CreateDebate


Debate Info

24
29
Ken Ham Bill Nye
Debate Score:53
Arguments:26
Total Votes:67
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Ken Ham (13)
 
 Bill Nye (11)

Debate Creator

Srom(12201) pic



Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate on Feb 4th. Who do you support?

Many of you might have already heard about this already. Ken Ham is going to be debating Bill Nye about the topic called, "Is Creation a viable model of orgins?" Who do you support? Of course, you already know who I am going to support. The debate will take place in the Creation Museum. 

Ken Ham

Side Score: 24
VS.

Bill Nye

Side Score: 29
4 points

I am going with Ken Ham because of what I have read in his books, articles, and blogs. He knows his stuff.

I hope someday I'll get to visit the Creation Museum.

Side: Ken Ham
pakicetus(1455) Clarified
2 points

Well, he does know a lot about Christianity...

But that's about it, his understanding of evolution is mostly misconceptions, and his knowledge of atheism is no better.

I hope someday I'll get to visit the Creation Museum.

As agnostic, I can't say I enjoyed it , but you probably will.

Keep in mind though, some of the areas dedicated to disputing evolution are pretty erroneous :/

Side: Ken Ham

I went to the Creation Museum, it was very professionally made and truly amazing.

Side: Ken Ham
1 point

I would really like to visit the Creation Museum one day.

Side: Ken Ham

I will support Ken Ham in their debate.

Side: Ken Ham
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
3 points

Why? The guy barely understands evolution, all of his arguments against it are based off misconceptions.

Side: Bill Nye
Jacobcoolguy(2433) Clarified
3 points

I don't know, I just think it will be a good debate.

Side: Ken Ham
Client444(61) Disputed
3 points

See, what you should do is support your argument with real misconceptions that you find in his works. Are there any? Or are the misconceptions on YOUR behalf?

Side: Ken Ham
1 point

I will also support Ken Ham, not only because of my personal beliefs in creation, but my lack of trust in Nye's knowledge on the subject.

Side: Ken Ham

Ken Ham the Bible man.....................KEN-KEN-KEN-KEN- KEN-KEN-KEN

Side: Ken Ham
1 point

Prof. Richard Dawkins stated to fellow Oxford University professor John Lennox "I cant prove evolution any more than John can prove creation", on a published DVD. Therefore evolution isn't fact is a belief. Why teach it as fact in schools

Side: Ken Ham

Well I am a Christian I believe Bill Nye did better in the debate.......................

Side: Ken Ham
0 points

KEN HAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Ken Ham
0 points

KEN HAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Ken Ham
-1 points

KEN HAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Ken Ham
4 points

Bill Nye. Simply because I support his argument. It couldn't be any clearer that evolution is reality. All evidence ever found supports it, except one book. Plus, I don't care much for Ham. I did some research on him, and concluded that he doesn't fully understand the principles of evolution. I can add more evidence if someone wants, but for now I'll leave it at this.

Side: Bill Nye
3 points

I think the debate is silly and pointless, but I do side with Nye. I spent most of my childhood watching his show, and I respect him a load more than Ham.

PS, thanks for banning him Srom :)

Side: Bill Nye
2 points

No problem for banning him!

Side: Bill Nye

Ken Ham looks like a genocidal farmer. Bill Nye looks hardcore.

Side: Bill Nye
3 points

I supported the scientists, who won.............................................................

Side: Bill Nye
2 points

Bill Nye!! The wording of the debate topic is odd though. It should be obvious that in terms of a science creationism is not viable as it is not testable. Is it viable within a belief system? Well that is for theologians to discuss.

Side: Bill Nye
Grady(10) Disputed
0 points

Would you say somethings capability of success or continuing effectiveness (viability) is based of of its test results? Because I would say there are plenty of things you could not test that in theory would be completely possible.

Side: Ken Ham
J-Roc77(70) Disputed
3 points

That is the difference between being scientifically viable and not.

Creationism is often presented as science, which it clearly is not.

And the word "based" seems a bit strong. Indicative, derived from or probability seem less strong here. Semantics a bit.

In that sense one shows to be more probable than the other. In fact the other side is built on even larger assumptions than science is built on. Foundationally speaking one is weak as it has no grounding in reality, but rather the supernatural.

Side: Bill Nye
2 points

Since all of evolution could be proven garbage with a single fossil found from the wrong time period (like a modern human skeleton appearing with the dinosaur fossils),, and the fact that this has never happened. I think reality favors Bill Nye, and I hope his ability to debate is good. I've seen people lose debates even though reality was clearly on their side. Go Bill!

Side: Bill Nye
2 points

I simply cannot be on side of deluded religious drone whose only argument is "bible say so"...

Side: Bill Nye