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.
[quote]the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
The above was his foundation of his historical science that there are different ways of "knowing". I'm sure you can all agree that the stated definition while true is extremely lacking and false based on completeness.[/quote]
This doesn't correctly apply to science, though. It's an oversimplified definition of knowledge. An acceptable definition of science would be "the process by which information is continually analysed and tested for its accuracy and its adherence to known laws". Ham is arguing that science is biased in support of naturalism, so establishing an acceptable definition would be counterproductive, like saying "science is a way of using logic to explain everything, but those corrupt evolutionists want you to think that no-logical-explanation-ology is not a real science".
Actually he did state that in his opening remarks.
I must have missed this moment - I was somewhat distracted near the beginning of the debate.
Talented? I gave up on them very quickly. Maybe because it's because when I have my scientist hat on I'm used to seeing evidence manipulated, and I didn't find that either of them structured their arguments well. They were both too busy poking each other and not doing what scientists are meant to do: collecting evidence from a controlled environment and then drawing logical conclusions from their findings.
Sadly, this isn't how you win most debates - especially when it's a debate concerning religion. Both Bill and Ken understood this.
If Bill spoke purely in terms of science, he wouldn't have been able to reach out to the creationists in the audience at all. He had to appeal to their interests the best he could without compromising his own arguments. His goal was not so simple as to be right, for being right means nothing in such debates. His goal is to open up the minds of the audience.
This is why I felt Bill avoided the argument, "The Bible isn't evidence since it needs to be proven itself." Such an argument will not work with devout Christians. But to argue that the Bible has been re-interpreted numerous times, that line of logic is much easier for fundamentalists to chew.
Truth, alone, is often meaningless. One must understand how to portray truth for it to bear any weight - unfortunately.
I'm going to leave this here, but only b/c Mage needs a jolt to his day! (YOU'RE WELCOME ;D)
Number 22 is definitely trolling us. Some stupid dumb questions some smart dumb questions.
I must have missed this moment - I was somewhat distracted near the beginning of the debate.
Once I heard him say that he was going to define things I knew there was going to be some entertainment soon.
I also love how morality and ethics got involved in the debate, yes in the series of books which promote slavery and stoning people I'm going to derive my moral code from.
#3: Yes. #4 & #6: Where do these people get the idea that thermodynamics has ANYTHING to do with either? The principles of thermodynamics aren't even actual laws. #5: Only the most ignorant of peons needs to invoke a divine being for something so mundane. #10 & 21: People who clearly have no formal education in cosmology. #11: He apparently doesn't know the difference between atheism, humanism, and evolutionism, or how to distinguish valid opinions from the ravings of conspiracy theorists. #12, 13, 16, & 18: I doubt even they know what they're trying to say. #14 & 15: Their problem is clear enough. They have difficulty grasping the idea that "theory" is not its own antithesis. #20: Just a minute...That's no creationist! She's a solipsist agent, sent to sow seeds of self-importance among the Christian community. Guards, escort her from the building! #22: Another one who should have paid more attention in high school biology.
1) Absolutely yes. Knowledge of the world is never a bad thing to have. 2) Nope. Though I'd say any rational person has reason to be scared of the megalomaniacal omnipresent neurotic hypocritical cruel and abusive figure as portrayed in the Bible. 3) Yep. Pretty much sums it up. Is it illogical to think flies and germs pop into an empty vacuum jar? I'd bet anyone not completely bonkers would say such, and ironically, spontaneous generation is one very common strawman of evolution. 4) Second law of thermodynamics applies to a closed system. The planet earth is not a closed system. 5) "How do you explain a sunset if their is no god." 6) Didn't we already answer this one? I think we did. 7) I've honestly never heard that word before. (Looks it up). Oh, it's philosophy. So yeah, we can assume a premise as true and think about the implications of that, but it doesn't make it true either. 8) Experiences, introspection, empathy, emotions, and values. 9) "By chance" is only a ridiculous statement if one does not understand probability and statistics. 10) I always love a good god of the gaps fallacy. 11) Another "their" instead of "there." Why is it so hard for creationists to use correct grammar? I can't help but wonder at their level of education. 12) Plug your ears and wear that blindfold loud and proud. 13) Sure it does. It's a part of how life functions, and evolution is basically the motor. 14) So now the Bible is a theory too? What isn't a theory in the mind of a creationist? 15) What definition of science does that lady have? Opposite day's? 16) Replication of DNA and duplication mutations increase the overall information contained within a cell. Next. 17) I find it odd that creationists believe the purpose for being here is so we can go somewhere else afterwards. Why the extra stage? 18) Probably because we don't name every fossil we find Lucy. 19) Note: I totally read that as "Big Bong" the first time. It depends on how you want to define faith. I do not consider it faith to determine the laws of the universe and apply them in a logical manner to come up with a plausible explanation of an event in the past utilizing all available empirical evidence. 20) Mostly because there's an inherent fallacy in that the creator would have had to have been created by an even more complex creator ad infinitum, because if this world is too amazing to have arisen naturally, and God is even more amazing, well, who made God? He must have been created too if you want to argue that way. I hereby motion we worship his almightyness G^2. 21) Exploding star? What? Oh, you mean the singularity of matter that expanded. Quantum fluctuations? I don't really know, but I don't make up a story and pretend I do. 22) Because we didn't come from monkeys. Monkeys and us came from the same common ancestor.
4) Second law of thermodynamics applies to a closed system. The planet earth is not a closed system.
You know what even more sad? Bill Nye pointed this out during the debate and this is supposedly after the debate with the people who were in the audience.
You know what even more sad? Bill Nye pointed this out during the debate and this is supposedly after the debate with the people who were in the audience.
I raged when I read #4. Reminds me of NonStampCollector's video.
I was required, in high school, to take P.E. and "communication". Both were entirely pointless. Communication sounds like a class people should take, but then you realize everything you learn is literally common sense. I learned what a "messenger" and "receiver" is. I also learned that my communication methods is called a "message".
But, for some odd reason, we have no courses teaching students Debate and Critical Thinking skills - which I believe should become a required course in high school. Too many people aren't concerned with expanding their own knowledge of the world - and I believe a lot of it is due to ignorance. I could be wrong though.
1) Clearly trolling. 2) Legitimate question. 3) More uncalled for trolling. 4) Legitimate question about how creationists explain vestigial structures. 5) Mocking. 6) Fallacious argument. 7) Legitimate question. 8) Poorly worded and written, but a legitimate question. Ham's "kinds" are clearly microevolution. 9) Tautologically impossible to answer question. 10) More mocking and not even a question. 11) Flaming and not a question. 12) Legitimate question. 13) More trolling. 14) lol. 15) Legitimate question. 16) Unnecessary question mark? Legitimate questions though. 17) Phrased with the conclusion already presumed to be true. A better wording would be "How do you explain fossils that have been determined to be millions of years old?" 18) Yes, they do, and he's just mocking. 19) Not a question. Again. 20) Yet more mocking. 21) Another not-question. 22) Mocking and not a question. Tally: Antagonizing - 11 Bad/poorly worded questions - 4 Legitimate questions - 8 Note* I counted #8 in two categories.
I watched it once but I intend to watch it again. There was a lot thrown back and forth and I probably missed some important stuff.
From my gathering and generalizing of the material, it was basically a "Jesus loves me because the Bible tells me so" vs. the objective scientific community sort of ordeal. There wasn't much I haven't seen before. Nye made a few debating no-no's (which were all over Twitter), and Ham made a few accusations that seemed ridiculous to me. But otherwise it may as well have been between two opposing WEPR vets.
Also, I'm not sure why Ham kept insisting on defining words. Like, I understand that it's necessary to come to a consensus about semantics at the beginning, but he tried dragging it on for about two and a half hours. As a result a lot of other issues were blatantly ignored and ended up being swept under the rug as time went on. Nye shouldn't have backed off when his questions weren't satisfactorily being answered.
Why the big emphasis on scientists' beliefs at the beginning? Ham really tried pushing through with this idea that creationist scientists and atheistic scientists are one in the same because they contribute to the same fields. It seemed really unprofessional and rather ridiculous, because even I picked up on the cherry-picking...
Oh, and did anyone else laugh and when Ham wouldn't drop the earth's age even after Nye gave that half-hour lecture about how the world is obviously 6-7 billion years old?
As for Nye's infractions, frankly, I didn't notice many. The anecdotes seemed to pull away from issues, though, and there were way too many of them. It muddled some of his points. Otherwise the only thing I noticed was the issue where Nye would sometimes poke back at Ham instead of poking at his point.
