• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164, 712]

Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

I'm sure some where someone does. Just like people assert the entire world was flooded.

So yo are creating a counter argument to something someone somewhere might have said? Don't you have better ways to spend your time? ;)
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

The best part of this entire ordeal is that the atheist evolutionists are getting completely wrapped around the axle about this. The debate isn't even a blip on my radar.

A post that disproves itself. Those are fun.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

They have no evidence. They also like to point to questions science hasn't fully explained as if that is proof of God... so they are putting themselves in a position where they will constantly lose ground. I don't get it. I am not atheist, but I understand science and God are different.



I think the idea was to beat Ham so bad it would embarrass the movement.

You should see these Conservapedia types man, they are mentally deranged when it comes to this subject and all this debate will do is reinforce their delusions of intellectual integrity.

They literally believe that science itself is on the side of Young Earth Creationism, their evidence is completely ****ing bogus.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

I agree. He seems like a nice person.


It's not his style. He's just a kind gentle man and that's all there is to it.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Ask him a question he cannot explain and his answer is "its a miracle from God."

He often sounded like a preacher giving a sermon. Why did he keep bringing up marriage when it wasn't relevant? I can't believe he argued if there were no Christians or Bible, everybody would be immoral, wrong, and corrupt.


Ham actually believes in an ark.

He actually thinks that because we weren't there, we can't extrapolate what happened from the past based on actual data.

This guy is freaking nuts, how did the sloth somehow swim to the ark? How did all the carnivores suddenly become vegetarians.

It all comes down to "well, a miracle happened", no....it didn't.

Prove it you religious ignorant zealot dumbass.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

It was clearly not a global flood, which science disproves quite nicely.

Another interesting parallel with the Biblical allegory of Noah is that the character of Noah was said to be 600 years old when the floods started, but doesn't say how old he was when God warned him of the impending flood. If we track back, say, 500 years from the time of the flood the oceans rose 10-15 meters during the life of the Noah character. I would suggest that 10-15 meters of ocean rise resulted in more than just local flooding.

This is of course just another side interest given that what the Noah story actually saus depends heavily of the interpretation of a word that has many meanings.

There's no room for interpretation here, Genesis says it was a global flood.

There is plenty of room for interpretation. It's kind of funny, though, to see you insisting on the common interpretation in order to... disagree with the common interpretation.

And yes, actually, people would have figured out that the Black Sea flooded thousands of years ago even without Genesis.

But nobody had ever bothered checking but for the investigate the veracity of Genesis.

A different quote from genesis uses a phrase that translates to "upon the face of all the earth," much more clearly indicating a global flood.

Yes, but like I said, the root word that is being translated is "eres" which can mean land of pretty much any size from everything to a small plot to just dirt. Some might see the discovery of the flood of the black sea basin as an excellent opportunity to lend new insight into the potential meaning of "eres" in the Genesis text. Like me, for one. Others wish to be hardliners on both sides and insist that no evidence can move them from their chosen belief.


"upon the face of all the earth" Ìal-penê kol-haÉares (Genesis 7:3; 8:9)

See above.

A later part says something about "all of existence" being destroyed, which seems pretty clear.

It says he will put an end to all people of the "earth", which still falls back on the definition being used, and that he would destroy the "earth" which is what got me thinking on the subject in the first place. See, "eres" also is defined as "dry land", for instance, in the original text when God dried the land and separated it from the ocean is was also called "eres", so God destroying "eres" could just as easily mean submerging it in water for good, which is actually what happened to the Black Sea basin.

At least, according to these folks, which Answers in Genesis linked me to. I'm obviously not a biblical scholar.
Davidson, R. M. --- Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood

I'll read that when I get a chance, but I got home to 15 responses on this subject alone!
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

It needed to be someone regularly debates creationists and is scientifically literate. Bill Nye knows his science but not creationists per se. Ken Hamm is hobbled by an old musty playbook that everyone knows. By studying his videos, it would be possible to discern his arguments. None of his arguments were a surprise to me. Neither were the plethora of logical fallacies he used.

Very disappointing that Bill fumbled the 45000 year old wood issue.
I wonder if Bill studied this site:
The Index to Creationist Claims.
An Index to Creationist Claims

Besides Bill Nye who would you want to debate Ken Hamm?
I think a former christian atheist literate scientifically instead of a scientist not wholly familiar with creationist arguments would have been better. Matt Dillahunty comes to mind.
 
Last edited:
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Ham didn't choose intellectual giants like Dawkins or Hawking because they would have mopped the floor with his face made him look an inch tall. Nye was chosen because he is a lightweight who wants people to reach their own conclusions on what is most reasonable without exposing his opponent's ignorance and in the most diplomatic way possible.

Yet only 8% of people thought Ham performed well. Imagine how small that number would have been if he had picked a big name debater.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Yet only 8% of people thought Ham performed well. Imagine how small that number would have been if he had picked a big name debater.

where are the stats for the debate?
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Idiot is about the nicest word I'd use to describe Ken Ham.
Same thing with Bill Nye. He's one of those global warming idiots. He even narrated a fake experiment on TV.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Another bit of semantics here: The universe and all we know is said to be part of God and his creation. God can't do magic because any act of God, by definition, is natural.
Nothing supernatural then...
 
Last edited:
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Same thing with Bill Nye. He's one of those global warming idiots. He even narrated a fake experiment on TV.
Define a "fake" experiment.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

It's pretty self-explanatory isn't it?
Like when one of these televangelists cures people in their audience and they throw down their crutches and claim the cancer has left them after the phony asshole charlatans divine what is wrong with them while being told over covert radios and people pledge their life savings because they foolishly think they have witnessed a supernatural miracle?
That kind of fakery and deception?
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Yet only 8% of people thought Ham performed well. Imagine how small that number would have been if he had picked a big name debater.

How could he perform well? He was arguing for make-believe supernatural fantasy with a scientist.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

How could he perform well? He was arguing for make-believe supernatural fantasy with a scientist.

As they say, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Same thing with Bill Nye. He's one of those global warming idiots. He even narrated a fake experiment on TV.

You just referred to Bill Nye as an idiot.

That statement itself is brain suckingly devoid of fact or even reason. We are all now dumber for having read that.

I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

You just referred to Bill Nye as an idiot.

That statement itself is brain suckingly devoid of fact or even reason. We are all now dumber for having read that.

I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
He's a ****ing clown, not a scientist. Having a name that rhymes with "science guy" doesn't make you a scientist. Expertise makes you a scientist.
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Ken Ham points:

There are planets and moons in retrograde rotation which violates the conservation of momentum of the universe.

Rebuttal

Claim CE260:
The hypothesis that the solar system formed from the collapse of a revolving nebula is contradicted by the fact that three planets and several moons revolve backwards.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 19.
Response:

The "backwards" planets and moons are in no way contrary to the nebular hypothesis. Part of the hypothesis is that the nebula of gas and dust would accrete into planetessimals. Catastrophic collisions between these would be part of planet building. Such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons.

The only moons that orbit retrograde are small asteroid-sized distant satellites of giant planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, plus Triton (Neptune's large moon) and Charon (Pluto's satellite). The small retrograde satellites of Jupiter and Saturn were probably asteroids captured by the giant planets long after formation of the solar system. It is actually easier to be captured into a retrograde orbit. The Neptune system also contains one moon, Nereid, with a highly eccentric orbit. It appears that some sort of violent capture event may have taken place. The Pluto-Charon system is orbiting approximately "on its side," technically retrograde, with tidally locked rotation. As these are small bodies in the outer solar system, and binaries are likely to have been formed through collisions or gravitational capture, this does not violate the nebular hypothesis.

Uranus is rotating more or less perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. This may be the result of an off-center collision between two protoplanets during formation. Venus is rotating retrograde but extremely slowly, with its axis almost exactly perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. The rotation of this planet may well have started out prograde, but solar and planetary tides acting on its dense atmosphere have been shown to be a likely cause of the present state of affairs. It is probably not a coincidence that at every inferior conjunction, Venus turns the same side toward Earth, as Earth is the planet that contributes most to tidal forces on Venus.

Orbital motions account for 99.9% of the angular momentum of the solar system. A real evidential problem would be presented if some of the planets orbited the sun in the opposite direction to others, or in very different planes. However, all the planets orbit in the same direction, confirming the nebular hypothesis, and nearly in the same plane. A further confirmation comes from the composition of the giant planets, which are similar to the sun's composition of hydrogen and helium. Giant planets could hold on to all of their light elements, but small planets like Earth and Mars could not.

my emphasis
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Ken Ham points:

Wood found in 45 000 000 year old basalt is dated to be 45 000 years old. Thus proving radiometric dating is faulty or inaccurate.

Rebuttalhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_5.html

(although not the exact same situation as presented by Ken Ham, the principle remains the same: if you improperly use a tool you get crappy results, just like using a sledgehammer to put up molding with finish nails)

[h=2]Claim CD011.5:[/h] A piece of wood was fossilized in the Hawkesbury Sandstone, Australia, which most geologists date to the middle Triassic, about 225 to 230 million years ago. The wood was dated by Geochron (a commercial dating laboratory) using the carbon-14 method. Geochron determined its age to be only 33,720 +/- 430 years before present. Contamination by recent microbes or fungi cannot explain the discrepant age. [h=3]Source:[/h] Snelling, Andrew, 1999. Dating Dilemma: Fossil wood in 'ancient' sandstone. Creation Ex Nihilo 21(3): 39-41. Dating Dilemma: Fossil Wood in
[h=2]Response:[/h]
  1. It is doubtful that the sample was even wood. Snelling was not even sure what the sample was. Nor could the staff at Geochron tell what the sample was (Walker 2000). It may not even have retained any of its original carbon. Using carbon dating was pointless from the start since it would inevitably give meaningless results.
  2. The sample was porous, making it likely that it would have absorbed organic carbon from the groundwater. It was probably this contaminating carbon that produced the date. Another possibility is that some [SUP]14[/SUP]C was created in situ by natural radioactivity in the surrounding rocks (Hunt 2002).
  3. Furthermore, 33,720 years is still significantly older than the age which many creationists, Snelling included, ascribe to the earth, and there are no plausible sources of error to make the age younger than 33,000 years.
[h=2]Links:[/h] Meert, Joe, 2003. Andrew Snelling and the iron concretion? Frequently Asked (Includes a letter from GeoChron labs saying that the "wood" looked like an iron concretion)
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Other than Noah's flood which covers a huge number of claims, what else did Ken Ham claim?
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]



signs at 1:19, 1:29, 4:43, 6:49, 9:11, Pat Robertson(!) rebuttal 11:17
 
Last edited:
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Nothing supernatural then...

Nope. Do you believe in the Supernatural?
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

He's a ****ing clown, not a scientist. Having a name that rhymes with "science guy" doesn't make you a scientist. Expertise makes you a scientist.

Yeah because Bill Nye has no experience with science stuff right? It's not like he graduated from Cornell with a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering (where he studied under Carl Sagan), then worked in the aeronautical engineering field for years, published several educational books for teaching kids about science, then worked on the Mars Explorer project, then became the Vice President and later director of the Planetary Society. Oh and was a professor at Cornell for six years teaching astronomy and human ecology.

You're right no experience with science at all. Man Bill Nye is total fraud.

/sarcasm
 
Re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Man Bill Nye is total fraud.
I agree. He's a clown and an idiot.
 
Back
Top Bottom