(Hot-topic of the year): Ken Ham vs Bill Nye.

Smurfboy

Smurfboy

Well-Known Member
Sep 11, 2013
2,229
239
1,380
FYQHWEgXk5xyJrEEOn-wxIKyRT3eZzv4648_DehvMDeI5u43qio8mPIWcxC4OZn8J2v1t99F0-tsqcrvuqblpfAGAvGRrMb0WlqKxyOfqo7UIQqcp2BIsPW9u5ZG9Pef_unNV8IZl0mdbiezfP9vXNU=w480-h500-k



*******WAIT!!*******

*****Before you click "reply", all I'm asking you is to PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE respect each other! I know we all have different pointviews on a lot of things.^^^^

***If this thread isn't go well, then you have my permission to close it at will ( to moderators) ;)


Yes, it is official. Yes, Ken Ham, the Bible-believer, is having a debate with Bill Nye, the guy you likely to know from Disney's channel (The Science Guy). It's on 2/4/2014. Creation Museum is like an hour and half away from my home (it's in Kentucky); my wife and I are thinking about going there to see the event (I think it'll be awesome to actually see Bill Nye in person. ;) I've met Ken Ham twice and he's a nice gentleman. Ken Ham and Bill Nye will be discussing about questions such as "Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?", etc. If I'm not mistaken, I think they'll try to video a live steam on that day as well. I'm curious to hear what both debaters have to say to each other. I think it'll be interesting!
 
I'll be tuning in but really wish it was Neil deGrasse Tyson instead of Nye. I think deGrasse Tyson would provide a more entertaining debate.
 
Plainview said:
I'll be tuning in but really wish it was Neil deGrasse Tyson instead of Nye. I think deGrasse Tyson would provide a more entertaining debate.
Click to expand...


Who's Neil deGrasses Tyson? Never heard of him.
 
Plainview, I agree. But I think this kind of sold out fanfare crap is better suited for Bill Nye, lol. He's an entertainer first and foremost.



I don't trust his motives for trying to put himself in the media as of late, as if he's one of America's great thinkers or something because he's been getting paid to do goofy science experiments for decades (among other things.) I really think a debate with Ken Ham is pretty below Tyson, lol.
 
sharkboy1200 : Yeah just finished watching that. More to the topic, he's debating something allegedly "Taught" at Ken Ham's Creation Museum, where the debate in the OP will take place.

It's one of the small assortment of tricks people like Ken Ham use. It's essentially just outright lying. "Science has yet to explain this".. well.. they have.. and you COULD claim to be just ignorant.. but then there's that whole "claiming to be an expert" thing where you'd think you'd actually bother to check your claims.. and we also know you are world famous.. and put yourself in the media.. which means surely people have contacted you to inform you that you are wrong, factually incorrect, and that if you continue to repeat that wrong information you are a liar.

I imagine Bill Nye might get a little testy/nasty in this.. maybe that's his motivation for it.
 
So if they write a book based on this debate the title would be "Science fact Vs. Fairy Tales"?
 
I'd like to explain what Science means since it's quite a hot topic for many people today.

It appears that people have many different answers about the meaning of the word "Science" and it is quite interesting (especially when it comes to Creationists and Evolutionists.) However, I couldn't help it myself but noticed that people seem to confused about something. The word Science simply means “Knowledge.” There are two different categories under the word Science that I strongly believe everyone needs to be aware of it: Observational Science and Historical Science. Both are completely different things.

Taken from the book of “The New Answers Book 2” on page 97, I think DR. Jason Lisle did an excellent job of explaining what those words actually mean and I’m going to use his quotes.

Observational Science: “It involves repeatable experimentation and observations in the present. Since observational scientific theories are capable of being tested in the present, creationists and evolutionists are generally in agreement on these models. They agree on the nature of gravity, the composition of stars, the speed of light in a vacuum, the size of the solar system, the principles of electricity, etc. These things can be checked and tested in the present.”

Historical Science: “Historical events cannot be checked scientifically in the present. This is because we do not have access to the past; it is gone. All that we have is the circumstantial evidence (relics) of past events. Although we can make educated guesses about the past and can make inferences from things like fossils and rocks, we cannot directly test our conclusions because we cannot repeat the past. Furthermore, since creationists and evolutionists have very different views of history, it is not surprising that they reconstruct past events very differently.

We all have the same evidence; but in order to draw conclusions about what the evidence means, we use our worldview—our most basic beliefs about the nature of reality. Since they have different starting assumptions, creationists and evolutionists interpret the same evidence to mean very different things.”

So true! I used to be the follower of Theistic-Evolutionists (a belief in God and evolution altogether) and I can totally understand why Creationists and Evolutionists disagreed with many things. I’ve had several people come up to me and say “You know, Bible is not a science!” and I replied back, “yes, you’re correct that the Bible is not science, however it is scientifically-accurate.” People have no clue how often text books changes from time to time and not all of them agree with each other.

Alright, Enough of this. :eek: If you disagree with me, then it's okay! I'm not crying or won't hurt my feeling. :) In case you're wondering, yes, I am Christian and now 100% support Creationism.
 
What you believe is all well and good, but it's when people want to introduce it as legit science to teach children that the debate truly begins.
 
Ought to be interesting.

Used to get really into these debates, but it's fruitless to debate with an atheist, typically being so utterly unmovable on what they believe. Although, this won't be for Bill Nye's benefit. So best of luck to Ken Ham.
 
BunzHoles said:
Plainview, I agree. But I think this kind of sold out fanfare crap is better suited for Bill Nye, lol. He's an entertainer first and foremost.



I don't trust his motives for trying to put himself in the media as of late, as if he's one of America's great thinkers or something because he's been getting paid to do goofy science experiments for decades (among other things.) I really think a debate with Ken Ham is pretty below Tyson, lol.
Click to expand...

Weird video is weird.

While Ham is below Tyson, Tyson's blunt and sarcastic disposition when responding to lack of simple logic would be awesome to watch. It would be brutally beautiful.
 
Yeah never heard of either one before I seen this thread.
I doubt he will change my mind.
Hopefully he wins the minds of others though.
Wait which one is which.
 
BunzHoles said:
sharkboy1200 : Yeah just finished watching that. More to the topic, he's debating something allegedly "Taught" at Ken Ham's Creation Museum, where the debate in the OP will take place.

It's one of the small assortment of tricks people like Ken Ham use. It's essentially just outright lying. "Science has yet to explain this".. well.. they have.. and you COULD claim to be just ignorant.. but then there's that whole "claiming to be an expert" thing where you'd think you'd actually bother to check your claims.. and we also know you are world famous.. and put yourself in the media.. which means surely people have contacted you to inform you that you are wrong, factually incorrect, and that if you continue to repeat that wrong information you are a liar.

I imagine Bill Nye might get a little testy/nasty in this.. maybe that's his motivation for it.
Click to expand...

Debates are about presenting the better, more entertaining, persuasive argument, not about being factually right or correct... So it is naturally a better forum for for an entertainer, rather than an actual scientist.

Having said that, there are elements of cosmology that are fantastically synchronous, and large areas where we simply don't know. Science (particularly cosmology) also suffers at time from dogma, and assumptions. Probably the most recent example was the accelerating expansion of the universe, and so called "Dark Energy".

Back in the 90's the orthodoxy of academia all assumed that the expansion of the universe was slowing, until someone bothered to actually measure it, at which point they found that the expansion of the universe was actually accelerating. The astronomers involved were all afraid to publish because because the scientific dogma around cosmology is pretty thick. (Look at Phil Platts derision of Hoyle even though Hoyle is one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century)

In that regards, academic science is only a little bit better than religion. Both propose that the universe came into being from nothing, they really only differ in detail after that.
 
XBoxNeo said:
Debates are about presenting the better, more entertaining, persuasive argument, not about being factually right or correct... So it is naturally a better forum for for an entertainer, rather than an actual scientist.
Click to expand...

Well Nye is an "actual scientist." He studied under Sagan IIRC. He's no slouch scientifically, but he's also just kind of an ass. That's from second hand personal experiences from people I trust (my own Mother, and brother, who worked/workl for school districts Nye has been a regular "performer" at.)
 
Plainview said:
Weird video is weird.
Click to expand...

It's from a local Seattle show called "Almost Live." It ran for about a decade before SNL here. Some relatively famous people started their careers on that show, namely Joel McHale.

Nye was a regular, both as a scientist and as an actor. He did silly experiments usually involving fire or explosions or something suitable for a late night comedy show.
 
Nastyman! said:
Neil > Argument already.

Click to expand...

I think that guy is missing the point. Human beings are unique.
Its so funny though because thus is the same guy that goes on the history channel and say that life outside of the earth(intelligent advanced far beyond humans) are most likely abundant. So which one is it the galaxy makes it almost impossible for life, or life is flourishing outside our own universe.
God Rules,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back