Hopefully Nye does something other than just listing a string of evidence. Gonna put the audience to sleep.

In this format it would be more effective to supplement that by pointing out Ham's dishonesty, attacking his implication that science is biased etc.

I think he's doing pretty well presenting quick facts that won't overwhelm the audience. He's cracking me up every time he says, "that's why scientists... I mean... scientists outisde this building..."

I think Nye is underestimating the count on Noah's Ark. There weren't two individuals of every kind, there were two of every 'clean' kind and seven of every 'unclean' kind.

Also, I just realised Nye looks quite a bit like a ventriloquist's dummy. Felt the need to share that.

"Are fish sinners? That's an extraordinary claim that... takes me... somewhere past where I'm comfortable with"

So glad I live somewhere we don't need to have these conversations.

Bill Nye going on tilt

Really this debate has only reinforced my puzzlement as to why omphalism isn't more popular among Christians. Boils away all the empirical conflict.

THERE IS NO HYPOTHETICAL DAMNIT.

I think a lot of the atheists that thought Bill "a reasonable man" Nye might not be suited to this debate will be making retractions after this. In fact, I thought Ken "were you there" Ham looked quite uncomfortable occasionally.

I do hope viewers noted how Ham avoided out-and-out declaring that he was incapable of changing his mind, when asked directly TWICE, whereas Nye said that all it would take was evidence. That's the whole debate in a nutshell.

PS The 11+ new species a day was a great way of describing the hyper-evolution that YEC requires and I hadn't heard it put that way before.

PPS Nothing more tilting than creationists talking about how much they love science!

Is there likely to be a text transcript of this at some point?

Ham said that nothing would change his view. Nye said that all he needs is 1 piece of evidence.

This enraged me more than anything in the entire debate, and I watched it all. There is nothing that will ever change the opinion of a creationist. Nothing. How on earth can anyone who is that hardheaded be considered a scientist if there isn't one piece of evidence that will make them question their current belief?

Ham spent a lot of time on the "creation orchard" . he seemed to be saying that observational science supported the creation orchard and didnt support the evolutionary tree. So what observational science supports the creation orchard? Is it because before a certain point in the past( or even at all), we dont see any evidence for speciation?

Maybe because it's a little too ad hoc even for YEC's?

I stopped watching but it seemed to me that his creation orchard couldn't be derived from 'observational science' anyway; only the dreaded 'historical science.'

I thought this debate was interesting, first evolution one I've seen actually.

It seems a solid tactic would be to attack the bible with all its stuff that even the creationists "don't take literally". Nye did that at the end, coukd have done it right away.

Why did the animals on NA need to be vegetarians for the creationist story?

Nothing died before the fall. Plants don't count, presumably, or perhaps only fruit was eaten rather than entire vegetation.

The most troubling aspect to me was what Nye did not say. I wonder why when ham kept saying; you are just looking at stuff and claiming you know what happened in the past, but you werent there, Nye's rebuttal wasn't something along the lines of

"I'm looking at information and numbers, or a sort of language if you will, to come up with an idea for 'historical science' (as Ham says) which is exactly what you are doing. You are looking at letters to form a sentence, or a sort of language, to come up with an idea for 'historical science.'"

how is that argument not mentioned? it seems pretty silly to me that one person can say, I have data to tell me something that i believe is correct, and you have data, but you can't use data, however my data is correct.

i should have taken notes to quote it properly but meh

There is this weird love/hate relationship with empirical science within creationist argumentation:

1) Empirical science is biased, often wrong, slanted by atheism, a result of groupthinking and generally brainwashing of the worst kind.

2) Evolution is bad because it isn't scientific, Intelligent Design is good because it is scientific and the Bible is sound because it is supported by science.

And maybe it is only me, but I feel like if I was someone who believed 1, I'd wouldn't be very proud about 2.


In a broader sense, this love/hate thing with empirical science is actually fairly typical of modern theological debate in general.

i just watched this for some crazy damn reason i will never understand.

i would have submitted this question to ham

"the bible, how do you know how old it is? WERE YOU THERE?"

You see it a lot, alright. And a similar doublethink regarding religion ("Naturalism is a religion, which is bad, so listen to my religion, which is good").

Nye's main point seemed to be that you have to believe in evolution or we will stop making scientific progress and drift into poverty. He repeated it often even though Ham disproved it early in the debate and made a clear distinction between the belief of origins and practical application of science in today's world.

there any consensus on who won and is it worth watching?

I don't know why Nye bothered

Nye, but it's hardly surprising - YEC is tough to take seriously, never mind defend. Not especially entertaining, so only watch if you've nothing on, IMO.

Cheers I kinda expected Ham because other than learning how to win debates he hasn't much else on.

Good to hear and thanks I'll swerve

Indeed, that is a good point to. It is maybe a bit presumptuous to interpret it, but it does seem to indicate that merits of science and backdraws of religion is very much known, even when arguing the contrary.