Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

[geauxforbroke]

This is well stated, but there are a lot of people in between the two absolutes.

I'm one of those people. In fact, I'm not really one for taking strict sides or absolutes. But I think that's why I have little patience for this debate.

"The important thing is to not stop questioning" -Albert Einstein.  I have this quote hanging in my office.  The fundamental approach of science is to keep asking and answering the questions.  With each answer come new questions.  And with each discovery comes new ideas and technology, etc.  It is not a failure in science to keep having questions come up.  It is the objective.

My issue with some religious groups is they are the exact opposite.  They don't want you to ask questions.  They want you to believe absolutely what they say to be true.  If find most people to be in between.  They ask some questions and want some answers.  Other things they take on faith.

I wholeheartedly agree that the pursuit of knowledge is man's greatest endeavor. However, my point was simply this: if we were to discover tomorrow absolute evidence that was beyond doubt that the Big Bang occurred, creationists can always say that the Big Bang was created by God, and since God is unobservable, we are only observing the results of his actions, not the actions themselves, and then we're back where we started. It's impossible to reconcile natural laws to supernatural laws.

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="geauxforbroke" url="/t/72359/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham/36#post_947493"]   This thread is going nowhere fast. The simple fact of the matter is those with faith in creationism won't be convinced otherwise because they place a lot of importance on that faith. Conversely, those who subscribe to naturalism won't be convinced otherwise because they place a huge importance on facts and absolutes. Until the two sides of the debate are willing to sit down and identify common ground, we'll get no closer to a conclusion.  But I think that brings up the most important point. Is there really a conclusion to come to? Whenever you pit science against faith, you're never going to have a definitive answer because you are debating natural laws vs. supernatural laws. They are apples to oranges, and I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. So aren't there more important issues in the world today? Let creationists have their faith; let naturalists have their facts.  [/QUOTE] This is well stated, but there are a lot of people in between the two absolutes.  "The important thing is to not stop questioning" -Albert Einstein.  I have this quote hanging in my office.  The fundamental approach of science is to keep asking and answering the questions.  With each answer come new questions.  And with each discovery comes new ideas and technology, etc.  It is not a failure in science to keep having questions come up.  It is the objective. My issue with some religious groups is they are the exact opposite.  They don't want you to ask questions.  They want you to believe absolutely what they say to be true.  If find most people to be in between.  They ask some questions and want some answers.  Other things they take on faith. Our golf instruction from this site is very much like the scientific approach BTW.  Which is why I like it.

That's definitely something we can all agree. I like the step by step process, it allows us to optimize each movement.

[colin007]

Just to clarify, the term "day" in the Bible can refer both to a literal 24 hour day, or an unspecified period of time lasting possibly many many years, eons perhaps, depending on context. Not all who belive in creation are creationists who believe the universe and earth were created in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago.

[cipher]

That's definitely something we can all agree.

I like the step by step process, it allows us to optimize each movement.

Nope, I just want the guys to tell me what to do and what will work, and I just believe them.  I don't need to think or ask why...

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/72359/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham/54#post_947511"] That's definitely something we can all agree. I like the step by step process, it allows us to optimize each movement.[/QUOTE] Nope, I just want the guys to tell me what to do and what will work, and I just believe them.  I don't need to think or ask why...;-)

:-)

[Slice of Life]

Just to clarify, the term "day" in the Bible can refer both to a literal 24 hour day, or an unspecified period of time lasting possibly many many years, eons perhaps, depending on context. Not all who belive in creation are creationists who believe the universe and earth were created in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago.

Try clarifying that to Ken Ham...

[colin007]

Try clarifying that to Ken Ham...

I didn't watch the video, does he think that the earth was created in a week?

[Slice of Life]

I didn't watch the video, does he think that the earth was created in a week?

Yes. And that a day in the Bible is literally 24 hours, and the earth is 6,000 years old.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by colin007

I didn't watch the video, does he think that the earth was created in a week?

Yes. And that a day in the Bible is literally 24 hours, and the earth is 6,000 years old.

Yeah. I really wish they had someone more qualified to argue with Nye, and not over this topic.

[iacas]

Yeah. I really wish they had someone more qualified to argue with Nye, and not over this topic.

Ken Ham IS very qualified to speak on the topic. He's the head of that group of people that hosted the debate.

[mdl]

But I think that brings up the most important point. Is there really a conclusion to come to? Whenever you pit science against faith, you're never going to have a definitive answer because you are debating natural laws vs. supernatural laws. They are apples to oranges, and I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. So aren't there more important issues in the world today? Let creationists have their faith; let naturalists have their facts.

Right on.  I got my panties in a bunch above because this totally reasonable position was used above to advocate teaching our children about apples and oranges in apples class, pretending we just can't know whether an orange is an apple or not.  If one wants his children to believe oranges are apples, that is one's right.  I just strongly object to others trying to get that taught to my children.

[Lihu]

Ken Ham IS very qualified to speak on the topic. He's the head of that group of people that hosted the debate.

I watched the debate for the entire time, and I guess I just wished it went a little more like a debate.

[iacas]

I watched the debate for the entire time, and I guess I just wished it went a little more like a debate.

Yeah, in the end, it was almost a waste of time because they weren't doing that.

[Crim]

The Catholic Church accepts evolution.  In fact, it is taught in Catholic schools from Kindergarten.  My son's first science work was on dinosaurs, and they were not around when humans evolved. Evolution is not a theory for atheists only.  And again, people of the fringes of religion (both ends) are always trying to divide us.

Lastly, the guy in #4 would have failed Thermo. Diversity created by mutation and natural selection increases the entropy of the system.

I went to a Catholic School from kindergarten to 8th gr. and evolution was not taught.

Perhaps it's the school or maybe times have changed. (I'm 27 now)

[saevel25]

Evolution is mostly taught in high school. Darwin and evolution was a high school subject for me. I went to catholic school up till college.

Just because they teach about dinosaurs doesn't mean they are teaching the details of evolution. They might just be teaching about the different Era's in history.

[boogielicious]

From Wikipedia.

According to Eugenie Scott , Director of the US National Center for Science Education : "Theistic evolutionism" is the official position of the Catholic church. In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic TE position, according to which God created, evolution occurred, human beings may indeed have been descended from more primitive forms, and the Hand of God was required for the production of the human soul" ^[3] Statements from the Church in recent decades hold that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation , and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. Moreover, the Church teaches that the process of evolution is a planned and purpose-driven natural process, guided by God. ^{[4] [5] [6]}

In Bill Maher's Religulous , a Vatican spokesman confirmed this position.

In my son's Catholic School, evolution was taught in science.

Steven Hawking has in the past discussed the Big Bang with the Pope.  The Pope at the time basically said that Hawking could have "everything up to the Big Bang, but not before".

[14ledo81]

[QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/72359/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham/54#post_947511"] That's definitely something we can all agree. I like the step by step process, it allows us to optimize each movement.[/QUOTE] Nope, I just want the guys to tell me what to do and what will work, and I just believe them.  I don't need to think or ask why...;-)

I see what you did there. Well played.

[cipher]

I see what you did there. Well played.