Tonight at 7 pm EST, Bill Nye the Science Guy and Ken Ham, leader of the Creation Museum, face-off in a much-anticipated debate at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, USA. The debate can be watched live below and discussed live in TA's main chatroom.
If you start watching after 7:00 PM EST but while the debate is still live, you can drag the progress bar to the beginning and watch from there. If you start after 9:30 PM EST, the live debate is over, and you will be watching the recorded version of the program.
7:00 Welcome by moderator, Tom Foreman, CNN
7:05 Opening statements by debater #1
7:10 Opening statements by debater #2
7:15 Moderator comments
7:16 Presentation by debater #1
7:45 Moderator comments
7:50 Presentation by debater #2
8:20 Moderator gives rebuttal instructions
8:25 Rebuttal for debater #1
8:30 Rebuttal for debater #2
8:35 Counter-rebuttal for debater #1
8:40 Counter-rebuttal for debater #2
8:45 Q&A instructions by moderator
8:48 Moderator reads pre-submitted questions alternating between debaters
9:28 Moderator concludes debate
Glad to hear some of the better parts of the debate on here. I, unfortunately, have not had the chance to watch it myself - but even my liberal debate team friends who root for evolution were handing the night to Ham in their posts on Facebook. Some of them were even saying that they have lost all respect for Nye. I just can't believe it. These sorts of debates are doomed from the start. I love Nye for how unassuming and accessible he makes science sound. We need more of him. More people willing and able to talk about science in a way that sparks interest and curiosity in those who are new to it. More people willing to walk into a debate with the intent to spark discussion, and talk about prediction and usefulness rather than truth.
...even my liberal debate team friends who root for evolution were handing the night to Ham in their posts on Facebook. Some of them were even saying that they have lost all respect for Nye. I just can't believe it. These sorts of debates are doomed from the start.
That's the consensus from the scientific community: Nye lends Ham credibility simply by appearing beside him on a debate platform (as equals). No matter his performance, Ham and his ilk cite the debate as evidence of a 'controversy' that must be taught in public school biology classrooms.
I love Nye for how unassuming and accessible he makes science sound. We need more of him. More people willing and able to talk about science in a way that sparks interest and curiosity in those who are new to it. More people willing to walk into a debate with the intent to spark discussion, and talk about prediction and usefulness rather than truth.
I think that's why Nye did it: sparking that interest in children, who are primary targets of the creation museum. Really, this whole thing got started when Nye called creationism a form of child abuse, causing Ham to freak out and challenge him to a debate.
"For the United States to maintain its leadership in technology, we need well-educated science students. To allow our students to come of age without the knowledge gained through the extraordinary scientific insights and diligence of our ancestors would deprive them of understanding of nature and our place in the cosmos. It would also rob our students of their future. Without scientists and engineers to create new technologies and ways of doing society’s business, other economies in other countries will out-compete the United States and leave our citizens behind." - Bill Nye in 'Why I'm debating creationist Ken Ham'
Did Nye accomplish anything? Did he harm his cause more than help it?
I really don't know. The scientific community is rolling its eyes or grumbling in annoyance (with good reason). But it's hard to guage the impact Nye might have on high-school kids (or younger) who are still persuadable, but otherwise wouldn't watch the debate.
"Spending time explaining the lack of support for the arc was important because people who are on the fence or at least questioning need to hear those kinds of things, otherwise they get answers like "god did it". IMHO."
Who did Bill Nye say couldn't build a wooden ship as large as Noah's Ark?
Answer: Mortal human shipwrights.
Who do believers think designed the Ark?
Answer: Immortal doG.
In the mind of someone who is on the fence Bill's argument supports the "doG did it" story better. It proves to the fence sitter that doG had to do it, because Bill Nye has just shown that mere mortals couldn't build an Ark therefore "doG did it".
As J.T. Eberhard said it's about planting seeds in their minds which won't go away and continue day after day to grow and grow.
These seeds need to be planted in the fertile soil of the observable world that surrounds them each and every day.
Seed 1.) Noah's Ark.
There is no evidence in the world today that Noah's Ark didn't exist.
Seed 2.) World-wide Flood.
There is a vast amount of evidence in the world today accessible to the fence sitters that Noah's Flood didn't happen.
It makes more sense to plant seed number 2.
Arguing directly against specious claims is futile, instead argue for the reality the undermines the foundation of the claim.
(sorry for the length of the post.)
(an aside, "Damn that's a big dog!!!")
Yes what you said makes sense.
The salient point to all of this is to speak to the fence-sitters in their vernacular, plant 'seeds of doubt' that are definable within their everyday existence.
Bill did a good job but not a great one, hopefully the accolades from the Bill fans will subside and intellectuals will be able to present some quality critiques.
One opportunity I saw that Bill do not take advantage of to undermine Ken's credibility was when Ken said: "...we don't know how many tree rings are formed each year...", BAM, BAM, BAM underbelly exposed Strike Bill Strike!!!
But Bill missed it.
The number of tree rings formed each year is demonstrable to even someone with only a third-grade formal education. Opportunity to plant a quality seed in a fertile mind missed.
Hitch was really good at taking advantage of these types of mistakes in his opponents flawed logic, I will miss him. :(
I do remember that, and I think that Bill might have not said anything because Ham had said that he couldn't prove that's how things happened in the past. I also think that Nye was being too nice, and that he didn't want to alienate his audience, literally those at the "establishment" as he called it (I laughed out loud when he couldn't bring himself to say "museum") because they might have been packing heat. I know I would have been worried about that. So I think he tip toed around calling Ham out on some of his BS because he didn't want to appear hostile. I personally would have loved Nye to come down with many hammers of logic, but I understand why he might not have felt comfortable.
Ham would never have debated Hitch, but, you are right. ^.^ Hitch would have eviscerated Ham.
(an aside: He is even bigger now, but thinks he is a lap dog.)
I wouldn't say that i watched it and of coarse ken was not to smart but i tend to still be on no ones side that was only one person....I need more time and more thinking more learning. I think many others on the fence may or may not feel the same but idk.
it could be just me...
This was the only debate i ever started being kinda mean on and laughing i couldn't help it.
I hate this ken guy he seems like a fool :/