Reebok Furylite Camo Green
(FOX19) Reebok White Gum Sole
To me it is clear that we all won on this one because Bill Nye Reebok Furylite Camo Green and Ken Ham treated each other with respect. They did not resort to name calling, innuendo or sophomoric humor that lowers the bar and diverts attention from the debate itself.Both debaters delivered their message and stayed on point, Ham as a true believer and Nye as a dedicated scientist. In the end we got a clear picture of the thought processes which lead both Ham and Nye to the passionate defenses of their sides of the argument.Two thumbs up for the audience too. Watching the web video stream and based on the accounts of reporters who were there the audience did what audiences were supposed to do observe.In this day and age of screaming radio talk show hosts, world views that would fit on a bumper sticker and utter disrespect of anyone who does not think as you do this Reebok Blue And White
a faith based world view it is enough to say, "This is what I believe." Period. Proof belongs in a world view based on observation.
debate was a refreshing break.Now about the substance of the debate:I will not feign neutrality here. I am a scientist, not because I am a TV meteorologist but because I think like a scientist.I use the scientific method in problem solving, I have seen how it works, how it self corrects and how it got humans to the moon with much less computer power than my iPhone.I do not believe in the scientific method. I have observed it in action and the evidence is ample and conclusive the scientific method works!A scientist observes, organizes those observations into data, analyzes the data, develops a hypothesis and then subjects the work to the unrelenting criticism of her peers.Science is always a work in progress. Sometimes new work throws the hypothesis out the window and other times the hypothesis is merely tweaked.Eventually the evidence is so overwhelmingly supportive of the hypothesis that it is elevated to a theory, and that is where much of the difficulty between the brainiacs of science and the remainder of the world begins.The public will quip, "After all evolution is only a theory." A scientist at the same time says ". yes it is a THEORY."To the scientist a theory is almost as sure as it gets. A theory may need to be tweaked in the future but a theory is just about a done deal. The only thing more sure is a Universal Law.The Law of Universal Gravitation is an example.No one in the universe can tell you what gravity is but we know how it works so well that when an astronomer using a powerful telescope sees a barely visible far distant star wobble, the astronomer can predict that the star is orbited by a planet.For example, the most distant known exoplanet is OGLE 2005 BLG 390Lb. It is near the center of the Milky Way galaxy at a distance of 21,500 +/ 3,300 light years from Earth. OGLE stands for the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment.When an astronomer is viewing this exoplanet she is seeing it as the planet was about 21,500 years ago. It took light, traveling at 186,000 miles per second, that long to get here.We also know the planet is about 5.5 times the mass of Earth, takes about 10 Earth years to orbit its sun (star OGLE 2005 BLG 390L) and would fit in our solar system between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.Because the output of its sun is less than the output of our sun we know a planet orbiting that far out is unlikely to support life.The point is that we cannot see the planet and even if we could we would be looking into the distant past. Yet the scientific method allows us to make predictions because we know the laws that govern the universe. Those laws apply everywhere in the universe past, present and future.In a heady, mind blowing kind of way this example summarizes Bill Nye major argument. We make observations, apply the laws of physics that govern the universe and can predict the existence of a planet that will likely never be seen by human eyes.We apply one scientific method and one set of laws that extend far into the past, because now is the past at the far edge of our ability to observe.While scientists observe and analyze persons of faith believe. Faith requires no proof and a case can be made that a person who seeks proof cannot be a person of faith.To me the first weakness of Ken Ham argument is that he is debating at all. Mr. Ham has a deep, profound belief that defines his journey through life. In Saucony Jazz 89 Cement
Steve Horstmeyer shares opinion on Creation Museum debate
Reebok Furylite Camo Green
Reebok Exofit Hi Red