Posted on 02/06/2014 1:58:22 PM PST by celmak
On many mornings, I wake up and think, “You know what this country needs? More culture war.” As I scramble up a couple eggs, I find myself wishing—fervently wishing—that we could spend more time reducing substantive issues to mere spectacle. Later, as I scrub the pan, I’ll fantasize about how those very spectacles might even funnel money toward some of the country’s most politicized religious groups.
Fortunately, Bill “the Science Guy” Nye has heard my wish—which, really, is the wish of a nation. Why else would he have traveled to Kentucky this week in order to debate Ken Ham, the young-earth creationist founder of Answers in Genesis, about the origins of the world?
Actually, there are two other reasons that Nye might have done so, and I’ve given both possibilities a great deal of thought in the past few days. The first is that Nye, for all his bow-tied charm, is at heart a publicity-hungry cynic, eager to reestablish the national reputation he once had as the host of a PBS show. When his stint on Dancing With the Stars ended quickly, Nye turned to the only other channel that could launch him back to national attention: a sensationalized debate, replete with the media buzz that he craves.
Possibility number two is that Nye is clueless—that, for all his skill as a science communicator, Nye has less political acumen than your average wombat.
After watching the debate, I’m leaning toward that second possibility. Last night, it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I would watch on PPV him debating Richard Lindgren of MIT about the extent of man made global warming and the extent to which it would be considered a higher priority than the economy and employment. Nye has argued that our economy and our unemployment should take a backseat to global warming: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/09/bill-nye-the-science-guy-climate-change-more-important-than-economy-video/
The bent (not cracked) strata that is supposed to be tens of thousands of years old must have been bent while it was still wet.
Also, Mt. St. Helens shows that layers can form in days instead of thousands of years,
An island that appeared about 50 years ago would appear to be millions of year old to an old-earther or evolutionist that needs the god of time to prop up his unobserved theory.
Ask the evolutionists “Were you there?”
The creation of the earth was not observed by any humans on the earth. Ken Ham has the only Eyewitness on his side.
I watched the Debate and it was obvious to everyone that Bill Nye lost as he could not answer the most simple questions and even had to admit tact he was not there at the Creation.
But Nye is really irrelevant here. Most people don't understand what the Wedge Strategy is, or that it's a front for literal Young Earth Creationism and flood geology. This is going to open a lot of eyes.
Maybe I am slow on the uptake here, but what, exactly is the reason why, if you take everyone in the scientific community in any given Western city, you can count the number of people who believe in creationism on one hand and in some cases on an amputee’s hand?
LOL! Took the words right out of my mouth!
Or perhaps because he can't?
Some serious scientists.
Just because Ham uses Biblical evangelism rather than hard science (they’re both true, btw) doesn’t discount the fact that God created the world, and the evidence points to a young earth.
-JS
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllllllllllly?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3108026/posts?page=3#3
You can follow that month-old thread in its entirety to get a sense of what I -- and many others -- said about Bill Nye when this "debate" between these two morons was first announced.
If that's not enough for you, try this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3110749/posts?page=9#9
I can go back further if you want to know what I've been saying about Bill Nye all along, but I gather you aren't an evidence-based person, so it's probably a waste of my time.
You and your friends in the flat earth society can have all the debates with nincompoops that you like, and declare victory among your know-nothing selves, and I really don't care. But I am not going to sit here and have you tell me that this absolute dope is a scientist, or that he's "my guy."
He isn't. He's a person with a BS in engineering who's never even used his technical training. And more importantly, he's a charlatan and a fool.
I’ve heard Creationists debate Evolutionists without even mentioning the Bible. And won. The Evolutionist kept bringing up the Bible and the Creationist guy kept coming back to their arguments and blowing them away.
Link to that debate would be helpful.
What's more amazing is that a small subset comprised solely of evangelical creationists have convinced themselves that the entirety of the scientific studies of geology, paleontology, biology, and cosmology, are all completely wrong by huge orders of magnitude.
Even the 9/11 Truthers, Moon Hoax people, and Ancient Alien peddlers snicker at a 6,000 year old Earth.
RE: Or perhaps because he can’t?
Well, those who were sympathetic to Ken Ham claim that there are good answers to those points.
See here for instance:
http://crev.info/2014/02/bill-nye-scores
http://crev.info/2014/02/fact-checkers-spin-doctors-creation-debate/
Nye didn’t address a lot of Ham’s questions either.
RE: Link to that debate would be helpful.
See Post# 26
I think it is due to fundamental flaws in the subject of Christian science and how biblical Christians attempt to interpret and explain science phenomenon. The creationist in this debate was lucky that Nye is rather bad science debater who quite possibly couldn’t even beat creationist who argued that the earth was created when an ancient Roman God got sick and vomited it up.
The unfortunate truth is that the state of Christian science one reason why conservative, traditional Christians find themselves on the losing end of numerous key social issues. And why Christian science is indeed in dire need of improvement.
THAT'S funny!
In this creationist family we have one meteorologist, two physicists, and two engineers.
Hardly not involved with science types.
But once they understand the creationism is actually a total rejection of science and is a cover for a repackaging of George McReady Price's flood geology, I think you'll see a decrease in adherence.
No it's not. That's nothing more than a liberal talking point. I know plenty of Christians who believe in creation who are practicing scientists, some of whom have PhD's in their scientific fields and teach at local secular universities.
Believing that God created the universe does not by default translate into a blanket rejection of science.
And for one, I do not give a rip whether the pope believes anything, much less his opinion on evolution.
Not this debate, the other one that the poster was talking about.
People so hugely impressed with the idea that Professor Proton admitted he wasn't present at the creation don't seem to realize that if that argument holds water, then either every creation myth is true, or the oldest one is true [because that "witness" was demonstrably there before anyone else.]
If it's the oldest one, then the creation account given in a book of Jewish legends isn't even close to being true. If it's every myth, then there are uncountable numbers of Gods, and the world is, among other things, riding on the back of an elephant or made out of dung.
That's not science, it's marketing.
I'm amazed that Freeper creationists are abandoning the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design and throwing their weight behind the geology and paleontology equivalent of alchemy instead of sticking to the Wedge Strategy.
Ham just sent a shot across the bow in the creationist movement, and the Discovery Institute ain't happy.
Here's David Klinghoffer, who runs the Discovery Institute, the main center of Intelligent Design:
Regarding that Creationism Debate Pitting Bill Nye Against Ken Ham, Here's My Guilty Admission
More seriously, I would like the world to get a good look at a genuine creationist: what he says, how he argues, what questions animate him. It's been among the more dishonest tactics of ID's critics to paint intelligent design as just another shade of "creationism." The more people watch Ham debate Nye, the better they will be able to appreciate the stark contrast between advocates of intelligent design and those of creationism.
So even the Intelligent Design advocates are worried, saying "No no! Don't lump us in with those crazy Young Earth creationists like Ham, please!"
Please have the PhD physicists in your family sign in to your account and explain how the world is 6,000 years old.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.