Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham on evolution and creationism: At some point a real science guy would realize that creationism cannot be properly debated. It is not falsifiable, it is not experimentally verifiable and any evidence held against it may very well be claimed as evidence for it based on extra-natural methods that are beyond our comprehension. This does not make it wrong, it makes it a matter of faith. Of course a real science guy would also see the striking parallel between this and the notion of anthropogenic global warming. It is not falsifiable, it is not experimentally verifiable and any evidence against it is simply (and absurdly) held as evidence for it. This also makes it a matter of faith. Except in this instance they have decided that where a faith in God is inadequate to substantiate beliefs one in Al Gore is infallible.
This post was last modified on February 5, 2014
View Comments (20)
Lets hope one of Nye's lame assed science experiments blows up in his face.
Are they debating creationism or intelligent design? Because the latter is a highly quantifiable scientific concept that lends itself to debate. And wins. If you truly look at the issues with an open mind, ID beats Evolution hands down. Even Darwin seems to agree that there are flaws in his theory. Generally, Evolutionists will not debate ID proponents because they know they will lose -Nye is simply an idiot which is why he probably acquiesced to this ill-considered debate.
Darwin made his theory in the 19th century, circa 150 years ago, not surprising at all he could not figure out how the whole process work.
Today´s science remains incomplete, the field of physics in particular. We do have a religious idea disguised as science, the so-called Big Bang, you won´t hear for example that Hubble´s own theory that the redshift of the galaxy was not due to growing distance.
Science is observing then making theory, what revolved around the Big Bang goes the other way around, make everything fit the theory instead, what may contradict the belief won´t get fundings.
Earthquakes and volcanic activies are increasing, the core of the Earth has warmed up by 1000 degrees in the last 20 years http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425142355.htm and no, it is not the only planet in the system that is seeing changes. There is a storm coming.
Literal global warming! HAHAHAHA
Interestingly enough (for what it is worth and if I recall correctly) the idea of the big bang was initially strongly resisted by "serious scientists" (so much so that they called it "the big bang" as a term of derision) because it necessitated that the universe had a beginning. That it had a point of creation. And that some unknown quantity must have, at the very least, set that creation into motion. Given Hawking's recent acrobatics to show how he believes that the universe could have created itself from nothing it would seem that the big bang speculation is still causing them a healthy amount of consternation.
It amazes me that Hawking is taken seriously.
PBS ran a special on him. His electronic voice presenting a biography o f his life and discoveries. He was arrogant, self aggrandizing and annoying, even with an electronic voice synthesizer. He must be a delight to work with!
Even worse than Sheldon on Big Bang Theory.
Oh Sheldon would be Man of the Year in comparison! OF course, Sheldon idolizes Hawking. THat may be part of his problem!
I have a theory of my own, the too-big-to-fail theory.
Put simply, too much researchs and credibility have now been invested in the Big Bang, if it fails it will have rather negative consequences on the whole field of physics and those making a career of it.
It isn´t just the system that doesn´t want too much waves and people asking too many questions, scientists themselves have to make a living. The problem does not lay in science but in human behaviour.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/not-so-fast-second-experiment-refutes-faster-than-light-particles/2012/03/16/gIQAqYLkGS_story.html
See this? When I heard the news of the first experiment, I knew this would happen, that an "explanation" would be found to support the status-quo.
Future results that makes holes in the too-big-to-fail theory?
Our instrumens where simply wrong the first time, so we recalibrated until we got a new result.
Only one can be correct and we do not need to verify anything because we know well which answer is correct. That is how science is supposed to work.
Posted the above before reading this. This is exactly what I meant, Howcan something not be, then be,with no previous entity, ingredients, etc to cause the start of creation. How could the universe just . . .begin? That is senseless to me, though I admit I am not a physics person by a long shot.
Hey Rose!
Hey Kip! What's happenin'?
I am a Christian and am comfortable in stating that I agree that everything (humans, plants, animals, solar systems, etc) has evolved from something and that I think intelligent design is the best theory around. Even the Bible says that man came from the dust and that God made everything in a very systematic order. Whether that took 6 days or 600 billion years does not matter to me--I'm here by His grace and mercy. And if anyone chooses to disagree with me, I'm okay with that, too. I'm not here to judge anyone for believing or disbelieving.
What I am still waiting for is a sound explanation from the "strict" evolutionists (who don't believe in ID) to tell me how something came from nothing--it all had to start somewhere.
That's aways been my point. God created everything (apologies to the atheists in the group.) He did not give me a detailed description of exactly how that was done. Though many of the "discoveries" about the beginning of the universe, and the development of life on earth especially, correlate with the first Genesis description. Do you look like an amoeba? Then obviously there has been some evolution of life. I just think God was the planner. Recently hearing Whazzis name talk about the big bang theory made me think "and THIS makes sense how?"
I've no issue with evolution being a tool of ID. It makes sense. But then again a universe could hardly be built out of what makes sense to me.
What does it take to be a scientist? I guess it is the same thing as being a reverend, anyone can call himself one.
Bill Nye, failed comedy writer with a degree in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell University. Apparently that is enough to have figured the universe and G-d's plan out.
Good question. I know a good number of engineers and scientists and they don't much like it that the terms are often considered to be interchangeable. In some ways it reminds me of the rivalry between cops and firefighters that I've also known. Mostly good natured, but serious none the less.
As for Nye most of what I've been able to find about his education seems intended to make it seem that he is an engineer but his degree is not in engineering. So he may have studied it and he may even have worked in the field but I'm not certain that he can be called one. IMHO.
"Bill Nye the Science Guy" sounds a lot snappier than "Bill Nye the Leftist Pseudo-Science Hack." It's all about packaging.
No, creationism isn't purely scientific. But eugenics IS purely scientific. And that's why I don't want to live in a world of pure science.
Bill Nye is merely a wrong headed leftist. He is so focused on being right, he fails to see the facts.