Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Hi Jaf, just to add to what the others have already said ...Curiously I am not surprised by your reaction, confirmation bias is like that: you saw what you wanted to see rather than looking critically at the statements.Of course if you don't have the knowledge of science and basic facts it is more than a little difficult to critically assess what was said.For instance, when Ham mentioned the tree trunk dated at 45,000 years old, you should know that (a) the only way to date ancient wood on its own from ancient locations would be 14C dating (Ham didn't say, but he didn't need to), (b) that the practical limit to 14C dating is 45,000 years, and (c) anything older would have been reported as >45,000 years (a rather large category). We can thus presume that Ham misrepresented\lied (provided false witness) by not including the ">" part of the results.Personally I was surprised the Nye missed this, as this is a very typical ploy used by creationists in debates like this. This is typical of how creationists try to discredit age measuring systems, and there are a lot of PRATTs in this category. And it looks like you were totally taken in by his intentionally switching the meanings of the word science and the word evolution.This is another typical ploy of creationists, it was attempted in the Dover trial and it was shown up for what it is -- an attempt to weaken scientific terms to the point where astrology qualifies.Unfortunately it doesn't matter what you think or how much creationists try to obscure the definitions used, when science defines how words are used and proceeds to use it in that manner then that is what they mean. Ham held the debate on his chosen grounds and in front of a sympathetic audience, so I hardly call that courageous. Nye was the one that went into the "lion's den" in this debate.Nothing Ham said impressed me with any kind of new information or twist of argument, just normal creationist pap geared to "sell" the audience rather than any factual based argument based on evidence.Two reasons why Ham is generally considered to have lost the debate:

1. -- he couldn't predict anything, and that means no matter how he defines it that he can't do science, and
2. -- he said nothing would change his mind, no evidence, no argument, and that means that he is not interested in doing science no matter how he defines it.

Creationism is more of a "performance art" -- like magic shows -- made to fool the gullible, rather than a scientific based approach to knowledge.As such science was not debated by Ham. So what really impressed you?Edited by RAZD, : image

and the final question was "what would make you change your mind/"Nye: "evidence"Ham: "Nothing"Edited by RAZD, : ssubt

yeah, technically 'lying' includes intent to deceive, and without knowing intent all you can honestly say is "false" or "falsehoods" even when they are known falsehoods. Yes it is easy to deceive yourself when you have strongly held beliefs.

and Nye's karma catagorically ran over Ham's dogma

No Faith, the code is slightly different and the mutations (changes\divergence) do change the basic function of the gene by changing the eye color.

"Meet the Press" to host climate change "debate" between GOP's Marsha Blackburn and Bill Nye "the Science Guy" | Salon.com

quote:

---

This Sunday, Meet the Press, the renowned televised political news forum, will host a discussion of climate change perhaps the single most pressing issue of our time featuring a professional children’s entertainer and a Republican member of Congress. Yes, David Gregory will be refereeing a debate their word between Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ and Tennessee Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, Vice Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Nye will be arguing the pro (climate change is real and bad) and Blackburn will be arguing the anti (climate change is made up and not bad).

---

Get your popcorn ready, this should be good.

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.

quote:

---

Why Bill Nye Calls Evolution 'Undeniable' and Creationism 'Inane'

​

Darwin's theory explains so much of the world, from bumblebees to human origins, says the Science Guy.

​

With a jaunty bow tie and boyish enthusiasm, Bill Nye the Science Guy has spent decades decoding scientific topics, from germs to volcanoes, for television audiences. Last February, the former engineer defended the theory of evolution in a debate with young-Earth creationist Ken Ham, a vocal member of a group that believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Nye's decision to engage Ham kicked up plenty of criticism from scientists and creationists alike.

​

Photograph by John Davisson, Invision/AP

​

The experience prompted the celebrity science educator to write a "primer" on the theory of evolution called Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. In his new book, Nye delights in how this fundamental discovery helps to unlock the mysteries of everything from bumblebees to human origins to our place in the universe.

​

Who do you hope will read this book?

​

Grown-ups who have an interest in the world around them, people coming of age who have an interest in science, people who still want to know how the world works.

​

This is the big concern of mine with respect to the organization Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham and all those guys: their relentless, built-in attempts to indoctrinate a generation of science students on a worldview that is obviously wrong.

​

I worry about these kidsthey're part of my society. We can't raise a generation of students who don't understand the fundamental idea in all of life science, any more than you want to raise a generation of kids who don't understand chemistry or physics or arithmetic.

---

bold added.This is part of why he went to the lion's den to speak truth to propaganda.

quote:

---

Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation

​

Sparked by the a provocative comment to BigThink.com last fall, and fueled by a highly controversial debate with Creation Museum curator Ken Ham, Bill Nye's campaign to confront the scientific shortcoming of creationism has exploded in just a few months into a national crusade. In this book, he expands the points he has made, and claims that this debate is not so much about religion versus science, as about the nature of science itself. With infectious enthusiasm, he reveals the mechanics of evolutionary theory, explains how it is rooted in the testable and verifiable scientific method, and why it is therefore a sound explanation of our beginning. He argues passionately that to continue to assert otherwise, to continue to insist that creationism has a place in the science classroom is harmful not only to our children, but to the future of the greater world as well.

---

Getting the message out to those willing to listen.Enjoy