Selah Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Why is it sad? I mean yes, pray for his conversion, but do you mean he should change his views on evolution? Because, um, no :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 So I was up last night and I was able to watch about 2 hours of the 2h 45m debate. I thought they both spoke very well. Both were organized and expressed equal enthusiasm on the topic. I tried really hard to not allow my bias to filter how I listened to the talks, but the way I saw it, Ham was continually saying how the problem is in terms; how they are defined etc. He seemingly defined them in a way that made it easier to fit in his non scientific view. He spent quite some time talking about how scientists can be Creationists and then proceeded to give examples. Thats fine, you can be a scientists and believe in creationism, that really wasnt what the debate was about though. It was if whether or not Creationism is a good model for thinking about the origins of the world. He presented no science. He presented the Bible...literally....word for word. As Catholics, (at least the majority if I am not mistaken) we dont believe in the literal translation of Genesis. In a seminar series I attended with Jeff Cavins, he spoke about the different "voices" or modes in which certain books of the bible are presented. I cant remember all of their names because it has been quite some time since I took that series but basically....Genesis is Hebrew poetry. But that is besides the fact. The fact is, Ham came to a debate centered around a debate about the origins and which theory is the most viable. He basically said there are two kinds of science: observational and historic. We cant say what happened in the past because we werent there therefore evolution is wrong. GOD was there, God wrote the Bible therefore literal Creationism is correct. That was his whole stance. Bill Nye on the other hand presented information in a really great way to confront Hams approach specifically. He didnt say the stuff I was expecting rather he spoke of direct, observable phenomena we can see right now. This approach was something I would think Ham would appreciate since he is all about "Observable science". Nye didnt really talk about the early earth, the bombardment, the primordial beginnings etc...he simple focused on observable facts that we can see right now. He spoke about the grand canyon, shale layers, ice drilling, new species etc and how all of this related to a young earth theory and basically how (in a very simple, logistical way) how none of this added up IF earth actually was 6000 years old. As far as the debaters themselves were concerned, I felt it was well matched. They were both knowledgeable of their own take on the subject. I thought it was very unmatched in the sense that they were not on the same logic playing field. Ham didnt present any evidence of creationism. He just used the Bible....which simply isnt enough evidence for scientific conclusion. There are no scientific tests that have ever been run that support creationism or a young earth theory. If there were...he sure didnt utilize this knowledge. I also found it sad that he would very often answer a question by referring the audience to the Creation Museums website. But Im still going to finish the last 45 mins! These are my initial thoughts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) He spent quite some time talking about how scientists can be Creationists and then proceeded to give examples. Thats fine, you can be a scientists and believe in creationism, that really wasnt what the debate was about though. It was if whether or not Creationism is a good model for thinking about the origins of the world. Interesting... thanks for your summary. Did Ham really say that bit about "you could be a scientist and still..."? He, he ,he... little does he know... Edited February 7, 2014 by NotreDame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Interesting... thanks for your summary. Did Ham really say that bit about "you could be a scientist and still..."? He, he ,he... little does he know... Well I can agree and disagree. Its a very odd and seemingly opposite stance to think that a scientist can believe in a very non scientific origin of earth. However if you kind of disregard that, you can still be a very intelligent critical thinker...its just that you have very strong religious convictions that youre unwilling to budge on. Although...Ham showed a video comment from a microbiologist who basically said that all bacteria posses all the DNA in the world apparently...and that they just turn on and off genes. Which is like...200% false. Bacteria are super cray cray cool in that they can take up different bacterial plasmids and incorporate them into their own genome. Also the idea of random mutation appears to allude this microbiologist...I dont even know how he is a microbiologist if he doesnt understand the fundamentals of these mechanisms. Its hard to just say "Oh youre a creationist? Youre a bad scientist blah blah blah". I think it really depends on an individual basis and how deep and how much of the creationist stuff they believe in. I feel like creationism is very variable depending on who you are speaking to with the one exception that they believe God made us all and popped us on the earth in an instant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I was making a joke about Ken Ham using the term scientist so haphazardly in light of this thread... I should have included the irony smiley :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 PS. If you turned the debate into a drinking game and took a shot every time Bull Nye used the word "extraordinary" ...you would be dead. :hehe2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 PS. If you turned the debate into a drinking game and took a shot every time Bull Nye used the word "extraordinary" ...you would be dead. :hehe2: Even if it wasn't a drinking game, I'd have to drink every time I heard either of them use the word "scientist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I just loved when Bill started fanboying over the color green xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 For the record, this really seems more like the territory of philosophers than these "scientists". As mortify pointed out earlier, we can't rule out an element of the supernatural. We all could have been created 10 minutes ago for all we know... or 6000 years ago.... or trillions of years ago... It's Ham's literal interpretation of the bible that causes my problems with him. For the atheists, any pointing to science as "proof" that there is no supernatural, they are in a boat without a paddle - I mean, even Dawkins admits he can't say for sure there isn't a God (because, of course, even Atheists require a bit of "faith".) From where I sit, believing in a finite amount of matter, existing in an infinite, eternal "space" that just happened to "be" isn't any more rational than believing in a prime mover. And if you don't believe this "space" we inhabit was "eternal", well then, you have a creation idea in your head of "something from nothing" that is no more rational than Ken Ham's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 My basic opinion is that Ham would have fared better to debate a theologian. The entire basis of Hams defense was that he used the bible and a literal interpretation of Creation history through Genesis. Bill Nye and Ham were basically sword fighting on different planes. One person was debating using facts and science while the other was using a Biblical narrative. The two views were not compatible for a debate on the topic...well Bill Nye's defense was very compatible but Ham was falling short. He frequently dodged questions, presented no scientific data to defend his "scientific" stance on origins, and simply referred back to the bible as this circular crutch. Bill Nye even said that he would be more than happy...in fact he would be excited to change his view on the origins if the Creationists could present 1 piece of evidence. Just one. Ham presented no evidence. Just the Bible. That tactic is much more suited to a theological debate, not a scientific one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Ham presented no evidence. Just the Bible. That's really strange considering he's a scientist. :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Even if it wasn't a drinking game, I'd have to drink every time I heard either of them use the word "scientist." You really need to stop with that subject. Youre just plain wrong Im sorry ND. If you looked into Bill Nye's career you would see that he is very clearly a scientist. In fact his first job was working at Boeing as an engineer that spent a lot of time working on 747s. He developed parts for the planes that are still used today. His career has since gone in many different directions but youre very strange view of what a scientist is seems to hinge on very insignificant and even juvenile details. I can do nothing but dismiss your petulant argument as some ego trip or jealous oversight that has something to do with your own malcontent in your engineering background. You clearly have a very narrow view of the world and it is sad. And thats all I have left to say on the topic. :| If you want to further discuss it with me you can PM me. I apologize if that came off as rude, Im really just trying to level with you because its clear that you wont budge on this so all I can do is throw up my hands and say Oh well, too bad for you. Edited February 7, 2014 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 You really need to stop with that subject. Youre just plain wrong Im sorry ND. If you looked into Bill Nye's career you would see that he is very clearly a scientist. In fact his first job was working at Boeing as an engineer that spent a lot of time working on 747s. He developed parts for the planes that are still used today. His career has since gone in many different directions but youre very strange view of what a scientist is seems to hinge on very insignificant details. I can do nothing but dismiss your petulant argument as some ego trip or jealous oversight that has something to do with your own malcontent in your engineering background. You clearly have a very narrow view of the world and it is sad. And thats all I have left to say on the topic. :| If you want to further discuss it with me you can PM me. I apologize if that came off as rude, Im really just trying to level with you because its clear that you wont budge on this so all I can do is throw up my hands and say Oh well, too bad for you. So if I argue a point, i'm argumentative and stubborn... if I make a joke about it instead... then I get a response like this, jeesh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Im speaking as a whole. But anyway. YAY! I finally watched (most) of the video FP. Do you feel similarly to what i wrote in my summary? Maybe some people have a different take on the debate. Edited February 7, 2014 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 So if I argue a point, i'm argumentative and stubborn... if I make a joke about it instead... then I get a response like this, jeesh... Stop making the jokes. They're just exhausting at this point. Im speaking as a whole. Stop feeding the troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now