The Nye/Ham Debate

[Rudolph Quin]

Bill Nye (science guy) and Ken Ham (Answers In Genesis guy) are slated to debate Creationism vs Evolution at the Creation Museum's Legacy Hall Tuesday February 4th at 7:00PM EST.

Tickets to the event sold out within two minutes.

Live streaming was originally being sold for $4.99 each, but thanks to debatelive.org will be available for free to all online.

Ken Ham is asking for his supporters to pray for him. Bill Nye just wants you to watch.

Is it even worthy of a debate? 8[

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

I don't really think so but a lot of scientists are religious, so who knows?

 

[Vic Rattlehead]

Honestly I don't see any point in debating the religious, seeing how their whole religion is based on blind faith and not logic. Nye could spout scientific facts the whole debate, but that won't Ham still believing there is a man in the sky.

 

[LadyLarunai]

Honestly I don't see any point in debating the religious, seeing how their whole religion is based on blind faith and not logic. Nye could spout scientific facts the whole debate, but that won't Ham still believing there is a man in the sky.

Science is just as much based on faith though, until it's proven fact it's still just a theory that you have faith in being true.

 

[Vic Rattlehead]

Honestly I don't see any point in debating the religious, seeing how their whole religion is based on blind faith and not logic. Nye could spout scientific facts the whole debate, but that won't Ham still believing there is a man in the sky.

Science is just as much based on faith though, until it's proven fact it's still just a theory that you have faith in being true.

Gravity is a theory, but you don't see people jumping out of windows. Science is based on facts that can either be proven or disproven.

 

[LadyLarunai]

That's still faith though, not a call as to whether people will jump out a window to prove someone right or wrong, get new analogies

Say something like gravity was proven incorrect, there was still faith in that fact until the moment the changed it's calculation.

Science is based on facts and theory's theory's are beliefs and facts can be changed, it's all just a different kind of faith

There was faith in the world being round until it was proven and there was faith in the world being flat till it was disproven.

You get angry at people forcing thing on others not for their beliefs

 

[BennyQ]

I'd like to think that science and mathematics is the language of God, and that faith is just a representation of that, that being we will in time understand that which we do not yet. My two cents.

I think this debate between Nye and Ham is going to cause a lot of antagonism if anything.

 

[TheCorsair]

Just being pedantic, here: a theory, in science, is as close to an established fact as science gets. Scientific theories are models of how some aspect of reality works, backed by multiple lines of evidence. Theories make testable predictions, and are modified or abandoned as required. Evolution, gravity, germ theory of disease, DNA as the molecule that carries information about life, quantum physics, general and special relativity, all are examples of well-established, well-supported scientific models with direct applications in the lives of everyone.

The general public too often conflates "theory" with "hypothesis". A hypothesis is a question or idea that is tested. Multiple hypotheses were, are now, and will continue to be tested in every theory. Why? Because you can make a career out of testing someone else's theory. But if your hypothesis results in a new theory (as it did for people like Darwin and Einstein), then your name lives forever.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

People forget that science has different rules...like not throwing a bitch fit because someone disagrees with it..

---

Just being pedantic, here: a theory, in science, is as close to an established fact as science gets. Scientific theories are models of how some aspect of reality works, backed by multiple lines of evidence. Theories make testable predictions, and are modified or abandoned as required. Evolution, gravity, germ theory of disease, DNA as the molecule that carries information about life, quantum physics, general and special relativity, all are examples of well-established, well-supported scientific models with direct applications in the lives of everyone.

The general public too often conflates "theory" with "hypothesis". A hypothesis is a question or idea that is tested. Multiple hypotheses were, are now, and will continue to be tested in every theory. Why? Because you can make a career out of testing someone else's theory. But if your hypothesis results in a new theory (as it did for people like Darwin and Einstein), then your name lives forever.

This.

 

[LadyLarunai]

People forget that science has different rules...like not throwing a bitch fit because someone disagrees with it..

Science does not, but I have seen many throw a bitch fit in the defence of science.

 

[Alvis Alendran]

While I don't think that it's actually going to solve anything, I see no reason not to have this debate go on.

And I like Bill Nye! I'll watch him debate most anything.

I don't think it's wrong or disrespectful to consider some of how science goes to be based on a kind of faith. What I actually dislike is how mch of a negative connotation faith has taken in more recent times. If a person has faith in something, the immediate instinct is to label them as stupid, and dismiss anything they might have to say.

 

[Trygon]

Lotta science buffs in here would be mortified by the chains of assumptions on top of assumptions that makes up 'cutting edge' quantum mechanics.

BennyQ has the right idea, evolution is creationism enacted.

 

[TheCorsair]

Like the chain of assumptions that makes flash memory work, and batteries that recharge without direct connection to the power source?

I won't bother to address the "evolution is how the gods saw fit to create new species" concept, though. Other than to say I don't personally believe it. But that's a much more philosophical topic, and one I don't really have a dog in. My only specific beef with creationism as a philosophy is that it disingenuously attempts to compel the teaching of speciffically fundamentalist Protestant Christian tenents of faith as equal in merit as science to a well-supported theory. It is, quite literally, the same as if there was "sickism", demanding equal time along germ theory for teaching that disease was caused by demonic possession (something I heard preached, four years ago, at a church not 30 miles from the Creation Museum).

As to scientific bitch fits? Yeah. Of course they happen. Scientists are as human as anyone else. People whine, lie, and defend incorrect positions all the time. Particularly when their life's work is riding on it. That's why science depends on repeatability, and full disclosure, and evidence. In the long run, it is self correcting. Even when nobody wants those corrections (see plate tectonics).

...I may be wandering far away from the original topic.

 

[Ms_Muffintops]

I really am curious about what evidence, like actual evidence, not words from the bible, Christian science has to defend creationism. I'll have an open mind and listen. But I'm sure it won't be too convincing.

 

[Razgriz]

Like the chain of assumptions that makes flash memory work, and batteries that recharge without direct connection to the power source?

I won't bother to address the "evolution is how the gods saw fit to create new species" concept, though. Other than to say I don't personally believe it. But that's a much more philosophical topic, and one I don't really have a dog in. My only specific beef with creationism as a philosophy is that it disingenuously attempts to compel the teaching of specifically fundamentalist Protestant Christian tenets of faith as equal in merit as science to a well-supported theory. It is, quite literally, the same as if there was "sickism", demanding equal time along germ theory for teaching that disease was caused by demonic possession (something I heard preached, four years ago, at a church not 30 miles from the Creation Museum).

As to scientific bitch fits? Yeah. Of course they happen. Scientists are as human as anyone else. People whine, lie, and defend incorrect positions all the time. Particularly when their life's work is riding on it. That's why science depends on repeatability, and full disclosure, and evidence. In the long run, it is self correcting. Even when nobody wants those corrections (see plate tectonics).

...I may be wandering far away from the original topic.

Not really; though I would argue that not all of philosophy, like science, is in and of itself a pure state. Both are ways to think about how the world works, and how actions and thoughts affect everything else around us. You're right though, in your statement of scientists being human.

Though one could argue that (while it may not seem as such because the extremists always seem to have the loudest opinion) religion is also self-correcting. People can choose the degree to which they follow a faith, and that in and of itself is self-correcting because not everyone will choose to be a religious zealot hell-bent on telling people their way is the 'right way'.

Lotta science buffs in here would be mortified by the chains of assumptions on top of assumptions that makes up 'cutting edge' quantum mechanics.

BennyQ has the right idea, evolution is creationism enacted.

I wouldn't be so quick to make that assumption, Try; a lot of people are actually quite aware of just how limited our understanding is. Whether or not they might know what quantum mechanics is another story. And while I agree that quantum theory is quite a significant grey area, one must also be aware of what it is they're working: Particles smaller than atoms. Even with the equipment they have now, it's largely uncertain just what it is that makes these things tick.

But I will agree that BennyQ's idea of creationism being the 'instigator' of the evolutionary process is definitely a step in the right direction. Though then the question becomes, can we conclusively prove one way or the other if this is the truth? The answer is....Unlikely so.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

People forget that science has different rules...like not throwing a bitch fit because someone disagrees with it..

Science does not, but I have seen many throw a bitch fit in the defence of science.

Science does have different rules. You can be discredited for a bad experiment that is unable to be repeated, like what happened when someone who said vaccines cause autism but none of his experiments gave his results when repeated. You have to have a solid base. Religion is different.

I find it curious that people will believe someone was born of a virgin, died, and then came back to life but can't believe this planet and its creatures evolved from humble beginnings.

Science is fact, theory, and experimentation. Religion is based on faith and belief. Some of those factors intertwine but religion doesn't require facts, just belief and willing bodies. Maybe its a little simplistic, but religion has damned and doubted science since it started to prove how things came to be. Maybe there is a shred or something else that pushes science forward. However, I don't believe that religion can take any credit for it.