13 COMMENTS

  1. Ham had the advantage of being a smooth debater, however Nye had the advantage of facts and evidence. It appears unlikely that many minds will be changed as a result of this debate. Ham has no “faith” that we can accurately investigate the past and be scientifically accurate, yet he looks back in time regarding the bible and believes all that it has to say. Illogical.

  2. I think Ham’s view and future progress is fundamentally limiting, by taking the Bible as gospel (excuse the pun). The Bible seems to be the reason for everything, the ultimate citation almost. Ham follows science but where is the scientific method applied in the Bible? – they are just stories, I’ll have to read the Bible in an attempt understand where he’s coming from.

    • In reply to #2 by geoffrey.knott:

      I think Ham’s view and future progress is fundamentally limiting, by taking the Bible as gospel (excuse the pun). The Bible seems to be the reason for everything, the ultimate citation almost. Ham follows science but where is the scientific method applied in the Bible? – they are just stories, I’ll…

      You probably don’t need to. His main hypothesis is that the Bible is a factual history book – more accurate than any modern history book who’s known credentialed authors can be debated all the time . A book which is a collection of stories, some thousands of years old, most written by authors unknown. Oh, no wait, he contends that it was not composed by humans but delivered from an invisible sky fairy who no one can see or ask questions of – except when talking to yourself inside your head in something Mr Ham would call prayer.

      If you don’t believe that, everything else he says is a waste of energy. We should I suppose be thankful he only runs a bizarre museum of made up counter factual exhibits, and isn’t say, a bridge building engineer. Who’d like to try an experiment and get one of his cobelievers to design a bridge built on faith, in competition with a conventional engineer? Which bridge would stay up the longest?

  3. How can anyone have a rational debate with Ham when he says he has the evidence of an ‘eye witness’ called God because it says so in his book? It sort of ends the debate right there. There’s nothing more to say. Richard is correct in not debating these people. It only lends credibility to their meaningless arguments. No doubt the debacle has brought more money into their creationist museum enterprise which was probably their intention all along.

  4. WAY TO GO, BILL!

    Your presentation was informative, entertaining, and more importantly, it was factual. I also admire the way you handled yourself in a professional and cordial manner.

    All of the science that you presented will now be available on the internet forever. Not to mention Ham’s ridiculous ideas. Its all there for all to see.

    Look at how many people watched the debate! This is all super exciting. Imagine RD and WLC in a CNN Super Battle, and how much interest that would generate.

    Long Live Reason

    Ron

  5. Ham cited some creationist scientists who agree with his ridiculous views re the age of the Earth and the universe. In particular he cited geologist Andrew Snelling who it seems has a doppleganger who is a respectable geologist !

    I’m not cynical, but I suspect money has something to do with the apparent double standards !

  6. The problem with Ken Ham’s premise – when not present you have to accept testimonial evidence as true – is that you have to accept ALL testimonial evidence as true when not present. He says that you have to accept that Noah spoke to god, why? Because you weren’t there. Based on this premise you have to accept that Odysseus spoke to Athena, and that Muhammad spoke to Allah and Joseph Smith spoke to god etc. Why? Because you weren’t there. He clearly accepts the Old and New Testaments as true based on his premise, but using his premise alone, there is no method to determine the authenticity of one testimonial over another. Why isn’t Ken Ham Muslim, or Sikh or any other religion? This gets into Richard Dawkins’ argument, that if Ken Ham was born in an Islamic country, he’d be using his premise to argue that the Koran is the true word of god, not the Old and New Testaments. You have religious text A, and you have religious text B (for simplicity, there are more than two), each have testimonials and each make claims. How do you determine if the claims are reasonable? The best method today is to compare these claims with known laws. Scientific laws, not human laws. If the claims fall within known scientific laws and human behaviour we say the claim is reasonable. Could a better method be discovered in the future? Possibly, but the one thing we do know is that today’s scientific method of determining whether a claim is reasonable or not is far superior to arbitrarily choosing, or choosing based on the region you were born, one testimonial document over another.

  7. We absolutely HAVE to have debates like this with Creationists. Letting them lurk in the dark corners in the world where they can grow unchallenged is a chicken-sh!t way to deal with them. We have all the evidence on our side and you can bet your bottom dollar that fence-sitters who tuned into the debate will have seen and internalised the information.

    • In reply to #10 by Graham1:

      35 minutes of this tripe was more than enough. I have better things to do with my precious time.

      Yeah, I think once was enough… the religionists will carry on believing what they believe. As long as they don’t make it law, or aren’t allowed to force children to adopt their “world view”, I guess there’s not much to be gained from further discussion with the likes of Ken Ham.

  8. I have nothing to discuss with a person who keeps taking an iron age book as evidence of the existence of God/Gods. I could debate him/her once or twice, but the third time is a waist of time. Circular talk going back to unsubstantiated nonsense without evidence leads to nothing. I agree with RD that the only advantage could be the presence of people who are listening. Thant’s it!

Leave a Reply