Slashdot Mirror
Bill Nye To Debate Creationist Museum Founder Ken Ham
New submitter cusco writes "Creation Museum Founder and AiG President/CEO Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye at the Creation Museum on Tuesday, February 4, at 7 PM. According to the Washington Post, 'Ham had been hoping to attract the star of TV's 'Bill Nye The Science Guy' to the northern Kentucky museum after Nye said in an online video last year that teaching creationism was bad for children. The video was viewed nearly 6 million times on YouTube.'"
I hope it is easily view-able online, either live or shortly after. I'd go see it in person except, you know, wrong part of the country and all :)
William George
If Bill Nye accepted this invitation, it gives the creationists far more exposure than they deserve.
Remember, if you wrestle a pig, you both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.
Reminds me of that old (possibly apocryphal) Twain quote: Don't try to teach a pig to sing - it'll waste your time and annoy the pig. Ham has his view, and no amount of actual data will change that. Heck, even the old Earth creationists think the guy's fundamentally dishonest.
Since they hold no precept to reason, they've already cut press releases to the faithful saying they won; in their world it's true.
Those who do abide by reason already know it's true; this won't make it any more true.
I really don't see what this will accomplish. If somebody *wants* to learn, they'll wiki it and learn from that starting point. It they don't, pushing it in their face just wastes time and annoys the pig.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Guess somebody has to do this kind of yeoman's work.
If creationist were open for debate, then they wouldn't be creationist and believe what was written by somebody hundreds of years ago without accepting any revisions.
/popcorn
There may be no "I" in team, but there's also no "F" in way.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
This won't turn out well. $25/ticket, supporting the morons in a profit making venture. Fuck no. Not that I'm in the neighborhood.
Only creationists will show up, bog knows who they'll get to moderate. Local southern baptist minister?
I see. 'if monkeys turned into humans how come there are still monkeys?' followed by a shout down in this 'debate'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I actually want to visit the Creation "Museum."
One is arguing on logic while the other is arguing on faith. Neither will ever be able to see the other as universally correct since they are basically standing on different planets. It's like one of them is speaking Farsi and the other is speaking Spanish. Bill Nye is falling right into this guy's trap. At the end all he has to do is say "well my faith is unshaken, I know the real truth" and everyone who agrees with him will smile victoriously. This will be quite the exercise in futility.
Raters gon' rate.
I think the main difference between the darwinian evolution vs creationism is that creationism is not a "theory" it is a dogma... it is what it is and no further questions!!! Nothing stops the "evolution of the species" theories from evolving... So i think (and in my country they do that) that you should teach the classical greek creationism theories but if you are teaching kids about biology you must emphasize on the CURRENT scientific theory and not in some 2500 year old dogma.
Disclaimer: I am not bashing the dogma i'm just saying that a school is not the best place for it...
It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother
me, it is the parts that I do understand.
-Mark Twain
One does well to put on gloves when reading the New Testament; the
proximity of so much impurity almost compels to this...I have searched
in it vainly for even a single congenial trait...everything in it is
cowardice and self-deception.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the
gentleman who reads it.
-Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899)
There can be no doubt that the Bible...became a stumbling-block in the
path of progress, scientific, social and even moral. It was quoted
against Copernicus as it was against Darwin.
-Preserved Smith
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in
praise of intelligence.
-Bertrand Russell
With so many intelligent people warning you about it, perhaps you
should avoid it
"Bill Nye to publicly punch self in genitals repeatedly."
I mean, the result will most likely be the same, will it not?
And after such a debate no doubt afterwards the issue will be completely resolved..
Further, most of the "arguments" for creationism is asking questions, asking for proof about evolution or to explain this anomaly or that observation. Asking questions is easy, answering them takes much longer. So again it is unfair to give equal time to questions and answers.
Science demands full disclosure, sufficient time to review the evidence and to get a consensus on what the data is. Then the argument is about what explains the data. This creationism debate is not likely to persuade the creationists, it is likely to frustrate the scientists.
It is a fools errand. Best thing to do is to let them disbelieve in evolution and let us trust evolution to drive the creationists to extinction. In the last 400 years science has done a lot to reduce the influence of creationists and reduced their numbers a lot. Just read the Creationist rhetoric from 1920s or 1950s or 1870s and compare it the current set of arguments, you will see how weak their ilk has become. The only serious bastion for creationists are the fundamentalists in Islam and fundamentalist right wingers in the USA. Almost all the rest of the developed world have moved on, most of America has also accepted the explanatory powers of evolution. Just wait for these creationists to join the Dinosaurs.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Finally, it will be settled and we can all get on with our lives.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I wish Bill Nye would do something actually useful.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I have a question for the readers with professional qualifications (ie - PhD's):
Is Bill Nye qualified?
His Wikipedia article lists him as a scientist. He has no advanced degree, only a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. He has a couple of patents, including one for ballet pointe shoes, and served as "honorary professor" for five years.
Every time the "can amateurs do real science" question comes up, the response is always a resounding NO! from the professional readers of this site. You can't do real science without an advanced degree, institutional funding, and collaboration.
In particular, he doesn't have a degree in evolutionary biology. He's an entertainer.
Does he qualify as "gentleman scientist"?
Is he the right person as spokesman for science in this debate?
(I applaud Bill Nye's contributions to science and education, and think he's eminently qualified. I just wanted to hear what the professionals think of his status as a scientist.)
This we all know: the universe spontaneously exploded into existence, without any divine assistance, some 14 billion years ago and coalesced into stars orbited by rocky planets. Water condensed out of the interstellar gases and filled the earth with oceans, whereupon carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen reacted in the primordial atmosphere to form amino acids that then self-assembled into self-replicating molecules that then caused the self-assembly of functioning cell membranes comprised of proteins and fatty acids that then began dividing and reproducing into the multitude of life forms present today. This was all made possible by a fortuitous arrangement of rocky substrates in deep ocean trenches that facilitated the combining of the proper molecules into the proper order on the rocky surfaces. After a certain length of time had passed, the early cells began randomly forming into male and female forms to allow better combination of nucleic material than that allowed by random mutation (although that has been good enough for bacteria and viruses for that the last 4 billion years). The creation guy doesn't have a chance.
Debate is predicated upon reason. To be a creationist you need to be irrational, so there cannot be a debate here. Instead we'll get the polite (or maybe not so polite) equivalent of a shouting match and people will point to it as if it were a debate.
Not to mention that there is nothing to debate. The debate is settled: creationism is not an accurate description of reality. If you think it is then you are wrong, unless you have some pretty bad-ass evidence, like winged humanoids without free will or DNA, or a giraffe skeleton from the Cambrian.
The AiG this guy is from is the young-earth creationist group, with a lower-case "i". The AIG we hear of more often in the media is the "American Insurance Group", which is not related. The font that slashdot renders this in does not help in distinguishing a lower-case from a capiltalized I.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
ask Ken Ham to disprove science with out the use of the bible or bible quotes.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The real Debate would be between Bill Nye and Rodney McKay!
Sorry, I don't get your point. Are you trying to make me laugh?
Why, so that someone may get angry?
The most common one is Creationist vulgaris. (vulgar means common in Latin, it does not mean crude). They are the rank and file people who chip in money and votes. The votes and the money form the base of the food pyramid of this genus. The C vulgaris can be relied up on to show up for rallys, to cheer their side in "debates".
One level up the food chain comes Creationist predatori minoria. These are the local parish level civic leaders, community organizers. They too sincerely believe in creationism and believe not believing in it would cause gloom and doom. And they convince themselves, that to have strong faith means they have to believe in creationism despite the obvious and patent evidence they see against it. But mostly these people go for local fame, some local power and a feeling of self importance. These are the ones used by the species higher in the food pyramid to access the nourishment created by the C vulgaris.
The highest level of this ecological niche is occupied the head honcho, the top predator, Creationist predatori majoria. Their meal ticket is C vulgaris. They will send newsletters, gather them into lectures and scare them into donating big money for the "cause". They will convince C predatori minoria to gather the flock and deliver them to the creation museum each paying $24.99 or whatever and buy "Jesus" T shirts at 40$ a pop.
So please do not treat all the Creationists as one and the same. Pity the C vulgaris, for he does not know what he is doing. Try to show the self aggrandizement and obvious exploitation of the C predatori majoria to the minoria to make them less enthusiastic about being hand maidens in this enterprise. Starved of the nutrition, the majoria will diminish greatly in size. Hopefully.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
the science only ends up proving the creationists point
Just as your post proves beyond any doubt that there is no god.
Well, they made a compelling point against evolution by exposing themselves as counter-example.
If anything I feel ashamed to be of the same species as them. One thing is to be ignorant but to be willingly ignorant ought to be a sin.
Captcha: morals
Teaching creationism to kids is simply telling them lies. Would you tell your child that Jello just appears in cups? Would you tell them that water comes from the sky? Basically would you make other insane claims with no defense? Of course you wouldn't, so why would you tell them that a magic invisible man created them!
Of course if you teach them the extreme theory of creationism in a religion class then fine, just leave it out of science, creationism is as much science as harry potter is.
When you read the bible and claim it's fact you also have to read harry potter and claim it's fact.
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"
Besides the advice in that quote, the outcome of this "debate" won't change a thing. Creationists argue from emotional responses generated in their amygdalas. You can't change their minds with facts and reasoning because they are not open to the possibility of being wrong or learning something new. If it's possible to change their minds at all, and that's a pretty big "if", you will have to first win them over emotionally before they will let their guards down and attempt to actually follow the lines of reasoning you lay down for them. The most likely outcome in this debate is that you stomp the creationists with facts which will cause the people on your side to feel that they have won, but the reality is that you will probably be perceived by your opposition as a pompous jerk who is attempting to destroy their belief system just for fun, causing the rift between the two sides to grow bigger.
He's just engaging in the common reddit debating technique where somebody takes a valid argument, then changes the subject, totally misunderstands the original point, and creates a "rebuttal" that's incoherent, idiotic, and totally irrelevant. Then he feels smugly smart, but to everybody else he looks like yet another mindless shit-spewing hipster.
Debates are built on logic and facts.
Creationists choose faith over logic and facts. This isn't me being judgmental; they openly admit this, and take pride in it.
If Nye wants to minimize Ham's influence then debating him is probably not the right approach to take. It serves to increase Ham's popularity among the set of folks that's already ideologically in line with his position. I may be wrong, but I don't see many folks who are "on the fence" both 1) watching the debate and 2) being swayed by it. If anyone is swayed by it then it will most likely be due to the two mens' "tone" rather than the actual facts they present during the debate. If Nye comes off looking smug, shrill and/or hostile to religion in general (as opposed to merely hostile to Ham's interpretation) then he may end up having the opposite effect of what he'd prefer.
So you compare "beliefs" based on scientific evidence with beliefs based on 2000 year old morality tales? It isn't "faith" when you have evidence.
Actually, they should send an auctioneer to better handle the Gish Gallop.
Table-ized A.I.
A debate is a discussion in which opposing arguments are presented. Evolution and Creationism are not opposing arguments. One is a scientific argument and the other is a religious argument. They are not opposing - they are incompatible.
In order to be swayed by a scientific argument, you must first accept the tenets of science. In order to be persuaded by a religious argument, you must first accept the tenets of the religion in question.
Since the tenets of science and the tenets of this particular religion are directly contradictory and incompatible, this cannot be a debate.
A debate can only occur if the arguing parties stand upon common ground and accept a common underpinning framework within which the debate can take place.
Nye needs to keep the debate about the scientific process in general. Not get bogged down in the details of Evolution vs Creationism. I'm not certain he is an expert on either topic. But if he can stop the discussion at the introduction of logical or process errors, he stands a chance.
The argument isn't really about Creationism anyway. I really could care less. But the failures in application of the scientific principle that allow such a belief are what harm society. And no creationist has ever convinced me that they can faithfully follow the correct process in all cases other than this one.
Have gnu, will travel.
Like a Jew accepting an invitation to debate the SS. Creationists can suck my cock. Here's an idea - bomb the fucking place or burn it to the ground with everyone inside. Let them fucking fry.
And in the new testament, the JC character SAYS he isn't God.
So, you're wrong, the OP right.
I know this is stretching it but did anyone RTFA? The debate topic is “Is creation a viable model of origins?” not "Cage-match: Creation vs. Evolution". The debate topic could've been "Are aliens a viable model of origins?" and it wouldn't cause this much consternation.
It's like the history revisionists that deny the Holocaust ever happened trying to debate actual bona-fide historians, trying to present an "alternate" view of events. Mind you, we still have people around that lived or were eyewitnesses to it. What will happen in 100 years? Anyone can challenge anyone else's assertions regardless of the historical record. Creationists, and I would guess more than a few people still confuse the scientific theory term with the normal definition of the word theory - stating often times that "it's just a theory." Given this belief in the Bible, which is claimed to be the absolute truth (thus, there really is no debate for believers. It is because God says it is, it says so in the Bible), I don't see what good is there in this event. Faith, according to some, has no need for science. Why legitimize their position with a debate? It will just make people think that there's actually is another side to the story, when there isn't. It baffles me to meet very well educated technologists who nonetheless believe (or claim to do so) that the Earth (nay, the Universe) is less than 10,000 years old, that dinosaurs walked alongside men, or that the fossil record was planted by "the devil." I think it's fine for people to believe in a higher power, but why force that on everyone else, why make children at school "learn" about alternate theories ("Intelligent" design.) I hear a lot of these folks lecture on how oppressive some Muslim non-secular governments can be, how there's no freedom of, well, anything, how they impose their beliefs on their poor people. What about this? The government (in the form of school boards, representatives, even governors) dictating what is taught in school, regardless of fact, but based purely on belief. Not sure if I can post links, as this is about my fifth time commenting ANYWHERE in 20 years, but here goes: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/02/2013-was-a-terrible-year-for-evolution.html
I don't have to quote anybody to say that this is a complete waste of time. It would be more useful to debate Disney about the existence of Mickey Mouse. Let the creationists have their own museum and don't try to convince them that they're wrong. Knowing that evolution is the only right answer doesn't make you smart and by giving creationists free publicity like this you run the risk that dumb people will start to believe the easy (and lazy) answer of "god did it". In the end that will do more damage than good.
If you use the scientific method and break the question down, you end up with this. Does the Universe require something to exist, or can it just happen?
This question does not have anything to do with theology, or evolution, or science because we can not prove the answer. The only thing you can puzzle over is the logical aspects. It's a very interesting and thought provoking question, that tends to be ignored. Atheists will claim "it does not matter because "big bang" and theists will claim "God did it", and neither of those two things answer the question.
That said, if you can determine that the Universe does require something to exist, then theology becomes important. Not because it's true, but because there is really something we can't explain. If you claim "it can just happen" you don't end up in the same with something unexplained, but you basically just made an anti-thesis for everything we know about physics.
As I said, it's a great thinking exercise if nothing else.
But since we can not prove either side correct, it's wrong to claim either side is incorrect. Not only do the theists hate that fact, but atheists do as well.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
As an "AGW climate change person" you made me laugh and you're welcome to laugh at me. We'll see who gets the last laugh.
Are you suggesting that Jesus is in Genesis?
Bill is a great guy, good writer and presents well on script, but he's not the best debater or off the cuff speaker. I've seen him do many talk shows. He doesn't always connect with the audience. I think he just thinking a mile a minute and he needs some time to organize them together. Tyson is just much better at this kind of stuff.
I submit a proof for evolution, by which I mean the fact of and explanation for mutability of species.
We will proceed by observation.
1. Life forms have offspring.
2. When those offspring are the result of sexual reproduction, they vary amongst themselves and from their parents in some respects.
3. More offspring are germinated/spawned/hatched/born than survive to reproductive maturity.
4. Variations exhibited by offspring are in some respects heritable.
5. Some heritable variations will make a certain individual offspring marginally more likely to breed successfully.
6. Heritable variation is passed between generations by means of the deoxyribose nucleic acid molecules known as chromosomes.
The first five observations, which are not reasonably refutable, lead one inevitably to the conclusion commonly known as "the survival of the fittest", though note that it is breeding success rather than actual survival which is enjoyed by the fittest; barren survivors don't come into the calculation.
When observation 6 and our detailed understanding of genetic heritability is added, it becomes perfectly _inevitable_ that a breeding population will change its heritable characteristics (i.e. EVOLVE) to fit its environment.
When populations are divided, observation 2 means that subsequent changes cause the two populations to diverge in their heritable characteristics, particularly if the populations are subjected to different environmental challenges or opportunities.
Sufficient genetic divergence then results in the appearance of different species, by which we mean a population with sufficiently different characteristics that a good taxonomist *says* they're separate species, or perhaps (given point 6) that chromosomal differences make interbred offspring non-viable or infertile. Q.E.D.
~~~~~~~~
I genuinely would like to know in what ways a creationist might argue against the above, if by creationism we mean immutability of all species created by $DEITY. If creationism is reduced only to special pleading for Homo sapiens, as being created in God's image, perhaps, then the debate is somewhat altered.
Did anyone else misread the street name as "Bullsh*tsburg Church Rd?"
Answering one simple question with another.
You don't need BIll Nye, you need Penn Gillette.
Actually, who we really need is a resurrected Arthur Schopenhauer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
Not in the least.
He got started on TV as a sketch comedian, and was called "Bill Nye - the Science Guy" as the butt of someone else's joke. He managed to parley that into a non speaking role on someone else's show which lead to his own show. As a quasi-celebrity (I.E. not even on the 'B' list, 'D-standby maybe) who openly voices political and philosophical positions that align with theirs, he's endeared himself to the nerd/geek crowd.
Bascially, he's essentially some random guy who got lucky because his last name lent itself to a joke, despite his lack of professional qualifications.
Frankly, either your bias is showing or your bar for being accomplished and/or qualified is abysmally low, or both.
He would probably never waste his time on this (and I don’t blame him), but Ken Miller wrote a very popular textbook on biology and was an expert witness in that trial a few years back about the school district in Dover, PA. Miller would whip Ham around like a noodle.
There is little chance of a positive income when bringing faith and reasoning at the same table.
It is exactly the same case that debating with pro-deregulation economists: reality already show they are wrong, but they can win a debate on the rhetorical front.
One fascist humanist debating a religious zealot.
I just have to put my common sense aside and watch this!
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Go Bill Go, Go Bill Go!!!
Well, you could say the same thing about whether this is an actual universe or a simulation. Either you accept that experimental results are real or you give up. There's no point in ANY science if your premise is that anything you see, feel or hear could be faked by a deity wishing to fuck with you.
My guess is that Bill Nye is gonna crush this guy. God is truth. Sure evolution has many different definitions, but I don't think any of them are untrue. I think it is some people's understanding of the Bible that is of question. Sure God made things in seven days, but how long is a day for God? If you read the Bible in two separate places it says a day for God is any length of time. Besides why should we assume they're 24 hour periods even before the sun exists.
God spoke to me
This is a problem the world over. Probably smaller Scandinavian countries and few smaller European nations are immune. Some form of nonsensical religious puritanism exists all over the world. Even Buddhists - the generally gentle crowd - are not immune, they are going ape in Sri Lanka and Myanmar (former Burma.)
The good development in 2013 is Pope Francis. He might change the discourse of Catholic church and the rest of the world will get some ideas.
Tat Tvam Asi
I will venture to say that he's far more likely to make it about using science and scientific methods and testing to show how our physical world exists and existed. How we learn from testing and having those tests tested, adjusting our beliefs because of new evidence and building on top of that. As opposed to taking some written words as fact and remain unchanged as evidence shows much of that is impossible, not likely or just incorrect.
Bill Nye is very bright and very good at bringing the words of science down to everyones level of understanding.
The Creationist museum did something interesting you don't seem to be aware of: It went back, taking the same primary evidence (Facts) that was used in creating the current evolutionary model of history, and then re-interpenetrates it using the Bible as another source of facts.
There's nothing to debate. Don't even give them the respect that their ridiculous voodoo deserves a response.
Yes, but will they align themselves with the Earth's magnetic field first?
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
“If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
– St. Augustine of Hippo, 5th Century AD (considered by some Protestants to be one of the theological fathers of the Reformation)
- See more at: http://truecreation.info/
The best info I've heard put out by someone is Kent Hovinds videos. He shows how evolution is scientifically impossible. I recommend his video "Garden of Eden" and "The Age of the Earth".
Both Ken Ham and Bill Nye have their own whacked out beliefs that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. One denies evolution, the other denies climate change.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, for real, and I used to do intercollegiate debate so from that end I agree it could be interesting...
What gives me pause is that doing these debates just lends credence to the idea that there are two sides to the "creation debate." There is really only one side: SCIENCE.
Anything else should be reserved for religious institutions, religious studies classes, etc.
If Ken Ham or whoever thinks they have scientific proof that the entire earth was flooded in a cataclysm ~3000-4000 bp then lets **publish it in a peer reviewed research journal**
I always want to hear new ideas, but if anyone wants to use the language of science they can't pick and choose.
Also, as others have pointed out, this doesn't really seem like a "debate" rather a dog show where everyone has decided before the event which dog is their favorite, and the playing out of the actual event is more like a pep rally.
When both sides want to talk the same language and genuinely are willing to be proven wrong and change I'll be able to share your excitement.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Bill Nye: Show me scientific evidence of Creationism.
Ken Ham: Show me Scriptural evidence of evolution.
Debate over. Everyone loses.
They need to throw the ancient aliens guy into the debate so we can really learn something.
3 memorable things I learned during my visit to the creationist museum in San Diego County:
Light rays that reach earth from seemingly millions of light years away are actually much younger. They were created in place mid-flight by God.
Somebody must have calculated that Noah's ark could not have fit a pair of all species so this has been explained that certain animals stood in for other types of animals. For example a pair of coyotes may have also represented dogs, foxes, and wolves.
Dinosaurs were on Noah's ark.
This isn't going to increase Ham's "popularity". It's going to illustrate the absurdity of letting crackpot ideas into polite conversation.
I see a lot of people saying "It's just going to be a bunch of creationists, Nye is going to just be hitting himself in the face.". I would do what I am about to suggest but I am not in the US. The thing about religious people is they are good at one thing, showing up enmasse to events to show support for their belief, athiests, scientists etc. not so good at that by the very nature of our beliefs (or non beliefs w/e). So why doesn't someone in the US arrange a mass meeting of people who KNOW creationism is just stupid and should not be allowed in schools, and all go turn up and support Nye. If you get even 51% of the audience on his side its not just going to be a mass group of creationists attacking Nye for god knows how long (or rather he doesn't but hey its a catchphrase). You may even help him to change the minds of some of the "on the fencers".
Dumb question. Can someone outline the stance of each point of view?
please don't attribute morality to the bibles/koran/xxxx religious manuals - its a fallacy that you get morals from these books
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
This is a debate between reason and unreason. I'm sure it will do wonders for Ken Ham to allowed the oxygen of publicity and his views. I doubt it will do anything for Bill Nye. Even if he tears Ken Ham to bits it won't make the slightest bit of difference to creationists.
Wow.
The subject of the debate from the Washington Post site is “Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?”
So Nye does not even have to mention evolution, he needs to attack the idea that Creationism is a 'viable model'
I guess simply 'No' is too brief to justify the $25 ticket price.
I always love to hear about 'Faith Based' Nuclear Power Production :-) can you imagine the safety controls in that?
How we got here is really a secondary concern in these debates. The real issue underscoring this debate topic is a person's worldview: e.g. the material world as measured by science is all there is vs. there is more to life than what we can see. Two competing approaches to life that determine our self-understanding and subsequent behavior.
Ever wonder if the Bible was just a very well written book at the time that got very popular and over time just sort of got out of control?
Was reading the book "WE" which apparently 1984 and Brave New World were somewhat based on recently. It is mostly a discourse on Utopian government type structure. It poses the question would you prefer complete control and happiness, or freedom and possible strife? It also juxtaposes that same argument against christian religion to a lesser degree, having a lot of arguments mirrored in the Bible.
The whole Adam and Eve story for example. Which basically amounts to the exact same thing.
As the story goes, God is all like: Here is a Garden of Paradise. You can stay here forever and be happy. However you must obey me and not eat this apple (a symbol of control). The the Devil (opposite, opposed, of God) shows up (representing free will, freedom, USA may not like that), says hey totally eat that apple, super tasty. After which God is all angry and "punishes" them by expelling them from the perfect garden (society) and into earth apparently, whereby they suffer all sorts of calamities.
Anyway it sounds very much like a philosophical story, not to be taken as literal truth, but to get the reader to ask questions about the principles of control vs freedom. Maybe it could be that the folks at the time were unsophisticated enough to be able to comprehend conceptual things, and just took it all literally, but got enough of it to know that something pretty important was being said.
Then it also sounds a bit like propaganda by a tyrannical regime trying to reassert control by way of misinformation. "The Benefactor is all knowing, trust in the Benefactor!" :)
YAY! BILL!
I can't wait to see it.
In the future anyone using the god word, for or against, will only be found in insane asylums.
Debating Ken Ham isn't giong to be a real debate, just Bill slamming Ken's head into the floor repeatedly. It'll be more of a PR stunt than a debate.
For a real debate, it would be great to see Bill Nye debate someone like Craig Hazen or J.P. Mooreland. That I would actually watch.
I still don't know whats going to be debated, the whole thing that started this was should creationism (or intelligent design) be taught in schools, but according to the debates website, the debate is about "Is creation a viable model of origins?" which is completely different that what started all of this.
Yes, Creation is a viable model of origins if you want to ignore all of science, religion works for some people and I'm all for that.
but I want a debate over the original question of should creationism be taught in schools. and that should be a straight all caps NO!.
The problem with teaching intelligent design is that it teaches children to just give up when things get too hard to explain. I have no problem with intelligent design as an alternate theory the problem I have with it is that as a scientist when you are looking for answers to questions, at some point its going to get too complicated to understand or to gather more information and at that point you are just going to say that there is no reason for exploring this subject any further as its all determined by intelligent design, in other words it teaches you to give up, and I think we all can agree that teaching children to give up is not something we should be teaching.
-------------------------------------------------
Looking at the stats, the most hated group in America are Atheists (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm; study in 2006 I believe).
The internet is an echobox, and slashdot is not excluded. Atheists represent a minority (15% of American claim no religion, of those only ~2% claim to be atheist) in society: if this public debate gets people out of the closet it would be worth it.
Hamm is good, very good. He can talk circles around anybody who is prepared for a regular logical debate and come out looking like the winner. After the debate you can look at the transcript and see he did not actually adress any of his opponent's points nor really defend his own, but by then the crowd will have left thinking creationism trounced evolution.
I suggest Nye spend the next month watching as many Hamm debates as possible, reading the transcripts, and the commentaries on the transcripts. Otherwise, he'll be blindsided with BS.
Anybody can do good science - even eight year olds: google "8-year-olds publish scientific bee study".
I'm a palaeontologist with a track record of research and publication in the field of plesiosaur palaeontology. I have no formal qualifications in the field. Nobody has ever rejected a paper I have written, or barred me from giving a presentation at a conference because I have no such qualification. What matters in science is the evidence and the argument, not the authority of the author.
The fact that creationists can't even match the scientific integrity of a classroom of 8-year olds is testament to the utter vacuousness of their "theories"
I hope Bill Nye fucks him up wholesale. These useless shitbag quacks need to be put in their place, and Bill is a definite scientific heavyweight.
A battle of wits against an unarmed man?
And I do wonder, is this officially to be a scientific debate? So "The Bible", being a religious document and in every way possible not a scientific document, is off limits? Or is the great Mr. Nye getting into an explicit contest of dogma? Suppose I'll have to catch the inevitable YouTube just to see how Nye handles this situation... very weird, to be debating science against a person who rejects any science that doesn't fit his personal mythology.
-Dave Haynie
Yes I could. Or that we're just a dream of some creature.
But that doesn't mean science is pointless.
The point in science is to have repeatable experimental results and produce reliable knowledge to advance our understanding and life.
If a christian-like God exists, then he his apparently content in letting us use the scientific process to find how the Universe he built works.
He clearly doesn't screw around with the laws of physics on a daily basis. Scientists worth the title who also happen to believe in a God are as skeptical of physics defying events as any one.
But again, we have no scientific proof that he exists or not. The christian concept of God, of a sentient all power being, makes it impossible to have such proof.
yes indeed, there very much *IS* credible evidence in virtually all ancient cultures (even China) that there was some sort of global-level flooding
to me, that's not a problem, but a potential solution.
just look at the trench in the middle of the Atlantic...IIRC the trench is still ejecting material that can be dated via it's magnetic polarity
if hydrologists and geologists found credible evidence that all of these are connected, IMHO, it wouldn't **prove** a single thing about the Bible other than it is one of many religious texts based on real events
how would that prove the Bible true or prove a 'god' exists? it wouldn't...but it would undercut those who believe they can prove a supernatural 'god' exists via (psuedo) science.
that's what kills me every time on this...science cannot prove or disprove something that is by definition (supernatural) beyond science by word of the the idea's own proponents
another interesting allegorical connection I saw recently was the theory that Homer's Odyssey is actually an allegorical history of the true discovery of North & South America
interesting stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_Odyssey#Atlantic_Ocean_and_other_theories
we already know that there was significant pre-Columbian contact across both the South Pacific (the potoatoes don't lie), North Atlantic (Lief Erickson et. al), and via Tradewinds in the central Atlantic (Inca genetics match North Africans), and of course, the Inuit children presented in Europe in ~1000 AD
note that absolutely none of this would prove that a 'god' exists in any way
Thank you Dave Raggett
I've seen this one several times... one thing truely lacking... any comment or response or acceptance of the debate from Bill Nye. The appropriate headline is "Ken Ham opens doors for debate against Bill Nye". Now odds are IMO Bill shouldn't or won't agree to this debate without first and foremost... getting his own crew in there to record and have the interview posted in it's entirety (ham is basically setting this debate up in his own turf... no information for his moderator choice etc.... Ken Ham is quite likely to basically have this happen on his stage... post the video to youtube edited and butchered to make it look like Nye couldn't answer his questions, or have a moderator or any other means to prevent Nye from speaking. Odds are Ken Ham will not allow Bill Nye to debate in a form that Bill Nye can actually teach the audience. Ken Ham is going to set himself a win/win situation... Nye attends, Ham chops and edits the only permitted footage so it looks like Nye lost. Nye requests independant recording etc... ham will refuse that in his museum. Nye refuses, Ham will boast of how Bill Nye is afraid to debate a real creationist.
Is this a never-ending conflict? Or will humanity eventually learn that our engrained culture of "religion" is nothing more than a collection of superstitions handed-down over millenia? We have been practicing religious beliefs for so long the idea of shrugging-off those superstitions is fought against very hard in many (most?) places in the world. Some places are actually getting worse. However, religion is not necessary to lead a good life. It is not necessary to know right from wrong. It simply is not necessary - not anymore.
[yawn] Bill Nye is jumping into an fight of squawking and feather-ruffling with no spurs on his toes. No clear victory is possible because the only referee who could call the plays and tally the score is God. Since God is strictly hands-off, there will be no thunderclap and deep booming voice to announce the winner.
Since Nye does not own a science theme park whose ticket sales could be bolstered by this event, he has already lost the debate.
Since Ham owns a theme park where it is fun to imagine Tyrannosaurus Rex as a vegan doggie being petted by a smiling cave woman in a sexy (loom-woven) tunic ... he has already won the debate.
Now if Bill Nye should instead choose to debate Christopher Monckton on anthropogenic climate change, the true nature of the CO2 as relates to the Greenhouse effect, and the applicability and veracity of long term computer models ... THAT would be a debate worthy of popcorn.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
evolutionists always have the last laugh when a creationist dies...
Well, at least we're fighting the good fight and making products that teach kids sound evolutionary science. http://kck.st/1kYxGFY
I am sorry, but YEC as Ken (Idiot) Ham should not be debated. They fall into the same category of people (and I am using the term people here very loosely) that believe the earth is flat or that the stork brings all the babies. Neither of them can be debated either because they all use the same tactics.
Seems that Evolution is a longer version of the Creation story sans credits. Truth exists independent of belief. The positions for creation / evolution must be made clear as statements for a debate, right? When the first baseman gets his check, whose name is on it? ... Perhaps we will discover 'Who is on First.'
Who the heck is Bill McNye?
EINSTEIN'S TIME DILATION EQUATION BY VELOCITY...13.7 BILLION YEARS HERE ARE 6 DAYS "ABOVE THE UNIVERSE" NEAR THE FARTHEST PHOTONS ; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.99999999999999999999999999999999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119988e-12; 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames. .99999999999999999999999999999999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 - 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photons
distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters x
EINSTEIN'S TIME DILATION EQUATION BY STRETCHING OF SPACE....space time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light , hence time kicks in), universe was 1000,000,000,000 times smaller when matter formed at that heat compared to now... this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years
Many Republicans now report belief in evolution; however they want it to be a choice, not a mandate.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.