2/4/14 Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

[Davros of Skaro]

On February 4th, 2014, Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") has agreed to debate Ken Ham, president of Answers In Genesis and The Creation Museum. The debate will take place on Ham's home turf, at The Creation Museum, and the 800 available tickets sold out almost immediately.

This event raises the larger question: Should scientists agree to these types of debates?

Some (like Richard Dawkins) say "no," as it would be akin to an obstetrician debating a proponent of the "stork theory" of reproduction. Others insist that the debate is not only appropriate, but necessary.

Joining us in this discussion are Matt Dillahunty, Dr. Richard Carrier, Greta Christina, David Silverman, Ed Hensley and AronRa.

Articles:

RDFRS: Why Bill Nye Shouldn't Debate Ken Ham

http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundat...

AHA: WHY THE BILL NYE-KEN HAM DEBATE IS A GOOD THING

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/detai...

AHA: BILL NYE SHARING THE STAGE WITH KEN HAM IS A MISTAKE

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/detai...

Podcast available on BlogTalkRadio, iTunes and Stitcher, and at www.thethinkingatheist.com

[+and-then]

Creationists have no rules, their dishonesty stops nowhere. Yep... that's a fair, objective statement These kinds of debates ARE useless. Faith and science by their nature cannot satisfy each other's requirements. Seems silly to argue over such things. I'm a person of faith and have no problem with evolutionary concepts - at least natural selection. But I have never heard science explain how life began. I easily could have missed it though - when it comes to the science of evolution I'm as dumb as dirt. My life - like everyone else's will end someday. I have faith and hope about what that means and I have no fear as it approaches - in fact I'm quite hopeful. I don't see a similar degree of hope in the Atheist. The comfort that annihilation will take care of them is about the best I've heard from them. If that is enough then okay - but I expect a lot more

If they are right they will never know - if I am wrong I'll never know... Until then we should just coexist without animosity and arrogance.

[+DieChecker]

It should be entertaining if nothing else.

[Q-C]

I feel, science and creationism have no business as bed partners. They can't mate. It is impossible

And so neither can prove to the other how good they are.

Edited January 22, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Science and religion could marry in my opinion. But the creationism would have to be revised as evolution as the tool for creationism. Taking the knowledge base God had to work with, with the early judaists he simply gave them an over simplified version of creation. That's my penny for what its worth.

[Davros of Skaro]

Fuzzy about Evolution? Here is a condensed crash course.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

I should note though that I am agnostic and I am Buddhist by philosophy. So maybe my opinion is invalid. I am orthodox when it comes to the scientific method though

Edited January 22, 2014 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

[Davros of Skaro]

Fuzzy about Creationism? Here is a Creationism crash course (up to interpretation.)

[spacecowboy342]

I think it is essential to show how deluded people like Ken Ham are about the natural world. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. To deny this shows willful ignorance in this day and age. Dinosaurs 6,000 years ago in the garden of Eden? Please

[Davros of Skaro]

I think it is essential to show how deluded people like Ken Ham are about the natural world. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. To deny this shows willful ignorance in this day and age. Dinosaurs 6,000 years ago in the garden of Eden? Please

For me the evidence for Evolution, is the same evidence of what vital importance it is for what we leave behind for future generations, and our responsibility for this Planet.

Spiritual Warfare is a battle cry of the deluded, and the backwards thinking of ancient Man.

http://www.unexplain...30#entry5063463

[spacecowboy342]

Creationists have no rules, their dishonesty stops nowhere. Yep... that's a fair, objective statement These kinds of debates ARE useless. Faith and science by their nature cannot satisfy each other's requirements. Seems silly to argue over such things. I'm a person of faith and have no problem with evolutionary concepts - at least natural selection. But I have never heard science explain how life began. I easily could have missed it though - when it comes to the science of evolution I'm as dumb as dirt. My life - like everyone else's will end someday. I have faith and hope about what that means and I have no fear as it approaches - in fact I'm quite hopeful. I don't see a similar degree of hope in the Atheist. The comfort that annihilation will take care of them is about the best I've heard from them. If that is enough then okay - but I expect a lot more

If they are right they will never know - if I am wrong I'll never know... Until then we should just coexist without animosity and arrogance.

At least you understand that there is a difference between evolution and the origin of life. Evolution is just about what happened after life started. How that spark of life got started is an open question. That it evolved into all the species we see today is not'

[Almagest]

I absolutely think you should debate these types, even if they stack the deck in their favour. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and it was before the field of genetics, which absolutely clinches it. The intellectual dishonesty of creationist should be shown in the light of day. It's not going to convince the die hard creationists, of course, but there are plenty of people who need to see that there's a reason why evolutionary biologists don't accept creationism - it raises way more questions than it answers. One clear conclusion we can draw is that if creationism is true, it was deliberately made to look like evolution.

[spacecowboy342]

I absolutely think you should debate these types, even if they stack the deck in their favour. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and it was before the field of genetics, which absolutely clinches it. The intellectual dishonesty of creationist should be shown in the light of day. It's not going to convince the die hard creationists, of course, but there are plenty of people who need to see that there's a reason why evolutionary biologists don't accept creationism - it raises way more questions than it answers. One clear conclusion we can draw is that if creationism is true, it was deliberately made to look like evolution.

I agree. It's funny because, as you say, the evidence for evolution was overwhelming before genetics, and now, with what we know in genetics, even if we had no fossils at all to look at, genetics alone proves evolution. As far as the idea that God created the world in such a way to look like evolution happened, this makes creationism completely unfalsifiable and is the best argument for keeping creationism out of school science classes.

[Rlyeh]

"I don’t know where people get the idea that people rode dinosaurs. I mean, there’s no evidence in the Bible that that is so. When Job was looking at Behemoth, the description there… there’s nothing to do with people riding dinosaurs. We don’t know how people interacted with dinosaurs."

Ken Ham is the one who taught that people rode dinosaurs, he's either lying or doesn't believe his own material.

http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2013/01/30/ken-ham-compromises-on-biblical-truth-of-saddled-dinosaurs/

[ambelamba]

When I was a Christian, I used to listen to Greg Laurie's sermons religiously.He claimed that you have to accept the whole Bible as one without compromise.

Well, he had a point. Problem is that the editors of teh Scripture didn't expect future people to read through it.

[spacecowboy342]

When I was a Christian, I used to listen to Greg Laurie's sermons religiously.He claimed that you have to accept the whole Bible as one without compromise.

Well, he had a point. Problem is that the editors of teh Scripture didn't expect future people to read through it.

Well in the old days they just stoned people who asked the hard questions.

[Davros of Skaro]

Job 40:15-24

15 “Look at Behemoth,

which I made along with you

and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16 What strength it has in its loins,

what power in the muscles of its belly!

17 Its tail sways like a cedar;

the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.

18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,

its limbs like rods of iron.

19 It ranks first among the works of God,

yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.

20 The hills bring it their produce,

and all the wild animals play nearby.

21 Under the lotus plants it lies,

hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;

the poplars by the stream surround it.

23 A raging river does not alarm it;

it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.

24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes,

or trap it and pierce its nose?

Job 41

“Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook

or tie down its tongue with a rope?

2 Can you put a cord through its nose

or pierce its jaw with a hook?

3 Will it keep begging you for mercy?

Will it speak to you with gentle words?

4 Will it make an agreement with you

for you to take it as your slave for life?

5 Can you make a pet of it like a bird

or put it on a leash for the young women in your house?

6 Will traders barter for it?

Will they divide it up among the merchants?

7 Can you fill its hide with harpoons

or its head with fishing spears?

8 If you lay a hand on it,

you will remember the struggle and never do it again!

9 Any hope of subduing it is false;

the mere sight of it is overpowering.

10 No one is fierce enough to rouse it.

Who then is able to stand against me?

11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?

Everything under heaven belongs to me.

12 “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs,

its strength and its graceful form.

13 Who can strip off its outer coat?

Who can penetrate its double coat of armor?

14 Who dares open the doors of its mouth,

ringed about with fearsome teeth?

15 Its back has[c] rows of shields

tightly sealed together;

16 each is so close to the next

that no air can pass between.

17 They are joined fast to one another;

they cling together and cannot be parted.

18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;

its eyes are like the rays of dawn.

19 Flames stream from its mouth;

sparks of fire shoot out.

20 Smoke pours from its nostrils

as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.

21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,

and flames dart from its mouth.

22 Strength resides in its neck;

dismay goes before it.

23 The folds of its flesh are tightly joined;

they are firm and immovable.

24 Its chest is hard as rock,

hard as a lower millstone.

25 When it rises up, the mighty are terrified;

they retreat before its thrashing.

26 The sword that reaches it has no effect,

nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.

27 Iron it treats like straw

and bronze like rotten wood.

28 Arrows do not make it flee;

slingstones are like chaff to it.

29 A club seems to it but a piece of straw;

it laughs at the rattling of the lance.

30 Its undersides are jagged potsherds,

leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.

31 It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron

and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.

32 It leaves a glistening wake behind it;

one would think the deep had white hair.

33 Nothing on earth is its equal—

a creature without fear.

34 It looks down on all that are haughty;

it is king over all that are proud.”

[Shiloh17]

Gen 1:28

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Sounds like something happened so that he had to create man, fowls, beast etc.. to replenish the earth.

Seems creationism and evolution can coexist.

[Almagest]

Gen 1:28

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Sounds like something happened so that he had to create man, fowls, beast etc.. to replenish the earth.

Seems creationism and evolution can coexist.

I read somewhere that when the extinct mastodon was discovered to be a distinct species from the elephant it was theorised to be evidence of earlier creations. In fact the idea was quite common between the discovery of an old age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution.

[Davros of Skaro]

Gen 1:28

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Sounds like something happened so that he had to create man, fowls, beast etc.. to replenish the earth.

Seems creationism and evolution can coexist.

Just look at it like this.

[Rlyeh]

Seems creationism and evolution can coexist.

Not as any scientific explanation.

[Imaginarynumber1]

But I have never heard science explain how life began.I easily could have missed it though - when it comes to the science of evolution I'm as dumb as dirt.

There are several hypothesis and new ones are being tested every day. Nucleic acids catalyze chemical reactions and make copies of themselves, and are the basis for DNA. Amino acids are able to form in deep space. The building blocks of life are everywhere. It may be that life is one of the most common things in the universe and is just the result of everyday chemical reactions.

I don't see a similar degree of hope in the Atheist. The comfort that annihilation will take care of them is about the best I've heard from them.

I wouldn't say that I see hope after death, but I do believe that not believing in an after life make this life all the more precious to me. I want to do the things that make me happy (legal things, not just random craziness) and accomplish all that I can in my time here. Leave my mark on the world, and if I'm feeling lofty in my goals, maybe leave it a slightly better place, too, if only for my children.

[Imaginarynumber1]

I absolutely think you should debate these types, even if they stack the deck in their favour. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and it was before the field of genetics, which absolutely clinches it. The intellectual dishonesty of creationist should be shown in the light of day. It's not going to convince the die hard creationists, of course, but there are plenty of people who need to see that there's a reason why evolutionary biologists don't accept creationism - it raises way more questions than it answers. One clear conclusion we can draw is that if creationism is true, it was deliberately made to look like evolution.

To me, and many others, the greatest and most beautiful thing about the theory of evolution is its simplicity. Essentially, it's just "A change in the allele frequency in a given population over time." . One piece of evidence could destroy the theory of evolution. But that evidence has never been found. Not one thing in 200+ years has ever been able to challenge such a simple theory. Everything we discover, in genetics, biology, medicine, etc, does nothing but add further evidence to the theory of evolution.

I wish some people could take off their blinders and see it for how simple and elegant it truly is.

[Imaginarynumber1]

"I don’t know where people get the idea that people rode dinosaurs. I mean, there’s no evidence in the Bible that that is so. When Job was looking at Behemoth, the description there… there’s nothing to do with people riding dinosaurs. We don’t know how people interacted with dinosaurs."

Ken Ham is the one who taught that people rode dinosaurs, he's either lying or doesn't believe his own material.

http://fatlip.leowee...dled-dinosaurs/

Ham is such a fool.

Maybe people get the idea when they walk in his "museum" and see PEOPLE RIDING DINOSAURS.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Well, he had a point. Problem is that the editors of teh Scripture didn't expect future people to read through it.

Reading or explaining the bible was a capital crime after the Albigensian Crusade in the Langudoc region of France.