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

[truethat]

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.

This this this a million times this. I've pointed the same thing out innumerable times and for some reason idiots think "winning" a debate with a Creationist somehow "proves" something.

Can you imagine this happening in any other field? A coroner having a "debate" with a "NDE enthusiast?"

An astronomer having a "debate" with an astrologer.


God it's so frickin annoying how people say they "believe" in evolution. Do you "believe" in Math and Physics as well?

Walks out of the thread grumbling.

 

[angrysoba]

I don't think it is such a bad idea. Remember that when you debate someone you don't expect to change the mind of the person you are debating but those who are watching in the audience. If the creationist is going to be in front of a partisan audience then you would expect that there are more minds there to change than there would be in almost any other setting. If the scientist can actually get in a few points that lead to members of the audience getting to see the argument for evolution by natural selection then so much the better.

 

[truethat]

Anytime a real scientist debates a Creationist it lends validity to Creationism as an "alternative theory to evolution" It's absolutely RIDICULOUS and stupid to engage in these types of debates.

How about next we have a History Professor with a focus on Piracy debating with a Person who is a fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies over whether or not Davy Jones' Locker is real?

I mean COME ON.

It's not the wacky Creationists who perpetuate this theory, it's all those people who don't "believe in it" but treat like a real issue worthy of "debate."

You need to "debate" that a big magical invisible god went poof and created everything? You feel the need to "debate this?????"

 

[Dissolution]

I'm happy to have this debated, but not in the formal setting, as it's too open to abuse.
Actually addressing the issues is fine, but we all know that's not going to happen.

 

[Dinwar]

Remember that when you debate someone you don't expect to change the mind of the person you are debating but those who are watching in the audience. If the creationist is going to be in front of a partisan audience then you would expect that there are more minds there to change than there would be in almost any other setting.

The issue is, formal debates have criteria very different from those of scientific debates. The format is incompatible with scientific discussion; scientific discussion, in that it requires gathering and processing of large amounts of data, takes too long.

 

[angrysoba]

Anytime a real scientist debates a Creationist it lends validity to Creationism as an "alternative theory to evolution" It's absolutely RIDICULOUS and stupid to engage in these types of debates.

How about next we have a History Professor with a focus on Piracy debating with a Person who is a fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies over whether or not Davy Jones' Locker is real?

I mean COME ON.

It's not the wacky Creationists who perpetuate this theory, it's all those people who don't "believe in it" but treat like a real issue worthy of "debate."

You need to "debate" that a big magical invisible god went poof and created everything? You feel the need to "debate this?????"

There would be no need to debate this in Japan or in most of Europe. But it is my understanding that in many parts of the U.S, particularly in the southern states, there are indeed large numbers of people who believe such tosh as you described.

He's almost certain to lose the debate given the audience, but may be able to change some minds which may well be his aim.

 

[truethat]

No, large numbers of people do not believe in 6 day Creationism, it's a stereotype perpetuated by people who want to mock Christians. And really that's all these types of debates are these days, opportunities to mock believers under the guise of debate.

Yes you will find a few nutters who believe this stuff but for the most part to a Christian or believer in the states, saying godidit is just another way of saying "I don't know." They just are more comfortable saying Godidit.

 

[joesixpack]

No, large numbers of people do not believe in 6 day Creationism, it's a stereotype perpetuated by people who want to mock Christians. And really that's all these types of debates are these days, opportunities to mock believers under the guise of debate.

Yes you will find a few nutters who believe this stuff but for the most part to a Christian or believer in the states, saying godidit is just another way of saying "I don't know." They just are more comfortable saying Godidit.

It's true, I know a LOT of Christians, I only know of one who believes in a six day creation.

 

[angrysoba]

No, large numbers of people do not believe in 6 day Creationism, it's a stereotype perpetuated by people who want to mock Christians. And really that's all these types of debates are these days, opportunities to mock believers under the guise of debate.

Sorry, are you the same person who just wrote:

Anytime a real scientist debates a Creationist it lends validity to Creationism as an "alternative theory to evolution" It's absolutely RIDICULOUS and stupid to engage in these types of debates.

How about next we have a History Professor with a focus on Piracy debating with a Person who is a fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies over whether or not Davy Jones' Locker is real?

I mean COME ON.

It's not the wacky Creationists who perpetuate this theory, it's all those people who don't "believe in it" but treat like a real issue worthy of "debate."

You need to "debate" that a big magical invisible god went poof and created everything? You feel the need to "debate this?????"

I think that the Christians who you are suddenly very sensitive about mocking do indeed believe in a "big magical invisible god". What do you think Christians believe in?

Besides, this debate appears to have been organized by Ken Ham - a creationist Christian - now you say that these debates he has organized are "opportunities to mock believers under the guise of debate". Really? Why would Ken Ham be doing that?

Yes you will find a few nutters who believe this stuff but for the most part to a Christian or believer in the states, saying godidit is just another way of saying "I don't know." They just are more comfortable saying Godidit.

According to a Gallup poll:

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

So apparently you are wrong.

More numbers here.

A comparison between the US and other countries shows that creationism is indeed a very common belief in the US; far higher than any of the European countries or Japan (check out the last page in particular), which is what I said:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10670

 

[truethat]

This is why I don't engage with you angrysoba. You rarely read what is actually written but then spin off arguments on things I didn't say.

The debate isn't about GOD. It's about CREATIONISM. And as I stated, most Christians do NOT BELIEVE in 6 DAY CREATIONISM.

Here is Ken Ham's book.

Six Days
The Age of the Earth and the Decline of the Church
Written by Ken Ham


It is really really really really frickin' annoying when people can't be bothered to read simple sentences and decide instead to go off on tandems that are completely different points.

So enjoy your thread.

 

[truethat]

No, large numbers of people do not believe in 6 day Creationism, it's a stereotype perpetuated by people who want to mock Christians. And really that's all these types of debates are these days, opportunities to mock believers under the guise of debate.

Yes you will find a few nutters who believe this stuff but for the most part to a Christian or believer in the states, saying godidit is just another way of saying "I don't know." They just are more comfortable saying Godidit.

This is what I actually said.

It's true, I know a LOT of Christians, I only know of one who believes in a six day creation.

Exactly.

 

[angrysoba]

This is why I don't engage with you angrysoba. You rarely read what is actually written but then spin off arguments on things I didn't say.

The debate isn't about GOD. It's about CREATIONISM. And as I stated, most Christians do NOT BELIEVE in 6 DAY CREATIONISM.

Here is Ken Ham's book.

Six Days
The Age of the Earth and the Decline of the Church
Written by Ken Ham


It is really really really really frickin' annoying when people can't be bothered to read simple sentences and decide instead to go off on tandems that are completely different points.

So enjoy your thread.

I know it is about Creationism. And you would know that I know it is about Creationism if you read my posts, specifically the first of my posts on this thread:

If the creationist is going to be in front of a partisan audience then you would expect that there are more minds there to change than there would be in almost any other setting. If the scientist can actually get in a few points that lead to members of the audience getting to see the argument for evolution by natural selection then so much the better.

See? No mention of God, but rather a contrast between creationism and evolution, which, as you rightly point out and which I very well know, as you very well know, is the purpose of the debate.

It was you, not I, who dragged poor old God into it when you described him as "a big magical invisible god", so don't accuse me of going off on "tandems" ("tangents" per chance?).

You'll also notice, if you can be bothered to do so, that the polls I linked to were also all about creationism. Now, it may be that you want to give yourself a bit of wiggle-room by later on qualifying creationism with "six day" creationism, but we were not talking specifically about that and frankly any kind of creationism that is described by the polls is hardly any less ridiculous.

Other than that, could you actually provide some support for your accusation that I did not read your simple sentences?

 

[angrysoba]

This is what I actually said.

You added "6 day" in post 27, and not before you yourself ridiculed the idea of creationism without the qualifier.

Are you now trying to tell me that 6 day creationism is on a par with a belief in astrology or Davy Jones's locker and that non-6-day creationism which nonetheless has no role for evolution, is a perfectly respectable theory? That is certainly what the logic of your posts suggest.

 

[Trevor from Toronto]

So this guy Ham calls his sideshow a "museum"? I thought museums were for actual artifacts rather than figments.

Maybe it's time for real museum curators and directors to start a campaign:

Artifacts not Figments.

 

[truethat]

I didn't 'add it' what kind of BS excuse is that. You didn't READ it. It's in joesixpack's quote. So I couldn't have "added it' I stated something specific and you didn't bother to read it at all but decided to rant off about something totally different.

As usual.

You're trying to back pedal and I've clearly stated the distinction. Most Christians who say that they believe in Creationism are just defaulting to their belief systems and it's basically a more specific way of saying they don't know. If you get into a discussion with them they will talk about 'not knowing the powers of God" yadda yadda.

You know, you would have had some credibility with me if you had admitted you didn't read it. But now this is just a waste of time.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No, large numbers of people do not believe in 6 day Creationism, it's a stereotype perpetuated by people who want to mock Christians. And really that's all these types of debates are these days, opportunities to mock believers under the guise of debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

 

[truethat]

So this guy Ham calls his sideshow a "museum"? I thought museums were for actual artifacts rather than figments.

Maybe it's time for real museum curators and directors to start a campaign:

Artifacts not Figments.

Exactly. That's part of why any true scientist going to a place like this lends credibility to it. These YECs are trying to parlay themselves as "scientists" etc even though they lack the requirement of peer review. This basically gives them the "appearance' of peer review without the official scrutiny.

 

[truethat]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

Could you present the "limitations of the study" instead of a BS article from Huff Po that is not about Young Earth Creationism and 6 day Creationism?

Oh wait, never mind.

Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 10-13, 2012, with a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.


Really stupid "polls" of people called with no real reason. There are 320 million people living in the United States and you think a phone poll of less than 2,000 people is an accurate sampling/

Unfreakin' real.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Could you present the "limitations of the study" instead of a BS article from Huff Po that is not about Young Earth Creationism and 6 day Creationism?

Oh wait, never mind.

Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 10-13, 2012, with a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.


Really stupid "polls" of people called with no real reason. There are 320 million people living in the United States and you think a phone poll of less than 2,000 people is an accurate sampling/

Unfreakin' real.

Not sure why you're insisting on being so blind to reality here (although I'd have to admit it is an unpleasant reality).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

 

[angrysoba]

I didn't 'add it' what kind of BS excuse is that. You didn't READ it. It's in joesixpack's quote. So I couldn't have "added it' I stated something specific and you didn't bother to read it at all but decided to rant off about something totally different.

As usual.

You're trying to back pedal and I've clearly stated the distinction. Most Christians who say that they believe in Creationism are just defaulting to their belief systems and it's basically a more specific way of saying they don't know. If you get into a discussion with them they will talk about 'not knowing the powers of God" yadda yadda.

You know, you would have had some credibility with me if you had admitted you didn't read it. But now this is just a waste of time.

*sigh*

The reason I said you "added 6 days" is because initially you and joesixpack were talking about the idiocy of "creationism", and I agree it is idiotic. Here are your earlier posts. Please note you did not specify "6 day creationism", this was a qualification that you added later in #27. By added I don't mean that you later edited your posts.

This this this a million times this. I've pointed the same thing out innumerable times and for some reason idiots think "winning" a debate with a Creationist somehow "proves" something.

Can you imagine this happening in any other field? A coroner having a "debate" with a "NDE enthusiast?"

An astronomer having a "debate" with an astrologer.


God it's so frickin annoying how people say they "believe" in evolution. Do you "believe" in Math and Physics as well?

Walks out of the thread grumbling.

Anytime a real scientist debates a Creationist it lends validity to Creationism as an "alternative theory to evolution" It's absolutely RIDICULOUS and stupid to engage in these types of debates.

How about next we have a History Professor with a focus on Piracy debating with a Person who is a fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies over whether or not Davy Jones' Locker is real?

I mean COME ON.

It's not the wacky Creationists who perpetuate this theory, it's all those people who don't "believe in it" but treat like a real issue worthy of "debate."

You need to "debate" that a big magical invisible god went poof and created everything? You feel the need to "debate this?????"

Here's what I mean by added:

No, large numbers of people do not believe in 6 day Creationism, it's a stereotype perpetuated by people who want to mock Christians. And really that's all these types of debates are these days, opportunities to mock believers under the guise of debate.

Yes you will find a few nutters who believe this stuff but for the most part to a Christian or believer in the states, saying godidit is just another way of saying "I don't know." They just are more comfortable saying Godidit.

But large numbers do indeed believe in "Creationism" as the polls I cited confirm and I don't know or care if that comes with the 6 day qualifier.

Of course, as a believer in reason and evidence I am not about to start believing that reason and evidence will convince you now, just as I have never seen reason and evidence convince you in the past.