The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Science & Alternative Science => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on February 05, 2014, 04:08:52 PM

Title: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 05, 2014, 04:08:52 PM
Article - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-nye-defends-evolution-in-kentucky-debate/
Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

Did anyone catch this? Bill Nye debated the founder of the Creation Museum on Creationism.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 05, 2014, 04:20:05 PM
The scientific and skeptical community were highly critical of Nye for agreeing to have a debate in the first place, and I agree.  There's nothing to debate.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Alchemist21 on February 05, 2014, 05:05:18 PM
What does Bill Nye do these days anyway?  I only know him as the kid show host who I watched before I even started kindergarten.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on February 05, 2014, 05:27:14 PM
He is an important voice for scientific scepticism.  Maybe more mainstream than the tastes here, but there you go.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Lord Dave on February 05, 2014, 05:47:50 PM
Is it worth watching?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on February 05, 2014, 05:58:23 PM
So far so good. I like Bill Nye. Not sure I will see many new arguments since Ken Hovind has covered so much ground before. Interesting to see actual scientists who are creationists give testimonials.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Snupes on February 05, 2014, 06:03:17 PM
I watched the whole thing a few hours ago; I was going to post it here myself. I, too, wish Bill would've pushed the absurdity of it all a bit more, but Mr. Ham wouldn't exactly address many of the points or challenges Bill was making to him. But still, I learned things on both sides so it was worth it. Bill has a way of getting you so excited about science. :D
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: EnigmaZV on February 05, 2014, 06:51:32 PM
I was sad Nye never once said "consider the following," or any of his other catch phrases.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: DuckDodgers on February 05, 2014, 07:07:29 PM
I didn't realize Ken Ham was a YEC when I first heard about this debate.  That should have been all he needed to undermine Ham's credibility.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on February 06, 2014, 02:27:23 AM
Bill Nye is a nice just guy trying to teach the world, even if the world really doesn't want to learn.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Tau on February 06, 2014, 04:13:19 AM
The scientific and skeptical community were highly critical of Nye for agreeing to have a debate in the first place, and I agree.  There's nothing to debate.

A lot of people don't realize that, though. The scientific community really needs to step down from its ivory tower and address the reasons so many people feel isolated from it. It's not a case of giving credence to a 'theory' that doesn't deserve it. The 'theory' already has credence it doesn't deserve. It's too late for that. Creationism only persists due to ignorance, and the only way to fight ignorance seems to be head-on. Apply directly to the forehead and all that.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 06, 2014, 04:21:36 AM
Sure, but a debate with a dishonest ideologue like Ham is the wrong way to go about it.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on February 06, 2014, 04:33:58 AM
Seemed like a platform for Nye to deliver his message of the importance of science education.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: DuckDodgers on February 06, 2014, 04:38:23 AM
Creationism may have credence with the religious community, but to openly debate it against evolution like that suddenly makes it appear to have a substantial foundation instead of relying on a book being true.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on February 06, 2014, 04:55:31 AM
Bill Nye wasn't debating creationism. Now, I know that was the topic of the debate, but his goal wasn't to try and convince creationists that they were wrong. That's impossible: Ken Ham even said in the debate that his mind couldn't be changed.

Bill Nye's goal, and I believe he accomplished it, is the same it's been since the Bill Nye The Science Guy days. He wanted to convince children and young people to use scientific thinking and enter scientific fields. He wasn't speaking to the Young Earth Creationists: He was speaking to their children. He demolished the reasoning behind Ken Ham's belief, but notice how many appeals to the future of science he made? His whole tangent about how important it is to the future of the US economy? His thoughts were on the future of science, not the fact that some people have moronic beliefs.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: rooster on February 06, 2014, 06:17:47 PM
Bill Nye wasn't debating creationism. Now, I know that was the topic of the debate, but his goal wasn't to try and convince creationists that they were wrong. That's impossible: Ken Ham even said in the debate that his mind couldn't be changed.

Bill Nye's goal, and I believe he accomplished it, is the same it's been since the Bill Nye The Science Guy days. He wanted to convince children and young people to use scientific thinking and enter scientific fields. He wasn't speaking to the Young Earth Creationists: He was speaking to their children. He demolished the reasoning behind Ken Ham's belief, but notice how many appeals to the future of science he made? His whole tangent about how important it is to the future of the US economy? His thoughts were on the future of science, not the fact that some people have moronic beliefs.
Interesting. I haven't listened to it but that's the most interesting point I've seen on Bill's behalf.

What's also irksome is that we're here thinking, well at least creationists heard some rational thinking for once and the creationists believe a seed of Gospel has been planted in us and will grow into faith or something stupid. So basically, both sides accomplished the same goal depending on the perspective.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on February 06, 2014, 06:57:20 PM
Fortunately Bill continued to hammer home that the Creationist model has zero predictive power, and so is basically useless as a model; he also showed multiple times where evolutionary theory made predictions and they turned out to be true.  He also showed how trivially easy it would be to falsify evolutionary theory and it has not happened.

The doubt he casts on the flood via the facts of animal migration are particularly enlightening as well. 
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: EnigmaZV on February 06, 2014, 07:09:15 PM
Did anyone catch this? Bill Nye debated the founder of the Creation Museum on Creationism. Bill made a number of good points. I just wish he had pushed the absurdity of a museum depicting humans frolicking with dinosaurs.

If it makes you feel any better, he never referred to the building as a museum, I think he called it a facility.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 06, 2014, 07:38:41 PM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

lol
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Blanko on February 06, 2014, 07:50:20 PM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

lol

How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?

#3 is a good point, though. I even made that same point in another thread.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on February 06, 2014, 08:17:31 PM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

lol

How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?

#3 is a good point, though. I even made that same point in another thread.

Holy fuck people are ignorant.  So many of those "messages" (read criticisms) are due to ignorance, willful or not.

#3 is a good point, but it is more logical to infer that the laws of physics do not change since they never have except in anecdotes with no evidence.  I suppose it is an assumption required for a scientific viewpoint.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 06, 2014, 08:22:48 PM
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-28374-1391576852-17.jpg)

Dayum, Smuggy Smug McSmugface
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on February 06, 2014, 08:25:36 PM
Creationists... I got this

(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-28374-1391576852-17.jpg)

Might as well pack it in scientists.  .
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2014, 08:47:53 PM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

lol

Wow...
I knew some people were stupid but damn....
Did they not go to school?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 06, 2014, 09:30:59 PM
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-28374-1391576852-17.jpg)

Dayum, Smuggy Smug McSmugface

I always ask creationists who use this stupoid argument to firstly name any other law of thermodynamics, then ask them to tell me, as they understand it, what the second law is. I can put money on them missing out the bit about order tending towards entropy in a closed system.

I then ask them whether they can think of any source for the extra energy being added to the system whilst looking up at the sun.

Sometimes I have to stop because my eyes hurt before they get it.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 06, 2014, 09:32:25 PM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

lol

How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?

#3 is a good point, though. I even made that same point in another thread.

It's only logical if God is a trickster who delights in confounding his creation.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 06, 2014, 09:43:03 PM
My favorite one is the one about how we've only found one "Lucy."  In other news, we've only found one Barack Obama.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Blanko on February 06, 2014, 09:48:10 PM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

lol

How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?

#3 is a good point, though. I even made that same point in another thread.

It's only logical if God is a trickster who delights in confounding his creation.

I'm sure that would hold true regardless.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Alchemist21 on February 06, 2014, 10:03:27 PM
How the hell are they relating the second law of thermodynamics to evolution?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 06, 2014, 10:10:19 PM
How the hell are they relating the second law of thermodynamics to evolution?
Assuming the Earth is a closed system (which it isn't), we should be degenerating, and not progressing
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: EnigmaZV on February 06, 2014, 10:14:51 PM
Even in a closed system, as long as there exists a temperature gradient, work can be done.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2014, 11:01:20 PM
Even in a closed system, as long as there exists a temperature gradient, work can be done.
How do you associate thermodynamics with organic evolution?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: EnigmaZV on February 06, 2014, 11:15:23 PM
Even in a closed system, as long as there exists a temperature gradient, work can be done.
How do you associate thermodynamics with organic evolution?

Organic chemistry involves thermodynamics, especially when it comes to reversible reactions. You couldn't have built the precursors of life without organic chemistry. That's the best I can come up with, you'd have to ask a creationist what they mean by "the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution."
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on February 06, 2014, 11:42:35 PM
The world is amazing so obviously God.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Tau on February 06, 2014, 11:58:27 PM
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr07/5/0/enhanced-14977-1391576919-1.jpg)

This one got me.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on February 07, 2014, 03:18:47 AM
Assuming the Earth is a closed system (which it isn't), we should be degenerating, and not progressing

Even if the Earth was a closed system, the argument makes no sense and is clearly made from a standpoint of not knowing what thermodynamics is or how it relates to chemistry and biology. Evolution does not mean systems become more complex, which is probably what they're trying to refer to. Evolution results in an increase or decrease in complexity, depending on which solution solves the problem.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Vindictus on February 07, 2014, 03:58:27 AM
Wow, Ken Ham is Australian. I know we have our fare share of idiots, but to have someone who has totally bought into American brand creationism is rare. Thank God he's over there and not over here.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 07, 2014, 02:14:32 PM
Evolution does not mean systems become more complex, which is probably what they're trying to refer to.
Yes, sorry, I forgot to include that assumption. They assume that evolution always results in more information being added to the DNA (sic).
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: anounceofsaltperday on May 18, 2014, 09:31:54 PM
Whether we agree or disagree, we should defend to the death a persons right to speak
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on May 18, 2014, 09:35:13 PM
Whether we agree or disagree, we should defend to the death a persons right to speak

Free speech does not give people the right to say something and not be ridiculed.

Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on May 19, 2014, 12:22:03 AM
How the hell are they relating the second law of thermodynamics to evolution?
Assuming the Earth is a closed system (which it isn't), we should be degenerating, and not progressing

Lol.

That is all.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 19, 2014, 09:40:05 AM
Free speech does not give people the right to say something and not be ridiculed.
Exactly. No one says Ken (or other creationists) shouldn't have the right to speak. I mean, I'd prefer if they stopped being wrong, but they have all the right to voice their beliefs, and said right should be defended when necessary.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: spoon on May 20, 2014, 03:13:08 AM
Ham kept dodging Nye's whole "predicition" concept, which was annoying.

Also, I thought a very revealing part of the debate was when Ham touched on nihilism. He asked Bill why he does what he does if he's going to end up dead anyway. This really shows Ham's true colors. Without god, he can't find motivation to do anything, and his life is pointless. Once you take that into consideration, it makes sense why he is so adamant that he will never be convinced that his model is wrong. He clings so strongly to god because his life depends on it.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on May 20, 2014, 01:23:44 PM
Ham kept dodging Nye's whole "predicition" concept, which was annoying.

Also, I thought a very revealing part of the debate was when Ham touched on nihilism. He asked Bill why he does what he does if he's going to end up dead anyway. This really shows Ham's true colors. Without god, he can't find motivation to do anything, and his life is pointless. Once you take that into consideration, it makes sense why he is so adamant that he will never be convinced that his model is wrong. He clings so strongly to god because his life depends on it.

I think it is more likely that if Ken Ham became an atheist he would realize that one can live without a celestial father, rather than falling in to some kind of despair.  As is often pointed out in these debates, humans are incredibly adept at creating meaning where it suits them.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Snupes on May 20, 2014, 08:05:05 PM
Yeah, in my experience people only thing they "need" God as long as they believe in God. It has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that they believe they need Him.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: spoon on May 20, 2014, 11:47:11 PM
I agree with that, but by the same token, there have been many people that have found solace in religion after leading a life of hopeless despair. One of my very best friends is a perfect example of this. Whether or not Christianity's doctrine is correct, it is an undeniable source of community and satisfaction for many people. Even Bill acknowledged this.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Lord Dave on May 21, 2014, 01:52:55 AM
I agree with that, but by the same token, there have been many people that have found solace in religion after leading a life of hopeless despair. One of my very best friends is a perfect example of this. Whether or not Christianity's doctrine is correct, it is an undeniable source of community and satisfaction for many people. Even Bill acknowledged this.
What is religion but rules, hope, and community?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: junker on May 21, 2014, 01:55:29 AM
What is religion but rules, hope, and community?

Crowd control.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: fappenhosen on May 21, 2014, 10:48:36 PM
What is religion but rules, hope, and community?

Sky fairies.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Dionysios on March 01, 2015, 11:48:00 PM
Apologize to Tom Bishop for creating a thread so closely related without noticing this one.

When I visited Ham's Creation Museum just two days ago, I noticed this debate for sale on DVD as well as full transcripts in book form at the bookstore.

Wanted to mention that there exists a school of thought these days (to which I also subscribe) which goes well beyond merely asserting that dinosaurs and men coexisted. Most cryptozoogists argue that dinosaurs still live. Furthermore, most of the well known cryptozoologists these days also happen to be agnostics such as Loren Coleman and Mark Hall among most others although a few cryptozoologists are also young earth creationists such as Chad Arment and myself.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Dionysios on March 02, 2015, 12:15:34 AM
I know it has been a year, but I've made progress on other fronts. Never the less, much thanks to Tom Bishop for posting the video. I am going to watch all of it.
Also thanks to Bill Nye for participating in this debate.

I thought about Tom's comment about dinosaurs and men, and I think essentially two groups exist who consider much of the other group's beliefs absurd.

I'd like for Bill Nye to press the points about dinosaurs and men coexisting as well as earth's age less than 10,000 years and all the others. To the extent such debates avoid these things, they are pointless and boring since that is the only purpose to debate exactly those points.

To be honest, I think Ham would win in such points if he was only half as good a debater as Bill Nye because Ham has the truth on his side just like Rowbotham did when he won all those debates against the nineteenth century scientific establishment. If anyone should argue that's not the same, then I would politely remind them that Samuel Rowbotham was himself a young earth creationist as was Charles Johnson.

Nye would find Ham's Achilles heel if focused on the flat earth bible which Ham inconsistently and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge.

I'd like to see a debate between Nye and a geocentrist like John Hanson.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: mister bickles on March 16, 2015, 02:48:31 AM
there's not a lot of real difference between them.....

they still ascribe to the basic 'verities'.....the traditional, wrong-headed conception of the Universe and bogus historical events like, for instance, 'the Holocaust' not to mention bogus recent events like 9/11 and Sandy Hook;

the "creationists" also ignore the well-established theories of the likes of Rupert Sheldrake even though they support the Bible;

they even ignore stuff like "the Bible codes" which very strongly support the veracity of the Bible;
(the "gap theory" vis á vis Genesis 1:1/1:2 is also castigated by them even though they can't really deal satisfactorily with 'the age of the Earth' and can't really explain when and how Lucifer/Satan fell......both of these are glaring anomalies in their YEC model)

and...they studiously ignore previously well-recognised Biblical books like the Books of Enoch, Jasher and Jubilees.....not to mention the couple of dozen epistles and gospels that have been deliberately excluded from the New Testament;
(even their preferred version of the Bible....the King James....is 'off beam'....the most accurate English translation is and always has been the Douay-Rheims version....from the Vulgate by way of St Jerome)

the reason?

they're "gun shy" and don't want to 'rock the boat' too much and get "too far off left field" with TPTB  ::)



Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: The Ellimist on April 03, 2015, 01:40:12 PM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

lol

Actually I have found that some "atheists", mainly people who watch the Ancient Aliens show on the Used To Be About History Channel, do believe #11
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 03, 2015, 08:10:12 PM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

lol

Actually I have found that some "atheists", mainly people who watch the Ancient Aliens show on the Used To Be About History Channel, do believe #11


(http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr03/5/0/enhanced-21214-1391576907-1.jpg)

This one? Hmmm. I wonder why that is... maybe because from what we know from observing the universe, aliens existing is incredibly likely - way more likely than an all powerful God. Maybe because science leaves room for aliens in other parts of the universe? The only real issue that crops up with this is the seemingly impossibility of FTL travel.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 03, 2015, 08:32:46 PM
The same thing that makes the mind vulnerable to religion makes it vulnerable to equally wacky extra-terrestrial phenomenon. I see people who watch Ancient Aliens and say "yeah that's totally what happened" as no different from religious fanatics. I find it hilarious, in fact, that a religious person would find the two opposing theories comparable enough to comment on the parallels but not see the asinine nature of their own belief system.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 03, 2015, 08:40:53 PM
The same thing that makes the mind vulnerable to religion makes it vulnerable to equally wacky extra-terrestrial phenomenon. I see people who watch Ancient Aliens and say "yeah that's totally what happened" as no different from religious fanatics. I find it hilarious, in fact, that a religious person would find the two opposing theories comparable enough to comment on the parallels but not see the asinine nature of their own belief system.

Are you denying the possibility of ETs, or just that they have visited Earth? If it's the latter, then I agree with you.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 03, 2015, 09:49:25 PM
Why would aliens visit earth? They're probably so jaded with finding new civilizations that they don't want to, or didn't bother looking in our infinitesimal area of existence.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Particle Person on April 03, 2015, 09:51:21 PM
Why would aliens visit earth? They're probably so jaded with finding new civilizations that they don't want to, or didn't bother looking in our infinitesimal area of existence.

I would like to know which statistics you derived that "probably" from.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 03, 2015, 09:57:58 PM
Why would aliens visit earth? They're probably so jaded with finding new civilizations that they don't want to, or didn't bother looking in our infinitesimal area of existence.

but duh pyramids man
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 03, 2015, 09:58:18 PM
Why would aliens visit earth? They're probably so jaded with finding new civilizations that they don't want to, or didn't bother looking in our infinitesimal area of existence.

I would like to know which statistics you derived that "probably" from.

I pulled it out of my ass just like everyone does when they consider if interstellar alien civilizations exist or not.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 03, 2015, 10:23:24 PM
Are you denying the possibility of ETs, or just that they have visited Earth? If it's the latter, then I agree with you.

There is no evidence that they exist. Feel free to spam the ol' argument from probability thing, where you state the innumerable amount of planets in the universe and then state they have to exist. It's a fallacious argument made by people who want aliens to exist. Even to say "it is probable that aliens exist" is nonsense.

I pulled it out of my ass just like everyone does when they consider if interstellar alien civilizations exist or not.

You'd be surprised at the amount of people who quote the Drake equation like it is a totally legit thing that should be accepted by everyone.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 03, 2015, 10:31:44 PM
Are you denying the possibility of ETs, or just that they have visited Earth? If it's the latter, then I agree with you.

There is no evidence that they exist. Feel free to spam the ol' argument from probability thing, where you state the innumerable amount of planets in the universe and then state they have to exist. It's a fallacious argument made by people who want aliens to exist. Even to say "it is probable that aliens exist" is nonsense.

If you are familiar with modern science then I think it's absolutely naive to say that aliens don't exist. Isn't our existence evidence of aliens? If not, why not? It's a miracle that we exist to begin with. In RET, we are in the goldilocks zone and there are thousands of other planets probably in that zone as well... I think they've even found a couple (somehow). You can say that the Drake equation is bullshit, but even if the numbers are incorrect the odds are still incredibly high. I think you know this, however, and that you're just trying to bait me.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 03, 2015, 10:46:52 PM
Well, from a purely scientific point of view, aliens actually don't exist. You can't calculate probability for something that hasn't happened.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 03, 2015, 10:51:19 PM
Well, from a purely scientific point of view, aliens actually don't exist. You can't calculate probability for something that hasn't happened.

It has happened though.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 03, 2015, 10:55:13 PM
Well, from a purely scientific point of view, aliens actually don't exist. You can't calculate probability for something that hasn't happened.

It has happened though.

You must be way ahead of the entire scientific community then. Where did you get evidence for alien life?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 03, 2015, 10:59:10 PM
Well, from a purely scientific point of view, aliens actually don't exist. You can't calculate probability for something that hasn't happened.

It has happened though.

You must be way ahead of the entire scientific community then. Where did you get evidence for alien life?

Life on Earth is evidence that alien life exists. We are not special. That's all alien life is, life. This is all assuming that RET is correct, so let's operate within that fantasy for now. We've found signs of water on other planets, even some within our solar system. Water is an important component for life as we know it. If water exists on other planets... and life exists on this one... I don't see why that wouldn't be the case somewhere else in the universe. You'll also find that most scientists will admit that alien life is probably out there.. it's a fallacy, I guess, but all signs point to: yes! No one wants to say aliens exists 100%, but I really don't see any reason not to provided we trust modern science and interstellar findings.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 03, 2015, 11:14:39 PM
Actually, I'm specifically referring to life outside our solar system. And this is important because, in order for something to be scientific, there have to be multiple tests, incidents, or occurrences. So no, the belief that life exists outside of our solar system is essentially non-scientific.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on April 03, 2015, 11:22:18 PM
You can't calculate probability for something that hasn't happened.

The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.   If an event has occurred it's probability is 1 and no calculation is necessary.

Well, from a purely scientific point of view, aliens actually don't exist. You can't calculate probability for something that hasn't happened.

This is all kinds of wrong. The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.   If an event has occurred it's probability is 1 and no calculation is necessary.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 03, 2015, 11:25:09 PM
Actually, I'm specifically referring to life outside our solar system.

Why though? I maintain the premise that life on Earth is evidence that alien life exists outside our solar system. No calculations are needed. It has already happened on Earth. We would be aliens to another species, so I really don't see what difference it makes. If you're going to move the goalpost, then technically you believe that it's scientific to state that life exists on other planets in our own solar system... if I'm understanding your logic. But again, you're just moving the goalpost. I think my premise is quite sound.


Life exists on Earth, there are other planets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581) like Earth outside our solar system... it would then be unscientific to not consider the possibility of life on those planets. Or would you prefer we just quit the search completely because "life hasn't been detected 100% outside our solar system therefore it's unscientific"?

The point you seem to be missing is that if life can develop here... why wouldn't it develop somewhere else under similar (in some cases, almost identical) conditions?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Tau on April 03, 2015, 11:27:49 PM
Well, from a purely scientific point of view, aliens actually don't exist. You can't calculate probability for something that hasn't happened.

"Can't calculate probability" isn't mean "doesn't exist". Saying that something doesn't exist implies a 0% probability. If you can't give a probability, you just don't know. Science is alright with not knowing things.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Particle Person on April 03, 2015, 11:32:06 PM
Life exists on Earth, there are other planets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581) like Earth outside our solar system...

Which planet in the Gliese 581 system is "like Earth" in any meaningful way?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 03, 2015, 11:38:57 PM
Life exists on Earth, there are other planets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581) like Earth outside our solar system...

Which planet in the Gliese 581 system is "like Earth" in any meaningful way?

Upon further reading, it looks like the Gliese planets have been taken off the hospitable planets list. Looks like a recent decision too.
But there are a whole slew of others. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets)

Kepler-296f (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-296f) looks promising, since it is in the hospitable zone.

The point being, they are out there. Whether or not life exists on these planets is subject to further investigation, but it's certainly a possibility. And it's certainly not "unscientific" to explore this possibility.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Particle Person on April 03, 2015, 11:44:12 PM
Nobody is arguing that it isn't a possibility.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 03, 2015, 11:46:45 PM
Nobody is arguing that it isn't a possibility.

Then what's your point, PP2?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Particle Person on April 03, 2015, 11:49:13 PM
There is no evidence of alien life. Life on Earth is not evidence of anything apart from life on Earth.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 03, 2015, 11:49:19 PM
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

 Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 03, 2015, 11:54:33 PM
There is no evidence of alien life. Life on Earth is not evidence of anything apart from life on Earth.

It's evidence that life exists in the universe and it's outrageous to suggest that we're the only ones experiencing it given how large the universe is. Sure, there is no evidence of life outside Earth, but it's not unscientific to suggest that it's a possibility.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Particle Person on April 03, 2015, 11:58:51 PM
Sure, there is no evidence of life outside Earth, but it's not unscientific to suggest that it's a possibility.

Right.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2015, 12:03:16 AM
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

 Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on April 04, 2015, 12:17:05 AM
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

 Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

I am about to flip a coin. The probability that it will land with heads side up is 1/2.

Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 04, 2015, 12:17:26 AM
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

 Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

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

Indeed, but it has no value in determining any real statistics. It's only useful in generating debate.

The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

 Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

I am about to flip a coin. The probability that it will land with heads side up is 1/2.

Oops, you must have misunderstood me. What I said was, I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on April 04, 2015, 12:30:20 AM
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

 Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

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

Indeed, but it has no value in determining any real statistics. It's only useful in generating debate.

The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

 Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

I am about to flip a coin. The probability that it will land with heads side up is 1/2.

Oops, you must have misunderstood me. What I said was, I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

Oh. Sorry. I think you mean to say, s"omething that has not happened ,ever. "  I have not flipped the coin I am about to flip; it has not happened. Either way, you are wrong; just because something has not happened, does not mean you cannot know the likelihood of it happening. It does require that you have a good understanding of the factors contributing to its probability. For example, if I were to be the first person ever to flip a coin, it would not be difficult to work out that there are two possible outcomes and that the probability of each outcome is 1/2. Obviously, solving the Drake Equation is much more problematic, but that does not mean it is impossible.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2015, 01:29:07 AM
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

 Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

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

(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_drake_equation.png)
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Tau on April 04, 2015, 01:30:03 AM
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

 Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

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

Indeed, but it has no value in determining any real statistics. It's only useful in generating debate.

The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

 Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

I am about to flip a coin. The probability that it will land with heads side up is 1/2.

Oops, you must have misunderstood me. What I said was, I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

What's your argument? That hypothesizing is unscientific?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 04, 2015, 01:40:06 AM
The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

 Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

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

Indeed, but it has no value in determining any real statistics. It's only useful in generating debate.

The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

 Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

I am about to flip a coin. The probability that it will land with heads side up is 1/2.

Oops, you must have misunderstood me. What I said was, I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

Oh. Sorry. I think you mean to say, s"omething that has not happened ,ever. "  I have not flipped the coin I am about to flip; it has not happened. Either way, you are wrong; just because something has not happened, does not mean you cannot know the likelihood of it happening. It does require that you have a good understanding of the factors contributing to its probability. For example, if I were to be the first person ever to flip a coin, it would not be difficult to work out that there are two possible outcomes and that the probability of each outcome is 1/2. Obviously, solving the Drake Equation is much more problematic, but that does not mean it is impossible.

Actually it would be like flipping the coin once, having it come up heads, and then assuming every flip will come up heads. That's what you'll get from the Drake equation if you try to draw any meaningful conclusion from it with the information we have.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on April 04, 2015, 10:53:53 AM
What?  No. The Drake equation does not set the probability of extraterrestrial life at 1 does it?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Lord Dave on April 04, 2015, 12:32:00 PM
I agree with Vauxhall.

The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

 Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

Since life evolved/created/whatever on Earth, then it has occurred.  So you can't claim that life in the universe has never happened.

Right now we know of one single instance of life existing in the universe.

I say forget the drake equation.  Just go on this:
Earth exists.  Earth has life.  Earth has had life nearly extinct several times, so life is quite stubborn.  Therefore, if there exists a planet in the universe similar enough to Earth to exist in any state that our Earth has existed in during the time life has been on the planet, then we know that some form of life could exist there.  We don't know it does, but we know that, based on Earth, some form of life could survive.

We also know that, given identical conditions to Earth at the time life first formed, life should form elsewhere.  Physics and chemistry all that.

So, what are the odds that there is 1 planet in the universe similar to Earth enough to support the process that created life here?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Tau on April 04, 2015, 06:01:08 PM
I think Andrew is thinking of this in very black and white terms. Science is all about the grey. Even the blackest of blacks and whitest of whites, in science, is just a particularly dark or light grey. The Drake equation says that there's probably life out there, and probably quite a bit of it.

To use your analogy, it would be more like flipping a coin once, getting heads, and determining that heads is a result you can get from a coin toss and that it probably isn't that uncommon.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 04, 2015, 07:19:33 PM
I agree with Vauxhall.

The only events requiring any sort of serious probability calculation are those that have not happened.

 Then I'd like you to give me a probability calculation for something that has not happened.

Since life evolved/created/whatever on Earth, then it has occurred.  So you can't claim that life in the universe has never happened.

My claim is that life outside of earth has not happened. If you want to prove this statement wrong, you have to find evidence to the contrary. Currently, there isn't any evidence whatsoever. Simply saying "herp derp the universe is Xbox huge" is not evidence. Science doesn't get to operate on conjecture.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2015, 07:29:20 PM
My claim is that life outside of earth has not happened. If you want to prove this statement wrong, you have to find evidence to the contrary. Currently, there isn't any evidence whatsoever. Simply saying "herp derp the universe is Xbox huge" is not evidence. Science doesn't get to operate on conjecture.

If this was a court of law there would be plenty of circumstantial evidence for the existence of life outside Earth. I still maintain the fact that you are grossly uninformed if you are making a claim of certainty that "there is no life outside Earth". At this point, that claim needs some support. Life on Earth proves that life exists in the universe, and can exist anywhere in the universe provided the right criteria is met. 

Do you have any reasons for thinking that life does not exist beyond Earth? Despite the obvious "we haven't found em yet" argument?

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2015, 07:38:07 PM
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

At this point, Vauxhall, your argument is no different than any given religion. Also this:

If this was a court of law there would be plenty of circumstantial evidence for the existence of life outside Earth.

Please, please stop trying to e-lawyer. You really suck at it.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2015, 07:38:24 PM
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

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


At this point, Vauxhall, your argument is no different than any given religion. Also this:


Except it's not, because life has been shown to exist in the universe.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2015, 07:40:55 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

You really have no idea what that means, do you?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2015, 07:42:39 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

You really have no idea what that means, do you?

This isn't about God, Rushy. This is about life. Which has been shown to exist in the universe. Gods have not been observed, life has.

Do you want to debate this claim or just post wikipedia articles? Because I can do both.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 04, 2015, 07:42:53 PM
My claim is that life outside of earth has not happened. If you want to prove this statement wrong, you have to find evidence to the contrary. Currently, there isn't any evidence whatsoever. Simply saying "herp derp the universe is Xbox huge" is not evidence. Science doesn't get to operate on conjecture.

If this was a court of law there would be plenty of circumstantial evidence for the existence of life outside Earth.

I'm not sure why you added this stupid little bit. The American justice system and the scientific method are polar opposites. Legal proceedings only care about how good a lawyer is. The scientific method cares about what is actually true.

In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2015, 07:44:05 PM
This isn't about God, Rushy. This is about life. Which has been shown to exist in the universe. Gods have not been observed, life has.

Do you want to debate this claim or just post wikipedia articles? Because I can do both.

This isn't about life, it is about life outside the solar system. Nice job trying to construct a strawman, though. There is no difference between claiming life exists outside the solar system and that god exists, an equal amount of evidence exists for both.

I'm not sure why you added this stupid little bit. The American justice system and the scientific method are polar opposites. Legal proceedings only care about how good a lawyer is. The scientific method cares about what is actually true.

In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.

The justice system doesn't work like that, anyway. What he said was all around dumb.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2015, 07:44:44 PM
This isn't about life, it is about life outside the solar system. Nice job trying to construct a strawman, though.

You have no idea what that means, do you?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2015, 07:46:09 PM
This isn't about life, it is about life outside the solar system. Nice job trying to construct a strawman, though.

You have no idea what that means, do you?

I'm glad to see that I could destroy you in roughly four posts. Carry on.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Particle Person on April 04, 2015, 07:53:17 PM
In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.

No, it doesn't. As somebody said earlier, there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" in the "realm of science".
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2015, 07:55:52 PM
This isn't about life, it is about life outside the solar system. Nice job trying to construct a strawman, though.

You have no idea what that means, do you?

I'm glad to see that I could destroy you in roughly four posts. Carry on.

You destroyed my educated assumption, good job.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 04, 2015, 07:57:42 PM
In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.

No, it doesn't. As somebody said earlier, there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" in the "realm of science".

Yes it does. Otherwise it's religion.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2015, 07:58:23 PM
In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.

No, it doesn't. As somebody said earlier, there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" in the "realm of science".

Yes it does. Otherwise it's religion.

Religion claims to know for certain. "I don't know" - how is that certain? If you think that anyone here is claiming 100% that aliens exist, you've misunderstood the entire premise of this conversation and are basically trolling at this point.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Particle Person on April 04, 2015, 08:01:43 PM
In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.

No, it doesn't. As somebody said earlier, there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" in the "realm of science".

Yes it does. Otherwise it's religion.

How is the claim "we don't know if ET life exists" religious in any way?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 04, 2015, 08:13:16 PM
In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.

No, it doesn't. As somebody said earlier, there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" in the "realm of science".

Yes it does. Otherwise it's religion.

Religion claims to know for certain. "I don't know" - how is that certain? If you think that anyone here is claiming 100% that aliens exist, you've misunderstood the entire premise of this conversation and are basically trolling at this point.

It's your personal belief that life exists outside of earth, but you can't pass this off as anything scientific or verifiable. It's important that you recognize that the evidence for God existing and the evidence for extraterrestrial life are essentially the same. Both bodies of evidence boil down to "it seems like the case".
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2015, 08:16:24 PM
My personal belief is pretty much irrelevant. I was simply telling you that the possibility of life is not an unscientific concept.

How does God "seem to be the case"?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 04, 2015, 08:33:33 PM
I was simply telling you that the possibility of life is not an unscientific concept.


Possibility is unscientific. Science only cares about probability, which brings us back to the Drake equation and how generations of ignorant people have tried to solve it without enough information.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2015, 08:41:06 PM
I was simply telling you that the possibility of life is not an unscientific concept.


Science only cares about probability, which brings us back to the Drake equation and how generations of ignorant people have tried to solve it without enough information.

And?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Particle Person on April 04, 2015, 08:48:01 PM
Possibility is unscientific.

mind === blown up
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Lord Dave on April 04, 2015, 09:35:34 PM
In the realm of science, "we haven't found em yet" means they don't exist.

No, it doesn't. As somebody said earlier, there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" in the "realm of science".

Yes it does. Otherwise it's religion.

Religion claims to know for certain. "I don't know" - how is that certain? If you think that anyone here is claiming 100% that aliens exist, you've misunderstood the entire premise of this conversation and are basically trolling at this point.

It's your personal belief that life exists outside of earth, but you can't pass this off as anything scientific or verifiable. It's important that you recognize that the evidence for God existing and the evidence for extraterrestrial life are essentially the same. Both bodies of evidence boil down to "it seems like the case".

Ummm... God can't be proven or disproven.  Which is why it's not scientific.
Life outside the solar system can be proven or disproven.

Also, if we found life on say... Mars (microbial) wouldn't that prove aliens exist?  Aliens being any form of life not from Earth.  Why say "the solar system" anyway?  Surely you mean "just earth" right?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2015, 09:45:09 PM
Life outside the solar system can be proven or disproven.

Disproving life outside the solar system is technically possible, but completely unfeasible. You'd have to search the entire universe. Saying that makes it scientific would be no different than me saying God is on another planet, we just haven't been to it yet.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2015, 09:50:11 PM
Life outside the solar system can be proven or disproven.

Disproving life outside the solar system is technically possible, but completely unfeasible. You'd have to search the entire universe. Saying that makes it scientific would be no different than me saying God is on another planet, we just haven't been to it yet.

If we had met a god and knew that gods existed then it would be scientific to search for gods on another planet. That's why your analogy is retarted. Because life does not equal God. God is a made up fantasy. No evidence. Life is right under our noses. We can quite easily prove that life exists (within reason).

So drop this God shit. It's basically a big strawman. And yes Rushy, I know what that means.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 04, 2015, 10:14:33 PM
can't be proven or disproven.  Which is why it's not scientific.

Well done.

We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2015, 10:16:09 PM
If we had met a god and knew that gods existed then it would be scientific to search for gods on another planet. That's why your analogy is retarted. Because life does not equal God. God is a made up fantasy. No evidence. Life is right under our noses. We can quite easily prove that life exists (within reason).

So drop this God shit. It's basically a big strawman. And yes Rushy, I know what that means.

What evidence can you bring forth that shows life on Earth is not a special case?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2015, 10:26:38 PM
If we had met a god and knew that gods existed then it would be scientific to search for gods on another planet. That's why your analogy is retarted. Because life does not equal God. God is a made up fantasy. No evidence. Life is right under our noses. We can quite easily prove that life exists (within reason).

So drop this God shit. It's basically a big strawman. And yes Rushy, I know what that means.

What evidence can you bring forth that shows life on Earth is not a special case?

I have no direct evidence, which I've admitted several times. Can you produce some evidence that shows that life on Earth is a special case? I think that's the bigger assumption here considering everything we know about the universe. You're going to say "because we've only found life on Earth", right?

Are you trying to say that the entire field of Astrobiology is a scientific farce with no merit?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2015, 10:32:33 PM
I have no direct evidence, which I've admitted several times. Can you produce some evidence that shows that life on Earth is a special case? I think that's the bigger assumption here considering everything we know about the universe. You're going to say "because we've only found life on Earth", right?

I have one case of planet that has life. You have one case of planet that has life. The difference between us is that you're busy claiming you have more theoretical cases but you can't even provide evidence to support that they exist.

Are you trying to say that the entire field of Astrobiology is a scientific farce with no merit?

The name itself is a misnomer, considering you can't study astronomical life if you don't have any to begin with.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on April 04, 2015, 10:46:38 PM
can't be proven or disproven.  Which is why it's not scientific.

Well done.

We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.

Of course we can prove it. That we haven't does not mean we can't.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 04, 2015, 10:48:26 PM
can't be proven or disproven.  Which is why it's not scientific.

Well done.

We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.

Of course we can prove it. That we haven't does not mean we can't.

We just don't do it because it doesn't interest us very much, huh?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2015, 10:50:22 PM
I have no direct evidence, which I've admitted several times. Can you produce some evidence that shows that life on Earth is a special case? I think that's the bigger assumption here considering everything we know about the universe. You're going to say "because we've only found life on Earth", right?

I have one case of planet that has life. You have one case of planet that has life. The difference between us is that you're busy claiming you have more theoretical cases but you can't even provide evidence to support that they exist.

Are you trying to say that the entire field of Astrobiology is a scientific farce with no merit?

The name itself is a misnomer, considering you can't study astronomical life if you don't have any to begin with.


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

Do you have a good reason for assuming that life does not exist outside our solar system? Despite the fact that other possibly hospitable planets have been detected?


We just don't do it because it doesn't interest us very much, huh?

Once we have starships, we'll let you know.  ::)
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on April 04, 2015, 11:02:40 PM
can't be proven or disproven.  Which is why it's not scientific.

Well done.

We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.

Of course we can prove it. That we haven't does not mean we can't.

We just don't do it because it doesn't interest us very much, huh?

You can't force a radio signal from an alien civilization to get to Earth. You have to wait for it. But people are looking.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 04, 2015, 11:09:30 PM
can't be proven or disproven.  Which is why it's not scientific.

Well done.

We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.

Of course we can prove it. That we haven't does not mean we can't.

We just don't do it because it doesn't interest us very much, huh?

You can't force a radio signal from an alien civilization to get to Earth. You have to wait for it. But people are looking.

So until one comes, if one ever does, we can't prove it.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on April 04, 2015, 11:43:17 PM
can't be proven or disproven.  Which is why it's not scientific.

Well done.

We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.

Of course we can prove it. That we haven't does not mean we can't.

We just don't do it because it doesn't interest us very much, huh?

You can't force a radio signal from an alien civilization to get to Earth. You have to wait for it. But people are looking.

So until one comes, if one ever does, we can't prove it.

I feel like you feel like you are leading me in to a trap.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Fortuna on April 04, 2015, 11:45:01 PM
can't be proven or disproven.  Which is why it's not scientific.

Well done.

We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.

Of course we can prove it. That we haven't does not mean we can't.

We just don't do it because it doesn't interest us very much, huh?

You can't force a radio signal from an alien civilization to get to Earth. You have to wait for it. But people are looking.

So until one comes, if one ever does, we can't prove it.

I feel like you feel like you are leading me in to a trap.

No, I'm just filling the gaps in your education that you seem to have missed in kindergarten.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2015, 11:48:36 PM
I feel like you feel like you are leading me in to a trap.

He's practicing some basic troll techniques.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2015, 11:57:34 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Do you have a good reason for assuming that life does not exist outside our solar system? Despite the fact that other possibly hospitable planets have been detected?

I see you still haven't bothered to read that Wikipedia article. If you want to say life exists outside the solar system, you're free to do so. I'm just saying you might as well be religious too, while you're at it. If you're going to believe in nonsense, might as well broaden your spectrum a bit.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2015, 11:58:30 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Do you have a good reason for assuming that life does not exist outside our solar system? Despite the fact that other possibly hospitable planets have been detected?

I see you still haven't bothered to read that Wikipedia article. If you want to say life exists outside the solar system, you're free to do so. I'm just saying you might as well be religious too, while you're at it. If you're going to believe in nonsense, might as well broaden your spectrum a bit.

no u
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Lord Dave on April 05, 2015, 01:33:38 AM
Life outside the solar system can be proven or disproven.

Disproving life outside the solar system is technically possible, but completely unfeasible. You'd have to search the entire universe. Saying that makes it scientific would be no different than me saying God is on another planet, we just haven't been to it yet.
But how would you disprove God?  Disproving life outside of the solar system (can we just say Earth?) is possible, as you noted.  But can you devise a test to disprove God?  Unless I'm wrong, that's one of the reasons God is not scientific: No test can be devised to disprove it's existence.

can't be proven or disproven.  Which is why it's not scientific.

Well done.

We can currently prove ET life exists just as much as we can prove god exists: we can't. Unless you were planning on taking your Prius to go look.
God can't be disproved.  No test can be devised that God can't simply fool.  Heck, God could change the rules of reality.  How do you use science against that kind of supernatural power?

And as Rushy pointed out, life outside of the solar system CAN be disproved.  It's impractical and not worth doing, but it could be done.

So, God is not the same as ET.  God can't be disproved, ET can.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2015, 01:54:04 AM
But how would you disprove God?  Disproving life outside of the solar system (can we just say Earth?) is possible, as you noted.  But can you devise a test to disprove God?  Unless I'm wrong, that's one of the reasons God is not scientific: No test can be devised to disprove it's existence.

Saying it is technically possible is not the same as saying it is falsifiable. You proposed an unfalsifiable claim because searching the entire universe is unfeasible. Like I said, it would no different than me saying God is on another planet, we just haven't found it yet. Now I've just made God a technically possible to disprove claim, but it is still unfeasible to do so.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Lord Dave on April 05, 2015, 02:10:06 AM
But how would you disprove God?  Disproving life outside of the solar system (can we just say Earth?) is possible, as you noted.  But can you devise a test to disprove God?  Unless I'm wrong, that's one of the reasons God is not scientific: No test can be devised to disprove it's existence.

Saying it is technically possible is not the same as saying it is falsifiable. You proposed an unfalsifiable claim because searching the entire universe is unfeasible. Like I said, it would no different than me saying God is on another planet, we just haven't found it yet. Now I've just made God a technically possible to disprove claim, but it is still unfeasible to do so.

It's unfeasible now but so what?  Plenty of things have been seen as unfeasible until we did them.  This isn't an argument (as it's a logical fallacy) but simply a fact: You can't say it will never be feasible.  I can't say it will be either.  But it is definitely not impossible that it will become feasible.

Of course, this assumes life doesn't exist outside of Earth.  If it does, then it likely won't require searching the whole universe before we find it.

However, even if life was on Titan, it's currently infeasible to find it.  We can't even search all places on our own planet for life as it's infeasible. (pressure and heat being the key factors)
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2015, 02:12:37 AM
It's unfeasible now but so what?  Plenty of things have been seen as unfeasible until we did them.  This isn't an argument (as it's a logical fallacy) but simply a fact: You can't say it will never be feasible.  I can't say it will be either.  But it is definitely not impossible that it will become feasible.

You are suggesting that it will eventually be feasible to search the entirety of the universe for life.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Particle Person on April 05, 2015, 02:14:51 AM
It's unfeasible now but so what?  Plenty of things have been seen as unfeasible until we did them.  This isn't an argument (as it's a logical fallacy) but simply a fact: You can't say it will never be feasible.  I can't say it will be either.  But it is definitely not impossible that it will become feasible.

You are suggesting that it will eventually be feasible to search the entirety of the universe for life.

Didn't you suggest that humanity might eventually reverse entropy recently?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2015, 02:15:52 AM
Didn't you suggest that humanity might eventually reverse entropy recently?

Please quote me that post so I can argue with myself.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Particle Person on April 05, 2015, 02:19:21 AM
Didn't you suggest that humanity might eventually reverse entropy recently?

Please quote me that post so I can argue with myself.

So what will we do when each atom in existence is separated by trillions of light years?

Put them back together.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2015, 02:21:52 AM
Didn't you suggest that humanity might eventually reverse entropy recently?

Please quote me that post so I can argue with myself.

So what will we do when each atom in existence is separated by trillions of light years?

Put them back together.

That has nothing to do with reversing entropy.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Particle Person on April 05, 2015, 02:28:40 AM
Okay, reversing the universe's heat death, caused by entropy.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Lord Dave on April 05, 2015, 02:31:38 AM
It's unfeasible now but so what?  Plenty of things have been seen as unfeasible until we did them.  This isn't an argument (as it's a logical fallacy) but simply a fact: You can't say it will never be feasible.  I can't say it will be either.  But it is definitely not impossible that it will become feasible.

You are suggesting that it will eventually be feasible to search the entirety of the universe for life.
I'm suggesting that it's possible it will eventually be feasible to search the entirety of the universe for life. 

I look at it this way:
If I asked anyone in the 15th century if we'll ever visit the moon, I'm sure everyone I meet would laugh at me and say it's impossible.  The distances are simply large to launch or fly to. 

I can't predict the future so I'm not going to assume something will always be infeasible just because it is now.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2015, 02:32:22 AM
Okay, reversing the universe's heat death, caused by entropy.

You asked what we could do if they were really far apart and I answered we could put them back together. You never stipulated that there is no available energy left in the universe due to some environmental phenomenon.

I'm suggesting that it's possible it will eventually be feasible to search the entirety of the universe for life. 

Okay. I was just making sure.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on April 05, 2015, 02:50:37 AM
Okay, reversing the universe's heat death, caused by entropy.

You asked what we could do if they were really far apart and I answered we could put them back together. You never stipulated that there is no available energy left in the universe due to some environmental phenomenon.


He did stipulate that every atom was separated by trillions of light years though.  Sort of hard to mobilize at that point.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2015, 02:53:30 AM
He did stipulate that every atom was separated by trillions of light years though.  Sort of hard to mobilize at that point.

It would be very hard, yes, but he didn't say it involved the heat death of the universe.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Particle Person on April 05, 2015, 03:01:26 AM
The point is that you suggested we might do something that would be unfathamable with today's technology on a universal scale, like, say, searching the universe for life.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2015, 03:44:10 AM
The point is that you suggested we might do something that would be unfathamable with today's technology on a universal scale, like, say, searching the universe for life.

The difference is that my suggestion was made tongue in cheek and Dave's was not.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 05, 2015, 03:59:59 AM
The point is that you suggested we might do something that would be unfathamable with today's technology on a universal scale, like, say, searching the universe for life.

The difference is that my suggestion was made tongue in cheek and Dave's was not.

That excuses you from everything.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Hoppy on April 05, 2015, 08:32:26 PM
Does anyone? Anyone? Have proof that these other planets are more than specks of light in the sky? If the specks of light are not actually other worlds, it seems pointless to argue they hold life forms on them.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Ghost of V on April 05, 2015, 08:47:59 PM
This is a purely hypothetical discussion.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Particle Person on April 05, 2015, 08:50:35 PM
You can resolve those specks of light into circles with discernible features with equipment cheaper than $100.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Hoppy on April 05, 2015, 10:34:39 PM
You can resolve those specks of light into circles with discernible features with equipment cheaper than $100.
Yes, I have done this before. It does not prove what size the lights are. It only proves the planets are larger lights than stars.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on April 06, 2015, 12:36:36 AM
You can resolve those specks of light into circles with discernible features with equipment cheaper than $100.
Yes, I have done this before. It does not prove what size the lights are. It only proves the planets are larger lights than stars.

Yeah and you use parallax or redshift to tell how far away they are.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: mister bickles on April 06, 2015, 07:23:15 AM
these "creationists" are just controlled opposition because they adhere to all the really important and major memes of TPTB/NWO......jews are nice people, the Holocaust happened, the nazis were bad, Hitler was bad, "racism" is bad, the world is a sphere, there are planets, galaxies &c, the Bible codes are false, the world and the Universe are only 6000yrs old (totally ridiculous......they can't even explain when Lucifer fell!), Einstein was a genius (he was a total fraud), the Roswell Incident was a weather balloon  ;D, vaccinations are good for you (in fact: they are jew population control as per The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion), "psychiatry" (a bogus jew 'invention') is a legitimate science and Nikola Tesla and his amazing discoveries are ignored.....
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: The Ellimist on April 07, 2015, 01:34:41 AM
My comment sparked meaningful debate!





Give me a cookie.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: AMann on April 12, 2015, 10:41:51 PM
Saw this debate live.
It was fun to watch.
Ken Ham ended up looking like a fool.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: mister bickles on April 14, 2015, 03:35:07 AM
Saw this debate live.
It was fun to watch.
Ken Ham ended up looking like a fool.


maybe....
i don't think that Nye would'v done as good if he had to "take on" some of the Intelligent Design heavy-weights like, for instance, Steven Meyer or Michael Behe.....
in that case, Nye would'v ended up looking like a fool.....and...a prize-winning one @ that  :(

(any-way.....the "debate format" was too short....you'd need some-thing like 1½-hr each for the main presentation; ½-hr each for rebuttals and one hour for questions from the 'audience'......'course....that means a five-hour format and with people's attention spans so small these days...... :(  )



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hO0A4gPv2o
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: AMann on April 17, 2015, 08:46:21 AM
Saw this debate live.
It was fun to watch.
Ken Ham ended up looking like a fool.


maybe....
i don't think that Nye would'v done as good if he had to "take on" some of the Intelligent Design heavy-weights like, for instance, Steven Meyer or Michael Behe.....
in that case, Nye would'v ended up looking like a fool.....and...a prize-winning one @ that  :(

(any-way.....the "debate format" was too short....you'd need some-thing like 1½-hr each for the main presentation; ½-hr each for rebuttals and one hour for questions from the 'audience'......'course....that means a five-hour format and with people's attention spans so small these days...... :(  )





I highly doubt that intelligent design 'heavyweights' would make him look like the fool. They would simply draw better arguments out of him. The debate against Ham was ridiculous, Nye ran out of things to argue about because it is hard to argue against random nonsense. It wasn't a real debate... and it really could never be when one side has scientific evidence and the other blind belief. Ham said it himself when he said that no matter what, he could not be persuaded against his views...
Nye said that evidence would change his mind. That's a completely scientific response. Science doesn't care about beliefs, it cares about evidence. A scientist is willing to accept anything as possible, but the more outlandish the claim, the more evidence that will be required to make it believable. Ham was unable to provide any evidence... that leaves his 'idea' with nothing to stand on except brain-washed beliefs....

That video is pretty laughable...
I am actually sorry that I watched it. It provided nothing really... If this is the best that intelligent design 'heavyweights' can do, it's a wonder that anyone takes creationism seriously at all.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: mister bickles on April 20, 2015, 05:44:32 AM
I highly doubt that intelligent design 'heavyweights' would make him look like the fool. They would simply draw better arguments out of him. The debate against Ham was ridiculous, Nye ran out of things to argue about because it is hard to argue against random nonsense. It wasn't a real debate... and it really could never be when one side has scientific evidence and the other blind belief. Ham said it himself when he said that no matter what, he could not be persuaded against his views...
Nye said that evidence would change his mind. That's a completely scientific response. Science doesn't care about beliefs, it cares about evidence. A scientist is willing to accept anything as possible, but the more outlandish the claim, the more evidence that will be required to make it believable. Ham was unable to provide any evidence... that leaves his 'idea' with nothing to stand on except brain-washed beliefs....

That video is pretty laughable...
I am actually sorry that I watched it. It provided nothing really... If this is the best that intelligent design 'heavyweights' can do, it's a wonder that anyone takes creationism seriously at all.

i think that you either misunderstood what the IDrs were saying in the video or you weren't concentrating;

maybe you should re-watch it;

if so: you will find that the pro-evolution panel had no answer(s) @ all to the IDrs claims of ID in the cell;

they couldn't explain (via naturalistic means) nor did they even bother to address:
i/the chemical coding systems (DNA/RNA and other, recently discovered, double and triple embedded 'languages');
ii/the irreducible complexity of a multitude of biochemical systems;
iii/the (eerie) machine-like quality of the cell and its attendant systems....in particular: protein function
(bacterial flagellum, cilia &c)

that's three strikes and yr O_U_T ! 

Darwinism is dead!

it is totally paralysed in the face of the gob-smacking, intricate design now being discovered @ the molecular biological level;

as for Nye being able to 'take on' Behe......come on!  ::)

Nye is an intellectual light-weight whereas Behe is a fully tenured Professor of biochemistry who has published in peer-reviewed journals!

Behe would wipe the floor with him!


this YouTube might "get the message" across a bit more clearly....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffaw46_p8t4

enjoy!  :-B
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rama Set on April 20, 2015, 01:14:44 PM
The irreducible complexity argument is just a god of the gaps argument. 
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Misero on April 20, 2015, 08:44:37 PM
ET life means extraterrestrial, outside of earth, not extrasolar, outside of the solar system.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: lions_lair on April 21, 2015, 02:03:24 AM
The guy got his ass handed to him by Bill...
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Misero on April 21, 2015, 07:16:32 PM
Can we all say that we root for Bill in all his debates?
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: AMann on April 22, 2015, 10:51:00 PM
I highly doubt that intelligent design 'heavyweights' would make him look like the fool. They would simply draw better arguments out of him. The debate against Ham was ridiculous, Nye ran out of things to argue about because it is hard to argue against random nonsense. It wasn't a real debate... and it really could never be when one side has scientific evidence and the other blind belief. Ham said it himself when he said that no matter what, he could not be persuaded against his views...
Nye said that evidence would change his mind. That's a completely scientific response. Science doesn't care about beliefs, it cares about evidence. A scientist is willing to accept anything as possible, but the more outlandish the claim, the more evidence that will be required to make it believable. Ham was unable to provide any evidence... that leaves his 'idea' with nothing to stand on except brain-washed beliefs....

That video is pretty laughable...
I am actually sorry that I watched it. It provided nothing really... If this is the best that intelligent design 'heavyweights' can do, it's a wonder that anyone takes creationism seriously at all.

i think that you either misunderstood what the IDrs were saying in the video or you weren't concentrating;

maybe you should re-watch it;

if so: you will find that the pro-evolution panel had no answer(s) @ all to the IDrs claims of ID in the cell;

they couldn't explain (via naturalistic means) nor did they even bother to address:
i/the chemical coding systems (DNA/RNA and other, recently discovered, double and triple embedded 'languages');
ii/the irreducible complexity of a multitude of biochemical systems;
iii/the (eerie) machine-like quality of the cell and its attendant systems....in particular: protein function
(bacterial flagellum, cilia &c)

that's three strikes and yr O_U_T ! 

Darwinism is dead!

it is totally paralysed in the face of the gob-smacking, intricate design now being discovered @ the molecular biological level;

as for Nye being able to 'take on' Behe......come on!  ::)

Nye is an intellectual light-weight whereas Behe is a fully tenured Professor of biochemistry who has published in peer-reviewed journals!

Behe would wipe the floor with him!


this YouTube might "get the message" across a bit more clearly....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffaw46_p8t4

enjoy!  :-B

You are joking right?
Your 3 points that you brought up neither confirm nor deny intelligent design.
Those heavy-weight morons (and I call them morons because in spite of their intelligence hold onto a belief without evidence), fail to show evidence of intelligent design. They are working on the same argument that hundreds of people have used over the past hundred years: "how could *such and such complex thing* occur naturally?". The fact that most of the ludicrous questions have already been answered only means they have to bring up another. The trouble with this line of defense is that finding a question that someone doesn't have an answer to, in no way proves one side or the other. It merely makes them feel like they are ahead in the debate, when in reality, it doesn't go anywhere.
That is the difference between science and fanaticism. Scientists will admit when they don't know something. That's why there is still research going on - if we knew everything, what would we need to research for? Fanatics on the other hand already have an idea and will use gaps in knowledge to fit their fanatic ideas into. In reality, their arguments show a severe lack in logic.

No such thing as Darwinism.
And Evolution is far from dead - it is actually a scientific fact.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: mister bickles on April 23, 2015, 06:57:31 AM

You are joking right?
Your 3 points that you brought up neither confirm nor deny intelligent design.

uh....really?
perhaps you could explain how information and complex nano-type machinery could arise w/out the intervention of an intelligent agent......in this case.....a super-Intelligent Agent!  ???


Quote
"how could *such and such complex thing* occur naturally?"

exactly!
and the fact that complex, self-reproducing molecular machinery and information-driven and controlled recursive sub-sytems could not have originated naturally (since no known laws of Physics could produce such systems), ipso facto, defaults to the only viable explanation.....(super)-Intelligent Design  :o


Quote
The fact that most of the ludicrous questions have already been answered only means they have to bring up another

not really!
none of Behe's original assertions (contained in his first book, "Darwin's Black Box") have been answered;
in fact: they haven't even been satisfactorily addressed;
he 'touches' on this in the Blogging Heads 'interview' and goes into it in more depth in his most recent book "The Edge of Evolution"


Quote
The trouble with this line of defense is that finding a question that someone doesn't have an answer to, in no way proves one side or the other

there is an "answer" and a very good one....its called Intelligent Design!


Quote
That is the difference between science and fanaticism. Scientists will admit when they don't know something. That's why there is still research going on - if we knew everything, what would we need to research for? Fanatics on the other hand already have an idea and will use gaps in knowledge to fit their fanatic ideas into. In reality, their arguments show a severe lack in logic

well....sorry!....but the real fanatics are the "scientists falsely so called" because they automatically pre-exclude any non-naturalistic explanation....its automatically ruled "out of court";
i can, in fact, cite you just such a quote from John Maddox, the (former) editor of Nature;
their "fanatical" religion is called methodological, atheistic naturalism;
here's a good little picture of it! (http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion)



Quote
No such thing as Darwinism.
And Evolution is far from dead - it is actually a scientific fact.

get with it!
Darwinism died a long time ago.....well....neo-Darwinism....or the neo-Darwinian theory.....the current paradigm!
the people spruiking this nonsense are going to be made to look increasingly stoopid!
the results of the ENCODE project have pretty much nailed them to the wall!
wake up to the 21st century......Intelligent Design is the paradigm!  8)
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: AMann on April 23, 2015, 07:17:55 PM







Quote
That is the difference between science and fanaticism. Scientists will admit when they don't know something. That's why there is still research going on - if we knew everything, what would we need to research for? Fanatics on the other hand already have an idea and will use gaps in knowledge to fit their fanatic ideas into. In reality, their arguments show a severe lack in logic

well....sorry!....but the real fanatics are the "scientists falsely so called" because they automatically pre-exclude any non-naturalistic explanation....its automatically ruled "out of court";
i can, in fact, cite you just such a quote from John Maddox, the (former) editor of Nature;
their "fanatical" religion is called methodological, atheistic naturalism;
here's a good little picture of it! (http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion)



Quote
No such thing as Darwinism.
And Evolution is far from dead - it is actually a scientific fact.

get with it!
Darwinism died a long time ago.....well....neo-Darwinism....or the neo-Darwinian theory.....the current paradigm!
the people spruiking this nonsense are going to be made to look increasingly stoopid!
the results of the ENCODE project have pretty much nailed them to the wall!
wake up to the 21st century......Intelligent Design is the paradigm!  8)

[/quote]

uh....really?
perhaps you could explain how information and complex nano-type machinery could arise w/out the intervention of an intelligent agent......in this case.....a super-Intelligent Agent!  ???


You are still inaccurately asserting that the inability to explain something is the automatic proof of something else.
Complex systems are certainly possible in evolution, especially when one understands how things like protein facilitators and enzymes work.
You still have nothing to directly point to a designer.

exactly!
and the fact that complex, self-reproducing molecular machinery and information-driven and controlled recursive sub-sytems could not have originated naturally (since no known laws of Physics could produce such systems), ipso facto, defaults to the only viable explanation.....(super)-Intelligent Design  :o


You are speculating that it could not originate naturally. You have no evidence that it cannot.

not really!
none of Behe's original assertions (contained in his first book, "Darwin's Black Box") have been answered;
in fact: they haven't even been satisfactorily addressed;
he 'touches' on this in the Blogging Heads 'interview' and goes into it in more depth in his most recent book "The Edge of Evolution"


And how do you address assertions that are based entirely on questions about what is not yet known and yet still has nothing to do with the issue they are trying to project as true? Science is still looking for the answers. Finding gaps in knowledge and superimposing super-individuals in as an explanation and claiming it as fact is the same thing that religions do (look at Zeus in Greek mythology for the explanation for lightning). There is no way as of yet to prove an intelligent designer as there is no evidence, so any attempt to do so is the work of fanaticism and not science.

there is an "answer" and a very good one....its called Intelligent Design!

You are stuck with the idea you have been brain-washed with.
Intelligent design is a possible explanation, but not the only one. You and anyone else have yet to provide any proof that intelligent design is the answer.
And even if intelligent design was someday shown to be the answer, there would always be the question: where did the intelligent designer come from.
Science will never be finished asking questions - that's the fun of it. We never assume to know anything for sure. We look for evidence.

well....sorry!....but the real fanatics are the "scientists falsely so called" because they automatically pre-exclude any non-naturalistic explanation....its automatically ruled "out of court";
i can, in fact, cite you just such a quote from John Maddox, the (former) editor of Nature;
their "fanatical" religion is called methodological, atheistic naturalism;
here's a good little picture of it! (http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion)

Now I know you are a joke lol
You say scientists are labeled falsely because they follow the evidence they have? There is no evidence for any non-naturalistic explanation. Scientists follow evidence. If you do not have evidence, you do not have anything.

get with it!
Darwinism died a long time ago.....well....neo-Darwinism....or the neo-Darwinian theory.....the current paradigm!
the people spruiking this nonsense are going to be made to look increasingly stoopid!
the results of the ENCODE project have pretty much nailed them to the wall!
wake up to the 21st century......Intelligent Design is the paradigm!  8)

[/quote]

Again - no such thing as Darwinism in science.
I believe the word you are referring to is Evolution.
I have yet to see anyone trying disprove evolution look anything but stupid... or at the very least lacking in the ability to argue logically.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Rushy on April 23, 2015, 07:37:42 PM
Feeding a bad troll is not a victimless crime. Please stop.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: AMann on April 23, 2015, 09:41:02 PM
Feeding a bad troll is not a victimless crime. Please stop.

Apologies.
It is often hard to distinguish between a troll and a true fanatic (Poe's Law).
Fanaticism irks me and I try to respond with logic, even though I know by the definition of a fanatic that it will be fruitless.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: mister bickles on April 24, 2015, 01:16:54 AM
Complex systems are certainly possible in evolution, especially when one understands how things like protein facilitators and enzymes work.
You still have nothing to directly point to a designer

yr reply is all mixed up with mine.....but...i'll address this because its probably the most relevant and pertinent;

irreducibly complex, machine-like systems are not possible in evolution;
certainly not in "evolution" as its commonly understood and certainly not without Intelligent intervention;
the Second Law of Thermodynamics mitigates heavily against it and, also, the fact that information cannot originate from any naturalistic-type process;
information required intelligence;
that is a clear deduction using the same sort of methodology that cryptographers, forensic scientists and archaeologists employ!
more-over, the irreducibly complex systems we see in Nature would have to have been all put in place instantaneously and simultaneously for life to survive (you can't have, for instance, a ½-completed blood clotting system)....it has to all be working perfectly from the word "GO!";
the close similarity of biological systems also indicates not many but a single, Omnipotent Designer;
this book (http://creation.com/the-biotic-message-book-review) goes into that argument in detail;
see, in particular, the sections on "Haldane's Dilemma" and "Nested Hierarchy"
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: AMann on April 24, 2015, 01:25:47 AM
*puts troll food back in his pockets*
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: junker on April 24, 2015, 02:01:32 AM
irreducibly complex, machine-like systems are not possible in evolution;
certainly not in "evolution" as its commonly understood and certainly not without Intelligent intervention;
I suppose it is a good thing that this isn't the case.

information required intelligence;
that is a clear deduction using the same sort of methodology that cryptographers, forensic scientists and archaeologists employ!
This is unequivocally false.
 
more-over, the irreducibly complex systems we see in Nature would have to have been all put in place instantaneously and simultaneously for life to survive
Who sees? This literally makes no sense and is entirely made up.

the close similarity of biological systems also indicates not many but a single, Omnipotent Designer;
False.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: mister bickles on April 24, 2015, 03:03:01 AM
[.........]
 

i suggest you get a copy of this book (http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-Cell-Bruce-Alberts/dp/0815341113/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429844340&sr=1-10&keywords=molecular+biology+of+the+cell) and read it!

oh....BTW....can you cite any example of information or machinery being produced without intelligent intervention?!?  ::)

sheesh!

some of you people on here.....you must have some sort of brain disease or some-thing....Encephalitis or some-thing!

UN-believable!   ::)
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on April 24, 2015, 01:15:04 PM
[.........]
 

i suggest you get a copy of this book (http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-Cell-Bruce-Alberts/dp/0815341113/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429844340&sr=1-10&keywords=molecular+biology+of+the+cell) and read it!

oh....BTW....can you cite any example of information or machinery being produced without intelligent intervention?!?  ::)

sheesh!

some of you people on here.....you must have some sort of brain disease or some-thing....Encephalitis or some-thing!

UN-believable!   ::)

Well this (above) must count as information, and I see no sign of intelligence.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: junker on April 26, 2015, 12:03:52 AM
oh....BTW....can you cite any example of information or machinery being produced without intelligent intervention?!?  ::)

Unicellular organisms.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: mister bickles on July 13, 2015, 10:52:27 AM
sorry!
its "irreducible complexity" all the way down!  :o
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: junker on July 13, 2015, 06:03:38 PM

sorry!
its "irreducible complexity" all the way down!  :o


False.
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Cypher9 on September 09, 2018, 06:49:29 PM
Where am I the Bill Nye appreciation society?!  ;)
Title: Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 10, 2018, 01:34:52 AM
Where am I the Bill Nye appreciation society?!  ;)
You're in a place where bumping a 3-year-old thread with a pointless comment is not appreciated. Have a warning. Locking thread.