Kent Ham Vs. Bill Nye. Who Won?

[Rivers]

Who has watched the debate? Who won? Any thoughts? Is the debate worth watching?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI#

Edited February 9, 2014 by Rivers

[Rivers]

Whoops.  I spelled Ken Ham's name wrong.  Sorry.

[Freedom]

Bill came to a philosophy debate and discussed scientific theory. he knew he was going into a philosophy debate but he completely missed the point. You cannot pit science against theology. Nobody won. When asked where matter came from, he missed an opportunity. Rather than say he did not know he should have said neither science nor the bible tells us where it comes from. The bible claims to know who was involved, but only science will tell us how he did it. this is the message the creationists need to hear. They just spoke past each other the entire time. 

[Stone holm]

Better question is who cares.

[bcuzbcuz]

Bill had to play to a rather lop-sided audience. He'd make a funny....only to be greeted by dead silence.

[Rob Osborn]

The debate very much is worth watching. Ken Ham was definitely more prepared than was Bill Nye. Ken Ham won the debate in the publics eye. Nye did a poor job in expressing whatever exactly it was he was trying to get across while Ken was very pointed and focused on his topic. Nye just basically randomly jumped around with no rhyme nor reason.

[cinepro]

I'm obviously more partial to Bill Nye, but I have to say that Ham "won" (to the degree that anyone "wins" such a debate).  Nye let Ham set the pace and the agenda.  I suspect Nye knew he couldn't win over Ham and the crowd, so he was trying to use the debate as a pulpit to get his message out to a wider audience.

 

And I have to say I was impressed by Ham's eloquence and ability to communicate his belief that Creationism is supported by "science". 

[Kenngo1969]

The debate very much is worth watching. Ken Ham was definitely more prepared than was Bill Nye. Ken Ham won the debate in the publics eye. Nye did a poor job in expressing whatever exactly it was he was trying to get across while Ken was very pointed and focused on his topic. Nye just basically randomly jumped around with no rhyme nor reason.

Sounds very much like two of the three debates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama had, with Romney playing Ham and Obama playing Nye.

 

Wait!  No!  What?!     Where did that come from!  Sorry.  Wrong forum.  We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming!

Edited February 10, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[danielwoods]

Who has watched the debate? Who won? Any thoughts? Is the debate worth watching?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI#

 

Who won? In this type of debate we all win, simply because there is dialogue. As has been stated, Nye wasn't as focused, and clear as Ham was. He often didn't seem to understand the point that Ham was making, that Observational science is different from historical science. 

 

Thoughts? Seems like Ham has a valid point. The line between what is observation and what is extrapolation has been blurred and obscured to the point that many to say that evolution is a "fact of history". The meaning of such is unclear and imprecise, which serves the evolutionary point of view quite well. Highlighting that distinction seems to be a key to understanding the different views. 

 

Is it worth watching? Depends where your interests lie. 

[rameumptom]

Ham shared his beliefs, while Nye shared evidence of science.  While not a very good debater, Nye easily won from a logical point of view.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Galileo

 

SEE

Edited February 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

Ham shared his beliefs, while Nye shared evidence of science.  While not a very good debater, Nye easily won from a logical point of view.

No way. Nyewas lost pretty much the whole time. Most of his points were not validated on logic.

[Stone holm]

Interesting that even the King of the Christian Right, Pat Robertson, doesn't agree with Ham.  But the debate was basically boring,  a Tyson vs. Ham match up would have been more interesting.

[danielwoods]

 

I don't feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Galileo

 

 

 

 

Nor does Ken Ham or any other young earth creationist. 

[thesometimesaint]

Nor does Ken Ham or any other young earth creationist. 

 

That is an oxymoronic statement.

 

Young earth creationism can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that Creation occurred 6000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

[Damien the Leper]

"There's a book for that"...

[danielwoods]

That is an oxymoronic statement.

 

Young earth creationism can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that Creation occurred 6000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

 

You make this argument quite a bit.  Please tell me who claims that creation happened last thursday? 

 

Fact remains that YEC (Young Earth Creationists) use their brains to create a young earth model to explain the exact same data that evolutionists use to create an older model. To call one science and the other not is to commit the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

What is interesting is that Galileo was opposed by the science establishment of his day (Universities and yes he was in the minority). The church had been deceived by the science establishment, and interpreted scripture in light of these supposed Geocentric scientific "facts". 

[Rob Osborn]

That is an oxymoronic statement.

 

Young earth creationism can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that Creation occurred 6000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

This I know, you have this copied somewhere and you just keep pasting it over and over again. You should become a politician, they are good at these types of form letters but not so good at actually answering the real questions.

[thesometimesaint]

You make this argument quite a bit.  Please tell me who claims that creation happened last thursday? 

 

Fact remains that YEC (Young Earth Creationists) use their brains to create a young earth model to explain the exact same data that evolutionists use to create an older model. To call one science and the other not is to commit the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

What is interesting is that Galileo was opposed by the science establishment of his day (Universities and yes he was in the minority). The church had been deceived by the science establishment, and interpreted scripture in light of these supposed Geocentric scientific "facts". 

YEC claim it happened some 6000 years ago.

 

You do know what a simile is don't you?

 

Actually Galileo wasn't opposed by the scientists of his day. He was opposed by the leaders of the RCC. Not a good idea in that day and age. It only took the RCC over 400 years to apologize to Galileo. The RCC wasn't deceived by the scientist of Galileo's day. It stuck with the ramblings of 2nd Century Ptolemy at the limits of his knowledge.

[thesometimesaint]

This I know, you have this copied somewhere and you just keep pasting it over and over again. You should become a politician, they are good at these types of form letters but not so good at actually answering the real questions.

I've answered every single one of your questions. You just refuse to accept the answers. You should become a Faux News hack that sticks to his talking points regardless of the facts.

[Rob Osborn]

I've answered every single one of your questions. You just refuse to accept the answers. You should become a Faux News hack that sticks to his talking points regardless of the facts.

What facts is your science producing on the origins of life? That intelligent designers in a lab and controlled environment can reproduce building blocks of life? Seems to me like they are doing an excellent job of proving Intelligent design is a scientific fact.

[thesometimesaint]

What facts is your science producing on the origins of life? That intelligent designers in a lab and controlled environment can reproduce building blocks of life? Seems to me like they are doing an excellent job of proving Intelligent design is a scientific fact.

 

Reducio ad absurdum.

[danielwoods]

YEC claim it happened some 6000 years ago.

 

You do know what a simile is don't you?

 

Actually Galileo wasn't opposed by the scientists of his day. He was opposed by the leaders of the RCC. Not a good idea in that day and age. It only took the RCC over 400 years to apologize to Galileo. The RCC wasn't deceived by the scientist of Galileo's day. It stuck with the ramblings of 2nd Century Ptolemy at the limits of his knowledge.

 

 

"Many historians of science have documented that the first to oppose Galileo was the scientific establishment, not the church. The prevailing ‘scientific’ wisdom of his day was the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic theory—an unwieldy geocentric system, with the earth at the centre of the universe and other heavenly bodies in highly complex orbits around the earth. And it had its origins in a paganphilosophical system. There existed a powerful body of men whose hostility to Galileo never abated: the Aristotelians at the universities. Galileo challenged all that, when he promoted Copernicus’s earlier idea that the Earth moved around the sun, i.e. the heliocentric or geokinetic theory."

 

http://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial

 

TO ALL:   There is a thread open on this topic and politics have already appeared here so, closed.