Ken Ham vs Bill Nye (Is creation a viable model of origins?)

[Teelie]

Lucas comes up with some great ideas but he needs someone else to implement them and guide him from the crazier aspects of them. That's why I'm glad he's not involved in the new trilogy but Kershner Kasdan is.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

His ex-wife Marcia deserves a lot of credit for editing the original film. Without her, we'd have a cheesy long-forgotten space opera from the late seventies that never had a sequel aside from Alan Dean Foster's novel.

 

[Teelie]

I've got a bookmark somewhere that shows how she was retroactively erased from almost all Lucasfilm records, especially those concerning Star Wars. The amount of work she did for that series was at least equal to Lucas'.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

^ "Secret History of Star Wars" website, yes.

 

[Pink Ranger]

So what I'm hearing is, George Lucas and Lawrence Kasdan will debate the existence of gay midichlorians at the Skywalker Ranch. Let me know if I got any of that wrong.

 

[Schlosser85]

So what I'm hearing is, George Lucas and Lawrence Kasdan will debate the existence of gay midichlorians at the Skywalker Ranch. Let me know if I got any of that wrong.

Bill Nye is moderating.

 

[Feenix]

Bill Nye is moderating.

I like where this thread is going.

 

[Tanin]

 

[The End]

lol

 

[The End]

Wow this is tomorrow isn't it? Can't wait!

I watched a fascinating video that illustrated how in a sense, creationists are the modern day flat earthers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXJwyiez5bw

On October 24th 1864 the members of the Devonport Mechanics Institute gathered on the beach of Plymouth Hoe England to settle a dispute they'd been having with a local "Zetetic" astronomer operating under the psuedonym Dr. Parallax about the shape of the Earth. Dr. Parallax had been lecturing successfully for over a decade claiming that the Earth was a flat disc, surrounded by a wall of ice.

In addition to being a biblical literalist, Parallax was also a polished, gifted lecturer and ingenious debater. It was widely reported that even the patrons of Parallax's lectures that weren't convinced by the evidence he presented found themselves unable to successfully argue their position including sailors who had actually sailed around the world!

Parallax's lectures relied heavily on biblical evidence and observations that he claimed to make but had never demonstrated in public. He had backed out of several previous challenges but despite suspicions to the contrary, he arrived as planned on the appointed day to put his flat earth theory to the test.

The experiment was to place a telescope on the beach at Plymouth as close to sea level as possible and observe a lighthouse 14 miles away. The Devonport Mechanics Institute had calculated that if the Earth was convex as they claimed, only the latern of the lighthouse would be visible. If Parallax was correct in his assertion that the Earth was a flat disc, the lighthouse should be visible in it's entirety.

When the parties involved peered through the telescope, what they found was that instead of the entire lantern at the top being visible, only about half of it was. This observation of course would make it seem as though the Earth was more curved than the Mechanics Institute expected it to be but none-the-less should have been a victory for the round-earthers or globularists as they were sometimes called derisively by some of Parallax's followers.

 

[DeadPresident]

On February 4th, Bill Nye the science guy will go to Ken Ham's creation museum to have an evolution/creation debate.

There are many that would advise against debating creationists at all with the argument that giving them a platform is giving them too much credibility. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, "It would be good for your CV but not for mine". However, this raises a conundrum. Something around 45% of Americans believe in creationism. The numbers show that over the years, people in the USA have only become more unsure about evolution.

How, then, is this to be challenged? To leave creationists alone, they're free to spread their message in their own bubble without question, getting their view point into the textbooks of Texas, passing it onto their kids. To challenge them directly, you risk giving them an even bigger platform.

Ken Ham is, specifically, a young Earth creationist that believes the Earth to be 6000 years old and believes that humans have existed from the beginning as they are without the process of evolution. Creationism in the USA is well funded, with museums showing animatronic dinosaurs alongside human beings.

I would have thought the information age would be enough to tackle this sort of thing - people being more connected to an abundance of information than they've ever been, enough to dispel any myths, but perhaps this same information technology is what allows creationists to continue to spread.


Anyway, what say you? Will you be watching?

That notion applies to any irrational belief, it's better off just not engaging in it. Creationism and Evolution are both possibly wrong. One may be more likely than the other but at the end of the day there are more than just those two possibilities.

 

[Breogan]

Wow this is tomorrow isn't it? Can't wait!

I watched a fascinating video that illustrated how in a sense, creationists are the modern day flat earthers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvlqrxOAX7

This might be the video you meant? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXJwyiez5bw

But I agree with some - Ham has already won by being able to spout “teach the controversy”.
What controversy?
Creationism is a debunked mythology, based solely in faith, it has absolutely no scientific testable proof, it's not science.
While evolution is a scientific fact, backed by mountains of evidence which even if Nye can convey (he is not an evolutionary biologist) will probably fall on deaf ears.
There was nothing to debate with this guy, the only thing Nye is doing is elevating Ham's argument to appear like it's arguing science. And allowing him to say - see there is a controversy.

Nye should have known better.

If we evolved from calamari, why are there still calamari?
No we and calamari share a common ancestor!
\

 

[The End]

Yep, I pasted the wrong url. It's now corrected.

 

[Thundercrack85]

That notion applies to any irrational belief, it's better off just not engaging in it. Creationism and Evolution are both possibly wrong. One may be more likely than the other but at the end of the day there are more than just those two possibilities.

The theory (scientific term) of evolution will be fine tuned, but at this point, no, it as a whole isn't possibly wrong.

 

[The End]

6 hours

http://debatelive.org/

 

[NickNitro]

 

[KevanG]

Dammit Nick, that's too complicated.

 

[Teelie]

It's better that everyone thinks and believes exactly and only as I do!

 

[NickNitro]

I know its hard guys, but try, for me?

 

[KevanG]

No dammit. It's too hard. I like my bull headedness and nonsensical behaviors.

 

[JewishHobbit]

Getting pretty excited for this. I just hope both sides and the audience keeps it civil. There are *****e bags who believe in both sides of the argument. I really don't care to hear sarcasm and crap like that in the debate or coming from the audience.

 

[Feenix]

Evolution is fact, creationism is fiction. Simple.

 

[Breogan]

“Dinosaurs in Eden” a book by Ken Ham...

This is the "science" he wants taught in schools.

 

[Teelie]

I remember that, only it was called Dinotopia originally and was a pretty cool television series. Too bad it got cancelled.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Oh man...I need that book. It looks hilarious, I'll bring it to parties so we can have drunk story time.