Ham on Nye
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Nye definitely won. It was not a fair fight as Ham's views are extremely absurd. Crackpots like Mitt Romney, Tom Cruise and superfreak have nothing on Ken Ham when it comes to ridiculous beliefs.
One thing I have to say about Ham, he is not as stupid as Nova, i.e., does not hold archaic ideas on race, and he is far more honest than PiMPle, i.e., does not lie about the biblical importance of the WORLDWIDE flood to Christian doctrine and its intimate connection to the story of Christ.
But Ham's arguments are still all circular crap and semantics. He starts with his nonsense term "historical science" and then brought out "kind." The definitions are not compelling or controlling though he insists repeatedly that they are (SF style). His proof that the Bible's "historical science" is true is the Bible.
His claim that because we don't know what existed before the Big Bang or that how consciousness comes from matter, that nothing else makes sense so we must believe in the unseen is nothing but a punt. Why not just accept that we don't know? He is claiming that knowledge of God can be supported by our ignorance alone.
Through much of it his argument turned to how do we find support for our morals or purpose without God. This is completely useless and largely an appeal to emotion.
Then at the end he rejected the second law of thermodynamics claiming that entropy was really due to God slacking. Nye did not make a point of it.
One thing I wish Nye would have pounded him with, with his repeated allusions to CSI, is how we are to solve crimes that we have not observed? Is the science that tells us that a defendant's blood is present at the scene of a crime unusable unless we OBSERVE him bleeding at the scene.
One thing I have to say about Ham, he is not as stupid as Nova, i.e., does not hold archaic ideas on race, and he is far more honest than PiMPle, i.e., does not lie about the biblical importance of the WORLDWIDE flood to Christian doctrine and its intimate connection to the story of Christ.
But Ham's arguments are still all circular crap and semantics. He starts with his nonsense term "historical science" and then brought out "kind." The definitions are not compelling or controlling though he insists repeatedly that they are (SF style). His proof that the Bible's "historical science" is true is the Bible.
His claim that because we don't know what existed before the Big Bang or that how consciousness comes from matter, that nothing else makes sense so we must believe in the unseen is nothing but a punt. Why not just accept that we don't know? He is claiming that knowledge of God can be supported by our ignorance alone.
Through much of it his argument turned to how do we find support for our morals or purpose without God. This is completely useless and largely an appeal to emotion.
Then at the end he rejected the second law of thermodynamics claiming that entropy was really due to God slacking. Nye did not make a point of it.
One thing I wish Nye would have pounded him with, with his repeated allusions to CSI, is how we are to solve crimes that we have not observed? Is the science that tells us that a defendant's blood is present at the scene of a crime unusable unless we OBSERVE him bleeding at the scene.
Last edited:
Thanks for you critique, we are watching basketball right now and I plan on watching it, later.
I watched some if it too. Plan to watch it all later since there are a couple of shows that I religiously watch with my wife...(NCIS Los Angeles and Killer Women...the latter keeps my TV Guardian working overtime) so I was compelled to turn the debate off. Of coursed I am biased towards Ham's POV and thought he did quite well.
Ahhhh, it's kind of cute when creationists try to think big thoughts.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
evince
Truthmatters
if you whats called a Christian jesus would want to be forgotten from history
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
That's retarded. Nye starts out talking about bow ties.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
I was opposed to the "debate," if that is what one wishes to call it. I have some respect for Nye, but I don't believe it is possible to debate a young-earth creationist, because their beliefs cannot be falsified. Any scientific argument can be easily swept away with escape hatches such as "were you there?", "God made it look that way," etc. There is no greater attack on rational thought than young-earth creationism.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Funny that Darwin theorized that there are five different races of humans, with his own, the Caucasians, being the highest form. This explains how Democrats think of themselves even today, as smarter than everyone else and therefore should be telling the rest of humanity what to do...
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
It's not a fact, but I do think the likelihood of a god existing is extremely low. It seems more plausible that leprechauns and unicorns existed.
evince
Truthmatters
I don't think Nye's intent was to disprove Ham's beliefs. It was simply to show that they are not science and are based on a rejection of science. To any objective observer Nye mopped the floor with Ham and showed why what he argues for has no business being taught as science and deserves no chair at the table.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
You do have evidence to support this assertion?
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
I had a debate with gonzojournals a while back on this site similar to this. Seems like they cover some of the things we covered then.