Jas00555
Retired Ambassador
lol I'm 19.... I've seen every. single. one. Bill! Bill! Bill Nye the Science Guy
Who else watched at least part of the Evolution/Creationism debate?
- Thread starter mase123987
- Start date
- Status
lol I'm 19.... I've seen every. single. one. Bill! Bill! Bill Nye the Science Guy
Jas00555
Retired Ambassador
Also, before I watch it, I would like to point out that obviously you shouldn't literally interpret the Bible, and I say that as a Christian. That's honestly a new thing that's only happened within the past 100 years and there are a lot of people that don't take it literally, just using it as a "story" or "metaphor" if you will, but there's a vocal minority that takes it as fact. That's why I tend to laugh at atheists sometimes. Not that I agree or disagree with them, but that they're arguing against a minority of people, and they tend to make a big deal about it.
I shall return after I watch the debate.
I shall return after I watch the debate.
Angry_Mushroom
New member
I rather enjoyed the debate. It didn't provide any new views, but I did enjoy the vigor that both sides flung themselves on the issue at hand. Personally I thought that Bill took the debate by a mile. Then again I do support his views strongly. I do believe that we need to teach more science in order to provide the future of humanity with a solid base on which to keep going.
snowmutt
New member
The whole problem with the "Science Vs. Religon" debate isn't in the debate, it is in the debaters. Yes, prior to going any further, I am a born again Christian, and am happy to admit there is tons I don't know. I also walked away from God for about 5 years, learned as much as I could about other religons and their history. Also have spent tons of time on "Humanists/Athiest" sites and readings. I refuse to be ignorant. My path back was a long one, and I still have more questions then answers, which I believe is a good thing.
What I didn't like about what Mr. Nye said (I have yet to see the whole thing, so I want the right to edit my opinions later) is the whole "Wait and see, scince is just BARELY opening the door, we will show the truth as we find it" argument. It is the most recent direction those trying to disprove the :need" for a God have gone. Quantum physics is another area in which people say "wait until we get more discoveries, we will unlock the truths then" argument.
Meanwhile, people just ignore that these same arguments were made about biology, the fossil record, and a dozen other subjects at the turn of the last century.
Of course, the fun part about being me is that if I had a Fundamental Christian on my right and an Athiest on my left, I think I could irratate them both equally. (With nothing but brotherly love, of course.) Because a pure literal interpretation of the Bible is plain impossible. Forget the science for a minute, just the imagery in books of the Bible like in Ezekial, Daniel, Job, and Revelations rules it out. The Bible is book of Theology which holds up under scrutiny extremely well, but it is not a science book.
The easiest example of this is evolution. Nobody who has had a higher then 6th grade education can argue evolution is true. Species have evolved. Period. It has happened, it is true, it is accurate. Fundamental Christians that don't want the word even associated with anything are doing more harm then good.
However, even after nearly a 200 year debate since "Origin of the Species" was written by Darwin, there is no proof at all the evolution was a creation method. Zero. No "missing link" has been found between mammals and other life forms, no "tree of life" effect, where one type of life begat another type a tad more complex. Life was more like a field according to the fossil record. One celled life around water, plant life exploded, then simple, water/air based life, then a small amount of complex life, then an explosion of life again, this time with complex life coming out of nowhere. This cycled continued. For some in the scince community and athiests to hold on to it as if it is the beat all end all of Faith also does more harm then good to their case.
I won't ramble any farther, only to say that I see nothing in this debate which makes me think either of these two gentlemen broke new ground. I am not even sure they were debting the same thing.
But, like jas00555, I need to watch it. I will make it my homework, mase.
What I didn't like about what Mr. Nye said (I have yet to see the whole thing, so I want the right to edit my opinions later) is the whole "Wait and see, scince is just BARELY opening the door, we will show the truth as we find it" argument. It is the most recent direction those trying to disprove the :need" for a God have gone. Quantum physics is another area in which people say "wait until we get more discoveries, we will unlock the truths then" argument.
Meanwhile, people just ignore that these same arguments were made about biology, the fossil record, and a dozen other subjects at the turn of the last century.
Of course, the fun part about being me is that if I had a Fundamental Christian on my right and an Athiest on my left, I think I could irratate them both equally. (With nothing but brotherly love, of course.) Because a pure literal interpretation of the Bible is plain impossible. Forget the science for a minute, just the imagery in books of the Bible like in Ezekial, Daniel, Job, and Revelations rules it out. The Bible is book of Theology which holds up under scrutiny extremely well, but it is not a science book.
The easiest example of this is evolution. Nobody who has had a higher then 6th grade education can argue evolution is true. Species have evolved. Period. It has happened, it is true, it is accurate. Fundamental Christians that don't want the word even associated with anything are doing more harm then good.
However, even after nearly a 200 year debate since "Origin of the Species" was written by Darwin, there is no proof at all the evolution was a creation method. Zero. No "missing link" has been found between mammals and other life forms, no "tree of life" effect, where one type of life begat another type a tad more complex. Life was more like a field according to the fossil record. One celled life around water, plant life exploded, then simple, water/air based life, then a small amount of complex life, then an explosion of life again, this time with complex life coming out of nowhere. This cycled continued. For some in the scince community and athiests to hold on to it as if it is the beat all end all of Faith also does more harm then good to their case.
I won't ramble any farther, only to say that I see nothing in this debate which makes me think either of these two gentlemen broke new ground. I am not even sure they were debting the same thing.
But, like jas00555, I need to watch it. I will make it my homework, mase.
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 seems like a very reasonable answer.
N_LaRUE
New member
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.
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.
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
New member
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
New member
N_LaRUE
New member
psiu_glen
New member
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.
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
Retired Ambassador
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.
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
New member
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
Active member
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
Retired Ambassador
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
Active member
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
Active member
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.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Every Fallout game ranked worst to best in 2024
- Latest: Windows Central
Trending Posts
-
Hades 2 playtest signups are live now on Steam
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 0
-
Microsoft veteran designer Ralf Groene retires from the Surface department after 17 years of service
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 1
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram