scottydoesntknow: Creationists believe something so monumentally stupid that no amount of facts could sway them. They've already had to dismiss the mountain of facts available, so why would anyone believe a debate with a former children's TV star would make them rethink anything?
I drunk what: this round goes to Nye (secular science) for being able to keep better composure, regardless of ham making better points and actually defending them (though dodging a few important items)...
Three Crooked Squirrels: Not for nothing, but it is hard to accept the opinion that Bill Nye won the debate from a guy that helped him prep for the debate.
I drunk what: regardless of ham making better points
JusticeandIndependence: What better points were made by Ham?
dragonchild: Given the creationists got the exposure they wanted without the least of intentions to change the way they think, Nye could've curb-stomped Ham for the entire event and I fail to see how this ends as anything other than a smashing victory for wilful ignorance.
Chthonic Echoes: Nye did well. He seized the opportunity to force-feed science to a captive audience (2.5 hours of "I'm not trapped in here with you. You're trapped in here with me!") who would not otherwise have heard it. He may not have changed any minds, but he might have put some cracks in some walls.Meanwhile, Ham just recited the same tired arguments his audience has probably heard a hundred times already.
stuhayes2010: The only way to win is to stop arguing with these people.
Chthonic Echoes: Meanwhile, Ham just recited the same tired arguments his audience has probably heard a hundred times already.
stuhayes2010: So, Bill convinced the creationist their view was wrong and they walked away believing in evolution, Big Bang and Global Warming?That's a win.The only way to win is to stop arguing with these people.
Donnchadha: Chthonic Echoes: Meanwhile, Ham just recited the same tired arguments his audience has probably heard a hundred times already.Yes, but, do you go to a Rolling Stones concert to hear them play their new album or to hear them play their greatest hits?
scarmig: /ex-christian. At some point, something changed my mind. Without debates, that wouldn't have happened.
Whodat: http://geochristian.com/2014/02/04/ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-post-debate-an a lysis/Overall, I did not find the debate to be at all helpful. I did think that Nye's scientific arguments were stronger than Ham's (as YEC is rather indefensible scientifically), but they could have been stronger, and Nye demonstrated deep misunderstandings of Christianity that are, unfortunately, much too common among skeptics. Young-Earth creationists who watched the debate probably thought that Ham crushed Nye. Atheists who watched it probably thought that Nye demolished the silly arguments of the young-Earthers. For the rest of us, the debate was a lose-lose affair. There was little in Ham's presentation that would cause a non-believer (especially a non-believing scientist) to consider Christianity, and Nye's weakness on geological issues hampered his effectiveness.
SewerSquirrels: stuhayes2010: So, Bill convinced the creationist their view was wrong and they walked away believing in evolution, Big Bang and Global Warming?That's a win.The only way to win is to stop arguing with these people.I have a creationist friend who I periodically argue with. As a result, her 13 year old daughter is not a creationist. Winning ≠ giving up. Exposing people to rational thought is never pointless.
MayoSlather: Nye didn't attack the Bible enough. Ham's whole argument centered around every last word being true. All Nye had to do was point out that Christians don't even buy into all the evil shiat in there, and if they didn't believe any part wasn't true then why should they buy into every word of genesis.Plus he never hit on the idea that by Ham merely pointing out any mystery in science, it doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that christianity is automatically correct, which Ham did over and over.
Herr Morgenstern: "This debate was painful. It was like watching an astrophysicist argue aerodynamics with a toddler as he blindly insists racing stripes make his scooccurred somewhere in the worldo faster."Ugh, copy/paste fail (cell phones are my enemy)."Scooter go faster" is what I was going for.
JusticeandIndependence: I drunk what: regardless of ham making better pointsWhat better points were made by Ham?
I drunk what: the ability of creationists to admit they are using highly biased views of religion to influence their "science" and their opponents inability to honestly do the same
Ambitwistor: [www.quickmeme.com image 625x351]
I drunk what: so in other words the typical YEC methodology of one step forward two steps back, which the foxnews crowd eats right up
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Aug 17 2017 08:33:15
Runtime: 0.741 sec (740 ms)