mccoy
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by mccoy on Feb 10, 2014 22:42:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Chris Goodwin on Feb 10, 2014 22:53:00 GMT
ABC has a transcript which may or may not be accurate (as they disclaim on the page).
|
|
Celt
Double Digit Master
Decrying the system since 2013.
Posts: 34
|
Post by Celt on Feb 10, 2014 23:01:26 GMT
I see nobody changing their mind out of this. Ham was sufficiently eloquent and able to deflect or ignore Nye's points and evidence to satisfy his target audience. Nye would have won by debate rules but I don't think he swayed those who already approve of Ham's line of thinking.
|
|
mccoy
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by mccoy on Feb 11, 2014 2:48:30 GMT
Thought it turned out better than I thought it would. Nye did his homework, which scientist sometimes neglect.
|
|
|
Post by Tasha on Feb 11, 2014 23:43:43 GMT
I see nobody changing their mind out of this. Ham was sufficiently eloquent and able to deflect or ignore Nye's points and evidence to satisfy his target audience. Nye would have won by debate rules but I don't think he swayed those who already approve of Ham's line of thinking. These kind of things never have an impact on people who are comfortable with their viewpoints. Where it does help is to sway people who haven't decided or those who are open to new viewpoints.
|
|
|
Post by Thia Halmades on Feb 14, 2014 4:03:54 GMT
I watched it. I'm not certain what kind of discussion that could be had, but sure! I'm always looking for another opportunity to put my foot in my mouth.
|
|
mccoy
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by mccoy on Feb 16, 2014 8:39:19 GMT
I watched it. I'm not certain what kind of discussion that could be had, but sure! I'm always looking for another opportunity to put my foot in my mouth. OK, what part did you like best? As I've said, I was very impressed that Bill Nye obviously did his homework. I have seen creation/evolution debates before that ended badly due to overconfidence/lack of preparation on the evolution side. The scientist comes prepared to debate evolution as it is defined in mainstream science, and finds themselves on unfamiliar and shifting ground when the creation side insist on re-defining the term. Nye nimbly avoided that trap.
|
|
|
Post by Thia Halmades on Feb 16, 2014 20:04:55 GMT
Flog. I'd written a while thing and it got eaten. Thanks iPad. So I'll start again and try to be as witty the second time around.
To your question: I'm uncertain that I had a favorite part (although there was a moment that made me grin, that I'll cover in a moment), inasmuch as I found the entire thing on the creation side rather disturbing and flawed. So to lay the ground work and avoid flame, my first disclaimer: I'm religious, but do not personally attach my beliefs to what can be proven, ie., even if I believe in the Genesis creation myth, that belief does not preclude scientific conclusion (I invite none, nor assign no flame here, I'm just laying out my perspective for the sake of this discussion). That being said, my favorite moment was about minute 45, when Nye took the stage for his presentation, and said "Thank you, Mr Ham, I learned something." And the first thought that flew across my mind was, "I learned you're willing to bend things really far to 'prove' your position." More than anything, what I took away was frustration as I found the arguments on the Creation side inherently flawed, to wit:
1) As Nye pointed out, no one else divides 'science' into two categories, "Historical' and 'Observational,' -- it's all what you can theorize, demonstrate, and either prove or disprove. So that seemed odd, and to your point, they were using shifting defnitions of things that are otherwise accepted.
2) They relied very heavily on appeals to authority, a logical fallacy that is, "He said it is, therefore it is." An appeal to authority isn't proof, it asks that the listener accept someone else's testimony as proof. When the astonomer cat said, "nothing in the universe disproves that the Earth is 6k," and in turn Nye said "Actually, we CAN know the age of these things based on the timing of the light, and yeah, it's older than that," that was a bit of a call out.
3) Ham used the affirmative conclusion fallacy, "This scientist did something excellent and is a creationist, therefore, all creationist scientists are performing good science," when what I found most compelling was Nye stating that in that space they could not make a new prediction of how a thing would work and prove it. No one was calling into question what work was done on the outside, and it was not in topic or the debate.
4) Ham also used the negative conclusion fallacy, "we weren't there, therefore we can't know; since we can't know, my conclusion is correct because" (appeal to authority) "the Bible says so."
So those were all key things that stuck out at me in the process of watching it. And agreed, he was clearly prepared to discuss it, and ultimately none of his core questions were addressed.
|
|
mccoy
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by mccoy on Feb 18, 2014 16:24:44 GMT
Yeah, the problem is that Creationism is 100% appeal to authority, so logic doesn't work in any discussion. Even those who understand and use logic in other situations will insist "this is different."
|
|
|
Post by shelleycm on Mar 5, 2014 0:24:02 GMT
2) They relied very heavily on appeals to authority, a logical fallacy that is, "He said it is, therefore it is." An appeal to authority isn't proof, it asks that the listener accept someone else's testimony as proof. When the astonomer cat said, "nothing in the universe disproves that the Earth is 6k," and in turn Nye said "Actually, we CAN know the age of these things based on the timing of the light, and yeah, it's older than that," that was a bit of a call out. My husband was a very conservative (theologically) Christian when he was younger--until the point where he realized how far light had traveled in space for him to see it. That was the beginning of the end, and we are all happy atheists now. (I'm the daughter of a minister, so atheism was just the usual teenage rebellion.) -Shelley
|
|
|
Post by Thia Halmades on Mar 5, 2014 2:03:34 GMT
This is what I'm saying. While I'm not atheist, my "religion" is more of a philosophical position. More importantly, I think Nye's point was synchronous with my own -- religion is important, but it isn't (in and of itself) science.
|
|
|
Post by Thia Halmades on Mar 24, 2014 15:06:32 GMT
Amusing anecdote: Nicole & I went to Luray Caverns over the weekend; during the tour, the Guide mentioned one of the columns (when a stalactite and stalagmite grow together) was over 7 million years old. We immediately looked at each other and asked "Um... is that more, or less, than 6,000 years?"
|
|
|
Post by tikiman on May 15, 2014 22:26:18 GMT
When Ham admits that there is no form of evidence that could change his mind, that tells you all you need to know. He has no interest in science or truth or anything that might contradict his adopted belief system. He's prejudiced and proud of it. Strange how one can be proud of ignorance and prejudice.
|
|