Supreme Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham debates Arch Evolutionist Bill Nye

[darthearth]

I just thought I would get the word out about the big bad creationism vs. evolution debate taking place at none other than the Creation Museum itself! It is a free live stream. I'll look forward to watching it if I can.

Feb 4th, 7pm Eastern at:

http://debatelive.org/

To Bill Nye, I'm sure he feels like he is charging the enemy capital at the Creation Museum itself, culture war ground zero. Can evolution survive so deep in the red?

To people who don't know, Ken Ham co-founded the Creation Museum (http://creationmuseum.org/), a place where dinosaurs and people live at the same time period and walk around together, a place where Noah's Ark and the Biblical flood are real history. Hundreds of thousands (over 1.5 million actually) have visited it since it opened just a few years ago. It is the holy place of young Earth creationists, even has plans for a full scale ark!

[conniption]

Now this I gotta see.

[Silicate Wielder]

Im definently going to tune in to this.

[Typhlosion]

Poor Bill Nye. It'll be quite hard debating with an audience that hates him :(

Each then has an opportunity for rebuttal and afterward answers questions submitted by the audience. An almost 100% creationist audience. I doubt they'll keep question even somewhat laic.

Don’t miss this “debate of the decade”! Watch at home, or organize to show the live stream to your small group, your youth group, or even your entire church. Anyone with half a brain would know there is no more or way too little to discuss. This is no debate of the decade. Note the target audience.

The debate is to be held in the 900-seat Legacy Hall lecture arena at the Creation Museum (sponsored by Answers in Genesis). The sponsor makes me question if Bill Nye'll be censored. I don't believe, in any way, that Answers in Genesis is funding this beyond their sake, rather than the sake of knowledge.

What I predict will happen? Ham will be throwing scripture all around and using false affirmations usually done by christians such as attacks on carbon dating not being reliable or whatever. Nye will be put in a position where he will "somewhat agree" to Ham, and this "agreement" will be the creationist's proof that he's wrong, no matter where the agreement is. If Nye stands firmly on evolutionism, he'll be seen as a radical and be even more hated. Ham might say Nye's attacking the religion, and beyond that there will be little value in the debate. The audience will throw non-stop curveballs not necessarily answerable by Nye but Ham will have "the appropriate answer". If he stutters and gets confused by the awkward situation, then he'll be seen as doubtful and not truly certain of what he says.

Bill won't win.

Still watching it

[AgentHomo]

I will watch this and root for Bill's glorious victory as the ignorant creationists and their museum metaphorically burn to the ground!

[Saint of Sinners]

If they really wanted a fair debate they should've held it in neutral ground, with an evenly split audience. This is just totally biased.

[AlexOnToast]

Holding a creationism debate in a creationist museum, in front of an all creationist audience of people who just blatantly deny visible facts? Yeah sounds proper...

[Hollywood]

If they really wanted a fair debate they should've held it in neutral ground, with an evenly split audience. This is just totally biased.

Yup. No way this is going to be a fair, balanced debate with the entire audience leaning to one side. It's a shame, in a neutral setting this might've been really interesting.

[thesurvivalist]

Evolution and natural selection is evident in so many ways around us, to deny it is foolish

[Typhlosion]

Welp, that was boring. (Link) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI)

K. Ham goes on about how the current model has flaws by using false examples, of course citing radioactive dating, taking scripture and making himself more credible by taking the names of creationist scientists. Who didn't expect that?

However, K. Ham adds a twist to the debate separating science into two: experimental/observational science and historical science. Observational science is one that follows the scientific method to study the present. Historical science, on the other hand, cannot be studied following the scientific method. Why? Because no one was there to see it. (Are you fucking kidding me???)

That's his argument. I'm not joking.

The idea why historical science cannot be studied is because assumptions must be made in order to guess how the past was. Things could have functioned differently at the past. The laws might have been different. Any time Nye attempted to ask why Ham's model was better, he avoided it. Ham repeatedly said why Nye's model was inappropriate, but not once demonstrated the credibility of his own claims without referring to scripture.

...

"SO I BELIEVE COSMIC SILICON-BASED NARWHALS TUSK-FIGHTED OUR UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE. NO ONE SAW BUT THE NARWHALS.
YOU CAN'T TELL ME WRONG, YOU WEREN'T THERE TROLOLOLO". - Narwhalist version of K. Ham *Facepalm*

[The Trendy Wolf]

Welp, that was boring. (Link) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI)

K. Ham goes on about how the current model has flaws by using false examples, of course citing radioactive dating, taking scripture and making himself more credible by taking the names of creationist scientists. Who didn't expect that?

However, K. Ham adds a twist to the debate separating science into two: experimental/observational science and historical science. Observational science is one that follows the scientific method to study the present. Historical science, on the other hand, cannot be studied following the scientific method. Why? Because no one was there to see it. (Are you fucking kidding me???)

That's his argument. I'm not joking.

The idea why historical science cannot be studied is because assumptions must be made in order to guess how the past was. Things could have functioned differently at the past. The laws might have been different. Any time Nye attempted to ask why Ham's model was better, he avoided it. Ham repeatedly said why Nye's model was inappropriate, but not once demonstrated the credibility of his own claims without referring to scripture.

...

"SO I BELIEVE COSMIC SILICON-BASED NARWHALS TUSK-FIGHTED OUR UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE. NO ONE SAW BUT THE NARWHALS.
YOU CAN'T TELL ME WRONG, YOU WEREN'T THERE TROLOLOLO". - Narwhalist version of K. Ham *Facepalm*

Completely my viewpoint as well. All Ken Ham said was 'if you weren't there, you can't prove me wrong, and because the Bible is undeniably God's Word, therefore, creationism is viable and I'm right.' Although I really did enjoy watching it all unfold. It was neither boring nor pointless in my eyes as there were a fair number of interesting points made.

[AgentHomo]

Bill Nye killed it. This debate has pretty much proved that creationists ignorant views don't belong anywhere in government or schools. It should only belong in the narrow minds of those who wish to refuse the facts of science.

[AlexOnToast]

creationists ignorant views don't belong anywhere in government or schools.

Here Here!
As my dad always said, "You can have your own beliefs, but not your own facts"

[darthearth]

I would have liked to have seen more discussion about radiometric dating, that's the central issue isn't it? But I didn't feel either side "killed it" really. It was good to watch though.