So Ken Ham won’t debate Aron Ra and PZ Myers because… reasons!
He complained that the debate invitation was rude, but look how rude he was to Bill Nye…
“Bill Nye still doesn’t understand the difference between historical science and observational science — so he may be known as ‘Bill Nye the science guy’ — but he doesn’t understand science correctly,” Ken Ham wrote on Facebook. “[Bill Maher and Nye] don’t want the truth — they continue to ‘suppress the truth’ as the Bible states in Romans 1 about such people in rebellion against God.”
And incidentally he was rude to me too. But he will debate Bill Nye on his own turf the Creation Museum. What is Bill Nye thinking? Ham will have his own built in cheering section gasping at totally plausible stuff that Nye says about evolution and applauding dubious crap like this…
Ham added, “I hope to show Mr. Nye and our debate audience that observational science confirms the scientific accuracy of the Genesis account of origins, not evolution.”
How does he still say this stuff with a straight face given the amount of evidence for evolution people keep showing him? For the people, who already want to believe in the Genesis account, his pseudoscience will sound totally plausible given that they can’t discern pseudoscience from real science.
So that is Ham’s game plan.
Give Nye some credit though, at least he agreed to a debate topic that is narrow and focused enough, so that Ham doesn’t spend the whole time riffing on how nasty atheists like Hitler are, or other emotional appeals that aren’t evidenced. That is a common creationist debate diversionary tactic if you watched the Dembski/Hitchens debate, Dembski dropped the whole Intelligent Design facade and basically talked about evangelizing Jesus and how good it made him feel. The debate question is focused on science so it should be child’s play for Nye…
“Is creation a viable model of origins?”
I know a lot of people are thinking that why should Nye give Ham this honor? Especially because of galling stuff that Ham will do with the publicity like this…
… Dr. [Georgia] Purdom stated to the Christian Post, [an evolution-creation debate] “could be held at a public university, using an impartial moderator. I would think that someone as polished and charismatic as Mr. Nye would relish the opportunity to debate a creationist. In addition, since Nye will soon be hosting a new science program, I would think he would like to see the publicity generated by his participation in a major public debate.”
So he projects his reasoning for seeking publicity for his new “science” program. Reprehensible! You know already he will be lying to children and adults, and undermining science education based on what he does at the Creation Museum.
[notice]And Ham is already dragging on Nye’s lab coat-tails. This is a quote from a site aimed at young Christians called “Relevant”(I know) titled “Bill Nye VS. Ken Ham: Welcome to the Thunderdome”…
“It’ll be a battle for the ages, as the two noted brainiacs take on the question: “Is Creation a viable model of origins?”.
Do they have a snort out loud emoticon? [/notice]
Personally, I gotta see if me and Aron can make this debate out of mostly morbid curiosity. Also, someone has to cheer for Nye, right?
Aron is a bit conspicuous.
Maybe you could bring PZ along as a distraction.
That could be the point. I’m not sure if Ham knows what Aron looks like (he very well may), but he could generate a bit of 12th-man action.
I wouldn’t count on this. Ham has probably hand selected the ‘moderator’….
I work about two miles away from the CM and may have to go to this as well. However, I don’t know how I feel about giving $25 to AIG. Let me know if you’re going and maybe we can meet for a pre-debate dinner!
Also, is there confirmation from Nye that he will be there?
Won’t somebody think of the poor, defenseless coconuts?! Those plants were the only things in the garden allowed to die. I don’t even want to think about what the anteater was forced to do to survive back then. The leeches are stuck having to attack tomatoes all day long.
No wonder they nominated a snake to be a spokesman to try and fix all this craziness.
Anyone know if Bill Nye’s all that good at debating? It takes some skill, especially because they don’t tend to take truth into account as a measure of success, and we know Ham is a professional when it comes to lying.
I’m not sure about his debating skills, but if you watch videos where he speaks about creationism, he doesn’t hold back and doesn’t appear susceptible to bullying or letting utter crap slide unnoticed.
I suspect this was a rhetorical question, but a large amount of confirmation bias and specifically defining any science that doesn’t support the biblical account as either incorrect or misinterpreted
My post here at 10.53 pm GMT on 2 January (written before reading Aron’s blog post above):
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3421&p=48155#p48155
Two noted brainiacs? Is Bill Nye Going to be there twice? Because I’m pretty sure Ham is down into the negative , such that anyone near him loses IQ points.
Bill Nye is awesome enough he counts for double the standard brainiac. But I doubt any Creationist would acknowledge that.
I’ve seen him talk about the greatness of science and the absurdity of Creationism before, and he came across as pretty strong. Of course, it wasn’t in a debate context, so I really hope he’s prepared himself for Ham’s rhetorical legerdemain.
Actually I see it’s Lilandra’s blog post.
No Ham is not stupid, his ‘arguments’ are too thought out (in the wrong direction to be sure) but well thought not as proof or as true but as a way of making his points. These people and most people for that matter are more impressed is emotional BS then well thought out truth. So anyone going to succeed against Ham has to use emotional arguments not logic.
If you do go and cheer for Nye, I’ll betcha $20 you get ejected for being “disruptive” or some such thing.
Snort out loud emoticon? hmmm…
:-~) I vote for this.
I like how the wave in your emoticon is coming out of the nose like a snort would. And too it could be either exhaled air or mucus! Maybe even milk but hopefully not hot coffee depending on how much disgust or derision takes you by surprise.
This will end badly. Nye needs serious coaching on how to debate delusional creationists.
I’d give a few bucks to see this pay for view !! But going to the Bat Cave, I’m not !! “Creation Museum” Pffffft…
If your going I hope you record it.
Wonder why he brings Bill Mahers name into it… I’d pay even more to see that ass whoopin… lol
Ken Baloney conveniently forgets that according to his own Genesis tale, there WEREN’T any witnesses to this alleged 6-day creation.
Humans were the last thing that was allegedly “created”. So who were the witnesses to the events before?
http://ken-ham-v-bill-nye.wikispaces.com/Ken+Ham+Responds+to+Bill+Nye+the+Humanist+Guy+-+Transcript+comments
Lovely blog nice post really looking nice.
Can’t wait to see this.
If evolutionists are so confident in their superiority they should have no problem dispatching any creationist.
Shouldn’t they be debating creationists at every chance? Why do evolutionists act like it’s morally superior to not debate at all?
It sounds like a bunch of pious nonsense for evolutionists to contend that creationism isn’t science and therefore it’s completely unworthy of being debated along side of the “sacred” evolutionary position.
Some of us might actually welcome a head to head debunking of the weaker position. If creationism has no merit then prove it. Not only so, completely demolish the position for everyone to see. It should be easy. Right?
Since evolutionists are the ones contending that creationism is completely absurd,. then why are they so preoccupied with the debate forum? Are they expecting to get shouted down? I doubt it. Are they expecting trick questions? I doubt it.
It sounds like evolutionists are already making excuses in case Bill Nye bombs.
Why do they need anyone as smart as Bill Nye to debate in the first place? Shouldn’t any high school science student suffice to debunk such a silly thing as creation?
The problem is that science isn’t done by debate. How one appeals to the laity in the audience doesn’t matter. Science is done by an objective critical analysis of the facts in peer review, showing what we actually do know to be true, and differentiating that from illogical assertions of blind speculation driven only by emotion or personal bias.
For example, in a live debate, you could cite all sorts of twisted distortions of things allegedly discovered or revealed by science, and in that debate, I would have no way to respond. The liar will always come out looking better in that format. But in written submissions, where either party can properly analyze these claims in their response, then the truth prevails, and creationism absolutely always loses.
NEVER TRY AND TEACH A PIG TO SING.
It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
CHRISTURDS CANNOT BE EDUCATED – THEY ARE RESISTANT TO TRUTH, LOGIC & SCIENCE.
I REFUSE TO GET IN A BATTLE OF WITS WITH UNARMED CHRISTURDS.
Atheist asshat trolls? Well there’s something you don’t see everyday around here.