• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

Smeagol said:
Oh great. Tell me then, are you saying its not possible?
Click to expand...

Deflection isn't an answer, it's giving up. Giving up doesn't earn you smarmy. Want to be smarmy about it, you've got to do it yourself.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

These debates are always pointless. There is always some proponent of metaphysics; a convenient method of inventing any being you want, ascribing any attributes to that being you want, then using those attributes to "establish" yet another attribute ultimately to build a narrative unsupported by any actual facts or evidence that an eternal deity not only exists but created the universe. Then, after declaring this made-up-out-of-whole-cloth narrative immune to criticism or refutation; the theist demands objective empirical evidence to support the theory of a self-extant universe. There just isn't any point in debating someone who refuses to play by the same rules.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Smeagol said:
Ikari said:
/QUOTE]


Oh great. Tell me then, are you saying its not possible?
Click to expand...

I'm warning you against being smarmy about a sophisticated topic that is his professional area of expertise. As for the theory it is the wrong question. The real question is whether or not given the evidence this is a likely answer, and whether or not based on our understanding and evidence it is true. On both counts the answer is no. I can only presume that this argument is sourced from Gerald Schroeder the Orthodox Jewish physicist who has made a living off popularizing this perspective and written three books in which this figures prominently.

The argument is premised on injecting a supernatural element which complicates an already explainable natural event. It is intellectually equivalent to saying God (even though he vehemently denies this) created the Universe with the appearance of age but was actually created in the 6,000-8,000 year timeframe. Is this possible? Sure. But only if God exists, which in turn begs some other pointed questions. Is it something we can determine given the evidence at our disposal? Absolutely not. Is there a natural explanation that requires no supernatural injection? Yes.

More specifically the claim usually runs something like: One day corresponds to the creation of the galactic disk (of the Milky Way) some 15-16 billion years ago, day two corresponds to the appearance of water on Earth some 3-7 billion years ago, day three corresponds to atmospheric development some 1.5-3 billion years ago, day four is the appearance of multicellular organisms 750 mya-1.5 billion years ago, day five is that interlude to the first extinction 250mya-700mya, day six is that extinction to humans some 250mya-some biblically specific number like 6,000 when modern humans are supposed to have appeared (this is wrong), and of course day seven the day of rest. This of course is measured from the "wave frequency of the cosmic microwave background radiation"

What are the problems with this? Primarily that it is unfalsifiable and completely unnecessary injection meant to contort Genesis into scientific accuracy. More specific problems revolve around glaring inconsistencies with the source material (Genesis) and his theory which I'd have to dig up his book again to expound upon. Though there are quite a few rather detailed reviews and essays circling around that have done a better job of debunking those claims than I probably could.
Click to expand...
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

I used to work with somebody, she was really nice, and she raised her son in very sheltered, religious environment. He was home schooled, she took him to the Creation Museum, and he was in the Boy Scouts. Other than Boy Scouts and church, they lived on a farm and he didn't know many other people.

I honestly felt kind of sad for him. I don't think it's a very good thing to raise a child that sheltered. At some point, he has to go out in the world and he isn't going to know how to handle situations.

I'm glad I was raised in a city and grew up with a lot of diversity. it takes a lot to shock me, and I am hardly naive.

I see gay people making out in public, and it's no big deal. I've met people who think they're vampires, no big deal. I've seen people do drugs, sell drugs, and carry illegal firearms on their person. And I am not a **** up or a druggie. I just can't imagine how kid like him would handle those situations once turned lose on the world.

beefheart said:
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...
Click to expand...
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

GJ Flash said:
Unless you (or Bill) were here when the Earth was created, the circumstances of it's creation are neither fact nor observable.
Click to expand...

... You do realize that telescopes allow us to observe planets and celestial bodies in creation? We've actually progressed to the point where we can literally look back in time.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

RabidAlpaca said:
I think you are highly misinformed about who Ken Ham is and what is displayed in the creationist museum. It is a young earth creationist museum, meaning they try to push that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

A few goodies:
- Humans and dinosaurs lived together a few thousand years ago, and humans kept some as pets.
- The grand canyon was carved in a matter of weeks by Noah's flood.

Unless your beliefs line up with stuff like that, I would avoid sticking up for him in debates.

Click to expand...


Holy **** :lol:

somebody please tell me they taking that crap out! Children having Pet dinosaurs
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

SheWolf said:
. I just can't imagine how kid like him would handle those situations once turned lose on the world.
Click to expand...

They don't. They stay in the same midwest town where they grew up for the rest of their lives.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Yeah, well, some people say that there's no evidence Jesus existed. I would be funny to see him prove those people wrong. For some reason I suspect his calibration of what evidence is, would radically change all the sudden :lol:

Sherman123 said:
Then there is virtually no such thing as fact. We don't know that the American Revolution happened all we have are testimonials, archaeological evidence, and man made (therefore falsifiable) histories. It is therefore not a 'fact' that the American Revolution occurred.

Insisting on such practical absolutes for words like 'fact' is a weak shield for evading reality.
Click to expand...
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Cardinal said:
They don't. They stay in the same midwest town where they grew up for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...

He can't live with his mommy forever. He he will eventually need to get a job, or go to college. At some point he will need to travel into the real world, and I'm not sure he's going to be safe
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

SheWolf said:
He can't live with his mommy forever. He he will eventually need to get a job, or go to college. At some point he will need to travel into the real world, and I'm not sure he's going to be safe
Click to expand...

There is definitely some truth in that, but it's also really easy to successfully shelter yourself. The worse possibility in my opinion is having business and cultural exposure drastically reduced. It's sad. I've had many assumptions turned on their head by going to foreign countries and experiencing them first hand, and I'm richer for it.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Creationists are certainly an American political force that should be dealt with, not ignored, but I do think that these high profile debates really lower scientists by having them stoop to a level that is quite beneath them. You shouldn't argue with a fool because soon people won't be able to tell the difference.

Besides which, there is nothing philosophically incongruent in believing that creationism and evolution co-exist. The problem is that evolution is a scientific reality, and creationism is religious allegory. The two do not have compatible epistemologies or requirements for proof, and on those grounds I will always fight creationists. In no uncertain terms should creationism be considered scientific.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Ikari said:
Bill Nye a bigot? I think people have really forgotten what that word means.
Click to expand...

Oh no. There are some around here who think that bigot means simply intolerance of the ideas of others. Personally, I am intolerant of this ridiculous definition, since it is abundantly obvious that absolutely no one started using it this way until a few years ago. And also because people started using it in this ridiculous manner simply to create a false sense that all ideas should be treated with equal respect.

Luckily, there are indeed dictionaries that give more sensible meanings to words.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Northern Light said:
Creationists are certainly an American political force that should be dealt with, not ignored, but I do think that these high profile debates really lower scientists by having them stoop to a level that is quite beneath them. You shouldn't argue with a fool because soon people won't be able to tell the difference.

Besides which, there is nothing philosophically incongruent in believing that creationism and evolution co-exist. The problem is that evolution is a scientific reality, and creationism is religious allegory. The two do not have compatible epistemologies or requirements for proof, and on those grounds I will always fight creationists. In no uncertain terms should creationism be considered scientific.
Click to expand...

Creationists who believe the Earth is 6000 years old don't agree with you that their beliefs are allegory. Those are the people being considered in this thread, more or less.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Dezaad said:
Creationists who believe the Earth is 6000 years old don't agree with you that their beliefs are allegory. Those are the people being considered in this thread, more or less.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the same thing they do, but they are entitled to believe what they want. Should they get to call it science, though? I don't think so.

That's the problem here... people who don't understand the 21st century concept of empirical evidence are still trying to wave the Bible at everyone else like they did in the 16th century, back when it was the primary text on the reason for everything. It doesn't work that way anymore, and no amount of counter-culture about it is going to change that.

I do have some problems with material reductionism being the only accepted school of knowledge at this time, but it has been our natural progression toward it, and away from religion. Religion is never going to have more appeal to people who value the school of rationality. It's just not happening. The Bible can't be proven or disproven, it's faith based.

Bill Nye is going to totally debunk this creationist turd, but it's not going to change his faith in anything. That's why I find the debate totally pointless. All it does is give free advertising to creationism, which has nothing to do with the school of rationality.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Northern Light said:
Creationists are certainly an American political force that should be dealt with, not ignored, but I do think that these high profile debates really lower scientists by having them stoop to a level that is quite beneath them. You shouldn't argue with a fool because soon people won't be able to tell the difference.
Click to expand...

That's a nice thought in theory, but in reality being able to argue successfully with a fool is an extremely important real world skill. Fools will be in positions of power who can inconvenience you, from the fools on the school board who've decided to eliminate the arts and humanities program in favor of increased sports, to the fools in customer support, to the fools in government who decided to eliminate regulations on stock trading. Obama ignored the fools who demanded to see proof of his American citizenship, but they only shut up (most of them, anyway) when he finally got down into the mud with them and publicly showed his birth certificate.

Arguing with fools: learn it or face a really difficult life.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Cardinal said:
That's a nice thought in theory, but in reality being able to argue successfully with a fool is an extremely important real world skill. Fools will be in positions of power who can inconvenience you, from the fools on the school board who've decided to eliminate the arts and humanities program in favor of increased sports, to the fools in customer support, to the fools in government who decided to eliminate regulations on stock trading. Obama ignored the fools who demanded to see proof of his American citizenship, but they only shut up (most of them, anyway) when he finally got down into the mud with them and publicly showed his birth certificate.

Arguing with fools: learn it or face a really difficult life.
Click to expand...

I agree that sometimes it's necessary. In other cases is only emboldens them, especially if you make them lose face publicly. Creationists are never ever going to change their view of reality, no matter how much it is proven to be incompatible with the scientific method. Both sides have their own people in the dog fight and those people are not going to change. Most modern, educated Americans are fully aware that "creation science" is BS, so why give them a high profile excuse to proselytize?

I will concede though that in a place like America, the argument matters because idiotic ideologies that gain popular support can cause real changes, much like the pro-life movement. Unfortunately, in America, secularism and logic are not always required to pass laws. Sometimes it just requires repeating the same wrong idea ad nauseum until enough people start believing it, i.e. by indoctrinating children.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

SouthernDemocrat said:
There are two fundamental laws in Biology:

1. All of the phenomena of biology, the entities and the processes, are ultimately obedient to the laws of physics and chemistry. Not immediately reducible to them, but ultimately consistent and in consilience with them, by a cause and effect explanation.

2. All biological phenomena, these entities and processes that define life itself, have arisen by evolution through natural selection.

The fact that some ignorant fundamentalists don't accept that has does not call those laws into question. It merely demonstrates their ignorance.
Click to expand...
I'm more concerned with the "ignorant fundamentalists" who come up with fundamental laws that are fundamentally false and only serve to illustrate that many people fail to understand that there is more.to evolution than natural selection. :)
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Taylor said:
I'm more concerned with the "ignorant fundamentalists" who come up with fundamental laws that are fundamentally false and only serve to illustrate that many people fail to understand that there is more.to evolution than natural selection. :)
Click to expand...

Speaking in vague generalities gets you nowhere. What else is there to evolution? Climate? Accounted for. Habitat? Accounted for. Sea levels? Accounted for. Amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Accounted for. What exactly are are scientists missing that you're not? God?
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Are you saying that accepted scientific laws are fundamentally false. On what grounds?

Taylor said:
I'm more concerned with the "ignorant fundamentalists" who come up with fundamental laws that are fundamentally false and only serve to illustrate that many people fail to understand that there is more.to evolution than natural selection. :)
Click to expand...
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

I am betting her so called researched and intricate knowledge of evolution doesn't come from any scientific sources at all.


Hatuey said:
Speaking in vague generalities gets you nowhere. What else is there to evolution? Climate? Accounted for. Habitat? Accounted for. Sea levels? Accounted for. Amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Accounted for. What exactly are are scientists missing that you're not? God?
Click to expand...
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

RabidAlpaca said:
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?




It seems like Ken Ham is already sticking his fingers in his ears. The youtube video he posted has comments disabled.
Click to expand...


I stopped reading at "Bill Nye, the popular TV scientist...."

He hasn't been a relevant public figure for 20 years. His career in television ended long, long ago.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

beefheart said:
Idiot is about the nicest word I'd use to describe Ken Ham.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would describe him as a raving idiotic moron.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Peter Grimm said:
I stopped reading at "Bill Nye, the popular TV scientist...."

He hasn't been a relevant public figure for 20 years. His career in television ended long, long ago.
Click to expand...

This actually isn't true at all. Bill Nye has a huge following on the internet due in part to his other TV shows on Discovery, PBS &, numerous books, work with NASA, etc. He could easily be considered this generation's Carl Sagan.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Hatuey said:
This actually isn't true at all. Bill Nye has a huge following on the internet due in part to his other TV shows on Discovery, PBS &, numerous books, work with NASA, etc. He could easily be considered this generation's Carl Sagan.
Click to expand...

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

GJ Flash said:
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?

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?

I know, there are multiple conclusionary leaps involved here, but which part is absolutely unbelievable? Which part is arguably impossible?

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.
Click to expand...

A bigot? Because you discuss the issue with scientific facts rather than religious nonsense?

The discussion between Nye and this idiot is about the fact that the universe is only 6,000 years old and is created in strict accordance with genesis and that the arc of noah actually had all the diverse animals we now find on the earth on his boat.

And IMHO intelligent design was just an attempt of religious scientists to put a religious spin on the discovered facts (like the earth being millions of years old). I have no problem that people believe that this is what happened but they should not try and make it into a science, religion and beliefs are not a substitute for facts and verifiable data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom