Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Nye’s Debate Nightmare
Daily Beast/Yahoo News ^ | February 5, 2014 | Michael Schulson

Posted on 02/06/2014 1:58:22 PM PST by celmak

On many mornings, I wake up and think, “You know what this country needs? More culture war.” As I scramble up a couple eggs, I find myself wishing—fervently wishing—that we could spend more time reducing substantive issues to mere spectacle. Later, as I scrub the pan, I’ll fantasize about how those very spectacles might even funnel money toward some of the country’s most politicized religious groups.

Fortunately, Bill “the Science Guy” Nye has heard my wish—which, really, is the wish of a nation. Why else would he have traveled to Kentucky this week in order to debate Ken Ham, the young-earth creationist founder of Answers in Genesis, about the origins of the world?

Actually, there are two other reasons that Nye might have done so, and I’ve given both possibilities a great deal of thought in the past few days. The first is that Nye, for all his bow-tied charm, is at heart a publicity-hungry cynic, eager to reestablish the national reputation he once had as the host of a PBS show. When his stint on Dancing With the Stars ended quickly, Nye turned to the only other channel that could launch him back to national attention: a sensationalized debate, replete with the media buzz that he craves.

Possibility number two is that Nye is clueless—that, for all his skill as a science communicator, Nye has less political acumen than your average wombat.

After watching the debate, I’m leaning toward that second possibility. Last night, it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: billnye; creationism; crevolist; culturesociety; debate; education; hamnyedebate; kenham; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-394 last
To: tpanther
Sorry but evolution has a beginning, a start point.

So did gravity, but general relativity has nothing to do with where it started.

The theory of evolution is about the mechanics of evolution, not when or how it started.

You can keep saying this all you want, but the simple, indiputable fact is that the theory of evolution does not involve life's origin. Period.

381 posted on 02/15/2014 10:11:05 PM PST by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Where’s the cut off line where abiogenesis ends and evolution begins?

I don't know what you mean by cut off line. That's like saying "where's the cut off line where the Big Bang ends and gravity begins?" It's a meaningless question.

382 posted on 02/15/2014 10:15:14 PM PST by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

Of course not, but I’ll try again.

If evolution only addresses the evolution of life, then it behooves one not only to define life but also to decide where the starting point is.

At what point does the ToE kick in?

I seriously doubt that anyone would not consider any single celled organism to be life. But what about other things where they are not so easily delineated?

What about prions? Viruses?

They exhibit some signs of being living but not all. Where do they fall?


383 posted on 02/16/2014 5:20:35 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Another superflous point. We know that some scientists consider viruses to be life, but others say that they're not. However, we do know for a fact that viruses evolve.

So it may be the case that we can observe evolution in something that actually isn't considered life by some.

An interesting discussion, but once again irrelevant.

384 posted on 02/16/2014 10:20:33 AM PST by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

Not irrelevant.

Life did not pop into existence.

Somewhere along the continuum between non-living and living, what we know to be life kicked in. If the ToE addresses life, it is necessary to know when that life began.


385 posted on 02/16/2014 12:14:19 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: metmom

No, it’s not necessary at all and evolution does not address this point.


386 posted on 02/16/2014 12:45:27 PM PST by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Purplemath? You can't possibly be serious. The idiot at Purplemath continues to pretend that the fact that 0.99999.... = 1 is a consequence of the Axiom of Choice. Nope. Has nothing to do with the Axiom of Choice.

It's a result of the Axiom of Completeness, which isn't even vaguely related.

If you're getting your math and science from places like Purplemath, I can understand why you are as confused as you are.

387 posted on 02/16/2014 6:54:47 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Show me the math that proves them wrong.

Are you presuming accuracy to what we have with them using handbreadth and cubits?

Exactly how many inches were the handbreadth and cubit used and how do you know?

Do you presume to know if the interior measurement of the bowl was used or the exterior?


388 posted on 02/16/2014 7:01:32 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: metmom

That's just a survey of the baloney in the first couple of chapters that occurs to me off the top of my head. When you supply answers to those, I'll get you several million more.

389 posted on 02/16/2014 7:13:21 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: metmom
In order to arrive at the conclusion, they make assumptions which just conveniently make the ratio of the circumference of the circle and the diameter 3.14 [which actually is not π]

So if your argument is that you can make any assumption you want in order to salvage the reputation of the book, we are agreeable: Yes, you can do that.

But that's not what the book says. It's interesting that this magical book is literally true. Except sometimes, when it isn't. It's complete. Except on occasions like this, where prestidigitation has be be invoked to fill in the blanks. It's never wrong. Except when it talks about science, when it always is wrong.

390 posted on 02/16/2014 7:19:16 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Is that the math to show that the calculations that show the conclusion found in Scripture are wrong?

That's just a survey of the baloney in the first couple of chapters that occurs to me off the top of my head. When you supply answers to those, I'll get you several million more.

Even if I spent the rest of my life answering those questions, you wouldn't be satisfied. No answer is good enough for someone who doesn't want to be convinced.

You don't believe because you don't want to believe, not because of alleged inconsistencies that you think you found.

391 posted on 02/16/2014 7:33:10 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
It's interesting that this magical book is literally true. Except sometimes, when it isn't. It's complete. Except on occasions like this, where prestidigitation has be be invoked to fill in the blanks. It's never wrong. Except when it talks about science, when it always is wrong.

Hey, the only ones who demand a literal reading of the entire Bible are the very unbelievers who don't believe it anyway. They only do it because it's the only way they can justify rejecting it.

Any believers who read it recognize that while it is truth, it is not all literal. There is simile, metaphor, parables, poetry, songs, prophecy, and history.

Anyone who demands that the entire thing be read one way simply cannot think outside the box they've put themselves and their world in.

It's not a very objective worldview, especially for those who pride themselves on being objective.

392 posted on 02/16/2014 7:37:37 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Hey, the only ones who demand a literal reading of the entire Bible are the very unbelievers who don't believe it anyway. They only do it because it's the only way they can justify rejecting it.

So, the object of the thread (Ken Ham) is not demanding a literal interpretation with his theory of a 6,000 year old Earth?

393 posted on 02/16/2014 7:46:57 PM PST by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Hey, the only ones who demand a literal reading of the entire Bible are the very unbelievers who don't believe it anyway. They only do it because it's the only way they can justify rejecting it.

This would be a great counterargument, if true. But it isn't. First: the argument you jumped into was between me and someone who literally believes the world was created in six days, six or so thousand years ago. He/They claim to be believers.

Second, you are assuming facts which are not in evidence. I believe in God. I don't believe that the one true God is the God of Abraham. Too many things attributed to Him by believers -- not me -- are simply evil.

As for the rest of it ... just more of the stuff that you tell yourself to convince yourself that your worldview is correct. You're projecting. I grew up with the whole indoctrination campaign: mass every Sunday, Catholic grade school, Catholic high school. If you're an Evangelical who's about to tell me that's the reason for my apostasy, nope, not even close. Plenty of Evangelicals and even two Protestant ministers in my mother's family of twelve. I take this seriously, have studied it, have thought about it, and know what most Christian and Jewish sects believe. I am the one who broke out of the box. And I hope you will, too.

394 posted on 02/21/2014 12:38:15 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-394 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson