lost highway Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271648691/watch-the-creationism-vs-evolution-debate-bill-nye-and-ken-ham No it's not the first time this has been hashed out, but it's being hashed out by two of the most popular champions of their respective sides. Very entertaining. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 It was a joke. It wasn't a debate. Ham was basically this guy: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 Ham says essentially: There's a difference between historical science and observational science. As I demonstrated there are astronomers who observe space today that have not problem accepting the history from Genesis. They use science to observe phenomenon now, but not historical science which is to project explanations on the past when you weren't there. God is our best authority because he was there. Nye says: But you are studying the past. That's all astronomy is. It takes many, many years for the light from the stars you are observing to reach the earth. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Did Ham actually say that? That statement is almost poetic in its stupidity. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Not a direct quote, but his main premise of "observational science" vs. "historical science" was an absolute joke and lost highway did a good job summing it up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
twoshedsjackson Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 For all his good intentions, I think Nye made a mistake in participating. Most real scientists won't engage these people because doing so implies that there's actually something to debate. It lends creationism a completely undeserved air of legitimacy. For instance, CNN's coverage was under the heading "Creationism vs Evolution: The Debate Heats Up". It's maddening. Creationists are deeply, willfully ignorant and proud of it. I couldn't care less about them until they start trying to push it on others via politics and education. Unfortunately they're constantly doing so. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I've heard that argument and I vehemently disagree. To not debate would be interpreted as being afraid or having something to hide. I doubt too many minds were changed last night, but if any were, I have got to believe it was on the side of science. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RaspberryJam Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I'm a rabid evolutionist. But, listening last night, I realized that evolutionary science is pretty complicated stuff, even when explained by Bill Nye. Maybe for some people who can't or don't want to think in an advanced way, it's easier to accept creationism. Both sort of require a leap of faith. Creationism requires faith that one book written millennia ago and translated several times is the word of God and holds all the answers. Evolutionism requires faith that we may not know all of the answers of the universe, but the answer is out there somewhere and we'll find it if we just look long and hard enough. I was a little disappointed in Bill Nye when he kind of implied that science precludes the existence of God. I wish that he could have said that we don't know why life and evolution happened, and that maybe there could be a "higher power" or "God" (or whatever term doesn't offend people) that had a hand in it. I think he may have lost a lot of people that way, to imply that one can't believe in God and science at the same time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I didn't catch that implication, but I was busy having my own debate on FB and did not hear every word. I am a Christian and a believer in evolution. I would like to hear a debate between Mr. Ham and a faithful Biblical scholar who doesn't believe that Genesis was meant to be literal, scientific truth. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
twoshedsjackson Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I've heard that argument and I vehemently disagree. To not debate would be interpreted as being afraid or having something to hide. I doubt too many minds were changed last night, but if any were, I have got to believe it was on the side of science.So where do we draw the line as to what should be dignified with a response? How much time would you waste trying to convince someone that the earth isn't flat? It's just not worth the effort, and the only people who'd consider you "afraid" for not debating are the same cretins whose minds will never change anyway. Leave them to their fantasies and move on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 They want to dictate educational policy and speak loudly. Rational people must make our voices heard. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
twoshedsjackson Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 They want to dictate educational policy and speak loudly. Rational people must make our voices heard.Oh, I totally agree with you. They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near public office large or small. Look at the bullshit they were/are pulling in Texas with the text books - all it took was a few loons getting elected to a school board. Or consider the batch of GOP candidates during the last election. Or some who sit on the House "Science " committee. It's dangerous. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 you're being awfully dramatic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
twoshedsjackson Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 you're being awfully dramaticSpoken like someone who hasn't been paying attention. Reading, while challenging for some, is always worth the effort. I suggest you try it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Oh, I totally agree with you. They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near public office large or small. Look at the bullshit they were/are pulling in Texas with the text books - all it took was a few loons getting elected to a school board. Or consider the batch of GOP candidates during the last election. Or some who sit on the House "Science " committee. It's dangerous. Fortunately, they aren't able to pull anything in Texas. The science textbooks that were approved teach evolution and have no mention of creationism or "alternate theories." Plus, the selection process of the committees that look over textbooks was changed to avoid the problems that were recently faced. The issue came up with the science books because creationists and religious zealots who were elected to the school board were able to put unqualified people on the review committees who had no experience or qualifications in any science fields. That won't happen anymore. Plus, the past chairman of the state board, who was a big time creationist, lost his reelection bid. It's still a problem, though. But I think the direction of the public is finally pointed the right way, at least. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I think civil debate is pretty much always a good idea. in this case it helps shed light on what a ridiculous idea it is to teach school children one version of magic alongside the science of evolution (for the sake of disclosure, I believe in a higher power, but it doesn't have an autobiography). In order for there to be any real balance, the schools would need to teach evolution and every other corresponding theory of how we all got here, however outlandish. Seems like such a simple first amendment issue to me, but I think the more we can get pro-creationsists on the record, the better. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I think civil debate is pretty much always a good idea. in this case it helps shed light on what a ridiculous idea it is to teach school children one version of magic alongside the science of evolution (for the sake of disclosure, I believe in a higher power, but it doesn't have an autobiography). In order for there to be any real balance, the schools would need to teach evolution and every other corresponding theory of how we all got here, however outlandish. Seems like such a simple first amendment issue to me, but I think the more we can get pro-creationsists on the record, the better. It is a First Amendment issue. Teaching creationism or anything of its ilk has been ruled unconstitutional again and again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I believe in a higher power, but it doesn't have an autobiography Sure it does. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I read that as "By Larry Bird and Bob Dylan" I probably still wouldn't read it though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I believe in a combination of the two. Kind of like the hermaphrodite of origination theory, if you will. With a lot of other stuff thrown in the mix, too, though. I'm more interested in covering all my bases, in the end. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I believe in a combination of the two. Kind of like the hermaphrodite of origination theory, if you will. With a lot of other stuff thrown in the mix, too, though. I'm more interested in covering all my bases, in the end. That's irresponsible. And unscientific. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 C'est la vie.....Irresponsible to whom, btw? Myself?! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 C'est la vie.....Irresponsible to whom, btw? Myself?! Thought you were referring to the teaching of, and not whatever your personal beliefs are. My apologies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Thought you were referring to the teaching of, and not whatever your personal beliefs are. My apologies.Ah. No worries. I don't teach Religion. Just Math, Science, Social Studies, Writing, Reading, English Language Development, personal safety, hygiene, social skills, etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I thought he was referring to a combination of Larry Bird and Bob Dylan. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.