The Bill Nye / Ken Ham DEBATE: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's scientific era?"

[Parsimony]

I know I'm going to cringe a lot...

 

[Skwim]

No interest whatsoever. I have better things to do with my time, like stare at my navel.

To each his own

​

 

[That one dude...]

In case anyone's interested, here's the live feed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

 

[fantome profane]

I'm watching. Anyone else?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm watching it, too.

 

[fantome profane]

Ken Ham does not know the difference between metaphisical naturalism and methodological naturalism.

 

[Slapstick]

Thanks for posting this. I have been wanting to watch the debate and happen to check religious forums to find out that it is being viewed on debatelive.org. Which is a great site for offering this for free.

So far I think both debaters have made some very valid points. Bill even said he learned a lot from Ken before he made his intro unless it was a quarrel to dismiss Kens original arguments. Which I highly doubt it was.

 

[mycorrhiza]

I've lost count of how many times Ham has said "You weren't there.".

 

[Slapstick]

I've lost count of how many times Ham has said "You weren't there.".

That or Observational Science.

 

[Sunstone]

Ken Ham does not know the difference between metaphisical naturalism and methodological naturalism.

May he rot in hell for it! Nothing so offends us who love epistemology and the philosophy of the sciences than that!

 

[Sunstone]

Ham seems to me to be winning, albeit on persuasive points, rather than logical and evidential points. He's the more polished debater, the more polished, smoother salesperson. Nye is in trouble, albeit he's winning on intellectual points.

 

[LuisDantas]

Wake me if they decide that god exists and evolution is a lie after all. Or something.

 

[Sunstone]

Wake me if they decide that god exists and evolution is a lie after all. Or something.

My hunch is most of the audience worldwide is going to conclude just that.

 

[Slapstick]

If it all boils down to literature then literature can mean anything from folklore, to rationalism.

I think Ken is wrong for dismissing science for young earth creationism.

 

[Shiranui117]

On the one hand, Mr. Ham says that we can't trust the laws of nature from day to day without God. On the other, he seems to basically be saying that we don't know if the laws of nature and logic behaved the same in the past as they do today.

Also, he didn't say it, but basically, if Mr. Ham were to cease to believe in creationism, he would cease to believe in God.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Also, he didn't say it, but basically, if Mr. Ham were to cease to believe in creationism, he would cease to believe in God.

I think his point was that he would not change his mind, no matter what evidence was put forward against his beliefs. He believes that he is right, no matter what.

 

[Parsimony]

I think his point was that he would not change his mind, no matter what evidence was put forward against his beliefs. He believes that he is right, no matter what.

Which is as far from a scientific attitude as one can get...

 

[fantome profane]

I think Bill did a fair job. I think he presented much more actual evidence than Ken did. I also found his talking about the joy of science so much more inspiring than anything Ken had to say about "God" or the Bible.

One thing I will mention where Bill failed to make the point was about the ark. The point isn't about the ship building skill of Noah. It doesn't matter how good the builder is, you cannot change the laws of physics. A wooden ship of that size will twist and warp and bend an fall apart. That is based on the laws of physics that operate today (observational physics as Ken would say) and even Ken agreed that those laws must have operates in the past. It is not about skill or technology, a wooden boat of that size is physically impossible.

Other points to come. Must sleep now.

 

[Sunstone]

I'd say Ham won that one in at least two ways. First, he was the smoother presenter. And second, for Nye to have won, he would have had to devastate Ham, but for Ham to have won, all Ham had to do was appear to be something less than the total nutter he is. Ham did that. He has gained credibility.

 

[shawn001]

I missed a lot of this and have to watch it again.

Ham really doesn't understand science for sure and what has already been learned.

It was funny he said he knew nothing about plate tectonics and is a young Earth Creationist and then there is no evidence for an old Earth.

Was the formation and age of moon brought up?