Fuzzy is correct, Rodin. Ask for your money back. As a chemist dealing with the laws of thermodynamics for about sixty years, I can assure you that you do NOT understand the 2nd law. In fact, you have it bass ackwards.
Occam
I doubt that the school was the problem.
I think the debate was worthwhile in whole.
A debate is an event that is ultimately trying to change the views of the debaters and the audience.
So if we look at the two sides and their audiences we can see that there’s room for Ham’s audience to shift towards
Nye’s viewpoint.
There isn’t any room for Nye’s audience to shift to Ham’s viewpoint.
Some in Ham’s audience might have come away with doubts or second thoughts about his position.
Nye’s audience is not going to come away with any doubts or second thoughts about his position.
This holds especially true for “neutral observers”.
So in the end I think we could project Nye’s positions as having more impact. Definitely a net increase in “converts” or “second thoughts”.
Especially when Ham’s position would seem to stretch the allowable tolerances of many moderate religious folk’s logic and reason.
The Pat Robertson response being one example.
Before the debate, a reporter asked people to write down the questions they’d like to have answered at the debate. He then posted the pictures on the internet. As you can imagine, the internet has been having a field day “translating” the questions.] (I love the comment someone made, “If we came from British people, then why are their still British people?”)
That was hilarious CT! It’s hard to believe that people their age are still so duped by religious belief that they’ll grasp at anything to disprove imperical evidence. Could we call them Hamites? Sounds biblical; they might like that. And maybe when he gets his arc ready they can slip inside, wait for the deluge, have sex with their leader and shovel merde till their heart’s content.
Cap’t Jack
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 is the crux of the biscuit. I've run into this with several staunch believers lately. Even outside the religion context, anti-vaxxers, 9/11 folks, anything. It's a failure to deal with the idea that evidence must be invoked to show that evidence is necessary. It's like we are living 80,000 years ago when there were different types of homo sapiens walking around. Some can handle this idea that we can't prove anything. That it might be true that we're wired into some Matrix with no real thoughts of our own, but if you apply a little logic and look at the evidence, that is extremely unlikely. They have learned to put that in the background and gone on with the business of creating an infrastructure to support life on this planet. Others can't handle that, so they create all sorts of mythical realities to comfort themselves and explain the as yet unexplained. I just hope they don't blow the rest of us up.
I think the debate was worthwhile in whole. A debate is an event that is ultimately trying to change the views of the debaters and the audience. So if we look at the two sides and their audiences we can see that there's room for Ham's audience to shift towards Nye's viewpoint. There isn't any room for Nye's audience to shift to Ham's viewpoint. Some in Ham's audience might have come away with doubts or second thoughts about his position. Nye's audience is not going to come away with any doubts or second thoughts about his position. This holds especially true for "neutral observers". So in the end I think we could project Nye's positions as having more impact. Definitely a net increase in "converts" or "second thoughts". Especially when Ham's position would seem to stretch the allowable tolerances of many moderate religious folk's logic and reason. The Pat Robertson response being one example.That's a good point, if done well then it is possible to open peoples eyes to the facts. Nye is a fairly unique combination of performer and scientist and can present ideas that may contradict some peoples beliefs without making them feel that they're being personally attacked.
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. http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp and check out the home page there too for other interesting topics.You obviously weren't paying attention in class. If you don't understand why the second law only applies to a closed system then you don't understand the basic principles of physics. This is a very common problem among creationists like Ham and you rodin. They pretend that they are fans of science yet they pick and choose which parts of science they will accept and which they will discard based entirely on whether it agrees with their dogma.
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. http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp and check out the home page there too for other interesting topics.You obviously weren't paying attention in class. If you don't understand why the second law only applies to a closed system then you don't understand the basic principles of physics. This is a very common problem among creationists like Ham and you rodin. They pretend that they are fans of science yet they pick and choose which parts of science they will accept and which they will discard based entirely on whether it agrees with their dogma. Or their convenience. Lois
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. http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp and check out the home page there too for other interesting topics.I havent seen the debate, but I did visit the answering genesis website which Mr. Ken Ham runs and I see his views on earth's age and the like. Rodin, I did have a question for you in this regards. In the following source Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press page ix It states that While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule If the majority of scholars of Christianity (and most religions for that matter) didnt get into these kinds of scientific controversies, then why do you disagree with them? I am interested to know your answer sir. Hope this continues to be interesting for the both of us :) A link for the above book can be seen here (sorry if it is long, but it was being marked as spam every other way I tried ) :( http://books.google.ae/books?id=weOOCfiDhDcC&pg=PR9&dq=The+result+is+the+growing+recognition+among+historians+of+science&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mIWoUsrGMoKF4ASyt4D4Ag&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The result is the growing recognition among historians of science&f=false see also http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-437-3448.htm
I don’t see my posts as controversial. Others may.
My contention is with the misapplication of science laws by some in this thread. I’m not anti-science or anti-intellectual either. I stand for truth. I’m not afraid to call out someone to correct them nor am I so convinced of my own understanding that I can’t be corrected.
I consider myself one of many men who can hold scientific facts of nature without having my faith reduced or affected.
History is full of men of science that could handle the two subjects. It’s as simple as placing humility before man’s God given reasoning abilities.
Humility would constrain you from putting it that way.
I consider myself one of many men who can hold scientific facts of nature without having my faith reduced or affected.Wrong. When science and faith conflict you simply decide the science is wrong.
I consider myself one of many men who can hold scientific facts of nature without having my faith reduced or affectedYou are fooling only yourself. As macgyver pointed out, you do not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the fundamental laws of physics, and when faith and science conflict your ideology trumps science.
. . . nor am I so convinced of my own understanding that I can't be corrected.You write that but on matters of religion, you do not act consistent with that. So it's fair to infer that you think differently about religion than you do about other things, such as science. That's OK to the extent that science and religion address different kinds of things: beauty versus the specific gravity of water, for example. But it's not OK to the extent that you employ your religious beliefs to make fact claims, such as "God exists." The reliability of all fact claims must be subjected to the same tests for their reliability, else you end up making claims that merely reflect what you wish to believe. That is not a valid means for getting at the truth in the realm of fact, as opposed to the realm of personal and subjective experience.
I don't see my posts as controversial. Others may. My contention is with the misapplication of science laws by some in this thread. I'm not anti-science or anti-intellectual either. I stand for truth. I'm not afraid to call out someone to correct them nor am I so convinced of my own understanding that I can't be corrected. I consider myself one of many men who can hold scientific facts of nature without having my faith reduced or affected. History is full of men of science that could handle the two subjects. It's as simple as placing humility before man's God given reasoning abilities.It's about accuracy, not controversy, and as has been explained, the 2nd Law describes an isolated ideal system, not the conditions we find here on Earth. Biological complexity is increasing on Earth at the expense of greater entropy in the Sun as thermo-nuclear potential energy is lost there due to the constant conversion of hydrogen to helium. And there's no such thing as faith based science, everything has to be open to question or in the end nothing really is.
Rodin, the second law of thermodynamics has now been clarified for you. The only way for you to maintain the view you previously expressed is to ignore the science willfully, or be disingenuous. How do you respond to that specific point about the second law? And what do your responses so far tell you about how far your biases have invaded your thinking. Don’t cast this back on us. We’re not the ones who mis-stated a fundamental law of physics.
My contention is with the misapplication of science laws by some in this thread. I'm not anti-science or anti-intellectual either. I stand for truth. I'm not afraid to call out someone to correct them nor am I so convinced of my own understanding that I can't be corrected. I consider myself one of many men who can hold scientific facts of nature without having my faith reduced or affected.That's all well and good, but ask yourself do you seriously believe that all of us including Bill Nye had just somehow overlooked something as obvious as the Second Law? Or maybe you thought we intentionally ignored it because we're perverts who just don't WANT to believe in God, is that it? Changing topic here slightly... Apparently I either misread the terms of the debate or it was misquoted in the first article I read. It actually reads, "Can Creationism be considered a viable explanation of origins in a scientific society?" This is badly-worded to begin with. If I were suckered into a debate on those grounds, my entire presentation would go something like this: "Viable" simply means "workable or practical". And the modern age may or may not be a scientific society (frankly I have my doubts), but there's no rule that says people have to use science to explain every question. It depends on what kind of explanation you want. If you want a factual explanation, science is your best bet. But if all you want is a supernatural explanation that makes you feel good, Creationism is as workable as any! Next question!
Apparently I either misread the terms of the debate or it was misquoted in the first article I read. It actually reads, "Can Creationism be considered a viable explanation of origins in a scientific society?" This is badly-worded to begin with.Can't agree that Nye was suckered. He reframed the debate to make it about Ham's young-earth creationism. But Ham was in no position to complain because young-earth creationism is what he promotes. Ham lost the only argument he presented. Had Ham made a prima facie case for a less goofy creationism (it's only a matter of degree), Nye would have lost the debate by default because he never addressed that issue. But he didn't care because he came to teach science and refute Ham's young-earth fairy tale. If he thought it through and realized that Ham had nowhere to go without abandoning his world view - the "intellectual bedrock" for his $27 million dollar monument to ignorance, if that's not a misnomer - then his strategic decision was an excellent one. We'll never know unless he tells us.
Like another earlier poster, I didn’t see the debate, but I’ve been to Answers in Genesis and am familiar with Ken Ham’s views. I also agree that this was basically pitting one fundamentalist against another, and neither side really gained anything from it.
When Heinrich Schliemann overcame the prevailing skepticism that a long-dead Greek poet might have been accurate in claiming existence of the ancient Greek city of Troy, people didn’t suddenly start worshipping Zeus and Aphrodite. In the same way, it should be possible to prise out whatever historical basis may be found in the bible – and even the early chapters of Genesis – without necessarily believing in a Creator. Right?
Secondly, what I don’t think anyone has ever done – certainly not Ken Ham or Bill Nye – is to compare the biblical creation account with other ancient creation literature and ask, how was other creation literature meant to be understood? Was it meant to be understood literally? If not, how was it supposed to be interpreted? If we interpret the biblical creation account the same way, what do we get?
In the end, is it possible to achieve sort of a middle position between biblical literalism and complete skepticism, one that honors the source text without ignoring potential flaws, issues of transmission, etc.? And in terms of reaching a consensus view between Christians and atheists, is it possible to arrive at the most likely intended meaning of the text, whether or not one might agree with the text itself?
Damon