Mr. Sclater

I pretty much explained why they are, even as simple as I could. Dating Chondrites and assuming same things for earth is just highly inconvenient.

oy, there! Im a german geology student. Taking interest in oceanography, arctic geology, vulkanology and tectonics. I just started my studies last year so I naturally still have a long way to go, but I definitely intend to go for my masters in one of those disciplines and might even go for a PhD, but Im pretty easy concerning that as I can also see myself finding work after my Bachelors or Masters. Nice too meet you!

Hi there! Thought about joining the discussion after watching the debate.. The only reason I even bothered looking it up on youtube was because I heard from numerous people Nye is supposed to intelectually pummel the living crap out of a creationist douchebag. Thought it might be fun to see that.. First thing I've to say: It wasnt really a debate, was it? Both Nye and Ham never really had a chance to actively confront each other. You can tell by that fact that this 'debate' was purposely kept easy and shallow. Second thing I want to say: Ham really surprised me by basing his statements on 'scientific' reasoning. I've never heard of Ken Ham before and neither did I ever actually got into debates with creationists that wouldn't be silly enough to just ignore them. So to say I must admit I expected a bunch of religious crazy talk, indeceny and ignorance, leaving me surprised that he actually knows things, such as that age dating methods are extremely dubious.. I will get into that later. Also I wasn't aware that there are actually succesful scientists and engineers living, who would work on the hubble telescope and modern medicine and would still enjoyingly sit in front of a camera claiming to believe in creation and basically proving they don't even believe that shit they are spending their lives on. I really wished Ham would have gotten more into how inspecific and vague age dating methods are.. It's pretty much the only point I agree with him. Just a couple weeks ago I had a lecture on 'how we know the age and composition of earth'. I was sitting there and couldn't believe my professor is actually serious about this.. Without going too much into it, but just by guessing the chemical structure of the sun, noticing certain similarities with chondrites we assume our earth must have these same similarities. So by dating the age of chondrites we assume our earth must be of same age.. I as a sceptical person have massive concerns regarding this perception.. I wish Ham would have got into that, that would have made this 'debate' pretty interessting I guess. As for Nye: I liked that he would keep on going in encouraging the youth to get into science and how society depends on new generations of scientists. Just really hated the fact he would keep on blabbering about "Americas superior position" and they need to mentain that position.. I'm utterly insulted and ashamed that he actually feels that he needs to emphasize what's in there for america.. as an intellectual patriotism shouldn't be part of his agenda when debating creationism. I also didn't like the casual jokes he had here in there.. they just seem out of place, if youre actually having a debate. Given my impressions I think it was pretty interessting and worth a watch, but it's definitely not enhancing in any way.. Just need to drop something: I really despise creationists. I'm willing to give them my respects when they are actually contributing to science, but I'm asking them to keep their believes to themselfs. The way Ham was speaking (and thereby representing the creationist community) was just utterly disgraceful. You can pinpoint this by a very important question he was asked: 'what could possibly change your mind?' His response? Basically: 'nothing'. Utterly disgusting. How can you take interest and participate in science and at the same time completely seperate yourself from the idea of having a change of mind? Those things absolutely don't work together.. what a deranged worldview this is.. I also enjoyed his statement: 'There is no way you can ever prove the age of earth.' My only reaction to that: what the hell, man? If science proved anything in history then that we absolutely will never be able to estimate what's possible and what not. How can you say something is utterly impossible, while still at least believing in certain aspects of science? Though Ham is quite sophisticated and much calmer than his creationist friends.. he is still a big wind-up and spits on basically everything science stands for.