Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

[JohnRedWolf87]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

Became obvious pretty quickly that Bill was more interested in selling his pitch about science education...over and over again.

Well, he IS Bill Nye the Science Guy.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

I mean, I understand the reasons behind reaching out to the audience instead of beating the opponent, but I felt like his appeals were really transparent and not all that convincing (IMO). All too often I found myself frustrated: "There are so many better examples you could be using!"

I more or less understand where religious types are coming from with their logic, and so when approaching Bill's arguments with that mindset, none of his arguments were that effective because there was always a really obvious hole that was left unaddressed.

IMO, if your goal is to convince people to ask questions and pursue science instead of being stifled by dogma, you have to address the core points of confusion and give really good examples.

For instance, he used the fossil record to explain how old shit was found below less-old shit, and that is strong evidence in favor of evolution etc. And yet when Ham brought up the basalt rock + wood thing, Bill just said "maybe the rock went over the wood" or something like that. If I were a religious person, I'd be asking, "Well, that was sure convenient, can't we say the same about the fossil record, then?"

I would focus on complexity. The core of the religious mindset with respect to the universe is that the universe is so grand -- so complex -- so beautiful, that it had to have been created. So, show how awesome shit forms naturally. At least, this is what worked for me back when I had a religious belief or two.

This video fucking blew my mind when I first saw it, and I realized then there was so much about biology/science that I hadn't been taught and had never learned. I found it genuinely interesting, and as I learned more, it became obvious that we don't need a designer to explain anything.

Of course, I still think this is the most mindblowing video of all time:

Universe, made for us? LOL.

The universe is large because it had to be. Same logic behind evolution -- albeit on a cosmic scale. You have a shitload of variation in star systems, planets, matter clouds, forces, etc. Some of those are going to have conditions ripe for biological evolution to take place. As usual, the answer is in math + stats + natural science.

If the universe were small with limited variation, we wouldn't be here -- which means I wouldn't be writing this, and you wouldn't be reading it. Anthropic principle, etc.

[Snowcrafta]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

I do find it funny that a mechanical engineer was chosen to debate this topic. But he's pretty much one of the only scientists Americans know

[devonin]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

Not CT aside:

How Bill Nye wins the debate:

[stargroup100]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

Honestly, I find it ridiculous that this is even being discussed still. Only in America, only in America...

The one major point Ham makes is that evolution is "historical science", and therefore can't be observed. All we need to do is explain to everyone that understanding science allows us to understand natural phenomena, which gives us the capability to accurately understand the relationship between cause and effect. This means that if we know the present CAUSE, we can predict the future EFFECT ("observational science"). If we know the present EFFECT, we can predict the past CAUSE ("historical science"). This is how our science allows us to understand the past: by piecing together many clues and using our understanding of the world, not reading a fucking book with many scenarios that can't be replicated/stimulated with current technology.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

It annoyed me that he mentioned stuff like prophecies in the Bible coming true or whatever / having predictive value, when you can pick out tons of predictions that the Bible flat-out got wrong. Of course, anything is flawless if you ignore the flaws.

[qqwref]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

Every prediction will eventually come true if you're willing to read it sufficiently metaphorically And remember, if you don't think something's true or possible, you're probably just not smart enough to understand it. God's got it all figured out, and he's way smarter than you.


PS: I do agree Bill Nye isn't the best person to represent the anti-creationist side of a debate, but remember he's basically a pop-sci educator, not an atheist activist. I didn't expect him to have a deep understanding of all the misconceptions, arguments, and neologisms an extreme YEC would use. Many of their arguments are essentially just references to previous published creationist writings, which you can't even try to argue against without having looked into it beforehand. Their rules and axioms are just so different from those of the scientific community that you might as well be talking about the interpretation of a novel you haven't read.

From my perspective, most of the sentences coming out of Ken Ham's mouth had several dubious or demonstrably false assumptions behind them, and he was often making several different claims a minute (or even 90 at once, in one case where he lists a bunch of random, unrelated dating methods designed for different things and then claims they give inconsistent results, without statistics or numbers to back it up). It's no surprise that Bill couldn't, and didn't try to, properly respond to most of that - you'd need a whole science textbook (or some kind of rational wiki) to refute all of what Ken said, if you wanted to go to enough depth to potentially convince someone. At least the appeals to the scientific method, the joy of discovery, the value of science education, etc. might get someone to look more deeply into the philosophy of science and how it differs from creationist dogma.

[choof]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

what the fuck is historical science

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

PS: I do agree Bill Nye isn't the best person to represent the anti-creationist side of a debate, but remember he's basically a pop-sci educator, not an atheist activist. I didn't expect him to have a deep understanding of all the misconceptions, arguments, and neologisms an extreme YEC would use. Many of their arguments are essentially just references to previous published creationist writings, which you can't even try to argue against without having looked into it beforehand. Their rules and axioms are just so different from those of the scientific community that you might as well be talking about the interpretation of a novel you haven't read.

I don't think you give Bill Nye enough credit; he's not just a children's show host. This ain't his first rodeo.

You seem to suggest that an atheist activist would have been ideal, but honestly, I think a Christian scientist (not to be confused with Christian Scientist) would have best shown how evolution is science and that science doesn't conflict with religion.

what the fuck is historical science

It's the idea that we can't design an experiment to watch evolution happen, that we can only analyze what's happened in the past and call that science.

It's total horse pucky, but I believe that's what "historical science" means.

--Guido

[choof]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

if that's really what historical science is then that's absolutely idiotic

[igotrhythm]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

Pointless debate, at its core. I liked some of the audience questions though, because they intentionally tried to rustle the debaters jimmies.

Also, if I hear the term "Historical Science" again, I might have an aneurysm.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

I like the shit-eating grins on these people's faces. The questions themselves make me want to give a blowjob to a shotgun.

[ilikexd]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messa...ve-in-evolutio

I like the shit-eating grins on these people's faces. The questions themselves make me want to give a blowjob to a shotgun.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH



DONE

[stargroup100]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messa...ve-in-evolutio

I like the shit-eating grins on these people's faces. The questions themselves make me want to give a blowjob to a shotgun.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not

[MracY]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

This isn't a debate. It is a display of a collection of the simplest cookie-cutter arguments.
It is a farce. It could almost be considered sensationalism by some.

If you want an actual good debate, you would need two scientist philosophers who actually understand both sides of the issue.
Otherwise the debate will end like a children's squabble, as it tends to.

edit: I'm not interested in discussion on this topic.

[qqwref]

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now

edit: I'm not interested in discussion on this topic.

Good thing you didn't post in this thread, then!