Posted on 01/03/2014 7:02:40 AM PST by aimhigh
It’s a debate that will surely end with a Big Bang.
Bill Nye “The Science Guy” will square off with Ken Ham, the founder of the Kentucky Creation Museum, in a February discussion on the subject of teaching children evolution.
The spiritual showdown, which is unlikely to with either man relinquishing their firmly-held beliefs, will take place on Ham’s home turf of Petersburg, Ky. “Having the opportunity to hold a cordial but spirited debate with such a well-known personality who is admired by so many young people will help bring the creation-evolution issue to the attention of many more people, including youngsters,” Ham said in a statement.
. . . . . .
“Bill Nye really doesn't understand science,” Ham said in the video, without a shred of irony. “Bill Nye also has an agenda to teach children not to believe in God.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Wow DoodlePoodle, a little bitter on Ken Ham. Interesting.
Bitter? No. But not impressed either. The story is right. If Ham does say that Nye doesn't understand science then he totally is missing the irony in that.
What bacterium not changed into another bacterium? Please be more specific.
Ken Ham and his fellow young-earthers have done more to drive thoughtful people away from Christianity than Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens etc. could possibly have dreamed of doing.
time bookmark
Quasars are the things that freak me out. Huge galaxies spewing out x-rays from the galactic nucleus. There are some that are tens of billions of light years away, but we can still see them.
This is demonstrably true. I think it’s too bad, since YEC is just repackaging Price’s Seventh Day Adventist teachings during a brief creationist revival in the mid-20th century. There’s nothing really Biblical about a 6,000 year old Earth.
Lemaitre did it scientifically without the supernatural, and he was a priest.
He is an entertainer. He started out as a regular on a late night Seattle Comedy TV Show... Almost Live!. His most popular role at that time was “Speed walker”, a superhero who walked to crimes in progress. The Science Guy thing started out as a joke that stuck. He corrected the Almost Live host's pronunciation of gigawatt and the host retorted, “Who do you think you are—Bill Nye the Science Guy?”
He has a bachelor of science degree from 1977 and no other formal education since that time that I am aware of. He is just a typical Seattle Know-it-all liberal. I have been dealing with them all of my life
Great. Just as soon as you discover a perfectly placed mirror planet that will allow you to see into the Earth’s past, you might be able to actually observe a few of the things that paleontologists and geologists speculate about. You still wouldn’t be able to conduct scientific experiments in the past, but you’d be halfway to actual science.
True, they are two poor spokesmen. It’s going to be Richard Dawkins vs Kirk Cameron, all over again.
“C’mon FRiends, just get real and stick to your Constitutional, God-given right to freedom for all humanity policies and stop this religious bunk.”
Citing God as the source of our rights, while decrying “religious bunk” is a bit ironic, don’t ya think?
The point is, there are multiple ways to look back in time, and cosmology alone debunks a young universe.
What is this “scientific study” nonsense you are talking about? It is academics who study, while scientists verify their speculations with experiment. Your defense just highlights the weakness of these speculative sciences when you say:
“You just have to know the difference between scientific study and the land of make believe.”
The difference is supposed to be experimental verification. Without it, there can be no reliable distinction made between a scientific hypothesis and “make believe”. Since such verification is impossible with the speculative sciences, none of their ideas can carry the weight of “real” science.
“The point is, there are multiple ways to look back in time, and cosmology alone debunks a young universe.”
No, it is impossible to actually observe the past, in the way that we can observe the present. All we can do is look at after effects of past events, and try to reconstruct the past, speculatively. Even viewing light from distant stars, as in your example, is simply looking at these after effects, not direct observation.
Your comments are fair, but I think the mistake is to think this is a debate about science.
There’s a saying I’ve heard about two bald men fighting over a comb.
I think there’s some cognitive dissonance in your comment.
So what is direct observation? Photons (or something elase) bounce of whatever is “observed” in order to make it “observable.”
This is nonsensical. You are looking at light entering your eyes that is billions of years old, the same way light from the Sun that enters your eyes is 8 minutes old. I hardly see the difference. The whole concept of the "present" is relative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.