Video: Who’s up for a two-and-half-hour debate on evolution versus creationism featuring Bill Nye, the Science Guy?

posted at 11:21 am on February 5, 2014 by Allahpundit

Judging by the interest this subject draws in the comments on our site and elsewhere online (more than 500,000 people watched the live feed last night), you guys definitely are, notwithstanding the shining truth of USA Today’s headline. (The futility of debate was acknowledged at the debate itself.) Sample exchange:

Moderator Tom Foreman of CNN had a list of audience-submitted questions directed at either Nye or Ham, with the other given a chance to respond. When asked about what existed before the Big Bang, Nye began his answer with “I don’t know.”

“This is the great mystery—you’ve hit the nail on the head,” he replied passionately. “What was before the Big Bang? This is what drives us, this is what we want to know. Let’s keep looking, let’s keep searching.”

For Ham, the answer is simple. “There’s a book out there that tells us where matter came from,” he explained. “It’s the only thing that makes logical sense.”

Partly because it’s futile, some scientists are irritated with Nye for showing up. He says he did it because creationism is a political fact of life in most of America that won’t go away by ignoring it, but his critics think the debate is the equivalent of teaching both theories in school. Even if the teacher offers no judgment on which is correct, the fact that they’re treated as equally respectable is a win for creationists.

I didn’t have time to watch but NBC has a nice recap — evidently, “observational science” versus “historical science” was a key point for Ken Ham — and Time magazine has a nearly minute-by-minute blow by blow. Ham isn’t just a believer in creationism, he’s the founder of Kentucky’s Creation Museum, where the debate was held. He’s also a young-Earth creationist, which makes some of the exchanges about evidence extra zesty. Three clips for you here, two of them snippets and the third the whole shebang in case you’ve got the time and interest. Enjoy.




Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 10

Good Lieutenant to become Bad Lieutenant in 5..4…3..

crrr6 on February 5, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Bishop!

My first?

Vanceone on February 5, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Genesis 1 (King James Version)
Page Options

<<

>>

Show resources
Add parallel
Genesis 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

OmahaConservative on February 5, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Bill Nye got trashed.

JellyToast on February 5, 2014 at 11:25 AM

I want to believe in evolution…then I see this.

…and the pajama-preezie…then I wonder.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Catchy jingle Nye used to have./

Bmore on February 5, 2014 at 11:26 AM

I watched a debate at Bucknell University many years ago. The auditorium was packed and they extended the debate an hour or more due to interest.. and this was in the middle of a snow storm.

The evolutionist was embarrassing. I felt sorry for the guy.

JellyToast on February 5, 2014 at 11:27 AM

He’s also a young-Earth creationist, which makes some of the exchanges about evidence extra zesty

It would have been a better debate had there been someone representing theistic evolution. The YEC types always puzzle me…it just makes no sense to take the timeline of creation in Genesis in a literal way. And Nye came off as a bit of a pr*ck towards Ham at times. Not a great way to conduct an debate.

JetBoy on February 5, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Not interested. Thanks for asking.

Christien on February 5, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Someone needs to make a meme that shows a picture of Richard Dawkins with text that says this:

“Thinks people who believe an intelligent designer exists which can see his creation but his creation can’t see him are morons.

Uses a computer which can run programs such as ‘The Sims’”

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 5, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Dang, guess not. In any case: evolution as a random process is nonsense. Evolution as a directed force by Deity is perfectly plausible.

And here’s the kicker: if you assume the Garden of Eden existed, with no death, etc–how, exactly, would that appear in todays scientific record? What would the carbon dating scheme of a state of existence with no animal death, and spontaneous flowers instead of weeds look like?
I always read Genesis with the idea that until the Fall of Adam, we were running something that didn’t have the third law of thermodynamics in operation. That’s the one that says everything tends towards a state of maximum disorder.

How would our science deal with that kind of world? Could it?

Vanceone on February 5, 2014 at 11:29 AM

The theory of evolution likes to think in terms of the narrow leap from primates to man, when accepting it wholesale requires you to believe that man is ultimately an overdeveloped amoeba spawned from lifeless matter.

crrr6 on February 5, 2014 at 11:29 AM

(King James Version)

There’s your first mistake :P

JetBoy on February 5, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Bill Nye: Umm..before the big bang?..Umm….well you see..there were 2 rocks that decided to get it on so to speak and…..umm..I got nuthin’

HotAirian on February 5, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Bill Nye the “Science” Guy…yeah, no thanks. You say Bill Nye and I tune out.

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 11:30 AM

I want to believe in evolution…then I see this.
…and the pajama-preezie…then I wonder.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Some mutations lead to a better species, and many don’t.
Unfortunately, we now have a gubmint that does everything it can to support and extend the genetic lines that SHOULD deadend….

dentarthurdent on February 5, 2014 at 11:30 AM

If there is no such thing as evolution and DNA can’t evolve or change over time then how is it possible to make different breed of plants and animals? How come all humans are different? Why are humans not exact clones of their parents or Adam and Eve?

TX-eye on February 5, 2014 at 11:30 AM

You’re going to have a painful debate when both sides have serious issues with their theories.

They could have called it ‘Inherit the Dubious’.

trigon on February 5, 2014 at 11:30 AM

The theory of evolution likes to think in terms of the narrow leap from primates to man, when accepting it wholesale requires you to believe that man is ultimately an overdeveloped amoeba spawned from lifeless matter.

crrr6 on February 5, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Then you don’t really understand evolution.

dentarthurdent on February 5, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Watch how anti-theists work.

First they bring up the theory of evolution. Then they get pissed if you call it a theory.

They talk about micro- and macro- evolution. Then they get pissed when christians talk about how micro- has been proben but macro- hasn’t because it takes away from their “oh, those christians are morons” meme.

Believe that something is “proven” even though every….single….bit….of evidence contains phrases/words such as “possibly”, “mabye”, “might be”, “a possibility”, and so forth.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 5, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Watch the whole thing? I’d rather watch eye mites chew into Obama’s brain over the course of 6 years.

It should not be a political football, or a scientific football. Neither side has the final proof, but both sides have a whopping lack of proof.

Honestly. Tell me how the belief in creationism (or the disbelief) is going to solve our debt?

Walter L. Newton on February 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM

2 ½ hours of Bill Nye being an idiot? No thanks.

God created the Earth, and all life – this is not up for debate.

Pork-Chop on February 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM

******************** The World is still FLAT ***********************!!

Its Settled!!!

canopfor on February 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Put Greek columns on both sides of his podium….

And Bill can be the next president…

Electrongod on February 5, 2014 at 11:33 AM

My wife watched this debate and told me that Nye kept referring creationism as the Ken Hamm theory even though Hamm replied that it isn’t only his theory. Nye just ignored him and kept at it anyway. What a complete jerk.

HiJack on February 5, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Bill Nye the “Science” Guy…yeah, no thanks. You say Bill Nye and I tune out.

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 11:30 AM

I do agree with you on that.
I’m ok with his evolution talk, but he’s also a globull warmer, so in MY view that destroys his overall credibility.

dentarthurdent on February 5, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Bill Nye got trashed.

JellyToast on February 5, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Okay first off Bill Nye is trash. B “ooped” and out Bill pooped. Second evolution is the most aged swiss cheese of political science theory and long ago would have for the most part gone away or been highly modified had it not been for the flat earth progressives needing destruction upon which to build their utopian power struggle.
It is from a Bill Nye class of culture that the climate propaganda science fungus grew.

onomo on February 5, 2014 at 11:34 AM

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 5, 2014 at 11:31 AM

The theory of evolution is treated like the gospel by people like Bill Nye the “Science” Guy. There is no point in having a discussion with such true believers.

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Socons once again get mangled with a “young earth” idiot. 6,000 years = moron.

Panther on February 5, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Of course he’d debate a young earther. I’d rather see Nye debate Stephen C Meyer and try to explain the cambrian explosion. Of course he might have done that here. I didn’t watch.

Dongemaharu on February 5, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Bill Nye is as much a scientist as Obama is a visionary leader. He’s a hack who made a name for himself on the Panhandler’s Broadcasting System.

But most importantly, he’s made a career out of getting testy whenever one of those bitter clingers destroys his version of science. The reality is that scientists should be open to all views instead of hunkering down with one theory created primarily to “de-bunk” the Bible.

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Bishop!

My first?

Vanceone on February 5, 2014 at 11:24 AM

There can be only one.

I love these threads, we need sour cabbage to really make it complete.

Bishop on February 5, 2014 at 11:35 AM

f there is no such thing as evolution and DNA can’t evolve or change over time then how is it possible to make different breed of plants and animals? How come all humans are different? Why are humans not exact clones of their parents or Adam and Eve?

TX-eye on February 5, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Why don’t some apes have opposable thumbs?

HiJack on February 5, 2014 at 11:36 AM

For Ham, the answer is simple. “There’s a book out there that tells us where matter came from,” he explained. “It’s the only thing that makes logical sense.”

This is what he did wrong. He brought up the Bible. NEVER bring up the Bible in a debate with an atheist and ONLY mention it when the athiests brings it up and ONLY in the current context of how/why it was brought up.

To debate an atheists, you must first explain to them how an intelligent designer is indeed possible. Mention computer programs, advanced AI, programming and how it relates to DNA, 1s and 0s and how it relates to electrons and protons, the ability for the creator to see the creatio but not the other way around, the ability of the creator to mess around beyond the physics he created (debug mode and such). I have as of yet to have an atheist refute that stuff. Get them to concede that an intelligent designer is indeed possible and THEN you can move on to how the things that God did in the Bible are then possible.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 5, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Then you don’t really understand evolution.

dentarthurdent on February 5, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Actually, I left something out: you would need to explain where the lifeless matter, that spawned the amoebas, that developed into man ultimately came from.

crrr6 on February 5, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Darwin was a Creationist. In fact, he practically invented modern Creationism.

Don’t believe me? Look it up.

He’s quite clear in his writings that the theory of evolution only takes you so far, and that eventually there must be Divine guidance.

Chris of Rights on February 5, 2014 at 11:37 AM

It would have been a better debate had there been someone representing theistic evolution…
JetBoy on February 5, 2014 at 11:28 AM

This.

WitchDoctor on February 5, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Good Lieutenant to become Bad Lieutenant in 5..4…3..

crrr6 on February 5, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Good guess, but it looks like a couple others did.

Looking at a couple of liberal blogs discussing this debate at the same time, mind blown! /

22044 on February 5, 2014 at 11:39 AM

The theory of evolution is treated like the gospel by people like Bill Nye the “Science” Guy. There is no point in having a discussion with such true believers.

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 11:34 AM

That fits the creationist crowd as well.

dentarthurdent on February 5, 2014 at 11:39 AM

Socons discussing science is truly laughable. Faith is their only defense against the totally implausible.

Panther on February 5, 2014 at 11:40 AM

It would have been a better debate had there been someone representing theistic evolution. The YEC types always puzzle me…it just makes no sense to take the timeline of creation in Genesis in a literal way. And Nye came off as a bit of a pr*ck towards Ham at times. Not a great way to conduct an debate.

JetBoy on February 5, 2014 at 11:28 AM

i have to agree with you on this. HOwever, many are too quick to throw YEC under the bus.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 5, 2014 at 11:40 AM

I watched it and as always it boiled down to the ‘science’ side (science in scare quotes because they’re really more of a government funded cult than science these days) saying they had no idea how life began and the creationist side just repeating ‘because god’ over and over, neither of which is very convincing to say the least.

clearbluesky on February 5, 2014 at 11:41 AM

The Big Bang is not a theory, it happens every time I light-off the .338 Lapua.

Bishop on February 5, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Actually, I left something out: you would need to explain where the lifeless matter, that spawned the amoebas, that developed into man ultimately came from.

crrr6 on February 5, 2014 at 11:37 AM

You left out a lot more than that, which is the problem with people with your view – over-simplification.

dentarthurdent on February 5, 2014 at 11:41 AM

This is what he did wrong. He brought up the Bible. NEVER bring up the Bible in a debate with an atheist and ONLY mention it when the athiests brings it up and ONLY in the current context of how/why it was brought up.

To debate an atheists, you must first explain to them how an intelligent designer is indeed possible. Mention computer programs, advanced AI, programming and how it relates to DNA, 1s and 0s and how it relates to electrons and protons, the ability for the creator to see the creatio but not the other way around, the ability of the creator to mess around beyond the physics he created (debug mode and such). I have as of yet to have an atheist refute that stuff. Get them to concede that an intelligent designer is indeed possible and THEN you can move on to how the things that God did in the Bible are then possible.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 5, 2014 at 11:36 AM

That…would be a good progression. Maybe Ham got cocky since the debate was on his home turf.

22044 on February 5, 2014 at 11:41 AM

When asked about what existed before the Big Bang, Nye began his answer with “I don’t know.”

“This is the great mystery—you’ve hit the nail on the head,” he replied passionately. “What was before the Big Bang? This is what drives us, this is what we want to know. Let’s keep looking, let’s keep searching.”

atheists don’t even understand everything about their own beliefs, yet they keep acting like their beliefs are so reliable and their beliefs are the only one that should be taught in schools… my beliefs are “fairy tales” according to them, but they can’t even tell me what was before the big bang. atheists believe the universe just… exists. there was nothing, and then the universe existed. (or in nye’s case, there was “i don’t know” and then a universe existed) it’s silly.

there was a very good link in headlines a while back about how atheists believe in “nothing” as if it were a god.

his critics think the debate is the equivalent of teaching both theories in school. Even if the teacher offers no judgment on which is correct, the fact that they’re treated as equally respectable is a win for creationists.

it’s so sad that we creationists have to fight to get our beliefs taught in school. atheists think that only their beliefs should be taught. i am totally fine with the big bang and evolution being taught in school. why can’t atheists be totally fine with my beliefs being taught in school? seems like they are afraid of having anything opposing their beliefs…

no one was actually there when the universe began. every belief requires faith.

Sachiko on February 5, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Watch how anti-theists work.

First they bring up the theory of evolution. Then they get pissed if you call it a theory.

They talk about micro- and macro- evolution. Then they get pissed when christians talk about how micro- has been proben but macro- hasn’t because it takes away from their “oh, those christians are morons” meme.

Believe that something is “proven” even though every….single….bit….of evidence contains phrases/words such as “possibly”, “mabye”, “might be”, “a possibility”, and so forth.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 5, 2014 at 11:31 AM

…that’s it!…in a nutshell!

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2014 at 11:42 AM

There can be only one.

I love these threads, we need sour cabbage to really make it complete.

Bishop on February 5, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Often Imitated, never duplicated..

Oh, and don’t forget the SPAM!!

ToddPA on February 5, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Nye showed up even though scientists said he shouldn’t because he’s arrogant and thinks he’s smart enough to explain things away and change peoples minds.

Every atheist is that way. it’s part of their religion.

jetch on February 5, 2014 at 11:44 AM

Money quote!

Question: What, if anything, would ever change your mind?

Ken Ham: “Well, the answer to that question is, I’m a Christian … No, no one is ever going to convince me that the world of god is not true.”

Bill Nye: “We would need just one piece of evidence … Bring on any of those things and you would change me immediately.”

ZachV on February 5, 2014 at 11:45 AM

That fits the creationist crowd as well.

dentarthurdent on February 5, 2014 at 11:39 AM

Faith is faith. The problem here is that people like Bill Nye the “Science” Guy won’t admit to arguing from a position of faith. I will tell you that God created everything and you’ll never convince me otherwise. That’s my faith. The only open questions are the mechanisms He used, and evolution might be one of those mechanisms, but it certainly isn’t a proven mechanism.

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 11:45 AM

That…would be a good progression. Maybe Ham got cocky since the debate was on his home turf.

22044 on February 5, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Some day I hope to write an article or even a small book on it. It’ll be one of those things that will probably rile both sides. The atheists/anti-theist side (more the ladder) by blowing away their “beleif in an intelligent design is stuuuuuuuuuupid” BS while pissing off some on the other side who would be sensitive to me equating this whole world/universe as just some very, very, VERY eleborate and advanced computer program.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 5, 2014 at 11:45 AM

In my opinion, there are actually two questions. It’s not creationism vs evolution, it’s:

(1) Do you believe in God?
(2) Do you believe in the literal translation of the Bible?

If you answer NO to number (1) then the Bible is at best a nice book of stories and creationism is some sort of fairy tale (atheism), obviously).

If you answer YES to question one, then the question becomes, do you believe the Bible literally word for word? In my opinion it’s possible to answer YES to number one and NO to number two and sill be a Christian. I do not happen to be a literalist. That argument is not central to my faith. I believe God was in charge of the creation of the universe. I don’t care how he did it. He’s God. He can do it however he wants.

It’s a fallacy to say that Christians reject science. To me that point is just a roundabout way for atheists to say there is no God.

NoFanofLibs on February 5, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Bill Nye is himself in a new age cult, he is a member in good standing of the “CO2″ kills Cargo Cult of Michael Mann’s.

Nuf said.
Climate does change.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 5, 2014 at 11:46 AM

If I has to sit thru 3 hours of this, I would’ve headed to the
Lobby at some point to stick needles in my Eyes..

ToddPA on February 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Evolution and creation are two separate and unrelated topics.
Why is this simple fact so seemingly hard to accept?

Mimzey on February 5, 2014 at 11:48 AM

It would have been a better debate had there been someone representing theistic evolution. The YEC types always puzzle me…it just makes no sense to take the timeline of creation in Genesis in a literal way. And Nye came off as a bit of a pr*ck towards Ham at times. Not a great way to conduct an debate.

this is my point of view. It’s actually not really a fair debate becuase it is sciense versus faith.

The debate against Atheist Evolution and Theist Evolution or Intelligent design would be much more interesting.

Q: What came before the big Bang?
Bill Nye: I don’t know
ID or Theistic Evolution Guy: Exactly.

Critic2029 on February 5, 2014 at 11:48 AM

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 5, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Pretty much. I put it a simpler way:

If you believe that man has the intellectual capacity to discover or fully comprehend the whole truth about matter and the universe more than say a dog has the capacity to understand the theory of relativity, then you will probably be an atheist no matter what.

However, if there is science out there that is beyond the comprehension of mankind such such that our tools and axioms are useless, are we still talking about science or religion?

crrr6 on February 5, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Funny watching socon reaction to actual facts. Turn you water into wine and then walk on it. Tough act but people with a 4-year-old mentality believe it is possible.

Panther on February 5, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Hmmm… no answer on this. I’ll try again. “How is a politicians belief or disbelief in creationism (or evolution) going to fix the national debt?

Walter L. Newton on February 5, 2014 at 11:49 AM

You know, Genesis isn’t a science textbook. Moses, while a brilliant man, had very little training in what we would call science. God would have had a difficult time explaining bacteria to anyone before the enlightenment.

So I don’t rely on Genesis as a science textbook, except as a broad overview–God created the Earth in a series of steps.

Vanceone on February 5, 2014 at 11:49 AM

I watched it and as always it boiled down to the ‘science’ side (science in scare quotes because they’re really more of a government funded cult than science these days) saying they had no idea how life began and the creationist side just repeating ‘because god’ over and over, neither of which is very convincing to say the least.

clearbluesky on February 5, 2014 at 11:41 AM

like i said, both sides require faith! the thing is, we creationists admit that we have faith. atheists don’t want to admit that same thing, which makes them look dishonest. no one fully understands everything. it’s just not possible to understand everything about this topic. everything creationists can’t explain, we say “we can’t fully understand God, He can find a way to do anything.” and the atheists say “what a cop-out.” but anything THEY can’t explain, they say “we don’t know right now, but i’m sure scientists will discover it later.” when i hear that, it makes me want to ironically say “what a cop-out.”

Sachiko on February 5, 2014 at 11:49 AM

God created nature, he uses nature, and during creation God directed and guided nature for his own purposes.

CREATION: 15 BILLION YEARS EQUALS 6 DAYS

http://robertwells.tripod.com/creation.html

Pork-Chop on February 5, 2014 at 11:49 AM

My wife watched this debate and told me that Nye kept referring creationism as the Ken Hamm theory even though Hamm replied that it isn’t only his theory. Nye just ignored him and kept at it anyway. What a complete jerk.

HiJack on February 5, 2014 at 11:33 AM

I happened to be off work today so I got to watch some of it this morning on youtube.

Ham tried to keep the discussion to science while Bill Nye just made accusations and mocked the Bible.

Also.. Bill Nye said one thing so stupid.. that nature works from the bottom up. That “good design eats up” bad design. He used the example that when you find a watch you assume it had a designer and builder. But then he said “nature doesn’t work that way.” It’s not “top down but bottom up.” In other words.. just because you look at a watch and realize it had a designer and builder doesn’t mean nature works like that. When you look at nature and see good design.. that’s because all the bad design was “eaten up” by the good design.

OK.. now think for a moment. This is an example of someone throwing words out into the air hoping it all makes sense to the one who hears it just because he said it.

First.. what he’s saying is order comes from chaos. Second.. he’s saying that the watch and it’s builders/designers are somehow outside of nature. So there’s this universe and set of laws around man but there’s this different universe and set of laws in nature.

Why? Because he said so. That’s really the sum of everything he said. “Because he said so.”

JellyToast on February 5, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Bye Bye Nye, Ham cleaned your clock.

Pablo Honey on February 5, 2014 at 11:50 AM

NoFanofLibs on February 5, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Most ELCA Lutherans, Anglicans, and UUs would agree with you.

Critic2029 on February 5, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Funny watching socon reaction to actual facts. Turn you water into wine and then walk on it. Tough act but people with a 4-year-old mentality believe it is possible.

Panther on February 5, 2014 at 11:48 AM

I always get a kick out of the mentally deficient attempting to belittle the intelligence of others.

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Socons discussing science is truly laughable. Faith is their only defense against the totally implausible.

Panther on February 5, 2014 at 11:40 AM

You don’t think liberals like Nye wasn’t arguing from a position of faith? LOL! Bill Nye the whiney guy was just parroting a certain set of theories. But at the end of the day, there is no evidence that these theories are absolutely correct yet Nye has invested his faith in them being so and intelligent design something else.

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2014 at 11:51 AM

The socon cult should really get out of politics and stay inside their churches…where they belong. Fairy tales belong in books.

Panther on February 5, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Panther on February 5, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Non sequitur much?

Mimzey on February 5, 2014 at 11:52 AM

i have to agree with you on this. HOwever, many are too quick to throw YEC under the bus.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 5, 2014 at 11:40 AM

I just can’t take young-Earthers seriously. Or taking all of the bible literally. It’s one thing to argue intelligent design by God as Creator, it’s another thing to say it happened just a few thousand years ago.

JetBoy on February 5, 2014 at 11:52 AM

You left out a lot more than that, which is the problem with people with your view – over-simplification.

dentarthurdent on February 5, 2014 at 11:41 AM

You want to gloss over the major problem with the foundation of your argument, and you accuse us of over-simplification?

crrr6 on February 5, 2014 at 11:53 AM

one last thing i want to say: atheists have never convinced me. they keep saying God is “impossible.”

BASED ON WHAT???

how do atheists know that supernatural things can’t exist? the “impossible” claim is based on natural laws/ scientific principles. but God created those things in the first place. so He is not bound by those rules. He can do supernatural things. i don’t know why atheists automatically assume that supernatural things can’t exist.

Sachiko on February 5, 2014 at 11:53 AM

The socon cult should really get out of politics and stay inside their churches…where they belong. Fairy tales belong in books.

Panther on February 5, 2014 at 11:51 AM

So who pissed in your cereal?

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 5, 2014 at 11:53 AM

It would have been a better debate had there been someone representing theistic evolution. The YEC types always puzzle me…it just makes no sense to take the timeline of creation in Genesis in a literal way. And Nye came off as a bit of a pr*ck towards Ham at times. Not a great way to conduct an debate.

JetBoy on February 5, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Yeah.

David Berlinski would have been a great choice.

gwelf on February 5, 2014 at 11:54 AM

BTW, how did rocks evolve. After all, there are different kinds of rocks in different parts of the world but rocks aren’t exactly biological in nature and cannot reproduce.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 5, 2014 at 11:54 AM

The socon cult should really get out of politics and stay inside their churches…where they belong. Fairy tales belong in books.

Panther on February 5, 2014 at 11:51 AM

This reminds me – is Obama ever going to approve the Keystone Pipeline or what? Separation of church and state, buddy.

crrr6 on February 5, 2014 at 11:55 AM

You know, Genesis isn’t a science textbook. Moses, while a brilliant man, had very little training in what we would call science. God would have had a difficult time explaining bacteria to anyone before the enlightenment.

So I don’t rely on Genesis as a science textbook, except as a broad overview–God created the Earth in a series of steps.

Vanceone on February 5, 2014 at 11:49 AM

We have a “Bingo!”

Spot-on. The OT books of the bible were meant for people of the time, in a language they could understand. You couldn’t take an astrophysics textbook back a few thousand years and expect anyone to remotely understand it.

JetBoy on February 5, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Why don’t some apes have opposable thumbs?

HiJack on February 5, 2014 at 11:36 AM

HiJack:

There the ones, who don’t fish for termites!!

canopfor on February 5, 2014 at 11:55 AM

The Hotair Huckabee clan starts the calendar 6,000 years ago and wonders why people give them zero credibility.

Panther on February 5, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Bill Nye The “Science” Guy

FACTS:
1. Nye has NO DEGREES IN SCIENCE – NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO !!!!!!
…in other words: HE’S A FRAUD.
2. He’s a lunatic-leftist who IGNORES REAL SCIENCE to promote the leftist-ideology of the GloBULL Warming HOAX !

TeaPartyNation on February 5, 2014 at 11:55 AM

The only open questions are the mechanisms He used, and evolution might be one of those mechanisms, but it certainly isn’t a proven mechanism.

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 11:45 AM

That’s a point I’ve thrown out in other threads many times. Unless you’re a hardcore creationist of the 6000 year old earth variety, there’s no reason to deny the possibility that evolution is the method God used to create everything. If God exists and is truly timeless, millions of earth years are nothing to him.
The existence of God, or lack thereof, cannot be proven or disproven.

I consider myself an atheist because I just don’t believe in a God, but I wouldn’t say God absolutely does not exist. In my view we really just don’t know – you either have that faith or you don’t – I don’t care either way what you choose. And I also don’t believe a book written over 1000 years ago by men who had very limited understanding of everything around them has all the answers – in literal form. So I don’t buy the creationist theories either.

dentarthurdent on February 5, 2014 at 11:56 AM

Bill Nye thinks a monkey gave birth to the first humans and then mocks Ham for believing Noahs Ark.

I have yet to see any monkeys give birth to humans…the Ark on the other hand is evidenced in the Bible.

Who exactly is the one who believes in fairy tales again?

Pablo Honey on February 5, 2014 at 11:56 AM

The Earth has been DESTROYED THREE TIMES,..since its Immaculate ConCeption!

And,..MAN had NO PART of KILLING Mother Earth!!

canopfor on February 5, 2014 at 11:57 AM

There can be only one.

I love these threads, we need sour cabbage to really make it complete.

Bishop on February 5, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Thank God for the only one, you heathen you :)

———-
Panther, how do you know?

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Anyone who thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old should study carbon dating…sorry, that is science. Socons hate science.

Panther on February 5, 2014 at 11:58 AM

I’ve searched the internet for critiques of the debate. I found one that was, not surprisingly, extreme supportive of Ken Ham: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Lessons_from_Ham-Nye_Debate .

But I have yet to find any substantive critique from an evolutionist worldview.

The “straight news” reporting I found is mostly cut and paste of the Associated Press.

Salon in the first two or three paragraphs builds a straw man and spends the rest of the article throwing straw at it.

An anonymous blogger at Skeptic Ink writes a 1.2k+ word essay the first sentence of which is, “I did not watch but about 5 minutes of this debate.”

There is not much that treats the facts, or lack thereof, from evolutionists. Many of their comments are complaints that Nye agreed to debate in the first place.

They say debating creationists gives them credibility which they don’t deserve. They say that evolutionists should never debate creationists.

davidk on February 5, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Money quote!

Question: What, if anything, would ever change your mind?

Ken Ham: “Well, the answer to that question is, I’m a Christian … No, no one is ever going to convince me that the world of god is not true.”

Bill Nye: “We would need just one piece of evidence … Bring on any of those things and you would change me immediately.”

ZachV on February 5, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Except of course the existence of God isn’t really answerable by science.
And you could easily interpret much that science has discovered as evidence pointing to the existence of a God who designed everything.

It’s a poor scientist who pretends otherwise.

gwelf on February 5, 2014 at 11:59 AM

NoFanofLibs on February 5, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Very well stated. I agree with your points wholeheartedly – although my personal answer to #1 is no.

dentarthurdent on February 5, 2014 at 11:59 AM

The socon cult should really get out of politics and stay inside their churches…where they belong. Fairy tales belong in books.

Panther on February 5, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Lol

NotCoach on February 5, 2014 at 11:59 AM

If you are not a gay PC RINO/D atheist, you are nothing in this world, rubes :)

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Of course now will come the people that say “Well we have blah blah blah percent of DNA as blah blah blah so it’s proof of macro-evolution”.

So of course using their logic a baseball bat evolved from a birdhouse because they both contain wood (you know, DNA is basically the building blocks of all living things).

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 5, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Fairy tales belong in books.

Panther on February 5, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Agreed – you are missing from the serious political threads, the ones in which your azz gets clobbered. How come?

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Am I the only one who really doesn’t much care one way or the other?

I am an extremely religious person, a devout Catholic. However, that Catholic faith does tend to put me at odds with many fundamentalist Christians who insist on an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible. I don’t.

I believe that God was behind the creation of the universe. But I do not believe science is in opposition to God, as many creationists seem to. I believe God created the scientific laws that we can see and observe today, and that there is truth that we can learn from science about the way God has designed the universe. I think religion and science can work together, and people can embrace both.

Also, I believe God could have, in His infinite power, created the universe in a literal six days and have done so in such a way that might be confusing to scientists trying to understand it today. I also believe that He could have created the universe with a Big Bang and then set life off on the evolutionary course scientists believe happened, intervening only at the point where man finally evolved to endow him with his immortal soul. Both possibilities are in line with my religious faith and, quite frankly, which explanation is true has little relevance to my life today.

In short, while I oppose the radical secularism and rejection of all religion that seems to embody so much science today, I am willing to consider the scientific evidence for evolution and believe that it can co-exist with God’s creation of the universe. And I think Bill Nye said as much when he acknowledged that there are billions of deeply religious people who also accept evolution.

I just can’t get worked up over debating which way God chose to create the universe. *shrug*

Shump on February 5, 2014 at 12:01 PM

If there is no such thing as evolution and DNA can’t evolve or change over time then how is it possible to make different breed of plants and animals? How come all humans are different? Why are humans not exact clones of their parents or Adam and Eve?

TX-eye on February 5, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Micro- verses Macro-

BTW, I find it funny that atheists neeeeeever consider interbreeding when it comes to different breeds of this or that when we see it happen EVERY…FRIGGIN’…DAY… with dogs and cats.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 5, 2014 at 12:01 PM

TeaPartyNation on February 5, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Exactly. Which, in my view is why he should not have been the one on the evolution side of the debate.

dentarthurdent on February 5, 2014 at 12:01 PM

The Hotair Huckabee clan starts the calendar 6,000 years ago and wonders why people give them zero credibility.

Panther on February 5, 2014 at 11:55 AM

I never knew Huck was a YEC’er…learn something new every day.

In any event, there’s not much of a “HotAir Huckabee Clan” around here. He’s not exactly on the top of virtually anyone’s dream candidate list.

JetBoy on February 5, 2014 at 12:02 PM

When you look at nature and see good design.. that’s because all the bad design was “eaten up” by the good design.

JellyToast on February 5, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Nobody can look at a Florida Manatee and declare it good design! The one in the Miami zoo even picked Denver for the win in this year’s Superbowl.

As I posted above, Nye was also debating from a position of faith. He just believes in different tenets. Nevertheless, “Because I say so” is hardly a convincing rebuttal of intelligent design.

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2014 at 12:03 PM

The one thing I do not like though is the term creation science. It’s all just science. Don’t classify it as something other than it is because the term discredits the work you are doing. It sounds like.. there’s science and then there is “creation science.”

Christians always want to classify things like this. They did the same thing with marriage.. there’s marriage and then there is “traditional marriage.”

I think it’s almost out of fear or something.. or a little self righteousness when they’re around each other.
“Oh.. so you’re a scientist and a Christian?”
“Yes”
“Do you believe in evolution?”
“No.”
“Well then.. what’s wrong with you! You some kind of coward? You embarrassed about God? You want to go to hell? If you really were a Christian you should call yourself a “Creation Scientist” and then we’d all know how much a Christian you really were! Now get with it and put a little more in the offering plate and maybe we’ll forgive you!”

JellyToast on February 5, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Leftist fairytale – obama’care’ 2,3 million job losses are “more freedom and more choice”, but you, the racist rubes, are the obtuse ones. Ironically it doesn’t occur to the Panther erudite ones that the IRS collects less in revenues, to enable all those “subsidies”.

Leftism is truly beyond clinical. You stay in your churches, righties. They belong in gulags, no doubt. Eventually the muzzies will also cut off their heads, first.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 10