Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate

Because their entire field of knowledge is derived from ancient Greek/roman philosophy. The main point of which is that trapping yourself in a static mode of thinking (i.e. giving up on learning) is a dangerous trap that most, if not all, intellectuals fall into. Some of them climb back out again, but most don't.

The environment cannot 'decay,' it merely changes, and becomes more or less amiable to the current lifeforms. Look to past geological eras for evidence of this. At one time, the earth's atmosphere was much more sulfur and ozone rich, and probably would be poisonous to us today. Did it 'decay' into something more suitable for man to breath?
The whole "save the environment" chant is bullshit, as it does not, has not, and never will, need our help to continue. A more proper rallying cry would be something along the lines of "save the humans" as all we do for the environment is really an attempt to preserve our place in it.
It has always bugged me that environmental crusades are always trying to frame preservation efforts as "help this cute, entirely worthless animal" (an emotional appeal that only works on people ruled by their emotions), instead of "save yourself and yours." (a self-preservation appeal that works on pretty much everyone). They seem to be moving more toward the second form of argumentation, but the progress is too slow for my liking.

The funniest thing is, Nye probably helped design the planes they were flying.

Less an less this is the case. Popular science (the type Nye, DeGrass Tyson, "I Hate My Dad Lady", and others like them promote) has become increasingly dogmatic. It seems to be an easy trap to fall into, as in the case of Tyson. When I first started watching him on Nova and other programs like it, he was fully ready to admit when he didn't know something, or when some new evidence challenged his views. In his more contemporary work, he is less and less likely to do this. It makes me sad to see it, as it is usually pretty obvious when he doesn't know the answer, but he is a skilled enough orator that he can typically bullshit his way through.

^^^^ Lol quadpost

Wait, this is Religion and Politics, the most toxic environment in the whole universe

/thread

Seahawks won 43-8 and Nye murdered Ham.

He used scientific findings, and lots of them. It's hard to refute someone who just responds to everything with bible quotes when your entire argument is that the bible is not a factual source of information.

Off the topic of my head, he also used light speed, skull measurements, engineering, and high school level math to knock all of Ken's arguments out. The only thing Ken did was say radiology is a fraud. Everything else was stories directly from the bible.

We have a word for that.
LYING.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble

I keep going back to the fact that Bill Nye is as qualified to speak on behalf of science as Levar Burton is to speak on behalf of Western Literature. Being a hit kid's show director doesn't mean shit. As for his engineering background, I've met scientifically illiterate engineers who don't understand the concept of control groups and double-blinding. What's worse is that they have the asinine idea that they can fix any problem on Earth if somebody would just give them complete control, regardless of how little they know about it.

I'm about as hostile to evangelicals as I am to fedoretards, but I have to say Nye is a fucking pretentious cunt of a man.

Holy shit, Oddguy is absolutely bitchfucking Uberfukken in this debate.

Because Bill Nye the Science Guy

Didn't Niels Bohr admit he didn't give a fuck about who he was going to kill with his contribution to the atomic bomb because SCIENCE?