Apparently neither one actually has debate skills. They have presentation skills but not debate so you may see more of a presentation of their ideas and less of debate. Personally I believe in Intelligent design. You can't argue with the science that evolutionists use. At the same time you can't argue against evolution since we don't know what the act of creation entails and what god's role in it was. Personally I believe all the science evidence of the age of the earth and the dinosaurs.
http://thesleeperawakened.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-im-glad-its-bill-nye.html Read. Also just for fun, here's a letter to Bill Nye from the good people of Australia. http://secoa.org/media/bill-nye-open-letter/
I believe in Creationism at it's most basic level. I believe that God is responsible for the creation of the universe, but that He used the methods we have discovered through science. We may not know everything yet, but the science we have is correct, I think. I certainly don't have the slightest reason to suggest otherwise. It's a shame "creationism" is such a dirty word. I have to explain to people that it's a totally different thing from "Young-Earth Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" or "Bat**** Loony Tunes Psuedoscience."
Did someone seriously publish an entire article about T^1 with a gravity function? Man, I just don't even...
The fact that human beings are essentially pewp factories implies not only intelligent design but heartbreaking genius that could only be divine.
Once when I was bored in college I decided to reformulate classical mechanics with 3 time variables (tx, ty, tz) and one space variable that acted like time currently does. Gave everyone a headache.
YEah . . . I . . . also hate it when I have to do diffrential geometry . . . on toriods all day . . . it's . . . uh, the worst, yeah, that's it. The worst. God, I hate it.
Looks like an angry monkey spank, Ramza. Just saying. beezel26 can you please explain what facets of evolution leave you sufficiently in doubt of their accuracy, and into the arms of intelligent design?
I appreciate Nye's effort in that debate, but all he really did was provide free advertising for that museum.
I think the museum's existence was fairly well established, but my hope is that he may have shown that this particular thing conflicts with science, but not that religion as a whole does. He was very particular about that.
You're getting your concepts mixed up. Creationism is aimed solely at suggesting Genesis is accurate about how the earth was formed and how living things came to assume the shapes they did. Evolution contradicts largely the latter because the evidence is very strongly in favour of homo Kardashian's rise being due to chance rather than design; mutation rather than God favouring a pile of dirt with halitosis and then making Eve out of a spare rib left over from a night out at Bob's Country Bunker (although I'm partial to Ben Elton's exegesis that the penis was that small, nasty bit of something always left over in a box of KFC which God then whacked onto Adam.) Saying you can't argue evolution because we don't know what creation entails is akin to the God of the Gaps argument. You can't hide the deity back down there behind Planck's wall. More to the point, putting God in front of the Big Bang is speculating on abiogenesis, not creationism as such.
Non-commutative geometry belongs in Bill's 'non-sexual things that turn you on' thread but I don't want to double post because I'm a Good Internet User.
I had actually debated whether to put the word in quotes. In the end, it may be a museum of ignorance, but it's still a museum.
We should just design a starship that runs on poop. Hell we should have everything run on fecal matter.
