Mad Tea Party: I'm watching this right now, and the whole observational science/historical science doesn't make a lick of sense. No non-creationist makes this distinction; it's clearly an arbitrary construct made to advance a shoddy argument.
JusticeandIndependence: I drunk what: regardless of ham making better pointsWhat better points were made by Ham?
eraser8: What are you basing that on?
xanadian: Fundies will still claim a victory.
Dr Dreidel: I really think Nye missed out by not making Ham's argument - the whole thing is predicated on what is necessarily faith, yes? Faith that necessarily cannot be proved outside tautology - "This book is 100% true. How do I know? The Book says so" or "God's Word is true. How do I know? He's God"?
I drunk what: eraser8: What are you basing that on?observation science/experience//paying attention
I drunk what: 1. difference between observational science and historical science
Electrify: Maybe I'm not spending enough time around fundies, but are devout creationists anything more than a lunatic fringe so small that they make birthers look like a small nation in comparison? I mean certainly there may be people who do believe the Earth is 6000 years old and in the Garden of Eden, but how many of these people are actively expressing these beliefs to the point of seeking policy change?
Electrify: are devout creationists anything more than a lunatic fringe so small that they make birthers look like a small nation in comparison?
MayoSlather: Nye didn't attack the Bible enough. Ham's whole argument centered around every last word being true. All Nye had to do was point out that Christians don't even buy into all the evil shiat in there, and if they didn't believe any part wasn't true then why should they buy into every word of genesis.Plus he never hit on the idea that by Ham merely pointing out any mystery in science, it doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that christianity is automatically correct, which Ham did over and over.
Where wolf: xanadian: Fundies will still claim a victory.This. I remember a great part during the Q&A portion: "What, if anything, could make you change your belief?"Nye responded with evidence (not sure if actual quote, but I'll italicize it anyway)."We just need one piece of evidence like a fossil that swam from one level to another." We would need evidence that rock layers could form in 4,000 years. Bring me any of those things and I would change my mind immediately.Ham, on the other hand:"I am a Christian, I believe in the word of God."So, that sounds like a pretty big difference, but then I caught this on twitter:www.albertmohler.com/2014/02/05/bill-nyes-reasonable-man-the-central -w orldview-clash-of-the-ham-nye-debate/ This is where the debate was most important. Both men were asked if any evidence could ever force them to change their basic understanding. Both men said no. Neither was willing to allow for any dispositive evidence to change their minds. Both operate in basically closed intellectual systems. The main problem is that Ken Ham knows this to be the case, but Bill Nye apparently does not. Ham was consistently bold in citing his confidence in God, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the full authority and divine inspiration of the Bible. He never pulled a punch or hid behind an argument. Nye seems to believe that he is genuinely open to any and all new information, but it is clear that his ultimate intellectual authority is the prevailing scientific consensus.So, Nye can come out and say "bring me any evidence that is repeatable science and I will believe" and that turns into "Nye is close minded and wrong."You can't win. The best we can hope is to keep them out of the science classroom.
CJHardin: REALLY? They consider that place HIGH TECH???
I would love to see this guy debate Creationists
I drunk what: can any butt hurt anti-theist evolutionists admit they can recognize the difference between observational science and historical science yet?
Mad Tea Party: Also, using the word "naturalism" (another made-up creationist word) as some sort of pejorative is a really weird debate tactic. "They're putting naturalism in our natural sciences textbooks!"
Pentaxian: I would love to see this guy debate Creationists[www.astrobio.net image 492x678]Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ. Head of the Vatican's meteorite collection, one the largest in the world. And I dare Hamm to try to debate Bible theory with him.
bulldg4life: Creationists are idiots that don't understand basic science. Arguing with them is pointless.
China White Tea: This. If a grown-ass adult insists Santa Claus is real, does that warrant a televised debate? No. You smile and nod and say, "That's nice, is that an hors d'oeuvres tray over there?" and wander off. You're dealing with someone who has a powerful need believe a fantasy. Their entire understanding of both the world and their own identity rely on it. You're not getting any traction there, save your breath.
scottydoesntknow: Creationists believe something so monumentally stupid that no amount of facts could sway them. They've already had to dismiss the mountain of facts available, so why would anyone believe a debate with a former children's TV star would make them rethink anything?
Princess Ryans Knickers: What Creationists believe:[s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 625x441]If this is the literal word of God then I have one answer: lions
ReverendJasen: Princess Ryans Knickers: What Creationists believe:[s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 625x441]If this is the literal word of God then I have one answer: lionsLions used those large, sharp canine teeth for shucking avocados back in Eden. They were well known for making a mean guac for all the pre-sin garden socials.
Saiga410: I watched the debate. Entering into the fray on the side of science but Hamm convinced me. I am a new convert.
Epicedion: China White Tea: This. If a grown-ass adult insists Santa Claus is real, does that warrant a televised debate? No. You smile and nod and say, "That's nice, is that an hors d'oeuvres tray over there?" and wander off. You're dealing with someone who has a powerful need believe a fantasy. Their entire understanding of both the world and their own identity rely on it. You're not getting any traction there, save your breath.If a third of the population insists Santa Claus is real and starts trying to spend government money on infrastructure to support Santa, someone needs to say something.
China White Tea: If a grown-ass adult insists Santa Claus is real, does that warrant a televised debate?
Herr Morgenstern: This debate was painful. It was like watching an astrophysicist argue aerodynamics with a toddler as he blindly insists racing stripes make his scooccurred somewhere in the worldo faster.Seriously, every time Ham said "You know, Bill, there's this book you may have heard of..." and didn't get punched in the face, a small earthquake occured somewhere in the world to balance out the lack of gravitational shift.
SewerSquirrels: I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that science was born out of religion.
SewerSquirrels: I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that science was born out of religion. After all, religion (at it's core at least) was an attempt to explain observations.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 27 2017 18:36:01
Runtime: 1.124 sec