'Bill Nye the Science Guy' to Take On Creationist in Evolution Debate (school, election)

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

"Artificial selection" initiated by what/who? Intelligent Design.

Dumb attempt at a distinction. You have already repeatedly admitted that natural selection is real, that it occurs, that it works, and that is capable of creating change of the same magnitude seen in artificial selection. The complete incoherence of your own "theory" is no better demonstrated that when you arguments against evolution repeatedly contradict themselves.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

They created their own definition of ID in 1984, long after the concept had been in existence.

The hypocrisy of that argument is proved by the fact that it is the 1984 and later definition that IC actually uses herself.

Again, the incoherence of her "theories" is proved by her inability to not continuously self refute.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I also posted this:
Intelligent Design - Disclaimer

Does that mean those at the above posted link believe in religious-based creationism?

If that herring were any more red it would explode into flame.

[kayanne]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

The debate is on the origin of humanity, not the origin of life, so it will certainly be about evolution.

Ah, ok, thanks for that clarification. I also read that the debate will be streamed live at debatelive.org

Should be interesting and entertaining, though probably frustrating.

[Redraven]

I was curious about Bill Nye, so I googled him.
He has a BS in Mechanical Engineering, worked for Boeing, and became an entertainer.
I see nothing in his background that gives me any incentive to care what he has to say about either creationism or evolution.
The same goes for Ken Ham. I did not even bother to google him, never heard of him, don't care what he has to say.
As always, the bottom line is; when they die, they will find out who was right. One of them will be very surprised!

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Redraven

As always, the bottom line is; when they die, they will find out who was right. One of them will be very surprised!

Nonsense.

When they die, both could be surprised. Neither could be surprised. Either could be surprised.

The smart money is on neither.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Ceist

I get it. You just don't WANT to know that ID is just creationism rebadged.

It's not. Scientists had been discussing the concept of ID years before creationists co-opted the term. The fact that you swallowed what some creationist group was dangling in front of you hook, line, and sinker without verifying it is your problem.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It's not. Scientists had been discussing the concept of ID years before creationists co-opted the term. The fact that you swallowed what some creationist group was dangling in front of you hook, line, and sinker without verifying it is your problem.

The names of the "scientists", please.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

You have already repeatedly admitted that natural selection is real, that it occurs, that it works, and that is capable of creating change of the same magnitude seen in artificial selection.

Yep, and is capable of working in conjunction with intelligent design, the examples listed being human intervention in the evolution of dogs, cats, farm animals, crops, etc.

Again, because you've been rather slow to catch on... ToE does not preclude ID, nor does ID preclude ToE.

[GregW]

There is no more point in debating Creationists than there is in debating Religious nuts. They are believers and believers are not amenable to rationality. They believe and that is all that maters.