• 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]

Idiot is about the nicest word I'd use to describe Ken Ham.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Idiot is about the nicest word I'd use to describe Ken Ham.
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.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

I don't know why he would debate a creationist. That debate was settled over 100 years ago. By debating them you give the appearance of legitimacy to their arguments when there is no legitimacy to them. Would you debate someone that claimed the earth was flat? Would you debate someone that claimed the earth was the center of the universe? How about debating someone that believed that mental illness resulted from demonic possession? How about debating someone that rejected the law of gravity and instead asserted that objects fall to the earth due to God's divine force acting upon them?

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. I am all for scientists doing a better job of communicating the science behind evolution to the masses, but debating some nut and thus giving legitimacy to that nut's position is a bad idea in my opinion.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

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.

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

And bigot is about the nicest word I'd use to describe Bill Nye.

What makes you say he's a bigot?
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Just an FYI, Ken Ham is a "young earth creationist." His views do not represent many who believe God created the universe. Many others believe the Gap Theory as most likely what happened.

Gap creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More embrace Day Age Creationism.

Day-age creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nevertheless, the Bible does seem to indicate there are certain things believers must be correct about such as faith in Jesus' substitutionary punishment to legally fulfill the divine requirements of justice as the only path to forgiveness before God. Being accurate on how the universe began, how long it took, understanding quantum mechanics or having a firm grasp of the theory of relativity from the perspective of an outside of earth location and being able to reconcile it with the Genesis account is not required by God to be forgiven of sins and eligible for eternal life from what I understand.

1 Corinthians 13:12
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

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.

Unless you (or Bill) were here when the Earth was created, the circumstances of it's creation are neither fact nor observable.
We can make a series of logical conclusions based on the available evidence, but that isn't quite the same as "fact".
They are arguing two different belief systems. True, one belief system has more evidence than the other, but they are belief systems nonetheless.

What makes you say he's a bigot?

His intolerant comments regarding creationists (and their children).
School of Fail: Bill Nye's Warning To Parents - Cheezburger
I define bigotry as intolerance towards the beliefs of others, which Bill has demonstrated numerous times.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Unless you (or Bill) were here when the Earth was created, the circumstances of it's creation are neither fact nor observable.
We can make a series of logical conclusions based on the available evidence, but that isn't quite the same as "fact".
They are arguing two different belief systems. True, one belief system has more evidence than the other, but they are belief systems nonetheless.



His intolerant comments regarding creationists (and their children).
School of Fail: Bill Nye's Warning To Parents - Cheezburger
I define bigotry as intolerance towards the beliefs of others, which Bill has demonstrated numerous times.

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

Unless you (or Bill) were here when the Earth was created, the circumstances of it's creation are neither fact nor observable.
We can make a series of logical conclusions based on the available evidence, but that isn't quite the same as "fact".
They are arguing two different belief systems. True, one belief system has more evidence than the other, but they are belief systems nonetheless.



His intolerant comments regarding creationists (and their children).
School of Fail: Bill Nye's Warning To Parents - Cheezburger
I define bigotry as intolerance towards the beliefs of others, which Bill has demonstrated numerous times.

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?


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....

It seems like Ken Ham is already sticking his fingers in his ears. The youtube video he posted has comments disabled.
 
Last edited:
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Are belief and faith the same thing?
If so could you provide a definition for each?
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Wow. Is that how you approach science?
Define "observable".

Then tell me whether or not the creation of our planet is observable.

And then put a check on your sneer, if you please. It doesn't help your argument.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Are belief and faith the same thing?
If so could you provide a definition for each?

Very similar but not the same thing. Before you go off on definition 3 I would caution you that it does not specify the validity of evidence just that evidence exists. You can believe in creationism based on the evidence of the Bible but that does not make it observable fact.

Belief

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

Faith

1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Define "observable".

Then tell me whether or not the creation of our planet is observable.

And then put a check on your sneer, if you please. It doesn't help your argument.

You don't need to observe something to have evidence for it, there is a great deal of scientific understanding regarding planetary formation. ALL Geological and Astronomical data shows that thinking the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, or in 6 days period, is absolutely baseless and wrong. All of the evidence shows the earth being closer to 4.8 billion years old and its formation occurred over hundreds of millions of years.

We have historical evidence that the Chinese were domesticating the water buffalo before this guy claims the earth was created. Thinking the earth is 6k years old is as retarded as thinking the distance from New York to California is 6 meters.
 
re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Define "observable".

Then tell me whether or not the creation of our planet is observable.

And then put a check on your sneer, if you please. It doesn't help your argument.



Observable means what it says. We can observe DNA from man and great ape and back progressively and determine common ancestry. We can observe fossil records and see the progression of bones that were pectoral fins that gradually became hands. We don't have to be in a time machine to go and observe dinosaurs, we have the fossils, we know the DNA.

Versus creationism, which has no observations, just the words jotted in a book that can only claim it is the word of god, because god says it is the word of god. Creationists have to ultimately rely on "...and then, a miracle happened..." to prove their point. Miracles that defy the laws of physics, are non observable, non repeatable and exist only in anecdotal form in books of fables.

Like I said, go ahead and teach creationist ignorance in churches, stay the hell out of public schools.

If you don't like my "sneer" that is your problem, I don't like your arrogance, but I'm still talking to you.

ae_01.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom