Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ham-on-Nye debate pits atheists, creationists
Washington Post ^ | 1/30/14 | Kimberly Watson

Posted on 02/03/2014 5:44:47 AM PST by SoFloFreeper

Bill Nye may be “The Science Guy,” but Ken Ham is the “Answers in Genesis” man, and a debate between the two over the origins of life has nonbelievers and Christians wringing their hands.

Nye, host of a beloved television science series, and Ham, president of a creationist apologetics ministry, will meet at the Creation Museum, where Ham is also the president, on Feb. 4. In what some wags are calling “the Ham-on-Nye debate,” they will weigh this question: “Is creation a viable model of origins?”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bias; billnye; crevolist; kenham; science; truth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last
Through the 1980s to 2000s, evolutionists were EAGER to debate those scientists and thinkers who think intelligent design is a viable model for biological origins and diversity.

In recent years, however, they have adopted the "shut up" method of discussion...many evolutionists are NOT HAPPY about Bill Nye taking on Mr. Ham.

By the way, I believe this debate will be available on a LIVE STREAM tomorrow, February 4.

1 posted on 02/03/2014 5:44:47 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Yes, it will be available for free online. Many churches are hosting live events to watch the debate.


2 posted on 02/03/2014 6:01:47 AM PST by Shadowfax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
RE :”Through the 1980s to 2000s, evolutionists were EAGER to debate those scientists and thinkers who think intelligent design is a viable model for biological origins and diversity.”

What model ?? ID says ‘its here, just appeared one day long ago. we can never go beyond that. Now try to prove that wrong’

That's hardly a model.

Back in the 1700s and 1800s Creationism was the paradigm.
But then the Ark got overloaded by new finds and sunk it.

When IDers propose a model for how ID got it all here then there is something to debate,.

3 posted on 02/03/2014 6:03:05 AM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'Any path to US citizenship for illegals HERE is a special path to it ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Ham will soundly defeat Nye
Any discussion on the anger Nye will show at his being ignored?


4 posted on 02/03/2014 6:14:14 AM PST by RaceBannon (Lk 16:31 And he said unto him If they hear not Moses and the prophets neither will theybe persuaded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

That is an incredibly inaccurate description of the ID position. Perhaps you should watch the debate.

APf


5 posted on 02/03/2014 6:20:25 AM PST by APFel (Regnum Nostrum Crescit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

You could start by reading this entire post here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3117912/posts

“Information Theory—part 1: overview of key ideas (article)”.

Then you could get a copy of Werner Gitt’s book, write a rebuttal to it, get it published, present and/or debate the issue live in a few dozen places, and that would be a good start.


6 posted on 02/03/2014 6:22:46 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Here is my prediction on the debate: (I’m hosting a local simulcast, btw.)

Ham will win the debate,

he will lose in the media,

and he will be vindicated by God in heaven, at the end of time

(which, by the way, is also one of God’s creations).


7 posted on 02/03/2014 6:24:51 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

“Ham-on-Nye” ....

,,, I gotta admit, that’s a clever headline!!!!


8 posted on 02/03/2014 6:26:05 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper; stylecouncilor

Robert M Hazen, “genesis: The Scientific Quest For Life’s Origin”

Also some of his lectures on YouTube are very interesting. And he’s not beyond God doing it. It’s just that he sees biogenesis as a very vexing problem.


9 posted on 02/03/2014 6:31:20 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Heh heh. Does want to calculate the odds that life or the universe could appear spontaneously?


10 posted on 02/03/2014 6:52:17 AM PST by Seruzawa (Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for good a blaster kid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

It should be noted that in the famous Darrow/Bryan “Scopes” court case, ALL those from local and regional newspapers thought Bryan won. It was only the national metropolitan reporters who thought Darrow won.


11 posted on 02/03/2014 8:46:59 AM PST by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LS

Hmmm.... that’s interesting.

Not surprising at all.


12 posted on 02/03/2014 9:44:19 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LS; fishtank

Yep, and the vast majority of the public was backing Bryan too.

Lawyers basically followed a similar tactic in Roe vs Wade, they simply wanted a landmark case they could use to try to change public opinion.


13 posted on 02/03/2014 10:05:50 AM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fishtank; Fiji Hill; APFel

I don’t see anything that looks like a theory or model at they link you gave me.

Its still ‘What they say cant be true because....’ which is no different than ‘Scientific’ Creationists scam.

“It is all a big mystery and we can never guess how everything came to be’ is not an alternative, which is why they love debating. Ya cant disprove nothing, only something can be falsified.


14 posted on 02/03/2014 10:35:08 AM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'Any path to US citizenship for illegals HERE is a special path to it ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
...many evolutionists are NOT HAPPY about Bill Nye taking on Mr. Ham.

I imagine it's for two reasons. One, nothing will be accomplished. When the dust settles, the supporters of Creationism will still support creationism and the supporters of evolution will still support evolution. All is does is give creationism a thin covering of science. And two, come on. It's Bill Nye, a kids show host. Do you want people to think he's speaking for you?

15 posted on 02/03/2014 10:44:02 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg; sickoflibs

Yeah, OK, like evolution strictly follows the scientific method - anything historically-based is not a hard science. It does not follow the scientific method. It is neither observable nor repeatable. And it is not falsifiable so it really doesn’t matter who is included in the debate, just a bunch of hot air [no, not referring to global warming - another hoax of our times].


16 posted on 02/03/2014 10:51:01 AM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
It does not follow the scientific method. It is neither observable nor repeatable. And it is not falsifiable so it really doesn’t matter who is included in the debate, just a bunch of hot air...

You realize you just describe creationism to a tee as well, don't you?

17 posted on 02/03/2014 10:54:38 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Spoken like a true product of public school education.


18 posted on 02/03/2014 10:56:07 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels; DoodleDawg
RE :”Yeah, OK, like evolution strictly follows the scientific method - anything historically-based is not a hard science. It does not follow the scientific method. It is neither observable nor repeatable. And it is not falsifiable so it really doesn’t matter who is included in the debate, just a bunch of hot air [no, not referring to global warming - another hoax of our times].”

There is some truth to that, however the fact that evolutionists have falsified different evolutionary theories when new finds didn't fit them sets it apart from Creationist science.

Creationism Science is just ‘Look over there, don't look over here. Everything just appeared a few thousand years ago and that's all there is too it. Now lets get back to those missing bones’

19 posted on 02/03/2014 10:59:19 AM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'Any path to US citizenship for illegals HERE is a special path to it ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

Well, Bryan actually won the local court case too.


20 posted on 02/03/2014 11:00:02 AM PST by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson