i can't say i'm uber excited, but it's been so long since i've seen a genuine "debate" between a creationist and a normal person it'll be worth a watch. i think Hamm is either sick in the head or a huckster, so it will be interesting to see just how much Nye can humiliate him.
I watched up to 2:32 of Ken Hams video.
Hamm should optimally be ignored by any self-respecting person not wishing to have their brain melted by stupidity. In a perfect world that would be the optimal response... alas we live in a universe where that is not possible. Hamm has enough pull to warrant a response and we can't ignore that
I like this statement in the article: "technically this isn’t a debate between beliefs—it’s a debate between Ham’s beliefs and Nye’s measurable data. Nye doesn’t “believe in” evolution—he has deduced from facts and concrete evidence the condition of the natural world. There’s no external evidence to support the claim that the earth is 5,000 years old."
I live just across the river from the "museum" I may check it out just for the novelty of it all.
My patience with people like Ham is likely measured in nanoseconds, if not less, which is why I have no time for videos featuring him. I have no doubt that Bill can dismantle anything Ken has to put up. It's not as though the creationists have come up with any new arguments lately. How he and Harris and Krauss and others who tackle these ying-yangs can manage the patience to deal with them is beyond me.
Beyond me also.
I think it they can do it because they are thinking about the audience that might be swayed rather than expecting anything new from the creationists.
I haven't watched Nye much as his show was not on when I grew up. Nor have I seen much he has written on the internet.
I'm unsure if this is the best idea, to put Nye up against Hamm. While Nye might be a smart guy, with a degree in Mechanical Engineering, he may not be the best foil for Hamm. He may very well be thoroughly schooled in both evolution and biology though, I hope so.
My concern has less to do with the ability of Nye to attack religious beliefs though than with the goal of Hamm. I believe Hamm intends to continue to attack through distortion what the creationists believe are holes in evolutionary theory. He apparenlty has no interest in scientific knowledge, whether established through empirical observation, chemistry or any other discipline. He intends to hold onto his flock by attacking with a straight face and yielding no ground. I hope Nye is up to the task of plugging any holes they attempt to punch because I suspect he will be on the defensive from the starting bell. The debate format could possibly determine the outcome.
If I were Hamm, I would jump at the opportunity to debate a less skilled opponent, rather than one who brings both knowledge as prestige. A decisive loss could be catastrophic for Hamm, although I suspect if he cannot win, he will accept a murky debate that allows him to continue to backpedal, distort and obfuscate.
Does anyone here know how skillfully we can expect Nye to debate?
Just wanted to make it clear, I'm not doubting the veracity of the evolutionary theory. I'm frustrated with the stubborn doubters of the theory and would welcome a chance to thrash them silly. Anything less seems to drag this out unnecessarily. Oddly enough, what response I've seen on some of the wingnut websites indicates they want to turn their back on both debaters. In their opinion, Hamm doesn't support their particular bastardized hybrid version of evolution/creation. Nye is pretty much seen as an obnoxious idiot. I get the feeling they want to ignore this debate so they can continue to finger plug their ears and drone "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah".
The day you stop looking because you’re content that god did it, I don’t need you in the lab. You are useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world.
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson
That's how I look at it Loren. Haven't heard that quote from Tyson until now.
Good quote from Bill.