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.
That there is even such a place as a Creationist "Museum" is disturbing and perplexing frankly.
Please keep in mind...
If a group of people WANT TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING, you have no problem getting them to follow your thinking, and even part with large amounts of cash. There's a whole lot of money went into putting that "museum" together, and I don't think Mr. Ham funded it himself. I suspect there were a whole lot of donations, and being "religious", it was probably tax exempt.
But, I learned something I didn't know before. Science was "hyjacked" from the Bible?
I'm looking forward to watching this. Much more than watching a You - tube where a creationist just makes a lot of whacky claims without anyone there to question them.
I am delighted to hear that there was an independent moderator to make sure it wasn't a show -trial of evilooshun and they played fair right there is the creation museum.
I shall be interested to see how how those on the creationist forums and sites view the debate.
I thought it was an interesting and very fair debate, which is surprising considering the topic is so controversial. That being said I think Nye win by a wife margin. Ham's debate relied on the "infallibility" of the Bible, but he provided no proof for this.
I'm looking forward to watching this. Much more than watching a You - tube where a creationist just makes a lot of whacky claims without anyone there to question them.
I am delighted to hear that there was an independent moderator to make sure it wasn't a show -trial of evilooshun and they played fair right there is the creation museum.
I shall be interested to see how how those on the creationist forums and sites view the debate.
Ken Ham is usually a pretty smooth snake-oil salesman but I think he overplayed his hand by trying to give too much 'info' in too short a time. He spoke very quickly and it came across to me as rather desperate and confusing at times. He couldn't really answer any of Bill's challenges and ended up just going back to the Bible and statements of faith. Bringing up names of 'scientists' who were also Young Earth Creationists wasn't a particularly strong argument as he had to admit that none of them had actually published papers on things like a young earth or global flood or evolution etc.
Bill didn't fall into the trap of trying to address all the pseudo-science nonsense that Ken said. He also didn't fall into the trap of Ham's signature 'observational vs historical science' palaver. He gave relevant and easily grasped examples that showed Ken's 6000 year old 'model' couldn't be true. eg Arctic ice cores showing 680,000 annual layers. He kept it well paced, respectful yet challenging and fairly simple for the audience.
Bill also kept referring to Young Earth Creationism as "Ken Ham's model" - distancing it from mainstream Christianity and saying billions of religious people do not accept that the earth is only 6000 years old. He made it obvious that YEC was a fringe religious belief and not science without actually being disrespectful. I think he was quite well prepared for Ham's usual 'arguments'. He was also much better with answering off the cuff questions submitted by the audience, where Ken was obviously uncomfortable "off script".
Bill also kept stressing how important it was for future generations of people from Kentucky and the US to be scientifically literate if they didn't want to be left behind by the rest of the world.
Initially I didn't think it was a good idea to give Ham and his YEC nonsense any weight by having a 'debate', but overall Bill did a much better job than I thought he would although he had some awkward moments in the beginning like the story of his father and a bow tie and went off point a few times. I thought his 'fish sex' line of thought was a bit weird but it probably got the audience's attention.
The only real problem I saw with Bill Nye's presentation is that he inadequately addressed Ham's claim about the inconsistency of radioisotopic dating methods. Ham gave an example where scientists allegedly dated a rock formation to several hundred million years but dated a log found in the formation to 45,000 years using carbon dating. His answer should have been that no scientist would have dated a log found in hundreds of millions of year old rock using radiocarbon dating, since that method is only valid up to 45,000-50,000 years (to say nothing of the fact that since the log was embedded in the rock, there would have no reason to date the log, since they already knew the date of the rock). So no wonder the log didn't show an older date. However, if they had used a more appropriate method on the log, the dates would have been much more consistent.
The only real problem I saw with Bill Nye's presentation is that he inadequately addressed Ham's claim about the inconsistency of radioisotopic dating methods. Ham gave an example where scientists allegedly dated a rock formation to several hundred million years but dated a log found in the formation to 45,000 years using carbon dating. His answer should have been that no scientist would have dated a log found in hundreds of millions of year old rock using radiocarbon dating, since that method is only valid up to 45,000-50,000 years (to say nothing of the fact that since the log was embedded in the rock, there would have no reason to date the log, since they already knew the date of the rock). So no wonder the log didn't show an older date. However, if they had used a more appropriate method on the log, the dates would have been much more consistent.
I think it was better for Nye not to try to refute Ham's nonsense claim as there really wasn't enough time to do it properly and it would just bog things down and lose the audience. Better to just get Ham on the main points that a 6000 year old earth is impossible with simple evidence like ice-cores showing 680,000 'observable' annual layers. That would leave a more lasting impression than arguing about dating methods which most of the audience probably wouldn't understand anyway.
I think it was better for Nye not to try to refute Ham's pseudo-science claims as there really wasn't enough time to do it properly and it would just bog things down and lose the audience. Better to just get Ham on the main points that a 6000 year old earth is impossible with simple evidence like ice-cores showing 680,000 'observable' annual layers. That would leave a more lasting impression than arguing about dating methods.
I agree, but Bill did respond to the claim, so he should have given a better response, IMHO.
I agree, but Bill did respond to the claim, so he should have given a better response, IMHO.
I agree he could have given a better response- but I think the YEC audience would have just dismissed it anyway as the whole 'dating methods' topic has been poisoned by YEC pseudoscience claims for too long. I think they are too used to switching their brains off and going "lah-lah-lah I can't hear you"
I saw the summary clips on one of the morning "news" shows and it does look like it came off better than one would expect. They quoted some science organization's opinion that creationism shouldn't be dignified with debate, but Nye's real objective is science literacy and education and I don't think he saw this as anything but a tool to promote science and its importance in our lives. Perhaps his focus not being on disproving creationism per se was the key to his success. Rather, it seems he was simply making a confident presentation about how useful and important science is in explaining the natural world. By contrast, all the clips of Ham seemed to be just themes and variations on, "you're not going to convince me that the word of god is not true".
Perhaps I'll have time to watch the whole thing later today.
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.
