Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham


PhuturePriest

Recommended Posts

Yes

 

It means I do it

 

I volunteer teaching a host of subjects to children, not just biology.

 

Well, "do chemistry" is pretty broad.  More than likely you are doing lab work someone else prescribes, not evaluating results and directing the research, correct?  And have you ever been published?

Edited by NotreDame
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I see! It makes more sense now.

 

It should make more sense, though I mentioned this earlier in the thread as well.  I've been around science, engineering, and PHD's my whole life.  "Scientist" is fairly defined and understood term in these circles, though those on the outside may not understand that.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KnightofChrist

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I see! It makes more sense now.

 

You would accept all forms? Would you apply that same reasoning to Bill Nye then? 

 

I will accept, if you ever answer the question lol, that the answer(s) you give is the type(s) of Scientist you believe Bill Nye to be. I may however ask for evidence in whatever answer(s) you give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, "do chemistry" is pretty broad.  More than likely you are doing lab work someone else prescribes, not evaluating results and directing the research, correct?  And have you ever been published?

 

I do both. Depends on the project.

 

I am credited as an inventor on 4 patents. Thats not much for the industry I am in however Ive only been here for 3 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do both. Depends on the project.

 

I am credited as an inventor on 4 patents. Thats not much for the industry I am in however Ive only been here for 3 years.

 

So you have patents, but you haven't been published.  Hmm...

 

I'd say based on this limited information that in the broad sense, you are a scientist!  Congrats! :winner: :bravo:

 

However, I'm not sure you'd be a proper scientist in the professional sense, as opposed to just someone working for a scientist.  :think:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KnightofChrist

Mmkk. Ill take my leave. have fun everyone

 

Well I hope I've not offend you. I was merely trying to encourage critical thought or thinking of the claim that Bill Nye is a Scientist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you have patents, but you haven't been published.  Hmm...

 

I'd say based on this limited information that in the broad sense, you are a scientist!  Congrats! :winner: :bravo:

 

However, I'm not sure you'd be a proper scientist in the professional sense, as opposed to just someone working for a scientist.  :think:

 

Wait so crosscut is a scientist for making patents but Bill Nye is not?  His professional work is also displayed in a museum.  Wiki didn't indicate if he had any publications, but I believe he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KnightofChrist

Wait so crosscut is a scientist for making patents but Bill Nye is not?  His professional work is also displayed in a museum.  Wiki didn't indicate if he had any publications, but I believe he does.

 

I repeat the same question I asked of others. What type of Scientist do you believe Bill Nye to be, and what evidence is there of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye#Scientific_work

 

 

 

Nye holds several United States patents,[45] including one for ballet pointe shoes[39] and another for an educational magnifying glass created by filling a clear plastic bag with water.[46][47] From 2001 to 2006 Nye served as Frank H.T. Rhodes Class of '56 University Professor at Cornell University.[10][48] Nye supported the 2006 reclassification of Pluto fromplanet to dwarf planet by the International Astronomical Union.[49]

 

Edited by CrossCuT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Nye is a flooping scientist. 

 

Because he has a patent on ballet shoes and a toy magnifying glass?  So he's a toy scientist?  Or maybe a ballet scientist? 

 

There's no evidence of actual research, therefore still not a scientist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So anyone else want to bash their head in at Ken's "observational" and "historical" sciences he pulled out of thin air, as well as his attacking of disproven parts of Darwin's evolutionary theories?  You know, the parts that scientists have disproven as our understanding of evolution has, pardon the pun, evolved.

 

(And yes, this is me asking people to play nice or I'll throw this thing to the Debate Table.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he has a patent on ballet shoes and a toy magnifying glass?  So he's a toy scientist?  Or maybe a ballet scientist? 

 

There's no evidence of actual research, therefore still not a scientist. 

 

There is science behind ballet shoes, believe it or not.

There is science behind pretty much everything. Even if you dont deem something WORTHY, it just means youre unaware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...