Page 2 of 75 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 749

Thread: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164, 712]

  1. #11
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by GJ Flash View Post
    My first question would be, how far do people expect to get in a philosophical discussion that begins with insults? Not far, I hope.
    I'm pretty sure that this was your first problem. They're talking about science, not philosophy.

    I'm not one of those people who believes in a strictly literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, but what is so unbelievable about the prospect of a creative intelligence?
    It's not unbelievable. It just doesn't appear to be true.

    We have evolved and are still evolving, are we not?
    Isn't it possible that life exists (or has existed) on other planets? There are trillions of them after all, many of them just like ours.
    Isn't it reasonable to assume that the life on other planets has also evolved or is still evolving, just like us?
    Isn't it reasonable to assume that life on other planets could have evolved into something that is beyond our understanding?
    If you could create life, would you? We already can create and manipulate life, and we are little more than primates dragging our knuckles through the mud.
    Isn't it fair to assume that another being with the ability to create life would use that ability?
    The answer to all of these questions is yes. But a mortal alien species being ultimately responsible for our existence is far from the same thing as a magic god. The same rules that apply to us would apply to those aliens, and nothing would suggest them as some kind of moral authority. But again, there's no evidence to support such a notion. It is merely a possibility, but does not distinguish itself as likely.

    I know, there are multiple conclusionary leaps involved here, but which part is absolutely unbelievable? Which part is arguably impossible?
    As above, none. But we're not just talking about possible and impossible. We're talking about likely.

    I don't agree with Ham's vision of the universe, nor do I agree with Nye's, but it's hard to find common ground when you are arguing from the two extreme ends of the debate.
    Attempting to paint science as extremist is a fundamental misunderstanding of basically everything going on here. Go back to the beginning. This is not a philosophical debate. It is a debate of fact vs fantasy.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  2. #12
    Student GJ Flash's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    196
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by smb View Post
    Evolution is an observable fact based not only on fossil evidence but now on DNA evidence also. There is observable scientific fact that supports evolution. It is not a belief system. To equate the two is fundementally misunderstand both evolution and belief systems in general. You want to hold the belief that there is some sort of intelligence behind evolution that is fine but that is a belief. It is not supported by any observable facts. Evolution is an observable fact. The two are not equivelent. To make them so is to draw false equivelency.
    Are you debating evolution or the creation of the Earth? Evolution is an observable fact, the creation of the planet is not.

    If I had the ability to create life, I would make that life adaptable to it's environment while I was at it. Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of a creative intelligence.

  3. #13
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,406

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by GJ Flash View Post
    And bigot is about the nicest word I'd use to describe Bill Nye.

    My first question would be, how far do people expect to get in a philosophical discussion that begins with insults? Not far, I hope.

    I'm not one of those people who believes in a strictly literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, but what is so unbelievable about the prospect of a creative intelligence?
    First off, its science not philosophy. Any philosophical or religious beliefs interjected into such a debate would be irrelevant. As to the question about the prospect of a creative intelligence as in a higher power, that would be introducing a supernatural argument into a scientific debate which is inherently naturalistic. There is no evidence that either proves nor disproves the existence of God, thus science only looks at probabilities when it comes to the existence of God. From a scientific perspective any higher power existing is highly improbable.

    For example, I could assert that a teapot orbits the Sun in an elliptical orbit between Mars and Jupiter. The logical rebuttal to such an assertion would be to ask how do you know there is a teapot in orbit around the sun when have never seen one? To that I would respond that we have not seen the teapot because we do not yet have telescopes strong enough to see such a small object from here, and because it is so small and the search area so vast, it would be extremely hard to find it. I would then go into how you have no evidence at all to disprove the notion that a teapot orbits the Sun between Mars and Jupiter. Science cannot disprove that a teapot orbits the sun, but it can address the probability of that being the case. As one can imagine, the probability of a teapot being in orbit around the Sun is astronomically small. The same is true when science tries to address the question of a supernatural creator capable of creating the universe and all life.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  4. #14
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,999

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Dangerous Minds | Get your popcorn ready: Bill Nye the science guy to debate idiot Creation Museum founder Ken Ham

    I hope the mods let it fly that I slightly changed the title so as not to start with an insult.

    At any rate, this should be interesting....
    I sincerely hope Bill watches the debate between that biologist and Hovind first so he knows what not to do.

    I also hope it's not just another debate where the creationist attacks evolution and the other guy just flails around defending it the whole time. I hope Bill takes the fight to creationism.
    Last edited by Cardinal; 01-03-14 at 02:30 PM.

  5. #15
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,999

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Am I the only one who clicked on that link and thought that the picture of Ken Ham seemed like a particularly good demonstration of evolution from primates?

  6. #16
    Student GJ Flash's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    196
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    That "belief system" is called "science", and it is evidence based reasoning open for anyone to challenge. Your belief system is based on a single ancient book. You can not even begin to compare the two. The facts are simple: Either the earth actually is billions of years old, or it isn't and your god just placed an undeniable amount of evidence suggesting it is older.

    What possible reason could he have to make everything except his holy book support an old earth?
    My belief system is a mix of faith and fact. I have been a man of faith my entire life. I have studied or followed just about every religion on Earth, but my "major" has been Christianity. I have never met anyone who thought the Earth was only 6,000 years old. Maybe I travel in different circles than some.

    Your god, science, told me that avocados are full of bad fat that will kill me quickly. Then your god said oops, never mind, I made a mistake.
    Now your god says that we will all die in a fire of global warming. Some of your god's apostles got trapped in a bunch of ice last month that was supposed to be melted by now. Just saying.

    My point is, no one can say with certain factual evidence exactly how old the Earth is. No one was there to observe it. We can estimate, yes, but we can't name a number and call it fact, because facts change. Like avocado "facts". And global warming "facts".

  7. #17
    Guru
    RogueWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Atheist Utopia aka Reality
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,631

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by smb View Post
    You have, unwittingly I believe, struck the on the exact reason why Bill Nye should debate creation. You ask what part of your scenarios are unbelievable...therein lies the problem. Debating observable scienctific fact with belief. You cannot refute a belief system. A belief system can only be changed by the person holding the belief. You cannot refute observable science with belief because observable science requires factual evidence. Beliefs are just that because they have no observable facts to back them up ergo they are beliefs and not knowledge.
    I have a big problem with this statement.
    You can believe something based on known facts.
    If you believe something without facts then you have faith.

    You have ascribed to belief the definition of faith.
    Everyone is born a homo sapiens sapiens but not everyone is a human. -RW
    Trumplethinskin! 4 handicap and getting better every weekend!
    Alex Jones for Press Secretary!!!!!!


  8. #18
    Educator
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    09-08-16 @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    916

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by GJ Flash View Post
    Are you debating evolution or the creation of the Earth? Evolution is an observable fact, the creation of the planet is not.

    If I had the ability to create life, I would make that life adaptable to it's environment while I was at it. Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of a creative intelligence.
    I am debating neither. My point is you cannot equate the two. Believe what you want about the creation of the world. There is some scientific fact, although not conclusive, that supports how the creation of the universe occurred. There is scientific to fact to back up how this planet was formed. There is some scientific fact, again not conclulsive, to prove how life began on this planet. Your contention that some sort of intelligence be it God or aliens created life on earth is a belief not fact. I cannot disprove a belief but a belief is not equivelent to a fact. You tell me till Tuesday what you believe and that does not change anything. Your belief is not equivelent to scientific fact. Evolution is a scientific fact. You cannot use a belief system to refute observable facts. You can chose to ignore observable facts and not include them in your belief system but beliefs cannot be used to refute what is observable fact. The two are not equivelent and never will be.

  9. #19
    Bat Chain Puller
    beefheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The burning sands of the desert southwest.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    19,254

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by GJ Flash View Post
    Unless you (or Bill) were here when the Earth was created, the circumstances of it's creation are neither fact nor observable.
    Wow. Is that how you approach science?

    I've never been to the moon, but I can tell you lots of things about it, I've never been to the Crab Nebula either, etc.

    So, should we just not venture to learn about the formation of earth because we weren't there?

    Teaching kids in a public school about creationism is wrong, makes them ignorant, and should not be allowed with tax payer money. If you want to make kids ignorant, do it in your churches. Unless, of course the tax exempt churches will accept a scientist coming and lecturing to their flock about the truth of evolution...
    "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

  10. #20
    Educator
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    09-08-16 @ 05:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    916

    re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

    Quote Originally Posted by RogueWarrior View Post
    I have a big problem with this statement.
    You can believe something based on known facts.
    If you believe something without facts then you have faith.

    You have ascribed to belief the definition of faith.
    No I am not. Belief is just that belief. It requires no proof. Observable fact is just that fact. It requires proof. You can have knowledge of something based on facts. You can exrapolate a belief from those fact that do not have observable proof but then it is just a belief and no longer a kown fact. Belief systems require no facts they are taking on faith or trust.

Page 2 of 75 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •