Bill Nye Debates Creationist Ken Ham Tonight.

[Don't Swallow The Cap]

http://bigthink.com/big-think-tv/bill-nye-debates-creationist-ken-ham-watch-live-at-7pm-et

Having no idea who Ken Ham is and only knowing Bill Nye from his show as a child, I really have no idea what to think about it.

I sure did love that show.
:lol:

[Mrcapitalist]

Bill nye owned that creationist

[argeiphontes]

http://i.imgur.com/87hHkfT.jpg (http://imgur.com/87hHkfT)

;)

I don't see what the problem is that Christians have with evolution. The Catholic church allows belief in evolution, and the astute literal-interpretationist will note that in Genesis 1:24 it says "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures...". Sounds like the land is doing the actual production.

Anyway, thanks for the info I'll watch this later, I do like Bill Nye.http://imgur.com/87hHkfT

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I don't see what the problem is that Christians have with evolution. The Catholic church allows belief in evolution, and the astute literal-interpretationist will note that in Genesis 1:24 it says "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures...". Sounds like the land is doing the actual production.http://imgur.com/87hHkfT

The bourgeois 'libertarians/stage magicians Penn & Teller had an episode on their old show Bullshit about this very question...and they showed that it has very little to do with actual science or religion, and has almost everything to do with social control.

[Ocean Seal]

The bourgeois 'libertarians/stage magicians Penn & Teller had an episode on their old show Bullshit about this very question...and they showed that it has very little to do with actual science or religion, and has almost everything to do with social control.
I'm very curious as to what the specifics are with regards to the social control. Keeping people from trusting scientists.

[BIXX]

I'm very curious as to what the specifics are with regards to the social control. Keeping people from trusting scientists.


Keeping people from thinking critically.

You see, before we had the science to determine the age of the earth, some folks have been calculating the age of the earth based on the bible (these people might even have had good intentions, as they didn't know any better). Now though, we have several tools to tell us this is incorrect (carbon dating, red shift, radiometry, etc...) and the young earth creationists insist that these techniques are wrong. Presumably so that they can lead to more people following their lead rather than using critical thought.

Also, they come up with fake evidence (EX Ken Ham said that the 4000 year old wood was cased in much older rock. This isn't evidence because there is such a thing as movement (at the tectonic scale and lower) that could have created that situation) so they can say that our science is not accurate.

Further more, if a scientist says they don't know exactly how something happened, creationists will say the bible explains it. For example, there was a question in the debate where someone asked Bill Nye why the universe did this or that (can't remember the exact question), and he said (truthfully) that he wasn't sure but that's why he was a scientist- so he could find out. Ken Ham replied with "Well, there's a book called the bible that explains that..." And acting as if that was enough f a reason, and failing to explain why he took that book to be true.

Finally, Ken repeatedly said that we cannot determine the past from evidence we have in the present... Well shit, this motherfucker should be a criminal lawyer! Of course we can determine the past from the present. I can look at footprints in the snow and determine that something walked there, and furthermore, if I had the skills, what it was, what it's age was, sometimes it's gender, and what it's size was. There are probably more that I missed, but you get the point.

Fuck young earthers.

[reb]

I thought it was terrible. No one should debate creationists or give them the time of day in regards as to wether creationism is scientific or not. You don't debate with them or give them a public platform the same way that you don't debate with fascists or racists or whatever. Bill Nye wasn't much better with his nationalist pro-economy bullshit. The funny thing was, however, is that listening to Ken Ham reminded me a lot of arguments I've seen people have had with stalinists.

[NGNM85]

I thought it was terrible. No one should debate creationists or give them the time of day in regards as to wether creationism is scientific or not. You don't debate with them or give them a public platform the same way that you don't debate with fascists or racists or whatever. Bill Nye wasn't much better with his nationalist pro-economy bullshit. The funny thing was, however, is that listening to Ken Ham reminded me a lot of arguments I've seen people have had with stalinists.

I see what you are saying about legitimizing creationists, by giving them a platform, and, also, creating a kind of false equivalency. However, not engaging with creationists also has it's drawbacks, particularly in that it means that a certain amount of people only hear one side of the argument. It reminds me of a conversation I had with somebody, after watching a clip of renowned creationist Kent Hovind (Who is presently incarcerated for tax evasion.) I surmised that, to someone with basically no understanding of biology, whatsoever, this sort of rhetoric is probably very compelling. Therefore, I think the cost of engaging creationists in debate, while real, is less than the cost of not doing so.

[PhoenixAsh]

Ken Ham totally convinced me and sold me on this creationism.

[Comrade Jacob]

Oh, it's just another boring real-science vs pseudo-science debate. I used to find them entertaining but it just gets repetitive after a while.:(

[AnaRchic]

You know, if there's one force on this planet that is going to thwart social revolution and lead to the extinction of our species due to the continuation of the status quo, its religion.

When billions of people believe that the universe is 6000 years old, that mankind is inherently evil because two people ate some fruit off a tree under pressure of a talking snake, and that its always wrong to question and resist authority no matter what (romans 13), we have a conundrum.

Religion is the one thing that may end up fucking us royally; so long as this mental disorder continues to afflict such masses of people, I'm not sure a real social revolution of the kind we advocate will ever happen.

For the love of god (pardon the pun) we need to spread awareness of science as far and as wide as possible, and hopefully relegate religion to a fringe phenomena.

[BIXX]

You know, if there's one force on this planet that is going to thwart social revolution and lead to the extinction of our species due to the continuation of the status quo, its religion.

When billions of people believe that the universe is 6000 years old, that mankind is inherently evil because two people ate some fruit off a tree under pressure of a talking snake, and that its always wrong to question and resist authority no matter what (romans 13), we have a conundrum.

Religion is the one thing that may end up fucking us royally; so long as this mental disorder continues to afflict such masses of people, I'm not sure a real social revolution of the kind we advocate will ever happen.

For the love of god (pardon the pun) we need to spread awareness of science as far and as wide as possible, and hopefully relegate religion to a fringe phenomena.

Don't call it a mental disorder- that is fucked up and oppressive. Also not all religion is bad- I am not religious, but some religions actually sound kinda nice.

I will always fight for someone's right to worship, but I will always say "I don't believe in this and here is why". Suppressing religion is pointless. I mean, you can fight against the oppression some religions and religious folks espouse, but suppressing religious people is kinda serious bullshit.

[Halert]

Religion vs Atheism debates a boring and stupid. Religious people don't accept logic and reason when it comes to debating their religion. What you end up with is the religious person preaching his religion and the atheist repeating scientific facts. Neither will ever accept anything the others says because their way of thinking is completely different.

[Sabot Cat]

Religion vs Atheism debates a boring and stupid. Religious people don't accept logic and reason when it comes to debating their religion. What you end up with is the religious person preaching his religion and the atheist repeating scientific facts. Neither will ever accept anything the others says because their way of thinking is completely different.

I was convinced to be a Christian by Christians, before I was convinced to be an atheist by atheists. I don't think all debates are hopeless or pointless on the subject.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't understand why you diss on Ken Ham and creationism....y'all should all stop eating fruit. Obviously it confuses you.

Anyways...science can't explain the duck billed platypus (they really can't yet btw) so it is all very obvious. O...and dinosaur bones were planted by Satan to confuse people and trick them (actual argument!!)

[reb]

I see what you are saying about legitimizing creationists, by giving them a platform, and, also, creating a kind of false equivalency. However, not engaging with creationists also has it's drawbacks, particularly in that it means that a certain amount of people only hear one side of the argument. It reminds me of a conversation I had with somebody, after watching a clip of renowned creationist Kent Hovind (Who is presently incarcerated for tax evasion.) I surmised that, to someone with basically no understanding of biology, whatsoever, this sort of rhetoric is probably very compelling. Therefore, I think the cost of engaging creationists in debate, while real, is less than the cost of not doing so.

Well, it has been through these sort of debates and a willingness to engage with them that has allowed creationism to be taught in schools. You are not going to convince any staunch creationist through debates like this. If you haven't noticed, there has also been a ton of videos where creationists attempt to pick apart what Bill Nye has said without any comment. Would you allow people to teach or debates revisionist histories of the holocaust? The place where creationism shouldn't exist is in schools where it can be taught as a ligit science because it is not and school is often the one place where kids can get away from this shit.

[argeiphontes]

I'm 1:15 in and Nye is the only one addressing any of the evidence. Ham just made a polemic. He wants to have his cake (speciation) but refuses to eat it (evolution).

The side that properly addresses the evidence "wins" these kinds of things, and I don't see any reason why they should be suppressed or disallowed. They are important for public understanding of knowledge. The only problem of course is you sometimes get to see your favorite side as the one not addressing the evidence.

AnaRchic, billions of people do not believe the earth is 6K years old. People also have a right to believe whatever the hell they please. Surely an anarchist wouldn't take your attitude toward religion seriously? Why should people accept your authority?

[NGNM85]

I was convinced to be a Christian by Christians, before I was convinced to be an atheist by atheists. I don't think all debates are hopeless or pointless on the subject.

This is a good point. Beyond being bleak, and depressing, this sort of fatalism is obviously false. I grant that many, if not most true believers are so resolute in their convictions as to be completely unsusceptible to reason, however, some of them aren't. We have evidence to prove it. Many, if not most, members of this forum were raised to believe in one religion, or another, and have, since, ceased to believe. I, myself, was a Roman Catholic before I became an atheist. So, while it may not be possible, in all cases, to break down that wall, it is possible.

[The Idler]

Anyone else think Bill Nye (and Richard Dawkins for that matter) don't debate very well? The elephant (or diplodocus) in the room for me was the anthropogenic nature of religion but since this isn't the scientists specialty they never seem to mention it.