[youtube:36xjkxw7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI[/youtube:36xjkxw7]
I like how Bill used geology more than biology to counter Mr Ham. You don't hear that approach often, and it outflanks the anti-evolution bs arguments nicely.
I'm just happy to see (from the length of the video) that they don't seem to have edited it yet.
Ken Ham used "you weren't there" as an actual argument. That's all you really need to know about this debate.
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Ken Ham used "you weren't there" as an actual argument. That's all you really need to know about this debate.
Was HE there at the Garden? What was he doing on Day Four (excused for the first three, no Sun.)
Quote from: "Gawdzilla Sama"Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Ken Ham used "you weren't there" as an actual argument. That's all you really need to know about this debate.
Was HE there at the Garden? What was he doing on Day Four (excused for the first three, no Sun.)
GOD was there and god told Ham--and god can't lie.
Haven't you ever played this game before?
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "Gawdzilla Sama"Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Ken Ham used "you weren't there" as an actual argument. That's all you really need to know about this debate.
Was HE there at the Garden? What was he doing on Day Four (excused for the first three, no Sun.)
GOD was there and god told Ham--and god can't lie.
Haven't you ever played this game before?
Just wanted to get the "God talks to me" out there, cause we know what it means when God talks to YOU.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"I'm just happy to see (from the length of the video) that they don't seem to have edited it yet.
I downloaded it in High Def with flash downloader and I'm going to re upload the whole thing on a dummy youtube channel in a week or two. They say at the end that it's going to be archived for only a few days...
I had trepidations, but Ham did worse and Nye did better than I expected. It was the ID people who came out worst, they must have been spitting at the way Ham undermined they're 'we're not saying it's God (but it's God)' approach.
There was a great opportunity for bill to call ken out on a claim he made about the majority of scientists not being yec, and he passed. He mentioned something like just because the majority believe something, it doesn't make it true. Wouldn't you just jump on that???? Even in passing up that opportunity, i thought bill nye dominated.
Quote from: "hrdlr110"There was a great opportunity for bill to call ken out on a claim he made about the majority of scientists not being yec, and he passed. He mentioned something like just because the majority believe something, it doesn't make it true. Wouldn't you just jump on that???? Even in passing up that opportunity, i thought bill nye dominated.
I don't know if that necessarily would have been a good move if he did. Even though there is only a small percentage of scientists that believe that, they do exist. And the fact that there are people in the scientific field that believe in a young earth, no matter how low the percentage, makes it a bit tougher to bring up that as an argument for evolution. It's like saying "well, they aren't real scientists because they are yec"
A friend of mine at school showed me about ten minutes of Ham's speech, and that was about all I needed to see in to make me walk away in disgust. I've seen some really bad arguments before, but argunig that you can't make a judgment about the Earths origins because you wern't there when it happened?! He didn't even get the Genesis creation story right. #-o
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"Quote from: "hrdlr110"There was a great opportunity for bill to call ken out on a claim he made about the majority of scientists not being yec, and he passed. He mentioned something like just because the majority believe something, it doesn't make it true. Wouldn't you just jump on that???? Even in passing up that opportunity, i thought bill nye dominated.
I don't know if that necessarily would have been a good move if he did. Even though there is only a small percentage of scientists that believe that, they do exist. And the fact that there are people in the scientific field that believe in a young earth, no matter how low the percentage, makes it a bit tougher to bring up that as an argument for evolution. It's like saying "well, they aren't real scientists because they are yec"
i was referring to belief in gods, the bible, koran etc. Just because the majority believe.........
I'm in a wet towel mood here, I guess..... I respect Bill Nye for his stance as an atheist and I respect his professional status, but personally I think he is a flake. I don't see anything being gained by this. In the end nobody changes their mid and everyone comes away with what they started with. A whole lot of noise and smoke with no concrete results.
Correction, he has specifically labeled himself agnostic, stating we cannot know and cannot prove whether or not god exists.
You can't know for sure that nobody changed their minds. Think about the demographics too. Sure, odds are the parents in the audience are pretty set in their beliefs, but the kids may start second guessing what their parents are peddling.
Also, those kids that have been indoctrinated by Ham to ask "were you there" may have just gotten curious about those interesting fossils in the layers of the earth and may decide that you know what, I don't care what people tell me I should believe, I am curious and I am going to start exploring.
Quote from: "Shol'va"Correction, he has specifically labeled himself agnostic, stating we cannot know and cannot prove whether or not god exists.
You can't know for sure that nobody changed their minds. Think about the demographics too. Sure, odds are the parents in the audience are pretty set in their beliefs, but the kids may start second guessing what their parents are peddling.
Also, those kids that have been indoctrinated by Ham to ask "were you there" may have just gotten curious about those interesting fossils in the layers of the earth and may decide that you know what, I don't care what people tell me I should believe, I am curious and I am going to start exploring.
I agree, bill continually challenged people throughout the debate to "check for yourself". Those were not the words from the mouth of ken, he just kept referring to the bible as his proof! Hilariously at some points!!!
Bill Nye didn't change Ham's mind, I agree with that. The thing is that debates generally aren't for the debaters, its for the audience. If he changed even one person's mind into looking into scientific explanations for the universe than the debate was worth it.
I thought that point was taken for granted so I didn't even touch on it, good that you mentioned it Shiranu.
Nothing will convince Ham and all the rest. Nothing. And I suspect their conduct is not even a true reflection of their beliefs; I think they are motivated by money and other personal reasons.
QuoteI agree, bill continually challenged people throughout the debate to "check for yourself". Those were not the words from the mouth of ken, he just kept referring to the bible as his proof! Hilariously at some points!!!
Possibly the most powerful thing he could've said. Don't accept the authority of others, see for yourself what is true. If even one person took
that advice to heart then I think Nye will consider the debate worth it.
I think one nice thing here is that this was streamed in churches across the country. Now I imagine adults watching already made up their minds, but they brought their kids along. Young, questioning minds may have been further strengthened by this, and that's why I consider it worthwhile.
Yeah, I think the percentage of closeted atheists went up by a non-negligible amount :rollin:
Hello all. I was excited to see the Nye/Ham debate on youtube and decided to join this forum.
I have to give Bill Nye full credit for doing this debate in the Creationist Museum. If it was me I'd have been wearing some sort of deflective clothing. I am also extremely glad this type of event is happening in our world and it shows that progress is being made against the dark ages. That being said, cheerleaders don't help make improvements and in the name of science I offer some constructive criticism.
I could see the circular arguments and dodgery of Ham was getting frustrating for Bill Nye the scientist and I think this may have caused Bill Nye the public speaker to miss some juicy targets. I also thought Bill got side tracked and brought up scientific points that may have been valid but they didn't support his argument against Ham and were probably over the heads of the target audience. Ironically I think Bill wound up "preaching to the choir" which I don't believe was his intention for this debate. I also think that asking a creationist to scientifically predict something over and over was an exercise in futility. It was good food for thought when Bill mentioned it once or twice but using that idea over and over left the ball in Ham's court where all he had to do was hit it sideways to keep the support of his followers.
I couldn't have done this debate better than Nye, nor do I think I am smarter him. I just thought there were a few opportunities to nail Ham and a few large opportunities to communicate with the public that were missed. As an atheist and a scientist I try to judge the debate through the eyes of a neutral or religious person. As an atheist and scientist I feel that of course Nye was the winner of the debate, our best evidence beats circular arguments and research to "explain" everyday of the week. Putting myself in the position of squinting through the eyes of a Christian I'm not so sure big strides were made. I would guess Bill Nye is reviewing this debate as a scientist and public speaker and revising ways to improve if he gets another chance. I think if Nye could do this debate over he would make it his goal to put a continuous barrage of evidence forth for the masses (not just Ham) that supports evolution. At the same time I think he might concentrate on ignoring Hamm's excuses and only engaging Ham when he offers up an easy nugget. Bill repeatedly said that the most important thing was the advancement of science in America (and the world?). And this is why I believe he would have wanted to streamline his message and presentation of evidence more robustly to the creationist community.
IMO Ham is merely the vehicle or the platform to be used by the scientific community to speak to the masses of sinners. Ham is too good to be true, anyone that is willing to go live against a scientist and debate creation vs evolution is pure gold. For the most part we already knew what Ham's arguments were going to be. IMO the goal was not to debate Ham's "science" but to serve up mounds of everyday, easily understandable, thought provoking evidence to an audience that is most likely not well versed in evolutionary evidence.
Again I don't want to come down on Bill Nye, this would have been daunting task and Bill is a pioneer in this aspect. I hope he gets another chance for round two. Some of the wins I thought Nye had were the "11 new species a day with the weather report", the ship building and the 650K ice layers vs 600 years. Applause to Bill Nye for undertaking this important step towards widespread enlightenment.
Don't forget the Gish Gallop was created by a Creationist for this very reason. Ham and his ilk don't care about truth, just convincing enough people long enough to get their way with their idiot projects, like Creationist museums. And as I said earlier, debating them is ultimately pointless.
Quote from: "stromboli"Don't forget the Gish Gallop was created by a Creationist for this very reason. Ham and his ilk don't care about truth, just convincing enough people long enough to get their way with their idiot projects, like Creationist museums. And as I said earlier, debating them is ultimately pointless.
I agree that it is more difficult to defend a simple truth than a complex lie. I also agree that it probably is pointless to debate one single narrow minded individual that admits no evidence would ever make him/her change their minds.
What I don't agree with is that its pointless to have these debates. There were young and old minds in the audience that need evidence presented to them that they are missing out on at home or in Sunday school. This evidence gives them the opportunity to make their own decisions. IMO that is
the point of this event.
Quote from: "chiselpeak"Quote from: "stromboli"Don't forget the Gish Gallop was created by a Creationist for this very reason. Ham and his ilk don't care about truth, just convincing enough people long enough to get their way with their idiot projects, like Creationist museums. And as I said earlier, debating them is ultimately pointless.
I agree that it is more difficult to defend a simple truth than a complex lie. I also agree that it probably is pointless to debate one single narrow minded individual that admits no evidence would ever make him/her change their minds.
What I don't agree with is that its pointless to have these debates. There were young and old minds in the audience that need evidence presented to them that they are missing out on at home or in Sunday school. This evidence gives them the opportunity to make their own decisions. IMO that is the point of this event.
Call me jaded. I hope you are right.
Quote from: "stromboli"Quote from: "chiselpeak"Quote from: "stromboli"Don't forget the Gish Gallop was created by a Creationist for this very reason. Ham and his ilk don't care about truth, just convincing enough people long enough to get their way with their idiot projects, like Creationist museums. And as I said earlier, debating them is ultimately pointless.
I agree that it is more difficult to defend a simple truth than a complex lie. I also agree that it probably is pointless to debate one single narrow minded individual that admits no evidence would ever make him/her change their minds.
What I don't agree with is that its pointless to have these debates. There were young and old minds in the audience that need evidence presented to them that they are missing out on at home or in Sunday school. This evidence gives them the opportunity to make their own decisions. IMO that is the point of this event.
Call me jaded. I hope you are right.
lol, nobody can blame an atheist for being jaded
I knew Ken Ham was a dumbass before, and this debate just made me realize that he's not a dumbass. He's brain dead. He has to be, with how he thinks and what he deems "Logical".
Also, I'm surprised nobody mentioned the bold faced LIE that creationist "astronomer" told when he said "there is nothing in astronomy that disproves a young universe."
What???!!??!? Light years? Red shift? That completely fucking blew me away.
I have marked it to watch it later.
Just in case, is there a mirror to this debate elsewhere on YouTube?