I watched most of the stream.
The creationist theory is really childish in my opinion, it's basically calling all of modern science a teapot while weaving an elaborate myth and redirecting the burden of proof to a big bearded man in the sky who has no means of communicating with us.
Bill made some really great points about the predictability of modern science, but if I were him I would have nailed them in by pointing out that even if neither side's views can be proven as true or false, the ideas with more practical use in our life are the ones worth keeping.
Creationism really spits in the face of Occam and Euclid.
Bill: "The greatest team of shipwrights in the world couldn't come close to building a frigate with the size and capacity of Noah's ark because of structural and material restrictions. How can a man and his family, all without any training or prior experience, succeed on their first try? Given they do, how could all of the world's species fit on said vessel?"
Ken: "Well, what makes you believe that the laws of physics were the same back then as they are now? What if God blessed Noah's ark with +5 fortification? Also he didn't need every species to start over, just one of each 'kind', from which the rest evolved, because creationists are cool and believe in special radiation just like the rest of the scientists "
Bill: *ignores claim about deferring the laws of physics* "So if you recognize special radiation, you'll also know that it takes more than a couple thousand years to occur, right?"
Ken: "What makes you think it wasn't accelerated back then? "
I respect Bill for being the upstanding scientist that he is and even bothering to argue a creationist, but over all the debate went exactly as expected and was pretty boring.
I was hoping for some entertaining heated bouts, but it was mostly each side ignoring the other side's accusations out of lack of evidence (Ken) or just not knowing what the fuck to say on the subject (Bill).
Joined: 24 Nov 2009 Posts: 48 Location: California
Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:38 pm Post subject:
Currently watching, never really delved into these topics because I would get no where if I were to pick a side, so I have no intelligent comment to support or refute either side.
However, I do believe that in debates, presenting your ideas in a fashion that is entertaining is quite crucial. It matter only so much if you can present facts (or opinions) but to present evidence in manners that catches your attention is what makes a person a strong debater. Obviously in this stand point it is quite a biased view on how to judge things, but who isn't biased? Not necessarily saying that if you cant present me an idea in way that catches my attention I would just wave you off. but if you were to pitch me a sale against an opponent and your opponent presents himself as a character that I can relate and feel at ease with, regardless if his deals are a bit on the weak side, I'd go for the opponent. On this debate, I found Bill Nye to be the stronger debater, because he was at ease and very mellow about his argument. He would pause once in a while to story tell or comment on an idea or poke at the audience, because he knows his argument will fall in places like dominoes. On the other hand, Ham's argument felt forced. I felt there was no connection to it nor was there a passion, while when Nye presented a topic his eyes and his voice would light up in excitement. Ham was basically just trying to feed a baby by forcing the spoon inside the baby's mouth whilst Nye took the spoon in this grand exciting endeavor before reaching the conclusion (the baby's mouth). However. in the end, Ham didn't change his views which made the debate pointless. His comment about disregarding everything else because it didnt follow God's words was quite ignorant of him. But thats what happens when you try to argue a creationist.
Unstoppable force meets immovable object _________________
^To emphasize his excellent debate style, Bill by no means presents himself as an unstoppable force.
You may have not gotten to this point yet, but Bill presents to the audience a few times that if any of them can go out and find evidence contradicting current conventional beliefs, it would be the best thing ever and the scientific community would jump all over it instead of ignorantly rejecting it, because that's what scientists live for, to be proven wrong.
Basically Bill is saying "I don't doubt you for a second that you own this vehicle, but I'm not buying it until I see the pink slip."
As you pointed out, his flow and pathos with the audience is remarkable, which clearly sets him aside as the experienced paragon of debates.
I took an class on debating like this and we learned all the little secrets and tricks that debaters use to skew or heighten their arguments.
Bill used none of them and was entirely open and honest, all while maintaining a structured flow.
Ken had an organized plan from the start, but he never adapted to what Bill had to say, and I doubt he ever planned to.
He probably just woke up that morning and said "welp, this is gonna be a shit day, might as well say what I have to say and get it over with."
But he still had to be eloquent and thorough or else his creationist community would chew him apart for misrepresentation.
Also don't get me started on that opening speech.
There was what, like 10 whole minutes of video testimonies from respectable scientists saying they support creationism?
Can Ken not argue his own debates without getting some show of support from his posse?
Of course, immediately following that was "oh poor us creationists being segregated from the rest of the scientific community, we've got no rights and have to sit at the back of the science bus because the big mean board of education is prejudice."
Ken's whole debate came off like a petition to include creationism in public education, honestly.
Joined: 24 Nov 2009 Posts: 48 Location: California
Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:29 am Post subject:
Cryoma wrote:
^To emphasize his excellent debate style, Bill by no means presents himself as an unstoppable force.
Excuse me for the misunderstanding, when I said that, I meant it would be pointless to try to convince a creationist otherwise (not necessarily saying Bill Nye is the unstoppable force, but the people trying to argue in an endless debate) because their belief is deeply rooted of their being. I can understand why Ham may see things that way he does and totally deny the observable proof around him that contradicts the bible and I believe the heart of that indenial is fear. I won't go on with the millions of possibilities of what leads to fear, but its safe to say that perhaps he was raised in a loving family who deeply emphasized in the teachings of the bible. Denying that, especially in public, is denying the his whole life's beliefs and perhaps denying his parent's belief (which could possibly his idols). _________________
I wasn't contradicting you, if anything I would agree that Bill is an unstoppable force, but I was just pointing out how effective he is while remaining humble.
All I got from Mr. Ham was entitlement, he was whining about religious folk deserving respect from the scientific community.
The day a man rides a bible into space I'll consider getting baptized.
HackOtaku I posted the 500000th topic Reputation: 81
Joined: 31 May 2007 Posts: 228
Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:15 am Post subject:
I watched it a couple days ago, what a joke. Ken basically tries to create this idea that what we observe in the laws of nature today are inherently different from how the universe has always worked. He wants to split science into "observational science" and "historical science". But what qualifies as historical science you ask? Well, in his mind, nothing like fossils or carbon dating quite do the trick, since no one was actually there, and the only CREDIBLE source of historical science is The Bible. Additionally, this means anything we discover in the future that might discredit this theory can't be taken as true in his mind, because we are just observing the "current" natural laws, which are apparently different from when the universe was formed.
He also dodges a ton of questions, and repeats himself endlessly. I could have taken the first 15 minutes of what he said and just put it on repeat anytime he came up to speak.
I watched it a couple days ago, what a joke. Ken basically tries to create this idea that what we observe in the laws of nature today are inherently different from how the universe has always worked. He wants to split science into "observational science" and "historical science". But what qualifies as historical science you ask? Well, in his mind, nothing like fossils or carbon dating quite do the trick, since no one was actually there, and the only CREDIBLE source of historical science is The Bible. Additionally, this means anything we discover in the future that might discredit this theory can't be taken as true in his mind, because we are just observing the "current" natural laws, which are apparently different from when the universe was formed.
He also dodges a ton of questions, and repeats himself endlessly. I could have taken the first 15 minutes of what he said and just put it on repeat anytime he came up to speak.
Bill was pretty cool though.
He definitely wasted a lot of time. Most of the time just with "And here is a Scientist who believes in Creationalism!"
That stuff was the most annoying thing ever. _________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Reputation: 63
Reputation: -1
Reputation: 29
Reputation: 81
Reputation: 8
"
