Nye vs Ham debate

[The Geezer]

LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL

LOL[LOL

LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL

The poor girl hasn't heard of Galileo, even the Catholic church eventually recognised his contributions

 

[Longbow]

Scientists can be creationists. Yes they can. But so what, in no way does that support the question.

Not very good ones.

With science, you have: hypothesis -> observations and evidence -> conclusion.

With creationism, you have to ignore the above scientific method.

If they believe creationism then they probably believe any hypothesis that comes their way.

 

[Glaucus]

Not very good ones.

With science, you have: hypothesis -> observations and evidence -> conclusion.

With creationism, you have to ignore the above scientific method.

If they believe creationism then they probably believe any hypothesis that comes their way.

Wrong, as creationism doesn't involve all fields of science.

So you can easily be a great science in one field and a terrible science in other fields. That applies to many scientists, not just creationism scientists.
And has been proven over and over by creationism scientists doing good work in certain fields.

 

[Angilion]

According to the theory of evolution, living things came into existence by means of coincidences, and developed further as a consequence of coincidental effects.

Like all creationists, you clearly have no idea what the theory of evolution is. You've just made a completely incorrect statement about it. Two, actually.

You do not have a clue.

Please stop talking about things you don't understand.

If you want to say "I am right despite all the evidence because I say so and I claim divine authority", that's one thing. That's religion. But when you pretend you're being rational and you make untrue statements about what people who have some knowledge and are able to think are saying, that's another thing entirely.

In other words, according to Darwinism, the forces of nature built simple inanimate elements into highly complex and flawless designs.

And there's another two completely untrue statements.

Either you're lying or you are deliberately, obsessively ignorant. It would be difficult for someone to remain so utterly ignorant nowadays, but I suppose you could manage it if you were very determined to know less than nothing.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of it. Nobody who has even the faintest knowledge or ability to think would take it seriously when it's so obviously untruths stacked on untruths from the ground up.

You can watch evolution happening, for crying out loud. It has very strong and obvious effects on humanity, most famously MRSA. Humans have used evolution as a tool for millenia (selective breeding). Denial of evolution is as deranged and delusional as denial of gravity or light.

 

[Angilion]

Not very good ones.

With science, you have: hypothesis -> observations and evidence -> conclusion.

With creationism, you have to ignore the above scientific method.

If they believe creationism then they probably believe any hypothesis that comes their way.

You're overlooking the human ability to deceive themselves and the nature of faith. It's possible for a person to place faith above reality but still be able to function as a scientist in any area that doesn't conflict with their faith and then to deceive themselves into thinking that there isn't any contradiction in their behaviour.

 

[The Geezer]

Denial of evolution is as deranged and delusional as denial of gravity or light.

Why are you feeding the Trolls ?

 

[Angilion]

Its best just to add ledge to ignore. He keeps sprouting rubbish and he won't reply to you, he never does. And if he does reply to you it won't be an actual reply. It'll just be a copy and paste about something totally different.

That's creationism in a nutshell, really. A creationist can't have a reply because their position is entirely lies and delusions, but if they keep repeating different ones then they can gain some ground. It's easier to copy and paste nonsense than it is to refute it with reasoning and evidence.

 

[Glaucus]

This is cringe worthy, he can't answer any if the q&A other than we can't see it in the past therefore its an assumption, there for my bibles right. But that requires no assumption. Despite Nye bringing up translation errors and who knows the true origin of the bible.

 

[Alex_6n2]

Flawless designs? There are so many examples against this I'm beginning to wonder if creationists can read...

PLEASE go and read about hip bones in whales. Use that as your starting point and then go on a wondrous journey known as science.

 

[W!ll]

This is cringe worthy, he can't answer any if the q&A other than we can't see it in the past therefore its an assumption, there for my bibles right. But that requires no assumption. Despite Nye bringing up translation errors and who knows the true origin of the bible.

I think this bit will be good to watch, currently on the 5 minute rebuttals and Ham states that you cannot trust dating sciences for various reasons and uses an example of rock dated at 4.5 million years encasing trees of an age 40-45,000 years old completely glossing over the fact that either are older than the defined 6,000 he states.

 

[sbi5ar]

 

[Longbow]

Wrong, as creationism doesn't involve all fields of science.

So you can easily be a great science in one field and a terrible science in other fields. That applies to many scientists, not just creationism scientists.
And has been proven over and over by creationism scientists doing good work in certain fields.

Doesn't matter, you cannot be scientifically literate and believe in something with no evidence over something with overwhelming evidence. It's hypocritical at best, and bad science at worst.

 

[PhilthyPhil]

I think this bit will be good to watch, currently on the 5 minute rebuttals and Ham states that you cannot trust dating sciences for various reasons and uses an example of rock dated at 4.5 million years encasing trees of an age 40-45,000 years old completely glossing over the fact that either are older than the defined 6,000 he states.

Also when Ham shows off a graph which supposedly supports his theory of evolution of dogs in the few thousand years since noahs flood the timescale on the graph is 400,000 years

 

[JohnnyDrama]

...As a 2nd Year Physics student quite a few of those "statements"/"questions" make me feel physically sick....

As somebody who holds a C/C in science at GCSE level these statements/questions make me feel sick

 

[Glaucus]

Doesn't matter, you cannot be scientifically literate and believe in something with no evidence over something with overwhelming evidence. It's hypocritical at best, and bad science at worst.

What nonsense, you are just as bad as them, ignore all the evidence as you can't admit they can be good scientists in other fields. This in no way supports there claims.

 

[Theophany]

Nye done pretty well imho.

Here are some examples of young earth creationists though, not the brightest bunch to be fair

Surely it would've been easier to just link to the Buzzfeed article you ripped those from?

 

[BananaDunka]

Pretty much.

 

[quickshot89]

My god

Ham truly did not proof read his presentation. He thinks the earth is only 6000 years old, but then says we have evidence of many thousand year old trees.

Nye had this from the start

 

[W!ll]

The most worrying part about this is that a lot of American reports/articles think Ham won...

 

[ancientmariner]

I wonder how many people have been killed over the years due to disagreements over the big bang theory.

Religion on the other hand...

Know which i prefer my kids are taught.