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

[That one dude...]

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?

No, the moon wasn't mentioned at all unfortunately. Ham would have had a tough time explaining it without basically saying 'God did it'.

I agree with Sunstone that Ham was the better presenter and had fewer facts to present. One thing that Bill failed to point out that would have made all of Ham's arguments come crashing down on him was a blatant inherent confirmation bias. Ham had evidence that depended on his assertion of creationism being correct, whereas Bill's scientific assertions being correct depended on evidence that was found.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

So is mine. But let's all be honest about it, this was just a confirmation bias ritual for a group in desperate need of a symbolic victory.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

No, the moon wasn't mentioned at all unfortunately. Ham would have had a tough time explaining it without basically saying 'God did it'.

Considering that was all his argument amounted to, I would say he wouldn't really care.

 

[outhouse]

I could only watch about 45 min


All I can say is im embarrassed to be a human being, with this kind of primitive thinking still going on today.


A man so bent on destroying science, he cannot see past his own perversions of reality.

 

[Simurgh]

I was disappointed with Nye, simply because by debating that twit, he gave him some level of legitimacy.

Everyone knew that there was no debate going to happen, merely two men asserting their position. In all honesty, how can you debate evolution vs. creationism anyhow?

 

[Ouroboros]

I was disappointed with Nye, simply because by debating that twit, he gave him some level of legitimacy.

That was my feeling from start too.

Everyone knew that there was no debate going to happen, merely two men asserting their position. In all honesty, how can you debate evolution vs. creationism anyhow?

That's what debates are most of the time. Two or more people just repeating their positions and not listening to the other side. Some times, the debating points are already laid out with answers. It's just a staged match. The goal is more about to present the information to the public, and maybe persuade the audience to a new position or at least question their old ones.

 

[Windwalker]

I haven't suffered through the 2.5 hours of it yet, but I'll just say that what an actual debate should be is between the value of science versus the value of mythologies. Because that's what this boils down to, except both sides confused over the difference between them. Nye assuming Ham's mythology is about scientific truths, and Ham assuming Nye's science is to replace the role of his mythology with a different competitor myth. Ham tries to make myth scientific which destroys myth. Nye tries to make science replace myth, which destroys science. And so forth. Both sides lost because of this alone.

 

[outhouse]

Nye tries to make science replace myth, which destroys science.

.

I dont think it destroys science in any way.

He is not trying to replce myth, just give a better interpretation of the evidence then the creationist.



Where I fault Nye is that I would have gone right after the bible and its errors not letting Ham out of the box so to speak. Ham would have been all defense. Instead Ham was able to work offense.

 

[Ouroboros]

I haven't suffered through the 2.5 hours of it yet, but I'll just say that what an actual debate should be is between the value of science versus the value of mythologies. Because that's what this boils down to, except both sides confused over the difference between them. Nye assuming Ham's mythology is about scientific truths, and Ham assuming Nye's science is to replace the role of his mythology with a different competitor myth. Ham tries to make myth scientific which destroys myth. Nye tries to make science replace myth, which destroys science. And so forth. Both sides lost because of this alone.

I agree. The problem of any debate is that there has to be a common ground to work from. If even the framework for what is being discussed is in conflict, the topic won't really matter. It's almost like debating if my taste in ice cream is better than yours. I like chocolate. You like meatballs. Now I'm going to debate you why liking chocolate ice cream is better than liking meatballs!

(Of course I won't )

 

[Sleeppy]

Peer pressure.

 

[Windwalker]

I dont think it destroys science in any way.

He is not trying to replce myth, just give a better interpretation of the evidence then the creationist.

By engaging with someone who uses the Bible as the foundation of his worldview, which to him cosmology is answered within a mythological context, to counter a mythological perspective with a rationalistic perspective (science), is to in the mind of Ken Ham, be an alternative mythology, since he thinks in mythological terms - not rationalistic terms. So yes, Nye is trying to take science and supplant mythology as Ken Ham's set of eyes he see the world through, even though he himself doesn't realize that. All that Ken Ham is doing is trying to make myth sound scientific, not really actually engaging in actual scientific thought. And no amount of reason and evidence can change that.

Where I fault Nye is that I would have gone right after the bible and its errors not letting Ham out of the box so to speak. Ham would have been all defense. Instead Ham was able to work offense.

No, I would have cited alternative interpretations to the same verses Ken Ham uses, by other Christians scholars that don't twist them around like Ken does. To try to debunk the Bible would be interpreted as the act of an unbeliever. 'Of course he doesn't believe the Bible, because he doesn't believe in God!', would be the immediate response. But then what of those who do believe in God and find Ken Ham's interpretations of those versus are crap?

I would have played this for him from the most noted ultra conservative Christian there is:

[youtube]MWAbr-SoMAs[/youtube]
RWW News: Even Pat Robertson Attacks Creationism As A "Joke" - YouTube

If Pat Robertson thinks this is nuts, it's sure as hell isn't because he's not a "true believer" like Ken Ham sees himself as.

 

[averageJOE]

Is it just me or did Ham give the exact same response to every question he was asked?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Is it just me or did Ham give the exact same response to every question he was asked?

I swear, if I heard "we have a book" one more time, I was going to rip out my computer monitor and throw it out the window.:areyoucra

 

[outhouse]

I swear, if I heard "we have a book" one more time, I was going to rip out my computer monitor and throw it out the window.:areyoucra

Its why I would have used the book against him.


I would have gone after the Canaanite traditions that created the proto Isarelite culture.

I would have gone after moses writing about his own death.


I would have been so much on the offense, he could not ge a word out edge wise while defnding himself.

Less he used that 30 minutes wisely, which I would not bet on.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

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.

I agree. Nye seemed out of rhythm.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

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.

Another part Nye could have spoken up was when Ham said something like,"Darwin wasn't interested in the rapid mutations of dogs." From what I know about Darwin, it was dogs and finches that gave him the epiphany of genetic mutation.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Is it just me or did Ham give the exact same response to every question he was asked?

:yes: Ham's message sounded FOXy to me. Don't answer questions that challenge Christianity. Stay the course. Get it on TV that he believes that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, who died for the worlds sins, and rose on the third day...

Nye was stuck on tree rings, geologic layers in the Grand Canyon. I could have done a better job!

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I loved where Ken used a chart to show how dogs diverged from wolves in only four thousand years.
Obviously without paying attention to his units, as the chart he used showed that it was 440,000 years...

 

[Simurgh]

I loved where Ken used a chart to show how dogs diverged from wolves in only four thousand years.
Obviously without paying attention to his units, as the chart he used showed that it was 440,000 years...

considering that wolves and dogs split at least 11,000 to 16,000 ya, I assume that he was never any good in math either.

 

[ruffen]

I haven't suffered through the 2.5 hours of it yet, but I'll just say that what an actual debate should be is between the value of science versus the value of mythologies. Because that's what this boils down to, except both sides confused over the difference between them. Nye assuming Ham's mythology is about scientific truths, and Ham assuming Nye's science is to replace the role of his mythology with a different competitor myth. Ham tries to make myth scientific which destroys myth. Nye tries to make science replace myth, which destroys science. And so forth. Both sides lost because of this alone.

It isn't about the "value" of myth vs science as long as Ham and others keep claiming to know factual actual information about the physical world and its age, and be so horribly wrong at it.

As long as Ham denies the enormous amount of evidence showing his world view to be objectively completely wrong, he is doing science a disfavour. And Ham is claiming to know things that are scientifically testable and falsifiable. And indeed falsified.

And yet Ham and other Young Earth Creationists keep going on and on and on with their lies.