Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham

[NotreDame]

To sum: "Goddidit" is not a sufficient explanation for the origins of the universe.

 

Or the negaverse.

 

Or how about Ken's story where Adam & Eve & the triceratops Steve all living happily together:

 

 

Or Noah taking 2 of each kind of dinosaur onto his ark:

 

 

Hmm... 

[mortify ii]

Bill Nye was the open person, and Ken Ham was the closed-minded one. It drives me nuts that Ken Ham represented religion in this debate, because he has such a distorted and twisted view of it.

 

Have you considered that perhaps Ken was intentionally chosen precisely because he would make us look so bad? 

[Not The Philosopher]

Or the negaverse.

 

It's called the Dark Kingdom.

[mortify ii]

Just as an aside, I don't think we should simply discount the notion of a direct, even miraculous, creation. The Fathers, Doctors, and Theologians were well aware of the concept of secondary causation and they still largely felt Genesis refers to a direct, primary cause. If you want to label this as "Goddidit," ask yourself how our Lord came to be. I'm not endorsing the scientific backwardness that is among some of our Protestant friends, but still we can't simply discount the idea of a supernatural beginning. 

[PhuturePriest]

Have you considered that perhaps Ken was intentionally chosen precisely because he would make us look so bad? 

 

Again, Ken Ham is the one that invited Bill Nye to the debate, not the other way around.

[NotreDame]

Again, Ken Ham is the one that invited Bill Nye to the debate, not the other way around.

 

But how many invites did Billy Nye get and turn down?
 

[KnightofChrist]

I would like to see Peter Kreeft vs Bill Nye.

[PhuturePriest]

But how many invites did Billy Nye get and turn down?
 

 

Note that Bill Nye went, even though militant atheists told him that going there is an affront to atheism, because debating would mean religion was something worthy of debate. He took a lot of flak by going, and he was incredibly nice all throughout. People such as Richard Dawkins would be incredibly snobbish and uncharitable. Besides, what if Bill Nye just likes debating? If I liked debating and someone asked me to go to a televised debating event about something that was important to me, I wouldn't say no, even if I felt the other person had an incredibly weak argument.

[CrossCuT]

I'd love to go in-depth as to why Ken Ham's arguments are so terrible, so I'm excited! :P

 

I dont even have to listen to it to know Ham's position is a difficult one. You cant use science, an indifferent method of observation, to make claims about the origins coming from a supernatural being. You can believe that on a personal note, but you cant really argue that science supports that. It cant...literally. When the day comes where we have a test or method of actually getting physical evidence of a supernatural being, then we can start to consider Creationism as a scientific basis for our origins. 

 

Other than that, I am sure Ham will present scientific data and try to correlate it to his theory but I have a feeling it will be relatively flawed and not hold up very well.

 

(Still havent had a chance to watch it :( ) I spent last night watching the documentary Inequality for All with my bf. It was a VERY good doc! Highly recommend it!

[blazeingstar]

Ken Ham is a disgrace to the scientific world, while Bill Nye, despite his hubris, is a model scientist who truly cares and wants to educate young people and not indoctrinate them.

[CrossCuT]

Note that Bill Nye went, even though militant atheists told him that going there is an affront to atheism, because debating would mean religion was something worthy of debate. He took a lot of flak by going, and he was incredibly nice all throughout. People such as Richard Dawkins would be incredibly snobbish and uncharitable. Besides, what if Bill Nye just likes debating? If I liked debating and someone asked me to go to a televised debating event about something that was important to me, I wouldn't say no, even if I felt the other person had an incredibly weak argument.

 

I dont think Bill Nye wants to encourage animosity like some very extremists in the debate. He just wants to debate and share his love for the subject while dispelling all these silly notions. I think its sad that there are people like Richard Dawkins or others who are so rude. People are just so passionate on both sides so I guess its difficult to be charitable when all you want to do is scream "Youre wrong!"

 

And I know how both sides feel. Ive been on both sides. When I was younger I was very stupid and never thought for myself. I was spoon fed all this crap science and believed it because I knew no better. I even sought out all these ridiculous videos talking about completely quack science and used it in my defense for Creationism. 

 

Now that Im much older and hopefully wiser, I can look back and see how wrong I was. But I think it also gives me a lot of empathy for others who are still in my old position. I try to use my understanding of that time in my life to be as charitable as possible when discussing it with people....maybe it doesnt always work but I TRY.  :saint2:

[blazeingstar]

I dont think Bill Nye wants to encourage animosity like some very extremists in the debate. He just wants to debate and share his love for the subject while dispelling all these silly notions. I think its sad that there are people like Richard Dawkins or others who are so rude. People are just so passionate on both sides so I guess its difficult to be charitable when all you want to do is scream "Youre wrong!"

 

And I know how both sides feel. Ive been on both sides. When I was younger I was very stupid and never thought for myself. I was spoon fed all this croutons science and believed it because I knew no better. I even sought out all these ridiculous videos talking about completely quack science and used it in my defense for Creationism. 

 

Now that Im much older and hopefully wiser, I can look back and see how wrong I was. But I think it also gives me a lot of empathy for others who are still in my old position. I try to use my understanding of that time in my life to be as charitable as possible when discussing it with people....maybe it doesnt always work but I TRY.  :saint2:

 

Creationism is the #1 reason I'm afraid to use "classic" materials to home-school my future children.   Bad science is dangerous.  There are so many good scientists and so much GOOD out there that dosn't have some of the more loony "god doesn't exist we all came from ooze" proclamations.  I like Ben Stien's stuff, but he's not a scientist per-se.

[CrossCuT]

Any good, bad, ugly, funny, weird, etc notions ANYONE has about God can all be done on personal notes. You can believe in God; you can not believe in God. I have a problem when anyone starts using science as an answer to the supernatural. Science cant test the supernatural therefore science cannot explain the supernatural thus we cannot make claims of the supernatural from a scientific perspective. 

 

You can however address these topics from philosophical perspectives, through religion blah blah blah. They compliment each other, but they deal with different things.

[Archaeology cat]

Or how about Ken's story where Adam & Eve & the triceratops Steve all living happily together:
 

 
Or Noah taking 2 of each kind of dinosaur onto his ark:
 

 
Hmm...

That's it, I'm going to be rich when I finally find a gallimimus skeleton with a harness, buried next to its owner.

[NotreDame]

It's really annoying to see this over and over on the thread, so let's be clear about a couple things... Neither Bill Nye nor Ken Ham are scientists.  Look up the word (it's meaning is not really that broad), then look at the respective experience of these two. 

 

Ken Ham has never done "science" and his "applied science" bachelor degree screams "couldn't hack it with a real major." 

 

Bill Nye has a respectable engineering degree and has a few years as an engineer at Boeing, but that quickly gave way to his interest in entertainment.  He's involved in science and engineering, sure, but he's never done anything to be mistaken as a "scientist."  He might be said to have some expertise in Aerospace (note: having expertise does not make one a scientist), but the vast majority of his life he's been in entertainment.