Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Of course they are, why pass up another opportunity to soak the gullible.Note that members will get an undisclosed discount - they need to call in to find it costs them ... ? And what are the ground rules and who will moderate?This may not end well – Why Evolution Is True

quote:

---

Finally, does Nye have experience in debating creationists? It is almost entirely an exercise in rhetoric, not a search for truth, and is Nye prepared to deal with the Gish Gallop?

---

He better do his homework. Events | Answers in Genesis Doesn't give any details on the format. But the topic title Is creation a viable model of origins? is a probable indication that Ham will try to call\conflate abiogenesis evolution and say that evolution can't explain origins. Expect the airplane in the junkyard PRATT.He's going into the lion's den. The best argument against the "Creation model" is likely DNA evidence and bottlenecks, but he will need to make the idea simple for the simple people there.Also expect claims about macroevolution being impossible ... I expect Ham will play to the crowd rather than honestly debate.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..

... when the audience is the faithful followers. It would be interesting to pack the audience with people with degrees in biology.Nye is also a public speaker, so he may be able to hold his end in that regard, but he will need to keep focus on the topic.It would be interesting for him to show up with a film crew, and do a tour of the "museum" pointing out the incorrect information ...

you can google for his email addresse-mail: bnsg@billnye.comalso see Bill Nye | Official Website of Bill Nye The Science Guy

He should go dressed as a clown and honk a horn for every pratt Ham uses

This might be why he's doing itIf You Didn't Love Bill Nye Before You See This, You'll Love Him After (Or You're A Cold Robot) - Upworthy

http://www.nbcnews.com/...guys-face-its-debatable-2D12028450

quote:

---

Will evolution debate blow up in the Science Guy's face? It's debatable

​

Nye acknowledges that he's getting some heat from colleagues for giving creationists a high-profile forum, but insists that an open debate is necessary. "We're just trying to change the world here, and draw attention to these forces in our society that are trying to get creationism in science textbooks," he told NBC News. "My argument is, this is bad for the country, bad for our economy. We can't raise a generation of science students who are not scientifically literate."

​

He said he's been preparing for the debate by consulting with experts via email and studying how Ham and other creationists have stated their case in past forums.

​

"Many people have been critical of me for taking this debate because I'm not an expert on evolution," Nye said. "But this is not advanced evolutionary theory. This is not high-school science. It might be elementary-school science. That Mr. Ham and his followers don't embrace it is troubling."

​

On each side of the debate, there's yet another debate going on: For example, some of the defenders of evolution education think Tuesday's face-off won't be such a bad thing.

​

"In general, we advise people against doing debates. The biggest thing is that a debate on stage is not how science is decided. It's entertainment, it's theater," said Josh Rosenau, program and policy director for the National Center for Science Education, which defends the teaching of evolution. "But because it's about entertainment, if anyone's going to do it, I think Bill Nye is not a bad choice."

​

Where do you stand on the evolution debate?
56,321 votes

​

64% 35,780 votes I side with Bill Nye
31% 17,312 votes I side with Ken Ham
6% 3,229 votes I'm on neither side

---

Breaks down as expected from Pew pollThe debate is Tuesday ...Edited by RAZD, : ..

Well it seems he did better than anticipated from the reports I've seen. More tomorrow.

Well now I have watched Ken Ham's 30 minute presentationGish Gallop all over the place about many things not related to originsRedefining scienceAsserting falsehoodsNot providing any basis for scientific predictions other than what is is what is.Nothing new there. Nothing unexpected.

And now I have watched Bill Nye's half hour presentation.Lots of factsLots of emphasis on prediction being the purpose of scienceLots of questions for KenHe missed some points that I might have included

• uranium halos and the time needed for them to form
• sn1987a
• lake varves (link between tree rings and ice cores
• the lack of a single genetic bottleneck across all species at the same time.
• the genetic information regarding DNA comparisons between chimps, orangs, gorilla and human and the fused chromosome 2 with internal telomeres and a second centromere that has been disabled -- predicted from the fusion of the ape chromosomes: if they had fused then there would be evidence of their previous separation.
  ​
  This Picture Has Creationists Terrified – Mother Jones
  ​

  quote:

  ---

  ... the image above, which was originally published in a landmark paper in the journal Science in 1982. What you are looking at are highly magnified photographs of the chromosomes of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, aligned in that order for each chromosome.

  ​

  ​

  ... the ancestral equivalents of chromosomes 2p and 2q fused together over the course of evolution and became human chromosome 2. In other words, this is sort of the genetic version of the missing link.

  ​

  How do we know that this fusion occurred? The proof is written, indelibly, in the genetic material itself. ...

  ​

  ​

  In a 2005 study published in Nature, however, the "precise fusion site" was located on human chromosome 2. The paper noted the presence of "multiple subtelomeric duplications" in this location (i.e., the expected telomere DNA) and also the vestiges of a second centromere on the chromosome that has since been "inactivated" (represented by the orange region above). ...

  ---

Oops Bill missed on the 45,000 year old wood -- that is the limit of 14C dating and would have been reported as >45,000 years, and Ken is misrepresenting that fact. He should have looked at the PRATTs commonly used.Ken is now pulling out more of the standard PRATTS -- the buried airplanes -- confusing snow fall quantity with annual layers marked by different formation of ice at different times of the year.Edited by RAZD, : +Edited by RAZD, : +

Nothing new from HamNo real startling things from Nye eitherPeople will tend to take from this "debate" (two people talking past each other) is what they believed\accepted before.

Curiously all I saw was engineering being produced. A PhD in engineering doesn't make you a scientist -- you become a scientist by doing science.Just so you know.

The atheist died and went to heaven, where Peter met him: "You have been a good person and helped fellow humans and you were kind to animals, you may enter heaven." Atheist looks around "What's that little walled in enclosure over there?" Peter: "That's where we keep the fundamentalists - they like to think they are the only ones here."

Not plants. Always good to admit "I don't know" rather than make up stuff. The one where you said you have not followed this enough to have an opinion? Not sure what you mean here. What you say does not appear related to what you quoted. Can you clarify?

http://ncse.com/files/Ham%20Bingo.pdf (download)Wish I'd known about them before the debate ....Again this may be the way to attack "debates" -- with humour

No worse for the marine animals that are also ignored as if they didn't exist (or were known about?)But yes the plants that are buried under water for a year and then magically spring anew once the floods have receded ... and that still show the same biodiversity pattern as the animals that dispersed after the flood ... magically without leaving traces of their passage ... and some with diets specific to specific plants that are on the other side of the earth.Nye should have used the koala bear, not the kangaroo -- slow moving and only eats eucalyptus leaves.