Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by darklight99, Feb 5, 2014.
Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham
Watch and lets debate.
lol ken trying so hard to tie religion with science
Lol this debate was a joke. Honestly speaking. Christian literalists are ridiculous.
I like how ham shows successful scientists that are creationists. It proves nothing besides that religious people can still conduct science.
Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
It's amusing to see hammy try to defend the Noah's ark with the obvious problem if 8 people building such a large boat out of wood and able to take care of all the animals whether there are 4000 -7000 kinds, which is atleast 8000-14000 animals in total. The facilities required to divide the animals up so they don't eat each other or spread disease would probably be a harder task than building the actual boat itself. They'd have to be the most amazing shipwright and zoo keepers ever. Also completely avoid the problem of having a ridiculous number of speciation events since he knows fuck all about science. and his "rebuttal" to nye's observation of the 680 k layers of snow was priceless.
I had to stop watching when he brought up the dude who said he believed that god created the world in 7, 24 hour days...
Bill looked like he wanted to smack some sense into Ken Ham.
Ken observational idea, had a point to some degree, but the more he explained it. The more it begin sound vague. His debate never really hit the nail on the head.
Found a link where people seem to be questioning Bill Nye.
number 4 has to be trolling
I think 1-22 are trolling.
Ham nails it at the 43:00 minute mark! This is a difficult concept for many to get a hold of but I think with the help of cannabis anyone is capable of getting there.
Now, that's not to say I agree with everything this weird dude has to say. Plus I gotta finish the rest!
I was extremely irritated by the tactic he used in using "historical" vs "observational" science.
Its just a bullshit tactic to discredit science in general. Essentially, he says anything we think about the past is false. Thus, science should only be concerned with the window of "now" - the present, only (observational). Just a segway into his "kinds" cladogram - we observe several related groups but we do not observe their ancestor. Except in the rock record...
God this debate was a joke. Logical fallacies abound in Ham's replies. Just illuminated the fact that creationists are going to hold onto their beliefs forever. Scary thought though, that Ham wants his ideas taught in school. blech.
The only tihng I got from Ham was that his snow rebuttal was a good point - we DONT know snow accumulation rates in the past. Opened my eyes a bit - layers don't need to necesarily correlate to a year. Hardly an issue though in the overall debate, but it is good to understand that the principle of uniformitarianism needs to be altered.
The present is the key to the past, sure, but we need a holistic view over things that can alter rates of anything. IOW, we should now be looking for events that have deviated from uniformitarianism (extreme spreading rates, extreme snow fall, etc)
I loved the assaninity of Ham's rebuttal to the ark problem though. 3 directional interlocking panels/beams for support? So if the interior is all built to hell to support the ship, where's the space for the animals/food? Not to mention the 16.5 species that need to evolve daily (oh Bill, you fail at math) to come to the lower-bound estimate of species today
I also want to smack most of those people in that blog. So much stupidity. Idiots need to pay attention in class and this won't happen - fundamental understanding of concepts would invalidate some of their bull.
I agree with ya,
Ken Ham didn't click with me. I feel the Observational science will hinder the minds of students if this was implemented in the education system. The books will teach kids rely on "faith" as an answer when facing a science challenge.
Also, I don't buy into that "How do we know, because we weren't there." That theory, throws the idea of research and exploration out.
1 point Bill, 0 for Ken.
i watched it and enjoyed it. but i felt like what bill ended up debating wasnt exactly the debate topic.
the debate was about if kens model detracted from science....and it doesnt really. it may not be factual, but a scientist believing in that can still do good science, which ken provided examples of.
the debate WAS NOT if creationists are correct, but simply if they could produce good work despite their beliefs.
Wow I was about to make this thread , lol.
after watching bill nye and ken hams debate. I agree with ham "the creation/evolution debate is really a conflict between two philosophical world views based on two different accounts of origins or historical science beliefs" to me this means the things we think we know about the world are but historical or scientific "guesses" one can not know about what one has not seen , to some extent. We can say it's impossible for the world to be 6,000 years old as Christians believe , but at the same time we can't rule out the possibility. Anything can happen , right? To some it sounds silly that 2 of every kind of animal fit on a boat , and to others it may sound silly that the earth and the universe as we know it was created by a Big Bang. But who is right? I say neither. Science can only prove so much as historical and biblical evidence can only prove so much.
I think creationists and evolutionists are kind of digging their own grave thinking that they're making progress. Discoveries lead to questions , questions lead to theories , theories lead to nothing , because it's only theory. I don't know where I'm going but ham is definitely a better public speaker than nye. Lol
dude...there's a difference between theory in everyday jargon and scientific theory. Anything considered scientific theory may as well be regarded as fact which evolution definitely is.
NOTHING should ever be taken as fact. especially scientific theory lol, the beauty of science is that nothing is ever just accepted and you're always working to build a better and more complete model.
I should have finished my thought... It's regarded as fact until new evidence comes about and a model that better explains the phenomena and observations can replace it.
I seriously hope they were joking
Either way, someone was kind enough to respond to each