Bill Nye versus Ken Ham
http://debatelive.org/
The above link you can watch the debate live! Also can be found on youtube on Ham's page. Debate starts at 4pm PST.
Post your thought as the debate progresses or recap areas you felt needed explaing or were wrong!
I see we have possible multiple accounts users just spamming this with butt patting rhetoric. Simply saying you are right in several responsed will get you banned.
Nye
Side Score: 198
Winning Side! |
 |
Ham
Side Score: 187
|
|
|
|
|
Nye's arguments: We can test these things against other things we know, and can see today, to assume how things may have been done in the past. Ham's Argument: The bible says this. You didn't observe it at the time it happened. My main argument against Ham's argument, if the scientists didn't observe what happened at the time, then how do you support what you believe to be true, if you didn't observe what the bible says at the time? Ham sounded like a typical religious fool, every time he would say "There's this book" it really irritated me. The debate started off, and thought to myself "I'm about to learn something from this religious guy" as it went on I noticed that all he could do was drop names, and say how the other side wasn't there when it happened. He still however could not prove what his side was saying. In the end he was stating basically, I believe what I believe is right because i want to, and I don't believe what they say is right because i don't want to...even though we can't prove either side because we were not there. His argument is ridiculous. If you can't prove the age of the earth using methods to date the rocks, and methods to date the species, then you can't figure out a criminal committed the crime using finger prints unless you were there. Side: Nye
3
points
5
points
2
points
4
points
3
points
4
points
2
points
3
points
Ok, a couple of notes on this. One person in this debate said evolution should not be debated against popular mythology. He's right. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory. That means it can be tested or observed, in some cases replicated, and there is a large body of proof, which is replicable and falsifiable. Creationism is a religious belief. It is indicated by holy books, but any proof for it cannot be found via other sources, cannot be replicated, and so forth. Since the debate is specifying origins in terms of a SCIENTIFIC era, then the only acceptable model for origins would be the SCIENTIFIC one. On that note, Ken Ham seemed quite anxious to indicate he's not the only one who believes this. That kind of statement tells me he's looking for validation for his thought process. Also, his statements about "kinds" of animals rather than individual species indicates that there was further evolution after the flood. In doing this, he validates that evolution can happen at all, and by doing so, leaves the door open for scientific theories to be viable. Do we know 100% sure what happened? No. But with the technology, knowledge, and understanding that we have at this point in time, I think evolution is definitely the more provable and more reasonable theory. However, I will probably post more tomorrow when I have more time to think. Side: Nye
6
points
There is proof that the bible is correct scientifically. If man would have simply read the bible they would have learned many scientific facts hundreds of years before science discovered it. Here are just a few examples. The only reason I bring this up is you mentioned "holy books". These can all be found at http://www.eternal-productions.org/ there are over 100 mentioned on this website. 1. The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.” Visit: Modern Science In An Ancient (ICR) --------------------------------------- 2. Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements. Visit: All About Atoms (Jefferson Lab) --------------------------------------- 3. The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago. Visit: The Ark’s perfect dimensions (Answers In Genesis) Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway (Answers In Genesis) Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic (Answers In Genesis) --------------------------------------- 4. When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water. Visit: -Why do I need to wash my hands? --------------------------------------- 5. Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste. Visit: The First Book Of Public Hygiene (Answers In Genesis) Modern medicine? (Answers In Genesis) --------------------------------------- 6. Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors! Visit: Springs of the Ocean (ICR) --------------------------------------- 7. There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea. Visit: Numerical Simulations Of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges (ICR) --------------------------------------- 8. Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creator’s presence – “in Your presence is fullness of joy” (Psalm 16:11). --------------------------------------- 9. Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function. Visit: Life in the Blood (ICR) --------------------------------------- 10. The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe – namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change. Visit: Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR) Creation - Evolution (ICR) Evolution and the Bible (ICR) The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net) Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net) The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net) Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net) --------------------------------------- 11. Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest. --------------------------------------- 12. Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma. Visit: What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? (ICR) The Egg/Chicken Conundrum (ICR) --------------------------------------- 13. Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together. Visit: Things that are Made (ICR) Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality (ICR) Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories (ICR) The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (ICR) --------------------------------------- 14. Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth. Visit: The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech) The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR) --------------------------------------- 15. The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis. Side: Ham
One of the things that bugged me is that ham comes to his 'conclusion' before he has the evidence, then only uses evidence that supports his conclusion. At the time stamp 2:05:30 When asked what would change his mind he stated the great flood is a fact and they try to form the 'evidence' around to see how it happened, not that it happened. That is not what science would do and that is looking at the evidence then making a conclusion based off of the whole set of evidence of what happened. Side: Nye
2
points
That debate was painful to watch. Ken Ham got his ass handed to him and didn't provide any evidence for his position other than a few arguments from authority. Ken didn't even need to be there. You could have just replaced him with a sound clip that says "the Bible says creation is true" repeating over and over. Side: Nye
Ham fell back on 'you weren't there' so much. His whole stance seems to be avoiding any evidence that does not fit his conclusion. Cannot deny that Ham is a decent speaker though. Nye stumbles over words sometimes and had a few dead end jokes. As for content, which is really what matters, I already noted where I stand. Ham also snuck in some sound bits that weren't factual and the setup allowed them to go uncorrected. But that happens in every debate. Side: Nye
2
points
That debate was painful to watch. Ken Ham got his ass handed to him and didn't provide any evidence for his position other than a few arguments from authority. Ken didn't even need to be there. You could have just replaced him with a sound clip that says "the Bible says creation is true" repeating over and over. My parents thought Ken Ham won..... Side: Ham
5
points
Agreed. But the gloves have been put on so may as well go from here. Ham's stances are based on misrepresentations of science and straw men. I don't know if Bill will address those or simply lay out the facts. I guess he will have chances to do both. He has been pretty vocal about how he feels about creationism. Side: Nye
6
points
Agreed. But the gloves have been put on so may as well go from here. Ham's stances are based on misrepresentations of science and straw men. I don't know if Bill will address those or simply lay out the facts. I guess he will have chances to do both. He has been pretty vocal about how he feels about creationism. Evolution can not explain how information is added only lost. Side: Ham
3
points
Agreed. But the gloves have been put on so may as well go from here. Ham's stances are based on misrepresentations of science and straw men. I don't know if Bill will address those or simply lay out the facts. I guess he will have chances to do both. He has been pretty vocal about how he feels about creationism. The majority of Americans believe in Creation Side: Ham
1
point
Here are some highlights of the comments about the debate from Reddit. - For those of you who didn't see the debate, here's a summary: Ken Ham - "Were you there?" "Here's what the Bible says." "Were you there?" "God invented marriage." "Were you there?" "Natural science is a religion." "Were you there?" "Creationism in school is not religion, and science is indoctrination." "Were you there?" "Here's what the Bible says." "Were You there?" "Less than one percent of scientists believe this, but here they are." "Were you there?" "Here's what the Bible says." "Were you there?" Bill Nye - "Here's the evidence." - Cop: Ken hamm, your wife was murdered in your house. We have fingerprints and hair strands all over the place, clues as to what happened in the past. Ken: Don't prosecute him! all interpretations of the past are equally viable, it could have been a flying leprechaun!! - Bill: What evidence beside the Bible can you use to support creationism? Ken: Well let me talk about what the Bible says... - He only needed TWO triceratops on his boat, not all the varieties! It's so much more simple and plausible now! - Literally literally means literally - Ken says he trusts laws of logic. Every argument he makes is illogical. - Bill: Are the fish sinners? - "Eggs and Ham are green because Green Eggs And Ham By Dr Suess says so" - Ken Ham - I wish Nye would have just asked: "If you weren't there when the Bible was written, how do you know it is the word of god?" - Side: Nye
You are the better wording version of me! This is exactly what i was thinking. Especially in the case of the crime, and how Ham kept simply stating "We weren't there" I'd continue to say where we agreed, but I'd become a copy machine simply reiterating all of your points because we agreed on literally everything, and had apparently all of the same thoughts. Even that meme at the end. Side: Nye
|
9
points
I scientific theory is a specific term. Theories start out as hypotheses, these hypotheses get tested over and over again. If they are robust enough and pass all the testing they are strong enough to be called theories. Science is falsifiable that is it is something that is testable and can be found to be correct or not. The theory of evolution has been tested by many doctrines, geology, biology and paleontology just to name a few. Creationism isn't testable. There is no way you can test gods hand in it. Creationism does not accept tests from other sciences and omits lots of evidence, only accepting evidence that supports its already formed conclusion. Creationism is not a theory like evolution in any way. To present it as such is against academic and scientific integrity. Side: Nye
4
points
8
points
4
points
1
point
3
points
I heard this once or twice and its typically a substitute for "we don't know". Which, in science, is a perfectly good answer. an HONEST answer. Do we know everything about everything in the whole universe? No! So when asked about such things what else should Nye respond with? Should he make up a divine authority to stick in the gaps of our knowledge? That's what Ham and all the creationists do. Its not ignorance, its honesty. Ignorance is Ham who, dispite being exposed to all the evidence in the world for evolution (and a dictionary so he shouldn't be confused on "term" as he apparently really is) still rejects it using the most flawed, outdated, and intellectually reprehensible arguments from ignorance and pre-suppositions. Side: Nye
3
points
This is because in sciences you have to prove something is. In my opinion Nye should have listed a few hypotheses as to why but that area of questioning is not his strength. ham's answer is a bit funny as well, it was just pandering to the believers and not trying to change the other sides mind. No one has proved the bible to be true, but people seem to claim it is all the time. The hubris is must take to say true when they cannot prove it is astounding. Side: Nye
4
points
What about all of the scientific facts in the bible that was not known to scientist for hundreds of years. It was there in the bible if they would have just trusted it. I can name at least 100 in the bible, that have only been discovered by science in last 500 years, mostly less than that. Side: Nye
8
points
7
points
2
points
2
points
1
point
7
points
0
points
Theyre only stronger to you if you have the pre-supposition that his side is true. in reality his arguments had zero depth and equated to the same thing being reiterated a thousand ways with no evidence other than "creationists are smart too". Nye on the other hand brought up examples and numbers and figures to take down Ham's shit arguments. Side: Nye
2
points
3
points
2
points
2
points
|
