4 of 5
4
Upcoming debate…Nye vs Ham on creationism
Posted: 13 February 2014 06:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
VYAZMA - 13 February 2014 12:42 AM

I think the debate was worthwhile in whole.
A debate is an event that is ultimately trying to change the views of the debaters and the audience.

So if we look at the two sides and their audiences we can see that there’s room for Ham’s audience to shift towards
Nye’s viewpoint.
There isn’t any room for Nye’s audience to shift to Ham’s viewpoint.

Some in Ham’s audience might have come away with doubts or second thoughts about his position.
Nye’s audience is not going to come away with any doubts or second thoughts about his position.
This holds especially true for “neutral observers”.

So in the end I think we could project Nye’s positions as having more impact. Definitely a net increase in “converts” or “second thoughts”.
Especially when Ham’s position would seem to stretch the allowable tolerances of many moderate religious folk’s logic and reason.
The Pat Robertson response being one example.

That’s a good point, if done well then it is possible to open peoples eyes to the facts.

Nye is a fairly unique combination of performer and scientist and can present ideas that may contradict some peoples beliefs without making them feel that they’re being personally attacked.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2014 06:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2156
Joined  2007-04-26
rodin46 - 12 February 2014 05:18 PM

I’ve taken plenty of science/eng courses from Wayne State University and other schools.  4 yrs worth.  Your above examples/arguments are more along the lines of propaganda not actual science.

Study this site and find your own multiple errors in applying the 2nd law here.  You fit right in with the people this site mentions that don’t understand what they are talking about.


http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp    and check out the home page there too for other interesting topics.

You obviously weren’t paying attention in class. If you don’t understand why the second law only applies to a closed system then you don’t understand the basic principles of physics. This is a very common problem among creationists like Ham and you rodin. They pretend that they are fans of science yet they pick and choose which parts of science they will accept and which they will discard based entirely on whether it agrees with their dogma.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2014 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
macgyver - 14 February 2014 06:02 AM
rodin46 - 12 February 2014 05:18 PM

I’ve taken plenty of science/eng courses from Wayne State University and other schools.  4 yrs worth.  Your above examples/arguments are more along the lines of propaganda not actual science.

Study this site and find your own multiple errors in applying the 2nd law here.  You fit right in with the people this site mentions that don’t understand what they are talking about.


http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp    and check out the home page there too for other interesting topics.

You obviously weren’t paying attention in class. If you don’t understand why the second law only applies to a closed system then you don’t understand the basic principles of physics. This is a very common problem among creationists like Ham and you rodin. They pretend that they are fans of science yet they pick and choose which parts of science they will accept and which they will discard based entirely on whether it agrees with their dogma.

Or their convenience.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2014 09:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  244
Joined  2012-09-14
rodin46 - 12 February 2014 05:18 PM

I’ve taken plenty of science/eng courses from Wayne State University and other schools.  4 yrs worth.  Your above examples/arguments are more along the lines of propaganda not actual science.

Study this site and find your own multiple errors in applying the 2nd law here.  You fit right in with the people this site mentions that don’t understand what they are talking about.


http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp    and check out the home page there too for other interesting topics.

I havent seen the debate, but I did visit the answering genesis website which Mr. Ken Ham runs and I see his views on earth’s age and the like.

Rodin, I did have a question for you in this regards. In the following source

      Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
      page ix

It states that



While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization.

If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule


If the majority of scholars of Christianity (and most religions for that matter) didnt get into these kinds of scientific controversies, then why do you
disagree with them?

I am interested to know your answer sir.
Hope this continues to be interesting for the both of us smile

 

 



A link for the above book can be seen here (sorry if it is long, but it was being marked as spam every other way I tried )  :(
http://books.google.ae/books?id=weOOCfiDhDcC&pg=PR9&dq=The+result+is+the+growing+recognition+among+historians+of+science&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mIWoUsrGMoKF4ASyt4D4Ag&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The result is the growing recognition among historians of science&f=false

see also
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml
http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-437-3448.htm

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2014 01:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  69
Joined  2007-08-27

I don’t see my posts as controversial. Others may.

My contention is with the misapplication of science laws by some in this thread.  I’m not anti-science or anti-intellectual either.  I stand for truth.  I’m not afraid to call out someone to correct them nor am I so convinced of my own understanding that I can’t be corrected.

I consider myself one of many men who can hold scientific facts of nature without having my faith reduced or affected. 

History is full of men of science that could handle the two subjects.  It’s as simple as placing humility before man’s God given reasoning abilities.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2014 03:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

Humility would constrain you from putting it that way.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2014 07:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2156
Joined  2007-04-26
rodin46 - 16 February 2014 01:35 AM

I consider myself one of many men who can hold scientific facts of nature without having my faith reduced or affected. 

Wrong. When science and faith conflict you simply decide the science is wrong.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2014 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4742
Joined  2007-10-05
rodin46 - 16 February 2014 01:35 AM

I consider myself one of many men who can hold scientific facts of nature without having my faith reduced or affected

You are fooling only yourself. As macgyver pointed out, you do not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the fundamental laws of physics, and when faith and science conflict your ideology trumps science.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2014 08:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
rodin46 - 16 February 2014 01:35 AM

. . . nor am I so convinced of my own understanding that I can’t be corrected.

You write that but on matters of religion, you do not act consistent with that. So it’s fair to infer that you think differently about religion than you do about other things, such as science. That’s OK to the extent that science and religion address different kinds of things: beauty versus the specific gravity of water, for example. But it’s not OK to the extent that you employ your religious beliefs to make fact claims, such as “God exists.” The reliability of all fact claims must be subjected to the same tests for their reliability, else you end up making claims that merely reflect what you wish to believe. That is not a valid means for getting at the truth in the realm of fact, as opposed to the realm of personal and subjective experience.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2014 02:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
rodin46 - 16 February 2014 01:35 AM

I don’t see my posts as controversial. Others may.

My contention is with the misapplication of science laws by some in this thread.  I’m not anti-science or anti-intellectual either.  I stand for truth.  I’m not afraid to call out someone to correct them nor am I so convinced of my own understanding that I can’t be corrected.

I consider myself one of many men who can hold scientific facts of nature without having my faith reduced or affected. 

History is full of men of science that could handle the two subjects.  It’s as simple as placing humility before man’s God given reasoning abilities.

It’s about accuracy, not controversy, and as has been explained, the 2nd Law describes an isolated ideal system, not the conditions we find here on Earth. Biological complexity is increasing on Earth at the expense of greater entropy in the Sun as thermo-nuclear potential energy is lost there due to the constant conversion of hydrogen to helium.

And there’s no such thing as faith based science, everything has to be open to question or in the end nothing really is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2014 04:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

Rodin, the second law of thermodynamics has now been clarified for you. The only way for you to maintain the view you previously expressed is to ignore the science willfully, or be disingenuous. How do you respond to that specific point about the second law? And what do your responses so far tell you about how far your biases have invaded your thinking. Don’t cast this back on us. We’re not the ones who mis-stated a fundamental law of physics.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2014 07:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  941
Joined  2005-01-14
rodin46 - 16 February 2014 01:35 AM

My contention is with the misapplication of science laws by some in this thread.  I’m not anti-science or anti-intellectual either.  I stand for truth.  I’m not afraid to call out someone to correct them nor am I so convinced of my own understanding that I can’t be corrected.

I consider myself one of many men who can hold scientific facts of nature without having my faith reduced or affected.

That’s all well and good, but ask yourself do you seriously believe that all of us including Bill Nye had just somehow overlooked something as obvious as the Second Law?  Or maybe you thought we intentionally ignored it because we’re perverts who just don’t WANT to believe in God, is that it?

Changing topic here slightly… Apparently I either misread the terms of the debate or it was misquoted in the first article I read.  It actually reads, “Can Creationism be considered a viable explanation of origins in a scientific society?”  This is badly-worded to begin with.  If I were suckered into a debate on those grounds, my entire presentation would go something like this:

“Viable” simply means “workable or practical”.  And the modern age may or may not be a scientific society (frankly I have my doubts), but there’s no rule that says people have to use science to explain every question.  It depends on what kind of explanation you want.  If you want a factual explanation, science is your best bet.  But if all you want is a supernatural explanation that makes you feel good, Creationism is as workable as any!  Next question!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2014 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
advocatus - 17 February 2014 07:48 AM

Apparently I either misread the terms of the debate or it was misquoted in the first article I read.  It actually reads, “Can Creationism be considered a viable explanation of origins in a scientific society?”  This is badly-worded to begin with.

Can’t agree that Nye was suckered. He reframed the debate to make it about Ham’s young-earth creationism. But Ham was in no position to complain because young-earth creationism is what he promotes. Ham lost the only argument he presented. Had Ham made a prima facie case for a less goofy creationism (it’s only a matter of degree), Nye would have lost the debate by default because he never addressed that issue. But he didn’t care because he came to teach science and refute Ham’s young-earth fairy tale. If he thought it through and realized that Ham had nowhere to go without abandoning his world view - the “intellectual bedrock” for his $27 million dollar monument to ignorance, if that’s not a misnomer - then his strategic decision was an excellent one. We’ll never know unless he tells us.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2014 10:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2012-09-15

Like another earlier poster, I didn’t see the debate, but I’ve been to Answers in Genesis and am familiar with Ken Ham’s views.  I also agree that this was basically pitting one fundamentalist against another, and neither side really gained anything from it.

When Heinrich Schliemann overcame the prevailing skepticism that a long-dead Greek poet might have been accurate in claiming existence of the ancient Greek city of Troy, people didn’t suddenly start worshipping Zeus and Aphrodite.  In the same way, it *should* be possible to prise out whatever historical basis may be found in the bible—and even the early chapters of Genesis—without necessarily believing in a Creator.  Right?

Secondly, what I don’t think anyone has ever done—certainly not Ken Ham *or* Bill Nye—is to compare the biblical creation account with other ancient creation literature and ask, how was other creation literature meant to be understood?  Was it meant to be understood literally?  If not, how *was* it supposed to be interpreted?  If we interpret the biblical creation account the same way, what do we get?

In the end, is it possible to achieve sort of a middle position between biblical literalism and complete skepticism, one that honors the source text without ignoring potential flaws, issues of transmission, etc.?  And in terms of reaching a consensus view between Christians and atheists, is it possible to arrive at the most likely intended meaning of the text, whether or not one might agree with the text itself?

Damon

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2014 09:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1755
Joined  2007-10-22

My view on the Bible is that it one of the most important if not most important collections in Western Civilization, its influence and many uses it has been put to need serious study.  The current “fundamentalist literal reading” of this library is relatively new and is being uses, as always, for political purposes in the broad sense.  A good illustration of this is From the Bible Belt to the Sun Belt by Darren Dochuk 2011, others are Southern Cross - The Beginnings of the Bible Belt by Christine Leigh Heyrman 1997 and Away Down South - A History of Southern Identity by James C. Cobb 2005.  There has been a North South split in the US identity since its origins and the fundamentalists are part of the current reflection of this.

That being said, there is no big daddy in the sky to bail us humans out when we screw ourselves up.  We have only ourselves to blame.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 5
4