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

[The End]

 

[Teelie]

Even Spock agrees, despite his Vulcan mind.

 

[Ant-manic]

I know a few people who it'd be generous to say use 3% of their brain.

Ghosts are simple and yet complicated to explain. They aren't all from disturbed or impressionable minds. There are a multitude of ways ghosts are seen. Most of the time they manifest in the form of a hallucination. Soundwaves and vibrations can actually make you "see" or "feel" the presence of a ghost.

Then of course you have the tricks of the eye. Optical illusions where the brain translates an object or light or some combination of the two into a ghostly apparition.

Do any of these mean there is no such thing as ghosts or souls? Nope, it does mean that most sightings have a logical, scientific explanation that percludes the ethereal.

There are some things that haven't been explained or can't be explained yet. That's what faith, religion and belief are for. You can believe in something that science can't or can only partially explain.

Science is not a religion (pretty sure someone covered that). It's a way of explaining and understanding the world.

I find it is a good thing to question everything. Religious beliefs included. If you can't question something and come out the same, how can you say your faith is really unshakable? And I do mean to seriously, honestly question that belief. Not just think it over for a minute and decide you're settled on whatever it is you believe.

A lot of things I've believed over the years I've found to either be reaffirmed or had the floor taken completely out from under me. Either way, I think I'm better for it. It doesn't mean you have to abandon your beliefs or to ignore science as heresy. There is no "one or the other" although there are those who feel that way, they're wrong.

Blind faith and cold logic aren't the only two choices.

the choice should always be to use reason.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

so everyone that has said they have seen a ghost or had some sort of supernatural experience is a disturbed or impressionable youngster????

I think ghosts, bigfoots, aliens, and things like that are just tricks of the mind. The mind is a very powerful thing. When it sees something it doesn't understand(weird reflections, or flashes of light, or strange forms in the dark)the brain tries it's hardest to figure out what that was and tries to make sense of it(ghosts, aliens, bigfoots).

 

[Ant-manic]

so everyone that has said they have seen a ghost or had some sort of supernatural experience is a disturbed or impressionable youngster????

well i suppose that they could be inebriated or under the influence of drugs, as well.

 

[KalMart]

Interesting anatomy on that green camel in the back....one part in particular....

 

[Teelie]

the choice should always be to use reason.

Reason? Whose? That's far more subjective. Pro- or anti-? Guns? Abortion? Welfare? Taxes? Genetic engineering? Meat?

I can list endlessly the things that people will find reasonable and unreasonable. You might find it reasonable to keep a gun, someone else might think they should be banned. Both have good, valid reasons behind it. I can say it's reasonable to eat meat. Someone else can say it's unreasonable because they dislike some aspect of farms or think that vegan diets are better.

 

[Breogan]

An example of what I am talking about is ghosts. Is there a scientific explanation for ghosts. Is everyone that sees something ghostly crazy of disturbed or is there something that science can't explain. I am sure someone will say that ghost don't exist but there are too many accounts of people seeing supernatural things to just be everyone is making things up.

I just think it's human hubris to think we got everything figured out.

Did you watch or even get a tiny hint of what came out of this debate?

Where do science guys say they are closed to evidence cause they have everything figured out?

Science Guy: completely open to change his mind to anything - if you bring testable predictable evidence.

Faith Guy: Has already made up his mind about everything will never change his mind no mater what evidence you bring because he thinks he has all the answers already.

Where is the hubris coming from?
From one guy, one side - the faith side.

You think ghost, Sasquatch, aliens, a tetrapod, the Higgs boson might exist? You "sense" them? Good test it, prove it, dig, climb, explore, snap a picture where it might show up next, build a freakin machine that can detect it. DO SOMETHING!
Scientist love this, it's what they absolutely live for. They are completely open minded to ANYTHING that might be tested, even a creature nobody has seen or particle no one can actually see. They will still look for it. And if they can't find it, they will rewrite everything they thought they knew, look, dig somewhere else, build another machine, etc.. until they find an explanation, and always looking for a better explanation.
That is the scientific method. Where is the hubris in that?!


The other guy with his head buried in his one book, and others like him are completely close minded to EVERYTHING except what is in that one book. And not even to other interpretations, only to THEIR interpretation
And will NEVER change their mind. NOTHING will change it, because they think they already have all the answers.
That is the definition of hubris.

 

[Mike_D202]

absolutely.

I use to be of the idea that God/a force/a being created the big-bang and spun it all into motion. and sat back and watched.

You can still believe in evolution and believe in god and be a christian. if you don't take the bible as documented proof and don't read everything as fact one must follow, then why is the creation myth one that can't be viewed the same way?

I really don't see why some christians fall apart that the stories in the bible may just be stories, fables, and metaphors for how to live your life and be a good person. There system of beliefs doesn't suddenly fall apart because of that notion.

and that phrase should be the end of the argument.

 

[Flint Marko]

I'm a christian and I fervently believe in evolution. As far as I can tell most christians I know believe the same.
Understand we're not all lunatics.

 

[webhead9707]

"Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter"-Donald Miller

 

[moviedoors]

"Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter"-Donald Miller

That doesn't apply in this debate. We aren't discussing god and faith. This is about people who accept the fact of evolution and the ignorance of those who reject it. There isn't an equivalency.

 

[webhead9707]

That doesn't apply in this debate. We aren't discussing god and faith. This about people who accept the fact of evolution and the ignorance of those who reject it. There isn't an equivalency.

Honestly I have no clue where this thread is at anymore, I just saw the quote and found it interesting. There were about three pages earlier on where it was just arguing about whether God was real or not.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I highly doubt that Pompeii inspired Atlantis, since Mt Vesuvius erupted in 79 CE while Plato first mentioned Atlantis in 360 BCE.

Time travel, duh.

hey, it was a while ago... the Atlantis connection might of been something i confused...

either way.. it was either the eruption that essentially destroyed part of Santorini, that apparently caused the plagues of egypt, or it was Mt Vesuvius's eruption. It was a while ago.. but it was a very interesting theory.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

and that phrase should be the end of the argument.

thank ya

 

[SV Fan]

Personally I would love to see Ken Ham debate somebody who believes in the Ancient Aliens theory, basically the Ancient Aliens theory is sort of on par with creationism as a theory, only it's more realistic and plausible. Maybe while we at teaching evolution and creationism in school science classes we can add the ancient aliens theory.

 

[Thundercrack85]

There is actually nothing scientifically... problematic with ancient aliens. I.e. aliens in the past visiting Earth, and that inspiring some human religions.

It's just unprovable. Though, with the silly TV show, they make all kinds of claims that are blatantly inaccurate, both scientifically and historically.

 

[moviedoors]

There is actually nothing scientifically... problematic with ancient aliens.

Except for the whole complete and utter lack of evidence thing.

 

[Motown Marvel]

does anyone have a response for ken hamm's constant criticism that the science world has no consistent or accurate procedure for dating things? he kept bringing it up. and it's something i would have liked to of seen bill refute, but he didnt.

 

[KevanG]

Bill had already mentioned a few times that we have dozens of ways of dating things, not all can and will give the exact same answer but it's usually close enough for a consistent one depending on what methods used.

 

[redhawk23]

Except for the whole complete and utter lack of evidence thing.

Precisely.

 

[KevanG]

It's still on the air so don't tell anyone that. Do you want to get them fired? Besides, when has lack of evidence or sensibility on part of the participants ever stopped people from doing things?

 

[Teelie]

does anyone have a response for ken hamm's constant criticism that the science world has no consistent or accurate procedure for dating things? he kept bringing it up. and it's something i would have liked to of seen bill refute, but he didnt.

Bill had already mentioned a few times that we have dozens of ways of dating things, not all can and will give the exact same answer but it's usually close enough for a consistent one depending on what methods used.

Yep. We're never going to have a way to date something precisely. There won't be a method to say the dinosaurs went extinct at 2:47 pm on a Friday afternoon August 12, 65 million years ago.

 

[KevanG]

If you do ten tests on some dinosaur bones and nine of them come back 65 million years and one comes back ten million then that's fine for accuracy. No one ever expects perfection when attempting to figure that stuff out so a general idea is the best we can do.

Besides Hamm already made Bills case for him. He had already said we have dozens of potential tests to do on various dating abilities and not everything we do will give a concise answer if we do them all. He just shrugged it off and said that if everything we do can't give the same answer then it's all wrong.

 

[redhawk23]

What is interesting about Hamm's and other's claims that the earth is only 6000 years old is that their beliefs are so dependent upon one book and with their insistence upon that timescale, they don't really believe in existence before the invention of writing which estimated to have been developed around 5500 years ago.

Also that date is derived from the Genealogies in the bible, the thing is there are two of them. One copy is in Luke, the other is in either Matthew or Mark. The two of them contradict eachother but both represent an attempt to place Jesus in a family tree of famous figures from the Old testament. Similar family trees were written for other people like kings and such at the time.