It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Science Guy’ Bill Nye vs. Creationist Ken Ham: Who Will Win the Big Debate?

page: 11
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


O so correct

That why these threads kinda bug me

Evolution vs creation

Bah!

So i will continue my quest

On to the next one i guess




posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   
The WWII history in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe are true so the rest of the book is too.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by rupertg
 


Spiderman takes place in New York, and we know New York to be a real place so therefore, Spiderman is real!!!!!



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Pat Robertson weighs into the debate, attacks YEC as "..a joke"




“Let’s face it, there was a bishop [Ussher] who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years,” Robertson said. “There ain’t no way that’s possible. To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible.”

He continued: “We’ve got to be realistic that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that is found in science and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.”

Robertson added that he disagrees with “evolution as it is currently presented” and knocked Creationists: “Let’s be real, let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”


Well. Alrighty then..



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   
If during a debate, one of the debaters states that nothing whatsoever will change his mind and his opponent states that just one piece of evidence will change his; irrespective of any evidence presented there can only be one winner.

But at the same time, I wasn't there so I can't be sure this happened.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 04:49 AM
link   

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Pat Robertson weighs into the debate, attacks YEC as "..a joke"




“Let’s face it, there was a bishop [Ussher] who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years,” Robertson said. “There ain’t no way that’s possible. To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible.”

He continued: “We’ve got to be realistic that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that is found in science and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.”

Robertson added that he disagrees with “evolution as it is currently presented” and knocked Creationists: “Let’s be real, let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”


Well. Alrighty then..


When Pat Robertson thinks you're an idiot then you really have hit rock bottom.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


I understand the frustration. I have seen the video, I really enjoy Tyson and his style of speaking so I have watched many talks with him in it. I can sort of understand why people would want different historic figures on their side of an argument but I honestly see it as a mute argument. The quote in question was all I was addressing as it seemed to come from an actual publication. Whether or not that information was correct whether partially or in its entirety seems to be in debate.


The debate....I fell asleep watching it. That says how impressed I was. I skipped through it the next day and found my nap was more exciting. Sad, I was looking forward to see some thought provoking ideas and found there to be nothing but "Bill, I do want to say, that there is a book out there".....which was not helpful in the least.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I think Ham is onto a winner here.

You see, his views are very easily provable. All he needs is a dinosaur bone - not a fossil, mind, but an actual bone - and there must be millions of them laying on, or just below, the surface. It can only be a matter of time until he uncovers the evidence...



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MarsIsRed
 





I think Ham is onto a winner here.







You see, his views are very easily provable. All he needs is a dinosaur bone - not a fossil, mind, but an actual bone - and there must be millions of them laying on, or just below, the surface. It can only be a matter of time until he uncovers the evidence...


There is no evidence for creationism, pretending that creationism is good science is one of the foundational stupidities of creationism. Ham deploying this bit of idiocy in this debate is shooting himself in the foot declaring there can be no good science of the past from the physical evidence, it proves that he knows that the evidence is against him.

Ham lost all credibility by stating that nothing would change his mind, while Bill said simply that evidence would do so for him.
Evidence means nothing to Ham, it will not wake him from his delusion.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Some highlights.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   

flyingfish


There is no evidence for creationism, pretending that creationism is good science is one of the foundational stupidities of creationism. Ham deploying this bit of idiocy in this debate is shooting himself in the foot declaring there can be no good science of the past from the physical evidence, it proves that he knows that the evidence is against him.



There is far to much evidence of science in nature to discount creationism. Evolutional scientists are as guilty of the cognitive desistance they feel the other side suffers from. Everywhere one turns in nature they find intelligent design but are simply bent on giving the credit to evolutionary adaptation.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Logarock

flyingfish


There is no evidence for creationism, pretending that creationism is good science is one of the foundational stupidities of creationism. Ham deploying this bit of idiocy in this debate is shooting himself in the foot declaring there can be no good science of the past from the physical evidence, it proves that he knows that the evidence is against him.



There is far to much evidence of science in nature to discount creationism. Evolutional scientists are as guilty of the cognitive desistance they feel the other side suffers from. Everywhere one turns in nature they find intelligent design but are simply bent on giving the credit to evolutionary adaptation.


The debate of creationism vs evolution is not the same as intelligent design. The young earth creationists which are an extreme minority, probably fewer than there are atheists in the world.

The assumption that the laws of physics are a constant and the clear evidence of them operating with mathematical precision is a separate argument entirely in regards to a creator or the creation of the universe.

The entire argument is about developments occurring within the system governed by these phenomena. Very few scientists will get into the argument of why the laws are what they are and where they come from. That is essentially being saved until all observable activity can be predicted, after that they will move on to discover why the laws are what they are and where they came from.


In the meantime you will have ignorant rhetoric being spouted from all sides based upon what makes them feel better.

-FBB



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Insisting they have the whole entire truth and science has an endless list of "We don't know" is enough to convince people in Creationism? Who thought that would be a wise strategy?

If Ken Ham is an example of someone who purports to know everything and nothing is capable of changing his mind, how can any open-minded, honest person take him seriously?



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   


The debate of creationism vs evolution is not the same as intelligent design. The young earth creationists which are an extreme minority, probably fewer than there are atheists in the world.
-FBB


Please tell us your interpretation and understanding of Intelligent Design.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Leonidas


The debate of creationism vs evolution is not the same as intelligent design. The young earth creationists which are an extreme minority, probably fewer than there are atheists in the world.
-FBB

Please tell us your interpretation and understanding of Intelligent Design.


My understanding of design comes from engineering field;
The Engineering Design Process
www.sciencebuddies.org...


Define the Problem
Do Background Research
Specify Requirements
Brainstorm Solutions
Choose the Best Solution
Do Development Work
Build a Prototype
Test and Redesign


The design is different from what you are likely thinking are schematics. The unbelievable precision with which organisms found on Earth are attuned to the extremely complicated composition in which the forces are organized is mind blowing.

I am talking about the physical laws which govern the matter which life is thought to be entirely composed of. If you tweaked the gravity by even a minor percentage then most species could not reproduce.

Don't you dare try to bring up growing plants on the ISS to counter that as it is a total BS argument in that the ISS is in FREE FALL and is still experiencing over 90% of the Earth's gravitational pull.

If any of the laws were slightly different then not a single life form would exist. Design implies there was an intent behind what is observed.

If you think everything is the result of "random" mutations then you don't have an F-ing clue about physics.

Also you would need to prove that "random" even exists and NO "CLOSE ENOUGH" DOES NOT COUNT.

This is why they are very different. One is a development process the other is created as they are observed now.

-FBB
edit on 6-2-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Both sides annoy me - both sides make unfounded assumptions, and both sides aren't emotionally mature enough to appreciate the approach of the other. Why is that? Because both sides - bill nye, who obviously needs something to do to give his life meaning, and the christian guy - hold to extreme positions.

Evolution is real. It is absolutely ridiculous that anyone could deny evolution when SO MUCH evidence exists to support it. It may be a "hypothesis", inasmuch as there are unknowns which by nature can't be known, but it is nevertheless the overwhelmingly most plausible explanation for how and why organisms look the way they do, and the relationship between one another.

Since I study the brain, I see first-hand how the brain itself has evolved through time, from invertebrates, to vertebrates, to mammals, to primates, complexity has been added to the "basic" structure of more primitive organs to the point that in humans, lower brain regions i.e. limbic and autonomic areas, are literally homologous to areas in lower mammalian brains..This homology exists not only at the phenotypic level, but at the genetic and molecular level as well.

For example, most larger mammals contain the same neuropeptides, whereas in smaller animals, which presumably are evolutionarily more separated, there are more primitive variations of neuropeptides. Take oxytocin - a common neuropeptide that mediates feelings of calm and confidence in mammals. In birds and other non-mammalian vertebrates, there is a similar peptide which performs a similar function called vasotocin. Clearly then, neurochemicals undergo evolution WITH the genetic and phenotypical changes observed at the level of species.

That said, just because evolution is probably true doesn't mean, in the least bit, that God doesn't exist, or that he hasn't used the vehicle of evolution as a means to "reveal himself" within the universe He's created, culminating - so far as we can tell - in a species - humans - with metacognitive faculties like self awareness, awareness of our awareness, morality, and a spoken language, amongst other abstract-cognitive abilities unique to our species.

Bill Nye and scientists like them have tried to expunge all mystery from the universe, from existence, not realizing that they are DOGMATISTS of another kind, believing whole-heartedly in a vision of reality with all sorts of holes and all sorts of gaps. How anyone can live a life without feeling the existential quality of it - the sheer strangeness at existing, particularly, existing in a way so different from all other species, where we are left with existential quandaries about our place in the world, at the absurdity of the idea that the universe - or evolution - "accidentally" produced a creature that was able to contemplate it, be aware OF IT - and even break it's principles down....oh please.

There is tremendous mystery here, and the only way to make sense of it is with a right brain, holistic and passive awareness that "I am apart of something bigger than myself, which I can't completely make sense of".
edit on 6-2-2014 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I watched bits and pieces of the debate last night. I really liked the timeline graphic of evolution vs creation. I thought the creationist was going to go on the angle of parralel timelines or parallel dimensions/ universes. I think religion has these ideas.

I was disappointed it wasn't. Bill Nye had to use evidence of how much older the Earth is and the creationist was arguing you need to use observational science. Did they ever get into quantum physics?

I liked the creationist insults to the education system. I think his point about children having a belief in a higher power gives them the ability to be more rationale and problem solvers than just accepting everything as fact.

However the annoying thing about hardcore Christians is they do the same thing....so yeah...I like religion but I'm not very religious.

I don't like people like Bill Nye coming to a village and saying. "Sorry your God is a rock. We're going to build a hotel here, with a bar and Starbucks in the lobby." That's when I side with religion.

Funny corporations are the modern day crusaders.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


With respect to my pervious post:


I think Ham is onto a winner here.

You see, his views are very easily provable. All he needs is a dinosaur bone - not a fossil, mind, but an actual bone - and there must be millions of them laying on, or just below, the surface. It can only be a matter of time until he uncovers the evidence...


I figured adding "\sarcasm" was superfluous. My point being that were YECs correct, the evidence would be abundant and easily provable.


Logarock
There is far to much evidence of science in nature to discount creationism.


That translates as "there is far too much evidence of a method of studying nature in nature to discount creationism." Meaningless.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Actualy evolution is very far from bring proven, so No he will not have any more facts that pertain to the actual theory. They will be disguised as prudent to the theory but will not directly relate.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Had time today.. Watched the whole thing. Yes I even suffered through Ken Ham's sections as not to be totally biased. But each time Ken Ham spoke, my stomach started to knot up and twist. But I gave him the due respect to speak his case.
Ken Ham did nothing but quote the bible as the word of God. And that God is the absolute word, via "there is a book." That he said over and over again.
While Bill was very honest and upfront, saying.. "We don't know the answer to that!" True.
And every turn Ken Ham, always had an "answer" to things NO one knows about. Typical response I would have anticipated from someone defending his GRAND CLAIMS!

I am not downing the Bible here, or the reasonable people who have religion in their lives, but still understand the fundamentals of this world.
To be honest, either of these guys know, nor do their groups know.
Bill was honest about that fact. And said a few things.. Show me! And it will change the world.
While Ken Ham, kept up the same ole song and dance.. "ITS GOD!" Shameful response to any reasonable thinking mortal.

Bill Nye in my eyes won hands down, no question in my mind.

When the only rebuttal is, "Cause GOD said so." Is all he has, is when I had enough.

Both sides can learn much from each other. But the science side at the very least is reasonable. And is not the childish type remarks, of GOD says so, or its in the bible so it must be FACT.

I am glad Bill mopped the floor with this clown.
I had a REALLY hard time not skipping past Ken Ham parts.. But I like to be fair, and give them a chance to maybe offer up some new info that might blow my mind. Anything but that. All it did was make my convictions that much stronger when it comes to science.

I mean Ken Ham danced around the questions about, the other people in the world who do not know what Ken Ham knows. Are they all doomed to Hell, just because they where not told? OR do they somehow get a free pass? Nah, no free pass, they will all burn in HELL.. As that is Gods will I suppose. Honestly. Laughable that we are still even talking serious about these topics. And even worse, they are trying to push real science out of schools, and claiming its brainwashing young kids.

I can see why much of what Ken Ham had to say, was and is rather troubling, and bothersome.

Its very troubling indeed to someone like me to know we have such ground in folks who refuse to give any reasonable ideas a chance to bloom and grow within them. As they feel the shoe is on the other foot.
Crazy crazy world.

But at least Bill said.. We do not have a clue really.. But we are looking for the clues.
While Ken Ham had an answer to everything.. Magic! God, and easy fill in. Taking the easy way to all our tough questions.
It was GOD.. Class dismissed!

edit on 3614284925 by zysin5 because: thoughts . spelling. yeah



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join