PDA

View Full Version : The Ham/Nye debate!



RBerman
02-05-2014, 11:22 AM
I'm surprised not to see a thread on this; even Facebook was reminding me that it was "trending" among my friends. Yesterday, Bill Nye "the Science Guy" debated Ken Ham at the Creation Museum. I didn't watch the debate, but Al Mohler's wrap-up on it summarizes what I would have expected to have happened: http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/02/05/bill-nyes-reasonable-man-the-central-worldview-clash-of-the-ham-nye-debate/

One Bad Pig
02-05-2014, 11:35 AM
You missed this one. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?393-Debate-Coming-Up)

KingsGambit
02-05-2014, 12:27 PM
The most lasting image in the public's view so far seems to be the respective answers to the "What would make you change your mind?" question, with Nye answering "evidence" and Ham answering "nothing". 1 Corinthians 15:14 makes clear that even the resurrection is, in theory, falsifiable (I don't think it really can be falsified, obviously, since it really happened, but you get my point). Since Paul will even admit that, what does it say that Ham puts a non-essential belief up as non-falsifiable? This answer is rightly being mocked as foolish, and is not a good representation of Christianity as intellectually viable.

Teallaura
02-05-2014, 01:07 PM
Okay, I haven't watched the thing but if the whole debate boils down to what theorhetically would change their minds they both wasted their time. The merits of a debate should be in its meat - the points/counterpoints and evidence referenced. Sounds like a poor moderator, just based on the tiny bit here.

RBerman
02-05-2014, 05:19 PM
You missed this one. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?393-Debate-Coming-Up)

Ah. I don't visit that forum.

Jedidiah
02-05-2014, 06:34 PM
I would have intentionally missed that debate. But missed it instead by default. Am also ignoring "accounts of."

Soyeong
02-05-2014, 07:05 PM
The debaters really needed to be given a period where they were allowed to directly ask questions of the other debater. The were a number of questions that both of them asked the other, but neither were given the opportunity to answer them.

RBerman
02-06-2014, 06:15 AM
I would have intentionally missed that debate. But missed it instead by default. Am also ignoring "accounts of."

Alrighty then! Thanks for contributing.

RBerman
02-06-2014, 06:16 AM
The debaters really needed to be given a period where they were allowed to directly ask questions of the other debater. The were a number of questions that both of them asked the other, but neither were given the opportunity to answer them.

I agree; lack of actual debate is a failing in many modern "debates" which are really just traded prepared speeches. But speakers know that their prepared remarks will generally be more eloquent than their extemporaneous ones, so everybody sticks carefully to scripts.

Chaotic Void
02-06-2014, 07:50 AM
Yeah, even a lot of my YEC friends thought this debate was a joke... I watched it yesterday on YT. Much more convenient when you need to hammer notes and/or take a leak.

My biggest problem with Ham was the fact that- like KG said- he said nothing would change his mind about the Age of the Earth and the Origin of Species. Another one to tack on is the fact that he kept citing scripture to back up his point (especially since Nye- and probably a chunk of the audience- obviously doesn't adhere to Scripture as an Authority), instead of providing scientific evidence to show the tenability of his model (which is, you know, kind of the point of the debate and something that Nye holds as authoritative). I do have to give him credit, though, for pointing out some legitimate scientists who are also YEC, yet have made contributions to the scientific community (which, IIRC, was something that Bill was trying to say isn't possible).

Don't get me wrong... Nye had some problems of his own. For one, he came off as Chronologically snobbish with regards to the story of Noah. Another problem is that he seemed incredibly naive about how science and scientists can function (they're not immune to internal/external politics and 'going where the grants are'). I was also just about ready to slap him through the computer monitor when he used the 'Telephone' game with regards to the authority of scripture (very unscientific of him, to say the least).

All in all... I probably should have taken a bracing shot of something before I watched it.

princesa
02-06-2014, 11:28 AM
What led Nye to choose Ham (if that's the case) to have this debate with? Is there any background info that placed these two together.

ManwŰ S˙limo
02-06-2014, 11:34 AM
Didn't watch it.

ManwŰ S˙limo
02-06-2014, 11:35 AM
What led Nye to choose Ham (if that's the case) to have this debate with? Is there any background info that placed these two together.

They're two very popular figureheads at what they do. Ham for YEC and Nye for popular science (especially since he was shown extensively in the classrooms I attended).

Darth Executor
02-06-2014, 11:43 AM
I dunno about Ham but Nye is a washed up has-been trying to jump start his long dead career. I guess he saw how popular Dawkins got and wanted a sweet piece of the rabidtheist pie.

KingsGambit
02-06-2014, 11:50 AM
Apparently Nye is on Dancing With The Stars too.

princesa
02-06-2014, 11:52 AM
They're two very popular figureheads at what they do. Ham for YEC and Nye for popular science (especially since he was shown extensively in the classrooms I attended).

I see, I don't know why but just thought Nye would want to debate a William Lane craig type apologetic

ManwŰ S˙limo
02-06-2014, 11:53 AM
You're assuming people are wanting an actual debate of ideas instead of a theatrical event of sound bites.

KingsGambit
02-06-2014, 11:54 AM
I see, I don't know why but just thought Nye would want to debate a William Lane craig type apologetic

Craig doesn't argue against evolution, and Nye's main point was to defend evolution in the public's eyes (because it is the main scientific concept that the public tends to have problems accepting). Nye wouldn't be interested in publicly going against Christianity by itself (and the other night he did allude to the fact that plenty of people do reconcile evolution with their faith).

princesa
02-06-2014, 11:59 AM
Craig doesn't argue against evolution, and Nye's main point was to defend evolution in the public's eyes (because it is the main scientific concept that the public tends to have problems accepting). Nye wouldn't be interested in publicly going against Christianity by itself (and the other night he did allude to the fact that plenty of people do reconcile evolution with their faith).

this makes more sense thanks

nico
02-08-2014, 05:25 AM
What led Nye to choose Ham (if that's the case) to have this debate with? Is there any background info that placed these two together.

It all started when Bill Nye made some very uninformed remarks about parents teaching their children creationism. You can watch it on youtube. Ken Ham responded likewise in video format. You can watch that one on youtube as well. Anyway, the conflict between them snowballed, made a few headlines, and culminated in this debate. The topic of the debate was about whether or not creationism is a "viable" scientific theory. Essentially, Nye thinks that creationism means that you're incapable of contributing to society in any meaningful way. He says that you won't be able to create vaccines, invent machines, or understand technology at all. Honestly, he is very, very uninformed about creationism and has a very distorted view of what entails from a Biblical worldview.

nico
02-08-2014, 05:47 AM
The most lasting image in the public's view so far seems to be the respective answers to the "What would make you change your mind?" question, with Nye answering "evidence" and Ham answering "nothing". 1 Corinthians 15:14 makes clear that even the resurrection is, in theory, falsifiable (I don't think it really can be falsified, obviously, since it really happened, but you get my point). Since Paul will even admit that, what does it say that Ham puts a non-essential belief up as non-falsifiable? This answer is rightly being mocked as foolish, and is not a good representation of Christianity as intellectually viable.

Ham says "nothing" because he already admitted his presuppositions that inform his worldview. Nye says "evidence" because he believes he has no presuppositions at all. Of course, the evidence he has in mind must readily conform to his worldview, but as a committed modernist who believes himself perfectly objective he has no worldview, only "reason", so anything that doesn't conform to the presuppositions he won't admit to is not considered real evidence. This biggest problem with guys like Nye is their inability to grasp their own philosophical underpinnings.

klaus54
02-10-2014, 07:39 PM
YECs are fond of the term "presupposition". Is there a difference between a presupposition and a supposition? Just curious.

And speaking of Ham, his supposition is that his Genesis 1 interpretation is correct, infallible if you will. Thus, no amount of physical evidence will sway him. Ergo, "debate" with Ham is a futile endeavor and a fool's errand. Ham can toss a few sciencey morsels to the ignorant thrall to give the impression he's "winning" and then he and followers can walk away smugly with the "victory". A victory that was fixed from the get-go.

Addendum: Ham's type of supposition is antithetical to modern natural science with its inductive method. Ham's is in fact deductive with his supposition being his axiom.

nico
02-11-2014, 02:29 PM
YECs are fond of the term "presupposition". Is there a difference between a presupposition and a supposition? Just curious.

And speaking of Ham, his supposition is that his Genesis 1 interpretation is correct, infallible if you will. Thus, no amount of physical evidence will sway him. Ergo, "debate" with Ham is a futile endeavor and a fool's errand. Ham can toss a few sciencey morsels to the ignorant thrall to give the impression he's "winning" and then he and followers can walk away smugly with the "victory". A victory that was fixed from the get-go.

Addendum: Ham's type of supposition is antithetical to modern natural science with its inductive method. Ham's is in fact deductive with his supposition being his axiom.

A supposition means to assume; a "pre" supposition means to assume beforehand. An online dictionary can readily supply you with the difference. As for the inductive vs. deductive part, that's the contention isn't it? Ham says the induction part isn't actually happening because hidden in the method are presuppositions which Nye sharply denies. I imagine you would do the same.

KingsGambit
02-11-2014, 04:08 PM
Presupposition is not an exclusively YEC term, though its use in Christian circles is always probably going to be a little associated with them or with proponents of presuppositional apologetics. But I do find the concept behind the word to be rather useful. I've seen the term "horizon" used as well to denote a similar concept.

ManwŰ S˙limo
02-11-2014, 04:22 PM
A presup is what you get before marriage, right?

One Bad Pig
02-11-2014, 04:56 PM
A presup is what you get before marriage, right?
Only in the minds of horny doofii.

damanar
02-15-2014, 05:53 PM
It all started when Bill Nye made some very uninformed remarks about parents teaching their children creationism. You can watch it on youtube. Ken Ham responded likewise in video format. You can watch that one on youtube as well. Anyway, the conflict between them snowballed, made a few headlines, and culminated in this debate. The topic of the debate was about whether or not creationism is a "viable" scientific theory. Essentially, Nye thinks that creationism means that you're incapable of contributing to society in any meaningful way. He says that you won't be able to create vaccines, invent machines, or understand technology at all. Honestly, he is very, very uninformed about creationism and has a very distorted view of what entails from a Biblical worldview.

Nye does not think that "creationism means that you're incapable of contributing to society in any meaningful way." His point is that you cannot use creationism to contribute to science. All of the YEC scientists Ham brought on used science to discover what they did, and not creationism. You cannot use the Bible and figure out how x-rays work. Creationism provides no predictable results, if a deity can change things at its whim instead of natural laws that we can follow to consistent results.

Juvenal
02-15-2014, 09:01 PM
A supposition means to assume; a "pre" supposition means to assume beforehand.

I'm supposing there's not a lot of supposing after the fact.

Cause, ya know, that'd be called delusioning, or something like that, I suppose.

Jedidiah
02-15-2014, 09:15 PM
It is hard for me to respect Nye for taking on Ham. He should know that Ham has no interest and no real understanding of what science is all about.

seanD
02-16-2014, 10:47 PM
The MSM (I think it was cnn) just recently had Nye debate a congresswoman about AGW. I'm thinking, out of all the skeptics he could have debated with an authority on the subject and they pick a congresswoman?

KingsGambit
02-17-2014, 12:56 PM
The one thing Congress members tend to be experts at is obfuscation.

nico
02-21-2014, 05:21 AM
Nye does not think that "creationism means that you're incapable of contributing to society in any meaningful way." His point is that you cannot use creationism to contribute to science. All of the YEC scientists Ham brought on used science to discover what they did, and not creationism. You cannot use the Bible and figure out how x-rays work. Creationism provides no predictable results, if a deity can change things at its whim instead of natural laws that we can follow to consistent results.

Meh, I guess you don't get it either. The quote you took from me is hyperbole. You knew that didn't you?I Anyway, 'll break it down. Creationism means that God creating everything fully formed. In other words, creationists approach everything as if reverse engineering the universe. They do what all scientists do but with integrity. Instead of pretending that things have design in order to understand them, they actually believe they have design. No creationist believe that the Bible teaches about x-rays. Creationism is a starting point, not a manual. It is (you know it's coming), a PRESUPPOSITION applied when doing science. Guys like Nye have them to, but they don't admit to it or they call them something else.

rogue06
02-21-2014, 12:10 PM
Notice:

Okay folks let's remember that participation in this forum is restricted to creationists (OEC, YEC and any variations thereof) ONLY

Jedidiah
02-21-2014, 05:21 PM
One poster who is not allowed to take part here had a good point. YE creationists in general are inconsistent with thinking about evolution. They seem to think that in less than 6,000 years enough evolution has occurred to populate the world with the variety we see today from the animals carried on the Ark. That does not seem to square with the relative stability in species we see today.

seanD
02-21-2014, 11:30 PM
The whole point of creationism is that global species population occurred via a miracle -- both creation and distribution. A natural process is not necessary in that scenario.

Jedidiah
02-22-2014, 12:10 AM
I take it you are not familiar with AIG and their position on the matter. They accept massive evolution in the post diluvian era

seanD
02-22-2014, 12:41 AM
I take it you are not familiar with AIG and their position on the matter. They accept massive evolution in the post diluvian era

No, I'm not. Then I wouldn't consider them creationists.

nico
02-22-2014, 01:10 AM
One poster who is not allowed to take part here had a good point. YE creationists in general are inconsistent with thinking about evolution. They seem to think that in less than 6,000 years enough evolution has occurred to populate the world with the variety we see today from the animals carried on the Ark. That does not seem to square with the relative stability in species we see today.

What the ark took exactly is a matter of speculation. And did God create one archetype cat or did he make lions and tigers separately? It's all speculation. However seemingly implausible the theories might be shouldn't deter from holding to YEC. OEC has its problems too, not to mention evolutionists who recognize the "Cambrian" problem and start theorizing about saltationism and punctuated equilibrium. It can get pretty outlandish.

Jedidiah
02-22-2014, 11:22 AM
No, I'm not. Then I wouldn't consider them creationists.

Answers In Genesis not creationist? What is a creationist

seanD
02-22-2014, 01:19 PM
That's a good question. But trying to work the theory of evolution into a YEC and creationist belief just doesn't seem to fit.

Jedidiah
02-22-2014, 05:52 PM
That's a good question. But trying to work the theory of evolution into a YEC and creationist belief just doesn't seem to fit.

Well it seems to work in TE, but I have to agree that I see it as incompatible with YEC. That does not seem to stop AIG.

seanD
02-22-2014, 06:26 PM
Coupling TE and creationism is a convolution of the concepts. I doubt any of the TEs here would identify as a creationist.

Cerebrum123
02-23-2014, 06:19 AM
No, I'm not. Then I wouldn't consider them creationists.

He's speaking of the kind of rapid speciation that would be needed to get the amount of species we have today. They would not call this evolution however. They differentiate between "change of frequency of alleles within populations" and the GTE. Definition here. http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerkut

authentic8
02-23-2014, 09:43 AM
All of the YEC scientists Ham brought on used science to discover what they did, and not creationism. You cannot use the Bible and figure out how x-rays work. Creationism provides no predictable results ...

You're putting creationism/ists in one camp and all of science in another camp; it just doesn't work like that.

Creationism addresses the origins issue, not electromagnetic radiation. A working scientist who is a creationist would use the theories from his/her field just as the non-creationist would. If they are not working in a field that includes the origin of life they would have little reason to bring up creationism in their work.


... if a deity can change things at its whim instead of natural laws that we can follow to consistent results.

Just because He can, it doesn't mean He does all the time. By most definitions, "miracles" are rare and, I would argue, theologically must be so.

Kbertsche
02-23-2014, 03:41 PM
Coupling TE and creationism is a convolution of the concepts. I doubt any of the TEs here would identify as a creationist.
I suspect that Rogue and Jim (Oxmixmudd) would identify as "evolutionary creationists" just as Denis Lamoureux does and many Evangelical Christian TEs do. These guys really do believe in divine creation, and think that God used evolution as one of His mechanisms.

Omniskeptical
02-23-2014, 06:00 PM
I think Ken Ham may have used the debate to separate operational science i.e. working science, from historical science i.e. speculative science. Any takers?

I will try to watch this debate, but I may get bored by it.

Kbertsche
02-23-2014, 08:31 PM
I think Ken Ham may have used the debate to separate operational science i.e. working science, from historical science i.e. speculative science. Any takers?

I will try to watch this debate, but I may get bored by it.

Most YEC speakers try to distinguish "operational science" from "historical science". They claim that the methodology is different, and they want to accept the first and reject the second.

They problem is that they are wrong. The methodology is essentially the same for both.

Omniskeptical
02-23-2014, 09:03 PM
Most YEC speakers try to distinguish "operational science" from "historical science". They claim that the methodology is different, and they want to accept the first and reject the second.

They problem is that they are wrong. The methodology is essentially the same for both.Or perhaps, you weren't listening even though it was boring. Ken Ham seems to define historical science as opinion or interpretational science. Operational science and its interpretation are two different things; but I suppose I coin this stuff first.

When something is first discovered, its interpretation isn't usually perfect, and it then undergoes remodeling. But such is the nature of science, and I didn't not give Ken Ham this idea.

I am just frustrated by how simplistic that debate was. You seem to feel the same way about it.

Kbertsche
02-24-2014, 08:14 AM
L
Or perhaps, you weren't listening even though it was boring. Ken Ham seems to define historical science as opinion or interpretational science. Operational science and its interpretation are two different things; but I suppose I coin this stuff first.

When something is first discovered, its interpretation isn't usually perfect, and it then undergoes remodeling. But such is the nature of science, and I didn't not give Ken Ham this idea.

I am just frustrated by how simplistic that debate was. You seem to feel the same way about it.
I didn't actually see the debate. I'm convinced that both sides are fundamentally wrong, so I wasn't that interested in watching it. All I know about the debate comes from the comments of those who watched it.

I agree that INTERPRETATION of scientific data is an important issue, but this enters "observational science" as well. Some areas of science have fairly direct, non-controversial interpretations, while other areas have very indirect, convoluted interpretations. In fact, some areas of "observational" science (e.g. particle physics) are much more indirect and "iffy" than some areas of "historical" science. Thus I believe the distinction between "observational" and "historical" is wrong. A better distinction would be something that distinguishes "direct" from "indirect" in the interpretations.

Vertetuesi
02-07-2016, 10:16 AM
The most lasting image in the public's view so far seems to be the respective answers to the "What would make you change your mind?" question, with Nye answering "evidence" and Ham answering "nothing".

Several people here (and atheists commenting elsewhere after the debate) have really gone to town on Ham's answer - but virtually nobody (bar perhaps Nico) has held up a critical eyeglass to Nye's. So here goes.

I'll credit Nye with being honest and sincere in stating that (he believes that) "evidence" would change his mind about it. In which case, the best that can be said is that he innocently told an untruth. He does not let "evidence" change his mind on evolution or the age of the earth etc.

A simple example: dinosaurs. The only direct evidence anyone has regarding (an upper limit to) their age comes from the contents of their bones, viz. (a) soft tissue including unstable large molecules, and (b) carbon 14. Both of these considerations definitely imply that the bones are less than a million years old, the second implies that they are well under 100,000 years old. I said "direct" evidence, because even Richard Dawkins has implicitly admitted that none exists for their being tens of millions of years old - saying that one has to radiodate rocks below and above those where dinosaurs are buried.

So why does Nye continue to believe that dinosaurs are over 65 million years old? Why, he can even continue to believe the earth is billions of years old, if he really wants to - just recalibrate elsewhere to allow for the only direct dinosaur dating evidence we currently possess.

The fact that he doesn't do this, shows that his reply simply isn't true. If I'd been in Ham's position I'd have pounced all over Nye as soon as the word "evidence" was out of his mouth.

Meanwhile, I accept to some degree the criticism made of Ham's reply - which was a microcosm of the criticism by some creationists e.g. at CMI that Ham had emphasised presuppositionalism so much that he left little space for evidence-related considerations. But that's something for the rest of the threads in this forum, lol

Catholicity
02-07-2016, 10:54 AM
Who necroed???

Kbertsche
02-07-2016, 11:31 AM
A simple example: dinosaurs. The only direct evidence anyone has regarding (an upper limit to) their age comes from the contents of their bones, viz. (a) soft tissue including unstable large molecules,
Reference from the scientific literature, please?

I am aware that YECs make lots of similar claims, but these claims are not true. What has been reported by Mary Schweitzer and others is fossilized internal structures of bone. The original structure is preserved, but NOT the original tissue.



and (b) carbon 14.
Again, a reference from the scientific literature, please?

Yes, YEC groups claim to have detected C-14 in dinosaur bone. But generally the samples were submitted deceptively, were not prepared properly, and the measurement backgrounds were underestimated. The radiocarbon that they detect is nothing more than sample contamination and measurement background.