Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are 900 seats in the Museum's auditorium. Imagine if most of those seats were filled with intelligent rational people who understood the science of evolutionary theory and they just sat there silently while Ham fell over himself trying to whip them up into an anti-science frenzy?
Ham isn't a scientist either. He has an undergraduate degree in applied science and, predictably, a couple of honorary degrees from Temple Baptist and Liberty University. If he has done scientific research, I can't find anything on it.
Nye has a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell, and AFAIK he hasn't done graduate work either, so presumably he's educationally a match to Ham (assuming that all university undergrad degree programs are created equal, including the Ivy Leagues). However he guest lectures at Cornell in astronomy and human ecology, and was a professor there for 5 years ending in 2006.
Still, while Nye has some patents to his name and had some hand in the design of an instrument for one of the Mars rovers, I think he and Ham are both essentially gadflies on opposite sides of the question, "if the Bible contradicts sound science, is the Bible right and science wrong?" Nye is most fairly termed a science educator and Ham is most fairly termed a creationist educator. Both are good showmen. I think he's foolish to dignify the likes of Ham with a debate, for the reasons cited by others. But more power to him and I wish him luck.
I would be curious to see the rules of the debate. If its an actual, formal debate, I honestly think Ham would win. I do not think Nye will engage in a serious debate, though. My guess is that he will attempt to make a spectacle out of things. I seriously doubt that Nye has spent the amount of time educating himself on the opposing position as Ham has.
I would be curious to see the rules of the debate. If its an actual, formal debate, I honestly think Ham would win. I do not think Nye will engage in a serious debate, though. My guess is that he will attempt to make a spectacle out of things. I seriously doubt that Nye has spent the amount of time educating himself on the opposing position as Ham has.
Don't worry, Ham will make sure it's not fair or real debate. He couldn't win a fair or real debate. It's Ham who makes a spectacle of things. That's all he has when all the evidence shows his anti-science young earth creationist views are pure bunk.
I would probably pay $25 just to see Nye. I grew up watching him. But not for this.
It is interesting, but I just hope that Ham knows what he is up against. If he is expecting a fair debate rather than a show trial, he is going to be shocked. It is to be held on Creationist turf. If I were in Nye's shoes, I would pick a card -carrying Creationist as chairman and pack the audience with Young Earthists. And If Ham failed to ask at the outset:
"Do you accept the validity of logic and need to avoid logical fallacies, and do you accept the corpus of validated scientific data?' Because, without that, he cannot win a single point, Nye is not going to remind him. because, if he does, he has pretty much conceded the debate before it starts.
P.s If I were to suggest one question - 'What scientifically - validated evidence is there for creation? Not what is in the Bible, not what is unknown and as yet unexplainable, not the objections Creationism has about the evidence for evolution, but scientifically validated evidence FOR Creation.'
I have asked it repeatedly and I believe that nobody has been able to present any, not since my old Tentmaker days, when the S Carolina phosphate beds were presented as evidence of a global Flood.
Yeah, we called it "machine gunning" when I was on the debate team in college. I ended up quitting formal debate altogether because I quickly found out that, as with most competitions, it's about winning and not about playing the game. Thus any kind of cheap and cheesy tactic that you can get away with is fair game. Formal debate was all about out-cheesing and out-cheaping your opponent, NOT about presenting rational and logical arguments and rebuttals.
I've seen this kind of unethical debate take place even between high-end atheists and Christians, usually leaving the audience far behind since they are expecting a debate, not a series of underhanded tactics that score them points with the judges.
But would I pay to see the show? Yeah, I might - but I wouldn't travel any great distance to do so. I think it is important for atheists and evolutionists to attend these debates and show support - especially since Ham will have the "home field advantage." Unfortunately, Nye will probably have to debate surrounded by dinosaurs with saddles on their backs
Absolutely! It is a distress to me that the point is apparently to win, not to get at the facts, and this is pretty common in politics, everyday life, even in Law - courts, though both sides present their case, both are paid to win, not to get at the facts.
As to the 'Gish gallop' The way to handle that is to master shorthand. Note down each point and refute each one. The more points made, the more the refutations pile up.
Mind, you need to know a lot of the stock Creationists points and the standard answers. Just knowing about Evolution science is not going to be enough.
The answer is that modern monkeys are not the same as their ancient ancestors any more than we are. You would not go back a few million years and find chimpanzees. You would find their ancestors, similar but different.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is a distress to me that the point is apparently to win, not to get at the facts, and this is pretty common in politics, everyday life, even in Law - courts, though both sides present their case, both are paid to win, not to get at the facts.
The way to handle that is to master shorthand. Note down each point and refute each one. The more points made, the more the refutations pile up. 
