• Hello everybody! We have tons of new awards for the new year that can be requested through our Awards System thanks to Antifa Lockhart! Some are limited-time awards so go claim them before they are gone forever...

    CLICK HERE FOR AWARDS

Feb. 4th 2014: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham on Evolution and Creationism



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS
Status
Not open for further replies.

Nyangoro

Break the Spell
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
12,503
Awards
5
Age
33
Location
Somewhere 2D
I am so sorry that I underestimated Bill Nye. His passion and skill as an educator shows.

Thought he would get caught in Ham's traps, but he kept straight and focused. You could tell how flustered this made Ham by the end of it.

Now, this debate doesn't (and was never going to) put the issue to bed once and for all. But I have no doubt that he planted that scientific curiosity in at least some of the minds who watched.
 

Dreaded_Desire62

bronze member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
5,422
Awards
2
Age
31
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Website
gmail.com
I am so sorry that I underestimated Bill Nye. His passion and skill as an educator shows.

Thought he would get caught in Ham's traps, but he kept straight and focused. You could tell how flustered this made Ham by the end of it.

Now, this debate doesn't (and was never going to) put the issue to bed once and for all. But I have no doubt that he planted that scientific curiosity in at least some of the minds who watched.

You're probably not the only one that under-estimated him. It's possible that Ken Ham is going to say, "See, see, I totally owned that Nye guy!"
 

Pinwheel

The Origin
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
6,687
Awards
8
Nothing was ever intended to be solved, really. Bill Nye even said in an interview prior to this all that neither of them expected to change the others' mind.

I will say though, what pissed me off the most was Ken Ham slipping in that "God created marriage, between a man and a woman" like FOUR FUCKING TIMES. It was so irrelevant and augh fuck I've been so annoyed for a few hours.
 

Nyangoro

Break the Spell
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
12,503
Awards
5
Age
33
Location
Somewhere 2D
I've seen people, commenting on the debate, criticize Bill Nye for not actively refuting Ken Ham's version of logic, but instead choosing to ignore and let him prattle on. And it's true, Bill Nye isn't really a debater, and this particular debate doesn't really show him otherwise. However, I think refusing to entertain Ken Ham's unrelated and often ridiculous claims was the right choice. Bill Nye may not be a debater, but he is an educator. Rather than spend all his time trying to correct a man who admitted that he cannot be won over and use that as an avenue to convince the audience, he instead chose a route more suited to him. He used the opportunity to explain his case to the audience in as simple a way as he could, something he's done for years. While Ken Ham struggled to twist Nye's arm and get him to debate within his own tautology, Nye chose instead to appeal primarily to his audience. He wanted to spark a little curiosity in them by laying out some very simple evidence and explanations, and that's probably the best way he could have handled this debate.

In a sense, this wasn't much of a debate. Scientists have avoided getting into debates with creationists for years for this exact reason. It's not really a debatable issue (at least not to any meaningful conclusion at this point). Rather, it was an opportunity to teach. And Nye revels in that.
 
Last edited:

OmniChaos

The Smiling Man
Staff member
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
5,652
Awards
12
Location
Panopticon
I consider myself a Christian, but Ken Ham's opening statement alone annoyed the hell out of me. What he explained is what I feel is the biggest problem with most Christians (maybe apart from my generation), and that is the keeping of science out of religion. In my opinion, science and religion go hand in hand.

And to give my two cents: I believe God created the universe via the Big Bang, but the concept of God creating the Earth in six days, 6000 years ago, is absolutely absurd. Hell, nowhere in the Bible is it even implied that the Earth was created 6000 years ago.
 

Reagan Rayden

Exploding Man
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
7,085
Awards
6
I have the same feelings as a Christian. There will never be a time of understanding when we continue to "debate" that one side is wrong and only one side is right.
 

inasuma

i'm gonna be
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
1,289
Awards
23
Location
Indigo Plateau
I have the same feelings as a Christian. There will never be a time of understanding when we continue to "debate" that one side is wrong and only one side is right.

I don't think this debate was necessarily about evolution/creation being right or wrong. Here is the prompt for the debate: "Is creation a viable model for modern science?" (or something to that effect).

What's being asked is can there be a common ground that allows validation to creation as a theory in the realm of science. The answer of course is no, because most religion-fueled "theories" tend to be considered "irrefutable" by those who support them. Just think about what Ken Ham said about the bible being unmovable as an argument. He can't even admit he could be wrong. That's a fundamental aspect of science; if you're wrong, you're praised for you've been further enlightened (just as Nye said).

Bill Nye probably already knew this which is why he didn't spend as much time debating as he did teaching and encouraging viewers to think for themselves and preserve (and grow) science education. It's a damn shame Kentucky doesn't have nuclear medicine.

I agree, debating if one side is wrong or right is a bad idea. But this was not about that (even if it ended up getting to that point toward the latter stages of the debate).
 

Shinra

Banned
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
7,176
Awards
1
I'm glad people on this thread are talking intelligently on this thread because to me very few christians I know are willing to believe what I say as a possibility when I talk about science... even when they formerly believed what I said before being converted. but after converting to christianity/cathlicism, they just abandoned the knowledge they had for blind faith. not to say that it's true for all chrisitians/cathlics as proven here in this thread.
 

Gram

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,615
Awards
5
It's a damn shame Kentucky doesn't have nuclear medicine.

u_u Kentucky's problem is it has to much medication already. *local kentuckian here*
 

Pinwheel

The Origin
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
6,687
Awards
8
Just to gauge interest because I'm actually pretty into the idea, how do you guys feel on a Creationism vs. Evolution debate thread? I'd love to have one after the stir this debate caused, though I'm not entirely sure there's many creationists on this forum, let alone if they'd be interested.
 

Dreaded_Desire62

bronze member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
5,422
Awards
2
Age
31
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Website
gmail.com
Just to gauge interest because I'm actually pretty into the idea, how do you guys feel on a Creationism vs. Evolution debate thread? I'd love to have one after the stir this debate caused, though I'm not entirely sure there's many creationists on this forum, let alone if they'd be interested.

It could be an interesting an idea. Especially, since there are different ideas of Creationism, well...Young Earth versus Old Earth Creationism versus Evolution. I'll be honest, growing up I never understood how someone could think that the world is younger than 10,000 years old. Math isn't really my strong suit and I am taking art history, which basically uses different dating techniques like relative dating and absolute dating.
 

Nutari

The Scotsman
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
2,855
Awards
7
Location
Milwaukee
Just to gauge interest because I'm actually pretty into the idea, how do you guys feel on a Creationism vs. Evolution debate thread? I'd love to have one after the stir this debate caused, though I'm not entirely sure there's many creationists on this forum, let alone if they'd be interested.

I'd be down. Unfortunately, I'll have to find new sources since I lost my term paper on the subject when my old hard drive wouldn't take to my new mother board (Sometime last year). I know I'm one of few creationists around here, so I'd be relatively alone. But hey, it's all good. I just don't know how active I could be.

It could be an interesting an idea. Especially, since there are different ideas of Creationism, well...Young Earth versus Old Earth Creationism versus Evolution. I'll be honest, growing up I never understood how someone could think that the world is younger than 10,000 years old. Math isn't really my strong suit and I am taking art history, which basically uses different dating techniques like relative dating and absolute dating.

One idea to chew on is, biblically speaking, Adam was created a man, not a child, so, who's to say that the earth wasn't created with age? I'm not sure I entirely believe the earth was created with age, since there is no true biblical evidence for such things.
 
Last edited:

blksabbath74

New member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
629
Age
49
Location
Birmingham AL
I don't understand why Christians and other people of faith allow themselves to be backed into supporting something so absurd as the pseudo-scientific Creation theories being floated around.

Like what, God can't work through evolution or particle physics?

Read Henri Bergson's Creative Evolution and mentally evolve...
 

Nutari

The Scotsman
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
2,855
Awards
7
Location
Milwaukee
I don't understand why Christians and other people of faith allow themselves to be backed into supporting something so absurd as the pseudo-scientific Creation theories being floated around.

Like what, God can't work through evolution or particle physics?

Read Henri Bergson's Creative Evolution and mentally evolve...

Hey, watch what you say man. No need to start a flame war. The reason we can't back up Natural Selection? Because that implies God was hands off, and that God doesn't really do anything. Natural Selection indicates that nature, through its intricacies and rules (completely paraphrasing here), rids the ecosystem of certain species of animals/plants/etc. etc. Which basically says that God just let the Earth create itself after setting things into motion, which the Bible clearly shows otherwise. He created every thing on the Earth. Just remember, we do have evidence to suggest that animal species, plants, whatever, have died off and what not. Nature still has it's own intricacies and laws, but that doesn't mean the Earth as we know it came about through Natural Selection.

Where a lot of people get goofed on the facts of what we believe as Christians (generally speaking) is that God created the Earth and everything in it, AND then these laws of nature came into play. It is also suggested that at the fall, the Earth was cursed with death as well, and thus begins the idea of the survival of the fittest. So, this is conjecture and theory on my part, but what we see of Natural Selection is the Earth sustaining what it can, and is a result of the Fall, not a result of how the Earth developed everything from the beginning. I hope this makes at least a little sense.
 

Nyangoro

Break the Spell
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
12,503
Awards
5
Age
33
Location
Somewhere 2D
Adding to that, let me just clarify that natural selection isn't something so complicated as to follow a lot of "intricacies and rules." It's actually exceedingly straightforward. It's just that scientists love using "big" words for the simplest of events because they need to make sure everything is carefully defined. Then, when that definition reaches us, it sounds like a lot of science-y babble.

When you get down to it, all natural selection states is that if you're good at surviving in your environment, then you're more likely to reproduce. Naturally, the ones that reproduce are the ones that get their genes carried over to the next generation. Natural selection isn't about complex natural laws and formulas. It's really just a term used to describe a statement that follows logically: If your genes let you live long enough to reproduce, then those genes will be carried over into the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top