Skip to comments.Ham-on-Nye debate pits atheists, creationists
Posted on 02/03/2014 5:44:47 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
Bill Nye may be The Science Guy, but Ken Ham is the Answers in Genesis man, and a debate between the two over the origins of life has nonbelievers and Christians wringing their hands.
Nye, host of a beloved television science series, and Ham, president of a creationist apologetics ministry, will meet at the Creation Museum, where Ham is also the president, on Feb. 4. In what some wags are calling the Ham-on-Nye debate, they will weigh this question: Is creation a viable model of origins?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
In recent years, however, they have adopted the "shut up" method of discussion...many evolutionists are NOT HAPPY about Bill Nye taking on Mr. Ham.
By the way, I believe this debate will be available on a LIVE STREAM tomorrow, February 4.
Yes, it will be available for free online. Many churches are hosting live events to watch the debate.
What model ?? ID says ‘its here, just appeared one day long ago. we can never go beyond that. Now try to prove that wrong’
That's hardly a model.
Back in the 1700s and 1800s Creationism was the paradigm.
But then the Ark got overloaded by new finds and sunk it.
When IDers propose a model for how ID got it all here then there is something to debate,.
Ham will soundly defeat Nye
Any discussion on the anger Nye will show at his being ignored?
That is an incredibly inaccurate description of the ID position. Perhaps you should watch the debate.
You could start by reading this entire post here:
“Information Theorypart 1: overview of key ideas (article)”.
Then you could get a copy of Werner Gitt’s book, write a rebuttal to it, get it published, present and/or debate the issue live in a few dozen places, and that would be a good start.
Here is my prediction on the debate: (I’m hosting a local simulcast, btw.)
Ham will win the debate,
he will lose in the media,
and he will be vindicated by God in heaven, at the end of time
(which, by the way, is also one of God’s creations).
,,, I gotta admit, that’s a clever headline!!!!
Robert M Hazen, “genesis: The Scientific Quest For Life’s Origin”
Also some of his lectures on YouTube are very interesting. And he’s not beyond God doing it. It’s just that he sees biogenesis as a very vexing problem.
Heh heh. Does want to calculate the odds that life or the universe could appear spontaneously?
It should be noted that in the famous Darrow/Bryan “Scopes” court case, ALL those from local and regional newspapers thought Bryan won. It was only the national metropolitan reporters who thought Darrow won.
Hmmm.... that’s interesting.
Not surprising at all.
Yep, and the vast majority of the public was backing Bryan too.
Lawyers basically followed a similar tactic in Roe vs Wade, they simply wanted a landmark case they could use to try to change public opinion.
I don’t see anything that looks like a theory or model at they link you gave me.
Its still ‘What they say cant be true because....’ which is no different than ‘Scientific’ Creationists scam.
“It is all a big mystery and we can never guess how everything came to be’ is not an alternative, which is why they love debating. Ya cant disprove nothing, only something can be falsified.
I imagine it's for two reasons. One, nothing will be accomplished. When the dust settles, the supporters of Creationism will still support creationism and the supporters of evolution will still support evolution. All is does is give creationism a thin covering of science. And two, come on. It's Bill Nye, a kids show host. Do you want people to think he's speaking for you?
Yeah, OK, like evolution strictly follows the scientific method - anything historically-based is not a hard science. It does not follow the scientific method. It is neither observable nor repeatable. And it is not falsifiable so it really doesn’t matter who is included in the debate, just a bunch of hot air [no, not referring to global warming - another hoax of our times].
You realize you just describe creationism to a tee as well, don't you?
Spoken like a true product of public school education.
There is some truth to that, however the fact that evolutionists have falsified different evolutionary theories when new finds didn't fit them sets it apart from Creationist science.
Creationism Science is just ‘Look over there, don't look over here. Everything just appeared a few thousand years ago and that's all there is too it. Now lets get back to those missing bones’
Well, Bryan actually won the local court case too.
Did my answer go over your head? Do I have to re-post it uaing smaller words?
I submit that 'creationism science' is an oxymoron.
They invented the term in attempts to get it taught in science classes, problem is that the same creationists would contradict themselves when arguing with other Christians about it.
That’s a clever title... I don’t care who ya are...
That post also showed blazing ignorance of the “biology” of the Ark.
Ken Ham has also done a lot more research than Nye on this topic. He’ll mop the floor with him.
You're setting your bar pretty low when talking about beating a TV show host. But I would question how much 'research' is involved in Creationism. Isn't it all there in the Bible in black and white? What's to research?
I’ve seen that argument as well - lowering expectations for Nye in order to make his defeat less ignoble.
The “what” is in the bible, but not so much the “how”. The evidence is what is to be researched in order to refute the interpretation of the secularists whose goal is not “science” but a refutation of God.
Well now that’s not the complete truth either. There is not just one evolution nor creation theory and the debunking depends upon who you are talking to.
But this one hydroplate theory [yes, it does include more science than you might think and predictions too] is better than any evolutionary theory because it gives the cleanest overall interpretation of all the signs imho of course...
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Define defeat? Convert people from evolution to creationism? I don't see that happen; there is nothing new in the creationism argument that might convert someone. It's all been said before. Convert people from creationism to evolution? If it hasn't happened yet then nothing Nye could ever say could make it happen. It's an exercise in futility, a publicity stunt, a paycheck for Nye.
The what is in the bible, but not so much the how.
Sure it is. God did it. God separated dark from light, firmament from water, and on the fifth and sixth days created all the animals of the Earth as well and man and woman in the exact condition that they exist today. What more research do creationist require in that respect?
The evidence is what is to be researched in order to refute the interpretation of the secularists whose goal is not science but a refutation of God.
What if the evidence refutes Genesis? Does it no longer become evidence but is instead heresy?
You’ll notice I referenced the
of the evidence that refutes Genesis.
The funny thing about secularists is that they don’t allow for other interpretations and don’t recognize their own assumptions that lead to the interpretations that support their assumptions.
I have read a number of Creationist Science books.
That link under evidence of Creation cites the standard Creationist argument that its improbable that the building blocks of life came together by pure random accident.
That argument is exactly how I stated it, that it doesn’t support the non-existent Creationist theory, it just straw mans an origin of life theory, which is meant to discredit evolution.
But there is no alternative provided.
So there is nothing to debate.
Its like saying we need to get rid of Obamacare while claiming an alternative is that no-one ever gets sick.
Sorry I could not agree less with your analogy.
Mathematicians [not christians] are the single highest group percentage that reject the theory of evolution b/c the odds of random chance producing life are staggering - so small it’s not worthy of being called a theory.
Plus it is the evolution crowd which abandoned abiogenesis - so there is no foundation just this gigantic assumption of a single cell starting point. There is not only stasis in the fossil record but zero evo explanation for polystrate fossils too. I could go on and on but their is no point b/c your crowd simply ignores all their major problems or declares them off limits while slinging crap at creation.
Even information theory strikes a blow against random chance b/c you could not be having this conversations over several different communication layers w/o their being an ultimate creator at each and every level. The inter-connnectedness of life also tells the tale of the need for an intelligence far above anything man could ever accomplish.
It’s God you’ll have to answer to someday not me. The evidence against evolution is simply staggering. Pastor John MacArthur summed it up best ‘You simply love your sin more than you love your God.’
Not smaller words, but deeper and more logical premises, as opposed to the vitriol and vile insinuation IMPLIED by your post.
No, you were “uaing”, as you put it, your public school education about as well as can be expected.
like those trees whose roots are millions of years (according to their strata) older than their tops? :)
Anyway, I recommend it.
See? What did I tell you? All sorts of evolutionists were EAGER to debate those men who, though educated in the sciences, were convinced of the evidence of a Creator...there are records of all sorts of debates...but NOW, the evolution side is NOT interested in debate...and it ISN'T because their side "won" when the two ideas were put side by side.
I submit it is because they weren't able to defend their conclusions in an adequate fashion.
Think about it; if the evolutionists were mopping the floor with every "creationist", they'd be HAPPY to go prove them wrong over and over....but, uh, they CANNOT do that. So they just say "Shut up."
Here are some youtube debates between two differing sides:
The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate]
Intelligent Design vs. Evolution - Stephen Meyer vs. Peter Ward (rematch)
Sponsored by the Seattle Times
Does Science Point to Intelligent Design? (William Dembski vs Robert Shapiro)
See post 40
Conveniently forgetting what Albert Einstein said about gravitational time dilation...
Starlight and Time by Russell Humpheys
The key to the starlight and age of the universe is ‘gravitational time dilation’.
Here is how these debates end, The final one is with God, and it does NOT last very long.
Another big chink in their armor is what Darwin himself said about his theory - the reason why they need more than just a single transitional fossil.
“If you do not find thousands upon thousands of missing links then my theory completely falls apart.”
“Shut up”, the liberal argues...
Back then they didnt understand the creationist rules of the game, and what you are calling debate is just a game.
Evolutionists are absolutely the wrong ones to get involved with this and the reason is simple.
Creationists want to talk about EVERYTHING but Creation, that is their game to be critical with nothing to defend. That is why they admit that they don't EVEN think its science. So to be on equal footing those debating them just need to be experts at Creationism writings and the first Book of Moses Genesis writings, not evolution.
Because Creationists refuse to come up with a ‘theory’ to defend its up to their opponent to create it for them.
Start with the two completely different Creation stories and the two completely different Flood stories, demand that they explain how all four can be scientific history when they are nothing a like.
I get to do some math for work from time to time and if Creationists were debating that A (Creation) is better than B(evolution) using probabilities then they would argue that Prob(A happened)>Prob(B happened) but they don't, they just talk about B as if that proves A.
They argue that Prob (evolution=B ) is small so Creation =A must be true but that's just a false premise for the know nothings. They are not mutually exclusive.
No matter how small the probability is of the straw men that Creationists create for evolution, its still bigger than zero which is what Creationists off for P(A),
Pretty amazing those evolutionists, with all their degrees and knowledge “didn’t understand the creationist rules of the game...” You’d think with their superior worldview, they’d mop the floor with those rubes. :)
Something else evolutionists like to do is change the terms...so they can run around with their fingers in their ears, saying “You’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re a religious nut and you’re wrong!” Such is the simple translation of their position.
Bottom line, they lose or draw even in the public arena—they don’t WIN like they thought they would.
They remind me of Brave Sir Robin.
Con men have certain skills that others don't refine , bait and switch etc., you dont try to outcon them, you hide your money from them.
Thats not what those evolutionists are about so they don't belong in the creationists circus show.
Creationists admit up front “ Creationism is not science”, so there is nothing for an evolutionist to discuss with them.
Those who understand Creationistm and the literal text of Geneis are the ones that should be debating Creationists,
How did all the kinds safely get from the landed Ark to remote areas of the world in twos?
Which version of creation in the Bible is the literal truth?
Which version of Noah's Ark flood in the Bible is the literal truth?
Those are questions to ask a creationist who admits they are not about science,
That has nothing to do with evolutionists theories so they wouldnt know to ask them,.
Lawrence O Donnell on lib station MSNBC was telling his viewers to watch this ‘debate’ tonight so that should tell you its just another fiasco.