NOM

Not really but he has more to say that is real than any Mormon prophet. I have always liked Bill Nye back to his days as the science guy. He has a relatively new podcast called Science Rules. He tackles a different subject each week and either he or his guest use their expertise to give some real answers. It is informative and funny.

My point is Bill Nye has taught me more about the way the world works and how I can have an impact for good than any Mormon prophet in my lifetime has. He can back up what he claims with science and evidence. I don't have to believe him just because he says so. He and his listeners don't run around saying don't worry Bill will never lead you astray. He does not claim to know things from some universal authority, unless it is the scientific method.

If I was in a room and Bill walked in I would not stand up and he would not care. Bill would not ask me to believe him just because his name is Bill. He does not try to hold sway over me because his name is Bill. He tries very hard to communicate his position using hard evidence and some humor.

Imagine if church leaders had the same ethics as Bill. They did not persuade you with anecdotal embelished stories. They let you ask questions and were able to provide answers with evidence to back it up.

I know that spiritual leaders are not scientists generally, and they operate on a different set of criteria. They very fact that they deal in a world lacking in evidence does not permit them to use evidence to defend their posistion. I do however believe they should follow the same criteria that when new evidence presents itself contrary to their current understanding they be willing to alter their position and incorporate that moving forward.

1smartdodog wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:04 pm

I do however believe they should follow the same criteria that when new evidence presents itself contrary to their current understanding they be willing to alter their position and incorporate that moving forward.

Altering one's position becomes so difficult when you have billed yourself as standing in the place of God, who is never wrong. "Evidence" is such an inconvenience. Almost as inconvenient as the memories of one's followers. If only the brethren had one or two of those memory erasing "flashythingymes" that came in so handy for "Men in Black". Think what the brethren could do in general conference.

Bill Nye got criticized for debating Ken Hamm because it actually encouraged more people to donate money to Hamm, but I think he did a great job, and the donations were probably a reaction of fear from people who didn't actually listen to the debate, or at least did not listen to both sides of it. Gotta put more money into the cause to help shout down the Korihors who speak more rationally than the preachers.

The one thing that really stands out to me as central to the entire issue was when they were asked what it would take to change their mind. Hamm said, "nothing could ever change my mind." Nye said, "one piece of evidence."

I call Bill Nye my children's third parent because Science Guy was such an important component of their upbringing. In retrospect, it was probably a significant contributor to the ease with which they could detect BS in what they were being taught at church.

Hagoth wrote:Bill Nye got criticized for debating Ken Hamm because it actually encouraged more people to donate money to Hamm, but I think he did a great job, and the donations were probably a reaction of fear from people who didn't actually listen to the debate, or at least did not listen to both sides of it. Gotta put more money into the cause to help shout down the Korihors who speak more rationally than the preachers.

The one thing that really stands out to me as central to the entire issue was when they were asked what it would take to change their mind. Hamm said, "nothing could ever change my mind." Nye said, "one piece of evidence."

I call Bill Nye my children's third parent because Science Guy was such an important component of their upbringing. In retrospect, it was probably a significant contributor to the ease with which they could detect BS in what they were being taught at church.

It is a scary thing when someone holds to their world view no matter the evidence.

The problem with people like Ken Hamm is they use science until it conflicts with their view. Something as simple as the microphone used at the debate was all science that created it, and he was perfectly willing to use it. They want all the benefits and comfort that science has created, but want to tear it down at the same time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bill Nye had something to say about climate change, which is something the LDS prophets, seers, and revelators have been silent about (even though rising global temperatures may lead to an increase in bare shoulders).

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:24 am

Bill Nye got criticized for debating Ken Hamm because it actually encouraged more people to donate money to Hamm, but I think he did a great job, and the donations were probably a reaction of fear from people who didn't actually listen to the debate, or at least did not listen to both sides of it.

That has been a problem with debates if the event brings up more publicity for the side you are opposing. I think that is a risk that must be accepted. The important step is that people in the middle will have the chance to evaluate the evidence. The most important debate happens in the mind and heart of a segment of listeners that truly needed the two sides to meet on a level playing field. There are element in live debates that rarely gets addressed in written debates. I watched the Nye vs. Hamm debate and I have to give a lot of credit to Bill for facing Ken Hamm like he did.