Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
RedPlums
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:05 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: I don't know...

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby RedPlums » Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:52 pm

Oh dear children, quit arguing and just enjoy that Mr. Ham will be able to get the word out about creationism and tell people the truth about the world and how it was made, and possibly bring some people to Christ through it. I don't see why you're making a big deal of the fact that it's at Mr. Ham's museum and such, perhaps he was just kind enough to let them do it there. Instead of looking at the downside too this look at the upside and the good things tat can come from this. :D

And that ladies and gentlebeings, is my $0.02 :D
This is my signature

User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 16708
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby ccgr » Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:51 am

It looks like the livestream will be available for free

http://debatelive.org/faq/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyone else plan on watching this, given that it's free now??

brandon1984
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:53 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Galveston, TX

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby brandon1984 » Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:22 pm

I just listened to Ken Ham for a few minutes on the link provided above. Just some initial criticism:

1) Ham claims that the reason people are leaving the church is hypocrisy then goes on to claim that the specific hypocrisy is accepting evolution and "reinterpreting" Genesis. Did he really discover something specific on his survey or is he adding this on for his own purpose? I would think hypocrisy is a top reason people leave the church, but the specific hypocrisy has to do with preaching about love then not loving.

2) Ham is a modernist. He sees information as rigid having one absolutely true interpretation and the range of other possible interpretations are false. The correct interpretation happens to be his own interpretation. Modernists tend to come off as intellectually arrogant regardless of their intent. A more tenable, IMHO, position is to be post-modernist and claim things in such a way that a certain interpretation is better out of a range of interpretation because of certain evidence. You can see the basic difference between modernism and post-modernism in the words I italicized: absolutely true interpretation versus better interpretation.

3) Ham defines science in such a way that is either an unintentional misunderstanding or semantic posturing. He says that science (Latin root: knowledge) also includes supernatural explanations. Science as a word is not limited to its Latin etymology, words are pliable. Science is a method for determining how nature works and allows us to predict the behavior of natural systems. By definition, nature is what we can know about, so anything superseding this realm, being "supernatural", is unknowable.

Anyway, I hope it's a good debate.

User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 16708
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby ccgr » Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:28 pm

I watched it and wasn't impressed with either side, but both did make some decent arguments. Unfortunately, Ken Ham came off as a broken record.

Here's a pretty good breakdown as to what happened: http://swampland.time.com/2014/02/05/bi ... am-debate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

or a simple meme explanation

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... tshell.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby ArchAngel » Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:08 pm

I didn't catch very much, but enough to hear that question about changing minds, Ham asking "where you there?" and have my eyes rolling about 20 million times.

I keep telling myself he's better than Hovind, and he is, but, at a certain point, does it matter?
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby ArcticFox » Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:29 pm

I didn't watch it. Seemed odd for two parties to debate issues upon which neither was an expert in the opposing field.

Debating Creationism vs. Evolution is like debating which is better: the Washington Capitals' hockey skills or Pizza Hut's bread sticks.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby ArchAngel » Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:00 pm

Well, Ken Ham is a leading Creationist advocate and Bill Nye is a forefront science popularizer and CEO of the Planetary Society (so not just science education). I think that qualifies them both in terms of a debate. They don't have to actually be a researcher. In fact, it seems that few actual researchers in the fields are competent debaters. And the ones that are, like Dawkins, are often given a bad rap.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
Bruce_Campbell
Master Gamer
Master Gamer
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:00 am

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby Bruce_Campbell » Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:46 pm

Ham brought nothing new to the table. If you're familiar with his arguments, you've heard all of his stuff before. Here's a basic run-down…

- "Secularists" have high jacked science
- Here are three scientists who believe in YEC, I'm going to namedrop the everliving heck out of them for the rest of the debate although they haven't offered up any evidence that disproves evolution
- There is a SECRET ATHEIST AGENDA to keep Creationism out of schools
- If you teach kids evolution, they're going to kill all the useless old people and babies
- The Bible is true because it is

I thought Nye held his own. He wasn't there to attack religion, it was clear that he wasn't really opposed to the Bible per se, just Ham's interpretation of it. I noticed he was careful not to call it "the Biblical flood story" but "Ham's flood story". I get the impression that Ham was trying to bait him into a theological debate, but Nye stuck with the science. When asked if religion and science were compatible, Nye pointed out the fact that there are millions of religious people who do accept evolution. He also offered up a bunch of evidence that shows that the earth is more than a few thousand years old. For example…

- ice cores that show 680,000 layers of summer/winter
- living trees that are 9000 years old
- layers of coral that could not have formed in just 4000 years since the flood supposedly happened
- stars, universe expanding, light from billions of light years away being visible, etc.

He also touched on some of the problems with a literal flood story, like the fact that there are no marsupial fossils between Australia and the place where the ark supposedly landed, the problems of a wooden boat staying afloat for so long (assuming it would float at all). He did the math on Ham's kind theory, and found that for it to work we would have to see 11 new species per day to have the number of species that we know of today.

Ham rebuttal was basically "Were you there?", a claim that radioactive dating was unreliable, and touting his personal theology.

I'm a little biased, but I thought Nye was the clear winner. But then, I get the impression that Ham's goal was to evangelize more than to prove any of his wacky science.
A vegan atheist walks into a bar. Bartender says "Hey, are you a vegan atheist? Just kidding, you've mentioned it like eight times already."

User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 16708
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby ccgr » Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:58 pm

I think the main agenda was to promote the creation museum since that's where it took place and many of the exhibits were part of his slideshow and it had so many plugs it wasn't even funny.

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby ArchAngel » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:11 pm

I'm listening to it over again, it began with a commercial for the museum.

I'm not sure how long I can keep up with it. Ken Ham is already trying to redefine "science" to just "knowledge" and stating that theories based on evolution has nothing to do what emerging technologies.
WHATHADFSDAJKFSJDFJASDAFSDM.

I mean, he can't be that stupid. This has to be just lies.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
Bruce_Campbell
Master Gamer
Master Gamer
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:00 am

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby Bruce_Campbell » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:32 pm

I'm listening to it over again, it began with a commercial for the museum.

I'm not sure how long I can keep up with it. Ken Ham is already trying to redefine "science" to just "knowledge" and stating that theories based on evolution has nothing to do what emerging technologies.
WHATHADFSDAJKFSJDFJASDAFSDM.

I mean, he can't be that stupid. This has to be just lies.
The Ham part was hard to watch. I think Nye is worth sticking around for though. I enjoyed his part, and I came in pretty cynical/skeptical.
A vegan atheist walks into a bar. Bartender says "Hey, are you a vegan atheist? Just kidding, you've mentioned it like eight times already."

User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 16708
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby ccgr » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:34 pm

but his bow tie story and fish sex remarks were wierd

User avatar
Bruce_Campbell
Master Gamer
Master Gamer
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:00 am

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby Bruce_Campbell » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:36 pm

Fishionary position! *bah-dum TSH*
A vegan atheist walks into a bar. Bartender says "Hey, are you a vegan atheist? Just kidding, you've mentioned it like eight times already."

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby ArchAngel » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:45 pm

I just listened through Ham and one of his creationist scientists, Fabich, addressing the citrate-metabolizing e. coli, an example I have brought up more than once here. Fabich claims it was just a "on-off" switched, but this event is a particular new feature that never existed before. This wasn't a case of a regulatory gene switching on. That's just flat-out dishonest. I guess it wasn't crossing one of their arbitrary "kinds."

And I don't even need to start on false dichotomous assertions between "observational" and "historical" science. Apparently, the past is magic.

I find it funny that creationists, both in the debate and out of it, love to claim the "conspiracy of secularists and atheists trying to keep the creationists down, but they have no problem flaunting their published works in secular journals as credibility. And yes, creationists when they do legitimate scientific work get treated as scientists. But just as Ken Ham answered that nothing can change his mind, his basis for creationism isn't science, it's faith. And just with all the other scientists, if you ask them why they are a creationists, I'd bet dollars to donuts they'd all attribute it to faith and the Bible. That's really the end of the story.

And Bill Nye's bow tie stories are always welcome. :) He was saying Bow Ties were cool before they were cool. He's the Bow Tie OG.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Ken Ham to debate Bill Nye on creationism

Postby ArcticFox » Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:04 pm

Well, Ken Ham is a leading Creationist advocate and Bill Nye is a forefront science popularizer and CEO of the Planetary Society (so not just science education). I think that qualifies them both in terms of a debate. They don't have to actually be a researcher. In fact, it seems that few actual researchers in the fields are competent debaters. And the ones that are, like Dawkins, are often given a bad rap.
No that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying Nye isn't an expert on Creationism and Ham isn't an expert on Evolutionary Biology.

Thus, no common frame of reference.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens


Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests