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

[The End]

I enjoyed the debate, personally. There will be people on the fence, there will be people in creationist circles, that will see how empty Ham's view really is.

 

[jmc]

I enjoyed the debate, personally. There will be people on the fence, there will be people in creationist circles, that will see how empty Ham's view really is.

No there won't.

 

[Thundercrack85]

What I did find odd, and granted, I'm not so familiar with Ken Ham, is that he just flat out called it creationism.

Usually creationists call it intelligent design and do a better job of trying to present it as science.

 

[The End]

Yeah there will. People do make it out of creationism, you know.

 

[Thundercrack85]

No there won't.

No there are. I have met them. They exist.

 

[Thundercrack85]

That's why I support debating creationists. There are people who are born into creationism, who stay creationists because that's all they know.

No intellectually fulfilled person is going to be swayed by Ken Ham's ridiculous arguments.

 

[KevanG]

But he had thar scientists of stuff that said they followed that LAWD like he did.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I think the best point Ken Ham made was in the beginning about Evolution and modern science being just as much a religion as Creationism.

That argument wasn't convincing in the slightest to anyone with even a modest understanding of science and the scientific method. But if you (or anyone else) would like to expand upon this, I'd be willing to hear your interpretation of the argument.

 

[Teelie]

I don't see any need to watch it. Reading the comments here tells me everything I need to know about how this debate went down.

 

[Slushy]

It was a waste of time. People can argue creationism vs. evolution for the ages and it doesn't really matter. In the end, they're both the same thing: a theory.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It was a waste of time. People can argue creationism vs. evolution for the ages and it doesn't really matter. In the end, they're both the same: a theory.

No. One is a scientific theory. Like gravity. The other is nonsense.

 

[SV Fan]

It was a waste of time. People can argue creationism vs. evolution for the ages and it doesn't really matter. In the end, they're both the same thing: a theory.

I disagree one is a theory, the other is a myth

 

[jmc]

It was a waste of time. People can argue creationism vs. evolution for the ages and it doesn't really matter. In the end, they're both the same thing: a theory.

Not even close. One is magic, the other is science.

 

[Slushy]

No. One is a scientific theory. Like gravity. The other is nonsense.

I disagree one is a theory, the other is a myth​

Not even close. One is magic, the other is science.
​

One says we're here because of a happy accident. The other says we're here for a reason. I prefer the latter.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Ah, the classic "I reject your reality and substitute my own" tactic.

Well played.

 

[SV Fan]

One says we're here because of a happy accident. The other says we're here for a reason. I prefer the latter.

You might prefer the later doesn't make it any more or less of a myth

 

[zeroapoc]

One says we're here because of a happy accident. The other says we're here for a reason. I prefer the latter.

Your preference has no impact whatsoever on what's accurate however.

 

[zeroapoc]

You might prefer the later doesn't make it any more or less of a myth

More or less my thoughts. lol

 

[Slushy]

Your preference has no impact whatsoever on what's accurate however.

So says theorists.

 

[Perfect Cell]

People often mistake the word "theory" to mean "a hunch". A scientific theory is not the same thing as my theory that the smoke monster from Lost and the demons from Supernatural are the same thing. The latter is just a wild suggestion based on loose coincidences.

A scientific theory is defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

Note: I don't actually think the Lost smoke monster and the Supernatural demons are the same thing... that would be crazy.

 

[SV Fan]

Personally I would love to see Ken Ham debate the Ancient Aliens guy, that would be an interesting debate about personal beliefs.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

One says we're here because of a happy accident. The other says we're here for a reason. I prefer the latter.

Alot of amazing things come out of accidents (if you want to call it that) doesn't make your life any less meaningful

 

[Slushy]

People often mistake the word "theory" to mean "a hunch". A scientific theory is not the same thing as my theory that the smoke monster from Lost and the demons from Supernatural are the same thing. The latter is just a wild suggestion based on loose coincidences.

A scientific theory is defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation

Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.


Everything that we know is only because somebody before us said so.

 

[Perfect Cell]

Alot of amazing things come out of accidents (if you want to call it that) doesn't make your life any less meaningful

Yeah, my birth, for example.

...

 

[Perfect Cell]

Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.


Everything that we know is only because somebody before us said so.

You're using the wrong definition of theory. A scientific theory is a completely different term than just a general theory. With a completely different meaning.