Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham (Evolution vs. Creationism)

Very interesting debate.

News link: www.npr.org...

reply to post by CleanCare


It wasn't a debate...

You see in a debate, there are back and forth arguments... and people attempt to answer questions

Only Bill answered any questions... Mr. Ham just rambled on about his beliefs and avoided answering anything

And beside that, having only one minute to rebuttal is no way to run a debate in any case

reply to post by Akragon


I reckon that Ken Ham is a member on ATS, seems to have the same ramblings as some threads on here.

reply to post by CleanCare


Lackluster, mediocre debate tbh. I dislike when people such as Hammy are given a commendable platform to voice a bunch of so-called reasonable ideas (like the unnecessary distinction between "observational science" and "historical science"). Is creationism a viable model? No. There shouldn't even be a debate about that.

Billy got the W though.

reply to post by CleanCare


Kind of interesting to listen to. I'm about 3/4 of the way through. Bill Nye really was quite respectful even as Ken Ham ran out of answers from just after his opening 30 minute presentation. Ken says he knows consciousness comes from God, but Bill says he has no idea how we have consciousness. Haha at least one of them is honest. Bill even gave out ideas of evidences to look for to say the Earth is younger or that evolution didn't happen over billions of years. Ken didn't have anything to point to to say how old the earth is.

Bill's Main point. If the bible is true, what predictions can you make about the future using that model?
He pointed out some predictions you could make based on the bible and those predictions havn't happened.

Ken Ham "You can NEVER prove the age of the Earth... ...using the scientific method... ...but the bible says..."
Bill Nye "I have the feeling you want us to take your word for it."

Pretty well sums it up.

Christians always say that we Atheists should be more open minded. But I always thought it was the other way around.

In the debate both were asked a question. what, if anything, would ever change your mind.

Ken Ham says nothing would change his mind, Bill Nye says evidence would change his mind.

Here is a picture of it:

Link

Would have been more entertaining if the Creationist side brought forth the ancient texts of Hindu Cosmology and Greek Creation Myths to the table, but I don't think that would push forward the childish "Science vs Religion" agenda that seems to be all the rage these days.

Not a fair fight. Not even a constructive debate in my opinion.
Elementary Black versus White childish infighting while Academia laughs at the absurdity of it all.

for those without the fortitude to wade throught the entire 2.5 hours , a 90 second clip :



synopsis : ken ham refutes his own claims

reply to post by Akragon

And beside that, having only one minute to rebuttal is no way to run a debate in any case

Oh dear.

That's terrible.

I've watched every debate Youtube has to offer from Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. It's never been structured that severely. Not that I can recall anyways. Then again, Hitchens might have just been breaking the rules RIP.

reply to post by GENERAL EYES

Would have been more entertaining if the Creationist side brought forth the ancient texts of Hindu Cosmology and Greek Creation Myths to the table, but I don't think that would push forward the childish "Science vs Religion" agenda that seems to be all the rage these days.

Not a fair fight. Not even a constructive debate in my opinion.

It was perfectly fair.

Why would he bring up Hindu Cosmology or Greek Creation Myths when he believes in them as much as he does evolution?

He's a YEC Christian who believes in the literal account of Genesis. He's not going to use other ancient accounts of creation stories if he doesn't view them as literal truths aka evidence for his side.

He's not representing a general 'Creationist side' he's representing a 'Bibles version of Creation is true' side. If you have gripes with that it's on Ken not a 'Science vs Religion' agenda...

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I'm aware of Hams perspective. He was probably chosen for the "debate" for exactly that reason.

I just get tired of seeing the "Creationist" being represented exclusively by someone toting solely the Bible as source....there's just not much room for constructive debate at that point.

It's shoddy entertainment, per my personal standards and expectations.

Now, because of this broadcast, how many people will automatically assign "Creationist" to mean someone with an exclusively Biblical perspective? It's more the subtle weight of influence such media gives the common hive-mind that irritates me more than the actual debates.....but that's another rant for another thread.

reply to post by GENERAL EYES


I actually think if those religion's stuff was brought up, it would have been a challenge and entertaining to watch.

especially Hinduism has both creation and "evolution" (the avatars of Vishnu)

reply to post by CleanCare


someone posted this on another website:



I'd also like to add this from nature world news:

Earliest Camel Bones Contradict Bible, Archaeologists Say

Camels are mentioned as pack animals in the biblical stories of Abraham, Joseph and Jacob, stories from the Old Testament that date to between 2000 and 1500 BC. Now, Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University's Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures report that the arrival of the domesticated camel didn't occur until much later, probably between 1200 and 900 BC.

Coming from Israelis at that too.

reply to post by GENERAL EYES

I'm aware of Hams perspective. He was probably chosen for the "debate" for exactly that reason.

Wasn't the debate conducted at the Creation Museum by the Creation Museum/AiG? So didn't Ken Ham ultimately choose himself to take the anti-evolution side of the debate?

reply to post by iterationzero


Ham chose everything... including the audience...

And im sure he chose the amount of time given for rebuttal as well... Notice in one so called "rebuttal" they even cut Bill off as he was making his point

Its damn near impossible to give a rebuttal in one minute... that's exactly how they wanted it set it up

Notice also that bill tried to add a little humour, and the audience was silent...

Yet when Ken started with his "well bill, there is a book that proves" garbage... the audience roared...

As I've stated previously... it wasn't a debate

It was a display of ignorance vs Science theory... and it was set up from the start