• 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]

Sherman123 said:
Except it is the United States who's likely to be energy prosperous, have a colony on the Moon and significant orbital infrastructure, and on the cutting edge of scientific advances in 2050. In their rush for self-flagellation people are quick to ignore the fact that despite our creationists we are home to the largest and most sophisticated technology base with the greatest scientific institutions on the planet. I'm all for criticizing dim world views but I can't stand masochism.
Click to expand...
Not if the Creationists keep increasing their political base and succeed in getting their own elected. Creationist Fry cooks and Janitors aren't a threat to the future of our scientific literacy and innovation. However Congressmen and Senators are. The prime objective of these people is to throw is back to the 1600's.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

jmotivator said:
Wrong.

Civilization is thought to have begun between 10,000 BCe and 6500 BCE during the neolithic revolution. YEC puts the start of mankind at about 7000-8000 BCE, or in the middle of the neolithic revolution.

Also, the 7 days is not "way out of order" either. One day, day 3, is out of order and should be swapped with day 4. But given that this was being preserved by essentially a game of telephone for thousands of years I would expect that you can allow some errors in the retelling.
Click to expand...

In almost all of my exposure to YEC's I have consistently encountered a timeline based for the most part on the Ussher chronology ~6000 years ago or 4000 BCE.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

jmotivator said:
Hah, nice appeal to emotions, but it doesn't answer my question (surprise, surprise). :roll:

As a side question, are you still waiting for an apology from Mongolia for the actions of Attila the Hun?
Click to expand...

The point is that it doesn't matter what the current creationist rationalization is. What matters is how you know what you know. Do you start off knowing all the answers already because they were in a book, or do you know because of what you can measure.

What matters is what happens when a child asks "Why?". Do you teach them that it's the way God made it or do you continue to explain why until you reach the limit of human understanding? The real problem with Creationism is that it stifles curiosity and promotes intellectual laziness. I can't prove it but it has to be true becomes a valid way of thinking.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

jmotivator said:
Wrong.

Civilization is thought to have begun between 10,000 BCe and 6500 BCE during the neolithic revolution. YEC puts the start of mankind at about 7000-8000 BCE, or in the middle of the neolithic revolution.

Also, the 7 days is not "way out of order" either. One day, day 3, is out of order and should be swapped with day 4. But given that this was being preserved by essentially a game of telephone for thousands of years I would expect that you can allow some errors in the retelling.
Click to expand...
Your time frame is off. The earliest known civilizations have been traced to southern Africa 20,000 plus years ago.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

marduc said:
In almost all of my exposure to YEC's I have consistently encountered a timeline based for the most part on the Ussher chronology ~6000 years ago or 4000 BCE.
Click to expand...

While I didn't say "all YEC", there are certainly disagreements in the creation chronologies. While 4000 BCE is an interesting conclusion since it coincides with the development of writing (and the true birth of documented knowledge), many also calculate 9,000-10,000 years. As I said, I believe that all of them are wrong scientifically but I find the Creation chronologies to be rather interesting historically.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

marduc said:
In almost all of my exposure to YEC's I have consistently encountered a timeline based for the most part on the Ussher chronology ~6000 years ago or 4000 BCE.
Click to expand...

Which is, incidentally, around the time when writing (and thus record keeping) was invented. Surprise surprise.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

HenryChinaski said:
Your time frame is off. The earliest known civilizations have been traced to southern Africa 20,000 plus years ago.
Click to expand...

Do you have documentation on that civilization? My understanding is that civilization sprung from the Neolithic Revolution that began 12,000 years ago.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Sherman123 said:
Except it is the United States who's likely to be energy prosperous, have a colony on the Moon and significant orbital infrastructure, and on the cutting edge of scientific advances in 2050. In their rush for self-flagellation people are quick to ignore the fact that despite our creationists we are home to the largest and most sophisticated technology base with the greatest scientific institutions on the planet. I'm all for criticizing dim world views but I can't stand masochism.
Click to expand...

A decade ago you were right, now that's not so clear cut. It used to be that papers written at foreign universities were generally of much lesser quality than those written at US institutions. The gap has shrunk considerably, if it exists at all.

The vast majority of graduate students in science and engineering fields in US universities are foreign born. Many of them return home upon graduation. The export of expertise has real effects. For example, the latest DARPA Robotics Challenge was won by Shaft, a Japanese company (and recently purchased by Google).

We are where we are now because of the effort made to push Science and Technology to win the Space Race. Because of that, we invented the transistor, microchip, and were in a position to lead and benefit from the digital revolution. All of it traces back to government investments in education and basic research; something we have since cut back on dramatically.

Read this chart, then ask yourself... why exactly would you expect these US students to lead anything?
screen%20shot%202013-12-03%20at%205.29.16%20am.png
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

HenryChinaski said:
Your time frame is off. The earliest known civilizations have been traced to southern Africa 20,000 plus years ago.
Click to expand...

It dawned on me that you were probably talking about this?

Other than the headline, there is nothing there really to describe what is commonly referred to as civilization. It's certainly what would be considered a precursor to civilization, though.
 
Last edited:
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Mithros said:
The point is that it doesn't matter what the current creationist rationalization is. What matters is how you know what you know. Do you start off knowing all the answers already because they were in a book, or do you know because of what you can measure.

What matters is what happens when a child asks "Why?". Do you teach them that it's the way God made it or do you continue to explain why until you reach the limit of human understanding? The real problem with Creationism is that it stifles curiosity and promotes intellectual laziness. I can't prove it but it has to be true becomes a valid way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Science doesn't answer "why".
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

jmotivator said:
Science doesn't answer "why".
Click to expand...
Religion is supposed to, correct? The problem with that is the "why" varies depending on the brand of religion bought by the consumer.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

jmotivator said:
Science doesn't answer "why".
Click to expand...

Exactly! Whenever science answers one question, it asks many more.

Creationism answers a question once.. and that's satisfactory.

A child asks a parent about a rainbow. A scientifically literate parent will explain about how sunlight is refracted through water molecules in the atmosphere. Different wavelengths of light are refracted at different angles, causing a prismatic effect. The child can go outside and use a garden hose and make their own rainbow. Then the child can explore other effects of refraction. What if there were two suns? what would rainbows look like?

A creationist parent will tell the story of Noah, and that a rainbow is a promise that God will never flood the earth again. There's no investigation. There's no need to ask why. All the answers are provided for you.

This is the fundamental danger of teaching kids creationism as science. You're telling them that it's okay to stop thinking. In fact, the RIGHT think to do is to listen to what you're told and believe that. Don't think for yourself, it's dangerous.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Mithros said:
You start with an unshakable idea, the bible is 100% true.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of us who don't start whith that idea, myself included.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Mithros said:
Exactly! Whenever science answers one question, it asks many more.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, science is not meant to answer the "Why?" question in the first place. Science answers "How?"

Creationism answers a question once.. and that's satisfactory.
Click to expand...

As I said, using the Bible to explain science is as misguided as using science to explain God. Both are geared to answering entirely different questions than the other.


A child asks a parent about a rainbow. A scientifically literate parent will explain about how sunlight is refracted through water molecules in the atmosphere. Different wavelengths of light are refracted at different angles, causing a prismatic effect. The child can go outside and use a garden hose and make their own rainbow. Then the child can explore other effects of refraction. What if there were two suns? what would rainbows look like?
Click to expand...

And that scientifically literate person can also be religious.

A creationist parent will tell the story of Noah, and that a rainbow is a promise that God will never flood the earth again. There's no investigation. There's no need to ask why. All the answers are provided for you.
Click to expand...

If you are going to attack creationism at least do your side the service of sticking to arguments that creationists actually make. Can you even provide evidence of a creationist that denies the physics of light and prisms? Making crap up like this only hurts your argument in the long run.

This is the fundamental danger of teaching kids creationism as science. You're telling them that it's okay to stop thinking. In fact, the RIGHT think to do is to listen to what you're told and believe that. Don't think for yourself, it's dangerous.
Click to expand...

Would you extend this rationale to anyone who argues that "the science is settled"?
 
Last edited:
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

HenryChinaski said:
Religion is supposed to, correct? The problem with that is the "why" varies depending on the brand of religion bought by the consumer.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. And at any given point in time the world of science holds numerous theories for describing the very same observed phenomenon.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

jmotivator said:
It doesn't matter, science is not meant to answer the "Why?" question in the first place. Science answers "How?"



As I said, using the Bible to explain science is as misguided as using science to explain God. Both are geared to answering entirely different questions than the other.




And that scientifically literate person can also be religious.



If you are going to attack creationism at least do your side the service of sticking to arguments that creationists actually make. Can you even provide evidence of a creationist that denies the physics of light and prisms? Making crap up like this only hurts your argument in the long run.
Click to expand...
You cant be serious. These people use mental gymnastics to twist well known scientific facts to suit their bizarre beliefs. Exampl,e they say that the speed of light was somehow different in the past thus accounting for the observation of stars and their distances in order to fit their claim that the universe is no more than 10'000 years old.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Jerry said:
There's a lot of us who don't start whith that idea, myself included.
Click to expand...

That's great! And I apologize if I accused you of such.

But that is the real danger of mixing theology and science. What you know about the outside world needs to start by what you can observe and measure. You decide what to believe by what best fits with the evidence you have. Then you have to go out and defend your position to people who take an adversarial view. Maybe your view is accepted, maybe not, and maybe it's accepted for a while until someone comes up with a better explanation. Whatever the result, that's GREAT!

Knowledge of the natural world can't start with an appeal to divine revelation. Once you say God did it, you stop asking why.

Scientists aren't concerned universal adherence to a set of beliefs. They're concerned with a generation of students that are willing to believe something simply because you tell them to believe it.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Deuce said:
No, genesis is not nearly as accurate as you present. Human civilization was around for longer, and widespread, long before that timeframe. The creation story of seven days is way out of order. The global flood never happened. What you are doing is retroactively applying biblical stories to try and shoehorn them into science
Click to expand...

Oh, also, you have to actually ignore scientific study to arrive at the conclusion that the great flood definitively never happened.

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

jmotivator said:
It doesn't matter, science is not meant to answer the "Why?" question in the first place. Science answers "How?"

As I said, using the Bible to explain science is as misguided as using science to explain God. Both are geared to answering entirely different questions than the other.

And that scientifically literate person can also be religious.

If you are going to attack creationism at least do your side the service of sticking to arguments that creationists actually make. Can you even provide evidence of a creationist that denies the physics of light and prisms? Making crap up like this only hurts your argument in the long run.

Would you extend this rationale to anyone who argues that "the science is settled"?
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that creationists don't believe in prisms. The point is only that when creationists answer "God did it", they're effectively destroying future inquires.

Science pushes the ball forward when we ask why, and get an answer that we're not satisfied with. Then we go out and experiment, measure, and theorize, until we have a better explanation. The problem with creationism is that it draws a stark line "THOU SHALT NOT LOOK BEHIND THIS CURTAIN".
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

I listened the the first half or so of the debate while I was running today. If there is benefit to society that came out of this debate, it will be that students can be shown this debate and the arguments for creationism put forth by Ken Ham as a textbook example of intellectual dishonesty and arguments from ignorance.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

jmotivator said:
Oh, also, you have to actually ignore scientific study to arrive at the conclusion that the great flood definitively never happened.

Oh irony.
Click to expand...

That is not a scientific study. It is an article about a book and an expedition. You will not find any published studies in any peer reviewed journals that show evidence of a worldwide flood that wiped out all life with the exception of what was taken on board Noah's Ark.

Frankly, I would question the ability to think critically of anyone that would buy into such nonsense.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

JoeTrumps said:
haven't read many posts on this thread but I'm guessing it's 46 pages of liberals patting themselves on the back on how smart they are. Creationists are slow moving targets boys. don't start signing up for Mensa just yet. ;)
Click to expand...

Damn, Pat Robertson a Liberal? Who would have thunk it? LOL.

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

When I think of Noah's Ark, I think of all these predators aboard it, all in their cages... Lioness: "Look honey, here comes Noah with our dinner." Male Lion: "Dammit, its F***ing Tofu Again. That pair of wildebeests better hit the ground running once we hit dry land."
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

download (10).jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom