Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate

[capitalcityguy]

But in this debate it's science vs. not science. Science vs. because the bible says so. How do you have a meaningful debate about that?

I will say the only positive to come from the debate that I can see is that Bill Nye is really hammering home the need for kids to be interested in science and the need for future scientists to answer questions that we don't know the answers to currently.

Yes, that is a benefit. Another benefit (although I'm not familiar with Ham and didn't' watch the debate) is the debate can teach people of faith to embrace science, and not fear it. A person can hold strong religious views and also believe in the importance of science an discovery. That is why I'm attracted to apologetics.

ReasonableFaith.org

 

[3TrueFans]

There are plenty of scientists that are believers. They seem to be able to rationalize both.

I think there is absolutely nothing that says that someone who is a believer in god, or someone who is religious can't be a scientist. Of course they could be, they could be great scientists. Just because you're a scientist doesn't mean you have to be able to explain everything in your life.

I just watched part of the debate where they asked Bill Nye about where did the matter before the big bang come from. He of course answered that we don't know yet, but that it was questions like that that drove scientists. Talks about how hypotheses when he was young had changed because people were curious and went looking for new information to make new hypotheses. Which is what science is all about.

Then Ham gets the chance to rebut and his answer is that we already know where the matter came from because it says god created it in the bible. That is not science, someone with that mindset cannot combine their faith with science, their faith is a replacement for science.

So someone with faith can most certainly be a scientist, but someone who uses their faith as an alternative to science surely cannot be.

 

[3TrueFans]

Yes, that is a benefit. Another benefit (although I'm not familiar with Ham and didn't' watch the debate) is the debate can teach people of faith to embrace science, and not fear it. A person can hold strong religious views and also believe in the importance of science an discovery. That is why I'm attracted to apologetics.

ReasonableFaith.org

I certainly don't think Ham is doing that.

 

[digZ]

I find it very ironic that Mr. Ham starts his presentation with "The Laws of Logic", then begins to assert that "You believe A, and I believe B, but because you did not directly observe that A is true, A is not true, and B is true."

 

[ImJustKCClone]

I think people with faith believe they can co exist a lot more than people without faith do since science can be proven and has been tested, ect.

Staunch athiests say faith can't coexist with science because there is no proof, which is what science is based on.

Not picking a side, but I think that is the general reason for the disagreement when it comes to coexistance.

By its very definition, faith is something that cannot be quantified by experimentation. In their own way, the staunch atheists you describe are as bad as the dogmatic Bible literalists.

Like a bell curve, most of us fall somewhere in the middle of the pack regarding faith and science. Unfortunately, in faith vs science conversations/debates ( just like political venues), the extremists get the most press making it sound like an either/or choice rather than a sliding scale.

 

[capitalcityguy]

I certainly don't think Ham is doing that.

Might not be....again, not familiar with him so I was assuming (hoping) he was going to use a lot of the apologetics-type arguments. If I have time, I hope to watch the replay.

 

[3TrueFans]

Ham says that we can't observe what happened in the past because we weren't there so therefore the only logical explanation for those events is what is written in the bible. If that doesn't immediately throw up all sorts of red flags then you might just be beyond reach.

 

[FarminCy]

Ham says that we can't observe what happened in the past because we weren't there so therefore the only logical explanation for those events is what is written in the bible. If that doesn't immediately throw up all sorts of red flags then you might just be beyond reach.

That is flat crazy. Is this guy even smart enough to realize that the bible is nothing more than a bunch of stories that the authors didn't observe?

 

[capitalcityguy]

Ham says that we can't observe what happened in the past because we weren't there so therefore the only logical explanation for those events is what is written in the bible. If that doesn't immediately throw up all sorts of red flags then you might just be beyond reach.

Yeah, doesn't sound like he is being very effective. I did some more reading and I believe he believes in "young earth". ie...earth is less than 10,000 yrs old. That is hard to defend with science, so I would guess he is forced to just point to the Bible.

A lot of people who believe in creationism, also hold out room for some aspects of evolution (ie...fine tuning) and DON'T believe the Bible as written was meant to suggest that the earth is only 10K yrs old.

Love this 4 minute video. Using science and scientific discovery to explain the most likely reasoning for where we came from. IMO, this is how you get people comfortable showing how science can still point to God as the most reasonable "hypothesis" for the creation of the universe:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument - YouTube

 

[capitalcityguy]

That is flat crazy. Is this guy even smart enough to realize that the bible is nothing more than a bunch of stories that the authors didn't observe?

Playing a little arm chair theologian here - Actually he wouldn't believe what you just said here. Biblical Christians, which I'm confident Ham would define himself as, believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. i.e...God guided the authors to pen the verses in the Bible as He wished them to be communicated.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God". 2 Timothy 3:16.

 

[3TrueFans]

Yeah, doesn't sound like he is being very effective. I did some more reading and I believe he believes in "young earth". ie...earth is less than 10,000 yrs old. That is hard to defend with science, so I would guess he is forced to just point to the Bible.

6,000 years I believe. And yes, it's mind boggling to hear him talk about it.

Love this 4 minute video. Using science and scientific discovery to explain the most likely reasoning for where we came from. IMO, this is how you get people comfortable showing how science can still point to God as the most reasonable "hypothesis" for the creation of the universe:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument - YouTube

That video....I only watched the first minute but I'm kind of at a loss for words. Let's just say I'm immediately skeptical of anything that tries to present a scientific reasoning of why god has to exist. Their hypothesis that every thing that exists has a cause, and the universe exists so therefore god is a little troubling to me.

 

[3TrueFans]

Playing a little arm chair theologian here - Actually he wouldn't believe what you just said here. Biblical Christians, which I'm confident Ham would define himself as, believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. i.e...God guided the authors to pen the verses in the Bible as He wished them to be communicated.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God". 2 Timothy 3:16.

Which seems like a totally reasonable and scientific idea. Jimlad strongly implied.

 

[00clone]

I think people with faith believe they can co exist a lot more than people without faith do since science can be proven and has been tested, ect.

Staunch athiests say faith can't coexist with science because there is no proof, which is what science is based on.

Not picking a side, but I think that is the general reason for the disagreement when it comes to coexistance.

Have you interacted with science since your classes in school? There's a whole f***-ton of stuff in science that hasn't been proven, and the further we go, the likelyhood that it will ever be proven gets smaller and smaller as we develop theories for harder and harder topics.

*edit: I say "we" in the generic, mankind sense, not me personally.

 

[IAmNotTheMayor]

Yeah, doesn't sound like he is being very effective. I did some more reading and I believe he believes in "young earth". ie...earth is less than 10,000 yrs old. That is hard to defend with science, so I would guess he is forced to just point to the Bible.

A lot of people who believe in creationism, also hold out room for some aspects of evolution (ie...fine tuning) and DON'T believe the Bible as written was meant to suggest that the earth is only 10K yrs old.

Love this 4 minute video. Using science and scientific discovery to explain the most likely reasoning for where we came from. IMO, this is how you get people comfortable showing how science can still point to God as the most reasonable "hypothesis" for the creation of the universe:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument - YouTube

From a logical standpoint, this is definitely a possibility. We will probably never know the answer, since we are within the bounds of the universe and can only observe the laws of the universe. So within these laws, science seeks to find understanding. Anything beyond these laws in philosophical, not based on science. So yes, you can have science and faith co-exist. But faith doesn't allow for line-item vetoing of any scientific understanding of the laws of this universe.

 

[BooneCy]

That is flat crazy. Is this guy even smart enough to realize that the bible is nothing more than a bunch of stories that the authors didn't observe?

What? Maybe the first three books of the Bible, but the remaining close to 60 books is connected to historical places and events. King David and King Solomon did exist, and so did the events they describe. The New Testament is a collection of letters and first hand accounts of real events told by the people who witnessed them. Yes, there are prophetic books in the bible, Revelations, as an example. Psalms is literally translated as Songs, which are meant to be poetic. However, most of the bible is meant to be a chronicle or letters to believers of God/******.

To chime in on the co-existence of Faith and Science, I too believe it is quite possible. And, so did some of the greatest scientists the human race has ever known. I can start with Einstein and go much farther if needed.

 

[3TrueFans]

What? Maybe the first three books of the Bible, but the remaining close to 60 books is connected to historical places and events. King David and King Solomon did exist, and so did the events they describe. The New Testament is a collection of letters and first hand accounts of real events told by the people who witnessed them. Yes, there are prophetic books in the bible, Revelations, as an example. Psalms is literally translated as Songs, which are meant to be poetic. However, most of the bible is meant to be a chronicle or letters to believers of God/******.

To chime in on the co-existence of Faith and Science, I too believe it is quite possible. And, so did some of the greatest scientists the human race has ever known. I can start with Einstein and go much farther if needed.

The debate is clearly talking about the origins portions of the bible specifically.

 

[capitalcityguy]

6,000 years I believe. And yes, it's mind boggling to hear him talk about it.



That video....I only watched the first minute but I'm kind of at a loss for words. Let's just say I'm immediately skeptical of anything that tries to present a scientific reasoning of why god has to exist. Their hypothesis that every thing that exists has a cause, and the universe exists so therefore god is a little troubling to me.

...and your response reflects you only watched the first minute. :smile:

Anyway, gotta call it a night. This has been fun. Too bad someone will say something to eventually force this thread into the cave. I"m impressed it has lasted this long.

 

[MIClone]

What is the point of a debate like that? What do you suppose the odds are that the creationist guy is going to spontaneously decide that god doesn't exist?

One doesn't have to decide that God doesn't exist to believe in evolution. Maybe you can't interpret everything in the bible literally and believe in evolution, but you can certainly believe in God and believe in evolution.

 

[3TrueFans]

...and your response reflects you only watched the first minute. :smile:

Anyway, gotta call it a night. This has been fun. Too bad someone will say something to eventually force this thread into the cave. I"m impressed it has lasted this long.

I watched the whole thing after I replied, but that was still the argument they made.

 

[digZ]

Anything beyond these laws in philosophical, not based on science. So yes, you can have science and faith co-exist. But faith doesn't allow for line-item vetoing of any scientific understanding of the laws of this universe.

And boom goes the dynamite.