• 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]

Tigger said:
I don't believe most high school students have the same level of intellect or understanding that even I had in the early 1990. I wouldn't teach creation in schools. What I would do us to teach the scientific theories on the beginning of the world as theories instead if as the only acceptable option in the discussion.



The problem is that you will not generally hear those qualifiers in a high school biology or earth science class.



True. However you (or at least the school departments) can choose not to wave a red flag in front of the bull by suggesting there are no alternatives.
Click to expand...

I know more than you about evolution. At least human evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact and is unanimously accepted as such in the scientific community, with something like 99.8% of biologists agreeing. What you are thinking of is Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Fallenangel said:
As long as there the unc. principle is universally true vacuum has energy, meaning that it has properties, etc;
a. This means that it isn't "nothing" as you defined it previously.
b. The mechanism to why exactly it has energy can not be simply answered with "Because of the unc. principle and it always has" - mostly because we do not fully understand this mechanism till this day.
c. The following creationist question would be "Where it came from? (i.e the unc. principle) and "Why it acts the way it is and not in other ways?"

You see, eventually we get to a point where one would need to answer questions regarding the basic laws that govern the quantum world which probably "sparked" our Universe into existence, and so far we do not fully understand them, and can not be sure of why they appear exactly as they are. (It might be that there are other universes with different vacuum properties, energy and etc.)

Cheers,
Fallen.
Click to expand...

Why does gravity act the way it is and not in other ways? Uncertainty and vacuum fluctuations certainly have been theorized to be the cause of the Big Bang, but it's just a theory at this point. Vacuum energy does arise from various dynamics, not all well understood. But that doesn't mean that the absence of particles from a volume (which is what a vacuum would be) would innately have that energy. Vacuum energy is the background energy of the universe essentially. It's not born of vacuum, but permeates it all. And if there were multiple universes, and those universes had different fundamental constants then it is quite conceivable that they would measure a different vacuum energy since the physical processes that contribute to the vacuum energy could also be slightly different.

The Gods Themselves by Asimov sort of addresses that. Well perhaps not vacuum energy, but a multiverse where within each universe the fundamental constants were slightly different.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Tigger said:
I don't believe most high school students have the same level of intellect or understanding that even I had in the early 1990.
Click to expand...

All I can tell you is I have a houseful of high school students in my home right now, and every one of them would eviscerate your understanding of evolution.

These guys are learning biological concepts that I learned in college. I'm reading their textbooks just to keep up - and I do science for a living!
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Threegoofs said:
All I can tell you is I have a houseful of high school students in my home right now, and every one of them would eviscerate your understanding of evolution.

These guys are learning biological concepts that I learned in college. I'm reading their textbooks just to keep up - and I do science for a living!
Click to expand...

I have a brother and his wife who both have PhD's in Genetic Microbiology. I don't claim to know all that much about that sort of stuff. It has no use in my work, my beliefs or any other part of my life.

I find few college grads I'd hire to dig a ditch for me. Fewer high school students. Your kids might be the exception but I tend to doubt it, nothing personal.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

ethanUNC said:
I know more than you about evolution. At least human evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact and is unanimously accepted as such in the scientific community, with something like 99.8% of biologists agreeing. What you are thinking of is Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.
Click to expand...

So you can PROVE BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that human beings evolved from other lesser primates? That would be quite something to see.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Tigger said:
So you can PROVE BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that human beings evolved from other lesser primates? That would be quite something to see.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you studied it you would have to have some kind of mental affliction to disagree. I wouldn't necessarily call them "lesser primates." Real human evolution begins with Hominini.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

ethanUNC said:
Yes, if you studied it you would have to have some kind of mental affliction to disagree. I wouldn't necessarily call them "lesser primates." Real human evolution begins with Hominini.
Click to expand...

I will save you the time now and let you know that I believe the world was created by a Higher Power and nothing will ever c hanger my view on that.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Tigger said:
I will save you the time now and let you know that I believe the world was created by a Higher Power and nothing will ever c hanger my view on that.
Click to expand...

Well, you know what Kurt Wise said: "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

It's your loss if you want to shut yourself off from all of the wonderful truth that science has to offer.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

ethanUNC said:
Well, you know what Kurt Wise said: "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

It's your loss if you want to shut yourself off from all of the wonderful truth that science has to offer.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Christian. I'm an eclectic spiritualist. The Bible has nothing to do with my beliefs. My personal experiences and enlightenment have shaped my views. Science really has little to nothing to offer me.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Tigger said:
I'm not a Christian. I'm an eclectic spiritualist. The Bible has nothing to do with my beliefs. My personal experiences and enlightenment have shaped my views. Science really has little to nothing to offer me.
Click to expand...

You are no different than a creationist in your denial of science, though.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

ethanUNC said:
You are no different than a creationist in your denial of science, though.
Click to expand...

The only science I've ever really had an interest in is Ballistics.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Tigger said:
Science really has little to nothing to offer me
Click to expand...

Science has nothing to offer you, yet you are seated in a padded chair in a home constructed by engineers, equipped with heat and water. You surf the internet on a computer that is sitting on your desk, and you enjoy Tigger, an animated character on a TV show, and ...
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

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...
Sorry, I was speaking to those of us with at least a basic understanding of evolution. If you believe that evolution is simply natural selection, I invite you to find and read a few general overviews that will explain it to you much better than I have time to do.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

SheWolf said:
Are you saying that accepted scientific laws are fundamentally false. On what grounds?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the "two fundamental laws of biology" that were posted are accepted scientific laws?

Do you believe that evolution through natural selection is a scientific law? I had hoped that you learned something from our exchange on the difference between laws and theories.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Taylor said:
Are you saying that the "two fundamental laws of biology" that were posted are accepted scientific laws?

Do you believe that evolution through natural selection is a scientific law? I had hoped that you learned something from our exchange on the difference between laws and theories.
Click to expand...

In common parlance, a theory is a hunch or guess about something (e.g., "I have a theory that my teacher is an alien"). In science, however, a theory is an explanation of a set of observations that has been tested and found to be well-supported by evidence (e.g., "the theory of relativity"). The common [parlance] usage of the word theory is closer in meaning to [a] hypothesis in science: a plausible (or possible) explanation.

The distinction between a theory and a hypothesis (or even a guess) is an important one, and ignoring it leads to the kind of equivocation in apologetics exemplified by the claim that "evolution is only a theory".
Click to expand...

So don't mix the common parlance form of 'theory' with the scientific form of the word!
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

SouthernDemocrat said:
If you have a point you should expound on it. Of course there is more to evolution than natural selection. There is gene flow, random mutations as DNA is replicated and so on. Or do you mean some supernatural force at work? If so, what positive empirical evidence can you cite for that one?

Natural selection simply means that changes in an organism are accumilated gradually as different traits result in different success rates for an organism in its environment. If it's not natural selection then its something supernatural and that is not science.
Click to expand...
If it's not natural selection than it's something supernatural??? Huh? I'm not really sure what you are referring to when you say "it," but if it's "changes in an organism" surely you don't believe that this occurs solely through natural selection?
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Peter King said:
except that we do know how evolution works (in general) but we have no idea how live was created on earth. Most often biology will not talk about that side of the issue (where I live) but only talked about the here and now of biology and how we as human got where we have through evolution.

If someone wants to discuss the origins of how life started here on earth they should do so in religious studies and not in scientific studies.
Click to expand...

Well, sure we have ideas about how life was created, we just haven't gathered enough evidence to be more certain of which of the ideas is the right direction to be thinking in. I think it's too bad if biology textbooks won't even cover the matter of abiogenesis. They wouldn't have to make decisive conclusions about what form that abiogenesis would take, but there's nothing wrong with saying that this is an area of mystery and ongoing scientific investigation. As for the comment about how origins of life belong in a religious studies class, you'll have to tell that to all the scientists conducting (sometimes successful) experiments creating proteins from inorganic matter. Point being, it can be done, so it's not at all impossible for it to have happened in some manner or another on earth 3.5 billion years ago.
 
Last edited:
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Tigger said:
I will save you the time now and let you know that I believe the world was created by a Higher Power and nothing will ever c hanger my view on that.
Click to expand...

Why did you demand proof of evolution if you never had any intention of accepting it from the very start?
 
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?
Click to expand...

I ignored the rest of your post because I think the answer to your first question is the only thing worth responding to. There simply is no basis to intelligent design other than a faith based argument that can only live within the confines of the ignorance of science. When I say, ignorance of science, I mean the intricacies not yet discovered, to be discovered. Even if we knew the answers, we will never know the fine details. And that is where ignorance and deception will live.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Has Bill Nye ever been in a formal debate?
Just wondering. There are several videos when he is part of a panel but I have not found anything formal a la william lane craig versus richard dawkins
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

RogueWarrior said:
So don't mix the common parlance form of 'theory' with the scientific form of the word!
Click to expand...
I don't mix, in threads related to science I always use the latter.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Tigger said:
I don't believe most high school students have the same level of intellect or understanding that even I had in the early 1990. I wouldn't teach creation in schools. What I would do us to teach the scientific theories on the beginning of the world as theories instead if as the only acceptable option in the discussion.
Click to expand...

Well, good news: they are taught as theories.


Tigger said:
True. However you (or at least the school departments) can choose not to wave a red flag in front of the bull by suggesting there are no alternatives.
Click to expand...

Can't be helped. As of present there are no scientific theories that pose as alternatives to evolution. To the contrary, everything we learn only adds to the theory of evolution rather than weakening it any way. Sure, you'll see a story with some frequency like, "Hominid A is ancestor to hominid B and not the reverse!" (or whatever) but this only ever corrects the timeline or other details of evolution instead of dismantling it altogether. Indeed, the more knowledge we gain and add to evolution the increasingly less likely it seems the theory will ever be tossed out in favor of another. I suppose anything's possible, but the idea of something altogether different which serves as a superior explanation is pretty damn bleak at this point.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

RogueWarrior said:
Has Bill Nye ever been in a formal debate?
Just wondering. There are several videos when he is part of a panel but I have not found anything formal a la william lane craig versus richard dawkins
Click to expand...

I'm sure that Bill Nye has been exposed to the occasional evolution/creation debate, and has a pretty good idea of what's coming.

I hope.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

You down right embarrassed yourself in that discussion and you didn't have the capacity to realize it. You can't school anybody on theories, when you don't even grasp that plate tectonics is a theory.

The only stick you had to swing in that discussion was playing semantics and quoting definitions.

My biggest mistake was to to continue the conversation thereby granting you legitimacy, but I was new to the site then. I'm not making your arguments for you anymore. You want say the other poster is wrong about biology, then illustrate that he's wrong.

Don't be coy. You complain that another poster is being short sighted when discussing evolution and you want more mentioned than natural selection, then do it. What do you feel so strongly about that nobody else is mentioning??

Taylor said:
Are you saying that the "two fundamental laws of biology" that were posted are accepted scientific laws?

Do you believe that evolution through natural selection is a scientific law? I had hoped that you learned something from our exchange on the difference between laws and theories.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

You down right embarrassed yourself in that discussion and you didn't have the capacity to realize it. You can't school anybody on theories, when you don't even grasp that plate tectonics is a theory.

The only stick you had to swing in that discussion was playing semantics and quoting definitions.

My biggest mistake was to to continue the conversation thereby granting you legitimacy, but I was new to the site then. I'm not making your arguments for you anymore. You want say the other poster is wrong about biology, then illustrate that he's wrong.

Don't be coy. You complain that another poster is being short sighted when discussing evolution and you want more mentioned than natural selection, then do it. What do you feel so strongly about that nobody else is mentioning??
Click to expand...
So... you don't want to defend what you said in that last post? Totally understandable, I'd be embarrassed too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom