mistercwood 287 #1 February 7, 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI#t=13m14s I'm amazed this one hasn't been posted about yet, this is still Speakers Corner, right? Yes, it's long - I've got it running in the background. So far, I'm frustrated as hell by Ken Ham's strategy of redefining existing terms to suit his argument and then sticking with "You weren't there!" for any reference by Nye to the non-directly observable past. Pretty sure he wasn't there when the Bible was being pieced together, but of course that one gets a pass - it says so right there in the book, see? Personally, I find the attached image to sum up my views best... Now flame on... EDIT: Changed link to start at the beginning of the debate.You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 February 7, 2014 Watched this the other night. Ken Ham using circular referencing definitions, complete and utter bull redefinition of terms and essentially brainwashing techniques of neuro-linguistic programming. "Why do I believe in creation? Because it's in the Bible!" It's maddening because he is doing it well enough to sound reasonable to the people he's able to brainwash. While Bill Nye, on the other hand, makes a reasonable presentation, but doesn't have quite the stage gravitas needed. Instead he comes off as a bit of a children's TV host, which is precisely what he is. He rambles a bit too much and jokes around a bit too much. I completely understand Ham's financial interest in this "debate," but wonder why Nye is involved at all. I will give him props for walking into the belly of the beast, but he has a serious not-his-home-court disadvantage with the audience. What I wish Nye would have done was explain the two fundamentally different approaches being used; Creation "Science" assumes the Bible is correct and is therefore confirmation biased from the start. That's simply not how things are proven. Real science starts with a collection of facts and then draws conclusions based on evidence.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistercwood 287 #3 February 7, 2014 quade What I wish Nye would have done was explain the two fundamentally different approaches being used; Creation "Science" assumes the Bible is correct and is therefore confirmation biased from the start. That's simply not how things are proven. Real science starts with a collection of facts and then draws conclusions based on evidence. Pretty much this. Definition of a Question-Begging Argument - Where your conclusion rests on a premise that pre-supposes your conclusion is true... (and my friends said Philosophy 101 was a waste of my time... )You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #4 February 7, 2014 Quote Real science starts with a collection of facts and then draws conclusions based on evidence. +1 Having grown up in a deeply fundamentalist Christian house in the deep south, you simply cannot argue or discuss this with them. Absolute waste of time. BTW, mistercwood's link doesn't really show anything other than a count down to a past date. Any link to the actual debate video?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistercwood 287 #5 February 7, 2014 It's a weird thing from when it was originally livecast I think, I just skipped ahead about 20 minutes and it plays. Just finishing the whole debate, will see if I can update the original link to skip ahead for everyone. EDIT: Done.You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #6 February 7, 2014 Nice to see a guy responding and debating. It's pointless, to some extent, because facts must yield to faith when a person is bent on dogma. But, it's useful because those who are willing to see the evidence and make a decision can be shown. Backward and circular logic versus evidence based deductions. Which wins? It's always better, in my opinion, to respond to these ideas than to try to stifle them. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #7 February 7, 2014 It was a non event as far as I am concerned. Science and Spiritual awareness are both necessary to understand the whole Truth. The two are not mutually exclusive. The problem comes when each tries to extrapolate opinions into areas they are not qualified to make statements about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #8 February 7, 2014 bah, I disagree. It is a very poor idea, in my opinion, to engage in this kind of debate. It feeds the false equivalence that these are two ideas competing in the same arena. They aren't. A lot of creationist logic is that these are the only two options and that consequently any weakness or lack of evidence in evolutionary theory is therefore automatically a gain of evidence for creationism. Christian creationism should be debating whether Genesis or the Rig Veda or the Ginnungagap of Norse mythology provide the most plausible account. I have no thought that these views should be suppressed, they just shouldn't be debated as scientific theories because they are not."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #9 February 7, 2014 Southern_ManChristian creationism should be debating whether Genesis or the Rig Veda or the Ginnungagap of Norse mythology provide the most plausible account. I have no thought that these views should be suppressed, they just shouldn't be debated as scientific theories because they are not. The issue though is Act 3 of the book relies heavily on a person buying into the premise set up early in the first Act. If one admits Act 1 is mythology, then one also has to accept Act 3 is a myth as well, but that's not what is being sold.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #10 February 7, 2014 Were both asked what it would take for them to change their minds? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 February 7, 2014 normissWere both asked what it would take for them to change their minds? Yes. One said he'd welcome proof and repeatedly challenged the audience to show him, the other stated the proof is in the Bible since that is the word of God. Sigh. If anybody is actually interested in the topic, they probably should watch the "debate" themselves. It's worth it to see how both sides approach the issue.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #12 February 7, 2014 quade***Christian creationism should be debating whether Genesis or the Rig Veda or the Ginnungagap of Norse mythology provide the most plausible account. I have no thought that these views should be suppressed, they just shouldn't be debated as scientific theories because they are not. The issue though is Act 3 of the book relies heavily on a person buying into the premise set up early in the first Act. If one admits Act 1 is mythology, then one also has to accept Act 3 is a myth as well, but that's not what is being sold. Yes, which is exactly why scientists should not engage in this sort of public debate. It is not a debate between two scientific theories."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #13 February 7, 2014 quadeYes. One said he'd welcome proof and repeatedly challenged the audience to show him, the other stated the proof is in the Bible since that is the word of God. This is not surprising. Both are demonstrating, then, exactly the underpinnings of how they chose to live. My issue is what is already noted above - philosophy should not cross into science. And science should not cross into philosophy. (Facts and symbolism are not supposed to have any overlap, subjective and objective should not overlap, though I tend to lean heavily to the science and facts side of the house, I acknowledge that for many, possibly most, operating in the philosophy/symbolism space may work better for 'them'. And, frankly, all people live in a mix of both, it's just a matter of the proportions.). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #14 February 7, 2014 I was curious after seeing a silly meme on effedupbook. Haven't had the chance to see the debate yet. Sorry some dummy up in the great white tundra of WI clipped a major fiber cable with a snowplow. WTF IS a snowplow and why are they plowing my fibers???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #15 February 7, 2014 Quote WTF IS a snowplow The clue's in the name dude - it's a plow made of snow.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #16 February 7, 2014 I loved Bill's explanation of his Grandfather getting his bow tie tied at the hotel. The look on the 99% fundamentalist audience was priceless, that was a funny story, zero laughs, they had no sense of humor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #17 February 7, 2014 jakee Quote WTF IS a snowplow The clue's in the name dude - it's a plow made of snow. you guys are killing me. it's -10F (-23C for those of you so inclined) this morning How about I come stay where it's warmer and they have only 'sandplows'? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #18 February 7, 2014 rehmwa *** Quote WTF IS a snowplow The clue's in the name dude - it's a plow made of snow. you guys are killing me. it's -10F (-23C for those of you so inclined) this morning How about I come stay where it's warmer and they have only 'sandplows'? We can only manage mudplows at the moment!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Calvin19 0 #19 February 8, 2014 Southern_Man******Christian creationism should be debating whether Genesis or the Rig Veda or the Ginnungagap of Norse mythology provide the most plausible account. I have no thought that these views should be suppressed, they just shouldn't be debated as scientific theories because they are not. The issue though is Act 3 of the book relies heavily on a person buying into the premise set up early in the first Act. If one admits Act 1 is mythology, then one also has to accept Act 3 is a myth as well, but that's not what is being sold. Yes, which is exactly why scientists should not engage in this sort of public debate. It is not a debate between two scientific theories. I agree. This is the 'slippery slope' fallacy. To entertain a scientific debate between science and dogma will not produce real outcome. It is entertainment, probably for both sides. I like Bill Nye a lot, but I think Neil Degrasse Tyson would have been a more entertaining match. -SPACE- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #20 February 8, 2014 Tyson is only slightly better. Only slightly. Get a real scientist with real credibility and gravitas. Somebody like Jared Diamond.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #21 February 8, 2014 Just so long as you don't break my fiber and cause THOUSANDS of angry customers who are snow bound at home to call all the time, move anywhere you please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #22 February 8, 2014 They can stick their mythology where the sun doesn't shine The Truth is even more wonderful. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCoSkyDiver 0 #23 February 8, 2014 Real science starts with a collection of facts and then draws conclusions based on evidence. I probably really should not respond here because I am not the right person to get in a debate with you on creationism. The only point that I have to make is that the scientific method does not start with the collection of facts. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis. An experiment is developed and performed. Data(facts) are collected. Then the hypothesis is accepted or rejected. If your hypothesis is sound and your experiment is reproducible, then the scientific community may universally accept the hypothesis. Looking at facts and making conclusions is not science; it is inference. I have spent the better part of the last decade trying to look at this debate. If you honestly try to be open to both sides, your head might want to explode. I really do not want to open a big debate because my faith has been messed up enough getting into it. I hesitate to give it, but in my opinion, the science behind Darwin's theory and the Big Bang theory is weak. That is why they are called theories and not laws ( such as newtons laws. They really do not scientifically prove creation or evolution. That is why most are somewhat intolerant of criticism. The problem with the creation scientists is that they do not come up with a specific hypothesis that can not be tested. They have have very elegant arguments against evolution and the Big Bang theories that are quasi scientifically based. They don't prove anything either. Either way you have to have faith. Faith that the universe came out of a creator or out of nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Calvin19 0 #24 February 8, 2014 quade Tyson is only slightly better. Only slightly. Get a real scientist with real credibility and gravitas. Somebody like Jared Diamond. I wish Carl was still around. -SPACE- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #25 February 8, 2014 NoCoSkyDiverThe only point that I have to make is that the scientific method does not start with the collection of facts. Generally speaking a hypothesis does not spring forth out of thin air without there first being a fact observed that doesn't fit a previous model. It is a cycle of refinement. Contrast that with "creation science" in which every fact presented is forced to conform to the pre-existing idea Genesis is literally true and is therefore the explanation regardless.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
