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

reply to post by Another_Nut


As someone qualified in Applied Mathematics and Physics I can safely rule out not understanding him. If the Universe is so fine tuned for life then why is it only known to exist in one planet in the entire Universe? Given the vast distances in space and current ideas that life and consciousness can only develop on 'Goldilocks zone' planets it's an incredibly inefficient version of 'fine tuning' with something like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.....1% of matter having any affiliation with life.

As for a general creator - one may exist or not - the problem is there's no hypothesis, test or predictions possible to explore the idea so it will remain a mystical idea instead of a scientific one until if/when some kind of model comes along (which I personally do not see as possible ass people will always argue an all powerful being would exist outside natural laws).

A general creator can't be ruled out (the specific religious text based ones can be as their predictions/explanations are easily proven false) but until there's a reason to think one is required it carries no validity.

Meanwhile we have plenty of scientific evidence to support our current understanding of how the universe and life began which don't require any kind of creator, which I personally value far more than a vague, mystic description.

reply to post by bastion


Well said. ★★★



Why is anyone even arguing about such stupidity. Most of it is recycled again and again until it gets hard for me to shut out the voices in my head telling me to punch a baby...

Anyway, Ken Ham is a loon- the internet said so.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

Absolutely clueless and ignorant about science, Ham is also fond of dismissing any evidence on the grounds that the presenter is (purportedly) an atheist – a standard conspiracy theory trick, really.

Classic Loon for your entertainment.

reply to post by Prezbo369


yes your puddle argument has been covered. and i have listed it as a possibility

you just dont seem to get that there could be other reasons

all acceptable to you BUT a creator

why is this?

eta the fact is there is no evidence of any of theses

1creator

2multiverse

3anthropic

4we will never know


none are anymore wrong (or right) than the next

reply to post by Another_Nut


If you repeat that 1001 times while facing east and standing on one leg, it might become true....


So, if there is no evidence for creator, your assumption is that everything else is also false?! No one has it right?


This is tactics often used by religious people to validate that no one is right, making them look equal to science. Unfortunately for you, this is not how things works. In science we have pretty good idea of life creation, its evolution, the same about universe and neither require 'higher being' to work. As there is no evidence of 'higher power', there is nothing to evaluate or study, thus science will never go into that mud...

You are free to believe what you like, but please - do not try to make it equal to science...

reply to post by SuperFrog


Says the person who talks about fine tuned galaxies and the destruction of life five times on The planet earth

You have no clue about science

Eta susskind , who I am sure you have no understanding of . Is a scientist. He doesnt like that there may be a creator. But he admits it is possible. He wrote the book on The megaverse which I am also sure you dont understand

But facts remain facts. And we may never know as if there is evidence of a creator or other universe we may simply never get that evidence as lit exists outside of us
See how science really works

You are just an antireligion nut. No better than ham. When confronted by evidence it is blown off

If u can clone than congregationalism is very possible.

reply to post by SuperFrog


I cant stand Bill Nye. He is not even a scientist. He is a mechanical engineer who got his degree in the 70s. He isnt even a relevant engineer. Nye is and always will be a kids show host. Which is fine. He just seems to enjoy playing pretend scientist when speaking to the public in any "official" manner...lol

His whole act is insulting. The fact that this man "informs" people about anything he isnt TRAINED for speaks volumes about current climate and evolution "specialists" as well as these mass marketed theories and their origin.

I prefer a sexy talking head from Fox over anything Nye does. He isnt even a worthy talking head.....Terrible fake smile.

I call poe on that last post.

Well played.

Another_Nut
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Says the person who talks about fine tuned galaxies and the destruction of life five times on The planet earth

You have no clue about science

Eta susskind , who I am sure you have no understanding of . Is a scientist. He doesnt like that there may be a creator. But he admits it is possible. He wrote the book on The megaverse which I am also sure you dont understand

But facts remain facts. And we may never know as if there is evidence of a creator or other universe we may simply never get that evidence as lit exists outside of us
See how science really works

You are just an antireligion nut. No better than ham. When confronted by evidence it is blown off

Ouch!

Not sure what is good sign for you to claim that I have no clue about science, nor what mass extinction on earth have anything to do with that, but if all you care is: 'is it possible' - everyone, including me will tell you - yes. But (you got to love this word) it is very much not probable.

What evidence you're talking about? Book that you and most likely one who wrote it don't understand?

I have nothing against spiritualism, but religion, as means of mass control and in most cases anti-progress force.... you got it right, I might be nut....

Another_Nut
reply to post by Prezbo369

 

yes your puddle argument has been covered. and i have listed it as a possibility

you just dont seem to get that there could be other reasons

all acceptable to you BUT a creator

why is this?

Sure it could be true, but considering that there is no evidence for a 'creator', the chances or likelihood of that being true are are around the same as the universe and reality being the figment of a house cat's imagination.

Possible, but incredibly unlikely.

Prezbo369
...the chances or likelihood of that being true are are around the same as the universe and reality being the figment of a house cat's imagination.

Possible, but incredibly unlikely.

You have obviously not met my cat, he can split atoms with his sinister kitty glare.

reply to post by Prezbo369


There is also no evidence for the megaverse or anthropic principles

Whats your point?

Another_Nut
reply to post by Prezbo369

 

There is also no evidence for the megaverse or anthropic principles

Whats your point?

I'm not making claims regarding the megaverse or anthropic principles.

Whereas you are making specific claims for a 'creator'....

reply to post by Prezbo369


Um I have not made anysuch claims.

I have said that i believe in a creator.

I have also make I clrear my idea of a creator is not the biblical kind.

What yiur point again?

Mine is snce there is no evidence for multiple universes or anthropic principals or a creator

So we can all believe what we want

Baby t it is still belief none the less

Eta. My belief In a creator comes from the anecdotal phrase

The easiest answer is usually the truth

Then we discovered the fine tuning and how perfectly had to perched on that knife edge

Well science went with infinity to fix the pproblem but that makes it not the easiest answer

But instead it complicated it to the infinite degree

Another_Nut

Um I have not made anysuch claims.

I have said that i believe in a creator.

Right......a belief for which you have no evidence or any good reason to hold, yet you use it as a reason to equate science and religion....

I have also make I clrear my idea of a creator is not the biblical kind.

Who said it was? (TBH I know why you wouldn't take that extra step here....)

Mine is snce there is no evidence for multiple universes or anthropic principals or a creator

The anthropic principle(s) are philosophical considerations and 'multiple universes' is a hypothesis

What's your point?

So we can all believe what we want

Sure you could, but if you care at all whether or not the things you believe are true, you must have good reasons to accept the things you believe.

And there is no good reason to believe in a 'creator', none whatsoever.

reply to post by Prezbo369


Multiple universes have just as much evidence as a creator .

So why is it less believable?

And there is good reason. The finetuned universe.

Another_Nut

Multiple universes have just as much evidence as a creator .

So why is it less believable?

The multiverse hypothesis stems from observations made by scientists over the past few decades.

Claims of a 'creator' stem from superstition.

That's why...

And there is good reason. The finetuned universe.

A good reason must actually exist (or at least have been shown to exist).

reply to post by Prezbo369


No the multiverse came from the finetuning observations

A n d the only way out, with out a creator, was multiple universes

Evidence please

Another_Nut

No the multiverse came from the finetuning observations

'Finetuning' has not been shown to exist....

A n d the only way out, with out a creator, was multiple universes

For you maybe, but for others (thankfully) a superstition isn't anywhere close to a good enough explanation for the origins of the universe (or anything else for that matter).

Evidence please

For what? what are you talking about?

reply to post by Prezbo369


Ok im done . Just like life being destroyed 5 times on the earth

You cant argue with stupid

Ignorance is bliss

Enjoy your happiness