Bill Nye debates Ken Ham

[Tchocky]

Nye is the fool for showing up

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Nye is the fool for showing up

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

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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..

[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]

Originally Posted by 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>

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.

[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.