Bill Nye debates Ken Ham

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

This is over a 2 hour debate, just so you are aware before you decide to watch the whole thing.

Bill Nye (born November 27, 1955), popularly known as Bill Nye the Science Guy, is an American science educator, comedian, television host, actor, writer, and scientist who began his career as a mechanical engineer at Boeing. He is best known as the host of the Disney/PBS children's science show Bill Nye the Science Guy (1993–98) and for his many subsequent appearances in popular media as a science educator. He studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University (where one of his professors was Carl Sagan) and graduated with a Bachelor of Science in 1977. In May 2008, Nye was awarded an honorary doctorate by Johns Hopkins University. In May 2011, he received an Honorary Doctor of Science degree from Willamette University, where he was the keynote speaker for that year's commencement exercises. In addition, Bill Nye also received an honorary Doctor of Pedagogy degree from Lehigh University on May 20, 2013 at the commencement ceremony. Nye received the 2010 Humanist of the Year Award from the American Humanist Association.

Ken Ham (born 20 October 1951) is an Australian young-Earth creationist who advocates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. He is the president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Creation Museum. In 1979, Ham co-founded what was to be later known as the Creation Science Foundation (CSF) in Queensland, Australia with John Mackay. Ken Ham earned a Bachelor of Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology, at Queensland Institute of Technology and a diploma in Education from the University of Queensland. He has been awarded two honorary degrees: In 1997 from Temple Baptist College in Cincinnati, Ohio and in 2004 from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

Both small snippets I posted above are copied from their Wiki pages.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Kirkendall 1st MRB

[K. Lloyd]

Nice one I missed the live version and had only seen clips of it on the net

[T. Brown 1st MRB]

[Bradley 1st MRB]

A pretty accurate representation of two very different world views, thanks for posting.

[T. Brown 1st MRB]

That final(ish) question where they asked what could change their mind...that kind of pissed me off. Bill straight up said that if a one single shred of evidence came forward that would challenge his views, he'd reassess them. Ken? Nothing could.

Humanity is definitely an intelligent species, no doubt about it, but to assume that you are unequivocally correct is just wrong. That's the biggest problem I have with faith; it is, by its very nature, proudly obdurate.

[Bradley 1st MRB]

That final(ish) question where they asked what could change their mind...that kind of pissed me off. Bill straight up said that if a one single shred of evidence came forward that would challenge his views, he'd reassess them. Ken? Nothing could.

Humanity is definitely an intelligent species, no doubt about it, but to assume that you are unequivocally correct is just wrong. That's the biggest problem I have with faith; it is, by its very nature, proudly obdurate.

Well said Brown, I think that's the main reason people choose to reject religion.

[O'Gara 1st MRB]

That final(ish) question where they asked what could change their mind...that kind of pissed me off. Bill straight up said that if a one single shred of evidence came forward that would challenge his views, he'd reassess them. Ken? Nothing could.

Humanity is definitely an intelligent species, no doubt about it, but to assume that you are unequivocally correct is just wrong. That's the biggest problem I have with faith; it is, by its very nature, proudly obdurate.

Actually Brown, Bill Nye gave a litany of things that would have to happen before (WE) not (he) would change his opinion. Exactly 206:10 he stated WE need just one piece of evidence. He started out with the fossils from one sedimentary layer existing in another layer and then went on to list evidence that the universe is not expanding and also the Planets that appear to be far away when they are not (creationist theory) and then he went with rock layers that formed in 4000 years . Thus, in order to change Bill Nye's opinion you would have to knock down every one of his scientific "domino's". Ken on the other hand has his beliefs and is not budging, something that is rare in this world.

I think it is fair to say that both of these gentlemen's beliefs are set in granite and are not changing.

In the end they both made very good points and held their own. I don't believe Ken ever said that creationism is unequivocally correct. In fact, creationists are completely transparent and state that their beliefs are based upon the Bible. He states that Evolutionists can do experimental and observation science. The problem exists when they fill in the gaps with historical science that are based upon assumptions and constants that they assume existed all the while through sequence of the time period. Hence the fact that carbon dating is somewhat inconclusive and that there are hundreds of ways to date something all giving hundreds of different answers.

As a religious person my hurdle is the fact that the earth is 6,000 years old. It is clear to me that the earth is older and in the billions of years. Maybe the translation of the Bible was incorrect and when they said it took 6 days it really meant 6 billion years. LOL.

JP

Edited February 6, 2014 by O'Gara 1st MRB

[O'Gara 1st MRB]

P.S.

I want my 2 hours and 45 minutes back!

[Dawson 1st MRB]

[Dawson 1st MRB]

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

We had this same lecture when I started World Archaeology this term, we were talking about Pseudoscience and the differences between Creationists and Scientists. Both are not strictly incompatible, you can be a religious person and still be a scientist, its just a question of where they draw information from. Scientists can test their theories and draw empirical lines of evidence, Religion relies on personal feelings and experiences and for the most part cannot be backed by empirical evidence.

This doesn't mean we should automatically uphold science over religion, I myself am taking a course on Religion, Magic, and Witchcraft (Anthropology course) and there are plenty of cases where science alone cannot explain everything. The trick is to find the right balance, and draw your own conclusions based on what you see without being completely blind to new developments. The most zealous Theist can be just as blind as the most ardent Athiest IMO.

[Guest]

As a somewhat religious person I find myself increasingly facepalming when discussing logic, science or any critical faculty with many religious people.

[Parker 1st MRB]

Why can't religion and science get a long? We are actually hundreds of years behind in science because the Catholic Church banned it in the middle ages. Think of what we could have accomplished in science and the kind of world we could have been living in if that didn't happen?

[O'Gara 1st MRB]

Why can't religion and science get a long? We are actually hundreds of years behind in science because the Catholic Church banned it in the middle ages. Think of what we could have accomplished in science and the kind of world we could have been living in if that didn't happen?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BAomAwIwxm8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is definitely true but I think all Churches back then did the exact same thing. They did not want anyone free thinking on their own!

Lets post what you think we would have had if this scientific interruption did not happen.

I am going to say....Transporter pods. They would be in train stations, subway stations and airports. You just step into the pod and you would be at your destination in a few seconds. World hunger would be eliminated due to the fact that all the restaurants all over the world could transport unneeded and extra food, immediately to the needy all over the world.

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

Why can't religion and science get a long? We are actually hundreds of years behind in science because the Catholic Church banned it in the middle ages. Think of what we could have accomplished in science and the kind of world we could have been living in if that didn't happen?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BAomAwIwxm8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is definitely true but I think all Churches back then did the exact same thing. They did not want anyone free thinking on their own!

Lets post what you think we would have had if this scientific interruption did not happen.

I am going to say....Transporter pods. They would be in train stations, subway stations and airports. You just step into the pod and you would be at your destination in a few seconds. World hunger would be eliminated due to the fact that all the restaurants all over the world could transport unneeded and extra food, immediately to the needy all over the world.

It depends on the religion, and whether or not they care about centralizing their control over the minds and morals of the public like the Catholic Church did, or how most Islam sects held the Qu'ran and its divine knowledge over the human knowledge gained through science. I personally wonder what would have happened if we had more Polytheistic "Pagan" Religions over the major Monotheistic religions of today.

As for scientific advancements without the stagnation...its hard to guess, but I think we may have new sources of energy, a greater understanding of how we can effect and control the climate, and perhaps even better rockets for space travel. Maybe even a better source for dealing with infections, since most of our antibiotics are going to become useless in about a decade or so since we've misused them due to our insufficient knowledge.