- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 398
- Points
- 5,246
- Pharmacist
Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
- Thread starter Jibby321
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 172
- Points
- 5,121
- Resident [Any Field]
The problem with these kinds of things is that creationists invariably only have these kinds of debates in front of a pro-creationist crowd. Ken will pose a bunch of non-evolution questions (i.e. where did time and space come from?) because creationists tend to include cosmology as part of their theories and then try to rejoice in the fact that Bill Nye doesn't have a definitive answer. It's really hard to debate someone who is arguing the bible is true because it's true.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 619
- Reaction score
- 62
- Points
- 4,661
- Age
- 45
- Location
- Tampa, FL
- Pharmacist
Without a doubt!
- Joined
- May 29, 2012
- Messages
- 487
- Reaction score
- 98
- Points
- 4,671
- Pharmacy Student
Nope. Had to work, so i missed it. Would've been interesting to watch though.
- Joined
- May 29, 2012
- Messages
- 487
- Reaction score
- 98
- Points
- 4,671
- Pharmacy Student
This.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,368
- Reaction score
- 1,004
- Points
- 5,336
- Pharmacist
The problem with the majority of creationism arguments is that they rely on "holes" in evolution and put their "evidence" on faith in a creation story as they interpret it. They aren't really applying scientific evidence and are going on an "attack inconsistencies in evolution" and using that as a basis for "therefore the alternative to evolution is creationism" ending in "and that creationist theory is the one we believe or faith says in accordance with how we interpret it." It's flawed reasoning, just as flawed as those that want to use the theory of evolution as some kind of argument against the existence of God(s) or as proof that God(s) cannot or do not exist.
In my opinion, evolution, according to scientific evidence is the best model for use to use in how life has diversified throughout the vast number of years that life has existed. I have no evidence or reason to believe that the world was made in 7 literal 24 hour day periods and have that basis be that "there are some inconsistencies with your theory of evolution as I see them" and "My interpretation of my faith tells me it must have happened in 7 days, I do not need solid evidence." It's not rational to conclude that because another theory may have some issues or possible flaws or weakly supported ideas within that theory that a theory (creationism) without solid evidence is the default. Coming from the stance that it's either evolution or creationism and that creationism is right because evolution may have some flaws/limitations/holes (as perceived by some creationists) that this is sufficient to debunk evolution and substitute the creation story as scientific fact as the default...
People can believe what they want. If someone believes with faith and in their worldview that the Bible (or maybe another Holy Book) are the direct words of God(s) it would be rational for them to accept that (under the premise that what is written does come from God with God being an almighty and true being) that is one thing. But when they remove things from that realm, they will have to prove why their religion or faith is truth while also debunking currently held theories.
In my opinion, evolution, according to scientific evidence is the best model for use to use in how life has diversified throughout the vast number of years that life has existed. I have no evidence or reason to believe that the world was made in 7 literal 24 hour day periods and have that basis be that "there are some inconsistencies with your theory of evolution as I see them" and "My interpretation of my faith tells me it must have happened in 7 days, I do not need solid evidence." It's not rational to conclude that because another theory may have some issues or possible flaws or weakly supported ideas within that theory that a theory (creationism) without solid evidence is the default. Coming from the stance that it's either evolution or creationism and that creationism is right because evolution may have some flaws/limitations/holes (as perceived by some creationists) that this is sufficient to debunk evolution and substitute the creation story as scientific fact as the default...
People can believe what they want. If someone believes with faith and in their worldview that the Bible (or maybe another Holy Book) are the direct words of God(s) it would be rational for them to accept that (under the premise that what is written does come from God with God being an almighty and true being) that is one thing. But when they remove things from that realm, they will have to prove why their religion or faith is truth while also debunking currently held theories.
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,397
- Reaction score
- 805
- Points
- 5,296
- Pharmacist
Why would anyone watch this garbage? Ever since Bill Nye did Dancing with the Stars, how can anyone take him serious... He could of went down as a legend for anyone who remembered watching him in school and now he's just another has-been "celebrity" desperately trying to milk it for another paycheck. What a hack.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 398
- Points
- 5,246
- Pharmacist
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 398
- Points
- 5,246
- Pharmacist
Ehhh. I disagree. I grew up on bill nye.
He has done great things and will continue to do great things regarding public science education.
Well, I watched. It really wasn't a debate on evolution vs creation (which I had expected & which I thought might be interesting.) The debate was supposed to be on, 'can someone who believes in creation still be a scientist?' Ken Ham easily won this point, with his examples of scientists (including the guy who invented the MRI) who believe in young earth creation. Ken Ham pointedly asked Bill Nye to give an example (outside of the field of evolutionary biology) where not believing that the world was created by evolution would preclude someone from doing good science. Bill Nye never answered the question, nor do he ever give any reasons as to why one would have to believe in evolution in order to be a scientist.
Both Nye & Ham (quite annoyingly) kept going off on religious tangents which had nothing to do with the debate. Ham kept openly proselytizing for Christianity and Nye kept saying that he knows many Christians who believe in evolution.
Both of them threw out a few token points for supporting evolution or supporting creation, but certainly it was *not* an in-depth debate of real evolution/creation issues.
Even though I believe Ham won the debate (as it was framed, can someone who believes in creation, be a scientist?), the worst question answer was definitely Ham's. He was asked if "hypothetically" it was proven to him that evolution was true, would he still believe in Christianity? Now *this* would have been the perfect time for him to proselytize, instead he goes on a rant about how their is "no hypothetical" because evolution can't be proved. Um....isn't that the whole idea of being "hypothetical" in this context, one is saying "for pretend, if evolution could be proven". Of course there is a hypothetical, there is always a "for pretend", if one can't even entertain a "for pretend" question, then how can one call themselves a debater? A *good* debater will answer the 'hypothetical' question, than skillfully turn it around to his point.
Overall, I think both Nye & Ham are novice debaters, but fortunately for them, then had crowd of "true believers" who really didn't care.
Both Nye & Ham (quite annoyingly) kept going off on religious tangents which had nothing to do with the debate. Ham kept openly proselytizing for Christianity and Nye kept saying that he knows many Christians who believe in evolution.
Both of them threw out a few token points for supporting evolution or supporting creation, but certainly it was *not* an in-depth debate of real evolution/creation issues.
Even though I believe Ham won the debate (as it was framed, can someone who believes in creation, be a scientist?), the worst question answer was definitely Ham's. He was asked if "hypothetically" it was proven to him that evolution was true, would he still believe in Christianity? Now *this* would have been the perfect time for him to proselytize, instead he goes on a rant about how their is "no hypothetical" because evolution can't be proved. Um....isn't that the whole idea of being "hypothetical" in this context, one is saying "for pretend, if evolution could be proven". Of course there is a hypothetical, there is always a "for pretend", if one can't even entertain a "for pretend" question, then how can one call themselves a debater? A *good* debater will answer the 'hypothetical' question, than skillfully turn it around to his point.
Overall, I think both Nye & Ham are novice debaters, but fortunately for them, then had crowd of "true believers" who really didn't care.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2014
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 4,671
- Resident [Any Field]
Pfff come on man. Nobody of intelligence thinks the world was made in seven days.
It was made in six.
Because He rested on the seventh.
I don't think you understand why he does what he does. Bill probably just got a call, and they were like, "so, you want to do our show," and he was like, "ah hell, sure, why not, it sounds fun." Just because he's a man of science doesn't mean he can't do something just for the hell of it every now and then. If I had any dancing ability whatsoever and was called up for it, I'd say sure, why not, because I'm adventurous and think it'd be fun. (I really don't give a damn for TV though, I've never even watched the show)
And seriously, to think about it a different way, would you look down on Neil deGrasse Tyson if he did Dancing with the Stars?
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 398
- Points
- 5,246
- Pharmacist
In bold above was not the debate....
It was "is creationism a viable model of origins?"
- Joined
- May 29, 2012
- Messages
- 487
- Reaction score
- 98
- Points
- 4,671
- Pharmacy Student
Ummm, I just relistened to the intro and you are correct. I was apparently misled by smoke & mirrors by Ham in his intro talking about scientists who are literal 6-day creationists (and perhaps by a Facebook comment...) My bad, I admit I was playing games while listening, so I didn't give the debate my full attention.
So, I take it back about Ham winning the debate, he did not really prove that creationism is a viable alternative (although I'm not sure that Nye really disproved that it wasn't a viable alternative either.) Both Nye & Ham spent little time talking directly about proofs for creation/evolution or evidences against creation/evolution.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 398
- Points
- 5,246
- Pharmacist
Is creationism a viable model? No.... The only evidence you need is that the earth is greater that 6,000 years old to disprove that theory, and there is more than enough evidence of that which nye presented. Just my 2 cents
Well, that would disproves young earth creationism, which many creationists do not believe. There are creationists who believe that God created in phases/ages, over millions of years, not necessarily in an evolutionary fashion as evolution is thought of, but more like a car "evolves" from year to year, with the car designer consciously deciding to enhance or change the car. There are also the creationists who think earth is just a colony of life that was created by physical beings from another planet. There are creationists who believe that God created the world in 6 "literal" days, but those days were not 24 hour days as we on earth think of days. And there are creationists who believe that God created the world either consciously through guided evolution, or in deist fashion by creating the first sparks of life and then letting evolution transform life without direct guidance. These are just some of the main creationist theories.
Obviously, Ham was promoting his own narrow version of creationism, perhaps the better debate question would have been "Is Ken Ham's version of creationism a viable model?", I suspect it wasn't because Ham doesn't believe in any other theories of creation but his own. But to the general question, "is creationism a viable model?" (and I would take this to include any theory of creation that involves a God or a higher physical being)....I don't think either one made a good case for or against this (and of course they couldn't, proving evolution doesn't disprove that a God/higher being created life through evolution, and disproving evolution doesn't mean that creationism by default is true either.)
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 172
- Points
- 5,121
- Resident [Any Field]
I think you just described evolution as we all accept it.
Also, I agree that Hamm spent the time trying to prove a creationist can be a scientist rather than supporting creationism. It was frustrating to watch him blatantly avoid any kind of discourse about proof for the creationist theory. If you are familiar with any of the creationist rhetoric they tend to try to argue definitions or create new terms and pretend like they exist in real life (such as Hamm's historical vs observational science) and then use their constructed ideas to prove a weak point. He argued the argument rather than presenting facts which didn't accomplish anything. You see people like kent hovind (who is also a creationist and in jail right now) do this as well with micro vs macro evolution (which are terms only he uses).
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,723
- Reaction score
- 3,502
- Points
- 5,246
- Pharmacist
I'm pretty sure He was union. That break was on the clock. I'm going seven.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,368
- Reaction score
- 1,004
- Points
- 5,336
- Pharmacist
Very true, haha I overlooked that detail.
