves the age of the earth. Moon rocks were also used in dating the earth, and the formation of the moon was after the formation of the earth.

I guess they argue that those meteorites don't have to do with the young earth, what I don't get is how come god made the earth several billions of years after he made those meteorites that ended up crashing with his masterpiece.

Also didn't see it all(just from Bills second presentation till the end) but all I saw Ken do was contradict himself over and over again, I guess if Bill had had the chance he would also pointed it out.

I guess they argue that those meteorites don't have to do with the young earth, what I don't get is how come god made the earth several billions of years after he made those meteorites that ended up crashing with his masterpiece.

Also didn't see it all(just from Bills second presentation till the end) but all I saw Ken do was contradict himself over and over again, I guess if Bill had had the chance he would also pointed it out.

the first part doesn't really matter, god could have made meteorites before the earth, and then those crashed here, thus older-than-earth meteorites. so any believer could easily refute that point

shame i didn't get to watch this, is this in YT already?

shame i didn't get to watch this, is this in YT already?

The guy said it would be there on the debatelive.org site for a few days if you want to show it to anyone.

Edit: Yup there it is, the whole 2 hours and 45 minutes. *_*

As was said, there was no way any of this would change ones mind who is already made it. It is just always nice to hear what the other side uses as "proof". It gives you a chance to research it and see if it jives with what you already knew or it may even make you think of something you had not before.

Mr. Ham claims that the Earth is around 4000 years old.

Who is this Ham guy and why does he think that Earth is younger than God's chosen race?

This entire debate could be summed up with one question that was actually asked during the debate.
"What, if anything, could change your mind?"

Ken Ham: Nothing
Bill Nye: Evidence

That debate is the same every time. As interesting as it may be to hear both sides, the points are the same every time and as long as creationists keep their mindset the conversation won't move on. I'm all for people with different believes talking and discussing their views, it's democratic and a good thing; however I just can't stand how boring and stale this discussion is.

That debate is the same every time. As interesting as it may be to hear both sides, the points are the same every time and as long as creationists keep their mindset the conversation won't move on. I'm all for people with different believes talking and discussing their views, it's democratic and a good thing; however I just can't stand how boring and stale this discussion is.

To be fair, it's not like the evolutionists are willing to change their mindset, either.
Both sides have a failsafe against any possible argument or evidence, be it "it was created that way" or "there must be a scientific explanation, even if we haven't found it yet".

The purpose of these debates, in their many incarnations, is not to sway the other side. That's impossible. It's to sway the undecided members of the audience, or strengthen them in the beliefs they already hold but don't know how to defend.

I noticed they did not mention our true creator

The fact that dna exists and can mutate from generation to generation proves evolution exists.

If evolution wasn't a thing selective breeding of various animal species for desired traits wouldn't be s thing.