Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Then why bring it up???As for the attitudes of Marget Sanger, that has been very highly misrepresented. We could say that it is a lie.Cain's False Attack on Planned Parenthood - FactCheck.orgMind you, some of her ideas are outdated, but this is what she said.

quote:

---

We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. The eugenist also believes that a woman should bear as many healthy children as possible as a duty to the state.

​

We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother.

---

and also

quote:

---

75 Percent of Clinics in Black Neighborhoods?

​

Cain also claimed that 75 percent of [clinics] were built in the black community. But we found no evidence that that was true in Sanger’s time, and it’s not true today.

​

Sanger’s first clinic, opened in 1916, was in Brooklyn in a neighborhood called Brownsville, which was 80 percent to 85 percent Jewish in 1910 and 1920, according to author Wendell E. Pritchett’s Brownsville, Brooklyn: Blacks, Jews & the Changing Face of the Ghetto. Cathy Moran Hajo writes that the neighborhood was populated largely by Italians and Eastern European Jews in Birth Control on Main Street: Organizing Clinics in the United States, 1916-1939. She says that Sanger didn’t choose to open her first clinic in Harlem, where infant and mother mortality rates were similar to those of Brownsville.

​

In fact, early birth control clinics didn’t welcome black women with open arms, Hajo writes: In the 1920s and early 1930s, African Americans had far more limited access to birth control than did white women. Not only did many clinics discriminate against black women, but the regions with the largest black populations had fewer clinics.

​

Sanger opened a clinic in Harlem in 1930, and, as mentioned, the Negro Project began in the late 1930s.

​

That doesn’t support Cain’s implication that Sanger’s objective was to put these centers in primarily black communities, or that 75 percent of clinics were in such neighborhoods. It should also be noted that these early clinics were focused on providing birth control, and Sanger herself warned of the dangers of abortion. While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization, she wrote in her 1920 book Woman and the New Race.

​

Cain’s claim also isn’t true today. Tait Sye, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood, told us in an email that 73% of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in rural or medically underserved areas. Not all of those would be predominately black communities.

​

Also, the Guttmacher Institute reported this year that 9 percent of abortion clinics in the U.S. are in neighborhoods in which 50 percent or more of the residents are black. That’s according to the group’s census of all known abortion providers.

---

Hmmm. You sure would get the impression from the "pro-life" crowd that the first abortion ever performed in the US was on the day after Roe v. Wade.

But he doesn't say that it would be better. That's not his point at all. He just says that in this case, there would be a bigger gap. His point, paraphrased, is this: "You say that the evolution of man from other primates is unlikely, because the gulf between them is large. But in the future, the gulf could become even larger --- would that make the evolution of man from other primates more unlikely? Of course not. Well then."

God had nothing to do with it. Ol' Hambo bought the remaining number himself in his incarnation as AIG. Creation Museum officials say funds in place to start building Noah's Ark theme park, second page:

quote:

---

Mike Zovath, the Ark project coordinator, said the minimum amount was sold, which constituted most of the bonds, and AiG purchased some. They did not provide exact figures.

---

No matter what the situation, Ken Ham is totally unable to tell the truth. It is sad above all that some follow that fraudster without question.
To be a creationist, aversion to truthfulness is paramount but some (like basicly everyone at AiG) take that to the extremes.

Under the terms of the offer, if they hadn't sold all the bonds they'd have to refund the money.And they couldn't do that. As their greatest prophet said. "Never give a sucker an even break".

I found this article very interesting - I see where Faith gets a lot of her talking points.How Liberty University Creates Creationists As a Christian professor who has tangled with evangelical institutions over evolution, I am often invited to don the mantle of heretic. The invitation typically comes in the form of an interview in which I am asked to respond to questions that will identify me as a liberal-throw-the-bible-under-the-bus lost soul who has no business calling himself a Christian.

​

I recently received two such requests in a week. One email came from a sophomore at Liberty University, as part of an assignment for the course Creation Studies 290: History of Life. Founded by Jerry Fallwell in 1971, Liberty is the largest evangelical university in the world if you include its large population of online students, and America’s largest nonprofit university. Creation Studies 209 is required of all of Liberty’s 100,000-plus students and claims to provide a thorough understanding of the creation-evolution controversy, and draws upon knowledge from religion, science, philosophy and history.

Bill Nye has written a postmortem of his debate with Ken Ham. It's very interesting reading his insights into the preparation, debate and post debate process.

http://www.csicop.org/...ill_nyes_take_on_the_nye-ham_debate

quote:

---

Bill Nye’s Take on the Nye-Ham Debate
Article
Bill Nye
Volume 38.3, May/June 2014

​

As you may know, once in a while I am invited to offer my thoughts on Fox News. And I love itI love being in the studio right there with those reporters with the opportunity to look them in the eyes (or lens). As you may infer, I’m not much for their style, and I usually disagree with just about everything a Fox commentator has to say, but I relish the confrontation. I had that same feeling about Ken Ham’s building. I wanted to be in the belly of the beast. I drove by there when I was on other business in Cincinnati a few years ago. The building was closed, but driving around the grounds I saw numerous depictions of ancient dinosaurs. One infamous sculpture featured humans of apparent European descent astride a triceratops-style ancient animal adorned with Christmas lights. I wanted to see the inside someday.

​

I do about a dozen college appearances every year. It’s a privilege that I enjoy immensely. At first, I figured this appearance and this encounter would get about the same amount of notice as a nice college gig. There’d be a buzz on Twitter and Facebook, but the world would go on spinning without much notice on the outside. Not here: the creationists promoted it like crazy, and soon it seemed like everyone I met was talking about it.

​

I slowly realized that this was a high-pressure situation. Many of you, by that I mean many of my skeptic and humanist colleagues, expressed deep concern and anger that I would be so foolish as to accept a debate with a creationist, as this would promote him and them more than it would promote me and us. As I often say and sincerely believe, You may be right. But, I held strongly to the view that it was an opportunity to expose the well-intending Ken Ham and the support he receives from his followers as being bad for Kentucky, bad for science education, bad for the U.S., and thereby bad for humankindI do not feel I’m exaggerating when I express it this strongly.

​

I am by no means an expert on most of this. Unlike my beloved uncle, I am not a geologist. Unlike my academic colleague and acquaintance Richard Dawkins, I am not an evolutionary biologist. Unlike my old professor Carl Sagan or my fellow Planetary Society Board member and dear friend Neil deGrasse Tyson, I am not an expert on astrophysics. I am, however, a science educator. In this situation, our skeptical arguments are not the stuff of PhDs. It’s elementary science and common sense. That’s what I planned to rely on. That’s what gave me confidence.

---

A lot more in the article.

Isn't that the same article I linked to yesterday?

Creationists Say Smithsonian Is Pushing "Religion of Naturalism"You know what those evil-utionists have done now? They've bought a T. Rex. This obviously violates the Establishment Clause, like everything else other than teaching Young Earth Creationism in public schools, which is dandy.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The article quotes Ham as saying that dinosaurs are a gateway drug to science and one of the commenters agreed,

quote:

---

Dinosaurs are too a gateway drug to science. I snorted a crushed Ornithomimid phalanx in Grade Nine, and now I can't leave the house without peer review.

---

Ham did not say that, he was quoting the director of the Museum of Natural History:

Ah yes, you are correct. It is still funny though don't you think?

Attributed to the right person it's funny, but attributed to Ham it has unfortunate implications.