[video=youtube;z6kgvhG3AkI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI[/video] Just jump the video past the first 13 mins.
The day is finally here! Bill Nye is debated creationist Ken Ham tonight at 7 p.m. EST. At 8:45 p.m. there was a Q&A session with the debaters. You can watch the debate on YouTube. We've summarized the main points Nye made in the debate, and we think he crushed it. The debate rose from some controversial statements that Nye made to Big Think about how creationism isn't appropriate in schools. Pleading with parents not to force their faulty world views on their kids, he said: I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems. Ham, an Australian evangelical who believes that the Earth is 5,000 years old, responded to Nye's comments with his own video, in which he says that "evolutionists" are the ones brainwashing the children. He also says: Bill Nye also has an agenda to teach children not to believe in God, to teach them they are the result of evolutionary processes, that they came from slime over millions of years... Bill Nye is implying that if we are going to teach children creation that it's really a form of abuse, that creationism is inappropriate for children. I'll tell you what is real abuse, and I'll tell you what is inappropriate for children. When you take generations of kids and you teach them they are just animals and there is no God... It's really people like Bill Nye that are damaging kids, creationists are teaching children that they are special, that they are made in the image of God.... Them's fighting words. And the fight was on. An infuriating debate The debate is infuriating scientists worldwide, who see the "debate" over evolution as over. As Death And Taxes put it: It’s nice that Ham is sounding friendly, but technically this isn’t a debate between beliefs — it’s a debate between Ham’s beliefs and Nye’s measurable data. Nye doesn’t “believe in” evolution — he has deduced from facts and concrete evidence the condition of the natural world. There’s no external evidence to support the claim that the earth is 5,000 years old. Some people are criticizing Bill Nye for even engaging in such a debate, as it just gives more credence and publicity to the creationists, while putting money directly in their pocket. The Creationist Museum is holding the debate, and they charged $25 each for the 900 tickets. The "debate" is just giving creationists a national stage from which to spew their fake facts, according to Josh Rossenau of the National Center For Science Eduction, a group with a long-standing policy against debating creationists: Creationists are famous for using the "Gish gallop," a rapid-fire repetition of supposed evidence against evolution and alleged support for their own claims, reeled off so fast that neither the audience nor the other debater can even keep track of all the claims, let alone refute them in the time allotted. So there’s no chance of the audience learning a lot of good science in a creationist debate, and every chance of it learning a lot of bad science. They've even created some bingo cards to use during the debate, which include some of the favorite tactics used by creationists. As the debate wears on you can keep yourself entertained by looking out for tactics like: Asking "were you there?"; saying "radiometric dating is unreliable"; and alleging that creation scientists are being persecuted. http://www.sfgate.com/technology/bu...w-To-Watch-Bill-Nye-s-Debate-With-5205219.php
It's boring. I'm trying to watch it but it sounds like a lot of whining from Ham and I just see someone ignoring facts. I'm not against the idea of a supreme being, but I think it's ridiculous that anyone could think the earth is a mere six thousand years old.
Maybe next week they can have a chemist debate with an alchemist? The week after that an astrophysicist and an astrologist can take each other to task. How about a biologist and a haruspex go tête-à-tête? I'd like to see wizards and oracles and snake handlers get their say, too. I really like Bill Nye but this was misguided.
I'll have to check out the vid, too bad it was not on TV. speeds, I do see your point. It's absurd we are having this debate in 2014. But sadly, to this day, there are still public schools teaching bible as science. There are politicians in office demanding bible be taught as science. And science denial impact other debates, like climate change and abortion. Unfortunately, science is rarely and badly taught. It is important to use any forum there is to promote not just science facts but more critically science method. It's what Carl Sagan did, what Neil deGrasse Tyson does, and what Bill Nye does.
I heard a good theory that Bill Nye went on this because of the following situation: Creationist parents think 'Hah! This Science guy is going to get smeared by our Creationist Champion!' Then they shout out "KIDS!!! Get down here and watch what good 'Science' will teach you!" And thus Bill Nye is trying to be interesting and informative to those 12-18 year olds. He may not have been trying to win the debate, but rather get youth who would otherwise discredit scientific fact.
Ken Ham thinks there were dinosaurs on the ark. Validating his lunacy is more damaging than hoping children and teenagers might be watching this obscure event.
Half the country doesn't believe in evolution because they are committed to following snake handlers. Yes it would be misguided to bother putting up a fight in an auditorium at Stanford or whatever, but not on the snake handlers home turf where most of the audience takes them seriously.
I'll concede that point since I'm in another country and I'm not really aware if this was a publicized/popular thing or not. I believe people had trouble watching it online the other night due to technical difficulties but I might be mistaken.
I'm disinclined to believe this; I hope that people are lying to pollsters. We know that the number of people that say they go to church is much higher than the actual volume of parishioners. I think giving Ham and his zealots any attention is a mistake. Having famous scientists and engineers speak at his house of horrors gives him the validation he craves. Any venue that sets up creationism and evolution as two equivalent, plausible schools of thought is something to be weary of.
I want Ken Ham to be right. Dinosaurs living just a few thousand years ago instead of 100's millions means it would be much easier to create a human dinosaur hybrid. Who here wouldn't want to see a 14' tall dino center on the Blazers.
yeah..I have to agree. Ham is t be commended for following his faith as he understands it, but 6000 years old..naw. I do get the on off switch in the genome. That has been well documented already. I am more of the opinion that it was created, not limiting how.
Really? That is something only accepted in science for like the last 10(?) years. The idea that there was something beyond just DNA and that your actions can influence your children was a renaissance of epigenetics. I wouldn't call it well documented.
