Bill Nye vs Ken Ham

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSu2u6loAyo&list=PL8kma_GjQgWwmMEU4weNTA084Z8QVMhLK&feature=share&index=2


Articles:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/03/bill-nye-debate-creationist-ken-ham-video_n_4714370.html
http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2014/1/16/why-bill-nye-shouldn-t-debate-ken-hamBill Nye vs Ken Ham


Where to Watch:
http://fora.tv/event/bill_nye_debates_ken_ham/livestream
http://debatelive.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

I watched the debate. I won't give spoilers, but ultimately, I agree with this guy .

steamboat28 wrote: I watched the debate. I won't give spoilers, but ultimately, I agree with this guy .

Yes, however Bill was on point the whole time, when he made and defended that creationism is not scientific, and does not belong in the science classroom.

Yea, the debate is pretty much useless as Ham admitted there was pretty much no evidence that could be presented that would dissuade him from his assumption. How scientific.

I watched the debate. I won't give spoilers, but ultimately, I agree with this guy. - -> http://vimeo.com/39284822
:whistle:

I wish I had time to watch that video. Bill Nye did not do nearly as good as I thought he would ,but debating someone with the argument "You don't know everything." is very difficult when most people see not knowing everything as admission you know very little.

The point is to look at their purpose for having this debate. Bill Nye's true purpose was Scientific America's growing concern that scientific illiteracy in the general public is causing America to lose it's economic superiority, which is a very valid concern in my opinion and has been a concern for the last 20 years or so.

Ken Ham's purpose was clearly to gather more followers and make more sales, which I'm sure he accomplished quite well.

Here is Neil DeGrasse Tyson making that point very well.

http://youtu.be/fDAT98eEN5Q

I watched the debate earlier on YouTube and this was a related video. Thought some of it might be an interesting addition to the topic - particularly the conversation between Bill Maher and Ken Ham.

Andy Spalding wrote: Yes, however Bill was on point the whole time, when he made and defended that creationism is not scientific, and does not belong in the science classroom.

If you honestly believe this, you're either heavily biased in Nye's favor, or we didn't watch the same debate. He was crass, rude, condescending, and failed to actually make any counterpoints. He sucks at interactive public speaking, he didn't attack Ham where and when he was weakest, he never brought up counterpoints to the most fundamental of Ham's arguments, nothing. He just kept beating his chest over about four facts. He looked like as much of a tool as Ham did.

As much as I probably have made clear by now that I am on Nye's side of the issue, I must admit I find he had the worse case of the two in this debate. It was really beyond disappointing and disgraceful. Now I don't know Nye from his pervious work so far but surely it can't have been equally bad considering that even Ham was far below the standard he uses to employ in his lectures, or shall I call them homilies. It is debates like these that make me sorry Mr. Hitchens kept wasting his body so badly.

I should probably wake my husband up to watch this video.

Sadly, I think that I could make a better "scientific" argument for creationism in the Bible than almost any other creationist I've met....As to the age of the earth, I would say that this has more to do with the story of a particular family than it does the earth's age. In my belief, Adam and Eve were created after man was created. Some proponents of this same belief call Adam and Eve 8th day man, to separate them from those which were created on the 6th day. This is supported by the difference between what Adam and Eve were created for (to till the ground), and what 6th day man was created for (over animals) But really, since there is no specified date for Adam and Eve's creation, there could have been a huge gap between the two different creations.

So the story is of Abraham's lineage, and what was taught to them. As the oral tradition could skew things, the timeframes could have easily been skewed as well. So really, there is no reason to look to the Bible for a timeline of how old the earth is. Basically, we're just getting a general idea of how awesome the family of Adam and Eve are, the timeline is just there to give a general idea of what order everything came . That's my theory, lol.