Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Feb 4, 2014.
Bill Nye via KO rd 2
dope thats tonight?
4 more hours!!!
oh i see action!
so far its been excellent
i think bill nye had a far more compelling argument.
Of course he did.
yeah i think it was pretty 1 sided in regards to the question at hand.
very interesting though and i enjoyed it. I learned some things on both sides.
I thought it was a pretty decent debate as well. ham would have done better if he would have left out his young earth stuff. but then again there was a lot of strawmen and assumption of position on Nyes part.
both did well tho.
I felt that Ham was on the defense too much. He spent too much time explaining things that had nothing to do with the question, I think he could have done better if hed of just stuck to the topic on gone on offense. But he spent a lot of time arguing semantics being on the defense. He didnt get much time to actually make his point. Which was odd because he did go first.
i really enjoyed the debate though. That was good shit.
ken had some good points but when asked if anything would convince him otherwise he said no, nothing could convince him. Even pure evidence would not convince him
bill nye said he could be convinced if anyone showed the evidence. He is willing to believe but doesnt because there is no evidence....
so basicall ham is like, "NO! Im right! and you cant change my mind ever" stompin his feet like a kid.
and Bill is like "Cool! what youre saying is amazing, where is the evidence though? until thats there i dont believe it"
bill seems more reasonable here
i got about 40 mins in and called it quits
i will proibably finish it some other time
ham's distinction between historical and observational science actually undermines one of the fundamental concepts of science. science (of any kind, past or present) basically assumes that there are patterns in nature governed by universal laws and that they can be observed and tested against. without this assumption there is nothing left of science. with it, you have to assume that the universal laws which apply now also applied in the past. that's just the way it is. otherwise, you can't very well say anything concrete about gravity since what went down today might go up tomorrow.
also, his assertion that the biblical 'kind' is roughly around the taxonomic level of 'family' sparked some interest. let's see here:
not sure if he created a caveat for this later in his speech but at least he had the balls to try to define 'kind' scientifically, which is more than i can say for any other creationist i've seen.
there is a lot of misguided people thought this debate would solve something....
I knew from jump that if his young earth position was brought up it would destroy all chance of him getting any of his other points out. lennox or turek should have taken his place but what can u do.
However on Nyes point that Creationism doesnt make predictions was retarded. it predicts the universe had a first cause-the cause came from outside the universe- the cause is free from the restraints of time- the cause exists outside of our dimension and predicts there will be more than 3 among many many other things
i think his point was that you cant read the bible or genesis or whatever they were discussing and then be able to predict scientific outcomes from it.
you cant use it as a model to predict shit....
Sure u can.
well youre not going to get a discussion about it from me, i dont actually know what Bill Nye meant there
Thats what im sayin. Bill Nyes arguement rested on his own understanding of what creationism theory was. An to be fair ham didnt really do much to help him understand any of it.
well according to bill nye you cant make a prediction, i think he means that science provides evidence thats recreate-able, anyone can do the experiment and it will produce predictable results, and using the knowledge gained can predict other results in other experiments... so i think hes saying in a round about way, there is not enough evidence to make creationism plausible because their facts are uncheckable(referring for example to where bill comments on how there is no animals inbetween the layers which would indicate that the great flood happened, ken could not provide any because there isnt any found) and cannot be used to base predictable science off of...... i just cant comment really because i dont know much about evolution beyond a classroom setting and i know less about the bible/genesis/christian creationism beyond what ive read on here really. I also dont pretend to know what Bill meant there. I only watched this 1 time. Im not here to discuss about how i forgot something or mis-remembered something. I dont have enough knowledge on it to argue much about it. But listening to Bill here, to me he clearly won the debate over all. Id bet that there were more people on the creationist side who had conflicting thoughts after this debate than "evolutionists" were turned to creationism.
I think neither may be perfect. But science has the more convincing argument by far.... Im a believer in higher powers, but nothing has made me ever negate science. If anything It can and will eventually be proven by science. Which will be weird. Putting numbers to the "magic" (for the lack of a better term).
there willl be a day where it will all be explained by science and math
Such as it predicts that matter will never come from non matter, that the cause for the big bang came from outside of the universe, that everyone today can be traced back to the same family of genes, that there was a global flood, that man has a spirit, those are all predictions.
Separate names with a comma.