Bill Nye v. Ken Hamm Debate

[cwolff]

Anyone watch this tonight?

[cwolff]

Friends texting me about this thing. I can't. This is my jam. If I start watching I'll never get this homework done. Spoilers?

It's hard to watch. Really hard to watch. The one thing that's struck me the most is that there has been a sea change in the way these debates are argued. The creationist for example; is attempting to show commonality between his view and the scientific view. His tone is respectful and conciliatory. Back in the day they could be more pedagogic since they already had the audience going in to the debate.

[waywardgs]

Props to bill nye for not either laughing hysterically or hitting the guy with a chair. Or a textbook.

[Nilandia]

In essence, Ken Ham claimed that the Earth is 6,000 years old. He tried to cite a couple random studies that cast doubt on the current scientific consensus of the age of the universe and the methods used to derive those conclusions. He also tried to divide science into "observational science" - conclusions we can derive from what we observe in the present - and "historical science" - attempting to extrapolate into the past. That way, he was able to accept current science and technology but cast doubt on anything science said about the past with the dismissive, "We weren't there, so no one can say for sure what happened." Any attempt to contradict him was met with the usual, "God said it, so I believe it. You can't convince me otherwise." Someone actually asked him what would convince him to change his mind and he pretty much said nothing would. At one point he even implied that Christians who believe that the Earth is millions of years old are not true Christians.

Bill Nye obviously argued for science. For the most part, he stayed based on good science as best as I can tell, but he often ran the risk of going over people's heads by being too technical. I also kept waiting for him to dispel the points Ken Ham brought up, when Ken implied or outright stated that evolution/Big Bang Theory leads to racism, atheism, moral relativism, abortions, eugenics and so on.

Both guys started out decently in terms of elaborating their positions, but eventually they kept repeating themselves and asking the other questions that kept getting ignored. Neither of them really impressed me overly much, and I'm speaking as a Christian who holds a degree in biology.

Gretchen

[cwolff]

We need a new Hitchens. Nye ain't going to cut it.

[Thondalar]

Not saying I agree or disagree with either one of them, and I only managed to watch about an hour of this...but for some reason it kept reminding me of Nye getting owned on Stossel the other day over climate change. Not that he was owned in this debate by any means, just saying...couldn't get the image out of my head.

[SHAFT]

Thanks for posting this.

[waywardgs]

We need a new Hitchens. Nye ain't going to cut it.

I was thinking the same thing.

[SHAFT]

It's hard for me to take anyone seriously when they claim the earth was created by "God" in 6 days.

[Gelston]

Where does the 6 figure come from again? I grew up Christian, and still am, in the South and never heard that shit until 24/7 media said something about it.