Bill Nye debates Ken Ham

[Armistead]

Can't believe anyone credible would waste their time on Ken Ham, but many people in certain states want creation science taught in public schools, thus I think the reason for the debate.

Nothing really new, just Ham yet again looks like a fool...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mAyBwhiAJ8

[Tchocky]

Nye is the fool for showing up

[Wolferz]

Nye is the fool for showing up

Nah, he gets a kick out of making idiots look stupid.:woot:

[Armistead]

Nye is the fool for showing up

I wouldn't say so, he explains it was based more for political reasons as groups like Ham's want creation taught in school as science, which almost passed in Texas.

He explains why he did here..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VUXQatryNw

[soopaman2]

Cara Santa Maria said on Joe Rogans podcast that despite Nyes best intention, he makes himself a moron for even humoring this lunatic.

I got a real distaste for creationism, it ignores thousands of years of science, and scientific process, and throws it out for blind faith in a book.

The New Testament was written 300 years after Jesus, in the day of information and internet, we still have misinformation. Imagine how wrong they coulda got it then, with crude info passing.

Imagine this crap, passed down over a campfire...Ever play the telephone game? , it comes out different at the end every time, as each user/teller embellishes it.

How does the bible/creationist explain carbon dating?

They don't, they call it lies.

Call that book lies, and see the reaction.

I am sure I will get that reaction here.

[vienna]

A very good book on the subject of biblical text problems is "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" by Brad Ehrman. The book covers the New Testament soley, but the discussion of the text problems with the New Testament, a little less than 2000 years in existence and based on oral traditions, does also call into question, by implication, the text of the Old Testament, in existence over 4000 years and touched by far more hands, pens, and presses than the NT...


<O>

[Armistead]

A very good book on the subject of biblical text problems is "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" by Brad Ehrman. The book covers the New Testament soley, but the discussion of the text problems with the New Testament, a little less than 2000 years in existence and based on oral traditions, does also call into question, by implication, the text of the Old Testament, in existence over 4000 years and touched by far more hands, pens, and presses than the NT...


<O>

You meant Bart Ehrman...he's from my neck of the woods and have personally seen him speak twice..

My problem in putting creation in the science classroom is what's put in the science class has gone through a scientific process of testing, peer review and approval. The creationist want to skip this process. If creationist want another view taught, such as the earth is 6000 years old, then that process or theory should be scientifically tested for merit, peer reviewed and approved by the scientific community.... There have been creationist scientist that have attempted to do this, but their methods are always debunked by their peers, thus not accepted..

Accepting "science" based on ancient scripts before the age of science is a matter of faith and I'm a firm believer of separation of church and state...

[vienna]

My error; the eyes aren't what they used to be... :)


Regarding science vs. creationism, you are correct. In science, any theory or postulation is given a most rigorous going over by peer scientists. It is automatic that if you put out a scientific thesis, you are immediately beseiged by peers out to prove you wrong. It is only when all available means of disproving a thesis are exhuasted that it is accepted and, even then, your peers will still search for the chink in your armor. It is a process of reason over speculation, fact over fiction, trial over blind acceptance. On the other hand, creationism is the suspension of any reasoned thought, proof, trial, criticism, or review of even the most cursory manner. I have nothing against faith; I just don't see creationism as viable or necessary in a secular, reasoned school curriculum. There are plenty of bible schools and other establishments where one can learn, if one wishes for themselves or their children, about such subjects. But schools are not among those establishments and teaching of subjects such as creationism defeats the purpose of reasoned, secular education. I, for one, do not approve of spending tax money on non-secular education. To do so, is , by its very nature, an endorsement of a particular faith or belief and sends us on a slippery slope of government establishment of religion, which is not only anathema to quality education, but very much illegal under constitutional restraints. Perhaps the idea of "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" is good starting point. I am given to understand the oringinal speaker of that quote was rather an authority himself...


<O>

[u crank]

^^^

Very well said. :up:

[Armistead]

Well said V...

As far as I know there's no scientific model to test the supernatural, so I think its clear "creation science" is a mere ploy to push a religious idea, put God back in the schools...so to speak. The scary thing, mostly down south, people want God back in the schools and creation science is the inroad to do so.

The scarier point, idiots like Ham make statements if science can't prove it, then science must consider God as a possibility. We know science doesn't work that way.

[Platapus]

One of the problems with this argument is that both sides have different a priori position or belief.

The theist enters the argument with the belief that there is a god. Absent of any proof to the contrary; the a priori position is affirmed - if you can't prove that god does not exist, then god must exist.

The atheist enters the argument with the belief that there is no god. Absent of any proof to the contrary; the a priori position is affirmed - if you can't prove that god exists, then god must not exist.

Both sides can claim "victory" because the other side can't disprove the opposing a priori position or hypothesis.

However, neither side can prove that their a priori position is valid.

What both sides are missing is that in order to logically prove something, not only do you have to prove "your" hypothesis as being true, you have to prove that a mutually exclusive hypothesis is false.

Which means that first of all, it must be proven that god can not "exist" and "not exist" at the same time. That is an assumption that has not been demonstrated.

What if theists and atheists are both right? :o

But really, logic does not enter into the argument... that's why it is called "faith". :know:

[Armistead]

One of the problems with this argument is that both sides have different a priori position or belief.

The theist enters the argument with the belief that there is a god. Absent of any proof to the contrary; the a priori position is affirmed - if you can't prove that god does not exist, then god must exist.

The atheist enters the argument with the belief that there is no god. Absent of any proof to the contrary; the a priori position is affirmed - if you can't prove that god exists, then god must not exist.

Both sides can claim "victory" because the other side can't disprove the opposing a priori position or hypothesis.

However, neither side can prove that their a priori position is valid.

What both sides are missing is that in order to logically prove something, not only do you have to prove "your" hypothesis as being true, you have to prove that a mutually exclusive hypothesis is false.

Which means that first of all, it must be proven that god can not "exist" and "not exist" at the same time. That is an assumption that has not been demonstrated.

What if theists and atheists are both right? :o

But really, logic does not enter into the argument... that's why it is called "faith". :know:

I find that a failed argument..that if I don't believe something I must prove it doesn't exist or I could be wrong. I can't prove ghost exist, does that mean they exist? However, if you believe in God, then the burden is on you to prove it, not me to disprove it.

If logic, proof or evidence doesn't enter, then any faith should do...right?

For myself, I'm more agnostic, although I still often find myself muttering at the heavens....I don't know, not that I haven't tried knowing. ...But I don't want faith being taught as science...

[Sailor Steve]

One of the problems with this argument is that both sides have different a priori position or belief.
But this isn't an argument about Theism vs Atheism. Neither one plays a part here. This particular discussion is about what constitutes "science". The Scientist isn't trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science involves trying to understand what is known, and whether what we see has a supernatural foundation is something that science cannot know. In this particular discussing the Theist is trying to have his faith, through non-demonstrable statements in writings with no scientific background whatever, taught as "science". That is the only question in this particular debate.

[vienna]

It should be noted that science works without any consideration of theism. It is pure reason, argumnet, and proof. If it can't be measured, quantified, experimented upon or reasonably proved, it is of no use to a reasoned approach towards understanding our physical world. Science is an attempt to find out what makes the physical world work; anything else belongs to the realm of philosophers. Scientists are not atheists or antireligious by nature. Many of them have openly expressed a belief in a supreme being; but, they do not, generally, allow such a belief to sway or negate scientific findings. Einstein was very religious, particularly later in his life. It is rather unfair to balnket brush all scientists as atheistic. It is entirely likely science will one day be able to create life from "whole cloth"; it is also entirely likely they will never prove how a soul works...


<O>

[NeonSamurai]

I find that a failed argument..that if I don't believe something I must prove it doesn't exist or I could be wrong. I can't prove ghost exist, does that mean they exist? However, if you believe in God, then the burden is on you to prove it, not me to disprove it.

A lack of evidence is just that, a lack of evidence. This means that the area of investigation has not been shown to be false. This is the only thing scientific investigation is capable of doing, showing when a theory is false. Theories are never 'proven', a 'proven' theory is only theory that currently lacks counter evidence at this moment in time and within the framework of our ability to measure and gather evidence.

Of course logically speaking, a total lack of evidence does not do very much for the credibility of the concept. It is perfectly reasonable to consider something that has no evidence as being unlikely, but you cannot discount it entirely either. Science only operates within the realm of the observable.


But this isn't an argument about Theism vs Atheism. Neither one plays a part here. This particular discussion is about what constitutes "science". The Scientist isn't trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science involves trying to understand what is known, and whether what we see has a supernatural foundation is something that science cannot know. In this particular discussing the Theist is trying to have his faith, through non-demonstrable statements in writings with no scientific background whatever, taught as "science". That is the only question in this particular debate.

Yes.

As for young earth creationism (god created the earth in 6 days, and the earth is about 6000 years old) there is significant evidence that the theory is false, and no evidence showing it to be valid, that has not be thoroughly refuted using the scientific method. It has even been refuted by many theologians, going back to when the the timeline was proposed by James Ussher, as the English Bible does not give any evidence of times or dates, or any mention of it being a complete chronology.

This does not mean that intelligent design or theories that some power created, controls, and guides things are false. That area of thinking has no evidence either way and likely never will. Our scientific theories will be forever flawed and imperfect, that is why they are theories, not fact or truth.

[razark]

The atheist enters the argument with the belief that there is no god.
Strictly speaking the atheist enters with no belief there is a god. An atheist may further believe there is no god, but there is a difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe there is a god".

[Platapus]

I find that a failed argument..

You are right. It is.

[Sailor Steve]

A lack of evidence is just that, a lack of evidence. etc
Okay, I just quoted enough to act as a reference, but consider the whole.

NeonSamurai said it the best. I don't see what more can be added. I don't mean we shouldn't keep saying what we think, just that I personally can't imagine how it could have been explained better. :rock:

[Wolferz]

Adam was a clone?

[Sailor Steve]

Adam was a clone?
The theory has merit. After all, how many 'Adams' are there in the world today?