Skip to main content

View Diary: Why I have a problem with the Bill Nye "debate" (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Huh? (4+ / 0-)

    All a debate requires is that the parties hold opposing positions on a given subject. Ham believes his position is factually defensible and is willing to debate it.  Just because you, I and almost everybody else don't agree with him doesn't mean it cannot be a legitimate debate.

    If you are against sane gun regulations then by definition you support 30,000 deaths a year by firearms.

    by jsfox on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 11:46:26 AM PST

    •  It could be a legitimate (5+ / 0-)

      Debate, but it won't be one.  Why? Because the creationist side will not be bound by facts.  Like my religious friend who ayes that it is unfair to use scientific arguments when discussing faith and god stuff.  Ie you cannot debate the legitimacy of no scientific claims with science, apparently.

      Creationists just want exposure and to be on the same stage as Nye.  Like Dawkins said when asked why he did not debate creationists, "it doesn't help my resume but it does help theirs."

      No matter how many times scientific arguments are made, the creationists just pivot and move on to another fantasy.  The the next time they speak, they use the debunked arguments again.  For instance, point out the impossibility of the flood or the rain that would be required for it and they return to the flood the next time they speak. Similarly to describing the chaosmifnthe sun actuallyndidnstand still in the sky.  Do any of us really think that the creationists have not heard that there are conflicting origin stories in genesis?  They DO NOT CARE.

      As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

      by BPARTR on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 11:57:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What is wrong with this scenario? (0+ / 0-)

        Your position is just wrong therefore I am not going to debate you on it. I won't change your mind so I won't debate you. You will bring up things that are not true, not factual and require a certain amount of magical thinking IN MY OPINION to bolster you position, therefore I will not debate you.

        Who wins in this scenario?

        If you are against sane gun regulations then by definition you support 30,000 deaths a year by firearms.

        by jsfox on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 12:19:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think that he does (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shahryar, Bob Love

      believe that his position is factually defensible but feels, rather, that a factual defense is irrelevant to his position's truth.

    •  You're assuming they use facts... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I stated in the diary that they deliberately take what scientists say out of context to prop up their position. Needless to say, people who can back up their side with evidence don't need to do this. They have a word for this, it's called lying. You can't debate someone who has to resort to that. And again, the point of my post was that if Nye is determined to do this, he shouldn't let the creationists set the terms. Which I am absolutely against.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site