• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham/Science smack-down!/What Bill Nye Doesn't Know

Ken Ham: God made the earth and everything else in 6 days!!!
Bill Nye: Were you there?
Ken Ham: Well, no but....

[/debate]:D
 
haibut said:
Not sure about the wisdom of this. Can Nye combat the "Gish Gallop"?
Click to expand...

I have serious reservations myself. I like Nye, but debating creationists does nothing but give creationism a veneer of respectability.

There are not "two sides" to the "controversy", there is one side in which dedicated professionals work tirelessly to answer questions about the nature of life and its history on earth. They question everything and subject their theories to constant testing and retesting, and for every answer they come up with they discover half a dozen more questions that will require more years of research. Then there is another side who arrogantly believe that they know all of the answers, and that those answers are unassailable because they're contained in a book (and ONLY in that book) which asserts its own infallibility.

Rational people should NEVER debate with a creationist. A debate implies that either side might be right. The best thing to do with a creationist is tell him he's wrong.
 
I dunno, it would be fun to see Nye smack him down in terms even a child could understand.
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
I dunno, it would be fun to see Nye smack him down in terms even a child could understand.
Click to expand...

A child could understand him. Nye, was, of course, a children's educational TV show host.

The problem is in the adults.
 
joesixpack said:
Rational people should NEVER debate with a creationist...... The best thing to do with a creationist is tell him he's wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah... that should do the trick, during some debate.
Er, wait. You just said not to debate them. Well, since they are to debate, according to the OP, i guess we come back to my first sentence. (Cough)
 
joesixpack said:
I have serious reservations myself. I like Nye, but debating creationists does nothing but give creationism a veneer of respectability.

There are not "two sides" to the "controversy", there is one side in which dedicated professionals work tirelessly to answer questions about the nature of life and its history on earth. They question everything and subject their theories to constant testing and retesting, and for every answer they come up with they discover half a dozen more questions that will require more years of research. Then there is another side who arrogantly believe that they know all of the answers, and that those answers are unassailable because they're contained in a book (and ONLY in that book) which asserts its own infallibility.

Rational people should NEVER debate with a creationist. A debate implies that either side might be right. The best thing to do with a creationist is tell him he's wrong.
Click to expand...

This.
 
I think scientists should defend rationality and explain the scientific method and its discoveries, but this seems dangerously like wrestling with a pig - as George Bernard Shaw once observed, "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
 
dlorde said:
I think scientists should defend rationality and explain the scientific method and its discoveries, but this seems dangerously like wrestling with a pig - as George Bernard Shaw once observed, "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
Click to expand...


Along those lines are Brother Sam Shackleton's Rules of Engagement
 
The debate is at Ham's own museum, and he's charging $25 for a ticket, seems like he wins either way.
 
Awful question for the debate, too.
“Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”

It'll be interesting to see how this goes, but I can't see it working well.
Ham will load the audience with idiots and the inevitable clips that he'll release will be horribly skewed.
 
joesixpack said:
Rational people should NEVER debate with a creationist. A debate implies that either side might be right. The best thing to do with a creationist is tell him he's wrong.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the letter of this statement, but not the spirit. Creationists should be debated in the proper context: meaning, in the academic literature and academic conferences. In terms of formal debates, it's not just that Creationists use dishonest rhetorical techniques; formal debates are an improper venue for scientific debate. It is ALWAYS wrong to debate science in those contexts, regardless of the theory involved. First and foremost, science requires data, something that formal debates do not encourage and academic literature requires. There are other problems with it as well, in terms of determining scientific fact.

This is akin to trying to find out who's the better MMA fighter in a formal debate: it doesn't work, because the action is completely nonsensical.
 
Dinwar said:
I disagree with the letter of this statement, but not the spirit. Creationists should be debated in the proper context: meaning, in the academic literature and academic conferences. In terms of formal debates, it's not just that Creationists use dishonest rhetorical techniques; formal debates are an improper venue for scientific debate. It is ALWAYS wrong to debate science in those contexts, regardless of the theory involved. First and foremost, science requires data, something that formal debates do not encourage and academic literature requires. There are other problems with it as well, in terms of determining scientific fact.

This is akin to trying to find out who's the better MMA fighter in a formal debate: it doesn't work, because the action is completely nonsensical.
Click to expand...

All very true, but if someone wants to mix it up a little and see whether MMA is effective against Creationists in a formal debate, then I'd be interested in the results.
 
Dinwar said:
I disagree with the letter of this statement, but not the spirit. Creationists should be debated in the proper context: meaning, in the academic literature and academic conferences. In terms of formal debates, it's not just that Creationists use dishonest rhetorical techniques; formal debates are an improper venue for scientific debate. It is ALWAYS wrong to debate science in those contexts, regardless of the theory involved. First and foremost, science requires data, something that formal debates do not encourage and academic literature requires. There are other problems with it as well, in terms of determining scientific fact.
Click to expand...

I have to agree.
 
Dissolution said:
All very true, but if someone wants to mix it up a little and see whether MMA is effective against Creationists in a formal debate, then I'd be interested in the results.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there! :D The results may or may not be accurate, but it'll be a lot of fun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom