Jas00555
Retired Ambassador
If you haven't seen the educational shows he did in the 90's, check those out as well! They are great.
lol I'm 19.... I've seen every. single. one. Bill! Bill! Bill Nye the Science Guy
If you haven't seen the educational shows he did in the 90's, check those out as well! They are great.
Well, the literal interpretation of the Bible is pointless argument, have you seen the number of editions of the bible?
But, saying that there is no means to and end with science is complete BS. We are all trying to figure out how and why we are here and what for, science more so than any other faith.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.