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

reply to post by Akragon


Not sure laughing at a women's beliefs is a great foundation for a relationship.

I have watched most of the available debates on YouTube, and also listen to debates on podcasts (even the painfully boring ones) while at work with great interest as I have found that they are a fantastic way to expand your perspective on matters regarding human nature, society, politics, science and philosophy.
Debates concerning the existence of god mostly start off on point, but quickly erode into debates regarding whether or not Jesus was real, performed miracles and was resurrected and whether the god of the Bible exists or not, with a sprinkle of "Christianity is an immoral religion" and "atheists have no morality". You soon realize that nothing new and thought-provoking is ever brought up as the same arguments from both sides are recycled over and over again.
But the question on the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, transcendent creator is for the most part a philosophical one. It can neither be proven nor dis-proven by science (yet), so one simply has to decide for him-or herself what to believe, in light of what the evidence suggests to be the case.

Creationism on the other hand is completely different as there is empirical, scientific data to prove which theory is correct and which one isn't. It is merely a matter of whether or not the creationist in question can or will approach the scientific data from an objective and critical perspective, which is unlikely to happen as it then would be a discussion and a lecture, rather than a debate at that point.

Ken Ham is obviously unwilling or unable to do this no matter what oppositional evidence to his beliefs Bill Nye presents. But one can only hope that the general public does what Ken Ham won't, and that it is worth Bill Nye's time, energy and effort.

It will be interesting and entertraining regardless.

Anyone know If it is on online like you tube? Oh and at what time?.GMT?.
Cheers

Anyone know If it is on online like you tube? Oh and at what time?.GMT?.
Cheers

reply to post by ABeing


no offense but this is the problem

creation is plausible using science

it is the interpretation of data

for many years the atheist scientific community regarded the big bang as nonsense instead believing in a static universe

a universe without beginning

with Bruno we discovered that indeed the was a beginning

science and creation collided

same with the finely tuned universe

when it was discovered that the universe was tuned so finely that the chances of our random beginning was infinitesimal

the scientific community simple decided there must be infinite universes in order to keep creation out

again science and creation collided

the only problem is since we can never know if there are infinite universes one must take it on faith

this is the problem with current scientific paradigms

they will not under any circumstance allow for creation

whether from an all powerful creator or some creator using a powerful sim

but the point is

creation does not equal god

that is the first step in the journey

Amarri
The entire matter:

The problem is that they have a very basic understanding of science, believe they're masters of a very broad topic, and don't use the actual tools of science to deduce right and wrong. Instead, they gather as much "science" (we can debate whether "christian science" is actual science til they're blue in the face) as will support their argument then ignore/redirect past anything that hurts their argument. Christians are masters of debate fallacies. In fact, they use those far better than any "science" they can find to support their skewed views.

If they'd actually learned critical thinking skills to be skeptical of EVERYTHING (yes, even science that has yet to be proven as fact should be viewed skeptically) then they would go much farther, be more informed, and probably not look so biased. It would also help if most christians actually read their bibles to see how self contradicting and full of bull# it is, but that's asking a lot from people who really only want to read confirmation biased information from their indoctrinated youth.

Fun fact: You're what religion you are because of geography. If you were born in one of the sand countries in the middle east, more than likely you'd be muslim. If you were born in china, you'd be a taoist or buddhist. So on and so forth. There's also 3000 something different religions and every one claims to be the one, so most everyone is an athiest anyway. They just choose to believe one more fairy tale figure than an actual atheist.

There is nothing to me more convicting than watching the magnificence of the Universe in all of it's imperfect power. My whole body tingles from just the 'thought' of the knowledge there is to know. I am 'FILLED' with AWE!

The fact that I say this here won't make me very popular here (or a few other places I have been). But the notion of evolution has become almost inescapable. Scientists see evolution at work in too many places. If you try to major in Biology working towards your B.S. degree -- good luck trying to tell any of your professors that "Evolution is JUST a theory!" If you assert that 'Evolution is still unproven!' as a biology major, most places you'll be invited to go major in Social Studies or Communications instead of Biology.

To say that a scientific theory has been proven is to say that the majority of experts in a field have been convinced of it's truth. The majority of experts in the field of biology have been convinced that evolution is a fact.

So you approached the subject with an open mind. Read a popular book on the subject by a well respected scientist. And decided he was wrong. I commend you for your unbiased approach. I had mistakenly thought that you had a religious influence to your thinking.

(Excerpts from others are noted as well).

Just a few questions.
1. How do you know that God does not exist? How can you be absolutely sure?

2. Have you always been an atheist?

3. Do you believe mathematics is a true form of science?

boymonkey74
Anyone know If it is on online like you tube? Oh and at what time?.GMT?.
Cheers

On first post, there is youtube video. Click play - it will show countdown to time when debate will start.

It is set to 6:55 PM EST

reply to post by Another_Nut


But here is where the beauty of how the scientific method works comes into play, even concepts that science finds distasteful will eventually be thought of as true because of the way that science works. If a concept, ID in this case, is distasteful but ultimately true and scientists don't want to broach the topic; it doesn't matter. Even if the scientists exhaust every OTHER possibility, they will eventually be FORCED to accept the concept through induction. Sure it is a roundabout way of coming to the answer, but thanks to the scientific method, even biased scientists will be forced to accept things that conflict with their worldview as things are discovered and prevailing concepts disproven.

A debate?

There won't be a debate, you see a debate is when 2 or more people use logical factual arguments, and when both are willing to adjust their views according to the presented arguments.

So you see, there cannot be a debate...

This constitutes a big debate? They are literally arguing about nothing.

reply to post by Another_Nut

Another_Nut
reply to post by ABeing

 

no offense but this is the problem

creation is plausible using science

it is the interpretation of data

for many years the atheist scientific community regarded the big bang as nonsense instead believing in a static universe

a universe without beginning

with Bruno we discovered that indeed the was a beginning

science and creation collided

same with the finely tuned universe

when it was discovered that the universe was tuned so finely that the chances of our random beginning was infinitesimal

the scientific community simple decided there must be infinite universes in order to keep creation out

again science and creation collided

the only problem is since we can never know if there are infinite universes one must take it on faith

this is the problem with current scientific paradigms

they will not under any circumstance allow for creation

whether from an all powerful creator or some creator using a powerful sim

but the point is

creation does not equal god

that is the first step in the journey

No offense taken, and I appreciate the politeness with which you wrote your reply.

As far as I have come to understand, Ken Ham like Kent Hovind is a Young-Earth Creationist who believes in the literal interpretation of the KJV Bible. Therefor the debate between him and Bill Nye will most likely concern the biblical creation account, which is considered not to be true by the overwhelmingly large majority of the scientific community and scientifically literate general public.
Of course, general consensus does not automatically make a theory or belief true, but in the case of biblical creation it most certainly happens to be so. Not based on opinions, but the lack of scientific evidence in support of the theory.

You raise a good point regarding how strong held beliefs have been proven to be wrong, and it has happened both within the scientific community and religious world-views. Gallileo, Gallileo (referring to the Queen song. Intended as a friendly joke).
However, this phenomenon still does not prove our current theories of a very ancient Earth and evolution by natural selection wrong.

Personally, and it might be because of my lack of education and understanding of quantum physics and cosmological evolution; I do have some trouble accepting the notion that everything came from nothing and the multiverse theory. Rather, I explore the idea that this is the only universe and reality that exists but not the first. I find it more likely that the almost miraculous correspondense between mathematics and physics is explained by the notion that there is a fundamental abstract dimension outside our perception, which may or may not be eternal, in which the properties of physics evolve over time and from which the physical universe has emerged unsuccessfully again and again until the properties of the abstract dimension reached an equilibrium that allowed a stable universe to finally come into physical existence.
This theory does not require a conscious creator. Rather, abstract, physical and natural order evolves just as organic complexity does.

I must however point out that from my point of view, the universe is not fine-tuned but merely in a somewhat stable state. First and foremost, only an extremely small fraction of the universe is suitable for carbon-based life. And Earth is not special when considering the huge amount of potential earth-like and habitable planets that may exist in the entirety of the cosmos.
Secondly, by this amazing thing called "mathematics", we have calculated that the sun will eventually become so hot that it will scorch our planet and cause a hell on Earth literally. And, as if that wasn't enough; at one point even the universe will be no more, which doesn't seem a good example of fine-tuning to me at least.

You ended your post with a very good point; "creation does not equal god".

I enjoyed replying to your post, and I applaude you for being polite and putting thought into it.

floppynoodleson666
reply to post by JayinAR

 

I'm just hoping to see Bill Nye make a fool of this other guy. it may be entertaining.

How? By claiming we are all monkeys? LOLOL....That would make anyone a fool!

Owowowowowaaaaaaa....Sorry I can't speak our monkey ancestors language very well....Wonder why that is?

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


You are doing a pretty good job of looking the fool yourself. I'd explain why, but I know you really don't care.

Chrisfishenstein
Owowowowowaaaaaaa....Sorry I can't speak our monkey ancestors language very well....Wonder why that is?

Probably because language is taught.
2nd.

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


It's because you never learned the language. I can't speak French.

The only other countries that would consider entertaining such a debate are probably religious theocracies in the Middle East. The rest of us have moved on.

Creationism Vs. evolution? Is this debate for real?

It's like party politics: the illusion of choice.

Believing The Bible or believing papers by Professors is all down to the personal application of faith.

Inanimate matter simply couldn't build all this that you see around you.

Yahweh is real, but evil.

Time to wake up - or not?

reply to post by Akragon


WOW!! And, they're going to be sitting on the other side of her???

Yikes. So- this is the 'meet the parents' audition?
Keep us posted. Pretend you have a cough.

Have fun!! If nothing else, it'll be an exercise in "culture shock".

Robert Reynolds
Inanimate matter simply couldn't build all this that you see around you.

Yahweh is real, but evil.

Time to wake up - or not?

Have you ever before observed the emergence of consciousness, intelligence and personality without a material foundation such as a brain?

If not, what then convinces you that an immaterial, conscious, intelligent and evil being called "Yahweh" exists? Where is your empirical evidence?

I couldn't tell whether you are serious or not in your post.

Chrisfishenstein , you really reject evolution? We're primates and what are all these ancient primate humanoid bones that archaeologists have been digging up?