Just finished watching it. I thought it went well. Nye went off on a few tangents, but he generally stayed on message that science makes predictions, it embraces questions and "it is unsettling" that we would abandon all the facts gathered over the centuries as well as the method used to acquire them. Ham had a bit of advantage during the rebuttals when he was listing scientific claims and saying they were bad interpretations. But even then, he was giving people lists of things that they could simply look up and verify. Many will only look at evidence given by other creationists, but some will look elsewhere. That's the best we can hope for.I think everyone listening to a debate listens selectively. We hear what we want to hear and dismiss what we don't want to hear. It's as if the rationalist and the Christian Fundamentalist were hearing two different debates. The same thing happens in political debates. Everyone goes in with the idea that he is going to listen openly to both sides, but nobody does. Everyone hears only what he wants to hear and is intently listening for the person they don't favor to make a mistake or a foolish statement so he can jump on it later. It's human nature and it happens on both sides, but each side insists it has listened with an open mind. IMO, there are no open minds in a contentious debate. If anybody is swayed by either side, it's extremely rare and nobody changes his stance immediately. The best anyone can hope for is that some seeds are planted, but both sides hope for that. And either side has the same chance of having people come out of the debate shouting, "Hallelujah! I've been saved!" I don't think polarizing debates accomplish anything. It's pure entertainment for both sides.. If anyone switches sides it's because he was thinking along those lines long before the debate. Lois
PLa;
I disagree, respectfully, but emphatically. The least effective thing to do is try to meet these characters on their turf.Thanks PLa; let me try to explain a little further. IMO debating about "Creation Science" is a waste of time and we should instead be laughing it off and pointing out that the Creation Museum is no more than an amusement park and profit center. What we should be debating is how the Bible Library read and misused by these fundies. i.e. We should be pointing out things like The story of the of Octavius recorded in the first quarter of the second century by Suetonius in his Lives of the Caesars.
When Atia had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. A serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colors like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it: so that presently she ceased ever to go to public baths. In the tenth month after Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo.Taken from the "Birth of Christianity" by John Dominic Crossan Pg. 28 { Note 1: Octavius changed his name to Augustus when he became emperor; Note; 2 I left out part of the quote that is an apparent misprint, it does not change the meaning of the text.} The point I am attempting to make is what we should be making is that many of the what the fundies call historical facts in the Bible are no more than commonly accepted social memes of the time and should be accepted as such. As Crossan points out on the next page: .
. . the earliest Christian lived in a world not yet bedeviled by either direct or indirect rationalism, a world where divine conceptions were quite acceptable. . . . They could have never have argues that Jesus was uniquely singular because divine conception had happened to him alone in all the world. They could not and did not.BTW; Crossan is a practicing Roman Catholic. This is just one example their are many more. We who do not believe in Jesus as a divine being or in any other supernatural spirits should be using this type of historical knowledge to debunk the fundies. By debunking their "literal" and self-serving interpretation of the this great library we call the Bible, undercut their absurd influence in today's society.
NM duplicate post.
What people like Nye and Dawkins are effectively trying to do is debunk creationism which can be very difficult for many of the reasons Lois talks about in post #17. Even with the best intentions it’s often counter-productive to give an opposing view a prominent forum.
Debunking myths is problematic. Unless great care is taken, any effort to debunk misinformation can inadvertently reinforce the very myths one seeks to correct. To avoid these “backfire effects", an effective debunking requires three major elements. First, the refutation must focus on core facts rather than the myth to avoid the misinformation becoming more familiar. Second, any mention of a myth should be preceded by explicit warnings to notify the reader that the upcoming information is false. Finally, the refutation should include an alternative explanation that accounts for important qualities in the original misinformation.And having been on the other side of the debate I can say that at least in some cases the intent isn't for the creationist to have a open and fair discussion... it's to score points with followers of the faith. Often this just turns into another opportunity to bolster a belief system that if left to rational exchange would simply evaporate. Because it's based in faith and not reason.
I don't think polarizing debates accomplish anything. It's pure entertainment for both sides.. If anyone switches sides it's because he was thinking along those lines long before the debate. LoisWhat I was commenting on was the quality of Nye's approach. There is a lot complaining about Hitchen's style, okay, I get that. Even Dawkins is called arrogant, I really don't get that, I think he is quite the gentleman. Nye presented himself well. He made a couple geeky jokes, which may have bombed for some and endeared others. But he didn't do some weird Biblical interpretation or get sucked into Ham's gish gallop. He emphasized the positive side of science, the wonder and the need for it in the economic landscape. These aren't things that I've the big 4 do in debates. I was an adult believer for 15 years and my conversion was slow, I think I can be pretty objective about these things. Ham made some points as a presenter too, but his bottom line was "there's a book" and "nothing will change my mind". Just like us, believers watch these things to pick up talking points. Ham didn't give them much, a few experts, some bad science, anyone who tries to emulate him will find their cognitive dissonance challenged.
I agree with Lausten. Your point is a good one, Gary, and many have made it: don’t dignify Ham and his monument to ignorance with a debate. Only Nye didn’t go there to debate creationism, even though formally that was the topic. He went there to teach science, and show how science renders creationism untenable.
If some creationists watched the debate never having heard about how ice coring has revealed 680,000 layers of ice, or not appreciating how scientists calculate the distance of objects from Earth - just as two examples - those are vital pieces of information that could well open and change their minds. When I was in high school, I argued to a classmate that radiocarbon dating methods cannot necessarily be extended out for millions of years - the same argument as Ham makes. My friend asked “then why does it work for everything else?” That’s all it took to change my mind. Many of these people are sheltered in a cocoon of ignorance. Nye provided them information they can use to escape.
Since Rodin opened this topic, I for one would be interested in his take on it. Come on, Rodin, how do you think the debate went? I didn’t see it myself, but from what everyone saids Mr. Ham essentially threw in the towel when he kept saying it was all about “faith”, since the debate was framed as a question of whether Creationism was a viable scientific theory.
I agree with Lausten. Your point is a good one, Gary, and many have made it: don't dignify Ham and his monument to ignorance with a debate. Only Nye didn't go there to debate creationism, even though formally that was the topic. He went there to teach science, and show how science renders creationism untenable. If some creationists watched the debate never having heard about how ice coring has revealed 680,000 layers of ice, or not appreciating how scientists calculate the distance of objects from Earth - just as two examples - those are vital pieces of information that could well open and change their minds. When I was in high school, I argued to a classmate that radiocarbon dating methods cannot necessarily be extended out for millions of years - the same argument as Ham makes. My friend asked "then why does it work for everything else?" That's all it took to change my mind. Many of these people are sheltered in a cocoon of ignorance. Nye provided them information they can use to escape.Well said, Paul.
Since Rodin opened this topic, I for one would be interested in his take on it. Come on, Rodin, how do you think the debate went? I didn't see it myself, but from what everyone saids Mr. Ham essentially threw in the towel when he kept saying it was all about "faith", since the debate was framed as a question of whether Creationism was a viable scientific theory.If you haven't seen the debate you can watch it here: http://debatelive.org/]. Its a bit long but definitely worth watching. For what its worth, check out some of the posts on twitter about the debate. While a lot of the post back up what people are saying here ( ie. that people are entrenched in their positions and wont change their minds) there were certainly a number of people who seemed to be on the fence and for them a debate like this could possibly be the thing that makes them see the light. My only concern is that those who are not scientifically literate could just as easily be convinced by the simple minded ideas that Ham put forward
Didn’t see the debate, not gonna. BUT I do think the only positive would be that Nye conducted himself (from what I’ve read in this thread) respectfully. You just KNOW the Christians in the audience looking for blood and a reason to hate. When this mild mannered, respectful guy comes out and doesn’t insult them, etc. whoa…they don’t know what to make of it. And THAT can be very positive.
I agree with Lausten. Your point is a good one, Gary, and many have made it: don't dignify Ham and his monument to ignorance with a debate. Only Nye didn't go there to debate creationism, even though formally that was the topic. He went there to teach science, and show how science renders creationism untenable. If some creationists watched the debate never having heard about how ice coring has revealed 680,000 layers of ice, or not appreciating how scientists calculate the distance of objects from Earth - just as two examples - those are vital pieces of information that could well open and change their minds. When I was in high school, I argued to a classmate that radiocarbon dating methods cannot necessarily be extended out for millions of years - the same argument as Ham makes. My friend asked "then why does it work for everything else?" That's all it took to change my mind. Many of these people are sheltered in a cocoon of ignorance. Nye provided them information they can use to escape.The creationist's last resort when faced with scientific evidence of an old earth (for one thing) is to fall back on the argument that God created that false evidence to test the faith of the chosen, just as they do with the fossil record. God just planted those things to make the earth appear old, but the truly faithful are not fooled. So how can you argue with that? Lois
Fair enough Adocatus I should comment as the OP. I believe both should be commended for their composure during the whole debate. I felt they presented a good example of how to maintain simple respect for one another despite their differences in belief.
As far as the content of what each had to say Ham easily presented better explanations and references than Nye. Nye mainly made 2 points both personal and unrelated to Creationism imo.
One was the wonder of creation and the joy of discovery which are merely emotional plea’s for his views and the other being the importance of young people choosing science/engineering for the future of our country’s economic prosperity. Valid as they were those repeated kinds of answers didn’t pertain or establish evolution as a solid science backed alternative to the historical record of Christianity/Genesis explanation.
So it was ok but I saw opportunities for both to put forth their respective teachings but neither did that very well. For instance when the 2nd Law of Thermo came up I could have stopped Nye in his tracks and left him unable to respond with anything from science that would refute the observable and testable fact that nothing materially in the universe organizes for the better. It only comes apart/decays. Like ape to man or fish to mammal. Zero in the fossil record either.
I’ll leave the fence sitters, which if I go by the comments in this thread are the only people that were maybe helped by this debate, a great book suggestion:
There is (another) book …called The Genesis Record by Henry Morris. It’s a large marvelous expansion and commentary on the Genesis story of origins/beginnings of so much of what is debated today.
I realize that the unbelieving side wants to discount or disprove the literal Genesis account because then they can dismiss the rest of the Bible. Problem is the only way to do that is to go counter to their own reason and ignore that they are miraculously and fearfully made in God’s image having mind, will and emotion and that no science can or ever will be able to explain that sanely and sensibly otherwise.
Fair enough Adocatus I should comment as the OP. I believe both should be commended for their composure during the whole debate. I felt they presented a good example of how to maintain simple respect for one another despite their differences in belief. As far as the content of what each had to say Ham easily presented better explanations and references than Nye. Nye mainly made 2 points both personal and unrelated to Creationism imo. One was the wonder of creation and the joy of discovery which are merely emotional plea's for his views and the other being the importance of young people choosing science/engineering for the future of our country's economic prosperity. Valid as they were those repeated kinds of answers didn't pertain or establish evolution as a solid science backed alternative to the historical record of Christianity/Genesis explanation. So it was ok but I saw opportunities for both to put forth their respective teachings but neither did that very well. For instance when the 2nd Law of Thermo came up I could have stopped Nye in his tracks and left him unable to respond with anything from science that would refute the observable and testable fact that nothing materially in the universe organizes for the better. It only comes apart/decays. Like ape to man or fish to mammal. Zero in the fossil record either. I'll leave the fence sitters, which if I go by the comments in this thread are the only people that were maybe helped by this debate, a great book suggestion: There is (another) book ....called The Genesis Record by Henry Morris. It's a large marvelous expansion and commentary on the Genesis story of origins/beginnings of so much of what is debated today. I realize that the unbelieving side wants to discount or disprove the literal Genesis account because then they can dismiss the rest of the Bible. Problem is the only way to do that is to go counter to their own reason and ignore that they are miraculously and fearfully made in God's image having mind, will and emotion and that no science can or ever will be able to explain that sanely and sensibly otherwise.Monday morning quarterbacking is common, but it changes nothing. Lois
So it was ok but I saw opportunities for both to put forth their respective teachings but neither did that very well. For instance when the 2nd Law of Thermo came up I could have stopped Nye in his tracks and left him unable to respond with anything from science that would refute the observable and testable fact that nothing materially in the universe organizes for the better. It only comes apart/decays. Like ape to man or fish to mammal. Zero in the fossil record either.This is a common misstatement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics by proponents of intelligent design, The 2nd law applies only to a closed system. The net entropy of a closed system must increase over time but within that system there can and will be places where entropy decreases and other places where it increases. As long as the total entropy of the system increases over time it satisfies the second law of thermodynamics. If you are going to apply the law to the earth you can not look only at the earth since it is not a closed system. Energy is delivered to the earth from the sun and on a smaller scale from the surrounding universe. If energy is put into a system from an outside source then entropy can in fact decrease which is what we observe here on earth as a result of the energy received from the sun. All you have to do is look around and see how living organisms reduce entropy every day. As long as energy is added to the system from outside this will continue. It does not vioate the second law. Creationists would know that if they actually understood science instead of taking things out of context.
For instance when the 2nd Law of Thermo came up I could have stopped Nye in his tracks and left him unable to respond with anything from science that would refute the observable and testable fact that nothing materially in the universe organizes for the better. It only comes apart/decays.You've got to be kidding me! Stopped Nye in his tracks? I take it you've never seen an egg hatch into a bird! That's the simplest most accessible example I can think of!
Redin, you started life as a single cell zygote, then went through embryo, fetus, infant, child, and now adult. While you may feel you are decaying as an adult, do you really feel that first stage of zygote to infant was a demonstration of you coming apart and decaying?
Occam
So it was ok but I saw opportunities for both to put forth their respective teachings but neither did that very well. For instance when the 2nd Law of Thermo came up I could have stopped Nye in his tracks and left him unable to respond with anything from science that would refute the observable and testable fact that nothing materially in the universe organizes for the better. It only comes apart/decays. Like ape to man or fish to mammal. Zero in the fossil record either.You obviously don't understand what the 2nd law is. It states that in a closed system disorder will tend to increase. The Earth isn't a closed system, most of the energy that life utilizes comes from the sun where entropy(disorder) is steadily increasing as thermonuclear energy potential steadily decreases as hydrogen is fused into helium. The seeming increase in order of living organisms on Earth through evolution is at the expense of greater disorder at the source of most energy in the solar system, the Sun.
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.
- Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism - and check out the home page there too for other interesting topics.
Study this site and find your own multiple errors in applying the 2nd law here.True.Origins :lol: :lol: :lol:
The TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest response to what in fairness can only be described as evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins). This doctrine is abundantly evident in much material advocating the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution origins model, including—but not limited to—the “Talk.Origins" newsgroup and the “Talk.Origins Archive" website. Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data. This fact (which many of them zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, and effectively disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science, though much material is published by evolutionists under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced scientific inquiry. The contributions posted at this site give some expression to the “other side"—dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most advocates of evolutionism, namely:When's the last time "True" Origins offered their take on science to a critical panel of actual physicists? You know like in the form of a scientific paper. Science in a vacuum is an ugly thing. :smirk:
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.I'd ask for my money back if I was you. It states clearly that the Second Law applies to isolated non-gravitational systems where differences in temperature, concentration and pressure will decrease over time. As has been explained, the Earth isn't an isolated system in terms of resources that make life possible. There is a constant influx of material from space and a huge amount of EM radiation from the Sun. The overall entropy of the Universe may be increasing, but there are many pockets where order does increase for a period of time.