Ken Ham is debating Bill Nye

[Sayre]

Mr. Nye is 449 short of a true Biblical debate.

Upping your post count with semantically vacuous rubbish again?

 

[AV1611VET]

Upping your post count with semantically vacuous rubbish again?

I hope you understood what I said.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So you can try to turn it around and argue for another 50 posts about it?

Translation: 'No, I can't'.

That's OK. I already knew you couldn't.

That didn't stop you trying,

I've seen quite a few youtube videos with Dawkins discussing things
with Christians and I have seen at least one video posted here even that has asked some serious questions that scientists could not answer.

You would need a question that is both,

-Unanswered by science, and
-Pertinent to evolutionary biology

To even come up with such a question, you would need a rudimentary understanding of the subject, which you don't have. And even if you did come up with the question, it would do absolutely nothing to undermine the field, and absolutely nothing to bolster your own position.

This is because science has a workable methodology for gleaning facts about reality.

Creationism, meanwhile, has no methodology for gleaning facts about anything.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Upping your post count with semantically vacuous rubbish again?

It's not a question of "again"; it's more like "still."

 

[Delphiki]

Mr. Nye is 449 short of a true Biblical debate.

Ken Ham is a few fries short of a happy meal.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is that why we have a generation of Thalidomide children, 390 graves in L'Aquila, an oil rig at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, and six moons?

Without science we would have never known that thalidomide was causing birth defects, or did you forget that?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Without science we would have never known that thalidomide was causing birth defects, or did you forget that?

Without science it's highly unlikely that most of us would be alive today.

 

[AV1611VET]

Without science we would have never known that thalidomide was causing birth defects, or did you forget that?

Did the mothers-with-child agree to be their Guinea pigs beforehand?

 

[Loudmouth]

Did the mothers-with-child agree to be their Guinea pigs beforehand?

Whether they did or not does not change the fact that we used science to link birth defects to the use of thalidomide.

 

[Old Ned]

I'm looking forward to this, although I would prefer to see Ken man up and accept AronRa's debate challenge. He wont because he knows AronRa will rain down fire and brimstone on him

 

[AV1611VET]

Whether they did or not does not change the fact that we used science to link birth defects to the use of thalidomide.

You used trial-and-error.

 

[Old Ned]

You used trial-and-error.

Ohhhh I finally understand, science is something different to what I thought it was, see... I was always under the impression that it IS trail and Error and that is exactly how we figure things out... yet as you just showed me, I was wrong all this time

Ok sorry for the sarcasm, but seriously, so what do you think science is?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok sorry for the sarcasm, but seriously, so what do you think science is?

Science is the study and manipulation of God's creation.

At least, that's my uneducated definition -- (but a good working definition, IMO).

 

[Old Ned]

Ok but even if that were true, manipulation would still require trail and error, because only god can poof stuff into existence, we mere mortals cannot... yet

Oh and your definition is horrible. That would be your opinion, I actually asked for the definition of your knowledge of the subject, not your opinion.
So if you would be so kind as to offer up you understanding of Scientific Method, that would possibly help with a considerable amount of clarification all round

 

[Loudmouth]

You used trial-and-error.

That's science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh and your definition is horrible.

Sweet!

That would be your opinion, I actually asked for the definition of your knowledge of the subject, not your opinion.

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

So if you would be so kind as to offer up you understanding of Scientific Method, that would possibly help with a considerable amount of clarification all round

My understanding of the Scientific Method is that it is basically a popularity contest among narcissists.

Here's another person's understanding of it: 74.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's science.

Using mothers-with-children as Guinea pigs?

All in a day's work ... right?

The end justified the means, did it?

 

[Loudmouth]

My understanding of the Scientific Method is that it is basically a popularity contest among narcissists.

Cognitive dissonance in full regalia.

 

[Loudmouth]

Using mothers-with-children as Guinea pigs?

All in a day's work ... right?

The end justified the means, did it?

We are all being used as guinea pigs when we take drugs, or were you not aware of that? Clinical trials are never large enough to catch all possible side effects, drug interactions, or adverse effects related to other diseases. Weighing potential harm against potential benefit is the basis for drug approval, and the only way to you can determine this is through scientific studies.

The thalidomide tragedy was due to a lack of science, not because of it. It was only through science that we were able to link thalidomide to birth defects, and it taught us that we need to use a lot more science before approving drugs for the general public, and especially pregnant women.

Perhaps you should push your ego aside sometime and open your eyes. It might help.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you should push your ego aside sometime and open your eyes. It might help.

My ego has nothing to do with the [alleged] mistake, made by scientists at the expense of a generation of children.

And for the record, I'm not so sure it was a mistake, either.