Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

This is frustrating to watch. Ken doesn't address half of the points, and the other half is answered by "The Bible".

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure why I was expecting anything different.

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

It was pretty interesting! Thanks for bringing that up! Ken's bit were sometime cringe worthy but otherwise pretty interesting as a whole.

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

I caught the last minute of the debate. I'll have to go stream an archive version of it later

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

Ken is a really REALLY bad guy to represent the religious side haha. He is a joke in the upper leagues of religious studies.

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

To be 100% honest, I wasn't even satisfied with Nye's responses.

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

I'm sure he had to dumb it down because

you know

Kentucky

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

Ken Ham's argument in a nutshell:

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

Well thanks for making me laugh....rawr.

-RARAWR

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

Agreed. He didn't do a very good job as far as debating goes; Ken was a much better talker and addressed the questions more directly. Nye focused a lot of his time repeating things like asking Ken Ham how Creationism will be able to predict the future, exclaiming how much joy discovery brings him, and he kept lobbying for science to stay in curriculum for economic reasons which although true was always out of place in the context of the debate and repeated way too often imo.

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

It was quite frustrating. It almost felt like Ken's debate was mostly constructed to have so many things asked of Bill that would be impossible to address and still have a point of his own that wasn't just refuting the other frustrating points.

I especially disliked the "Hey, we have successful scientists that believe in the bible's scripture. We want to encourage the success that they have accomplished, which we attribute in part to the biblical teachings" and using those guests and whatnot.

He was also by in large preaching to the choir. The fact that it was taking place in a creationist (pet cemetary? lol) museum seemed to draw in a biased crowd, from their reactions when clapping was heard/facial expressions/when jokes were made and the audience was shown.

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

Pointless debate, at its core. I liked some of the audience questions though, because they intentionally tried to rustle the debaters jimmies.

Also, if I hear the term "Historical Science" again, I might have an aneurysm.

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

Creationism is quite possibly the most laughable argument to be made. It truly is disappointing that these debates need to take place to sway general opinion in a state in order to keep science in a child's education.

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

Talking about fish asexually reproducing

"This is a real chin stroker"

Made me giggle

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

I agree with the points made here about not feeling satisfied by either side. Then I realized near the end that all of this arguing and debating is futile, since nothing will seem to change their belief system. Became obvious pretty quickly that Bill was more interested in selling his pitch about science education...over and over again.

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

Well, he IS Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

I mean, I understand the reasons behind reaching out to the audience instead of beating the opponent, but I felt like his appeals were really transparent and not all that convincing (IMO). All too often I found myself frustrated: "There are so many better examples you could be using!"

I more or less understand where religious types are coming from with their logic, and so when approaching Bill's arguments with that mindset, none of his arguments were that effective because there was always a really obvious hole that was left unaddressed.

IMO, if your goal is to convince people to ask questions and pursue science instead of being stifled by dogma, you have to address the core points of confusion and give really good examples.

For instance, he used the fossil record to explain how old shit was found below less-old shit, and that is strong evidence in favor of evolution etc. And yet when Ham brought up the basalt rock + wood thing, Bill just said "maybe the rock went over the wood" or something like that. If I were a religious person, I'd be asking, "Well, that was sure convenient, can't we say the same about the fossil record, then?"

I would focus on complexity. The core of the religious mindset with respect to the universe is that the universe is so grand -- so complex -- so beautiful, that it had to have been created. So, show how awesome shit forms naturally. At least, this is what worked for me back when I had a religious belief or two.



This video fucking blew my mind when I first saw it, and I realized then there was so much about biology/science that I hadn't been taught and had never learned. I found it genuinely interesting, and as I learned more, it became obvious that we don't need a designer to explain anything.

Of course, I still think this is the most mindblowing video of all time:



Universe, made for us? LOL.

The universe is large because it had to be. Same logic behind evolution -- albeit on a cosmic scale. You have a shitload of variation in star systems, planets, matter clouds, forces, etc. Some of those are going to have conditions ripe for biological evolution to take place. As usual, the answer is in math + stats + natural science.

If the universe were small with limited variation, we wouldn't be here -- which means I wouldn't be writing this, and you wouldn't be reading it. Anthropic principle, etc.

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

I do find it funny that a mechanical engineer was chosen to debate this topic. But he's pretty much one of the only scientists Americans know

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

Not CT aside:

How Bill Nye wins the debate:

Re: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, live debate, going on now
 

Honestly, I find it ridiculous that this is even being discussed still. Only in America, only in America...

The one major point Ham makes is that evolution is "historical science", and therefore can't be observed. All we need to do is explain to everyone that understanding science allows us to understand natural phenomena, which gives us the capability to accurately understand the relationship between cause and effect. This means that if we know the present CAUSE, we can predict the future EFFECT ("observational science"). If we know the present EFFECT, we can predict the past CAUSE ("historical science"). This is how our science allows us to understand the past: by piecing together many clues and using our understanding of the world, not reading a fucking book with many scenarios that can't be replicated/stimulated with current technology.