Nye-Ham debate an hour away

| 337 Comments

And you may watch it here on NBC or here on WCPO, Cincinnati.

Piers Morgan will interview the debaters on CNN at 9:45 EST, and MSNBC will interview Bill Nye during the 10:00 hour, EST. C-Span will rebroadcast the event Wednesday, February 19 at 8 p.m. EST, according to WCPO.

If you cannot wait till the end of the debate, you may leave comments below at any time. I suggest that we allow comments from (many of) our creationist trolls, as long as they are coherent. I will not allow comments that are merely insulting.

337 Comments

And we open with a brief commercial for the Creation Museum.

Confusing … Ham trots out a creationist PhD and then he mentions “atheist” Craig Venter. What was his point?

He’s knocking down the straw man of “creationists can’t be scientists”, which of course is not the same thing as “creationism isn’t scientific”.

How many of the scientists who are creationists he cited have published papers offering creationism as an explanation for anything?

That would be.……none.

Ham: pbservational vs. historical science. Word “science” hijacked by “secularists”. Historical story of molecules-to-man evolution is just Darwinists’ opinion.

Nye: bow ties. (Total waste of time). Tonight: two stories. (over to you all …)

Bill’s “Bowtie” story was too long … but he recovered nicely with his remaining minutes.

And Ham starts off his 30 minute presentation by again knocking down the “creationists can’t be scientists” straw man.

Good that Ham is banging away on the 6-day creation. Many listeners not so sure – they will be worried. Nye did emphasize falsity of 6-days and of a global flood.

Ham a bit stuck on the “historical science” issue. Asks Nye to explain where natural laws came from.

Ham: name one piece of technology that was developed using molecules-to-man evolution.

Kudos to Matt Young for open opportunity for dialog during debate.

Both men registering good 5-minute opening statements, but Nye’s opening move of claiming that creationism inhibits USA science was apparently anticipated and fully countered by Ham’s counterexamples of Dr. Damadjian and later Dr. Faulkner.

Ham is disingenuous … he brings up the Hubble Telescope and then makes is seem as though there was a huge disagreement among NASA scientists about the age of the universe. HIGHLY doubtful to the point where it’s simply not true.

If Ham is going to repeat this “we just have different interpretations” rhetoric, then Nye needs to ask why creationists don’t submit their “interpretations” to the relevant journals.

And when Ham inevitably says “they won’t let us”, Nye can point out that unsubstantiated conspiracy theories aren’t compelling.

Ham: “Kinds” approximately the same as families in the classification system.

Ham is invoking my colleague Josh Akey’s genealogy of dogs. Josh will be spluttering.

Ham: evolutionary trees “not observed”. Oh yeah?

Everyone … keep in mind that the many thousands watching Ham’s “stuff” here, is probably hearing this for the first time. Bill needs to keep this in mind and counter accordingly.

Ham commercial for Rich Lenski. A “creation scientist” microbiologist says on video “not new information” when E. coli grows on citrate.

Ham: Darwin’s ideas lead to racism, invokes Hunter’s “Civic Biology”.

Ham goes all “evolution = racism”?!! I’ll bet Nye wasn’t expecting that. We’ll see if he brings up all the racism that was justified via the Bible (curse of Ham).

Ugh - Ham quotes Darwin’s Victorian era language and attitudes to play the race card.

Ham: “Creationists should be teaching science since we’re showing kids the right way to think.” Please, Bill, jump ALL over this statement.

And now Ham is evangelizing and throwing in a bit of anti-marriage equality to boot.

Nye had better bring some good science, boiled down to the layperson level.

Ham starts by spelling out definitions, that’s a correct move. Establishing definitions of observational science versus historical science (contra Nye).

Ham stressing the difference between what’s being taught in public school pro-evolution textbooks, and what “observational science” is actually showing us. Tree of life versus (now) orchard or life

He also points out that the meaning of evolution has been “hijacked” via “bait and switch” (that is, blurred between micro and macro) by evolutionists. How will Nye respond on it?

Interesting words there from creationist microbio’st Dr. Andrew Fabich, microbiologist, regarding E. Coli and Lenski’s work. Didn’t know he existed.

Some will disagree, but Ham is using several Bible verses powerfully. The verses will NOT win the science debate, we all agree on that, but they are going to stick with some audience members. Sharp evangelistic awareness on Ham’s part.

Bill has a great opportunity here … Ham is a shallow thinking, spiritual racketeer. Please make him account for this ignorance.

Good move by Nye, going back to the original question of “Is creationism a viable scientific model”. He could’ve spent more time on the limestone strata around Kentucky though.

Bill hammering away on fossil layers and ice layers, tree rings, which contradict the Flood.

Now checking out Nye 30 minute presentation. Nye will concentrate on evolution/geology to stress Old Earth Age and also to attack the Global Noahic Flood. He will try to stress them heavily I believe. Already Nye is starting out with ice cores and tree rings and fossil skulls.

Nye will have to rely on that approach, Nye will very likely NOT be able to compete against Ham on any Bible interpretation or exposition of any texts.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ham: evolutionary trees “not observed”. Oh yeah?

FelsenRage!

Nye overstates not finding animals of different ages intermixed. Some geological processes can intersperse layers of different ages.

Unclear statement about fossil hominid skulls.

Good point now on how did marsupials get from the Ark to Australia.

The crowd isn’t liking Nye tearing apart young-earth flood geology.

The Ark, it wasn’t a bad idea.

Marilyn said:

The Ark, it wasn’t a bad idea.

Well, it pretty much WAS, if the purpose was to save and reestablish the terrestrial zoology of the whole Earth. That wouldn’t have worked for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which was the impossibility of building a wooden boat of that size at that (or any) time. Of course one can posit various miracles to save the whole scheme–but if miracles were on tap, then why mess with the stupid ark in the first place?

Marilyn said:

The Ark, it wasn’t a bad idea.

Whatever floats your boat.

If the world was on the verge of disaster how would the structural engineers tackle the problem these days. A mission to Mars series, but thats not going to happen for a number of years. Hopefully a world disaster won’t happen but there are lots of extreme environmental signs just now. Who would admit the urgency and who will proceed to make way. Living in a dome on a -flattened- Earth might not be too far from reality, or the same on another planet. I hope we don’t waist time by building structures of fashion in the city that don’t serve a more practical dwelling.

i think you are waisting your time right now. Better get a bigger belt!

Bill Nye was on Meet the Press yesterday; you may see it here. He did a more than creditable job “debating” a ninny who was so fatuous that the moderator had to stop her from reciting what seemed to be a litany of all the climate denialists with scientific credentials. Tonight, Mr. Nye appeared on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell; you may see that interview here. One interesting point: Pose a scientific question, get a political answer. As long as the political answer is uncomfortable and at variance with the scientific consensus, nothing will get done.

Matt Young said: One interesting point: Pose a scientific question, get a political answer. As long as the political answer is uncomfortable and at variance with the scientific consensus, nothing will get done.

Maybe that should become part of the scientific debater’s repetoire: “I asked you a scientific question but you gave me a political answer”. It might be helpful to point out for the audience.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on February 4, 2014 4:00 PM.

Ten Commandments for debates with creationists was the previous entry in this blog.

Crystal Anniversary for the Wedge Document is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter