Bible (Ham) vs. Science (Nye) Debate this Evening

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/12617/20140203/bible-vs-science-big-online-origins-universe-debate-tomorrow-night.htm

I look forward to seeing this debate on the internet. I'm not sure why Ham is so nervous. We already know what his rebuttal is going to be to half of Nye's answers -- "Well you can't explain that."

 

Nye should ask Ham how it is that, according to Genesis, God created plants on the Third Day....

but didn't get around to creating the Sun, necessary for food and warmth for those same plants....until the FOURTH Day.

 

Of course your depiction of the debate is biased as you don't consider intelligent design to be true science so you depict the debate as science vs. the Bible. Of course Ham was a science teacher so he would consider your depiction flawed and biased. He would consider the debate as centering on two opposing scientific theories, one based upon intelligent design versus one based upon random chance ordered by the natural laws of the universe. He will argue from the fossil record as well as from the laws of entropy and not from the Bible.

 

Ham should know that God created evolution.

 

I beleive, I could be wrong, that that is the latest Pope's position.

 

This will be a moronic debate. One will base their opinion off belief the other by all known science and neither has all the answers.

Of course if Bill does as poorly as he did in the global warming debate on John Stossel this wont go well for him.

 

A european guy defending the bible

Thats like asking the kkk to defend jews.

 

I'm confused as to what it is that is worthy of debate here.

 

that in 2014 this debate is happening is why the US is falling as a nation.
we don't have debates between chemistry and alchemy, do we ?
do we have debates between astronomy and astrology ?
then why the frikity fudge are we debating science/logic and religious myth ?!

 

Should be entertaining.

 

I think debate is a sign of a society that is civilized..... dont see how you think its such a bad thing. Not like anyone has to watch or it has any real importance.... think of it more as an Art.

Anyways, we are failing as a country because we have too much uneducated labor and not enough jobs for them to be placed and pull levers.

 

Bingo. Our educational system is clearly lacking.

 

False equivalence ! There is room for debate on opinions and ideologies But there is NO room for debate on proven fact. We don't debate whether gravity exists, or how light bulbs are made because we know for a fact how it works. This is where I see evolution. The only debate on evolution must now be at an internal level between evolutionists. There is no room for creationism.

 

Religion will never be a proven fact so of course you will always have debate on it.... comparing it to light bulbs is a false equivalence.

As far as evolution, which I completely agree with, we still have to figure out where the original matter came from .

 

Since religion cannot be proven as fact then there should be no debate. Simply put if you believe a fiction book as fact then go right ahead but it shouldn't be tax exempt

 

This is 5th grader atheist mentality - and so is this debate. You have no way of saying that Evolution could have taken place without any kind of Supernatural instigation or intervention, and it's stupid and dishonest for you to even try.

That Nye would have to take on a 'young Earth' Creationist (whose views are surely as extreme as any Creationist's views could be) is testament to how weak the case for an Atheist is wrt this debate.

Understanding the Science of Evolution in no way invalidates a belief in a Creator. I don't know who this Ham guy is, but if his belief system goes so far as to completely invalidate what we know is true about Evolution, he's a fool - and not representative of the massive majority of those people who are Christian - or even religious.

And I suspect that is exactly where this debate is going, and exactly why Nye felt that he could further his - and your, apparently - agenda in attempting to use the Science of Evolution to invalidate the very legitimate notion of Creationism.

Just not Ham's brand.

 

This debate doesn't have to cover 'religion' at all. There is a perfectly sound and logical basis to defend the belief of something of incredible power having instigated Reality, and rejecting the notion that whatever mechanism created Life was pure random accident.

Nye and people like him - and like you, apparently - are very anxious, however, to stigmatize anyone of any religious belief whatsoever, and in choosing this debate with this clearly fringe character, hope to generalize all of Christianity/Creationism/religious belief as outdated/dangerous/stupid/ignorant/etc.

That's what's going on here. I'm quite sure I could more than hold my own with a debate against any atheist on this subject, and - in fact - have.

 

Debate will always exist over something that can not be proven as fact. It is usually fact that ends a debate.

 

Where is that verse in the bible?

 

It requires extrapolation. God Created All - essentially means that He would have created the function of evolution/adaptation.

But the assertion that 'God created Evolution' is truly idiotic, as those who believe in God automatically accept the premise, and those who do not automatically don't.

 

How long is a "day" on God's Time?

Translation: Don't get in the way of liberal indoctrination. Today's liberal children are tomorrow's carbon tax legislators.

 

You are correct about the extrapolation part. The fundamental weakness in all religious claims.

 

Ham wants this debate and has been begging Dawkins for years to take him up on it. I guess he finally decided to ask someone else who might play ball (Nye). Don't make this out to be some kind of atheist stunt. This is Ham's show, it's at his creationist museum, and it's his choice of topic.

 

Yes and there is very little fact in the bible. All any religion is, is a way to pick pocket the week minded and control them with fear. That much can be proven.

 

I respect Nye, but I think he's making a mistake by doing this debate. Here's what's probably going to happen. Ham will make a (superficially) reasonable claim that ID makes more sense than evolution. He will then summarize his supporting points. Nye will then do the same for evolution. Then Ham will fire off a long list of unsupported assertions that feed into his subpoints that prop up his ID claim. At that point, Nye will either have to let the unsupported (and most likely false) assertions go in favor of supporting his own side, or try to refute Ham's assertions, or try to split between both. No matter what, his argument will look weak because he'll wind up ceding some things to Ham by not addressing them and/or his own points will receive insufficient time for explanation and defense. This is the kind of behavior that is almost always exhibited by the theistic side of these debates: turn on the fire hose of half-truths or outright lies and then claim victory when your opponent can't deal with it. It's also why a good debater can be better than a subject matter expert in these, because the debater can quickly and properly address the irrelevancies and false assertions.