Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (full video of last night's debate)

YouTube ^ | February 4, 2014 | Answers in Genesis

[EveningStar]

Streamed live on Feb 4, 2014
Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era? Leading creation apologist and bestselling Christian author Ken Ham is joined at the Creation Museum by Emmy Award-winning science educator and CEO of the Planetary Society Bill Nye.

[MrB]

Right, he was created as a mature man, though chronologically he was but microseconds old.

[EveningStar]

You can always use the scroll bar to jump ahead. BTW, I didn’t watch it. Not interested.

[tacticalogic]

Who decided Darwinist evolution was true, on what evidence?

As far as I know, nobody can authoritatively say it's true. That's why it's called a "theory". I doubt that your so uninformed as to be unaware of the evidence.

Is there nothing about Darwinism that was and is wrong?

Define "Darwinism". I'm familiar with the theory of evolution. "Darwinism" seems a slippery term that defies formal definition, other than being a general perjorative.

[Elsiejay]

FWIW, I cannot get past the improbability that the incomprehensible DNA molecule assembled itself, absent any guiding intelligence.

[tacticalogic]

evolve or adapt....there is a difference?

Somewhere in the taxonomy there is a line that gets crossed that says it's a new species, but what's being labeled doesn't always conform the rules laid out by whoever is making up the labels.

[Lakeshark]

Good answer, it clarifies a bit where you are coming from. Perhaps you ought to appear to be as skeptical of those who support the theory as those who try to come from a Biblical perspective.

The reason "Darwinism" has become a pejorative, is that many of the adherents of that viewpoint deserve it. They spin a theory as truth, ignore its problems, and muddy (and have seriously muddied) the scientific world with a sociopolitical nuance that simply never belonged.

[tacticalogic]

The Bible. The only thing I can be sure of.

So you trust whoever wrote and translated that book, without even knowing for sure who they were or what they meant?

[ClearCase_guy]

evolve or adapt....there is a difference?

Evolution is commonly defined -- by evolutionists -- as genetic change. What that means, is that "evolution" is all around us at all times, and we see it happen on a daily basis. How convenient.

Adaptation actually is pretty easy to see. It consists of genetic change. In a lab, you can have fruitflies with certain wing configurations. Over time, a scientist can experiment and cause adaptation in the fruit flies so that the population has a different wing configuration. That is genetic change. That is adaptation. It is -- if you like -- evolution. Not too many people argue this and try to say "that is impossible", because we see it before our eyes.

Evolution -- the thrust of the theory -- is that all life has a common ancestor. That's a big change in the definition. This is the significant issue, because the Bible does not describe life coming into existence in that way. In the theory of evolution, life in one Kingdom, or one Plylum will (given enough time) change (evolve) into a different Kingdom or Phylum. Which is to say that a mollusk will (over millions of years) evolve into a dog. This is crossing of the classification boundaries and it is required by the Theory of Evolution. But it is pure speculation. No one has ever seen anything like it.

Adapatation is easy.
Evolution requires a leap of faith.

[tacticalogic]

Perhaps you ought to appear to be as skeptical of those who support the theory as those who try to come from a Biblical perspective.

Those who try to come at it from a Biblical perspective never present it as "the theory of Genesis".

[MrB]

The simplest explanation for the difference between adaptation and evolution is the assumption of where the information necessary for the change came from.

A creationist / adaptive interpretation of observable change assumes that the information necessary was already in the critter. Information resulting from intelligence.

The evolutionary assumption is that the information came about as a result of random mutations “held” in place by natural selection. Information resulting from chaos.

[Lakeshark]

Those who try to come at it from a Biblical perspective never present it as "the theory of Genesis".

Try again, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[ealgeone]

I often say I wish I had the faith of the “evolutionist”.

[Trod Upon]

Just as the existence of a car is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a designer of that car, so your body is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Someone designed you.

Apples to skyscrapers comparison. Nobody is arguing that cars are anything other than a created work. A product. But that is not the case with man, or the apple for that matter. By your process, if one believes that there is proof of God's existence, then God himself must surely have been designed by someone. If not, you're left with the same old problem of the uncreated creation. If something as complex as our conception of God can exist without cause, why not the universe? Positing God doesn't really solve the problem; it just allows Him to become the placeholder for all the uncertainties formerly attached to the universe.

[EveningStar]

About 800, I think.

[PapaNew]

What's a "major animal group"

Basic Animal Groups: Amphibians, Birds, Fish, Invertebrates, Mammals, Reptiles

who gets to decide what counts as evidence

Evidence is basically any matter of fact that is relevant to the issue and tends to prove or disprove the argument.

[so_real]

"Today we are going to discuss the scientific theory of evolution ... time did everything. Class dismissed."

That knife is overused, cuts both ways, and gets duller by the day. It's highly representative of Bill Nye's "that's how *we* do it, on the *outside*" pomposity that pervades those subscribing to the religion evolution has become. It wins no debates and garners no favor.

[tacticalogic]

The scientists present it as a theory, which involves an implicit uncertainty and admission that the don't know for sure. The real scientists invite, expect and encourage people to question and challenge it.

Those coming at it from a Biblical perspective present it as dogmatic, unassailable truth, and do not well tolerate having it challenged or questioned.

I tend to be skeptical of dogma.

[Starstruck]

Since my salvation is not contingent on me believing one way or the other, I can wait for the answer.

[ealgeone]

Nye is coming across as a bit of a jerk. Very condescending in his presentation. He keeps referring to this as “Ken Ham’s” creation.

[tacticalogic]

Basic Animal Groups: Amphibians, Birds, Fish, Invertebrates, Mammals, Reptiles

All carbon-based, all use adp/atp energy cycles, all have the same basic cellular structure, and a myriad of other commonalities among them. And none of that counts as evidence?