Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham Debate

[Rosieodonell]

Evolution versus Creationism

Not sure why this wasn't posted before or may'be i can't look hard enough. What did everyone think? Who do you think won and maybe get some discusion going.

Here is a link if you haven't seen or heard about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

[JLives]

It's not really a debate if only one side has facts.

This summarizes it. Please note I am paraphrasing. Bill Nye to Ken Ham: Do you know there are trees on the Earth older than you believe the universe is?

[Glacier]

Oldest tree in the world is 5,063 years old, though only one person knows where it is. The second oldest tree is 4,845 years old.

[Hmmm]

It's not really a debate if only one side has facts.

This summarizes it. Please note I am paraphrasing. Bill Nye to Ken Ham: Do you know there are trees on the Earth older than you believe the universe is?

Doesn't mean we weren't created though, it may mean this creationist is wacked. There is no scientific evidence that disproves the Bible's creation account, there is proof that what some teach is clearly wrong.

[JLives]

Oldest tree in the world is 5,063 years old, though only one person knows where it is. The second oldest tree is 4,845 years old.

Here is his actual quote, not my butchered version:
http://flavorwire.com/437149/the-best-q ... sm-debate/
In which Nye accidentally brings about a tree genocide committed by spiritually confused adolescents:

“There’s a famous tree in Sweden — Old Tjikko — that’s [over 9,000] years old. How could these trees be there if there was an enormous flood just 4,000 years ago? You can try this yourself, everybody — and I don’t mean to be mean to trees – get a sapling, and put it under water for a year. It will not survive.”

http://enjoysweden.se/en/object/old-tji ... the-world/

[JLives]

Doesn't mean we weren't created though, it may mean this creationist is wacked. There is no scientific evidence that disproves the Bible's creation account, there is proof that what some teach is clearly wrong.

You still have to explain creationism for it to be even considered. There is nothing to back it up. Creationism is a myth believed by people. Evolution is a science understood by people.

[Rosieodonell]

Doesn't mean we weren't created though, it may mean this creationist is wacked. There is no scientific evidence that disproves the Bible's creation account, there is proof that what some teach is clearly wrong.

First point I agree. Ken Ham is whacked and scares me that he can still reproduce on this world.

Second point that is highlighted above. So you make a claim a magical being lives up in the sky, parallel dimension, and/or outside our physical reality. He creates the world and all the creatures and people etc.. Then it is up to me to prove you wrong, when you can't show measureable proof. The burden of proof falls on the believer not the disbeliever.

Now your third point that "there is proof that what some teach is clearly wrong is absolutely wrong." For the most part you are correct. People use the evidence they have at hand and teach. But the beauty of Scientific discovery is that when you discover something is wrong, you take the new evidence into consideration and go from there. Religion deals with absolutes and thus can't change.

I always loved this line, "Why don't you believe in Thor? Thor promised to keep us safe from all ice giants and I don't see any ice giants"

[Omnitheo]

Prometheus gave us fire. We use fire. therefore Prometheus exists.

[Glacier]

[Rosieodonell]

Ken Ham publicly said that the banana was proof of intelligent design and thus proof of God. Because the banana perfectly fits the human hand!

I find them funny and like them sliced up in my corn flakes (haven't done that in years!)

[Glacier]

Ken Ham publicly said that the banana was proof of intelligent design and thus proof of God. Because the banana perfectly fits the human hand!

Source?

[Corneliousrooster]

Source?

I would assume they have Ken Hamm mixed up with another wingnut - Raymond Comfort...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igui2YoHXs8

[Glacier]

Ah, I see. Kinda like how some people get Bill Nye mixed up with the wingnut David Suzuki..

[janalta]

There is no scientific evidence that disproves the Bible's creation account, there is proof that what some teach is clearly wrong.

The burden of proof is not on the non-believer, you can not definitively prove that something does not exist.
The burden of proof lies solely on those who insist that something does exist, without question.

Can science prove that werewolves, vampires and sasquatches' do not exist?
Can anyone prove that they do ?

[Glacier]

The burden of proof is not on the non-believer, you can not definitively prove that something does not exist.
The burden of proof lies solely on those who insist that something does exist, without question.

Can science prove that werewolves, vampires and sasquatches' do not exist?
Can anyone prove that they do ?

That's not how science works. A theory cannot be proven; it can only be disproven. If someone puts forward the idea that life exists on other planets or that God created the universe, the onus is actually on those who have an alternative theory to prove it wrong.