Anyone watching the debate tonight?

[redsquirrel]

Kent Hovind is currently in a federal prison for 10 years on over 50 counts of funny accounting. I do not recommend holding him up as a spokesperson for creationism.

 

It's a draw. Neither one even adequately addressed the questions put to them, though at least they refrained from the usual ad hominem attacks. It is sad, but those two guys don't know how to debate, focus the topic, or exploit the poor debate skills of the other. So, in the end...each side clapped for their favorite guy like they were rooting for their pet sports team.

 

However, I don't think those individuals on either side of the question who really thought about these two particular individuals,  their character, their abilities, their skills, etc. believed it would be any different.

 

So, it was like a fender bender...just not enough incident to be worth slowing down and gawking imo, but I readily acknowledge that others may have found it to be more deep or well done than I did.

 

 

I felt like they weren't really debating each other.  Each one came with his own speeches prepared in advance, and neither one bothered to truly answer the questions posed by the other.  I am glad they kept it civil and respectful, and that there were jokes thrown in here and there to lighten up any tensions.

 

 

But whenever I have been to public debates, that is what they are like. Now, I have also spent a good deal of time in a courtroom (In another life, lol) and there the 'debates' were much MUCH more argumentative with lots of point scoring and taking advantage of the weaknesses of the other side etc (especially when the jury is out of the room!)

 

But public debates are usually pretty tame. Again, I don't mean that people don't believe what they are saying or anything like that, but I have never seen 'pouncing' or takedowns in a publicized sort of debate. The agreed upon rules often prevent either side from directly undercutting their opponent and neither side wants to start a ruckus. Now, sometimes if the debates happen over a number of days you will see some sparks because people get tired, lol. But there is lots of reading prepared statements etc.

 

Now, if you are talking about forensics competitions with actual points etc then yes, there is challenging and exploiting of weaknesses etc. But this was not that, nor would I expect it to be. This was meant to be an educational debate, not a professional wresting match or a high school competition. If they had done that it would have really reflected poorly upon them both

[Papillon Mom]

I watched the entire thing with my whole attention. I thought it was wonderful. I'm an atheist so obviously I fall on Nye's side. I was shocked at how much Ham relied on The Bible for his "evidence". I know he doesn't represent all creationists or especially intelligent design proponents but... I think he has helped put another nail in the coffin of creationism as science to be taught in schools. He kept referring to, "there's this book", for his answers.

[FO4UR]

I am watching it. I rarely pay attention to "creationists'. I am watching it so that I can hear some of their arguments for myself from their leader's own mouth.

 

I had no idea that Ken Ham isn't American. I always figured he was Southern. I thought we had the lock on creationism.

 

 

Oh, no!  Ken Ham is not the leader of Creationism!  He might be vocal and visible, but he is definitely not the leader.

 

 

I watched the entire thing with my whole attention. I thought it was wonderful. I'm an atheist so obviously I fall on Nye's side. I was shocked at how much Ham relied on The Bible for his "evidence". I know he doesn't represent all creationists or especially intelligent design proponents but... I think he has helped put another nail in the coffin of creationism as science to be taught in schools. He kept referring to, "there's this book", for his answers.

 

 

I agree.

 

He completely ignored everything Nye said, and kept on at his prefab schpeel.  At least he didn't lower himself into personal jabs...

 

 

Bill Nye didn't have to be that good, b/c Ham gave him nothing to debate.

 

:closedeyes:

[Ipsey]

Yes. He's silly and his jokes are dumb, but he gathers information from real science journals to present real science. He admits when he's wrong and corrects his material.

 

Are we still talking about K. Hovind?

 

That's funny because his "dissertation" has no reference page at all. (Though it may be missing. However, I don't see that he followed any of the standard academic style manuals for his in-text citations.)

His "introduction" starts with "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind."  I'm amazed he's ever read anything from a science journal if that's as close as he can get to academic writing. 

 

No reputable school would even accept that schlock as Master's work, not to mention Doctorate-level work.

[Ipsey]

I watched the entire thing with my whole attention. I thought it was wonderful. I'm an atheist so obviously I fall on Nye's side. I was shocked at how much Ham relied on The Bible for his "evidence". I know he doesn't represent all creationists or especially intelligent design proponents but... I think he has helped put another nail in the coffin of creationism as science to be taught in schools. He kept referring to, "there's this book", for his answers.

 

Every time Ham said that, I was thrilled. (And a little bit grossed-out and exasperated--but thrilled also.) :)

 

[albeto.]

 I think he has helped put another nail in the coffin of creationism as science to be taught in schools. He kept referring to, "there's this book", for his answers.

 

Agreed. The most telling part in my opinion was at the end when they were each asked what evidence would compel them to change their minds. Ham stated there would be nothing, he is a christian, full stop. Nye gave a few specific things and challenged anyone to find them. Not only that, he assured them they would be held in high esteem in the scientific community. 

[Ecclecticmum]

I did get a little buzzy over the fact both of them tended to skirt questions and come out wither rather long drawn talks that didn't answer the Q&A's. Like asking Ham if it was proved beyond a doubt the world is older than 10,000 years would he still have faith in God? (I may have twisted the question a little here, but I think I'm getting across the main thought) and he turned his answer into a "how it couldn't be wrong, because, the Bible."  I would of taken the question at face value and said

 

"Well, whilst I believe all evidence points to a young-earth model of creation, should it somehow turn out that that is somehow untrue or has been mis-translated in the passage of time, it would not change my faith in God, nor my understanding or faith in the Bible. It would actually cause my faith to be that much stronger and let me look in a new light at the wonder that is in the Bible and how that relates to our current understanding of our glorious world. The changing face & thought of mainstream science would not change my own personal beliefs and faiths, but may help me make new conenctions with the Bible & God. But in my mind and evidence I have viewed, the world is 6,000 years old, as it reads in the Bible"

 

The above would of pretty much answered the question, given his view (actually its more of a his/mine meshed view, as I was writing it as an example, not for quoting) and all the thoughts across. instead his answer left me confused and didn't answer the question in my mind.

 

Then again, I have a really open mind, so I see things that pretty much doesn't/cannot happen in the everyday. Even I'm afraid to question/talk/debate on the thoughts inside my head to others, I think this is the first time I have done anywhere near it.

 

I think the one thing I got from either man (and that I agree with was):

 

Bill: "We need scientists" Yes, that is true. We need lots of scientists who observe unbiasedly. It is our job as parents to encourage that. Ken Ham tends to inject his opinion as a kind of fact, which is wrong. Facts are facts, opinions are opinions, It is okay to express your opinion, as long as it is listed as so. At the same time we are human, and therefore we are prone to errors, which is fine, nobody is perfect. We need children who understand the scientific method and preferably a world in which most children understand at least basic science & associated principles. The best way (I believe) to encourage children towards science is 3rd grade and under keeping it fun, science kits, experiment, hands on, observable science. Nature Study, making their own playdough, baking, cooking, observing, more observing, even from a young age children can "draw" their results or give them an old tape recorder and they can record their experiments to be dictated/written down by you later (you could even do it in Startwrite, so it would cover handwriting also.)

 

Ken: "Scientists who are afraid to say anything about their doubts" Yes, we live in a world where not moving with the herd will get you ridiculed, exploited or not taken seriously again. If these scientists speak out, they could end up with demotions or their papers not taken seriously. So everyone remains quiet on the fact of any doubts. As I said above "I am afraid to talk to others about my beliefs (or questions thereof). I was originally Anglican, but when I started questioning the status quo and asking questions about everything, I was made to feel uncomfortable and awkward till eventually as an early teen, I lieft the Church. I have hopped from place to place since then, eventually in the time when I met DH and was more of a "I believe in a Higher power" and that I loved Nature. My sister-in-law (who is Christian) called me Satan and refused to come to my wedding convinced somehow that I would be jumping over fire or some such nonsense. I am now UU, and read through various things from all a manner of faiths but mostly focusing on Christian & Catholic faiths, I "chose" UU simply because I wanted something that was always there, something that if I questioned something or changed a certain point in my beliefs, would not exile, excommunicate, exit or any other "e's" me. People should not be afraid to question, to think, to share, to listen and learn from others.

 

We live in a world where there claims to be tolerance but is not really. A world that claims to want world peace. Well if the world really wanted world peace, there would be world peace, if the leaders of each country wanted world peace there would be world peace.

 

As for the origins of Man, I believe that God was the origins of man and all other animals and life. How, when or where he did so, only he really knows.

 

I don't claim to be a scientist and am far from it. If I was brought up to speed on an understanding of the evidence and had everything in front of me, I could be my own personal judge and work out the end result and adapt my beliefs, which would still include faith in God. God is God. He could of made it in one day of his time, or sped up time or some such thing, or many other options I could mention but won't. So I believe Creation will always be a viable model of origins.

 

I think they both did a good job, and it has made me more intrigued with both of them (its made me re-look into the possibility of letting the kids watch Nye's videos, and look into Ham's books (I initially crossed out any of his books from TOG, but with another book (or maybe a Nye video) from the opposite site, I think it could be a balanced look at certain things like the dinosaurs (as I don't know what to believe, I don't have the evidence in front of me) My children know I don't have all the answers, and some things are just on faith, but they see Mom looking at various things and keeping an open mind, but also that she loves God. They know that she struggles with tolerance of others sometimes, but prevails. That I am way too forgiving, and cannot hold a grudge for more than a minute (when I am mad at DH, he just pretty much walks out of the room, does a loop of the house, and by the time he comes back, I'm all excited and happy and wanting to tell him about something, completely forgetting I was mad) I could this as a weakness, DH counts it as a strength.

 

I have been an atheist, christian and all a manner of in between things, and have always thought Creation is a viable model of origins.

[PachiSusan]

 People should not be afraid to question, to think, to share, to listen and learn from others.

 

We live in a world where there claims to be tolerance but is not really. A world that claims to want world peace. Well if the world really wanted world peace, there would be world peace, if the leaders of each country wanted world peace there would be world peace.

 

As for the origins of Man, I believe that God was the origins of man and all other animals and life. How, when or where he did so, only he really knows.

 

I don't claim to be a scientist and am far from it. If I was brought up to speed on an understanding of the evidence and had everything in front of me, I could be my own personal judge and work out the end result and adapt my beliefs, which would still include faith in God. God is God. He could of made it in one day of his time, or sped up time or some such thing, or many other options I could mention but won't. So I believe Creation will always be a viable model of origins.

 

I think they both did a good job, and it has made me more intrigued with both of them (its made me re-look into the possibility of letting the kids watch Nye's videos, and look into Ham's books (I initially crossed out any of his books from TOG, but with another book (or maybe a Nye video) from the opposite site, I think it could be a balanced look at certain things like the dinosaurs (as I don't know what to believe, I don't have the evidence in front of me) My children know I don't have all the answers, and some things are just on faith, but they see Mom looking at various things and keeping an open mind, but also that she loves God. They know that she struggles with tolerance of others sometimes, but prevails. That I am way too forgiving, and cannot hold a grudge for more than a minute (when I am mad at DH, he just pretty much walks out of the room, does a loop of the house, and by the time he comes back, I'm all excited and happy and wanting to tell him about something, completely forgetting I was mad) I could this as a weakness, DH counts it as a strength.

 

I have been an atheist, christian and all a manner of in between things, and have always thought Creation is a viable model of origins.

 

 

STANDING OVATION.

[Slache]

Are we still talking about K. Hovind?

 

That's funny because his "dissertation" has no reference page at all. (Though it may be missing. However, I don't see that he followed any of the standard academic style manuals for his in-text citations.)

His "introduction" starts with "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind."  I'm amazed he's ever read anything from a science journal if that's as close as he can get to academic writing. 

 

No reputable school would even accept that schlock as Master's work, not to mention Doctorate-level work.

 

 

I don't think he went to an accredited school, and I think he majored in some sort of religious thing. I'm not defending his academics, personality, or hairstyle, I just like his seminars.

[DawnM]

I honestly think you are in a very small minority.  Most people watch it to "see the other side fail."  And then everything they watch/listen to is slanted by their own personal bias.

 

I am glad you got more out of it than that.  Most people don't.

 

 

I am really glad I watched it. It was good. Well, I should say I listened to it because I was knitting and not looking at the computer screen at all.

 

I don't feel like either one was particularly 'egoistic' or doing it for attention.

 

And for people wondering what the point of it is, there is a very long standing tradition of people from opposing sides to come together to debate on important issues. I think that saying that either side expects to change minds is missing the point of debate. It gives both sides a chance to be seen side by side, to let them be evaluated in the presence of the other. I don't think of debates as things one wins or loses, really. Sometimes there is an obvious winner or loser, but mostly they are educational. That is a good thing. It is good for me to hear what Ken Ham says. If someone asks my why I disagree with him at least I can say that I have given him some of my time and attention and listened to his arguments. I am thinking about everything he said. I am not going to change my understanding and acceptance of science, but I am thinking about what he said. I also learned some new stuff from Bill Nye.

 

I liked it. I will have my older son watch it tomorrow if it is up on youtube or whatever

 

[albeto.]

I did get a little buzzy over the fact both of them tended to skirt questions and come out wither rather long drawn talks that didn't answer the Q&A's. Like asking Ham if it was proved beyond a doubt the world is older than 10,000 years would he still have faith in God? (I may have twisted the question a little here, but I think I'm getting across the main thought) and he turned his answer into a "how it couldn't be wrong, because, the Bible."

Yeah, that was really telling for me. It tells me that there is no evidence that is worthy of consideration for Ken Ham. He has his beliefs and he will maintain them regardless of any evidence that suggests an alternative. This isn't science. It's not using the scientific method. Ham admitted his lack of science here, and his devotion to the bible alone, or as Nye explained, his interpretation of the bible.

 

Ken: "Scientists who are afraid to say anything about their doubts" Yes, we live in a world where not moving with the herd will get you ridiculed, exploited or not taken seriously again.

Respectfully, I disagree. We respect a scientific community that adheres to certain protocol with regard to promoting hypotheses and offering support. Creationism is a faith-based hypothesis, and any support offered miss these expectations. They cannot, and would not be accepted based on the sincere belief of the person offering it, but on the merit of the evidence. If there is no evidence, it's not accepted. That's not a matter of moving with the herd, ridiculing, exploiting, or not taking people seriously. Although these things do happen, it's not because we live in a world where moving with the herd is expected in science, but because some people are tired of entertaining baseless claims founded on personal faith and ancient superstitions, and some people are no longer willing to watch the educational needs of the next generation be neglected for the sake of religious desires.

 

We live in a world where there claims to be tolerance but is not really.

In some places, sure, but not in the United States. In the US, two people like Ken Ham and Bill Nye can publicly reject each other's claims, challenge evidence, and say the other is wrong. Neither will fear blasphemy charges and face prison time or, like 13 countries currently, execution for such a crime. Ken Ham can build a giant diorama of the stories of the bible, get tax breaks (public support), can teach children false ideas about science, and never face criminal charges for it. No one will run him out of town or threaten his family, even if he is the biggest face for this movement. Bill Nye can come to the Creation Museum and publicly reject Ham's claims. He doesn't need police protection or to hide from the authorities for such a public display of rejecting a faith-claim. Both men are just the latest in a series of public debates about just this kind of thing. That these debates are safe and public are a testament to the tolerance we as a nation provide differing religious and scientific beliefs.

 

As for the origins of Man, I believe that God was the origins of man and all other animals and life. How, when or where he did so, only he really knows.

Which is why these ideas are rejected from scientific journals. "I don't know, but God" simply will not work.

 

I have been an atheist, christian and all a manner of in between things, and have always thought Creation is a viable model of origins.

The one question Ham never did address was what prediction does this model offer? He did respond, but apparently misunderstood the point, because making a personal prediction isn't the same as making a scientific one. The so-called land bridge from Asia to Australia might be such a prediction, but like Nye explained, there is not only no evidence, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the conventional scientific model. There is no room for this prediction. It's failed. To hang on to it in the face of evidence to the contrary isn't a scientific, it's arguably stubborn and foolish. It's not intolerant to talk about it as such, just uncomfortable.

[Ecclecticmum]

We can agree to disagree, and thats wonderful!

 

FWIW I am not fond of the "because God" or "Because the Bible" either. Its seen in a lot of non-secuar science programs, "this happens in the blood because God made it so" so if I came off that way I am hugely embarrassed and apologize.

 

In regards to this:

 

"Respectfully, I disagree. We respect a scientific community that adheres to certain protocol with regard to promoting hypotheses and offering support. Creationism is a faith-based hypothesis, and any support offered miss these expectations. They cannot, and would not be accepted based on the sincere belief of the person offering it, but on the merit of the evidence. If there is no evidence, it's not accepted. That's not a matter of moving with the herd, ridiculing, exploiting, or not taking people seriously." ~Aberta

 

I was actually talking about two separate points (which I made not of made clear, my son is in one of his comfort modes and things are a bit hectic here) The doubts I was thinking Ham was taking about (and perhaps he wasn't) was from Atheist (maybe they weren't?) Scientists who had noticed "chinks" in the evidence of, I presume, evolution, and that they were afraid to speak out on this, which has nothing to do with Creationism.

 

Creationism and Science do not intertwine in my mind, unless proof of Creationism comes to light. God could of created the Big Bang, Evolution, or made the Rock in front of you seem 10 million years old.

 

The point to be made was that Creationism from its most base standpoint is aways viable, therefore its a trick question and was used to perhaps garner attention for this debate. Its a trick question because there is no way to disprove creationism.

 

Another reason why this garnered so much attention was because debates like this do not happen, and unfortunatey people would of expected Ken Ham to say what he did say, but the way Nye said certain things (and you could even see points at which he was thinking of saying a certain word, and floundered to find a "PC" aternative) is probaby going to see some backlash, I think there aready was a bit over what he was saying regarding the teaching of science & creationism a while back (couple of months ago? I didn't realy read it, could of been a couple of years).

 

I was aso taking tolerance in general. Tolerance for neighbours, for those you don't understand, for those that have different morals than you, different faiths and tolerance for those who just plain don't fit into groups.

 

Anyway, its one of those times when everyone thinks differently. And differences should be applauded. A debate is always going to be a debate. As they said on the pre-show, I woud actually prefer to see Nye & Ham (or perhaps another creationist) sit down and just talk to each other for an hour and a half, Rather than these timed pre-written speeches. And maybe propery listen to the other side.

 

I agree with both of them and disagree with both of them. I agree with Alberta & disagree with Alberta. God (or in an atheists case man/genes/evolution) made me into an individual with my own ideas, I just think people shoud be able to come together and really listen to one another. :)

 

ETA: P.S. As for the Land Bridge, maybe there was none. maybe God decided he wanted to create Kangaroos afterwards. The earlier Kangaroo Ancestors were HUGE, maybe it didn't take them long to bounce across (sort of like a hummer or monster truck lol) Maybe kangaroos came from horses who came from primordial soup, maybe the Aboriginals ancestor brought some here. I don't know. Perhaps people should ask Ken Ham till he gives an answer, or email the biologist.

 

I used to love Kangaroos, then one day DH pointed out there claws. Its scared me ever since. Still love wallabies though. I think I only live on this earth once (that I know of anyway), so I'm going to go play with my kids :D And the rest shall follow naturally..

 

Found a picture "Procoptodon":

 

http://sa.apana.org.au/~paulc/NaraCaves03.JPG

[NicAnn]

I am watching it. I rarely pay attention to "creationists'. I am watching it so that I can hear some of their arguments for myself from their leader's own mouth.

 

I had no idea that Ken Ham isn't American. I always figured he was Southern. I thought we had the lock on creationism.

He's not American? That blows my mind. Showing my ignorance here, but I thought young earth creationism was strictly an American thing.

[NicAnn]

Let's just say there's a reason he had to move to find a large enough audience. YEC is definitely fringe in Australia.

Yes I just read his Wiki page. Was even more surprised to read he was Australian.

[WishboneDawn]

That's funny! I was thinking Ham doesn't know what "science" means. I mean, his "observational science" v. "historical science" stuff was awkward at best.

My biggest frustration with creationist information, false distinctions that are meaningless as anything other then a bad rhetorical device and only serve to cloud understanding. I'd put micro and macro evolution in that category as well.

 

I think a basic prerequisite to debate is agreement on terms. When one side makes up their own that have little or no meaning in the wider sphere, how can anyone ever expect a real debate?

[TracyP]

I watched it and for me it was okay. I have spent a fair amount of time researching both sides, so there was nothing new there for me. However, when you consider the target audience (AIG supporters), I think Nye did a terrific job. There were large church groups getting together to hear this. I would be surprised to find that many adults had their mind changed. But I think it is possible that large numbers of kids heard things they had never heard before. Things that might make them question their YE views. Kids are smart. I think at least some of them will pick up on the fact that Ham has an incredibly weak argument.

 

I'm also glad that Nye was respectful of religion and pointed out that millions of Christians have no problem with accepting science and holding to their faith. Often it is presented by YE'ers as an either/or. This gives young people a third option that they may not have considered up to this point.

[WishboneDawn]

I watched it and for me it was okay. I have spent a fair amount of time researching both sides, so there was nothing new there for me. However, when you consider the target audience (AIG supporters), I think Nye did a terrific job. There were large church groups getting together to hear this. I would be surprised to find that many adults had their mind changed. But I think it is possible that large numbers of kids heard things they had never heard before. Things that might make them question their YE views. Kids are smart. I think at least some of them will pick up on the fact that Ham has an incredibly weak argument.

 

I'm also glad that Nye was respectful of religion and pointed out that millions of Christians have no problem with accepting science and holding to their faith. Often it is presented by YE'ers as an either/or. This gives young people a third option that they may not have considered up to this point.

Oh, you know, you're right.

 

I kept thinking about him winning the audience, not about how he had a captive audience of kids who might be hearing things they hadn't previously heard or having information presented in a new light.

 

My perspective has changed.

[Lady Florida.]

 

 

I have been an atheist, christian and all a manner of in between things, and have always thought Creation is a viable model of origins.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding an atheist seeing creation as a viable model of origins. 

[Guest inoubliable]

I'm having a hard time understanding an atheist seeing creation as a viable model of origins. 

 

Word.

[TechWife]

 

I'm also glad that Nye was respectful of religion and pointed out that millions of Christians have no problem with accepting science and holding to their faith. Often it is presented by YE'ers as an either/or. This gives young people a third option that they may not have considered up to this point.

 

I appreciated this as well. 

[Saddlemomma]

People would be better served to watch the debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens on YouTube rather than Ham and Nye. 

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Smithsonian has a great article linking to some of the previous such debates -- way back to 1986 and Phil Donahue.  The really interesting parts are links out to studies about how people react to factual information in altering their opinions (spoiler -- it doesn't work).  A short quote:

 

"In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an under-powered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."

 

 

[albeto.]

FWIW I am not fond of the "because God" or "Because the Bible" either. Its seen in a lot of non-secuar science programs, "this happens in the blood because God made it so" so if I came off that way I am hugely embarrassed and apologize.

Oh no reason to apologize, I think. Although, you mention at the end you find creationism to be a viable model to explain the origins of the earth, but this is directly descended from the judeo-christian creation story. "Because the bible," and "because god" is the root of this model.

 

In regards to this:

 

"Respectfully, I disagree. We respect a scientific community that adheres to certain protocol with regard to promoting hypotheses and offering support. Creationism is a faith-based hypothesis, and any support offered miss these expectations. They cannot, and would not be accepted based on the sincere belief of the person offering it, but on the merit of the evidence. If there is no evidence, it's not accepted. That's not a matter of moving with the herd, ridiculing, exploiting, or not taking people seriously." ~Aberta

 

I was actually talking about two separate points (which I made not of made clear, my son is in one of his comfort modes and things are a bit hectic here) The doubts I was thinking Ham was taking about (and perhaps he wasn't) was from Atheist (maybe they weren't?) Scientists who had noticed "chinks" in the evidence of, I presume, evolution, and that they were afraid to speak out on this, which has nothing to do with Creationism.

I don't recall hearing anything about any chinks in the evidence of the theory of evolution. There are no such gaps. It's a a well-documented fact and further research continually reinforces it as well as explains it in more detail. People who try to write about these phantom gaps in standard biology journals should expect to be dismissed as readily as an astrologist trying to promote horoscopes in an astronomy journal.

 

The point to be made was that Creationism from its most base standpoint is aways viable, therefore its a trick question and was used to perhaps garner attention for this debate. Its a trick question because there is no way to disprove creationism.

It's as viable as any other religious creation mythology, which to say it has no scientific viability. Because there is no evidence, there is no reason to apply these variables. Science doesn't work like that. One doesn't assume the premise that god created the earth with his word any more than one assumes the premise the earth was born from the goddess gaia. You don't move from that position, not if you're scientifically literate in the most basic way.

 

Anyway, its one of those times when everyone thinks differently. And differences should be applauded. A debate is always going to be a debate. As they said on the pre-show, I woud actually prefer to see Nye & Ham (or perhaps another creationist) sit down and just talk to each other for an hour and a half, Rather than these timed pre-written speeches. And maybe propery listen to the other side.

Differences should not be applauded, in my opinion. Things that should be applauded are things that inspire respect. Of course people think differently, but not all thoughts are respectful. People think it's perfectly fantastic to book vacations in Thailand to take advantage of the prepubescent sex trade. Those thoughts do not command respect. People think it's perfectly acceptable to hold down their daughters and perform genital mutilation for the sake of a religious or tribal traditional ritual. Again, no respect from me. Teaching children that science is broken down to "observational" and "historical" is a foolish idea, not only does it harbor no respect, I find it to be detrimental to society at large for the same reason I find the idea that teaching children there is a difference in value between people depending on their race is a foolish and dangerous idea. These differences have no business being respected, but exposed, corrected, and put away in favor of actual facts, and the logical, rational application of those facts. By the way, you can find all kinds of debates like this on youtube if you're interested.

 

I agree with both of them and disagree with both of them. I agree with Alberta & disagree with Alberta. God (or in an atheists case man/genes/evolution) made me into an individual with my own ideas, I just think people shoud be able to come together and really listen to one another. :)

Interestingly, I saw Ham doing very little listening. By the end of the debate it was clear he wasn't there to discuss creationism as a viable model for the origins of life on earth. He was there to preach the gospel. There's no other reason to have interjected with such irrelevant ideas as immorality, or the notion that god invented marriage. These things should have been an embarrassment to anyone looking for a scientific debate, in my opinion, as there was no science coming from his position. None. Everything he spoke about has been made up in recent history.

 

ETA: P.S. As for the Land Bridge, maybe there was none. maybe God decided he wanted to create Kangaroos afterwards. The earlier Kangaroo Ancestors were HUGE, maybe it didn't take them long to bounce across (sort of like a hummer or monster truck lol) Maybe kangaroos came from horses who came from primordial soup, maybe the Aboriginals ancestor brought some here. I don't know. Perhaps people should ask Ken Ham till he gives an answer, or email the biologist.

 Maybe god created a giant robot and built the earth out of giant legos, then over time those legos turned to earth, plants, and animals? Do you see how unpersuasive a story can be when there is no evidence to support it? To insist a land bridge is possible without any evidence of a land bridge is utterly unsatisfying to the reasonable thinker. Why assume this one creation myth is accurate, and dismiss so many others? If your god really did magically provide a land bridge, given all the animals magical speed boosts to jet off to the four corners of the earth, then magically make this land bridge disappear and leave in its wake a geological earth that looks identical to a 4 billion year old rock with no history of land bridge, why? Why go to all the trouble to create a universe that is functionally identical to a universe without a creator god? 

[Catwoman]

Let's just say there's a reason he had to move to find a large enough audience. YEC is definitely fringe in Australia.

Can we send him back? ;)

[laundrycrisis]

I would like to get a DVD copy of the debate, but I do not want to financially support the Creation Museum in order to get it.  I also can't help wondering if the DVD that is produced will not have had some editing done.  

[LucyStoner]

Can we send him back? ;)

No refunds, no returns. We're SOL here Cat.

[Catwoman]

No refunds, no returns. We're SOL here Cat.

Say it isn't so!!! :eek:

 

Would it help if we all chipped in for the plane ticket? ;)

[LucyStoner]

I will pay for his plane ticket all by myself if he agrees to a DNA sample and explains how it is that he has Neanderthal DNA when the earth is only 6000 years old and humans were created as they are now.

[awisha.]

Can we send him back? ;)

  

 

:svengo:

 

No refunds, no returns. We're SOL here Cat.

Exactly.

[5LittleMonkeys]

I will pay for his plane ticket all by myself if he agrees to a DNA sample and explains how it is that he has Neanderthal DNA when the earth is only 6000 years old and humans were created as they are now.

 

Won't his explanation be that God made him that way? 

[LucyStoner]

Won't his explanation be that God made him that way? 

 

But did God make the Neanderthals too and then they also went the way of the dinosaurs?  Why do most people of European and east Asian backgrounds have some small percentage of this DNA?  Homo neanderthalensis-Homo sapiens pairings are certainly not referenced in my bible, nor is there any evidence to suggest that Neanderthals were around 5000-6000 years ago.  I've never heard Ham try to explain this, even through I read something nonsensical about it on AiG.  Maybe when the t-rex stopped eating watermelons, they ate up all the Neanderthals but miraculously left Homo sapiens alone?  I jest. But I am curious. 

[IsabelC]

Does anyone else find this kind of "debate" is getting slightly boring? I reckon the only way I could possibly enjoy it would be to write all our predictions of what each guy is going to say and then play bingo with them. Seriously, it's always the same old stuff. Just what exactly is the point? Most people already have an opinion and aren't going to change it. The "debate" is unresolvable because they are proceeding from mutually exclusive assumptions. Ham will cite BIblical authority and refuse to believe anything he thinks would contradict this, no matter how irrefutable the evidence. For his part Nye will deny the validity of the Bible as a scientific reference work. But he can never prove that creation isn't "a viable model", because creation involves magic and the supernatural.

 

Katie, I am often outside being eaten up by mosquitoes while other people with me don't get a single bite, so I think it's perfectly plausable that T Rex might have enjoyed dining on some hominids and not others, had they existed contemporaneously.

[IsabelC]

Are we still talking about K. Hovind?

 

That's funny because his "dissertation" has no reference page at all. (Though it may be missing. However, I don't see that he followed any of the standard academic style manuals for his in-text citations.)

His "introduction" starts with "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind."  I'm amazed he's ever read anything from a science journal if that's as close as he can get to academic writing. 

 

No reputable school would even accept that schlock as Master's work, not to mention Doctorate-level work.

 

I gather it has been well established that Hovind's university qualifications are just the kind that anyone can buy for their pet from a degree mill. He doesn't have any degrees from properly accredited institutions and isn't entitled to call himself Dr. 

 

(Not that I would necessarily judge somebody's opinions on their level of education anyway. I am reasonably well educated but still capable of astonishing feats of stupidity. And Ham has a 'real' (Australian) degree.)