 |
|
|
|
 Science educator Bill Nye, left, will face off against creationist Ken Ham in Tuesday night's debate.
February 4th, 2014
01:17 PM ET
Bill Nye: Why I'm debating creationist Ken HamEditor's note: Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye on Tuesday at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, with CNN's Tom Foreman moderating. The debate will be live-streamed at 7 p.m. ET on CNN.com, and CNN's "Piers Morgan Live" will host both Ham and Nye at 9 p.m. Tuesday after the debate. Opinion by Bill Nye, Special to CNN (CNN) - A lot of people have been asking why I accepted Ken Ham’s invitation to debate the origins of life Tuesday night at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. In short, I decided to participate in the debate because I felt it would draw attention to the importance of science education here in the United States. What keeps this country in the game economically is our ability to innovate. New ideas lead to new technologies, which drive new businesses and new opportunities. Technological innovations absolutely cannot be created without fundamental understanding of science, the means by which we know nature. How many young adults and taxpayers use mobile phones? How many of us rely on global navigation systems that use satellites high above the Earth’s surface to find our way around? Even if you eschew smartphones, you rely on the system to keep airplanes in the sky and ships at sea on their routes. Modern farmers plant seeds in fields with extraordinary precision using information beamed from satellites in space. MORE ON CNN: Ken Ham: Why I'm Debating Bill Nye For the United States to maintain its leadership in technology, we need well-educated science students. To allow our students to come of age without the knowledge gained through the extraordinary scientific insights and diligence of our ancestors would deprive them of understanding of nature and our place in the cosmos. It would also rob our students of their future. Without scientists and engineers to create new technologies and ways of doing society’s business, other economies in other countries will out-compete the United States and leave our citizens behind. Tuesday's debate will be about whether Ham’s creation model is viable or useful for describing nature. We cannot use his model to predict the outcome of any experiment, design a tool, cure a disease or describe natural phenomena with mathematics. These are all things that parents in the United States very much want their children to be able to do; everyone wants his or her kids to have common sense, to be able to reason clearly and to be able to succeed in the world. The facts and process of science have enabled the United States to lead the world in technology and provide good health for an unprecedented number of our citizens. Science fuels our economy. Without it, our economic engine will slow and eventually stop. It seems to me that Ham is a fundamentalist. Around the world there are billions of people, who embrace the facts and process of modern science, and they enjoy their faith. By all accounts, their faith enriches their lives. These people have no conflict with their faith and science. Ham is unique in this regard. Fundamentally, Ham’s creation model is not part of modern science. His idea has no predictive quality or ability. It provides no means to learn more about the world around us. It does not enable students to make consistent sense of nature. So, we’ll see. We’ll see if his model stands up to traditional scientific inquiry: If a certain claim is true, then we would expect a certain outcome. I’m excited and very much looking forward to the encounter. Bill Nye is a science educator and CEO of the Planetary Society. The views expressed in this column belong to Nye. soundoff (2,162 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next »
« Previous entryKen Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
The speed of light alone proves the earth is over 6,000 years old. It can be measured accurately to 186,000 miles per second and that number is the reason why the GPS in your car works. The young earth claim by creationists is proven false when you look up at the night sky. The Andromeda Galaxy which is visible to the naked eye is 2.5 million light years away. In other words, you are not seeing it as it is now. You are seeing it as it was 2.5 million years ago. And that goes for every star in the night sky. We can see Quasars that are 30 billion light years away with our telescopes. Ham is full of crap.
God created the light, so it only seems as if it has been millions or billions of years on its way. Yes, that's facetious. But Ham had a tame PhD, an astronomer, who believed in a young Universe. Claimed there were others.
Like I said, if the numbers weren't predictable your GPS would not work because satellites were tweaked not only for those numbers but the numbers that Einstein worked regarding the principles of General Relativity. 186,000 miles per second.
His first sentence was satire. Just like my last Thursday response below.
But you see... that's just the point. God wouldn't have needed to tweak the GPS numbers. He (she? it?) would have just made GPS magically work without any tweaking!!! Wait, I'm sure there's a passage in the Bible someplace that I can interpret as God having originally created perfect GPS without any tweaking.... give me a second here... well... maybe a speed of light stretched second...
Jim, you're talking about people who believe in talking snakes and donkeys and who think the universe was created by a big invisible sky wizard who chanted magic spells for six days. Facts simply don't get in the way of their beliefs.
But! But! The universe was created with the APPEARANCE of age. It was created last Thursday!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism
And don't listen to those heretics who said it was created last Tuesday. One day they'll be held accountable.
Oh bunk. I clearly remember having lunch with some friends last Wednesday. Or... you're not saying... are you... that my memories are just implants? Wait, this is getting really scary. Particularly the part about how many really boring memory implants I was given.
Ha ha.
I find the quote on the URL above priceless:
"Last Thursdayism is false because I clearly remember events from before Last Thursday."
Ho! Ho! Ho! Still believe in Santa Claus do you!
Ummm... WAIT! What are you implying?!?!!?! What about Santa Claus? 🙂
What ever the implication...He's white!!
And proud of it DH
Well of course he's white... in the US... but he's also a socialist because he gives out free stuff to people who don't work and he wears mostly commie red and not patriotic red, white, and blue! Well actually, maybe he also has some white. Red and white. Could make him Canadian. But then again, every knows they're nothing but a bunch of commie socialists in Canada.
your child like thinking
You are a prime example of why religion is needed! If all were like YOU zombies would be the norm!
Because my reply to someone else ended up as a main comment, you could have kept your stupid racist comment to your self!
You should get help for your hate! Um! Obamacare would be a great start, because you sound like a YOU OWE ME LOW LIFE.
Saying Santa is white is racist? How does that work when its been the truth since his inception?
The above reply was for Smeagel4T!
philthese
Actually, I agree with you. This thread sometimes puts my comments in the wrong place. Disqus is better. People like Smeagel4T never cease to amaze me with their hatred.
Sorry guys this was to have been a reply to an ignorant post an wound up on main!
think...the faster you go the slower your time but at light speed time stops....EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY EQUATION SAYS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AND 6 DAYS ARE BOTH TRUE DEPENDING ON SPACE-TIME COORDINATES; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.99999999999999999999999999999999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119988e-12; PLACING YHWH 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.
distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 – 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photons
space time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light survived, hence time kicks in), this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years; 6 OF OUR DAYS ARE STRETCHED OUT AND CONTAIN 14 BILLION EARLY YEARS OF THE UNIVERSE
I look forward to reading this in a credible, peer-reviewed, scholarly, scientific journal.
So, then, if we figured out the direction of the Big Bang and somehow teleported a space telescope 4,000 years in the other direction and looked towards it... we would see God? That's it? That's all we have to do?
You do realize that the more "science" you invoke to explain God, the less divine he seems, right?
Actually, what's even cooler is that God might still be sitting right there. If we could figure out where the universe expanded from, we might just be able to see him right now!
They force you to watch a brain dead video complete with commercials. Religion is just another business in this country.
This was not really a debate. More of a power point presentation showdown. Ken Ham was a much better presenter, although I disagree with almost everything he said. Bill missed some easy doors that were opened for him. "Superior" race in a textbook? Answer: "Yes and they were wrong. Fact-based science progresses with new discoveries. Let's talk about Galileo".
The simple fact that science, and NOT Creationism, has gotten us to the level of technology that we have now is the only justification I need to reject Creationism.
Question: Creationism, what have you done for me lately?
Answer: A BIG FAT NOTHING!
Ken Ham would have argued that all science and technology are part of God's creation.
But obviously that statement serves no purpose to advance science or technology. It's just a way of bending his worldview to fit with today's.
What does technology and advances in such have to do with evolution? Did a cellphone evolve from a calculator?
You're right that cellphones have little to do with evolution. Evolution really only matters to the field of biology. Ken Ham should have debated with a biologist instead.
However, the scientific process in which we discover evolution and use it to predict future biology is the same as the process in which we discover semiconductors and use it to predict future computing powers.
I have yet to see evidence of Macro Evolution. Micro Evolution I am okay with. The finches stayed finches even though their beaks changed size. They did not change to fish or bugs or change what they were exactly. Adapting and modifying I am okay with, I have seen that. I have observed that. But a complete change I have not seen, nor has anyone. The bacteria, stayed bacteria. It did not become an insect, or anything other than bacteria. It remained its own kind.
The reason I think debating creationists is a mistake is that it gives the impression there is a debate, there is none. Evolution is not complete , we do not have all the answers. However creationism is an assertion, not a theory. There is not a single fact on it's side. While every fact we do have disproves it.
Religion, all religions have gone to a fall back position of the god of the gaps. So evolution not being 100% complete they bring out gotcha facts. The few remaining questions. The outlying trivia. When I was a kid it was where is the missing link, now there is no missing link. They stand on an ever shrinking island of unknowns. Then say that because it is not known yet, it must be god. That is god of the gaps, an argument any sophisticated theologian stays away from.
Also I firmly believe that had religion been abandoned long ago, we would be hundreds of years ahead of where we are. So you would not need to pray for a cure for cancer, just go to WalMart. These views are not harmless, they are very harmful.
Debate the 'world around us'.
I find that statement comical in so much as there really is no point in studying this cesspool. Yes that's right. Go to better then 75% of the worlds countries and then tell us what you really see and find.
I'm not defending 'creationism'. Merely pointing out the fact that those who claim it prevents study of the world around us are naive.
Science and a God can coexist when you come to understand that 'popped out of the magic salamander' sounds as far fetched as the 'garden of Eden'
Don't ever make the mistake and try to equate 'religion with God', much like science where man kind creates the test, so to has mankind created religion. And both sides of the debate can be as fraudulent.
Science is not against God. Science is against people who choose to believe certain parts of an ancient text over what has been and is being observed today. You can still believe in God without become part of those stubborn ancient believers.
Neither are looking at it from a Philosophical standpoint. Even as an atheist, I have to say I don't know what comes after. Most likely nothing.....even that sounds more appealing than spending the rest of eternity in heaven or hell with people I never liked anyway.
My conclusion is that Ken is in the wrong line of business. Who should be a politician instead. He was very good at answering questions by dodging the question.
Folks like Mr. Ham think 'science' is the art of validating the bible. He thinks the bible is inherently infallible so if he is exposed to evidence that contradicts the literal word of the bible, his job is to figure out how it doesn't contradict the bible. No matter what it takes. That's not science.
In science, we go where the evidence takes us. If it means invalidating previously-held beliefs – no matter how much we WANT to believe them – so be it. We throw it out. No beliefs are sacrosanct and no work is ever infallible.
Mr. Ham would have us believe that 'observational' science is somehow different than 'historical' science. It isn't. All of science uses the exact same methods to eliminate the impossible, then use whatever remains to create a model that predicts future discovery. The more we learn, the more we learn. When Mr. Ham asks 'Were you there?' he seems to imply that the 'laws' of science may have worked different in the past than they do now. Scientific 'law' is DESCRIPTIVE, not PROSCRIPTIVE. That is, it describes how something DOES work, not how it SHOULD work. These are observations of the mechanics of the universe, not just arbitrary rules that molecules are forced to obey. This is just one of the many language tricks these so-called 'scientists' use.
What Mr. Ham DIDN'T do is offer one single scintilla of evidence that the bible is infallible or that god even exists.
Right. And interestingly, he said a few times that there's nothing saying that *logic* wasn't different in the past. Huh? I expected more from Ham. He tried to show fringe exceptions and bad science as 'proof' that science about historical fact was wrong, and failed, imho.
One of many prophecy's that came true until today,example:
Regarding Babylon, it was foretold: “She will never be inhabited, nor will she reside for generation after generation. And there the Arab will not pitch his tent, and no shepherds will let their flocks lie down there.” (Isaiah 13:20) This prophecy did more than predict a city’s fall. It showed that Babylon would be desolated permanently. You can see evidence of the fulfillment of these words. The uninhabited site of ancient Babylon—about 50 miles south of Baghdad, Iraq—is proof that what Jehovah spoke through Isaiah has been fulfilled: “I will sweep her with the broom of annihilation.”—Isaiah 14:22, 23.
For those of you screaming to prove the existence of god, or evolution, the fact that you cannot prove the existience of something does not mean it doesn't exist. It may or may not exist despite the lack of proof. A simple logical truth.
For those of you screaming to prove that god or evolution does not exist, it is a mathematical and logical impossibility to prove a negative.
Move on to better arguments, please.
We can prove that evolution exists. We can prove that all creation myths are not correct which means that the houses of all religions are built on sand.
There is evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence to support the existence of a God of any kind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
And the winner by KO is .........Bill Bye!!!!!
I would like to clarify the one point that Bill flubbed, somewhat surprisingly though he was admittedly on the spot.
Regarding the trees dated as 50,000 years old encased in basalt dated at 50 million years old – this is in fact exactly the results you would expect, because radiocarbon dating only works for things no older than 50,000-60,000 years – any older and it will read as something in that date range, because the numbers you're comparing are beneath the sensitivity of any present instrument. Which is to say, the radiocarbon date is erroneous and not scientifically valid anyway.
Ken's argument is akin to arguing that because a laser tells you the Empire State Building is 1,250 feet tall and a ruler tells you it's one foot tall, its actual height is one inch.
how about this..faster you go the slower your time but at light speed time stops....EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY EQUATION SAYS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AND 6 DAYS ARE BOTH TRUE DEPENDING ON SPACE-TIME COORDINATES; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.99999999999999999999999999999999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119988e-12; PLACING YHWH 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.
distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 – 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photons
space time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light survived, hence time kicks in), this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years; 6 OF OUR DAYS ARE STRETCHED OUT AND CONTAIN 14 BILLION EARLY YEARS OF THE UNIVERSE
And next week there will be a debate about why the earth is, or isn't, flat followed by how a virgin can, or can not, give birth. Simple pleasures for simple minded people.
There's an interesting spin on the whole virgin thing. In the original language, the word that was translated to "virgin" can more accurately be translated to only "maiden" (young woman). Plus it is only one of the Gospels that says anything about a "virgin" birth. Odd that such a significant and miraculous event wasn't a big enough deal for the other Gospels to include.
Yes it equally ridiculous even mentioned once.
I can't understand why we're not still teaching that the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around the Earth. That was all absolutely settled fact back in Biblical times. Shoot, the Epic of Gilgamesh, which pre-dates the Bible, even explains that after the sun sets at night in the west, it then travels through a tunnel to get back to the east so it can start its journey again. What more proof does anybody need?
Brilliant. love it.
You nailed it Smeagel.
Do we really have to waiit for the stars to fall from the sky and sprinkle themselves across the surface of the earth as stated in Revelation?
Most people were decided at the talking snake. For me I had to hear a donkey talk.
Bill killed it... also killed You Tube, I had a hard time keeping a connection!
Egypt as a waste?? Which scripture are you referring to?
The bible interprets itself.
God himself does not talk to any human directly today. God speaks through the bible.
Actually the bible tells us to becareful that even "words o angel" are in accordance with what is in the bible, since the message could actually come from an evil source, Satan.
And this couldn't possibly be a tactic to avoid being disproved... if the authors of the bible got one thing right, it was that ambiguity is the key to longevity when it comes to myths
"Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast out of thee. And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the LORD: because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it. Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia." Ezekiel 29:8-12
This never happened.
Bill Nye is up to something. I've heard him over and over implying that people continuing to believe in creationism is going to somehow exclude their ability to contribute to innovations in the future. Since they have contributed up until now, just what does he have in mind to bring about his vision of them being excluded? He's also using this word "integrate" in a weird way. He's creeping me out.
No actually, creationists are not contributing, they're contradicting.
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:59 PM, CNN Belief Blog wrote:
> DP commented: "Bill Nye is up to something. I've heard him over and > over implying that people continuing to believe in creationism is going to > somehow exclude their ability to contribute to innovations in the future. > Since they have contributed up until now, just what d" >
Creationists helped put a man on the moon. What I'm wondering is what Nye has in mind to exclude creationists from future endeavors. That's the way he's talking, like the future will be different in that there will be a way to exclude them.
You're confusing religious people with modern day creationists. Very few scientists believe in creationism without evolution. Most resolve their religion with science by accepting that, for example, the Big Bang was an act of God that set in motion evolution. They don't believe that man was created as-is.
Creationists like to boast how Issac Newton, one of the most well-known scientists from the past, is a creationist.
Little do they know, that Newton completely stopped contributing to science after he became devotedly religious.