Bill Nye the Science Guy to Debate Creationist

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Lord Tyrion, Jan 16, 2014.

  1. FlakeNoir

    FlakeNoir Beta/Moderator Moderator

    I read this in Yodaese.... :biggrin2:
     
    Neesy, Dana Jean, skimom2 and 3 others like this.
  2. Cowboy

    Cowboy Lesser-Known Member

    The only way to read it....any other way would not make sense.
     
  3. FlakeNoir

    FlakeNoir Beta/Moderator Moderator

    And now I have this strong urge to just throw down my Lightsaber* and embrace peace, I do.

    (*Really Google? "Lightsaber"? I would not have spelt it this way, just saying.)
     
  4. Cowboy

    Cowboy Lesser-Known Member

    That spelling is too simplistic....I'm sticking with Lightsabre.
     
  5. FlakeNoir

    FlakeNoir Beta/Moderator Moderator

    Oh yes, me too... sabre, sabre, saaaaaabre.
     
  6. Lord Tyrion

    Lord Tyrion Well-Known Member

    It's going to be on youtube today at 7PM eastern.
     
  7. skimom2

    skimom2 Just moseyin' through...

    My then-three year old used that one me once: " Let go of your anger, Mom. It leads to the dark side." Have to admit, after I got over my giggles at him, I felt a lot better :) #1 NERDMOM, that's me
     
  8. skimom2

    skimom2 Just moseyin' through...

    Thanks!
     
    Neesy, Cowboy and Dana Jean like this.
  9. hossenpepper

    hossenpepper Keeper of Octopus Volcano

    Yes, that would be fair to say. Especially Miss Mod. Though DJ is kinda tall and VROOM-VROOM, if ya catch my drift. :lurve:

    I clock in at about 6'2" and 250. If I got back to my "fighting weight" I would be about 225-230. Damn burritos are too yummy though.
     
    Neesy and nate_watkins like this.
  10. hossenpepper

    hossenpepper Keeper of Octopus Volcano

    So... thoughts?

    Without getting too deep... Mr. Ham's main an central point is based upon this delineation of science as being observational versus historical. Which is just nonsense. He also incorrectly identifies science as being a translational word for "knowledge". This is also very misguided. Science is DISCOVERY.

    Science is two things: the body of collected observed data, and the methods for collecting and observing the data. Trying to make a distinction between watching what is happening now and studying evidence left from past events is a setup to say what he said over and over "But Mr. Nye, you weren't there."

    Yes very interesting point. Since he based his entire premise for his version on the biblical writings, perhaps he'd do well to make this same observation for himself BEFORE he just accepts these writings as truth. He WASN'T there when they were written, translated any of the many times, and certainly not when only the writings that fit together for the sake of proving prophecy were canonized into the current accepted collection we call the Bible.

    I work in computer science now, and worked in health science before this. I've studied science my entire life. I always took as many science courses as I could and I continue to study and keep up with current writings in life and physical sciences. Never, ever have I heard this "historical science" BS this guy was trying to spout. This may be in the scientist creationist sect that this exists, but no mainstream scientist or student thereof would ever make this pointless distinction. It only serves to give him a basis to say he doesn't accept the analysis of past events because no one was there to see them happen. Again, you didn't see Noah build the Ark, or Moses talk to the Bush, or Cain murder Abel, so how can you say with absolute certainty that is what happened?

    I'd say Bill Nye presented verifiable evidence and demonstrated the ability to use dating techniques and scientific postulation to predict results which have then been confirmed by observed data. He also adequately demonstrated the inability of the creation based model and analysis of genetic history to be able to do this. Since the viability of these two presentations to properly educate a student on science and scientific methods was the core question of the debate, I would say that it was not even close, with Bill Nye pretty much destroying everything this guy said.

    One thing I will disagree with Bill Nye, is the point that evolutionary science precludes the possibility of God. I do not think it means this at all. But the Genesis account of things, when taken literally, simply doesn't hold water in comparison to the scientific evidence of the development of this planet and its species.

    But you simply can't argue with faith. It will not change its mind, regardless of evidence.
     
  11. VampireLily

    VampireLily Vampire Goddess & General P.I.T.A

    "The Bible tells us......" stopped working for me around age 13. And yet this seemed to be Mr. Ham's 'go to response' for everything.
     
    Lord Tyrion, Neesy, FlakeNoir and 2 others like this.
  12. Bill Nye's bow tie is heaven sent..............
     
  13. hossenpepper

    hossenpepper Keeper of Octopus Volcano

    Clever... :)

    He'd say made by science...
     
  14. Maybe his Mother made it........:D
     
    Neesy, FlakeNoir and nate_watkins like this.
  15. Lord Tyrion

    Lord Tyrion Well-Known Member

    I was skeptical as to how well Bill Nye would do in this debate because he really doesn't have much experience debating and it's a hard skill to master, but he did fairly well. My favorite part of his argument was the case for the Big Bang. There was some solid evidence in favor of that. I was surprised Ken Ham was saying he based his scientific beliefs on the bible and not observable data to back his assertions. His best argument was challenging the dating methods. Nye didn't seem to have a good answer for that on the spot.
     
    Neesy, FlakeNoir and nate_watkins like this.
  16. skimom2

    skimom2 Just moseyin' through...

    Nye had the stronger position (more verifiable data), but he lost the audience when he started quoting pages of data--unfortunately, a non-'sciencey' crowd's eyes start to collectively glaze with numbers overload. It's really too bad, but you have to play the crowd in a popular debate (it would be different in a debate between scientists with an audience that was into the field).

    What was really nice was that the debaters remained polite and respectful, for the most part. Don't see that often!
     
    Lord Tyrion and Neesy like this.
  17. Narvic

    Narvic Well-Known Member

    My question would be other than the theory that we evolved from apes or something....where exactly does the Bible contradict scientific findings? I mean I don't recall anyplace in the Bible where it says the Earth is flat.
     
    Neesy, skimom2 and staropeace like this.
  18. skimom2

    skimom2 Just moseyin' through...

    It depends on the faith tradition one is from. For example, this is the last paragraph in the creation chapter in my kids' Catholic children's bible: "The story of creation is a story about religion and not about science. Therefore, creation as told in the Bible does not offend against science. It is true,though, that in His creative act God set masterful forces of science into motion." The book is littered with these reminders of what is a storytelling device, meant to teach a lesson and not to be taken as literal truth. (This is not to say there aren't fundamentalist Catholics, but they aren't in line with the official teachings of the church). Other faith traditions teach that every word is literal truth.

    BTW, Darwin didn't teach that man came from apes. He posited that we have a common ancestor--sounds reasonable to me :)
     
    nate_watkins, Neesy and FlakeNoir like this.
  19. Narvic

    Narvic Well-Known Member

    There are prophecies and such in the Bible that are plainly stated to be masked, so that not everyone can read them and get the full meaning. There are also parables, again plainly labeled, meant to illustrate a truth. If the other parts are also truly inspired by God to communicate to us, then it would make no sense not to say it in the clearest way so that we'll understand. When God says in Genesis that he created the world in a matter of days I take it not necessarily that it was six 24 hour periods, but that to Him it was like six days and that is the best way for Him to help us understand what occurred.
     
    Neesy likes this.

Share This Page

Revival