If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NCSE)   Smoked Ham; or How Bill Nye won the debate. Hint: science   (ncse.com) divider line 505
    More: Followup, smoked ham, nuclear medicines, Ken Ham, speciations, age of the universe, National Center for Science Education, fundamental science, Wheaties  
•       •       •

8686 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:11 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



505 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-05 08:14:03 AM
Nobody won the debate.  The creationist was "not even wrong"
 
2014-02-05 08:14:49 AM
Fundies will still claim a victory.
 
2014-02-05 08:37:41 AM
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.
 
2014-02-05 09:16:41 AM
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-05 09:20:04 AM
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.
 
2014-02-05 09:21:38 AM
It was sort of pointless, though, because fundies who watch it will just invoke their "LaLaLaLa I can't hear you" defense, anyway.
 
2014-02-05 09:21:52 AM
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.
 
2014-02-05 09:21:56 AM
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?
 
2014-02-05 09:22:49 AM
meh

i'm sure many minds were changed as a result of that thoughtful and insightful debate, notsureifserious.jpg

1 question

can any butt hurt anti-theist evolutionists admit they can recognize the difference between observational science and historical science yet?

won't hold my breath

in the mean time, over zealous YEC need to remember that in professional public debates that focus on SCIENCE, they need to keep their "the power of jebus compels YOU" to a minimum

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)...
 
2014-02-05 09:26:07 AM

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?


Not everyone in the world who is alive or will ever be born already has an unchangeable opinion of everything.

/ex-christian.  At some point, something changed my mind.  Without debates, that wouldn't have happened.
 
2014-02-05 09:27:21 AM

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)...


2/10. Hits the right nerves, but what kills it is it's the same nerves that are jackhammered to numbness by creationists themselves.
 
2014-02-05 09:33:40 AM

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.


It's also hard to accept that a debate between creationism and science was held and people feel the need to seriously discuss who "won".
 
2014-02-05 09:34:04 AM

I drunk what: regardless of ham making better points


What better points were made by Ham?
 
2014-02-05 09:36:31 AM
Nye was wright, but Ham was a consistent manipulative liar.  The end.
 
2014-02-05 09:36:41 AM
Watched the whole thing. Basically, Bill Nye was playing an amazing chess game, but Ken Ham brought checkers pieces onto the board.
 
2014-02-05 09:36:51 AM

JusticeandIndependence: What better points were made by Ham?


Since creationism is obviously true, any points made in support of it are inherently better than points made against it.
 
2014-02-05 09:37:06 AM
1) It was far from a debate.

2) Nye was to nice to Hamm, example:  Nye attempted to get across that no reasonable person would believe the young earth or anything Hamm was pushing.  Nye used reasonable a lot in an attempt to get across the point that the young earth people are crazy (they are).  However Nye failed to go for the heart of Hamm's argument,  the young earth argument was that without witness past events cannot be verified, hence why carbon dating is pointless as no one was present at the time of the event to provide witness and due to the countless numbers of failed carbon data testing (no specific evidence provided) there is no proof the age of the earth is over 6000 years.

The issue is that his own argument destroys the young earth stance.  Young earth age was determined by the geneolgy of Jesus, the information for that geneolgy is provided by the bible, the information provided to the bible was done by people who god spoke to.  That is the young earth stance, yet if they hold all other forms of evidence to the "Must have witness requirement" then their theory fails.

If god spoke to people, who is to say god did not speak to the scientist that have repeatable test and evidence to show the age of the earth is around 4.5 million?

The people that wrote the passages in the bible were never at the events, it is a known theological fact that the writers were writing based on stories told to them many times removed from the event.  Where is the witness that was there?

The point is young earth says no witness no proof, yet there is no witness for their theory to which they counter God did it.  They grasp at anything so that they don't have to critically think, give them a simple all encompassing solution for any minor problem beyond their comprehension and all is good for them.


I can see why so many people were against this, it put these nuts into to much light.  However this movement needs to be constantly attacked, not to change the believers but to prevent wasted tax dollars and to hopefully win the minds of the young that might have doubts.
 
2014-02-05 09:37:19 AM

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.


Agreed. No one outside of creationist circles knew this guy's name before: now he's on the national radar. Fail! I like Bill Nye, but this grandstanding comes at a cost.
 
2014-02-05 09:37:59 AM
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.
 
2014-02-05 09:40:00 AM
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.
 
2014-02-05 09:43:35 AM
The vast majority of people watching it went in thinking "This guy who thinks like I do is going to 'debate' some moron" and after watching it, they figured that's exactly what happened.

It doesn't matter which side you were on. Hopefully a small minority of people who were ambivalent or otherwise on the fence had their opinions swayed by Nye, but there's no way that either side converted any body who already had their mind set.
 
2014-02-05 09:43:57 AM

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.



I think you're giving creationists far more credit than they deserve.
 
2014-02-05 09:45:25 AM
www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-02-05 09:46:46 AM

stuhayes2010: The only way to win is to stop arguing with these people.


A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
 
2014-02-05 09:48:30 AM
Ken Ham made two good points the entire night: that everyone approaches the act of scientific research with presuppositions about the nature of the universe, and that those different "world views" may influence the way one interprets scientific data. He really should have expounded on these points, rather than try to discredit the evidence for evolution itself.
 
2014-02-05 09:51:06 AM
Debate, what debate? There's nothing to 'debate'. The two topics aren't even related, putting this creationist on the same stage with science is a joke.

If you argue with a creationist, you're still retarded.
 
2014-02-05 09:53:14 AM

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?
 
2014-02-05 09:53:49 AM

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.
 
2014-02-05 09:54:08 AM
The real question is, did Bevets evolve into a rational person?
 
2014-02-05 09:55:55 AM
Awesome!
For our next battle, Chuck Liddell will be fighting a sloth with 3 broken legs!
 
2014-02-05 09:58:27 AM
 
2014-02-05 09:59:05 AM

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?


Well you go for the hits but at two concerts I've liked the new stuff more.

/Matthew good shortly after he dropped the band  and Bruce Springsteen - Wrecking Ball
 
2014-02-05 10:01:43 AM

scarmig: /ex-christian.  At some point, something changed my mind.  Without debates, that wouldn't have happened.


I identified as a christian probably up to my late teens. But I think it wasn't debate that changed my mind as much as two realizations. One was naturally becoming old enough to realize your parents aren't right about everything. The second was thinking about a scenario where if you could start 10 different civilizations on 10 different islands separate from each other, after a few generations you would probably find 10 distinct religions, all of them feeling as strongly that their religion is true as christians, jews, etc. feel about theirs.
 
2014-02-05 10:01:44 AM
Most people who side with Nye are at least somewhat aware of Hamm's arguments. I wonder if the opposite is true of those who follow Hamm? I would venture to guess that there are quite a few people who have never been exposed to ideas and facts that Nye so aptly explained. I think that was Nye's goal last night.
 
2014-02-05 10:05:27 AM
If last night leads to one kid questioning what his parents and ministers are "teaching" them, then, yeah, Nye won.
 
2014-02-05 10:05:36 AM

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.


Interesting take
 
2014-02-05 10:05:38 AM
I successfully submitted a link for the live webcast last night and it was rejected prior to the debate even starting.  I'm guessing Fark wasn't down for a live discussion thread? WTF?

/I'll get over it.
 
2014-02-05 10:05:49 AM

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.


THIS.  The goal is not to win over hardline Creationists so much as it is to ensure their efforts to win converts will fail.
 
2014-02-05 10:08:07 AM
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.

Seriously, every time Ham said "You know, Bill, there's this book you may have heard of..." and didn't get punched in the face, a small earthquake occured somewhere in the world to balance out the lack of gravitational shift.
 
2014-02-05 10:08:37 AM
My favorite part of Ham's argument was him naming people who believe the same thing he does (most of them are in his employ it seems) and not being able to get past 6 or so.  It was almost like he was waiting for all of our light bulbs to turn on once he named enough.
 
2014-02-05 10:08:50 AM
But how did Nye deal with the banana argument?
 
2014-02-05 10:13:37 AM
"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.
 
2014-02-05 10:14:12 AM

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.


I don't think Nye can match Martin Sheen in his delivery.
 
2014-02-05 10:17:32 AM

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.


Actually I think that your first sentence summed up Ham's intellect quite nicely and made more sense than anything Ham said.
 
2014-02-05 10:19:13 AM
Lots of people talk to their food.
 
2014-02-05 10:23:38 AM

JusticeandIndependence: I drunk what: regardless of ham making better points

What better points were made by Ham?


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

the rest just sounded like soundbites and filler, with neither side listening to the other

though for all the good ham did, he did twice as much damage for his cause going full "jebus compels you derp" at the end of almost every chance he got to speak

so in other words the typical YEC methodology of one step forward two steps back, which the foxnews crowd eats right up

nye did a decent job of just shilling for "MORE SCIENCE EDUMUCATION", meanwhile pretending to "debate" ham... *rolls eyes*

though i've seen much much much worse, a la  hovind vs sam harris types

overall this debate was way too much vanilla, and too little too late, this bipolar derp country-world won't take a single thing away from it other than

YEEHAW nye smoked ham, HEEHAWW  YEEEEEEAAAH, for science!!!1!

i would have liked to have seen more points addressed and MUCH less snarky comments made at each other, which is why i said nye won, simply because he used less smug/snark

good jorb lad, now debate someone who isn't of the hovind/ham flavor, and let's make some actual progress
 
2014-02-05 10:28:17 AM
I really think Nye missed out by not making Ham's argument - the whole thing is predicated on what is necessarily faith, yes? Faith that necessarily cannot be proved outside tautology - "This book is 100% true. How do I know? The Book says so" or "God's Word is true. How do I know? He's God"?

So on the one hand, there is naked faith. If you don't buy into the deity or whatever words they claim, the rest of it falls apart. To say nothing of the fact that Ham & Co's interpretation of the Book isn't universally accepted even by those who read and follow it - I recall reading the OT many, many (MANY) times over many years, and never once did I see anything about "Original Sin" (even in Hebrew).

On the other is, at least, a set of principles that can be predictive, tested, refined, and/or disproven, all of which can be independently verified and require no faith.

So reconcile them if you must (which requires discarding YEC and basically God of the Gaps-ing), but recognize that faith and empiricism are two different things, and the extraordinary claim that The Fall changed the fundamentals of the universe is, frankly, a bridge to far for me to ever have walked.
 
2014-02-05 10:28:30 AM

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


You're assuming non-creationists are biased in the same way that creationists are, just from a different direction.  What are you basing that on?
 
2014-02-05 10:31:10 AM

Ambitwistor: [www.quickmeme.com image 625x351]


www.piccer.nl

Click for uncensored
 
2014-02-05 10:31:29 AM

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



Fish are sinners!
 
Displayed 50 of 505 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report