Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

Chat about anything
User avatar
Sebastian Lawe
Moderator
Posts: 2534
Joined: October 17th, 2012, 7:58 am
Design Competitions Voted: 0
Contact:

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

Postby Sebastian Lawe » March 3rd, 2014, 2:37 pm

Its a long watch, but feel free to share your opinion if you get a chance to finish it.
[media=youtube]k9yQEG7mlTU[/media]

User avatar
Entity
Editorial Staff
Posts: 3097
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 9:41 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby Entity » March 3rd, 2014, 7:18 pm

I haven't watched it yet (and I'm going to, but I can't tonight because I have a bunch of stuff due tmw...).

What are your thoughts though?
:crate:
:crate: :crate:
:crate: :crate: :crate:

User avatar
Sebastian Lawe
Moderator
Posts: 2534
Joined: October 17th, 2012, 7:58 am
Design Competitions Voted: 0
Contact:

Postby Sebastian Lawe » March 4th, 2014, 1:38 pm

Entity wrote:I haven't watched it yet (and I'm going to, but I can't tonight because I have a bunch of stuff due tmw...).

What are your thoughts though?


I was rather disappointed to be honest. I was expecting an intelligent argument from both sides, and that just didn't happen. For example, Bill Nye canceled out the possibility of creationism with two simple math calculations (in relation to the earth being only 6000 years old like the bible says), and Ken Ham didn't combat that. He responded saying that Bill Nye was wrong because the bible is true, and that the earth isn't older than 6000 years old.

The math calculation took the ice layers of the arctic, in relation to the four seasons, and then 6000 years. Bill Nye said, that for the world to be 6000 years old like the bible says, we would need to have 170 seasons a year for the past 6000 years. Thats just one example. There are plenty of others.

Bill Nye came in with facts, Ken Ham didn't.

User avatar
Baufritz
Well-Known Member
Posts: 1297
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 9:36 am
Location: Trapped on a huge round rock hurtling with immense speeds around a fiery star.
Design Competitions Voted: 2
Contact:

Postby Baufritz » March 4th, 2014, 2:54 pm

Sebastian Lawe wrote:Bill Nye came in with facts, Ken Ham didn't.


This.
If it's broken, fix it.
If it isn't broken, I'll soon fix that.

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5415
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » March 4th, 2014, 5:24 pm

I have always found this "Creationism vs. Evolution" to be an odd debate. It often leans towards each side for some reason feeling that they must prove themselves right to the community of the other side. I understand the point of a debate, but this seems like a rather uneventful topic to debate. It's not going to curve world hunger, improve our technology, limit costs, protect civil rights - especially since not much is really done with the information taken away - because everyone who enter already is set in what they believe, so why debate it?

I don't mean to be a downer on the very premise of the debate, but it's something that has never sat comfortably with me enough to enjoy something like this. Even as a person who sort of considers themselves a believer in evolution, a debate like this doesn't really do much for me - I accept that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and trying to convince others that was you believe is right often leads down a worse path than just accepting the differences :)
Image

User avatar
Entity
Editorial Staff
Posts: 3097
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 9:41 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby Entity » March 5th, 2014, 7:47 pm

Sebastian Lawe wrote:I was rather disappointed to be honest. I was expecting an intelligent argument from both sides, and that just didn't happen. For example, Bill Nye canceled out the possibility of creationism with two simple math calculations (in relation to the earth being only 6000 years old like the bible says), and Ken Ham didn't combat that. He responded saying that Bill Nye was wrong because the bible is true, and that the earth isn't older than 6000 years old.

The math calculation took the ice layers of the arctic, in relation to the four seasons, and then 6000 years. Bill Nye said, that for the world to be 6000 years old like the bible says, we would need to have 170 seasons a year for the past 6000 years. Thats just one example. There are plenty of others.

Bill Nye came in with facts, Ken Ham didn't.


Here's what Ken said in relation to the snow ice: There's an assumption going on that 1 layer would have had to have been lain per year. But Bill didn't give any evidence for that, he just assumed it. (in other words why must there be 1 layer per year? Why couldn't there be 170 layers per year? A layer of ice could be lain in an hour!)

And one thing Bill kept saying, that Ken addressed, but Bill kept saying, was "science will not advance if we believe in Creationism." Here's an exact quote from the end of the debate:

[quote="Bill Nye]And I just wanna close by reminding everybody what's at stake here. If we abandon all that we've learned"]

Everything Bill says in this statement is true. However, he's being deceptive, and he did this throughout the whole debate. He's trying to paint believing in Creationism as "abandoning all that we've learned."

Although I guess I can give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe Bill just didn't understand what Ken said. Ken very clearly stated that there's a difference between historical science and observational science. Historical science is science you can't prove, and it's what the debate was about. Observational science, on the other hand, is where we get our technology. Even if Creationism was false, just because you believed in it wouldn't stop progress. Creationists have played a vital role in science (MRI scanner invented by Creationist, Isaac Newton was a creationist etc...)
:crate:
:crate: :crate:
:crate: :crate: :crate:

User avatar
Sebastian Lawe
Moderator
Posts: 2534
Joined: October 17th, 2012, 7:58 am
Design Competitions Voted: 0
Contact:

Postby Sebastian Lawe » March 5th, 2014, 8:48 pm

Entity wrote:Creationists have played a vital role in science (MRI scanner invented by Creationist, Isaac Newton was a creationist etc...)


The debate wasn't about whether creationists could be scientists. It was about whether or not Creationism itself is viable as a science.

User avatar
ElectroYoshi
Well-Known Member
Posts: 11061
Joined: October 18th, 2012, 8:27 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby ElectroYoshi » March 5th, 2014, 9:36 pm

Entity wrote:Even if Creationism was false, just because you believed in it wouldn't stop progress.


Very true. The head pastor at my church believes in both creationism AND evolution. :P
I need a shot again, that sweet adrenaline.

User avatar
Entity
Editorial Staff
Posts: 3097
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 9:41 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby Entity » March 5th, 2014, 10:49 pm

Sebastian Lawe wrote:The debate wasn't about whether creationists could be scientists. It was about whether or not Creationism itself is viable as a science.


Well Bill Nye seemed to think so, because he repeated that point multiple times.
:crate:
:crate: :crate:
:crate: :crate: :crate:

User avatar
Sebastian Lawe
Moderator
Posts: 2534
Joined: October 17th, 2012, 7:58 am
Design Competitions Voted: 0
Contact:

Postby Sebastian Lawe » March 6th, 2014, 12:12 am

Entity wrote:Well Bill Nye seemed to think so, because he repeated that point multiple times.


I had to check back to the video to see if that was true. He said that we can't let creationism be seen as a viable science. Not that scientists can't be creationists.

Why couldn't there be 170 layers per year? A layer of ice could be lain in an hour!)

I just noticed something wrong with that.
How thick is each layer of ice? The thickness plays a part too (though I'll admit he didn't give a thickness).

I'll have to check and see if I can find the thickness based on that metric of 170 layers of ice per year, and see if the thickness per layer sounds realistic.

Edit: 10 inches of ice would be produced daily. That would be 4080 inches of ice per year, always stacking on its predecessor.

In my cold country of Canada, we get tons of ice, but its never more than an inch or two high per winter.

User avatar
Entity
Editorial Staff
Posts: 3097
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 9:41 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby Entity » March 6th, 2014, 12:25 pm

Sebastian Lawe wrote:I had to check back to the video to see if that was true. He said that we can't let creationism be seen as a viable science. Not that scientists can't be creationists.


[quote="Bill Nye]And I just wanna close by reminding everybody what's at stake here. If we abandon all that we've learned"]

Either he's randomly saying "we shouldn't give up science" completely out of the blue, or he's saying that believing in Creationism is "abandoning all we've learned."

[quote="Sebane]I just noticed something wrong with that.
How thick is each layer of ice? The thickness plays a part too (though I'll admit he didn't give a thickness).

I'll have to check and see if I can find the thickness based on that metric of 170 layers of ice per year"]

10 inches of ice per day would be 3,650 inches per year. Over 6,000 years alone that would be 345 miles...
:crate:
:crate: :crate:
:crate: :crate: :crate:

User avatar
Sebastian Lawe
Moderator
Posts: 2534
Joined: October 17th, 2012, 7:58 am
Design Competitions Voted: 0
Contact:

Postby Sebastian Lawe » March 6th, 2014, 1:15 pm

Entity wrote:10 inches of ice per day would be 3,650 inches per year. Over 6,000 years alone that would be 345 miles...


Now the question is, is 345 mile thick ice over 6000 years reasonable. Eg: is a bigger number more reasonable, or is a smaller number (I don't have the answer).

On another note.
I don't understand why Ken Ham didn't challenge Bill Nye's calculation like you did. Ignoring the bias both sides of the debate had, I give Bill Nye props on at least having facts (no matter the accuracy). You would have done better than Ken Ham, as you're actually trying to pick apart Bill Nye's arguments.

User avatar
Entity
Editorial Staff
Posts: 3097
Joined: November 29th, 2012, 9:41 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby Entity » March 6th, 2014, 2:48 pm

Sebastian Lawe wrote:On another note.
I don't understand why Ken Ham didn't challenge Bill Nye's calculation like you did. Ignoring the bias both sides of the debate had, I give Bill Nye props on at least having facts (no matter the accuracy). You would have done better than Ken Ham, as you're actually trying to pick apart Bill Nye's arguments.


None of the actual facts Bill Nye presented actually contradict Creationism. (For example, he didn't declare or prove in any way the fact that "1 layer of ice is formed per year.") Like Ken Ham said, "we have the same evidence, but we just interpret it differently. It's impossible to prove anything using historical science."
:crate:
:crate: :crate:
:crate: :crate: :crate:

User avatar
Sebastian Lawe
Moderator
Posts: 2534
Joined: October 17th, 2012, 7:58 am
Design Competitions Voted: 0
Contact:

Postby Sebastian Lawe » March 6th, 2014, 4:00 pm

Entity wrote:It's impossible to prove anything using historical science."

And vice versa with what the bible says. It kind of urked me that Ken Ham said the worlds age cannot be measured, but would then go on to say that the world is 6000 years old, with about the same amount of proof Bill Nye had.

User avatar
Radiumus
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: February 13th, 2014, 7:11 pm

Postby Radiumus » March 7th, 2014, 6:39 pm

One word:Whats you favorite color?

User avatar
Sebastian Lawe
Moderator
Posts: 2534
Joined: October 17th, 2012, 7:58 am
Design Competitions Voted: 0
Contact:

Postby Sebastian Lawe » March 7th, 2014, 6:53 pm

Indigo

User avatar
12'sTheLimit
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: December 23rd, 2013, 3:10 pm

Postby 12'sTheLimit » March 8th, 2014, 10:41 am

I watched this live when it first aired (although I did pause it so it wasn't live really). Here is a few comments.

@Sebastian Lawe: Ham using the Bible has no fault because if you a creationist (well, really a Christian) you must believe all of the Bible because the Bible says that the entire Bible is true ("Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." - Psalm 119:160), also Nye kept saying "Ken Ham's -insert you name it here-"he was trying to attack Ham more than prove his side of the debate.

@ElectroYoshi: You say your pastor is a creationist and a evolutionist (also called progressive creationism), but the question is what do you believe, because (if your a Christian) you must believe what the Bible says (Psalm 119:160, stated above) and nothing else (not even you pastor) without proof from the Bible (at least to a extent, i.e. I'm not saying that George Washington did not exist because the Bible doesn't say so). And the Bible says that the world was created and never says it evolved. ("In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - Genesis 1:1; And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. - Genesis 1:26)

http://www.thecaseforacreator.com/

User avatar
ElectroYoshi
Well-Known Member
Posts: 11061
Joined: October 18th, 2012, 8:27 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby ElectroYoshi » March 8th, 2014, 12:39 pm

12'sTheLimit wrote:@ElectroYoshi: You say your pastor is a creationist and a evolutionist (also called progressive creationism), but the question is what do you believe, because (if your a Christian) you must believe what the Bible says (Psalm 119:160, stated above) and nothing else (not even you pastor) without proof from the Bible (at least to a extent, i.e. I'm not saying that George Washington did not exist because the Bible doesn't say so). And the Bible says that the world was created and never says it evolved. ("In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - Genesis 1:1; And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. - Genesis 1:26)


You raise some good points, but I do think it's worth mentioning that I'm more of a methodist than your typical conservative Christian. The latter case preaches that God created all things and everything about them, but methodism only preaches the latter.

I.E. An animal's creation is the work of God, but it's evolution is not.
I need a shot again, that sweet adrenaline.

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5415
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » March 8th, 2014, 1:23 pm

ElectroYoshi wrote:You raise some good points, but I do think it's worth mentioning that I'm more of a methodist than your typical conservative Christian. The latter case preaches that God created all things and everything about them, but methodism only preaches the latter.

I.E. An animal's creation is the work of God, but it's evolution is not.

Oh, I see - so sort of a deity kick start to the universe? Similarly to the thoughts big bang theory - an event/progression that lead to where we are today. It is more of a neutral thought, and although I don't prescribe to it, I think it's a very very interesting thought :)
Image

User avatar
12'sTheLimit
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: December 23rd, 2013, 3:10 pm

Postby 12'sTheLimit » March 11th, 2014, 4:40 pm

Phantomboy wrote:I have always found this "Creationism vs. Evolution" to be an odd debate. It often leans towards each side for some reason feeling that they must prove themselves right to the community of the other side. I understand the point of a debate, but this seems like a rather uneventful topic to debate. It's not going to curve world hunger, improve our technology, limit costs, protect civil rights - especially since not much is really done with the information taken away - because everyone who enter already is set in what they believe, so why debate it?

I don't mean to be a downer on the very premise of the debate, but it's something that has never sat comfortably with me enough to enjoy something like this. Even as a person who sort of considers themselves a believer in evolution, a debate like this doesn't really do much for me - I accept that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and trying to convince others that was you believe is right often leads down a worse path than just accepting the differences :)


Ken Ham answers this in the debate himself with his illustration of a world made by evolution has no definite right or wrong and there is no reason for anything. Whereas a world made by God has God's rules and a reason for each and every thing. And if there is no God there is no reason to do what he want so you can do what you want. That is why the theory of evolution was invented so its maker and follower would not have to answer to God. And this is why we should debate it because it is a matter of life and death - If there is no God there is no Heaven and there is no Hell. When you die that is it. If there is a God you must believe in Heaven and also in Hell and if you are not saved your destination is the later and there is but one way to escape it and that is to be saved through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Registered users: No registered users