Bill Nye v. Creationist Debate

[ZJ]

So, Bill Nye is going to debate Ken Ham, the founder of the creationist museum and CEO of "Answers in Genesis" about the merits of creationism in today's modern scientific world. It's going down at 7 PM EST tonight at the Creationist Museum in Kentucky. You can watch it here.

Essentially it's going to be same old "Evolution is just a theory!" debate we've heard a bunch of times, but this one will feature Bill Nye!

So, are you watching? Who are you rooting for? What are your thoughts on the debate?

[naronic]

At 2/4/14 12:42 PM, ZJ wrote: Essentially it's going to be same old "Evolution is just a theory!" debate we've heard a bunch of times, but this one will feature Bill Nye!

Then why do you think it would still be an interesting debate for the 10398483rd time, regardless of who's talking?

[ZJ]

At 2/4/14 12:54 PM, naronic wrote:

Then why do you think it would still be an interesting debate for the 10398483rd time, regardless of who's talking?

I'm a big fan of Bill Nye and think that he's been one of the most influential voices in educating kids on science over the last 25 years. It'll be more to see what he brings to the debate than anything else.

[Camarohusky]

BUT THE BANANA FITS PERFECTLY IN MY HAND. THAT MEANS GOD MUST HAVE MADE IT THAT WAY!!!!

[Korriken]

*yawn* this debate always goes the same way.

Evolution: It happened this way!
Creation: It happened this way!

Both sides: OMFG did you see that? <my guy> kicked that guy's ass all in that debate!

me: fools.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

I always feel completely unrepresented in these debates. I am an intellectual design guy. I feel like the creationists and secularists have their own conclusions in their minds before the debate begins, and would sooner die than change their mind before the debate ends.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/4/14 01:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote: BUT THE BANANA FITS PERFECTLY IN MY HAND. THAT MEANS GOD MUST HAVE MADE IT THAT WAY!!!!

Other things fit in your hand that are around the same shape as a banana. Doesn't mean it was meant to be LOL. In fact it would go against the laws of nature.

[Fim]

Why even bother giving these creationist douches a platform to spout their dumb backwards beliefs?*

*'beliefs' not being synonymous with 'scientific theory'.

[NightmareWitch]

fuck the other side!

[RAMB0J3SUS]

I'm hoping to catch the stream. I heard about this earlier and got super pumped about it. Bill Nye all the way. He's such a good guy.

[Tankdown]

Bill was more entertaining in his early years.

I predict the creationist guy will drink from his cup a lot, or blink a lot.

[Light]

As much as I respect Bill Nye, I wish he wouldn't dignify these creationist morons' requests for a debate. Educated people know that creationism is not science and is not correct.

With that said, if Nye is going to debate this man, then he better give him the trouncing of his life.

[orangebomb]

Honestly, I like Bill Nye and all, but there is no way in Hell that I'm going to bother with this. The Creation theory is simply nothing than religious myths that even the most religious conservatives give it some grain of salt, but considering where it's going to be held, (A joke of a museum in the Creation Museum) let's just say that that Nye will have work cut out for him working over that possible crowd.

[Warforger]

At 2/4/14 03:22 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I always feel completely unrepresented in these debates. I am an intellectual design guy. I feel like the creationists and secularists have their own conclusions in their minds before the debate begins, and would sooner die than change their mind before the debate ends.

That doesn't make as much of a difference as evidence does. The thing is that the Creationist standpoint isn't one where they're trying to gather evidence for their position, it's one where they're trying to belittle Evolution down to the same level as Creationism. So they're arguments consist of putting doubt into Evolution rather than trying to prove their own ideas. That's part of the reason why it's not science; it's just religion. They can't exactly win a traditional scientific debate and they know it, that is what's really sad.

[Korriken]

At 2/4/14 04:30 PM, Fim wrote: Why even bother giving these creationist douches a platform to spout their dumb backwards beliefs?*

*'beliefs' not being synonymous with 'scientific theory'.

The irony of the whole thing is people feel the need to constantly slam and bash on those who believe in creation. They can be ignored, but people feel the need to crush those that disagree with them.

I find it mildly amusing watching people rage and scream at others for daring to disagree.

And that goes for both sides. Press one of these religious fundamentalists on it and you'll get about the same response as if you pressed an atheist on it. Rage, screaming, "This is how it is and if you disagree, you're an idiot" mantra.

So I say, both sides are fools. In the end, the answer is irrelevant anyway. Doesn't change a thing.

[Gario]

At 2/4/14 07:51 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 2/4/14 04:30 PM, Fim wrote: Why even bother giving these creationist douches a platform to spout their dumb backwards beliefs?*

*'beliefs' not being synonymous with 'scientific theory'.

The irony of the whole thing is people feel the need to constantly slam and bash on those who believe in creation. They can be ignored, but people feel the need to crush those that disagree with them.

People don't bash creationists for believing what they do (correction: MOST people don't do this - I'll never speak for everyone). People DO universally get upset when one group demands to be treated as a science when there is no evidence for such a claim. Just watched the first part of it, and the creationist has literally said just read the bible, believe it and do not question it without evidence - to be honest, I was hoping for something more interesting than that from him.

Anyway, the consequences of treating a religious belief as a scientific truth is fairly disastrous, as their methods are not complimentary. You CAN be religious scientist (that is, you have a belief and you accept scientific discovery), but you can't have a science that is based on religion because you cannot question the source of the religion, by definition, which is 100% contrary to the scientific method. Yes, there is mud thrown on both ends, but to say therefore they're both wrong because of it is not correct.

As far as I'm concerned, believe what you want, but don't force publicly funded schools to teach the creationist method to students as a viable alternative to evolution when one cannot adhere to the scientific method. It's something that Bill Nye fights for consistently, so I'm all for cheering for him.

[Angry-Hatter]

For anyone watching the debate, a few minutes ago the defining question that goes to the heart of the creationism vs. science debate was asked and answered: "What, if anything, would change your mind?"

Nye gave a list of a number of things that he would need to see evidence for that would then immediately make him change his mind about the age of the earth and the universe.

Ham's answer: "nothing is going to convince me that the word of God is wrong".

[Light]

At 2/4/14 09:09 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

Ham's answer: "nothing is going to convince me that the word of God is wrong".

You see, this just proves to me the inanity of having a debate with these people. Openly refusing to conceive of any evidence that can shake you from your faith and convictions is the hallmark of an idiotic dogmatist.

[Tankdown]

I don't have enough time at the library to finish watching.

From what's observe it seems like these are same kind of people. Who will drag the concept through the dirt until you actually see with your own eyes. Same kind of people who believed the Earth was flat despite some brilliant arguments of people like Aristotle that is must be round.

Few interesting nick picks, made me think, but still overall....

Please scientists, invent a time machine.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 2/4/14 09:25 PM, Light wrote:

At 2/4/14 09:09 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Ham's answer: "nothing is going to convince me that the word of God is wrong".

You see, this just proves to me the inanity of having a debate with these people. Openly refusing to conceive of any evidence that can shake you from your faith and convictions is the hallmark of an idiotic dogmatist.

The game is not about changing the mind of your dogmatic opponent, it's about reaching the people in the audience. There are way too many stories about people who used to be hardcore believers who became atheists after realizing how flawed their position had been to not give trying to convince them a shot. Non-belief in religion has been on a steady rise over the past couple of decades, to the point where irreligiosity today is at an unprecedentedly high level, and I suspect that this trend owes its existence to debates like these and their easy availability through the internet. Over half a million people, likely from all over the world, were tuning in live on the channel I was watching, and more yet will watch the video once it's posted. Most of the religious viewers won't be reached, but a few of them will be. Just a few, but that's all that it takes to sustain the current trend away from religious dogma.

Slowly but surely, more and more people will move away from Ham's way of thinking, until one day...

ATHEIST WORLD DOMINATION.

[Light]

At 2/4/14 09:53 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

Most of the religious viewers won't be reached, but a few of them will be. Just a few, but that's all that it takes to sustain the current trend away from religious dogma.

I'm inclined to agree and it's encouraging to see extreme religiosity on the decline in this day and age.

ATHEIST WORLD DOMINATION.

Shh, we're not there yet. We're still vulnerable.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/4/14 09:09 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

Ham's answer: "nothing is going to convince me that the word of God is wrong".

It's because of people like him why blind faith is so dangerous.

[Sense-Offender]

lol Bill's putting it pretty nicely saying things like "that's...remarkable" and "that's...unsettling"

"Uh, Bill there is a book that explains that. hehehe." remarkable. And that part moral relativism and killing old people. REMARKABLE!

[ZJ]

At 2/5/14 02:19 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

"Uh, Bill there is a book that explains that. hehehe." remarkable. And that part moral relativism and killing old people. REMARKABLE!

The constant "There's a book out there" remarks really just killed any momentum Ham had in my eyes. I was willing to give his views some of my time, but one he started just jamming that down our throats, I just stopped listening.

I'd have like to ask him why he thinks the Bible is supreme and not the Quran. That would have been a good debate topic if he just wanted to play religious dogma cards.

[NightmareWitch]

That was boring and I wish it wasn't rocks vs. the Bible...

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 2/5/14 02:35 PM, ZJ wrote: I'd have like to ask him why he thinks the Bible is supreme and not the Quran. That would have been a good debate topic if he just wanted to play religious dogma cards.

I found an interesting article that's very heavy on footnotes and quotations to the Quran and the Bible, comparing and contrasting both, I think, pretty well.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_christianity_true.html

Keep in mind it is part 2 of a series

[Camarohusky]

Bill Nye lost, and he lost hard. This whole debate was pretty much useless in any real sense. Both side were preaching to the choir and those that could be swayed didn't care to watch.

However, Ham came off as more comfortable and fluid, thus more likeable, even though he was doing nothing but blowing smoke. Nye, on the other hand, came off as esoteric unpersonable and a bit disconnected. What was essentially a battle of egos and personalities (as opposed to fact, or a battle between scinece and religion) Nye was easily overwhelmed.

[Korriken]

At 2/5/14 08:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Bill Nye lost, and he lost hard. This whole debate was pretty much useless in any real sense.

I'll agree that the debate was useless. However, after watching it, I'd say neither really won.

At the end of the day, it doesn't REALLY matter HOW we got here. We're here, that's what counts.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/5/14 09:01 PM, Korriken wrote: At the end of the day, it doesn't REALLY matter HOW we got here. We're here, that's what counts.

Exactly.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/5/14 08:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Bill Nye lost, and he lost hard.

I would disagree. Nam hiding behind dogmatic rhetoric to try and prove what cannot be proved using faith is not grounds for a sane well rounded argument. Nye on the other hand used facts therefore he won the debate hands down.

This whole debate was pretty much useless in any real sense.

yes.