Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please explain how a "scientist" can debate somebody whose whole belief system is based on FAITH?
The "scientist" can only quote or refute FACTS.
Of course, he can also espouse THEORIES. I suppose the "scientist" has FAITH that the THEORIES are (or will be proven in the future) factual.
But, what FACTS can the scientist use to disprove the story of creation as described in the Book Of Genesis?
Can the "scientist" also disprove the Hopi and/or Navajo Creation stories? When will he "debate" the Hopi Shaman?
When will he debate the Satanist? the Wiccan? the Gaia devotee? How about Odin and Valhalla?
No, I did not watch it. IMO, it would have been a waste of time, as it is to watch anything bill nye does.
Science should only deal with what is knowable and can be proven.
To argue that religious accounts of creation, whatever they may be, are wrong from a scientific standpoint when there is no scientific means by which this event can be known in any detail or with any certainty is an expression of arrogance and wishful thinking.
Nye so far has had a few sophomoric/weak arguments, which is very disturbing coming from a scientist of his proclaimed caliber. He stated that lions have sharp teeth because they are carnivores, so creationists view of animals being herbivores before the flood is not valid.
Well, if you observe animals in nature, many herbivores have sharp teeth in order to break the skin off fruits or any other plant life with a hard shell.
Ken Ham: Just because an animal has sharp teeth, doesn't mean he's a meat eater, it just means he has sharp teeth.
Nye so far has had a few sophomoric/weak arguments, which is very disturbing coming from a scientist of his proclaimed caliber. He stated that lions have sharp teeth because they are carnivores, so creationists view of animals being herbivores before the flood is not valid.
Well, if you observe animals in nature, many herbivores have sharp teeth in order to break the skin off fruits or any other plant life with a hard shell.
Ken Ham: Just because an animal has sharp teeth, doesn't mean he's a meat eater, it just means he has sharp teeth.
I found many of Nye's arguments to be weak. And his demeanor was quite sophomoric. But he had quite some good arguments as well.
This particular debate was no contest. My favorite part was "There are trees older than you think earth is."
Ken Ham made some good points, however, they were so out of context that it just made him look desperate.
He brought up that a couple of dating methods had been showed to be flawed at times, but something being wrong a couple of times is not proof that it is wrong all the time, of course he then proceeded to say that since we werent alive to see these rocks form or tree rings then we cant prove any of it to be true. Again, kind of a good point, but desperate and fatal because by his same logic, he disproved his own theory, LOL.
They both dismissed the Theory of Intelligent Design which is kind of said, it was like they were both saying , " you either believe in evolution or you believe in god, one or the other, no middle."
Well, I think that's the creationist's argument. It's in the bible, thus it must be true.
It's a debate about whether the creationist view can be a viable model of origins of science, it's safe to assume he would bring the Bible into the debate.
He's not stating it's observable science, but a historical belief or interpretation of the evidence presented in scientific studies of the natural world. His argument is that the evolutionary model is not true observable science either, but also a historical belief system based on interpretation of the evidence in the natural world.
It's an interpretation of the natural world based on worldview, either naturalist view, or creationist.
The 'debate' between Bill Nye Science Guy vs Ken Ham Young Earth Creationist is starting right now. It can be watched live on various websites, google plus and youtube:
"Is creation a viable model to explain our origins in this scientific era?"
Should be a real laugh.
It's a laugh but what I find even funnier is how theoretical physicists fight tooth and nail when refusing to admit they are moving farther and farther away from science.
As if all the theories now aren't far reaching as it is. When faced with explaining the cosmological constant, they go even FURTHER into ludicrous territory and make up the "multiverse". Something that not even the most convoluted math can explain.
But yea, ID'ers are a joke.
And evolution does nothing to explain origin. So don't try the "this is evolution vs. ID" cop out
It's a debate about whether the creationist view can be a viable model of origins of science, it's safe to assume he would bring the Bible into the debate.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the same thing. They are not interchangeable.
Ham is a Creationist, not a proponent of Intelligent Design. Ham, in fact, faults ID as "not enough."
Ken Ham: "The intelligent design movement is not a Christian movement. They're not all about the Bible; they don't tell you who this 'intelligence' is."
Don't let them fool you; they ARE exactly the same thing. They just don't want the rest of us to realize it. How else can they shoehorn Creation into the school curriculum, unless they disguise it as something else (IE, Intelligent Design).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
