Radiometric dating bill nye
I didn’t figure either side would really win, but rather it seemed there would be a lot of talking past each other.
And while that happened to an extend, overall I think Nye handled things rather well.
Nye, on the other hand, clearly and concisely named several things that would be evidence against his views on evolution and geology.
That must have been the most stark contrast between how these two people operate and understand things, and I’m not seeing people saying that that was a good talking point for Ham.
By and large the origins or historical science is based on man’s idea about the past, for instance, the ideas of Darwin. They are imposing [I believe] the religion of naturalism/atheism on generations of students.
This information is shared with social media services, sponsorship, analytics and other third-party service providers.
It doesn’t matter if you are a creationist or evolutionist, you can be a great scientist. First, the phrase “molecules-to-man,” is misleading, and a bit of a straw man argument (used later in the debate) which suggests that since we don’t know how, “chemistry becomes biology,” we must therefore conclude that everything about biological evolution is also as unknown.
Evolutionary theory does not posit an explanation of the emergence of life, but rather the transformation of life over time. Kevin Kelly) our biological evolution …when we’re talking about origins, we’re talking about the past. You can’t observe that whether it’s “molecules-to-man” evolution or whether it’s a creation account. We like to call that “origins” or “historical science,” knowledge concerning the past.
To “creationists,” this is not science, but rather a cultural and rhetorical war of which “creationism” needs to be defended posturing that causes sincere scientists to avoid intellectual engagement with people like Ham (and Hovind, and Comfort, etc.) as it may communicate legitimacy to their views, when fundamentally they are not working on the same philosophical and epistemological frameworks.
It leads, therefore, RDF and others to make statements like, “scientists should not debate creationists.” The problem is that this self-perpetuating warring frenzy feeds itself.While he rattles off an impressive resume, this is, in philosophy, a fallacy known as an “appeal to authority.” Ham then suggests we need to define terms correctly, that there is “experimental/observational science” which uses the scientific method which produces medicine, technology, etc.