Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**conker249**

This is a live stream that is going on at Feb. 4 at 7 PM ET. http://debatelive.org/
First off I am very excited over this and would like others thoughts towards this. Hoping that this can stay civil and if this breaks any rules for the OT forum please close. This is the summary from the originating website.

Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era? Leading creation apologist and bestselling Christian author Ken Ham is joined at the Creation Museum by Emmy Award-winning science educator and CEO of the Planetary Society Bill Nye.

Ham, a former science instructor who emigrated to the USA from Australia over 25 years ago, is joined by the popular children’s program personality Bill Nye “the Science Guy” for this first and only scheduled debate. Each man delivers what he believes is the best information currently available for his case. Each then has an opportunity for rebuttal and afterward answers questions submitted by the audience.

The upcoming February 4 debate has already generated significant attention from national media, and tickets to attend live were completely sold out within two minutes of release.

Don’t miss this “debate of the decade”! Watch at home, or organize to show the live stream to your small group, your youth group, or even your entire church. This event may be freely rebroadcast to groups so long as no admission or other fees are charged to any participants or attendees.

The debate is to be held in the 900-seat Legacy Hall lecture arena at the Creation Museum (sponsored by Answers in Genesis).

The live stream will be available to watch on this page, and it is being hosted by Google+ Hangouts On Air through YouTube. Furthermore, the live stream will be available for free on YouTube for a period of time after the debate. In support of our ongoing relationship with the deaf community the debate, with nationally certified ASL interpreters, is available at debateliveASL.org. The event is also recorded for DVD and digital download distribution to help offset significant costs in organizing and sponsoring the debate. Although the immediate release of the DVD will be subtitled, it will not include the ASL interpreters, but we may add this at a later date. Sign up for the event on this page and we will update you by email if this becomes available.

**hotsauceman1**

Bill Nye will tear him a new one.

**conker249**

I am expecting him to as well, As a science fan of course ill root for him. Cool fun thing, He has been humble this whole time. Never calling himself a scientist. actually he is an engineer with a lot of love for science and lots of physics. Mr. Ham is the one who "challenged" Nye. Probably for Nye's recent push for more science for kids in school to bring more future scientists. There is more to this of course, but I cant wait, As many children growing up he taught me the wonders of science, and even got to meet him in person. Wonderful stand up guy to me

**LordofHats**

You had me at Bill Nye the Science Guy.

**DogofWar1**

I really hope Bill goes HAM* on Ham.

I'm hoping he's goes all out and just drowns this guy in science.

I'm also hoping Ham tries to go full young Earth creationist vs. trying to go for intelligent design. Because if he's lobbying for intelligent designed he can just incorporate evolution into that and try to pretend to be the middle ground and make Nye look "radical" because he's not entertaining the option, while if he goes full 6,000 years creationism, Nye can eviscerate him in the more satisfying way.

Bonus points if Ham mentions dinosaur bones were planted by the devil.

*For those who don't know, HAM as an acronym (as I'm using it) stands for Hard as A Please don't bypass the language filter like this. Thanks. Reds8n

**kronk**

I'd watch it.

**DogofWar1**

And looking at Ham's wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham) he is a young-Earth creationist.

This is gonna be good.

The thing about Bill Nye is that he's a nice and great guy, but he apparently gets ruffled (putting it lightly) by people who have no understanding of science. I'm hoping he takes all the seething rage at the ignorance he's had to deal with over the years and just crushes this guy.

**hotsauceman1**

DogofWar1 wrote:
I really hope Bill goes HAM* on Ham.

I'm hoping he's goes all out and just drowns this guy in science.

I'm also hoping Ham tries to go full young Earth creationist vs. trying to go for intelligent design. Because if he's lobbying for intelligent designed he can just incorporate evolution into that and try to pretend to be the middle ground and make Nye look "radical" because he's not entertaining the option, while if he goes full 6,000 years creationism, Nye can eviscerate him in the more satisfying way.

The idea of a middle ground that incorporates both is a logical fallacy.

**Howard A Treesong**

Ken Ham is an idiot, I just can't understand the sorts of people that lap up his rubbish. You can't debate with someone who is going to say things so utterly wrong and moronic that you have to stop and explain basic science as you would to a child, before you can actually make an adult argument.

I have a children's book by Ken Ham and it's awful. The outright lies aside, it goes on about 'sin' more than is healthy. Apparently original sin is the reason T-Rex started eating meat and it's a bit of a guilt trip. Than in itself makes it a bad book for children. One page depicts the great flood drowning all the bad people, the page text ending "so you see why it's important to follow the word of god" or words to that effect. Nice. The books ends with various pictures suggestions reasons for the Dinosaur extinction, one of which looks like a 15th century knight killing a dinosaur, but none of which depict an asteroid. Because it's clearly more plausible that we were hunting dinosaurs into extinction only 500 years ago.

As someone working in education it makes me terribly sad that a parent would give their child this. It's horrible.

**Frazzled**

There's a lot of brony in this thread...

**LordofHats**

Frazzled wrote:
There's a lot of brony in this thread...

**hotsauceman1**

Frazzled wrote:
There's a lot of brony in this thread...

We just love Science.
There is also someone here who is subserviant to a Canine

**PrehistoricUFO**

I'll watch it.

I grew up in a Catholic school, and we used to watch Bill Nye in science class at the beginning of every new unit. It'll be interesting to see if they continue airing his shows in the curriculum if he smashes creationism hard enough.

**conker249**

Yes I am a brony, as are probably a few others. Going to try and stay on topic though(ha, in a off topic forum) That book would be difficult for me to try and explain to youngsters.

**Manchu**

Curial officials at the Vatican have concluded that creationism is not science. Please do not confuse Catholicism with that garbage.

**kronk**

I was raised Catholic, attended Sunday school, and was not taught creationism either.

**Manchu**

Nor is creationism allowed to be taught in Catholic schools.

**daedalus**

Manchu wrote:
Curial officials at the Vatican have concluded that creationism is not science. Please do not confuse Catholicism with that garbage.

The Catholics also considered the possibility of the existence of aliens, and determined that it would not be outside of the realm of church teachings.

They've been pretty progressive in the recent years, all things considered.

**Peregrine**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
The idea of a middle ground that incorporates both is a logical fallacy.

Well yes, but that's how creationists work. They obviously can't win an honest debate because the facts are so completely against them, so they lie and use every fallacy and dishonest tactic they can think of. But because they've had a lot of practice doing it and can appear very persuasive to a less-informed audience (such as their own church members). For example, a creationist will loudly and confidently ask "where are the transitional fossils", knowing that explaining the answer takes a lot more time than asking the question and their opponent's technical explanation will sound less persuasive than the single dramatic accusation. They know perfectly well that nobody with even a vague understanding of evolution is going to be impressed, but we're not the target audience. They want to appeal to the uninformed majority who don't care about facts and make their decision based on who "looked better" in the debate.

And this is what I'm afraid of with this debate. Bill Nye knows his science, but is he experienced enough with debating to handle the lies and dishonesty of Ken Ham and not get manipulated into looking bad in the eyes of every non-scientist? Plus, just the fact that the creationists are having a "debate" with a celebrity scientist makes it appear like creationism is actually competing with mainstream science instead of just an irrelevant bunch of idiots that nobody pays any attention to.

**Ensis Ferrae**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
The idea of a middle ground that incorporates both is a logical fallacy.

How so? Honestly.

If a person can see the fairly clear evidence of evolution, but still chooses to believe that it was started by some form of supreme being, how is that not technically in line with both ideologies? I mean, yeah if you read the biblical accounts of how our world was created, it says 7 days. Elsewhere in the bible, it talks about the span of time that passes in the blink of an eye, by God's perceptions. By my reasoning, who's to say that "6 days plus a day of rest" is not in the human scale, and rather means "1 eye blink=1000 years x # of blinks per day x 7 days... give or take"

For the record, I'm siding with Bill Nye here. Young Earthers are just all kinds of crazy. @Peregrine: I honestly think that Bill Nye's experience on TV, and "dumbing down" science into really cool kids' shows will significantly play to his favor of outlining actual science. Recently, I've been taken by some of the greatest minds, and how they are so easily capable of making just about any scientific idea accessible to someone like me. Guys like Neil Tyson Degrasse and Bill Nye are obviously "weapons" that the scientific community has, that the young earther camp does not. And for the Record, IIRC Neil Tyson Degrasse has come out saying that he is still religious, he just has issues with it being brought into science classes, or to WORK in the scientific community.

**squidhills**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

If a person can see the fairly clear evidence of evolution, but still chooses to believe that it was started by some form of supreme being, how is that not technically in line with both ideologies? I mean, yeah if you read the biblical accounts of how our world was created, it says 7 days. Elsewhere in the bible, it talks about the span of time that passes in the blink of an eye, by God's perceptions. By my reasoning, who's to say that "6 days plus a day of rest" is not in the human scale, and rather means "1 eye blink=1000 years x # of blinks per day x 7 days... give or take"

This stems from the mistaken belief that evolution disproves (or tries to ) disprove God. It does absolutely no such thing. It just proves how humans and other species developed into how they look now. The idea of "God created mankind and evolution is the tool he used to do it" is NOT the middle ground. That is full-on, hard-core pro-evolution. Either you believe in evolution or you don't. Belief in God is separate and distinct from that. That is how the Catholic church can say "Yeah, evolution is totes real, peeps. Just like God!" and not be hypocritical.

The problem is that the young-Earthers and the "Intelligent" design crowd don't understand this about evolution (and I'm not accusing you of being a young-Earther or anything). They think scientists are running around trying to brainwash children into radical atheism through evolutionary theory, when no such thing is happening. Evolutionary scientists aren't trying to disprove God or destroy America through atheism. The majority of scientists are practicing believers. Honestly, if the young-Earthers could understand that one, simple fact, this whole argument would disappear overnight.

Also, I would watch anything with Bill Nye. Even Dancing With the Stars.

**Overlord Thraka**

Why don't you read some of Ham's work before you start trash talking him! I for one respect him!

**Peregrine**

Overlord Thraka wrote:
Why don't you read some of Ham's work before you start trash talking him! I for one respect him!

0/10. Not convincing at all.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

Overlord Thraka wrote:
Why don't you read some of Ham's work before you start trash talking him! I for one respect him!

What example of his work would you recommend?

**Andrew1975**

I've had someone try to describe why the two must be mutually exclusive......it didn't make any sense to me. Seams to me evolution could just be a tool God uses, but that simple solution seams to make people very angry.

**Peregrine**

squidhills wrote:
The majority of scientists are practicing believers. Honestly, if the young-Earthers could understand that one, simple fact, this whole argument would disappear overnight.

No, it really wouldn't. The average young-earth creationist also believes that 95% of "practicing believers" are hell-bound sinners who worship at the altar of a false god. And they certainly aren't going to accept any "compromise" position that doesn't include a 6000 year old earth and a literal interpretation of Genesis.

And then of course there's the practical value of using evolution as an "us vs. them" strategy to unify the religious right against an outside enemy. Even if there could theoretically be some kind of compromise that strategy alone is valuable enough to give a lot of incentive to fight evolution to the death.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:
I've had someone try to describe why the two must be mutually exclusive......it didn't make any sense to me. Seams to me evolution could just be a tool God uses, but that simple solution seams to make people very angry.

It isn't a case of being mutually exclusive, but evolution is sufficient to explain the observed evidence and so there is no need to bring any kind of god into it. Speculating about evolution being a tool of god makes about as much sense as speculating that this forum is a tool that Nurgle uses to spread its brain-plagues. The only reason to do it is if you're stubbornly determined to find a place to put your god and can't stand the thought of anything existing without it.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

Andrew1975 wrote:
I've had someone try to describe why the two must be mutually exclusive......it didn't make any sense to me. Seams to me evolution could just be a tool God uses, but that simple solution seams to make people very angry.

Part of the problem is a core idea of these religions, at least as people seem to largely practice them today, is that their God is interventionist. You do stuff like pray to God and God does things for you, or maybe you do something bad and so God punishes you (on that note, Ken Ham seems pretty into Original Sin). That doesn't mesh well with the idea that God just set it all up and pressed the Go button and it all worked itself out from there.

Another part of the problem is if you say God isn't interventionist and just set everything up and pressed Go then you start wondering why you really even need God for that at all.

**d-usa**

Science does not disprove God.

Science does disprove a 6000 year old earth.

So for a person that believes that the earth is 6000 years old and that a 6000 year old earth proves that God exists, then for that person science does disprove God and they will be hostile to science because of it.

Science can disprove religious views that rely on a world-view that is frankly not compatible with science.

**DogofWar1**

My philosophy is that God set up the universe, came up with the 4 forces, the whole matter thing, and then pressed go.

Then came back about 5K years ago and went "WHOA, WTF, PEOPLE, STOP THAT WITH THAT CAMEL. STOP! RIGHT NOW!"

And eventually he just told his son to do it. And bam, Old and New Testament. Meanwhile, we still screwed it all up (Crusades).

Also, in between start and old testament, I like to think God went golfing with Michael, Gabriel, and Lucifer. God scored an 18, because he's the best golfer in the universe, while Lucifer scored a 69 and everyone made fun of him for it.

Hence, the rebellion.

**Kovnik Obama**

PrehistoricUFO wrote:
I'll watch it.

I grew up in a Catholic school, and we used to watch Bill Nye in science class at the beginning of every new unit. It'll be interesting to see if they continue airing his shows in the curriculum if he smashes creationism hard enough.

Creationism was explained to us (in a Catholic, private boarding school) in Sec 3 Biology class, and dismissed as uninteresting in about 15 minutes. Catholic schools tend to be schools that aim at producing functional adults who can contribute to science and society, so creationism doesn't have much of a place there.

Hopefully this debate will be better than the last two God Debates...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:
I've had someone try to describe why the two must be mutually exclusive......it didn't make any sense to me. Seams to me evolution could just be a tool God uses, but that simple solution seams to make people very angry.

It's mostly because that line of speculation is useless. It tries to redeem an idea when there's no single reason why we would need to include that idea in the equation. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, except in the head of people that needs to include God in their worldviews.

It would also contradicts quite a few things about God, such as providence and his love toward his creatures.