So Bill Nye is going to debate Ken Ham...

[otakuneko]

So I heard today that Bill Nye (the Science Guy!) is to debate Ken Ham (Ph.D. in Truthology with a minor in Used Car Sales from Bumfuck University) tomorrow, Tuesday, February 4th.

Bill Nye, you are a fool.

Yes, reality, facts, evidence, everything objective and measurable is on your side. True, there IS no debate, evolution is fact, creationism is bollocks, and no mere book, no amount of lying, is going to change that.

However, none of that will matter. The event takes place on enemy territory, in a stronghold of the enemy, with one of the enemy's most grizzled veterans, a veritable General Patton among the soldiers of myth. And you, what experience do you have in this matter? How many creationists have you confronted? You are no Hitchens or Dawkins, that much is clear by your allowing this event to take place in hostile turf.

I can only hope that you've been memorizing AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series, spending time with Genie Scott, and otherwise training yourself to recognize the tactics and traps the enemy will use to eviscerate inexperienced debaters such as yourself. Maybe you'll get in some good blows, perhaps even some epic ones, but we will never see it. We will never know. You'll be in the house of the believers, surrounded by believers, with not a single rational mind to recognize any accomplishments you may make. Video and audio of the event will be cut and slashed to make you look like a fool--and a fool you are, for allowing this to go on in the first place. The best you can hope for is to come out with your dignity intact.

Good luck, sir.

TEAL DEER: I agree with everything AronRa said here: http://youtu.be/mRMmV-c2uDM

[siead_lietrathua]

yeah, bill will be dealing with idiot showmanship.
however, bill was also the guy that explained complex science in simple ways for children, in a way that got kids loving science.
he might have a shot if he treats ham just like he treats kids. i mean, it's the same level of logic-understanding going on.

joking. but really, i hope bill is going with the intent of reaching the audience and basically ignoring ham, because ham's just gonna lie and make shit up.

[gremcint]

hey when it comes down to it Bill can always just Slap him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7j0IcaiOZs

[Kelmon]

By debating these nutjobs you lend them credibility. While they might spin it as a victory ("These scientists are afraid to debate us!"), I wager it would be better in the long run to not give them any facetime with someone a wide public will recognize and want to see.

[otakuneko]

Exactly.

What Bill Nye has done is not only hand them free credibility, and, by agreeing to have this event on their turf, he's handed his very own head on a gilded platter. It doesn't matter if he shoots down every single argument Ham makes, he will be the one who loses.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

You are no Hitchens or Dawkins, that much is clear by your allowing this event to take place in hostile turf.

I'd agree with this statement, but I give the credit to Nye and damn Hitchens and Dawkins for what I often find shallow selection in debate opponents and venues. It's not particularly impressive to give cogent arguments only in environments that favor you. Yea, Nye will go there and probably get talked over but the whole "in hostile environment" is the only thing that actually tends to pluck one or two believers.

With due respect to Hitchens or Dawkins, the only people I know who actually seem impressed by them are other atheists. Primarily one of my complaints when watching Hitchens or Dawkins debate is the fact I feel like they've vetted their opponents, something that often results in them not actually debating against more modern theological thought, but rather ill prepared, literally minded evangelicals. Nye, Degrasse Tyson (who really doesn't spend much time in evolution since it's not his field and it's not his primary point of advocacy), etc. tend to reach more because they're more diplomatic and tend to treat the issue with some manner of delicacy but make the same basic points. The world is bigger to them than convincing others that their concept of God is wrong. I suspect Nye will not find many supporters where he's going but I'd be shocked if he can't reach a few people. If he's smart, he'll bring up Catholics in the debate. Hitchens and Dawkins I'd expect to reach zero and be plastered all over Youtube with people agreeing with them.

[Kheldarson]

Of interest:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/0...ism/?hpt=hp_t2

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/0...onist-ken-ham/

[Hyena Dandy]

In my mind, being willing to debate in hostile territory is good. It's very prophetic. To turn theological for a moment, the apostle Paul did not just go around talking only to people who agreed with him. Acts 17 shows Paul going right to the heart of ancient Greek religious life for the Sermon on Mars Hill.

The people who need to hear about this are generally the people who approve of Ken Ham. So going somewhere those people are is probably the best place to find them. Go somewhere they're not, and they won't here you. If only one or two people out of thousands is convinced, then the debate has done some good.

There's concern that he'll be talked over, and, yeah, he probably will. See, that's what being prophetic is about. That's what telling the truth to people who don't know it IS. Yes, you'll be talked over, but if you can convince just a few, you've done good.

Bill Nye is going there because he wants to CONVINCE someone. He wants to get a result. Hitchens and Dawkins would only debate people who were, well, the least equipped to actually debate them.

Yes, he will be talked over. But, well, this is a very Pauline thing, I think. He's going to tell the truth to people who don't believe, and likely think he's an idiot for saying so. But, well, look how that worked out for Paul.

32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.”

33 So Paul went out of their midst.

34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

Yeah. He's in a hostile environment. That's where hostile voices will here.

There's a lot of concern, I've heard, about this making it look like Ham's creationism is scientifically viable, but I think what Bill Nye wrote shows another view. That, well, no, it's not, but to dismiss it and not engage with those people is a mistake. Then they'll be unchallenged.

My main concerns are about the other ways in which this would help the creationist side. Summed up here, in a quote from Fred Clark of Slacktivist.

That’s only half the debate that needs to happen. Yes, Ham’s “scientific creationism” is a wretched counterfeit of real science, so it’s good that he’s being challenged on the facts of science by someone well-versed in those facts. But Ham’s nonsense is even more a wretched counterfeit of Christian theology, and he also needs to be challenged on the facts of theology by someone well-versed in the Bible and in orthodox Christian teaching.

It would be a Bad Thing, however, if Ham were permitted to debate his “theology” in a theological forum in which his claim to represent the Real, True Science were permitted to stand unchallenged and unquestioned. And it is a Bad Thing that this evening he is being permitted to debate his “science” in a scientific forum in which his claim to represent the Real True Theology will be permitted to stand unchallenged and unquestioned.

My other concern is more minor, that, well, I think that going to a hostile environment is good, I also think this is a big event that will make that hostile environment money isn't so much so. Going to Mars Hill to preach the word of God is one thing, going to Mars Hill and donating to the temples to do it is another. I'd have liked there to be an agreement that the proceeds go to some neutral charity. But, hey, that's a minor quibble. Ken Ham's running his own museum into the ground anyway.

On a final, largely unrelated note, I kind of have a strange affection for Ken Ham. It's not that I think he's a good guy, or smart, I don't. It's just that I have more respect for him, than more 'respectable' creationists like Al Mohler, who don't try to explain it, they just say "If the universe isn't a couple thousand years old, God doesn't love you, so stop asking questions."

I don't get why someone who comes up with crazy answers is less respectable than someone who tells you to stop asking questions. Degrees of wrong, yeah?

[siead_lietrathua]

I don't get why someone who comes up with crazy answers is less respectable than someone who tells you to stop asking questions. Degrees of wrong, yeah?

i dunno. sometimes the crazy explanations are just so far out of the realm of logic it doesn't even require considering, the world flood being one..
i mean, the thought that 8 people could generate enough people within 8 generations to populate the entire middle east, the Egyptian empire (and their slaves), and all the lands beyond that we find cultures in after 4000bc... is beyond mind boggling. i mean, Dobrovody in the ukraine between 3800 and 3700 bc had a population of over 10,000 people. Uruk, iran had over 14,000 by 3500bc ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ughout_history ). those are some hella busy vaginas kicking out babies to hit those numbers within 500 years after the evisceration of the natural world.

don't get me wrong, i'm all for religious fables and traditions and teaching cultural history. but don't lie and call it an actual fact to the history of the natural world, when common sense and every inch of evidence says otherwise.

[Hyena Dandy]

don't get me wrong, i'm all for religious fables and traditions and teaching cultural history. but don't lie and call it an actual fact to the history of the natural world, when common sense and every inch of evidence says otherwise.

Oh, I totally agree. It's not true, it's not real. But I'm still suspicious of calling something a lie, when it's sincerely believed.

Remember, intelligent people are the most easily made cultists.

That said, I do think that bullshit explanations are better than "Shut up, you're a bad person for asking" which is the more 'Respectable' approach.

[Kheldarson]

i dunno. sometimes the crazy explanations are just so far out of the realm of logic it doesn't even require considering, the world flood being one..
i mean, the thought that 8 people could generate enough people within 8 generations to populate the entire middle east, the Egyptian empire (and their slaves), and all the lands beyond that we find cultures in after 4000bc... is beyond mind boggling.

don't get me wrong, i'm all for religious fables and traditions and teaching cultural history. but don't lie and call it an actual fact to the history of the natural world, when common sense and every inch of evidence says otherwise.

This is why I don't get Biblical literalism. I mean, I'm all for the Bible as a Catholic, but we recognize that it's very figurative.

Like the flood wasn't world wide per se, but instead encompassed what was their whole world: Mesopotamia. It still has the same idea in telling the story/history but different implications for long term effect.

[siead_lietrathua]

Oh, I totally agree. It's not true, it's not real. But I'm still suspicious of calling something a lie, when it's sincerely believed.

there is a difference between something that may be able to be considered "spiritual truth" (which, let's be honest, is all about our emotional reactions to life), and something that IS true in the sense that it's a Fact.
someone can honestly, spiritually believe that big talking unicorns exist, and he has one in his garage to prove it! however, it may just be a kid's hobby horse with a piece of pipe taped to it that he speaks to when high on shrooms. it's still a spiritual "truth" for that person, but the unicorn itself is not true. if the unicorn was true it would be the same for every person, stoned or not, that saw it.
truth is something that exists regardless of whether or not anyone believes in it. gravity doesn't give a shit if you hold stock in it, it's still gonna pull mass together.

where the lie comes in is in what the creationists are trying to Teach as truth. people can belive in a god, that's no issue. they can preach the scriptures as allegory and life lessons, noone will bat an eye.
but when you start talking about adam and eve, world floods, talking snakes and mystical gardens as fact, and trying to lie about science to make them look like facts, then it's an issue. when genesis can be disproven by common sense and a basic understanding of human history, adults need to stop teaching it as a fact.

i mean heck, look at the "Christian Today" poll. even on there Ham lost by more than 90% (last i looked at it anyway) http://www.christiantoday.com/articl...time/35688.htm

there is an idea as to why genesis is pushed SO hard as fact, even if the rest of it can be taken as "poetry" as ham put it, they need genesis for the "original sin" concept. see, if adam and eve didn't exist, then there IS no "original sin". from that starting point you can pick apart the whole mythos until god looks kinda like a jerk.
they can't let that happen. because if people start thinking god is a jerk, then whether or not he exists doesn't matter. it all becomes about whether or not he is worth WORSHIPING.

[siead_lietrathua]

this is intentionally separate. Creationists asked to pose a question to bill nye. it doesn't say when but i'm assuming this was before the debate (for my sanity)
very image heavy, so i'm gonna write out the questions for here.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messa...ve-in-evolutio

so many of the actual science questions listed there have already been addressed by scientists and athiests, and answers can be easily found by any of those askers by stepping out on the internet to any place NOT a creationist website.

edit: list, to save ya'll the image loading.

1) Bill Nye, are you influencing minds of children in a positive way?
2) are you scared of a divine creator?
3) Is it completely illogical the earth was created mature? i.e. trees created with rings... adam created as an adult...
4) Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution?
5) How do you explain a sunset if there is no god?
6) if the big bang theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?
7) what about noetics?
8) Where do you derive objective meaning in life?
9) If god did not create everything, how did the first single-cell organism originate? by chance?
10) i belive in the big bang theory. god said it and BANG it happened.
11) why do evolutionists/ secularists/ humanists/ non-god beliving people reject the idea of their being a creator god but embrace the concept of an intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terestrial sources?
12) there is no in between... the only one found has been lucy and there are only a few pieces nessesary for an "official proof".
13) does metamorphasis help support evolution?
14) If evolution is a theory (like creationism or the bible) why then is evolution taught as fact?
15) because science by definition is a "theory"- not testable, observable nor repeatable, they do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?
16) what mechanism has science discovered that evidences an inscrease of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?
17) what purpose do you think you are here for if you do not belive in salvation?
18) why have we found only 1 "lucy" when we have found more than 1 or everything else?
19) Can you belive in 'the big bang' without 'faith'?
20) How can you look at the world and not belive someone created/ thought of it? it's amazing!!!
21) Relating to the big bang theory.... where did the exploding star come from?
22) If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

the ones of these that are actual science questions were long ago answered, the askers either never researched themselves or are knowingly bullshitting.

[Gravekeeper]

Like the flood wasn't world wide per se, but instead encompassed what was their whole world: Mesopotamia. It still has the same idea in telling the story/history but different implications for long term effect.

The flood myth + the ark, like a fair number of Biblical tales, is borrowed from earlier sources and re-appropriated by swapping the names. In the case of the Biblical story, its even line for line in some places taken from Sumerian stories. The Babylonians had a flood story. The Greeks had one. The Native Americans had them. There's even one in Hinduism.

The one thing they all share in the Mesopotamian region is flood + someone told someone to build a big ass boat. This is even true in the Hindu version. History and culture was very much passed down as oral tradition way back when, especially amongst early Christians.

Effectively its a story that sounds great, supports your god/hero and can be blamed on any number of historical but local flood incidents in your region.

With Christianity especially, a lot of these teaching tool stories were taken from other sources and cultures then re-mixed to fit. Oral tradition is story telling, good stories get spread around and passed down. But each region and culture is going to tweak it to fit the home team to make it relatable to the audience.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The debate.

The crowd and the debate is fairly respectful but you can definitely tell Nye is the visitor.