News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Bill Nye vs Ken Ham

Started by Jutter, February 05, 2014, 01:57:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shiranu

Bill Nye didn't change Ham's mind, I agree with that. The thing is that debates generally aren't for the debaters, its for the audience. If he changed even one person's mind into looking into scientific explanations for the universe than the debate was worth it.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Shol'va

I thought that point was taken for granted so I didn't even touch on it, good that you mentioned it Shiranu.
Nothing will convince Ham and all the rest. Nothing. And I suspect their conduct is not even a true reflection of their beliefs; I think they are motivated by money and other personal reasons.

Plu

QuoteI agree, bill continually challenged people throughout the debate to "check for yourself". Those were not the words from the mouth of ken, he just kept referring to the bible as his proof! Hilariously at some points!!!

Possibly the most powerful thing he could've said. Don't accept the authority of others, see for yourself what is true. If even one person took that advice to heart then I think Nye will consider the debate worth it.

The Skeletal Atheist

I think one nice thing here is that this was streamed in churches across the country. Now I imagine adults watching already made up their minds, but they brought their kids along. Young, questioning minds may have been further strengthened by this, and that's why I consider it worthwhile.
Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

Shol'va

Yeah, I think the percentage of closeted atheists went up by a non-negligible amount  :rollin:

chiselpeak

Hello all. I was excited to see the Nye/Ham debate on youtube and decided to join this forum.

I have to give Bill Nye full credit for doing this debate in the Creationist Museum. If it was me I'd have been wearing some sort of deflective clothing. I am also extremely glad this type of event is happening in our world and it shows that progress is being made against the dark ages. That being said, cheerleaders don't help make improvements and in the name of science I offer some constructive criticism.

I could see the circular arguments and dodgery of Ham was getting frustrating for Bill Nye the scientist and I think this may have caused Bill Nye the public speaker to miss some juicy targets. I also thought Bill got side tracked and brought up scientific points that may have been valid but they didn't support his argument against Ham and were probably over the heads of the target audience. Ironically I think Bill wound up "preaching to the choir" which I don't believe was his intention for this debate. I also think that asking a creationist to scientifically predict something over and over was an exercise in futility. It was good food for thought when Bill mentioned it once or twice but using that idea over and over  left the ball in Ham's court where all he had to do was hit it sideways to keep the support of his followers.

I couldn't have done this debate better than Nye, nor do I think I am smarter him. I just thought there were a few opportunities to nail Ham and a few large opportunities to communicate with the public that were missed. As an atheist and a scientist I try to judge the debate through the eyes of a neutral or religious person. As an atheist and scientist I feel that of course Nye was the winner of the debate, our best evidence beats circular arguments and research to "explain" everyday of the week. Putting myself in the position of squinting through the eyes of a Christian I'm not so sure big strides were made. I would guess Bill Nye is reviewing this debate as a scientist and public speaker and revising ways to improve if he gets another chance. I think if Nye could do this debate over he  would make it his goal to put a continuous barrage of evidence forth for the masses (not just Ham) that supports evolution. At the same time I think he might concentrate on ignoring Hamm's excuses and only engaging Ham when he offers up an easy nugget. Bill repeatedly said that the most important thing was the advancement of science in America (and the world?). And this is why I believe he would have wanted to streamline his message and presentation of evidence more robustly to the creationist community.

IMO Ham is merely the vehicle or the platform to be used by the scientific community to speak to the masses of sinners. Ham is too good to be true, anyone that is willing to go live against a scientist and debate creation vs evolution is pure gold. For the most part we already knew what Ham's arguments were going to be. IMO the goal was not to debate Ham's "science" but to serve up mounds of everyday, easily understandable, thought provoking evidence to an audience that is most likely not well versed in evolutionary evidence.

Again I don't want to come down on Bill Nye, this would have been daunting task and Bill is a pioneer in this aspect. I hope he gets another chance for round two. Some of the wins I thought Nye had were the "11 new species a day with the weather report", the ship building and the 650K ice layers vs 600 years. Applause to Bill Nye for undertaking this important step towards widespread enlightenment.

stromboli

Don't forget the Gish Gallop was created by a Creationist for this very reason. Ham and his ilk don't care about truth, just convincing enough people long enough to get their way with their idiot projects, like Creationist museums. And as I said earlier, debating them is ultimately pointless.

chiselpeak

Quote from: "stromboli"Don't forget the Gish Gallop was created by a Creationist for this very reason. Ham and his ilk don't care about truth, just convincing enough people long enough to get their way with their idiot projects, like Creationist museums. And as I said earlier, debating them is ultimately pointless.


I agree that it is more difficult to defend a simple truth than a complex lie. I also agree that it probably is pointless to debate one single narrow minded individual that admits no evidence would ever make him/her change their minds.

What I don't agree with is that its pointless to have these debates. There were young and old minds in the audience that need evidence presented to them that they are missing out on at home or in Sunday school. This evidence gives them the opportunity to make their own decisions. IMO that is the point of this event.

stromboli

Quote from: "chiselpeak"
Quote from: "stromboli"Don't forget the Gish Gallop was created by a Creationist for this very reason. Ham and his ilk don't care about truth, just convincing enough people long enough to get their way with their idiot projects, like Creationist museums. And as I said earlier, debating them is ultimately pointless.


I agree that it is more difficult to defend a simple truth than a complex lie. I also agree that it probably is pointless to debate one single narrow minded individual that admits no evidence would ever make him/her change their minds.

What I don't agree with is that its pointless to have these debates. There were young and old minds in the audience that need evidence presented to them that they are missing out on at home or in Sunday school. This evidence gives them the opportunity to make their own decisions. IMO that is the point of this event.

Call me jaded. I hope you are right.

chiselpeak

Quote from: "stromboli"
Quote from: "chiselpeak"
Quote from: "stromboli"Don't forget the Gish Gallop was created by a Creationist for this very reason. Ham and his ilk don't care about truth, just convincing enough people long enough to get their way with their idiot projects, like Creationist museums. And as I said earlier, debating them is ultimately pointless.


I agree that it is more difficult to defend a simple truth than a complex lie. I also agree that it probably is pointless to debate one single narrow minded individual that admits no evidence would ever make him/her change their minds.

What I don't agree with is that its pointless to have these debates. There were young and old minds in the audience that need evidence presented to them that they are missing out on at home or in Sunday school. This evidence gives them the opportunity to make their own decisions. IMO that is the point of this event.

Call me jaded. I hope you are right.

lol, nobody can blame an atheist for being jaded

jublebeans

I knew Ken Ham was a dumbass before, and this debate just made me realize that he's not a dumbass. He's brain dead. He has to be, with how he thinks and what he deems "Logical".

Also, I'm surprised nobody mentioned the bold faced LIE that creationist "astronomer" told when he said "there is nothing in astronomy that disproves a young universe."

What???!!??!? Light years? Red shift? That completely fucking blew me away.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able, or willing?
Then why call him God?

Religion rids the mind of reason and logic.

Sal1981

I have marked it to watch it later.

Just in case, is there a mirror to this debate elsewhere on YouTube?