Geekologie I Watch Stuff The Superficial

The Entire Bill Nye/Ken Ham Evolution/Creation Debate

bill-nye-ken-ham-evolution-young-earth-debate.jpg

This is a 2-hour 45-minute Youtube video (watch the whole thing and it'll almost be time to leave for the day!) of the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate on evolution vs young earth creation. Who won? Nobody -- nobody won. Zero opinions were changed, just as I expected. You have to indoctrinate the youth!

"Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era," Ham said, according to the Associated Press. "I believe the word 'science' has been high-jacked by secularists."


"I just want to remind us all there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious, who get enriched by the wonderful sense of community by their religion," Nye said. "But these same people do not embrace the extraordinary view that the Earth is somehow only 6,000 years old.

"If we continue to eschew science... we are not going to move forward," he added. "We will not embrace natural laws. We will not make discoveries. We will not invent and innovate and stay ahead."

Listen, all I want to know is why the person who edited the video left 15-minutes of countdown to the debate on the front end of the clip. I didn't even make it to the actual debate. Eight minutes of watching the countdown and I bailed. I might pick up where I left off tonight, but I don't know if I have another seven minutes in me. "Why don't you just skip ahead?" Huh? "Just skip to the debate." What do you mean? "YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH THE COUNTDOWN." You're not changing my opinion.

Keep going for the video.

Thanks to me, for remembering to do a follow-up because I have an impeccable memory and...something else I was going to say.

There are Comments.
  • DeksamTorrac

    Heres a thought: If God can make everything he can change anything, then he can surely change the length of a second of time, simply by changing the effect of gravity to a greater weight. Gravity is produced by electrons spinning faster then the speed of light in every atom, [we can't see this because all we have as a measuring stick is only the speed of light] thus the high speed electrons create a vortex of time in each atom, the bigger mass of atoms the more time is being pulled into it, explaining gravity. Speed up that atom faster and it creates even more gravity also speeding up time. The flood happened as a change of gravity and time, making huge animals now too heavy to walk and die or later drown when all water molecules suddenly became too heavy to be suspended in the atmosphere. [so before the flood it had never rained, later a lot of the water settled into the deepest recesses of the earth]

    So what may have happened is before the flood a second took more time to do as todays concept of a second does. Like a record, if you will, being played extra slow, so that whole record of history could be 6000 years till today, But who knows how slow the record was being played before the flood, millions of years by todays concept of time maybe?...??? Just thinking outside the box =)

  • Thor

    As I scientist I would like to point out that nothing in science is ever PROVEN WRONG OR RIGHT. It is all support. Some things are supported more that other, some less, some gain support, and some lose support. It is all statistics. Religious people seem to quite often not understand this. For example, when the word theory is uttered religious people immediately associated the word with the idea of weakness. Although, the very word itself implies the power of the word. A theory is not a hypothesis. It is the idea of a collection of hypothesis' with positive support, found through years of rigorous scientific testing, all supporting/explaining a common scientific phenomena. The point of science is not to say right or wrong, but to find support. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. If you do not understand this concept please look it up.

  • Magnus Canis

    You sound an awful like those crazy religious folks that can't process an argument. Try this on I stated it before,

    The Discovery of Vulcan by La Verrier
    Spontaneous Generation by Aristotle
    Expanding Earth by Darwin
    Phlogiston Theory by Becher
    Martian Canals by Giovanni
    Luminiferous Asther by Michelson
    Blank Slate by a bunch of people
    Phrenology as a whole
    Einstein’s Static Universe (obvious)
    Fleischmann and Pon’s Cold Fusion

    All Theories that have been proven wrong.

  • Monochromatyczny Wojownik

    Well, I am little shocked that Americans have such taliban'esque problems. I am from a backwater eastern block country, and here almost noone believes in such religious bullshit, and it would NEVER pass in schools. How it is that USA is considered the most 'developed country' ?!?

  • Magnus Canis

    Because we understand that everyone has a right, not just the select few. Freedom comes with understanding and acceptance.

  • Monochromatyczny Wojownik

    Seriously? So what will you be teaching kids next, that the earth is flat? Or its a giant turtle! If you dont stop this madness, you will became a third world country all by yourselfs! Cant you see your own downfall?

  • Magnus Canis

    Well I wont teach them to Jump to extremes or to argue in negatives and assumptions. Perhaps you should consider your own education and level of understanding before attempting to assume what you understand about others.

  • Monochromatyczny Wojownik

    Arguments ad personam, sweet. I assume that you know, that in primary scholls like ours we have differentials of a function and basics of the genetics, while at the same time western children have problems with reading and understanding basic texts. THAT IS A PROBLEM ! Why are you trying to dissmiss it? I am not a part of your internal debate, I am only pointing out, what the rest of the world are really thinking of it.

  • TheTruth

    Thank you, you are very accurate. Some people on here just need to argue.

  • Magnus Canis

    You again assume much,
    while I'll be the first to admit there are schools that could do better we
    allow everyone a chance and do not refuse anyone for any reason. If you
    are so intent on drawing this parallel you should at least define your
    argument. If your saying US vers the world education (we win) if you
    would like to point to a location I would be happy to show you how data manipulation
    (learned that in grade school fyi) is used to prop up failing counties.

    For example

    Lest I checked china
    was trying to claim they had the highest test scores, and they do since they do
    not allow those that would fail to take the test. They send those kids to factories to work
    under what we in the US would call inhuman conditions.

    I See you harbor some preconceived
    notion of what you think is going on. If
    you truly wish to learn your first step is admitting you could be wrong.

    Cheers!

  • Monochromatyczny Wojownik

    Ok Big Dog, you are speaking with sense about free education and so on. BUT here where I was studying, EVERY step of education is free of charge, even studies on best Universities. Actually, i got PAID for doing PhD studies. How it compares to US school system, where good education is expensive?
    And one more thing - we have drifted from the subject. How it is possible, if you folks have so good education, that the bible guy in above debate is being viewed as someone with viable opinion, good enough to teach to the kids?
    That is totally incomprehensible to me, and not even funny.

  • Truthfull

    Saddest thing is why do they both believe in either or. Darwinism is only an explanation of creationism. In the end there is an energy backing all of reality, a stream of constant flow. The Big Bang is an explanation of let there be light. The thought that time to God is the same as time for man is dripping with hubris.

    Bill Nye is the more accurate of the two, sad that neither of them can see that science and religion both preach the concept of one point of origin.

  • Magnus Canis

    Well said, most people forget that up until the current fad, every scientists understood "First Cause" and assigned to thier own personal religion to it. This sudden deitification of man only serves to show how arrogant and ignorant we have become.

  • Magnus Canis

    Allow me to help you both out. The Scientific method has been plagued by both cultural and personal biases. See at the head of the “method” is a human capable of being swayed by either lack of understanding or simple neglect. If you would like proof here are a few failures of the “Scientific Method.”

    The Discovery of Vulcan by La Verrier
    Spontaneous Generation by Aristotle
    Expanding Earth by Darwin
    Phlogiston Theory by Becher
    Martian Canals by Giovanni
    Luminiferous Asther by Michelson
    Blank Slate by a bunch of people
    Phrenology as a whole
    Einstein’s Static Universe (obvious)
    Fleischmann and Pon’s Cold Fusion

    All at one time or another thought to be the final word in the Scientific community all proven wrong once people were brave enough to question the science.

    Let me share this with you, true scientist welcome honest debate and refuse a “final” answer because they are wise enough to know
    that science changes and how we thought something worked changes as our understanding of the “it” changes. Hawking spent the better part of early career proving black holes and now is working to disprove that. Perhaps you should learn that everything should be questioned and things that you are unwilling to allow to change, is called religion, rather you call it science or church. If you can’t accept it being questioned you’re a zealot.

    Cheers!

  • Thor

    You do understand that the people who, "proved it wrong," were not the common man, but scientists themselves? It was not some poor schmuck like you who said, "Oh, spontaneous generation does not exist because duh!" It was a scientist named Francesco Redi who showed, with the support from experimental testing, that flies calm from rotting meet only after flies laid eggs. be careful with some of the examples you are using for "failures" of the scientific method. Using Fleischmann and Pon's cold fusion as a example of "failures of the scientific method" shows your inexperience in the field of science. Most regarded their experiment as a sham because the original results could not even be replicated.

    Oh! I also wanted to mention that every human can be affected by biases. From the proud scientist to pious Christian.

  • TBozzly

    This is exactly the problem with saying science has been wrong. What actually happened, is a scientist found something new out, it was proved correct, and then incorporated into accepted science theory. Religion does not do this. I said it to you before Magnus. The problem with the line of thinking that religion and science are both trying to come to a single point of origin is what religion brings with it. Control for the masses, hypocrisy for those in charge and the treat of eternal hell if you do bad things. My vision of a world where people do good things, completely on their own merit has no need of the rules you've dragged into this century. I'm sure, 2000 years ago, this book was a pretty good guide for people on things like how to stay healthy living in the desert. Don't eat pork, it goes off. Cut your foreskin off, its cleaner. Or for when its people were moving into new lands, with new and terrifying religions (did you hear, they perform sacrafices and all sorts, i even heard that they cut off their own noses......OH SHUT UP bob, you always hear about that one....) You don't need god to do good. Something that saddened me that Ham said in the debate, i can't remember verbatim, but it was about how he couldn't understand how Nye appreciates the world if we only have such a short time to do so, rather than having the afterlife to look forward to. Thats why you / he can derive so much joy from it, because what we have is limited. Accept it and move on, don't hold on to the fear of it and cling to the story of an afterlife to make yourself feel better. Just get out there and live!

  • baal

    You and truthful fail at understanding science.

  • JA

    What fad? That science follows empirical evidence and arrives to conclusions based on results gained through the scientific method?

  • Adibobea9

    If they only had the knowledge I have, they would see that both science and religion can coexist. Pride surely hinders both sides to accepting truth…

  • Post_Nazi

    You're missing the points entirely.

    Nye wasn't saying science and religion couldn't coexist, and even GWs quoted text assured that. Creationism isn't a part of religious text, and is a relatively new, unfounded belief. The Earth is old and evolution is real, even the Vatican agrees. Leave it to the simple US, one of the few religious countries to believe the Bible in literal wording. Christians' fundamental flaw is that they just interpret and believe however they want without a checks and balance system. You'd think a guideline for humanity (the Bible) would have been quite clear in right and wrong and bad and good and don't do this but do do this.

blog comments powered by Disqus