Bill Nye vs Ken Ham creationist debate - Feb 4, 2014

ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Bill Nye vs Ken Ham creationist debate - Feb 4, 2014

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rhdl0rdht8

I like Bill but I don't think it should take place at the creationist nauseum. I understand their "donations" are off. Also, I think Bill feels a need to be in the limelight.

I will still have to watch it when it is available and hate myself for doing it. It will be like watching him on "Dancing With The Stars". Sad

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
I'd rather he NOT.

                   This debate can only help Ham and his fantasy world.    Nye has nothing to gain, no matter how well he does,  Ham will get cred he doesn't deserve and a whole lot of cash.       

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
$$$$

You give me pause on how wealthy I might have been if I stayed being a minister. Having a flock of sheep who don't question you as long as you say the right words.

Damn. Honesty isn't the best policy.

 

Yep, Bill has nothing to gain and only something to lose.

 

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I disagree. Bill might be

I disagree. Bill might be allowing some of his spotlight to shine on Ken, but in this case that's a good thing. Bill is very well known to at least one entire generation, and when he rips Ken apart with language a layman can understand it'll be making millions of people think twice.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I disagree.

Vastet wrote:
I disagree. Bill might be allowing some of his spotlight to shine on Ken, but in this case that's a good thing. Bill is very well known to at least one entire generation, and when he rips Ken apart with language a layman can understand it'll be making millions of people think twice.

Definitely. With how passionate he seemed when talking about creationism, I'm sure he's seen their (awful) arguments. I hope he's also seen a good amount of their rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies. I definitely think that Bill Nye will have done his homework on this one. I just hope he makes sure he has access and permission to air full unedited video.

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I disagree.

Vastet wrote:
I disagree. Bill might be allowing some of his spotlight to shine on Ken, but in this case that's a good thing. Bill is very well known to at least one entire generation, and when he rips Ken apart with language a layman can understand it'll be making millions of people think twice.

I agree. Bill could just let Ken hang himself if he gives him enough rope.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
I hope you are right Vastet.

I hope you are right Vastet.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
AronRa take on debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRMmV-c2uDM

Posted every way.

AronRa's take on Bill/Ken debate.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister

                It appears Aronra  agrees with you and me ex-  and many others as well.  AS AronRa pointed out "this is not a job for a scientist it's for a stratigist."   Nye is from a TV background designed for children I'm sure his production staff rarely disagreed nor lied to him now he's going to  run into an expert liar with a friendly home audience.  I'm still hoping Bill Nye backs out of this.   

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
These live debates are

These live debates are essentially guaranteed to work in the creationists' favor.   Even in the best-case scenario where the scientist summarily refutes each and every of the creationist's arguments (usually impossible due to time constraints), the creationists and their advocates will walk away thinking they've won.

Just recall Ray Comfort's and Kirk Cameron's debate with RRS, where they unleashed the Crocoduck on the world, and appealed to scripture after explicitly saying they wouldn't.  Despite such a show of idiocy and dishonesty, they walked away as if they'd won.  


 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:These live

zarathustra wrote:

These live debates are essentially guaranteed to work in the creationists' favor.   Even in the best-case scenario where the scientist summarily refutes each and every of the creationist's arguments (usually impossible due to time constraints), the creationists and their advocates will walk away thinking they've won.

Just recall Ray Comfort's and Kirk Cameron's debate with RRS, where they unleashed the Crocoduck on the world, and appealed to scripture after explicitly saying they wouldn't.  Despite such a show of idiocy and dishonesty, they walked away as if they'd won.  


 




because they did win. comfort got exactly what he wanted: probably the largest audience ever to be exposed to him, served up on a platter, on which to unleash his same tired old gimmicks.


i was actually a ray comfort fan during my fundy college days, and i can tell you the man considers any chance he's had to "witness" a victory. i can also tell you he said absolutely nothing new that night. imo, the person who did the best in throwing him off his guard was the angry lady who insisted he explain specifically why cancer exists in the world. he kept trying to get onto his speech about suffering in general (one i've heard many times) and she kept not letting him. you saw how flustered he got. it didn't have anything to do with the difficulty of her question: his patented biblical response for suffering works just as well for cancer. the problem is, the word "cancer" was throwing him off-script.


if i was nye, i would watch every youtube video, every dvd, every cd this guy has ever put out, learn his routines by heart, and keep derailing him. that would go a longer way than hard science, i'm sorry to say, both in embarrassing ham and convincing the public.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Can Watch The Debate Live For Free - Tuesday FEB 4 @ 7pm

http://debatelive.org/

and you can buy it ... cha-ching... Jesus needs money $$$$

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham


Live Streaming FREE on Feb. 4 at 7 PM ET

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Five more days. Is any one

Five more days. Is any one planning on watching the streamed video? It's supposed to be live?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
The creation museum has

The creation museum has proposed building a replica of Noah's ark (conveniently on land), but have not been able to raise the necessary funds.  (They're even offering junk bonds to current donors.)  This is on top of their current financial problems, which has prompted them to add a dragon exhibit to boost flagging attendance.  The publicity from this debate is likely to help remedy these financial straits.

I think a simpler way of settling the debate is to simply let Ham build his ark:  With the help of 3 other men (to represent Noah's sons), let them build an ark entirely of wood (using only primitive tools; modern machiner), of the proper dimensions, then wander the high seas for a year.  If Ham and his crew survive, then he'll have made a credible case for Genesis.  With the requirements waived of gathering 2 of each kind from all over the earth; and enduring an actual global flood, this should be quite easy, especially since Ham isn't quite 600 years old like Noah was.  

Of course, I think even Ham knows it would be impossible to buid; and that a wooden boat would not survive for long on the open water.

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:The

zarathustra wrote:

The creation museum has proposed building a replica of Noah's ark (conveniently on land), but have not been able to raise the necessary funds.  (They're even offering junk bonds to current donors.)  This is on top of their current financial problems, which has prompted them to add a dragon exhibit to boost flagging attendance.  The publicity from this debate is likely to help remedy these financial straits.

I think a simpler way of settling the debate is to simply let Ham build his ark:  With the help of 3 other men (to represent Noah's sons), let them build an ark entirely of wood (using only primitive tools; modern machiner), of the proper dimensions, then wander the high seas for a year.  If Ham and his crew survive, then he'll have made a credible case for Genesis.  With the requirements waived of gathering 2 of each kind from all over the earth; and enduring an actual global flood, this should be quite easy, especially since Ham isn't quite 600 years old like Noah was.  

Of course, I think even Ham knows it would be impossible to buid; and that a wooden boat would not survive for long on the open water.

http://arkencounter.com/

They are trying to get people to donate $500 (a month) for a wooden beam? Holy shit!

If you asked Ham to build it he would say his god isn't asking him to do it so he wouldn't get the special help Noah got.

Don't get me started on that BS about collecting one of every animal.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I won't be watching it

I won't be watching it tonight but I suspect the servers will crash from the load.

I hope some one can get on and capture some of the circus and then post it.


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 583
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
In nine minutes, we will

In nine minutes, we will watch the second largest thrashing of 2014; the first being the dismantling of Denver at the Super Bowl.

 

LET THE SLAUGHTER COMMENCE.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override wrote:In nine

Sage_Override wrote:

In nine minutes, we will watch the second largest thrashing of 2014; the first being the dismantling of Denver at the Super Bowl.

 

LET THE SLAUGHTER COMMENCE.

I saw a posting from someone who was there, they said that Bill Bye did a pretty good job of holding his own. Ken Hamm started getting tired and then stopped answering questions, but instead started to quote the bible and say that faith was the answer to every thing.


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 583
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Bill DESTROYED Hamm.  The

Bill DESTROYED Hamm.  The rebuttals were a joke.  Hamm = THE BIBLE, READ THE BIBLE!!!!  Bill = Ok, you're incredible.  I don't believe I'm debating this guy, what am I doing here?

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override wrote:Bill

Sage_Override wrote:

Bill DESTROYED Hamm.  The rebuttals were a joke.  Hamm = THE BIBLE, READ THE BIBLE!!!!  Bill = Ok, you're incredible.  I don't believe I'm debating this guy, what am I doing here?

But Hamm got what he wanted. A publicity stunt. Now he has the DVD to create. You can bet that he will edit the heck out of it, making him look like the winner.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline

ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 I didn't get to the debate

 I didn't get to the debate til near the end and the feed kept failing.

 

Gonna watch now.

Right out the box Hamm appeals to authority. HA!

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
God did it

Hamm appealed to authority (bible), god did it.


He gave no response to Bill's repeated question "What can you predict using Creationism." Bill gave multiple examples up front about the predictions of evolution. Bill showed how Creationism is a dead end, not only for prediction, but how the answer "God did it" suppresses scientific enquiry.


Question to Hamm - what if you discover evidence contrary to your belief? He couldn't even entertain such a question.


Fancy footwork by Hamm that will only comfort hard core believers.


Nye did a great job. I was needlessly nervous.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 I see debatelive.org has a

 I see debatelive.org has a Post-Debate Answers Live with Ken Ham at 8pm tonight.

Licking wounds, shaking off the cognitive dissonance of the believers i.e. waste of time.

 

Hmmmm, an aside, I can post now in Chrome instead of Firefox. Excellent.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Dawkins

Dawkins objects to scientists having debates with creationists, on the charge that it gives them an air of credibility they don't deserve.

Regardless of who "won" this debate, has the debate served to confirm or dispel such concerns?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Dawkins

zarathustra wrote:

Dawkins objects to scientists having debates with creationists, on the charge that it gives them an air of credibility they don't deserve.

Regardless of who "won" this debate, has the debate served to confirm or dispel such concerns?




i don't agree. i don't necessarily think scientists should actively seek out nuts to debate, but i also think the only people ignorant enough to award the creationists "credibility" for those debates would award it to them regardless.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Well I object to ignoring

Well I object to ignoring crackpots just because they are crackpots. If every theist was mind numbingly dumb then maybe it would be a bad idea, but that isn't the way it is. There are thousands or even millions of atheists who would be theists still if someone hadn't issued a challenge to a theist spouting off. I've seen people say that Brian just gave Comfort a spotlight by debating him. Bull! Comfort already had a spotlight. Brian didn't. And as a direct result of that debate a number of people joined the forum, and a few people left christianity behind. How many atheists became christians? 0.

Dawkins and other scientists simply don't understand how theists minds work, and are consistently frustrated by their illogical and simple minded arguments, so instead of learning how to crush them they concentrate on their careers, letting idiots say whatever they want unchallenged. Letting the idiots win without even a fight.

Huge props to Bill Nye for actually coming forward to slap an idiot down. Even more props to Brian Sapient for doing the same, without a celebrity status in his back pocket.

Two thumbs up to anyone who goes out and takes on a theist, and actually prepares for it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i agree with all that. i


i agree with all that. i didn't mean brian was wrong to debate comfort, i was just saying we shouldn't be surprised comfort acted like he'd won a victory.

although i do have to say that, afaik, the nightline debate was the first and only time comfort has ever been on national network television. even among evangelicals, he was never terribly well known, even after he got his claws into kirk cameron. his media coverage has mostly consisted of crappy video-taped seminars with poor production values. i say all this from a former insider's perspective. when i was a fundamentalist, i heard of comfort through word of mouth. i found him fascinating and thought he was right about everything. i was really into him for about 2 years (about 2001-2003) and i couldn't believe that every christian i met (literally every one) would go "who?" when i mentioned his name. so did the nightline exposure bring comfort a bogger audience than he'd ever had before? without doubt. much, much bigger.

did it do the same for brian? absolutely. was comfort better known among christians than brian and the rrs? sure, but not nearly as much as you'd think. he was no falwell or dobson or haggard, not even close. for one thing (and i have to say this to the man's credit), he does seem to be the genuine article. not a speck of greed or conscious self-promotion adheres to his name.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 I would have agreed with

 I would have agreed with Dawkins before this debate. And I saw a poll recently about "belief" in evolution. In 2009 more US people did believe but now the numbers are going the other way. What happened in 2009? 150 years since Darwin's book and a number of scientist put out books, Dawkins, Coyne and others. More promotion. It really does need to get out there and stay there. Go Bill Nye. 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: i agree with

iwbiek wrote:


i agree with all that. i didn't mean brian was wrong to debate comfort, i was just saying we shouldn't be surprised comfort acted like he'd won a victory.




although i do have to say that, afaik, the nightline debate was the first and only time comfort has ever been on national network television. even among evangelicals, he was never terribly well known, even after he got his claws into kirk cameron. his media coverage has mostly consisted of crappy video-taped seminars with poor production values. i say all this from a former insider's perspective. when i was a fundamentalist, i heard of comfort through word of mouth. i found him fascinating and thought he was right about everything. i was really into him for about 2 years (about 2001-2003) and i couldn't believe that every christian i met (literally every one) would go "who?" when i mentioned his name. so did the nightline exposure bring comfort a bogger audience than he'd ever had before? without doubt. much, much bigger.




did it do the same for brian? absolutely. was comfort better known among christians than brian and the rrs? sure, but not nearly as much as you'd think. he was no falwell or dobson or haggard, not even close. for one thing (and i have to say this to the man's credit), he does seem to be the genuine article. not a speck of greed or conscious self-promotion adheres to his name.

I was actually responding to zara. You managed to sneak in while I was typing and I didn't notice after I'd posted.

Fwiw, I knew about Ray before the nightline debate. Before I knew about the RRS actually. Not by much, but at least a few months. Maybe a couple years. The forum I used to post on had a hardcore christian who I got in a number of debates with, and Ray was one of the idiots the guy liked to refer to.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:iwbiek wrote: i

Vastet wrote:
iwbiek wrote:


i agree with all that. i didn't mean brian was wrong to debate comfort, i was just saying we shouldn't be surprised comfort acted like he'd won a victory.




although i do have to say that, afaik, the nightline debate was the first and only time comfort has ever been on national network television. even among evangelicals, he was never terribly well known, even after he got his claws into kirk cameron. his media coverage has mostly consisted of crappy video-taped seminars with poor production values. i say all this from a former insider's perspective. when i was a fundamentalist, i heard of comfort through word of mouth. i found him fascinating and thought he was right about everything. i was really into him for about 2 years (about 2001-2003) and i couldn't believe that every christian i met (literally every one) would go "who?" when i mentioned his name. so did the nightline exposure bring comfort a bogger audience than he'd ever had before? without doubt. much, much bigger.




did it do the same for brian? absolutely. was comfort better known among christians than brian and the rrs? sure, but not nearly as much as you'd think. he was no falwell or dobson or haggard, not even close. for one thing (and i have to say this to the man's credit), he does seem to be the genuine article. not a speck of greed or conscious self-promotion adheres to his name.

I was actually responding to zara. You managed to sneak in while I was typing and I didn't notice after I'd posted.

Fwiw, I knew about Ray before the nightline debate. Before I knew about the RRS actually. Not by much, but at least a few months. Maybe a couple years. The forum I used to post on had a hardcore christian who I got in a number of debates with, and Ray was one of the idiots the guy liked to refer to.




well, now that i think of it, i think comfort's banana video was posted on ebaumsworld sometime around '04. that probably started him on the path to semi-household name more than anything else prior.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 Read a Christian website

 Read a Christian website about the debate and they did give some praise to Bill Nye. The site covers a large range of Christians, some of which accept evolution.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote: I would

ex-minister wrote:

 I would have agreed with Dawkins before this debate. And I saw a poll recently about "belief" in evolution. In 2009 more US people did believe but now the numbers are going the other way. What happened in 2009? 150 years since Darwin's book and a number of scientist put out books, Dawkins, Coyne and others. More promotion. It really does need to get out there and stay there. Go Bill Nye. 

I saw an editorial on... damn... I think it was on Gawker. Any way the guy said 50% of Americans believe in Creationism. I checked but the latest polls are around 45%.

I think the numbers are going the other direction. Even the members of my family, who are die hard god fearing, jesus believing nuts, believe in evolution. The only problem is they believe god made evolution happen. None of them believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Thoghts on the debate: I

Thoghts on the debate: I didn't like the format. Having to listen to 30 minutes of Ken Ham without being interrupted when he was spewing some of the most refined bullshit I've heard in a while, was really difficult. I think what should have happened is the two having a 10-15 minute intro each, followed by just back and forth. It would allow Nye to more effectively and obviously call Ham on his BS, and would make Ham address Bill's points more directly. Also, after several rounds of "the bible says this" and "you weren't there" people might see just how hollow Ham's arguments are. I still think it was a net win for the good guys, as Bill is a great educator, and what was most likely an overwhelming majority creationist audience got to hear him very concisely explain a lot of the evidence for evolution and an old Earth. I'm 100% sure that out of everyone watching (live and otherwise), it's possible that some creationists finished it with something in their head that bothers them because it conflicts with creationism. I'm also 100% that not a single non-creationist who watched that thought "Boy, Ken Ham has some good points".

That late question was simply great. "Ken, what would change your mind?" "I'm a Christian...etc. etc., therefore, nothing". "Bill, what would change your mind?" "Evidence." A body of evidence showing creationism to be plausible, or a single piece of evidence that makes the theory of evolution impossible. 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I actually thought Ken did

I actually thought Ken did make some good points, but he was mostly just spouting bs.
I thought Bill was nearly perfect. There was only one thing I thought he could have addressed that he didn't address, and I was disappointed he didn't because he could have skewered it in 30 seconds or less. The whole dating thing. Ken made a good showing that Bill let slide. It would have taken very little time to point out that carbon dating is simply ineffective when dealing with time scales beyond a few tens of thousands of years. And to further point out that each dating method will give different results precisely because different elements decay at different rates, and thus you just can't use every element to date every time period.

Other than that I thought Bill did far better than I expected.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 Vastet,why are you saying

 Vastet,

why are you saying radioactive dating is very limited? I haven't heard that before from a non YEC. Do u not trust using other elements besides carbon? I thought they all were within 1% accuracy even done correctly.

if what you saying is true then how can we know the earth is 4.6B yrs old? Is Ham right?

 

what about that thing Ham said a 12k year piece of wood was buried in rock millions of years old? Nye dismissed it saying the rock shelves moved the two parts together then Ham corrected him by saying the wood was embedded.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 I think this is what Ham

 I think this is what Ham was referring to...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v21/n3/dating-dillema

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I actually

Vastet wrote:
I actually thought Ken did make some good points, but he was mostly just spouting bs. I thought Bill was nearly perfect. There was only one thing I thought he could have addressed that he didn't address, and I was disappointed he didn't because he could have skewered it in 30 seconds or less. The whole dating thing. Ken made a good showing that Bill let slide. It would have taken very little time to point out that carbon dating is simply ineffective when dealing with time scales beyond a few tens of thousands of years. And to further point out that each dating method will give different results precisely because different elements decay at different rates, and thus you just can't use every element to date every time period. Other than that I thought Bill did far better than I expected.

What was Ken's good points?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Credibility

I acknowledge that it does no good to ignore creationists/apologists entirely,  as they can then claim that scientists are afraid of them.  However, I think some mechanism must be in place whereby creationists sustain some sort of genuine penalty each time they are caught being dishonest.  

As we've seen with Ray Comfort (and as I suspect we'll see now with Ham) it pays to be dishonest as creationist.  One might endure some ridicule from those with an actual interest in the truth; yet with the ridicule comes greater publicity, and with it higher revenues.  Such ignorance and dishonesty in a scientific field, however, would quickly put one out of a job.  

If debates like these are to occur, creationists need to be held to some comparable disincentive standard.      

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister

ex-minister wrote:

 Vastet,

why are you saying radioactive dating is very limited? I haven't heard that before from a non YEC. Do u not trust using other elements besides carbon? I thought they all were within 1% accuracy even done correctly.

if what you saying is true then how can we know the earth is 4.6B yrs old? Is Ham right?

 

what about that thing Ham said a 12k year piece of wood was buried in rock millions of years old? Nye dismissed it saying the rock shelves moved the two parts together then Ham corrected him by saying the wood was embedded.

I'm not saying the method is limited. But the materials are. Carbon is useless for dating anything more than 45,000 years old. Completely useless. Similarly, uranium is useless for anything less than 10,000 years old.
Elements decay at different rates. Which is why we use different elements to date different time periods. When Ken said that different methods give different results he was right. But Bill had the opportunity to explain why that is. Unfortunately he didn't take it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I actually thought Ken did make some good points, but he was mostly just spouting bs. I thought Bill was nearly perfect. There was only one thing I thought he could have addressed that he didn't address, and I was disappointed he didn't because he could have skewered it in 30 seconds or less. The whole dating thing. Ken made a good showing that Bill let slide. It would have taken very little time to point out that carbon dating is simply ineffective when dealing with time scales beyond a few tens of thousands of years. And to further point out that each dating method will give different results precisely because different elements decay at different rates, and thus you just can't use every element to date every time period. Other than that I thought Bill did far better than I expected.

What was Ken's good points?

First, understand that I'm speaking as if I didn't know (almost) everything they were talking about already. Which is likely the case for many people who watched the debate.

#1: dating methods. Ken was right, he just wasn't completely right.
#2: splitting science in two (observational/historical). Pure bs, but Bill let it slide so...
#3: the thing about the boats, where Ken said that a culture or two solved the twisting problem with interlocking hulls. I'm not actually sure if that's true or what the full details are, but it sounded good.
#4: the evolution shrub vs tree. Ken is wrong but if you don't know how it works his explanation is plausible. I'd have liked for Bill to deal with that but he probably didn't have time.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Re: the wood. I'm actually

Re: the wood. I'm actually pretty sure Ken said it was dated at being 45k years old. I'm not going to open it up and look to double check, but if that is what Ken said then it was the perfect opening. Since carbon dating is only effective up to about 45k years, anything older will show the same thing. All the carbon has decayed so something 4.5 billion years old will have the same test results as something 45k years old.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I actually thought Ken did make some good points, but he was mostly just spouting bs. I thought Bill was nearly perfect. There was only one thing I thought he could have addressed that he didn't address, and I was disappointed he didn't because he could have skewered it in 30 seconds or less. The whole dating thing. Ken made a good showing that Bill let slide. It would have taken very little time to point out that carbon dating is simply ineffective when dealing with time scales beyond a few tens of thousands of years. And to further point out that each dating method will give different results precisely because different elements decay at different rates, and thus you just can't use every element to date every time period. Other than that I thought Bill did far better than I expected.

What was Ken's good points?

First, understand that I'm speaking as if I didn't know (almost) everything they were talking about already. Which is likely the case for many people who watched the debate. #1: dating methods. Ken was right, he just wasn't completely right. #2: splitting science in two (observational/historical). Pure bs, but Bill let it slide so... #3: the thing about the boats, where Ken said that a culture or two solved the twisting problem with interlocking hulls. I'm not actually sure if that's true or what the full details are, but it sounded good. #4: the evolution shrub vs tree. Ken is wrong but if you don't know how it works his explanation is plausible. I'd have liked for Bill to deal with that but he probably didn't have time.

 

 

The one thing I wish every single person addressed when debating a creationist is the following (just before the 42 minute mark)

Hen Kam wrote:

Here's another problem that we've got. Not only has the word "science" been hijacked by secularists, I believe the word "evolution" has been hijacked by secularists. The word "evolution" has been hijacked using, what I call, a "bait-and-switch". Let me explain to you. The word "evolution" is being used in public school textbooks and we often see it in documentaries and so on, it's used for observable changes that we would agree with. And then, used for unobservable changes such as molecules to man.

No Ken. Stop lying to people! Evolution is not abiogenesis!

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Good point. I guess I'm so

Good point. I guess I'm so used to it I didn't even notice that bit went unchallenged.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
From what I saw of it, Mr.

From what I saw of it, Mr. Nye seems to play nice and not want to attack religion too much. He seemed to say to Christians 'you can believe in evolution without giving up your bible'. He pointed to theists that believed in evolution as examples they should follow.

I don't think someone that finds religion is poison would ever get to debate a theist in a public forum covered by large media outlets. The media conspires to control what the public at large is allowed to hear.

In a strange way, I kind of respect Ham more than Nye. At least Ham has the courage of his convictions(although he may just be in it for the money and attention). It seems like if one is intellectually honest, you'll either be a nutty "the earth is only 6000 years old" fundy or a "religion is poison" atheist. The moderate theists and atheists are cowards, only interested in not offending anyone than seeking the truth.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If you spend all your time

If you spend all your time and effort pissing people off you'll never convince them they are wrong. A lesson the majority of America needs to learn.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
WOW

 I would not have guessed the Southern Baptist Pat Robertson accepted the Big Bang and theist evolution. Pegged him for a YEC

 

 

http://youtu.be/I37wUKtX810

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Also important to note is

Also important to note is that Ken Ham constantly re-iterated this important distinction between observational and historical science. Then when he was discussing the common ancestor of all dogs, he said it was discovered that they were all the same dog (rather than more than one off-shoot of a wolf). May I ask what type of science was used to prove this? Hmm, the same analysis of DNA that shows us that we ALL have a common ancestor? Dishonest, stupid, or deluded...not sure which. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I would have laughed so hard

I would have laughed so hard if Bill had just drawn a few lines tying those 'shrubs' together into a tree.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:It seems like if

EXC wrote:
It seems like if one is intellectually honest, you'll either be a nutty "the earth is only 6000 years old" fundy or a "religion is poison" atheist. The moderate theists and atheists are cowards, only interested in not offending anyone than seeking the truth.



what does that mean, "intellectually honest"? again, this is what i was talking about in another thread. ever since the middle ages, man has got it in his head that we're somehow "cheating" if we don't swallow our ideologies whole. everybody, theist and atheist, throws around words like "cherry-picking" as a pejorative, but i advocate it as the rational faculty at work. we ought to have enough sense to take what's beneficial and leave the rubbish. then again, for those who like to debate it's frustrating because it makes it difficult for us to draw assumptions about a person's position. i think that's why so many don't like it.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson