Summing up the Ham on Nye debate, Buddy style, hold the mayo
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2014, 12:36 PM
RE: Summing up the Ham on Nye debate, Buddy style, hold the mayo
(05-02-2014 11:01 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Yes, the title was a joke meant to sound like a sandwich.

For those of you that don't want to listen to the whole 2 hour debate, allow me to sum it up for you.

Oh, ok. When I first read the title, I thought maybe the end of the debate took a very unexpected turn...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 11:06 PM
RE: Summing up the Ham on Nye debate, Buddy style, hold the mayo
quote='Buddy Christ' pid='486855' dateline='1391676566']
[Image: bill-nye10.jpg]


Where did you get that?

I want to caption it something like:

"Yeah We Rock Stars!"


"'Because SCIENCE, Bitchez!"




....maybe shop a guitar into Bills' hands....

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 12:44 PM
RE: Summing up the Ham on Nye debate, Buddy style, hold the mayo
Quote:Final note, when your views are so extreme that Pat Robertson tells you to shut up before "we make a joke of ourselves," maybe you should reevaluate your life.

https://www.facebook.com/topic/107488592...urce=whfrt

Aww, link doesn't work. Did Patty take it down?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 04:10 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2014 04:15 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Summing up the Ham on Nye debate, Buddy style, hold the mayo
[Image: bill-nye-tho.jpg]

[Image: bill-nye-time-traveler.jpg]

[Image: qce9oP7.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
10-02-2014, 04:20 AM
RE: Summing up the Ham on Nye debate, Buddy style, hold the mayo
(08-02-2014 08:35 AM)Simon Moon Wrote:  ...
What I believe Nye should have said instead, should have been something like, "all of science, and the available evidence disagrees with your point".

I disagree.

He did well to avoid any accusations of 'appeal to authority' or ad populums.

Unlike Ham, who started with those.

He did that but oh so subtly by talking about 'the outside' i.e. "in the real world, not in here, this fantasy world".

It was a deliberate tactic to keep it personal:
I worry about the US economy
Mr Ham's model
etc.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
10-02-2014, 05:44 AM
RE: Summing up the Ham on Nye debate, Buddy style, hold the mayo
Howdy howdy.

I saw the entire debate. It looked mostly like some sort of exposition. A sort of opportunity for each of the debaters to demonstrate their oratorical skill and gain as much public attention for their causes as possible.

For me, it was disappointing all around. I found Nye to be snotty on occasion, and Ham turned the event into a preaching opportunity. That is my impression, and I'm actually a creationist.

- - -

I'm glad this debate is being brought up here. I have a question for atheists here at TTA.

I was quite satisfied with Ken Ham's division of scientific study. He divides it into two categories:

Observable/Experimental Science - something observed in nature or in a lab
and
Historical Science - scientific assumptions of the past, tabulated from built up evidence

However, I find that most evolutionists despise these distinctions (as Nye did), and they prefer to settle with just this one single word "Science," as if it is just some sort of magical umbrella term that is utilized to silence all opposition in a conversation.

In many political and religious discussions throughout the years, I've seen people use single words like this that are intentionally imprecise.

I suppose if I were to pose a question here, it would be this:

Is there anybody here who does not oppose the idea of "science study" to be distinguished into more precise categories?

-

Excl On the ignore list: Taqiyya Mockingbird, Bucky Ball, Minimalist, DemonicLemon, GirlyMan, WhiskeyDebates, and EvolutionKills.
-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 06:00 AM
RE: Summing up the Ham on Nye debate, Buddy style, hold the mayo
(10-02-2014 05:44 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  ...
Is there anybody here who does not oppose the idea of "science study" to be distinguished into more precise categories?

It already is.

What is History if not the study of the past using the most reliable (and improvable) methods available to us?

Ham's spurious distinction can have only one basis ... to discredit the stuff he does not like.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
10-02-2014, 06:06 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2014 06:29 AM by sporehux.)
RE: Summing up the Ham on Nye debate, Buddy style, hold the mayo
(10-02-2014 05:44 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  Howdy howdy.

I saw the entire debate. It looked mostly like some sort of exposition. A sort of opportunity for each of the debaters to demonstrate their oratorical skill and gain as much public attention for their causes as possible.

For me, it was disappointing all around. I found Nye to be snotty on occasion, and Ham turned the event into a preaching opportunity. That is my impression, and I'm actually a creationist.

- - -

I'm glad this debate is being brought up here. I have a question for atheists here at TTA.

I was quite satisfied with Ken Ham's division of scientific study. He divides it into two categories:

Observable/Experimental Science - something observed in nature or in a lab
and
Historical Science - scientific assumptions of the past, tabulated from built up evidence

However, I find that most evolutionists despise these distinctions (as Nye did), and they prefer to settle with just this one single word "Science," as if it is just some sort of magical umbrella term that is utilized to silence all opposition in a conversation.

In many political and religious discussions throughout the years, I've seen people use single words like this that are intentionally imprecise.

I suppose if I were to pose a question here, it would be this:

Is there anybody here who does not oppose the idea of "science study" to be distinguished into more precise categories?

Ill keep it brief before the hitch slaps rain down,

gain as much public attention for their causes as possible.
This only applies to Ham, Bill Nye was the only semi public figure willing to entertain pseudo science on the genuine fear that this head in the sand thinking will pervade into children's education.
Evolution/ >6000 years earth is not a cause, its observational reality, lookup where oil, corn, bananas come from and then come back here.

I found Nye to be snotty on occasion
he can be, (look up Ad hominem)

I was quite satisfied with Ken Ham's division of scientific study
He dodged every instance of the law of nature changing from past to present.
for 6000yrs to be true, time and the laws of nature must have been different.
if you don't agree with this statement,explain why ?

Is there anybody here who does not oppose the idea of "science study" to be distinguished into more precise categories?

Creationists just want the current laws of nature to be suspended if they contradict the bible, if this is incorrect then explain your reasoning.

Please explain how "GOD DID IT" is of any use to science, how will this help cure cancer ?
Evolution explains genealogy and genealogy explains evolution, they fit like a glove, how does "GOD DID IT" help genealogy ?

10s of thousands of scientists, non scientists, most of them Christians contributed to this diagram over the last few hundred years, the catholic church, main stream christianity and many Islamic scholars admit the evidence is too much for it not to be GOD'S plan and genesis is allegorical
[Image: PrimatePhylogeny-rev4.tif]

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
10-02-2014, 06:17 AM
RE: Summing up the Ham on Nye debate, Buddy style, hold the mayo
Looking at Laramie's sig makes me proud to be on the same list as Bucky Ball.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DemonicLemon's post
10-02-2014, 06:27 AM
RE: Summing up the Ham on Nye debate, Buddy style, hold the mayo
(10-02-2014 06:17 AM)DemonicLemon Wrote:  Looking at Laramie's sig makes me proud to be on the same list as Bucky Ball.

I've got a feeling I'll be joining you soon Smile

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: