ForumsWEPRKen Ham vs. Bill "The Science Guy" Nye

116 42295
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

This will be your chance to discuss the debate as it happens. At the time I'm posting this the debate will start soon. Here is a link to where you can see it.
Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

There have been some issues raised about Nye taking on this debate. Feel free to express your views on that point as well.

  • 116 Replies
Sonatavarius
offline
Sonatavarius
1,322 posts
Farmer

that and there's youtube where everyone can watch you do it themselves now

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

God made the stars and put them so far away that the light from them wouldn't reach us in 6-10 thousand years. It would take billions of years to see what we see.

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,508 posts
Jester

It's a little jarring to see how little support Bill Nye is getting. I knew how stacked the auditorium was, but only one clap? And when Bill Nye claimed that we found scientific support for where matter came from, the audience laughs?

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

"Diseases caused by bacteria and so on." - Ken Ham

Doesn't the Bible say that was demons?

Ken is side stepping the issue presented to him on other things besides the Bible for his view.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

Bill Nye saying "don't know" on the emergence of consciousness. Not a good move, too easily quote mined. Would have been best to keep with "one of those mysteries of the universe".

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

Bill Pointing out how Ken has just be presenting unbacked stories was a good blow.

Point goes to Nye.

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,508 posts
Jester

"Diseases caused by bacteria and so on." - Ken Ham

Doesn't the Bible say that was demons?


Come on Ham, you can't use Science to support Faith, you know that XD That's OUR data from OUR scientists!

Bill Nye saying "don't know" on the emergence of consciousness. Not a good move, too easily quote mined. Would have been best to keep with "one of those mysteries of the universe".


Yeah I have my doubts that the 500K people watching are versed in the God of the Gaps fallacy.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,815 posts
Jester

"one of those mysteries of the universe".


A mystery that God explains :^)
rayoflight3
offline
rayoflight3
437 posts
Nomad

I'm not talking about scientists. I'm talking about the average Joe evolutionist, who doesn't have the equipment to perform rigorous experiments, who can't collect data by himself (I'm sure there's plenty out there). If any of you fit this description, then why do you "believe" in evolution? What's the difference between you subscribing to evolution and someone else believing in creationism? Are they both not just faith in text that they cannot themselves confirm? If not, then why not?

Sonatavarius
offline
Sonatavarius
1,322 posts
Farmer

I prefer to go with Africa and South America fitting like puzzle pieces and fossil records showing highly similar animals on all the continents when many of them are now extinct. It takes time for plates to move and all of the creatures found in fossils couldn't have lived at the same time as all of the creatures we have now. Ole T-rex living beside cows just doesn't cut it. The cows would've been dead and gone way before they were ever able to leave their mark on the world.
But then again the whole universe IS a hologram and we can't ever KNOW anything according to some

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,815 posts
Jester

From what I have seen, Nye has asked -3 times- what predictions can be made with Creationism.

This entire question refutes the idea of Creationism being a viable scientific model.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

If any of you fit this description, then why do you "believe" in evolution? What's the difference between you subscribing to evolution and someone else believing in creationism?


The presented facts supporting what is being found out by scientists.

Let's you meet someone on the street claiming they can sell you a bridge. It's the difference between just accepting this claim and this person presenting valid documentation showing that he can legally sell that bridge to you and being able to get further information that he can legally do this and isn't just scamming you from another independent source.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,508 posts
Jester

I'm not talking about scientists. I'm talking about the average Joe evolutionist


We're all scientists, though, just like when you compile your first line of code you are a computer programmer. Scientists are "students of science."

If any of you fit this description, then why do you "believe" in evolution?


If Evolution is on the same shelf as Gravitation, Plate Tectonics, Heliocentrism, Germ Theory, Gene Theory, and Sliding Filament Theory, being that they have all been elevated to the status of Theory, then we must infer that Evolution has a ton of evidence to support it.

We can then view this evidence, see the support for this evidence in real time, and empirically understand that "the pieces fit together, the support holds up to the theses, thus the theory is sound (for now)".

What's the difference between you subscribing to evolution and someone else believing in creationism


Evolution is put under the scrutiny of the Scientific Method.

1. Observe what's happening
2. Make a hypothesis and predict what will happen
3. Make an experiment to test it
4a. If this doesn't work, go back to Step 2
4b. If this does work, go to Step 5.
5. Publish findings.
6. Go back to Step 2. Repeat immemorial.

Creationism throws testing out the window.

1. Make conclusion
2. Find support for conclusion

^ actually in order

Are they both not just faith in text that they cannot themselves confirm? If not, then why not?


Well you're not the only guy around here who's asking that question. Simply put, the scientists searching for these answers have far stronger credentials than what we common people have (they have Ph.D's in their field of science and are still put under scrutiny by other Ph.D's).

Therefore, it is prudent to allow them to use their funds to search for answers and put the findings under scrutiny, while it is our jobs to ask questions to make sure they did not screw up the Scientific Method while doing so.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

This entire question refutes the idea of Creationism being a viable scientific model.


Yes it does, that's why Ken keeps sidestepping this issue. I wish Bill would point this out that Ken isn't answering this issue more.

One of the things a valid theory needs to do is make falsifiable or testable predictions. it's in how relevant an specific those predictions are that determines how useful a theory is. A theory with no predictions would be worthless.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer
Showing 46-60 of 116