[mase123987]

To me, Bill is saying this: I freely admit I don't know what I don't know. That said I will only fill in what I don't know when evidence supports a viable answer.

That seems like a very reasonable answer.

[N_LaRUE]

I haven't watched the debate yet. I may download it and listen to it.

I'm going to be as civil as I can be here.

Saying that however I'd like to make something clear. Debates are not a way to prove anything. The only thing they end up proving is that one person knows how to speak better than the other. Audiences are biased, always. Very few people go into a debate expecting their opinions to be changed.

Most people don't realise that this 'debate' has been going on for some time. It's only gotten worse over the last few years as more hard lined right winged politicians, creationists leaning teachers and education departments create a debate which is not a debate. The science is there, the evidence is there, the only ones making noise are those who are 'uncomfortable' with the reality.

People talk of 'faith' of science on this thread as if it's the same idea as 'faith' in general. Sorry but you're messing up the terminology and appear to have little idea of what you speak of. Science is based on observable evidence which is repeatable, that is agreed upon and that 'works'. Faith is something you believe in regardless of evidence.

I find it hard to believe in our day and age that people can so mix up science and our understanding of it. In a time when we should be reveling in our advancements, both science wise and socially, we continually turn back to ancient texts and old age superstitions and feel they are still 'better' than what we have now. This to me is very sad, very sad indeed.

In science, there is no debate about evolution. There are debates on specifics but every scientist agrees evolution is true. We don't even need fossils, DNA tells us more and more. Even if no fossils had been found by the time we figured out DNA it would become clear to any respectable scientist that evolution is true. Keep in mind fossilization is not something that happens easily and even though most people don't realise it we have a lot of them.

Lastly, intelligent design is not a science. The 'group' that started that are religiously based and are 'creating' their own terminology and processes, none of which are agreed upon by science. It has yet to prove any of it's ideas in the time it has been going. No peer reviewed papers, no hard science, nothing. That's all I need to know about it.

One day I hope that we can move forward with our 'evolution' as a society, embrace our science more fully and be the more happier for it, sadly I see that not happening for many years to come.

[mjrtoo]

To me, Bill is saying this: I freely admit I don't know what I don't know. That said I will only fill in what I don't know when evidence supports a viable answer.

That seems like a very reasonable answer.

So you'd rather not believe in anything unproven, but yet science is filled with unproven theory. It's all the same, one you worship mankind, one you worship God.

[N_LaRUE]

To me, Bill is saying this: I freely admit I don't know what I don't know. That said I will only fill in what I don't know when evidence supports a viable answer.

That seems like a very reasonable answer.

That's science at it's basics. Science doesn't pretend to 'know' anything. It provides evidence and best information as we have it. It allows for more information to be added and better understanding as we get it. Science is flexible. To most people, that's uncomfortable.

[N_LaRUE]

So you'd rather not believe in anything unproven, but yet science is filled with unproven theory. It's all the same, one you worship mankind, one you worship God.

Incorrect. Theories are proven, hypotheses are not. Get the terminolgy correct.

[N_LaRUE]

Hmm... all my 'friends' appear to have left... :P

[psiu_glen]

I didn't watch it, but saw a few quotes this morning, and skimmed through the thread.

I think I'm rehashing what a few others have said, and it sounds like Nye pointed this out, but for a lot of people with faith, science meshes perfectly fine with their faith.

In science (or, the search for truth and understanding) most intelligent (who aren't egotistical maniacs) people know they *don't* know everything. For me, evolution is a given.

In the end, for me, nothing science does invalidates faith. If anything it strengthens it. The idea of an infinite universe? Mind blown. Faith isn't easy either -- I have doubts at times. It's something we can't prove right now. That's why it's called "faith", right?

Typing this while rocking our infant son (#2) to sleep. Nothing could put me more in awe of both evolution and God than these little critters. Tiny, perfect, little humans.

We are amazed by the new phones coming out, hold a newborn in your arms for awhile, *that* is amazing.

[Jas00555]

Alright, I just watch all 3 hours of it and as someone who isn't exactly sure what's going (I identify as a Christian, but I'm part of Bill's group of Christians that just don't know 100%), I didn't leave the debate with a clear answer. Both sides made VERY compelling arguments and I could walk away believing either side. To be frankly honest, both sides rely on some unknowns, both rely some scientific evidence, and both were just wrong at some point.

Coming at it from an "I don't exactly know" perspective, I'd have to say that Ken won the debate, although that doesn't exactly mean I believe 100% of what either side said. Most of Bill's argument in the first half were about "how could this happen in such a short amount of time", then Ken explained how, while Bill didn't refute a lot of what Ken said.

Frankly, I just have no idea and I probably won't since I'm not a scientist so I don't ponder those types of questions. Either way, it was a great debate.

[N_LaRUE]

Alright, I just watch all 3 hours of it and as someone who isn't exactly sure what's going (I identify as a Christian, but I'm part of Bill's group of Christians that just don't know 100%), I didn't leave the debate with a clear answer. Both sides made VERY compelling arguments and I could walk away believing either side. To be frankly honest, both sides rely on some unknowns, both rely some scientific evidence, and both were just wrong at some point.

Coming at it from an "I don't exactly know" perspective, I'd have to say that Ken won the debate, although that doesn't exactly mean I believe 100% of what either side said. Most of Bill's argument in the first half were about "how could this happen in such a short amount of time", then Ken explained how, while Bill didn't refute a lot of what Ken said.

Frankly, I just have no idea and I probably won't since I'm not a scientist so I don't ponder those types of questions. Either way, it was a great debate.

I still haven't seen the debate and going by some of the comments I've seen about it so far I don't think I want to. Ken Ham is a hack. You cannot use the bible, a book that has been discredited historically by bible scholars as in anyway true.

To answer your question who won, here's a link to a site with the answer: WATCH Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate VIDEO in FULL HERE: Who won Creation vs Evolution debate? [POLL] | Christian News on Christian Today

Taking the 'I don't know I'm not a scientist' approach is fine but I can recommend some books for you to read so you can gain understanding and therefore reduce your ignorance. Saying you're ignorant is not an insult by the way, there's nothing wrong for claiming ignorance. Any good scientist will claim ignorance when they don't know something. Especially when it's out of their specialty. That is the difference between a biblical literalist and a scientist. One will claim they know (the literalist) the other will tell you what they know and what they don't.

There is no 'belief' or 'faith' in science. There is what is known and what needs to be known. What is known is 'evidenced' by repeatable, testable experiments and backed by peer review which is then 'added' to the body of knowledge we currently have. Our understanding become continually broader and theories become more refined. Things that are incorrect are corrected.

[mjrtoo]

I still haven't seen the debate and going by some of the comments I've seen about it so far I don't think I want to. Ken Ham is a hack. You cannot use the bible, a book that has been discredited historically by bible scholars as in anyway true.

To answer your question who won, here's a link to a site with the answer: WATCH Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate VIDEO in FULL HERE: Who won Creation vs Evolution debate? [POLL] | Christian News on Christian Today

Taking the 'I don't know I'm not a scientist' approach is fine but I can recommend some books for you to read so you can gain understanding and therefore reduce your ignorance. Saying you're ignorant is not an insult by the way, there's nothing wrong for claiming ignorance. Any good scientist will claim ignorance when they don't know something. Especially when it's out of their specialty. That is the difference between a biblical literalist and a scientist. One will claim they know (the literalist) the other will tell you what they know and what they don't.

There is no 'belief' or 'faith' in science. There is what is known and what needs to be known. What is known is 'evidenced' by repeatable, testable experiments and backed by peer review which is then 'added' to the body of knowledge we currently have. Our understanding become continually broader and theories become more refined. Things that are incorrect are corrected.

There absolutely is 'faith' in science. A theory isn't absolutely fact based, it's a term that means 'widely accepted' as the truth but still can contain speculation/predictions.

[Scienceguy Labs]

There absolutely is 'faith' in science. A theory isn't absolutely fact based, it's a term that means 'widely accepted' as the truth but still can contain speculation/predictions.

A theory is widely accepted because it is backed by verifiable evidence that can be observed and reproduced repeatedly. Creationism is not a theory, it is an idea based on beliefs, not evidence. I watched the debate, but it was the same old thing: Science sheds the light, creationists turn away to ignorance.

[mjrtoo]

A theory is widely accepted because it is backed by verifiable evidence that can be observed and reproduced repeatedly. Creationism is not a theory, it is an idea based on beliefs, not evidence. I watched the debate, but it was the same old thing: Science sheds the light, creationists turn away to ignorance.

That is not 100% true at all. What's the theory of the creation of the universe?

[Jas00555]

A theory is widely accepted because it is backed by verifiable evidence that can be observed and reproduced repeatedly. Creationism is not a theory, it is an idea based on beliefs, not evidence. I watched the debate, but it was the same old thing: Science sheds the light, creationists turn away to ignorance.

Are you sure you watched the debate? You sound pretty ignorant of what the Ken guy was saying... Ironic huh?

Either way, please recreate a universe and then explain to me how the big bang is a "theory". I'm not saying that its right or wrong, but if a theory is able to he recreated... Well, I would like someone to create a universe, but so far, the closest thing we have to that is GTA V.

[Scienceguy Labs]

That is not 100% true at all. What's the theory of the creation of the universe?

Well, the Big Bang Theory is the leading theory at the moment...a theory that is backed by quite a bit of mathematics, quite a bit of physics, and the observable red shift given off by stars which are moving quickly away from our vantage point, known as the Doppler Effect. Those three areas of support for the BBT are very important and observable. The creation tale has no such credible support. Non...nada. It always struck me as humorous that the omniscient almighty who created everything didn't even understand the transfer of energy as it relates to life. On the second day, he created photosynthetic vegetation...BEFORE he created the light on the third day. Now according to the various interpretations of the bible, the term "day" did not mean 24 hours. It was a term used to describe a much longer length of time. Therefore, those photosynthetic plants went without the very thing they needed for survival for an extended length of time. Hence, they would have died. Doesn't sound too omniscient to me. As soon as creationists offer real evidence, a lot of people will pay more attention to them. Until then, creationism is a faith-based fairytale based on a another faith-based fairytale.

[Scienceguy Labs]

Are you sure you watched the debate? You sound pretty ignorant of what the Ken guy was saying... Ironic huh?

Either way, please recreate a universe and then explain to me how the big bang is a "theory". I'm not saying that its right or wrong, but if a theory is able to he recreated... Well, I would like someone to create a universe, but so far, the closest thing we have to that is GTA V.

Please see my post above.
And there is a big difference between calling someone ignorant and saying people turn to ignorance. It is very Christ-like of you to immediately start throwing insults at someone who doesn't share your beliefs. Your god would be proud. :)

[Jas00555]

Please see my post above.
And there is a big difference between calling someone ignorant and saying people turn to ignorance. It is very Christ-like of you to immediately start throwing insults at someone who doesn't share your beliefs. Your god would be proud. :)

Your post is quite ironic since it just further demonstrates ignorance. Mainly because I think you don't even understand what ignorance even is. Ignorance isn't a bad thing and there's nothing wrong with being ignorant with something. I'm ignorant at how to make an iOS app, some people are ignorant on how to ski, some people are ignorant on how cars work, everyone is ignorant on how the universe came about since we weren't there and we don't know everything. Being ignorant just means that you lack knowledge, not that you're stupid or anything. Bill Nye said (in the debate you claimed to watch) he was ignorant about how consciousness came about. Did he insult himself in front of thousands of people? Definitely not. Everyone is ignorant of something and there's nothing wrong with that. For example, you seem ignorant on the fact that (like, again, the debate that you claim to watch) the main thing to get into heaven is believe that Jesus is the savior, so by me claiming that you lack knowledge, I'm not being Christ-like? Ok...?. So please, if you are going to try go start an argument, take that somewhere else.

[Scienceguy Labs]

Your post is quite ironic since it just further demonstrates ignorance. Mainly because I think you don't even understand what ignorance even is. Ignorance isn't a bad thing and there's nothing wrong with being ignorant with something. I'm ignorant at how to make an iOS app, some people are ignorant on how to ski, some people are ignorant on how cars work, everyone is ignorant on how the universe came about since we weren't there and we don't know everything. Being ignorant just means that you lack knowledge, not that you're stupid or anything. Bill Nye said (in the debate you claimed to watch) he was ignorant about how consciousness came about. Did he insult himself in front of thousands of people? Definitely not. Everyone is ignorant of something and there's nothing wrong with that. For example, you seem ignorant on the fact that (like, again, the debate that you claim to watch) the main thing to get into heaven is believe that Jesus is the savior, so by me claiming that you lack knowledge, I'm not being Christ-like? Ok...?. So please, if you are going to try go start an argument, take that somewhere else.

I appreciate your enlightenment, but I don't think you even read my post, but that's ok. Finally we agree on something. Our definitions of the term "ignorant" are the same. My point was that it is somewhat arrogant and impolite to call someone ignorant, especially since most people use the term negatively. I would never simply call you ignorant, which you have repeatedly done to me. I still have yet to personally judge you on your schema based on your beliefs, like you have twice now done to me. You have judged me without even knowing me, and that, no matter how you spin it is not very Christ-like.

[Jas00555]

I appreciate your enlightenment, but I don't think you even read my post, but that's ok. Finally we agree on something. Our definitions of the term "ignorant" are the same. My point was that it is somewhat arrogant and impolite to call someone ignorant, especially since most people use the term negatively. I would never simply call you ignorant, which you have repeatedly done to me. I still have yet to personally judge you on your schema based on your beliefs, like you have twice now done to me. You have judged me without even knowing me, and that, no matter how you spin it is not very Christ-like.

*sigh* I can see that I'm getting nowhere with this. First of all, I did read your post (why wouldn't I?) and I can clearly tell that you don't understand what you're condemning as a "fairy-tale". According to the Bible, God created light first, then vegetation on a later day, so by claiming the opposite, that displays ignorance in that you're arguing about something that you don't even know. That would be like me arguing that the Big Bang is caused by a God setting off fireworks and that's where we get the term "big bang", but that's ridiculous and I would be ignorant for saying that. I encourage you to actually read Genesis before you start talking about what it says wrong. If you want to take ignorance as being an insult, then that's your problem, not mine or anyone else's. The literal definition of ignorance is "to be lacking of knowledge", which again, is NOT AN INSULT. On stage, in front of thousands of viewers, Bill Nye says that figuring things out is what drive him. Do you know what it means when you don't know something? That you're ignorant, which is not an insult unless you take it the wrong way. The fact that people aren't omnipotent means that we're all ignorant, but if you want to keep equating ignorance with an insult, that's your problem. That being said, since I am obviously getting nowhere since I am talking to someone who doesn't want to expand their knowledge on the subject (like how you automatically assume that everything Bill Nye said was a true fact and everything Ken Ham said was "turning toward ignorance"), then it is pointless to continue to argue past this subject.

Good day to you sir

[mase123987]

I love discussions, but calling each other ignorant is exactly the opposite of what I meant by "civil." Going to close my own thread.