• 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]

Doesn't but **** me I lol'd

It should have been used for the guy that debated Kent Hovind. Now that dude got trolled hard.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

The second one really didn't characterize Nye's behavior at all. I don't even know what the third one means.
It's not supposed to represent his actual behavior, it's supposed to express commonly felt opinions and feelings of people on Nye's side.

Nye didn't actually grow in size, either, nor does he talk like he's a member of a British sports firm challenging another firm in a pub ( a "firm" is a kind of street gang which unofficially represents a football team by beating the crap out of other team's "firms" on the street).

uhmm okay what is supposed to be funny?
A kid looking at old people expecting them to be younger. The kid is nieve, as kids are. It's ironic, irony = humor.

These are the jokes, people. You get them, or you don't.

So I guess it's back to telling dead baby jokes.
 
Last edited:
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

It's not supposed to represent his actual behavior, it's supposed to express commonly felt opinions and feelings of people on Nye's side.

Nye didn't actually grow in size, either, nor does he talk like he's a member of a British sports firm challenging another firm in a pub ( a "firm" is a kind of street gang which unofficially represents a football team by beating the crap out of other team's "firms" on the street).


A kid looking at old people expecting them to be younger. The kid is nieve, as kids are. It's ironic, irony = humor.

These are the jokes, people. You get them, or you don't.

So I guess it's back to telling dead baby jokes.

All weak sauce, but okay. Maybe the dead baby jokes will be better.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

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".

Our "god", as you put it, may make mistakes, but at least he is there to correct them and explain them to us when he does. I understand your belief gives you comfort, and no one has the right to take that from anyone, but please do not compare your faith with science, as if the two are equal.
 
Idiot is about the nicest word I'd use to describe Ken Ham.

Is it any better than a sheeple who's content with spreading BS about our warming planet ?

Bill Nye a disengenous fraud.
 
Is it any better than a sheeple who's content with spreading BS about our warming planet ?

Bill Nye a disengenous fraud.

Sheeple?

sigh
 
Sheeple?

sigh


Absolutely !!

Don't tell me you believe this AGW nonsense ?

LOL !!!

Yes, Al Gore and Bill Nye will save us from ourselves. ...for price.
 
Absolutely !!

Don't tell me you believe this AGW nonsense ?

LOL !!!

Yes, Al Gore and Bill Nye will save us from ourselves. ...for price.

The thing with science is that you can debate it. You can challenge it. And by understanding the facts of it persuade the rest of the world. By avoiding thinking you will never win the AGW debate either for or against anti-CO2 action.

You must embrace clear thinking based on evidence and not dogma to win a debate.
 
The thing with science is that you can debate it. You can challenge it. And
by understanding the facts of it persuade the rest of the world.
By avoiding thinking you will never win the AGW debate either for or against anti-CO2 action.

You must embrace clear thinking based on evidence and not dogma to win a debate.
Understanding the facts ... does that include examining motivations of proponents as well as opponents? ... or just what they claim are facts?
 
Understanding the facts ... does that include examining motivations of proponents as well as opponents? ... or just what they claim are facts?

Ideally you start by examining the facts themselves.

Looking at the motivations of the person bringing the facts first is silly. Either you will follow a particular track because a authoritative person has brought the information or you will dismiss it out of hand and may well be ignoring the truth of a situation.

You should be skeptical of all the claims. You should be reasonable skeptical of the data and expect any conclusions to stand up to rigorous challenge. If either of these fail then treat such information as speculation at best. It's probably a good idea to look at the motivation of the source at such a point.
 
Absolutely !!

Don't tell me you believe this AGW nonsense ?

LOL !!!

Yes, Al Gore and Bill Nye will save us from ourselves. ...for price.

The subject is not global warming, it is creationism. Focus
 
The subject is not global warming, it is creationism. Focus

Considering his stance on AGW, it doesn't help his credibillity one bit on a variety of issues, including creationism.

He's just another left wing hack whos marginalized by his ideology.

Nothing "scientific" about that.
 
Considering his stance on AGW, it doesn't help his credibillity one bit on a variety of issues, including creationism.

He's just another left wing hack whos marginalized by his ideology.

Nothing "scientific" about that.

I don't have an opinion on global warming, that is not what this thread is about.
 
Ideally you start by examining the facts themselves.

Looking at the motivations of the person bringing the facts first is silly.
Either you will follow a particular track because a authoritative person has brought the information or you will dismiss it out of hand and may well be ignoring the truth of a situation.

You should be skeptical of all the claims. You should be reasonable skeptical of the data and expect any conclusions to stand up to rigorous challenge. If either of these fail then treat such information as speculation at best. It's probably a good idea to look at the motivation of the source at such a point.

It's anything but silly.
The very first thing you should do is determine who the messenger is.
Can save a lot of time and surprises later.
Like ... if you heard a Socialist pushing a plan he/claims will advance Capitalism you know it ain't so.
Along those lines, if you hear a President say he prefers Single Payer then later claim that with his healthcare plan you can keep your current doctor and plan you could turn your set off right then.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Ideally you start by examining the facts themselves.

Looking at the motivations of the person bringing the facts first is silly.
Either you will follow a particular track because a authoritative person has brought the information or you will dismiss it out of hand and may well be ignoring the truth of a situation.

You should be skeptical of all the claims. You should be reasonable skeptical of the data and expect any conclusions to stand up to rigorous challenge. If either of these fail then treat such information as speculation at best. It's probably a good idea to look at the motivation of the source at such a point
.

It's anything but silly.
The very first thing you should do is determine who the messenger is.
Can save a lot of time and surprises later.
Like ... if you heard a Socialist pushing a plan he/claims will advance Capitalism you know it ain't so.
Along those lines, if you hear a President say he prefers Single Payer then later claim that with his healthcare plan you can keep your current doctor and plan you could turn your set off right then.

Even those who propose ideas out of the wrong motivations might have the best answers. To not look at them denies you possible solutions you have not thought about. The communist may have some good points. That he has never had any so far is not a block on him beginning to think sensibly in the future.
 

Even those who propose ideas out of the wrong motivations might have the best answers. To not look at them denies you possible solutions you have not thought about.
The communist may have some good points. That he has never had any so far is not a block on him beginning to think sensibly in the future

Then that Communist should start off with "I've been so so wrong for so so very very long.".
That's what David Horowitz & Ronald Radosh did after a long period of fellow traveling before beginning to "think sensibly".
 
Bill Nye the science guy!
 
Then that Communist should start off with "I've been so so wrong for so so very very long.".
That's what David Horowitz & Ronald Radosh did after a long period of fellow traveling before beginning to "think sensibly".

Ideally but that does not preclude a good idea coming out of the mouth of a communist.
 
Ideally but that does not preclude a good idea coming out of the mouth of a communist.
Maybe ... but I say maybe only because I haven't heard each & every one of their ideas. Hope springs eternal and all that.
 
Anyone watching BattleBots?
This is the only thread that popped up on my search.

Bite Force v. #1 Tombstone in the Finals
 
Last edited:
And the winner is #3 Bite Force.
I've never watched this before--last night's replays from 24 to 16, 16 to 8, and 8 to 4.
With semis and finals tonight--it was awesome.
And of course they have their knock-out females as an anchor, reporter and judge also .
 
Back
Top Bottom