• 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]

Ikari said:
I think you're stretching. I think that you don't know the real questions to ask in relation to quantum uncertainty. You grabbed onto the word vacuum without understanding vacuum fluctuations, or so it seems.
Click to expand...

What exactly is the stretch?
I grabbed onto the word vacuum because "vacuum" isn't "nothing" on the quantum level, especially due to the quantum fluctuations (unc. principle).

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

Fallenangel said:
What exactly is the stretch?
I grabbed into the word vacuum because "vacuum" isn't "nothing" on the quantum level, especially due to the quantum fluctuations (unc. principle).

Fallen.
Click to expand...

Vacuum is the absence of particles in a particular volume. Vacuum fluctuations are the spontaneous generation of matter/anti-matter pairs as dictated by the uncertainty principles of quantum mechanics.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Ikari said:
Vacuum is the absence of particles in a particular volume. Vacuum fluctuations are the spontaneous generation of matter/anti-matter pairs as dictated by the uncertainty principles of quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...

Yes, and this leads us to the fact that vacuum has an energy associated with it - meaning that it is not "nothing".
It is indeed not matter as in atoms, planets, etc, but it isn't "nothing", as it has properties that scientists try to study and understand.

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

RabidAlpaca said:
I'm well aware, as I was raised in that filth. The cowards like to do it generally only in the elementary schools because the kids are still docile and impressionable, it doesn't go over as well in the high schools, though there are undoubtably people like you that try to teach it anyway.

Would have an issue with say, a muslim, hindu, or shinto teacher in your school teaching all the kids that their religion is right? Or is it only OK when you do it?You have every right to your religion, but you don't have the right to force it onto our nation's kids.
Click to expand...

the same thing in this thread id said in the other thread


you are correct, it has ZERO place in science class or any mandatory class, to even think it belongs is irrational and illogical


its really simple actually all one has to do is think about it like a court case.


a court case based on the facts, science, logical , theories, evidence etc of evolution could get a conviction or at least for super skeptics make it to trial

a court case based on the facts, science, logical , theories, evidence etc of creationism wouldnt even get charges brought up, it would never make it to court.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Fallenangel said:
Yes, and this leads us to the fact that vacuum has an energy associated with it - meaning that it is not "nothing".
It is indeed not matter as in atoms, planets, etc, but it isn't "nothing", as it has properties that scientists try to study and understand.

Fallen.
Click to expand...

Gravity, which is the bending of time space, is what has the energy associated with it.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Ikari said:
Gravity, which is the bending of time space, is what has the energy associated with it.
Click to expand...

You"ll have to explain what you mean by that...
or... do you mean that vacuum energy exerts gravitational forces?

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

Here's what I would love to see.... Hammer simply saying to Nye "Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt" every time Nye makes a point and replying "Faith does not require proof" whenever Nye does the same. I'm sure it would frustrate Nye to no end.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Tigger said:
Here's what I would love to see.... Hammer simply saying to Nye "Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt" every time Nye makes a point and replying "Faith does not require proof" whenever Nye does the same. I'm sure it would frustrate Nye to no end.
Click to expand...

Nye: "Prove creationism"
Ham: "No, you prove evolution."
Nye: "I will when you prove creationism."
Ham: "Prove evolution and I might."

That debate would be awesome.

No wait, my bad, I meant the opposite of awesome.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Great a debate between a once was and a never was. Neither would be folks I'd go to for an opinion on anything.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Fallenangel said:
You"ll have to explain what you mean by that...
or... do you mean that vacuum energy exerts gravitational forces?

Fallen.
Click to expand...

More that uncertainty and gravity are part cause of measurable vacuum energy. Nature abhors a vacuum. Uncertainty leads to the generation of the matter/anti-matter pair formation and we measure this in part as vacuum energy. Vacuum energy doesn't cause vacuum fluctuations, but rather (and simplistically) it's the other way around.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Cardinal said:
Nye: "Prove creationism"
Ham: "No. Faith does not require proof. In fact if proof is possible it isn't Faith."
Ham: "How about you try to scientifically prove Evolution, since science doesn't accept Faith."
Nye."I can't. "
Click to expand...

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

Ikari said:
More that uncertainty and gravity are part cause of measurable vacuum energy. Nature abhors a vacuum.
Click to expand...
Indeed, unc. principle and gravity are associated with vacuum energy.

Ikari said:
Uncertainty leads to the generation of the matter/anti-matter pair formation and we measure this in part as vacuum energy. Vacuum energy doesn't cause vacuum fluctuations, but rather (and simplistically) it's the other way around.
Click to expand...
Yes, we already talked about that.

The point I'm trying to make is that vacuum has energy associated with it, and it effects various properties of our universe - such as expansion for instance, meaning it isn't "nothing".


Anyways, here are two short videos from my professors, hope you like;


skip to 4:50 (EDIT - the vid is from 2011 i.e before the discovery of Higgs boson)



Cheers,
Fallen.
 
Last edited:
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Tigger said:
I corrected that for you.
Click to expand...

Only in your fantasies, champ. Only in your fantasies.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Fallenangel said:
Indeed, unc. principle and gravity are associated with vacuum energy.


Yes, we already talked about that.

The point I'm trying to make is that vacuum has energy associated with it, and it effects various properties of our universe - such as expansion for instance, meaning it isn't "nothing".


Anyways, here are two short videos from my professors, hope you like;


skip to 4:50 (EDIT - the vid is from 2011 i.e before the discovery of Higgs boson)



Cheers,
Fallen.
Click to expand...


It does have effects, particularly notable in ground state energies of atoms where the lamb shift is relatively "stronger". It can very well have an effect on expansion given a vacuum bubble being the cause of the big bang. But none of this is contradictory to anything I said.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Texmex said:
:lamo :lamo :lamo
Click to expand...

The Birth of a Giant Planet? | ESO

Astronomers using ESO’s Very Large Telescope have obtained what is likely the first direct observation of a forming planet still embedded in a thick disc of gas and dust. If confirmed, this discovery will greatly improve our understanding of how planets form and allow astronomers to test the current theories against an observable target.

An international team led by Sascha Quanz (ETH Zurich, Switzerland) has studied the disc of gas and dust that surrounds the young star HD 100546, a relatively nearby neighbour located 335 light-years from Earth. They were surprised to find what seems to be a planet in the process of being formed, still embedded in the disc of material around the young star. The candidate planet would be a gas giant similar to Jupiter.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Ikari said:
It does have effects, particularly notable in ground state energies of atoms where the lamb shift is relatively "stronger". It can very well have an effect on expansion given a vacuum bubble being the cause of the big bang. But none of this is contradictory to anything I said.
Click to expand...


You stated this:
"A vacuum is merely nothing. If nothing exists then there is your vacuum. It's banal platitude to query the vacuum."

And I stated that vacuum isn't nothing, it has energy, it effects our universe - it is postulated that it played an important role in the early stages of our Universe creation and still has. It isn't "nothing".

Hence like I said in the beginning, an educated creationist would simply ask "Where did vacuum come from?" or for instance "Why it has the properties that it has and not others?", simply answering with "The unc. principle dictates that it is and always was", wouldn't be an adequate answer.

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

Cardinal said:
Only in your fantasies, champ. Only in your fantasies.
Click to expand...

Show me what's wrong about it? Faith does not require proof, science does. Science cannot prove it's theory if the creation of the universe but Creation doesn't need to as it's based on Faith.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Fallenangel said:
You stated this:
"A vacuum is merely nothing. If nothing exists then there is your vacuum. It's banal platitude to query the vacuum."

And I stated that vacuum isn't nothing, it has energy, it effects our universe - it is postulated that it played an important role in the early stages of our Universe creation and still has. It isn't "nothing".

Hence like I said in the beginning, an educated creationist would simply ask "Where did vacuum come from?" or for instance "Why it has the properties that it has and not others?", simply answering with "The unc. principle dictates that it is and always was", wouldn't be an adequate answer.

Fallen.
Click to expand...

You seem to not understand. Does vacuum innately have energy? Not without gravity or uncertainty. Vacuum doesn't create energy, uncertainty creates what we call vacuum energy. So long as there is uncertainty, there is vacuum energy. And "educated" creationist could ask where the vacuum comes from, but they merely demonstrate a lack of understanding of higher level physics. Which is fine, many people don't quite get it.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Tigger said:
Show me what's wrong about it? Faith does not require proof, science does. Science cannot prove it's theory if the creation of the universe but Creation doesn't need to as it's based on Faith.
Click to expand...

Here's what's wrong with it:

1)You don't know what evolution is so you're not qualified to say where evolution is or isn't proven.
2)If the debate were merely between a position of faith and one of science, then you might have a point. However, it's far from that innocuous as those in favor of creationism want it taught as a valid scientific theory alongside evolution in science classes. This is the prize that creationists are striving for, so they really do in fact have to show that creationism has a legitimate place in science, not merely that it's based on faith, and that is why your scenario is a fantasy.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Fallenangel said:
You and I know that vacuum isn't "nothing" - at least not in a complete "nothingness" sense of the word as non science related people mean and understand it.

Cheers,
Fallen.
Click to expand...

This is actually something I've always struggled with. I read Krauss A Universe from Nothing and while brilliant (like himself) I remain unconvinced that a dodgy word game isn't being played when talking about things like 'nothing' or 'before time'. Obviously these things conform to scientific definitions but they don't seem to meet the definitions as I or another layperson would colloquially understand them to mean. It's possible I'm just not getting it but I suspect that isn't the case. I should mention that this does nothing to alter my perspectives on creationism or the divine, or rather the lack thereof.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Ikari said:
You seem to not understand. Does vacuum innately have energy? Not without gravity or uncertainty. Vacuum doesn't create energy, uncertainty creates what we call vacuum energy. So long as there is uncertainty, there is vacuum energy. And "educated" creationist could ask where the vacuum comes from, but they merely demonstrate a lack of understanding of higher level physics. Which is fine, many people don't quite get it.
Click to expand...

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

Sherman123 said:
This is actually something I've always struggled with. I read Krauss A Universe from Nothing and while brilliant (like himself) I remain unconvinced that a dodgy word game isn't being played when talking about things like 'nothing' or 'before time'. Obviously these things conform to scientific definitions but they don't seem to meet the definitions as I or another layperson would colloquially understand them to mean. It's possible I'm just not getting it but I suspect that isn't the case. I should mention that this does nothing to alter my perspectives on creationism or the divine, or rather the lack thereof.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. There are probably only few hundred people on our planet, that can actually get it on a proper level and conduct a meaningful conversation on the subject - unfortunately I'm not one of them...well yet :2razz:

If you have the time, try watching the videos I posted on the previous page, they are done by my uni. professors and in my opinion give a nice explanation about vacuum, uncertainty, etc.



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

There are always competing theories in science. There are competing theories and hypotheses involving concepts like plate tectonics, the extinction of the dinosaurs, how the rings of Jupiter were formed, etc.

Science is actually about exchanging ideas within the fundamental methodology of science, and improving our testing of theories and our overall knowledge and understanding of the world.

You're making yourself out as somebody who takes the entire field of science as BS, and somebody who doesn't understand how science improves your life.


VanceMack said:
Right....the 'Now' theory.

Whats funny to me is people that get their faith and belief system from Google and competing theories composed by others then ridiculing others for a belief system. And I mean that just as it is written. Its FUNNY to me to see condescending people that have never done a days research themselves, read theories and articles and research done by others and promote that as their own version of faith...but a superior faith because...while those theories are often proven wrong or at LEAST cant be proven right, they are based on 'science'.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

SheWolf said:
There are always competing theories in science. There are competing theories and hypotheses involving concepts like plate tectonics, the extinction of the dinosaurs, how the rings of Jupiter were formed, etc.

Science is actually about exchanging ideas within the fundamental methodology of science, and improving our testing of theories and our overall knowledge and understanding of the world.

You're making yourself out as somebody who takes the entire field of science as BS, and somebody who doesn't understand how science improves your life.
Click to expand...

odd considering that I have repeatedly stated my respect for science and the discovery process. Perhaps it's not a question of me making myself out to be anything it rather you wanting it to be the case.

Which theory do you out YOUR faith in. Perhaps you can offer the settled science that explains the existence of and origins of the cosmos. Which other persons work do you hold as the answer?
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Science has never disproved God, and it probably never will... unless you are a faith-based person and base the existence of God on things like; the world has to be flat, the world has to be stationary and not revolve, the Sun the Moon and the stars are moving, dinosaur bones are an atheist conspirarcy, evolution is a lie, etc.

Science is not your enemy. Its sad to see people uncomfortable with their children learning science. If you take a science class and then start to question God, then sit down and work that out with yourself. Perhaps you were just basing the existence of God on a faulty assumption and misunderstanding you had about the world or universe. Just because science says you're wrong about the world being flat, it doesn't mean there's no God.

Science isn't out to to prove God doesn't exist, so don't get angry about science and scientific theory. Don't expect to hear God mentioned in theories. Its not a conspiracy.



VanceMack said:
Im waiting for you to state definitively that without question, the science is settled and you know of the origins of the cosmos including the origins of the photons (which ALSO includes the origins of whatever MADE them).

All you have done is Googled and posted articles, many of them competing and disagreeing with each other, that offer theories into what MAY have happened. My point is not that the religious faith based foundation that there is a God and that God somehow made all this happen is 'right'...only that you and people like you speak derisively of faith based individuals while you desperately Google articles to give you your own version of faith and knowledge, then offer up competing 'theories' as your 'proof' are no different. Unless someone actually has proof they do not know (religious or science based), they 'believe'. They theorize. And worse...some cling to someone ELSES theory and belief.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom