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

[jmc]

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

No, one has evidence which backs up its claims. As demonstrated today the latter piece of philosophy has no evidence. It's a fable with no proof of its stories.

 

[Marvolo]

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.

What you described isnt a scientific theory. It has an entirely different definition.

And people before us said so based on repeatable and verifiable empirical evidence. Not because they were feeling chatty and started spouting off randomness.

And just in case:

Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

 

[jmc]

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

And because there's evidence to back up the claim. In contrast religion relies purely on faith alone for its reasoning, which is flawed as shown today with the debate.

 

[KevanG]

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

Yes but with the right information and learning you too can verify all information given and come to the same or similar conclusions. Even without the same information given to you, eventually with enough time (immortality would help ) you too could come to the same conclusions and show the same results as we have now.

The difference between that and creationism is that much of creationism is guesswork and attempts to fill in current data into older information to make it fit a certain way. A square peg in a round hole if you will. You have your basic information from a holy book which states one thing but with a constant influx of new information over the past few decades the results when added to that same book make for a totally different set of results that what was previously explained in said book. Trying to force information to fit what is essentially guesswork in multiple fields over decades leaves you with a fairly large mess to try to organize.

 

[Slushy]

Things are that they are and our ancestors gave them labels and came with systems to make things easier, but the fact remains for example that if Sir Isaac Newton had discovered gravity and called it "dog sh**" instead, kids would be talking about it schools today.

Yes but with the right information and learning you too can verify all information given and come to the same or similar conclusions. Even without the same information given to you, eventually with enough time (immortality would help ) you too could come to the same conclusions and show the same results as we have now.

The difference between that and creationism is that much of creationism is guesswork and attempts to fill in current data into older information to make it fit a certain way. A square peg in a round hole if you will. You have your basic information from a holy book which states one thing but with a constant influx of new information over the past few decades the results when added to that same book make for a totally different set of results that what was previously explained in said book. Trying to force information to fit what is essentially guesswork in multiple fields over decades leaves you with a fairly large mess to try to organize.

Fair enough, but I'm going to stand by what I believe in regardless.

 

[Marvolo]

Things are that they are and our ancestors gave them labels and came with systems to make things easier, but the fact remains for example that if Sir Isaac Newton had discovered gravity and called it "dog sh**" instead, kids would be talking about it schools today.



Fair enough, but I'm going to stand by what I believe in regardless.

So? The name of a function doesnt change its function. Personally, I would love discussing the theory of dog sh**. Would have made school much more interesting.

Anyways lol, what our ancestors called physical laws and functions of nature is irrelevent. Its the function themselves we are most interested in. The laws and functions of nature werent invented by us. We simply discover them.

 

[KevanG]

Things are that they are and our ancestors gave them labels and came with systems to make things easier, but the fact remains for example that if Sir Isaac Newton had discovered gravity and called it "dog sh**" instead, kids would be talking about it schools today.



Fair enough, but I'm going to stand by what I believe in regardless.

That's fine, believe as you like I'm just stating my beliefs.

 

[Slushy]

So? The name of a function doesnt change its function. Personally, I would love discussing the theory of dog *****. Would have made school much kore interesting.

lol

 

[Thundercrack85]

Wait, so Slushy what do you believe?

 

[The End]

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.

This is offensive.

Simply as a human being that understands that even the fact that we're talking at all through this amazing technology, and can live many years past the average life expectancy of our ancestors, is illustrative of the fact that we're standing on the shoulders of the intellectual giants before us, this crap that creationism and evolution are both the same is offensive to me as a thinking human being.

A scientific theory is explainable of a body of facts and knowledge. Testable, repeatable, it has testable predictions. Gravity is a theory. Germs are a theory.

Evolution is a theory.

Creationism is NOT a theory. It does not meet the minimum requirements to be considered such. Even this debate illustrated it. Nye wanted specific answers on what creationism even predicts and Ham had no answer.

It is not explainable of anything.

Sir, your attitude is reflective of a deep anti-intellectualism that has apparently swept a whole generation. I am embarrassed to read such things in the 21st Century.

The body of facts that support evolution are massive. The body of separate facts that support the Earth and the Universe as billions of years old are also massive. Built up over many years of testable work, mathematics models, Newton, Einstein, Hubble, Darwin.

I am disgraced that there are adults on this Earth that think evolution and creationism are on level playing fields. I cannot emphasise that enough - I. Am. Embarrassed.

 

[Slushy]

Wait, so Slushy what do you believe?

I believe there is a God, higher power, universal spirit, supernatural being and an Afterlife.

I. Am. Embarrassed.

Cool story, bro.

 

[The End]

That's a lovely respect for your own intellect you got, bro.

"Creationism and evolution are both just theories!" *doesn't actually care about learning what a theory is*

 

[Slushy]

*doesn't actually care about learning what a theory is*

Glad you noticed my opinion.

 

[The End]

I'm glad that you're so open about that level of wilful ignorance!

And with that, I gotta be off to bed.

 

[Slushy]

It's good to know that made you feel better!

 

[Marvolo]

This is offensive.

Simply as a human being that understands that even the fact that we're talking at all through this amazing technology, and can live many years past the average life expectancy of our ancestors, is illustrative of the fact that we're standing on the shoulders of the intellectual giants before us, this crap that creationism and evolution are both the same is offensive to me as a thinking human being.

A scientific theory is explainable of a body of facts and knowledge. Testable, repeatable, it has testable predictions. Gravity is a theory. Germs are a theory.

Evolution is a theory.

Creationism is NOT a theory. It does not meet the minimum requirements to be considered such. Even this debate illustrated it. Nye wanted specific answers on what creationism even predicts and Ham had no answer.

It is not explainable of anything.

Sir, your attitude is reflective of a deep anti-intellectualism that has apparently swept a whole generation. I am embarrassed to read such things in the 21st Century.

The body of facts that support evolution are massive. The body of separate facts that support the Earth and the Universe as billions of years old are also massive. Built up over many years of testable work, mathematics models, Newton, Einstein, Hubble, Darwin.

I am disgraced that there are adults on this Earth that think evolution and creationism are on level playing fields. I cannot emphasise that enough - I. Am. Embarrassed.

What really kills me is someone will deny evolution then that same person will turn around and use modern medicine and vaccines.

To those who dont know (Slushy), modern understanding of diseases, germs, viruses and medicine development would not be possible without an understanding of evolution and its mechanics.

Creationists can damn the man all they want to, but Darwin's work was a watershed moment in human development that made modern medicine possible. So next time you think of darwin and others like him stop and thank them. Without them the modern medicine that you take for granted wouldnt exist and most likely you'd have died from a new strain of some nasty bacteria or virus by now. And isnt that some irony. Without the theory you call BS, you wouldnt be here to call it BS.

 

[moviedoors]

Fair enough, but I'm going to stand by what I believe in regardless.

That's called willful ignorance.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i would of liked to of asked Ken if he feels evolution should be taught in science class.

Creationists often argue that they feel intelligent design is worth teaching in science classes alongside evolution giving the excuse they want to give students the option to explore for themselves what they believe and discover other potential possibilities. But i wonder if Ken would admit that Creationism should replace teaching evolution in science classes. To say yes to that would nullify their excuse for teaching creationism due to the fact it would then be guilty of exactly what they accuse the teaching of evolution. But to say no, they both should be taught, would give credence to the possibility that evolution is correct.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, teaching creationism in schools does raise a few issues – besides the fact that it's a load of nonsense, unconstitutional and unscientific.

In science, you have consensus. With creationism... well, you have some large groups, but there is no unifying body.

Hell, even most creationists can't answer basic scientific questions – partially because they don't have the answers since they're uneducated – but it raises serious logistical problems.

It's one thing to say don't teach evolution, but saying creationism should be taught is a whole other story.

 

[Warhammer]

Oh damn, I just noticed that this debate happened not too long ago and I missed it. How was it?




Oh......nevermind.

 

[KevanG]

Just read a few of the comments while it was going on to get the idea.

 

[Mike_D202]

Oh damn, I just noticed that this debate happened not too long ago and I missed it. How was it?




Oh......nevermind.

pretty much. Same "your an idiot" and "NO, your the idiot" arguments. Alas, we will never know until we are 6ft under. Until then...

 

[Slushy]

Pretty much hence why I kept my answers short. Tiresome arguments that go nowhere.

 

[jmc]

i would of liked to of asked Ken if he feels evolution should be taught in science class.

Creationists often argue that they feel intelligent design is worth teaching in science classes alongside evolution giving the excuse they want to give students the option to explore for themselves what they believe and discover other potential possibilities. But i wonder if Ken would admit that Creationism should replace teaching evolution in science classes. To say yes to that would nullify their excuse for teaching creationism due to the fact it would then be guilty of exactly what they accuse the teaching of evolution. But to say no, they both should be taught, would give credence to the possibility that evolution is correct.

I actually wouldn't have a problem with there being a second option taught if there was the evidence to back it up. In fact as Bill said the scientific community would celebrate such a finding because it means there's more to learn. The science community loves it when new discoveries are made, if there was any evidence for any of what Ham believes the scientific community would be the first to embrace it. The same cannot be said for the religious community, if evidence came to us that god doesn't exists would anything change? Would they embrace this new discovery? Hardly.

 

[The End]

It's a little deeper than "you're an idiot", "no, you're an idiot". Again this is lazy, false equivalence. If you feel both sides are exactly the same, on equal footing, explain the reasoning. If you are unwilling to do so, if you are unwilling to defend your reasoning, if in fact you're metaphorically plugging your fingers in your ears in response to arguments that are out there, and STILL holding onto your false equivalence, there is an issue. The issue isn't with people trying to explain to you why evolution holds water and creationism doesn't. The issue is with you. That when you misuse the word theory, and someone explains to you what it really means - that's a BASIC fact that anyone can look up - and your only recourse is to state "cool story, bro".

There's an intellectual cowardice around that.

We have two competing explanations for the same facts and just because YOU'RE unwilling to actually explore which is more likely to be true, doesn't mean they are both the same.

Essentially,


It's JUST like saying that flat earth and round earth have equal footing.

The bible literalist Dr. Parallax refused to listen to the evidence. I have as little respect for the person that says "pfft, flat earth? Round earth? They're both the same!" as the person that insists its flat, both positions are showing willful ignorance and an unwillingness to examine the evidence. It's lazy.

When scientists can point to human chromosome 2, and show that its fused from 2 ape chromosomes, explain how that doesn't hold water for you.

When something as precisely understood as Einstein's theory of relativity and the work of astronomy over the last 100 years help explain the age of the universe, explain how that doesn't hold water for you.

That isn't me saying "you're an idiot". That's me pointing out evidence, and asking you to explain how it doesn't hold water. Go for it.

Explain how this,

is on equal footing with this,

That's literally what Ken Ham believes.

So, explain it. And if you shrug your shoulders and say "cool story, bro", forgive me if I look at that as an indication of not just your unwillingness to learn (and intelligence), but the poor state of science education today.