Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham

[greylight]

So did anyone actually watch it? I avoided it because my blood pressure was going up just from reading the tweets from it. My overall impression was that most people thought it was a stupid debate to have, but the fundies who were on Ham's side found flaws in everything Bill Nye was saying. I feel like this debate was more detrimental then anything else, beacause the fundies are whining and clinging to their beliefs more tightly.

[Ravenstar]

I don't even know if it's available

[Ravenstar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQreONYVVIM

[Ravenstar]

LIVE

 

missed a lot already damn

 

http://vaughnlive.tv/livelife8072

[Ravenstar]

Full thing on 

 

debatellive.com   I guess

[Ravenstar]

Eric Hovind ALREADY has a video on youtube about the debate

 

sigh.. Eric, HOVIND.

[RogueScholar]

 

Looking at the news clips, it appears that Bill Nye did quite well, focusing on the problems and "plot holes" of young earth creationism as opposed to debating religion or atheism in general. Clearly, hard core creationists will not change their mind but fence sitters and people deconverting may be helped quite a bit. Unfortunately, the debate has resulted in the museum receiving substantial amounts of money. Double edged sword for sure.

[Positivist]

It's on http://www.billnye.com/ . Skip ahead to where it actually starts. Be forewarned, however. Ken Ham is hard to listen to--between the non-science and the illogical leaps he makes, it's not only intellectually jarring, it's embarrassing. As a former YEC myself, I think I have triggered some PTSD. Hearing Bill Nye talk was so refreshing. He has nothing to defend; he only has the truth to present.

 

Here's Ham's arguments: The bible is true because the bible says it is; therefore abortion is wrong, marriage is between one man and one woman. And, to end with God, one must begin with God.

 

Ham does not begin with the evidence and let it lead; he begins with The Lord of the Rings trilogy the Bible (another work of fiction) and crams in the evidence, trimming it here and there, gouging out entire portions, to make it fit.

 

I had to stop watching to avoid seeing Ham again. Disturbing.

[Burt_Lemur]

I watched most of it. My perspective that Bill Nye made many good points is, I'm willing to bet, not shared by the fundies who watch it. I thought Ken Ham had very little to offer and avoided Nye's tough questions. But I'm sure that all the creationists in the audience and who watch it online will conclude that Ken Ham was a genius.

 

I wish the creation Museum wouldn't profit from this, but I'm sure they will. But if Bill Nye's agreeing to participate in this debate succeeded in opening anyone's eyes, it's all good.

[Inqui]

I actually found Ken Ham talking to be kinda encouraging. I know one idea out there is that God is shrinking (used to be nature, then he was everywhere else, then he was the sun, then he was the stars, now he's some metaphysical being), and I saw Ham's branch of creationism similarly regressing a bit. He talked a lot more about speciation than I remember being taught five years ago (refusing to go all the way obviously but acknowledging the branches from common ancestors), which suggests he's back-tracking a bit in the face of evidence. Dunno if it was the nature of the debate, but he also seemed a lot less certain of his stuff. He used the God of the Gaps quite a bit, but he also said a lot of stuff like "here's what we know, but here's something we'll never know because we weren't there". Even when Nye brought up how we know certain things, all Ham could say was "actually, we don't know and we never will".

 

That debate in itself won't de-convert anyone (at least it certainly won't convert anyone though), but it might get people thinking and help with their processes in 10 years' time. But I actually came away from that debate feeling like creationism is a bit of a fading violet - if not in numbers then at least in ideology.

[RaLeah]

Ah. I started another thread about this and summarized the debate. I took 3 pages of notes and transcribed the basic points (with just a few thoughts of my own in parenthesis.) 

 

Overall... I'm glad they debated. I think it's important to engage with creationists who have little to no exposure to scientific evidence and facts otherwise. 

 

But I also acknowledge that, at the end of the day, people believe what they want to believe. 

[bornagainathiest]

So what about confirmed scientific predictions?

.

.

.

 

I'm no scientist (just an enthusiastic amateur astronomer), but when Ham plays the You-weren't-there card, why doesn't Nye turn that right back at him with examples like this?.

.

.

.

 

NO human being, was "there", just after the Big Bang.

Yet a theoretical prediction about the origin of the universe has since been independently and 100% accurately confirmed by two different science teams, using two different satellites.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cmbr.svg You don't need to understand the math.  I don't! 

All you need to understand is that the green radiation curve was predicted in 1980 and the red COBE data (Cosmic Background Explorer satellite) matches it perfectly. 

 

How can Ham account for this?

The only way to get such an accurate answer about something no human being ever witnessed is to have an accurate understanding of it.  In this case, one that doesn't work on a Biblical  timescale.  You only get correct answers if you do the math correctly.  In this case, the math says the universe is 13.82 billion years old.  If the math were wrong the prediction wouldn't have matched up with the data.  It's really that simple!  Therefore, this confirmed prediction is as near as dammit PROOF that Ham is wrong.

.

.

.

Ok, there is a way Ham can answer this.

But to do so he fatally weakens his position.  He can claim that the COBE data is false and invoke a scientific conspiracy.  If he does this, then Nye's fully justified in asking him the pertinent question...

 

"So Young Earth Creationism is a 'Conspiracy Theory', just like the 9/11, Moon Hoax and JFK conspiracy theories?"

 

If Ham says No, then he's got to say why not.  Why YECism is different and/or special?  (Good luck with that!)  If he says Yes, then he shoots himself in the foot.

 

If I were Nye, this is the kind of move I'd play against Ham.

Please note I say kind.  This isn't the only confirmed prediction that science has made about times, events and places where no human has ever been.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

[Ravenstar]

I only caught the last 45 minutes.. but I LOL'ed when Bill asked Ken if he supported a LITERAL reading of the Bible.. Ken spent the majority of his 2 minutes trying to dodge the question and re-interpret the word literal… but finally admitted that SOME of the Bible is literal and some is 'poetry'. Bill jumped all over this.. that was.. satisfying.  

 

Will have to watch the entire thing though.

 

Ken always looked angry when Bill spoke, and nervous… Bill looked incredulous when Ken spoke. Like he was thinking WTF?  LOL

[DrNo]

I didn't get to watch it, but reading about it in other forums the general consensus seems to be that Ken dodged a lot of tough questions, not just from Bill but from others as well. For example, someone asked what, if anything, would ever change their beliefs. Ken admitted that nothing would ever change his, while Bill said there would need to be evidence (e.g. evidence that stars were not really as far away as they looked, that there were fossils in different geological layers, etc.). If I were a fence-sitter watching this debate, this question would be very telling to me. It shows that scientists are willing to change their minds in the face of evidence, while creationists are not. They start from the Bible and try to make science conform to it.

 

I have also read that rather than try to refute specific points that Ken brought up, Bill talked at length on the wonder of science, the importance of critical thinking, and appealed to Kentucky voters. I have read a few different accounts from people who watched the debate who had no idea about some of the points about the Big Bang, Evolution, etc. that Bill brought up, and they are engrossing themselves in Wikipedia articles right now, bringing themselves up to speed. So all in all, it is probably a win for science, even if the Creation Museum profits from this.

[DrNo]

Here's a brief CNN highlight reel on the debate. http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/02/05/natpkg-orig-creation-debate-mashup-bill-nye-ken-ham.cnn.html 

[slave2six]

It was freaking great! Bill Nye exuded the passion of the pursuit of knowledge and the joy of a life spent in that pursuit, and correctly challenged everything the Ham said with comments like "unsatisfactory," "disturbing" and  the idea that Ham "grants Noah with superpowers." 

 

By far, Nye was the most compelling, intelligent and personable of the two. Ham got owned, IMO.

[slave2six]

Ah. I started another thread about this and summarized the debate. I took 3 pages of notes and transcribed the basic points (with just a few thoughts of my own in parenthesis.) 

 

Overall... I'm glad they debated. I think it's important to engage with creationists who have little to no exposure to scientific evidence and facts otherwise. 

 

But I also acknowledge that, at the end of the day, people believe what they want to believe. 

 

More's the pity.

 

I liked how Nye kept harping on how America will continue to decline unless we embrace mainstream science and abandon mythology. He made it sound unpatriotic to be a YEC. Brilliant move, considering most in the room are Christians who pride themselves on "patriotism."

[DrNo]

http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1x14gi/discussion_thread_nyeham_creationism_debate/

 

Here is the r/Christianity thread on the debate. Most of the Christians there are not YECs, and they readily admit that Nye walked all over Ham. 

[DrNo]

[DrNo]

Here's one thing that I have seen people comment on in terms of one thing Nye should have done (even by Christians in Christian forums):

 

Ham's main point throughout the debate when faced with various evidence in support of evolution come down to, "You weren't there, you can't know for sure."

 

On various occasions when Nye is asked, "How do you explain [insert scientific mystery], he freely admits to not knowing, and then speaks about the joy of scientific discovery. Ham uses this opportunity to say, "Well actually Bill, there's this book that explains that very mystery. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's called the Bible. And It's the Word of God."

 

That would have been a golden opportunity for Nye to use Ham's logic back on him: "Really Ken? But you weren't there when it was written, so how can you know for sure that it's the Word of God? Well surely you have original copies of the different books of the Bible. No? Hmm, well that's quite a conundrum. How do you know for sure that the Bible is the Word of God if you weren't there?"

[mymistake]

Here's one thing that I have seen people comment on in terms of one thing Nye should have done (even by Christians in Christian forums):

 

Ham's main point throughout the debate when faced with various evidence in support of evolution come down to, "You weren't there, you can't know for sure."

 

On various occasions when Nye is asked, "How do you explain [insert scientific mystery], he freely admits to not knowing, and then speaks about the joy of scientific discovery. Ham uses this opportunity to say, "Well actually Bill, there's this book that explains that very mystery. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's called the Bible. And It's the Word of God."

 

That would have been a golden opportunity for Nye to use Ham's logic back on him: "Really Ken? But you weren't there when it was written, so how can you know for sure that it's the Word of God? Well surely you have original copies of the different books of the Bible. No? Hmm, well that's quite a conundrum. How do you know for sure that the Bible is the Word of God if you weren't there?"

 

A perfect opportunity but that wasn't Nye's goal.  Nye was trying to be a nice guy and he wanted to open the imagination of the kids in the audience.  Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris would have gone for the Bible.