Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate - Nye Vs Ham

[Otto-matic]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ye-and-ken-ham

If you have 2+ Hours or even some spare time to surf through the debate, its well worth it.

Originally Posted by Bill Nye

"Then, as far as Noah being an extraordinary shipwright, I'm extraordinarily skeptical," Nye says. He cites his own family's background in New England, where people spent their lives learning how to build ships.
"It's very reasonable, perhaps, to you that Noah had superpowers and was able to build this extraordinary craft with seven family members," Nye says. "But to me, this is just not reasonable."

Originally Posted by Ken Ham

He goes on to say it seems Nye has confused the terms "species" and "kind" — the latter being a word creationists use to describe groups of animals.
"We're not saying species got on the ark," Ham says. "We're saying kinds."

Originally Posted by Nye

"I don't see how we're ever going to agree if you insist that natural laws have changed. It's... for lack of a better word, it's magical."

[Inglewood Jack]

debate? there's a debate about this kind of thing? why did Nye the science guy waste 2 hours of his life on it? is he going to participate in a flat earth debate later this week?

[bubbsy]

i heard about this earlier, excited to watch.

[Coach]

Debate?...

[troutman]

Probably deserved its own thread. We were also discussing it here:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...125090&page=37

[troutman]

Review of the debate:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ye-and-ken-ham

When scientists make assumptions, Nye says, "they're making assumptions based on previous experience. They're not coming out of whole cloth. So, next time you have a chance to speak, I encourage you to explain to us why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed just 4,000 years ago — completely — and there's no record of it.

"You know, there are pyramids that are older than that. There are human populations that are far older than that — with traditions that go back farther than that. And it's just not reasonable to me that everything changed 4,000 years ago."

According to YouTube, more than 530,000 people are watching the live debate toward its end.

The Age of the Earth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

Problems with Global Flood:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[TorqueDog]

Nye handed Ken Ham his own ass in this debate.

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

debate? there's a debate about this kind of thing? why did Nye the science guy waste 2 hours of his life on it? is he going to participate in a flat earth debate later this week?

Here's the thing:

Some people will say there's no point in debating because:
a) each side is preaching to its own choir; or
b) it gives credibility to the idiotic idea of creationism.

To a), I have to point out that a lot of atheists were born into religious upbringings and might have been fundamentalist believers before later becoming atheists. There are definitely people who can and will listen to reason and - with enough exposure to the evidence - may re-evaluate their position.

As for b), there is already a significant percentage of the US population that holds creationism to be true. This isn't even a worry, it's a reality. And the best way to shut it down is to address it head-on, as Bill Nye did.

To us, it seems ridiculous ie: flat Earth debate, but that's because the vast majority of our population doesn't believe in creationism and those who do keep their mouths shut lest they be marginalized as idiots.

[burn_this_city]

I watched part of it, Nye handled himself well. Doubtful that either person won over anyone from the otherside.

[MoneyGuy]

I thought Nye won because he debated a new-earth creationist, whose NE ideas are easily debunked. I'd love to see him go with Francis Collins. That would be a heavyweight tilt.

[photon]

What would he debate Collins about though? Collins wouldn't disagree with any of the science. Theology?

EDIT: And that was kind of Nye's point, Nye wasn't trying to debate the existence of a god of some kind (he even pointed out as part of his arguments that many (most?) forms of Christianity accept evolution just fine), he was specifically targeting the subset of believers who ask the kind of questions written in those photos I posted in the other thread.

[The Swedish Flame]

[CubicleGeek]

I typically stray from having these kind of debates with creationists.

The last conversation I had the entire premise supporting that someone must have created the universe was that it couldn't have just existed out of nothing. By that logic, I asked who then created the creator as he/she/it cannot exist out of nothing. Apparently, that is the exception to the rule.

It's a fruitless, frustrating endeavour.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I believe in evolution. I want to make that clear when I say this next part.

I'm almost done watching this debate and I've yet to hear Ken Ham state that time is relative, and if time is relative it is possible that the ancient earth experienced time differently. Ergo, it's theoretically possible that our dating techniques are flawed if we believe time is a standard unit of measure. Therefore the Earth could only be 6,000 years old which is in accordance with the Bible.

Now I'm not a scientist but couldn't that theoretically be possible under the scientific method?

Again I believe in evolution, but I'm know there is a theory that time is relative, so basic debate would lead to the above question.

[troutman]

The Creation of Debate


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...i_science.html

I was torn about the event; I think it’s important that science get its advocacy, but I also worry that by even showing up to such a thing, Nye would elevate the idea of creationism as something worth debating.

But I’ve thought about it, and here’s the important thing to remember: Roughly half the population of America does believe in some form of creationism or another. Half. Given that creationism is provably wrong, and science has enjoyed huge overwhelming success over the years, something is clearly broken in our country.

I suspect that what’s wrong is our messaging. For too long, scientists have thought that facts speak for themselves. They don’t. They need advocates. If we ignore the attacks on science, or simply counter them by reciting facts, we’ll lose. That much is clear from the statistics. Facts and stories of science are great for rallying those already on our side, but they do little to sway believers.

About last night’s debate, my colleague Mark Stern at Slate argues that Nye lost the debate just by showing up, and I see that same sentiment from people on social media. But I disagree. We’ve been losing this debate in the public’s mind all along by not showing up. Sure, science advocates are there when this topic comes up in court, and I’m glad for it. But I think that we need to have more of a voice, and that voice needs to change. What Nye did last night was at least a step in that direction, so in that sense I’m glad he did this.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I believe in evolution. I want to make that clear when I say this next part.

I'm almost done watching this debate and I've yet to hear Ken Ham state that time is relative, and if time is relative it is possible that the ancient earth experienced time differently. Ergo, it's theoretically possible that our dating techniques are flawed if we believe time is a standard unit of measure. Therefore the Earth could only be 6,000 years old which is in accordance with the Bible.

Now I'm not a scientist but couldn't that theoretically be possible under the scientific method?

Again I believe in evolution, but I'm know there is a theory that time is relative, so basic debate would lead to the above question.

I don't think you're framing the question correctly.

Reasonable Christians (by which I mean almost all of them other than a relatively small minority of fundamentalist extremists predominantly located in the USA) do not believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old or that all of creation was completed in six literal 24-hour days.

What you're proposing is a "square peg in a round hole" explanation. One can still believe in God and the Abrahamic creation myth as told in Genesis 1 while also accepting the scientific evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang billions of years ago. Indeed, that is precisely what the vast majority of Christians believe.

[Coach]

New law:

For every hour of church attended, 1 hour of Bill Nye the Science Guy must be watched. I believe this will work.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I believe in evolution. I want to make that clear when I say this next part.

I'm almost done watching this debate and I've yet to hear Ken Ham state that time is relative, and if time is relative it is possible that the ancient earth experienced time differently. Ergo, it's theoretically possible that our dating techniques are flawed if we believe time is a standard unit of measure. Therefore the Earth could only be 6,000 years old which is in accordance with the Bible.

Now I'm not a scientist but couldn't that theoretically be possible under the scientific method?

Again I believe in evolution, but I'm know there is a theory that time is relative, so basic debate would lead to the above question.

The very short answer to your questions is as follows:

Yes, time is relative. Relativity is one of the most well tested theories in the history of science, and to date it has passed all tests with flying colours.

No, that cannot mean the earth is 6000 years old. That's now how relativity works/what it means.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by photon

What would he debate Collins about though? Collins wouldn't disagree with any of the science. Theology?

EDIT: And that was kind of Nye's point, Nye wasn't trying to debate the existence of a god of some kind (he even pointed out as part of his arguments that many (most?) forms of Christianity accept evolution just fine), he was specifically targeting the subset of believers who ask the kind of questions written in those photos I posted in the other thread.

You're assuming they'd have the same debate as Nye had with Ham, which isn't necessarily the case. They could debate the existence of God, as Collins is a former atheist turned theist. That's the debate I was thinking they should have that would be exceedingly interesting.

[Thor]

I thought Collins had always been religous?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

The very short answer to your questions is as follows:

Yes, time is relative. Relativity is one of the most well tested theories in the history of science, and to date it has passed all tests with flying colours.

No, that cannot mean the earth is 6000 years old. That's now how relativity works/what it means.

Yeah, I have no idea how the theory of relativity works.

My hypothesis was if time is relative could how the earth experience time have shifted since the creation of the earth?


I fully expect the answer to the "no".

My thought was "if time is relative, it's relative to what? And therefore could that what change?"

But I want to reiterate I do fall on the evolution side of the debate, but want a better understanding of this theory and why it debunks creationism.