Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham Debate

[janalta]

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.

Really, a theory can not be proven? What a typically redundant religious response, construed to attempt to defer the fact that you simply can never prove something that does not exist.

The concept of gravity was once a theory.
The concept that the earth is round, once just a theory.
The concept that the earth rotates around the sun, once just a theory.
Even atoms were once considered nothing but a theory.

These were all proven to be fact, not disproven. Making your argument invalid.

God, werewolves, vampires....are not theories, they are myths.

[Glacier]

Really, a theory can not be proven?

Yes, really. Google is your friend.

A scientific theory can only be disproven. This is done by conducting an experiment that contradicts the predictions of the theory. For example, consider the theory that the earth is the center of the solar system. The phases of the planet Venus contradict this theory because the patterns of sunlight on Venus are only possible with the sun at the center, then Venus, and then the earth with an orbit larger than Venus.

On the other hand, a scientific theory can't be proven per se, but so much evidence can accumulate in its favor that we get really confident in it. For example, There have been large numbers of experimental and observational tests of Einstein's theory of relativity. These tests have all agreed with the predictions of the theory.

So we are pretty confident that Einstein's theory is a *good* description of the universe. But it doesn't *prove* Einstein's theory. An experiment done tomorrow might disagree with Einstein's predictions.

In that case the theory would have to be refined so that all the old results that did agree with experiment were incorporated into a new framework that agreed with the new data.

[janalta]

'Scientific Relativity a theory that is close to being "certain". It was and still is tried and tested extensively and it forms the basis of other theories that are themselves successful. So the odds of SR being "wrong" are outrageously small. We have inadvertedly tested it bazillions of times and it's worked perfectly. And the amount by which it can be wrong is very small. '

"Theory" in everyday language often is meant as "guess", "hunch", "could be that way". Scientifically speaking, those should be called guesses, educated guesses or hypotheses. A theory in science is a rather exhaustive framework of explaining all currently available data pertaining to a certain subject, as in "theory of electrodynamics", "theory of fluid dynamics" etc. Currently, this confusion about what the word "theory" means is most annoying in discussing the "theory of evolution"... –

[Glacier]

Exactly. You are getting it.

[janalta]

Exactly. You are getting it.

Unfortunately, you're not.
The general word 'theory' is a guess, an idea, a hunch.
Scientific theory started as an idea, a guess...but has been tested, examined, retested, studied...over and over again millions of times - for generations - for centuries....until it truly is no longer just a guess.

There is so much physical evidence to support the 'theory' of evolution that it seems impossible in this day and age that anyone can possibly refute it.
There has been no such physical, scientific study that shows any proof whatsoever that the theory of creation is nothing but an idea, a guess.

[zzontar]

I think people get the theory of evolution mixed up the theory of how all life started... two very separate things. I still have yet to hear any solid evidence from evolutionists about how everything got started.

[Hmmm]

There is so much physical evidence to support the 'theory' of evolution that it seems impossible in this day and age that anyone can possibly refute it.

Did you mean there's been such a loud boisterous outcry how it must be true that surely it is? I really had to laugh a bit at you on this. There has NOT been any such thing as you said but there certainly has been very loud, boisterous outcries about how right evolutionists must be.


Or you talking about the huge amount proof that prove creationists are wrong? There certainly is that, but that also doesn't prove evolution is right. Just because a bunch of wackos are clearly wrong is not proof the other side is clearly right.

[1nick]

I think people get the theory of evolution mixed up the theory of how all life started... two very separate things. I still have yet to hear any solid evidence from evolutionists about how everything got started.

Evolutionists and creationists alike.
Planets with life will be discovered showing how unremarkable life is,loosening the grip of creationists.

[Glacier]

Unfortunately, you're not.
The general word 'theory' is a guess, an idea, a hunch.
Scientific theory started as an idea, a guess...but has been tested, examined, retested, studied...over and over again millions of times - for generations - for centuries....until it truly is no longer just a guess.

There is so much physical evidence to support the 'theory' of evolution that it seems impossible in this day and age that anyone can possibly refute it.
There has been no such physical, scientific study that shows any proof whatsoever that the theory of creation is nothing but an idea, a guess.

Where did I say otherwise? I know many people who believe that life exists on other planets. They have a hunch or a theory. There is no scientific evidence to support the theory, but it is a theory that exists. If people want to believe that extraterrestrials exist, or that God exists, or that life came into being without God, I say go for it since I have no evidence to the contrary. To call someone’s theory hogwash without disproving it is ignorance, in my opinion. Many people, including someone in my family, swear they have seen things like Big Foot. Personally, I do not believe Big Foot exists, but I have no way to refute their story. I tried it once, and the friend quite rightly retorted, “You weren’t there, so you have no idea what I saw.”

On another note, I also think you may have missed the fact that Bill Nye reiterated several times that religion and evolution are not opposites. They are different subjects. Many people are both religious and evolutionists. Most atheists, though not all, subscribe to evolution, but that is mostly because the most dominant counter-argument involves a creator.

[JLives]

I think people get the theory of evolution mixed up the theory of how all life started... two very separate things. I still have yet to hear any solid evidence from evolutionists about how everything got started.

That is exactly right. Evolution and abiogenesis are two very different processes. Evolution is from the point of first life forward. To put it basically, it explains the variety of species in the world.

[janalta]

I think people get the theory of evolution mixed up the theory of how all life started... two very separate things. I still have yet to hear any solid evidence from evolutionists about how everything got started.

That would be because there is no solid evidence yet to prove how life on earth began.
There is evidence to support the theory of the ever expanding universe and there is evidence to support the Big Bang theory...enough that most of the scientific world believe it to be true...but no, there is no solid proof of it.

As for evolution vs creationism...I think most people are well aware that evolution explains the progression of life on earth, but not how it initially began. There is physical evidence to support evolution...the fact that we share 99% of our DNA with great apes makes it rather difficult to deny that somewhere along the line, we came from the same common ancestry. There is evidence to support that prehistoric mammals were the direct ancestors to modern animals.

I have yet to see one single shred of evidence to support the suggestion that everything on earth just appeared in the same form as it is found today.

[zzontar]

Evolutionists and creationists alike.
Planets with life will be discovered showing how unremarkable life is,loosening the grip of creationists.

It wouldn't loosen my grip in the slightest, why would it?

[1nick]

Unveiling the mystery of life and discovering how it all began is in our future.
Extra-terrestrial life in my opinion chips away at the creationist mumbo jumbo.
We are not that special,or the chosen.

[fluffy]

Unveiling the mystery of life and discovering how it all began is in our future.

Agreed. And until we reach that point the best we can come up with as far as definitive proof is, at its barest roots, guesswork. This means that since we don't yet have the answer, then there are no right or wrong positions in this issue, thus arguing about it is an exercise in futility. Oh we can profess belief in one side or the other, but without the aforementioned definitive proof we really don't have much of a case.

[JLives]

I don't know how life started and I'm totally comfortable saying that. Maybe we will learn how in the future or maybe it's one of those things we will never know.