Home » Creationism, Culture, Darwinism, News » The day draws Nye—for the Nye-Ham debate

The day draws Nye—for the Nye-Ham debate

FAQs here. Including:

Is the live stream really free?

Yes, the live stream is really 100% FREE of charge on debatelive.org as well as Google+ Hangouts On Air powered by YouTube, and will be available to re-watch on our YouTube channel immediately following the debate. (We are unsure how many days following the event the video will remain available on YouTube to re-watch.)

Is there a limited number of live streams available?

No, the live stream is through YouTube with no known stream limits.

Can I ask questions of the moderator during the event?

This may be a possibility on the night of the debate. We may allow a certain number of questions for those watching through theGoogle+ Hangout On Air event.

Peter Enns, a Christian for Darwin of Karl-Giberson strength, warns,

Nye is strolling into a well-tuned, battle-tested, apologetic war machine.

A guy over at Richard Dawkins’s site says Nye shouldn’t debate Ham:

Creationism vs. evolution however is not worth debating. Why? Simple, there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a scientific fact, backed by mountains of evidence, peer-reviewed papers you could stack to the moon and an incredible scientific community consensus. Creationism is a debunked mythology that is based solely in faith. It has zero peer-reviewed papers to back up its claims, it has absolutely no scientific consensus and is not even considered science due to the fact it cannot be tested.

He then attacks Nye as unqualified. Nye must be feeling the love just now, he deserves points for that alone. Here’s his view: “I’m going in as a reasonable man.”

David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views says he’ll watch:

More seriously, I would like the world to get a good look at a genuine creationist: what he says, how he argues, what questions animate him. It’s been among the more dishonest tactics of ID’s critics to paint intelligent design as just another shade of “creationism.” The more people watch Ham debate Nye, the better they will be able to appreciate the stark contrast between advocates of intelligent design and those of creationism.

Creationists themselves are honest about saying what that distinction is. As Mr. Ham’s “Answers in Genesis” colleague Georgia Purdom has candidly said, the main difference is that creationists insist on faith’s directing the conclusions that science reaches. Devout materialists, while reaching opposite conclusions, come at the question of life’s origins in much the same manner. Naturalism demands an answer to the mystery of evolution that excludes intelligent direction. So that’s what it gets and what it offers.

Useful clarification that. Ken Ham doesn’t have that much use for the ID folk, but there’s no way a debate between him and them would generate this kind of drama.

The rumours that UD News is selling mugs and tee shirts, and running a betting pool are—by the way—highly scandalous.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

12 Responses to The day draws Nye—for the Nye-Ham debate

  1. The rumours that UD News is selling mugs and tee shirts, and running a betting pool are—by the way—highly scandalous.

    How funny!

    I wonder now who started those lies going around! I’m sure it wasn’t the ID folk or the creationists. Let’s see now. Who could possibly get mileage out of such a lie?….

    OK, I don’t know for sure, so I won’t make any statements, but I do have a guess as to which camp that person might be in.

  2. Evolution is a scientific fact, backed by mountains of evidence….

    I love that mantra. :P It’s cute in a silly way, like a small child saying he is going to be Superman when he grows up.

  3. “I’m going in as a reasonable man”

    Bill, Bill, Bill. Don’t you understand? The Darwinian materialists have never, ever been about “reason”. Are you sure you want to represent their side of the debate?

  4. TJGuy at 1, those people ARE highly scandalous but … watch The King and Mrs. Simpson. ;)

    No, seriously, if we were to sell mugs and tee shirts, they would have to say something that’ll still be recognizably meaningful a year from now. Why buy a mug or a shirt that wouldn’t last that long?

  5. Here is William Lane Craig debate coming up in February that, not to put down Nye and Ham, should be a bit more ‘advanced’ scientifically and philosophically speaking:

    “God and Cosmology” Featuring: Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig in Dialogue
    http://www.greerheard.com/

    Sean Michael Carroll, Ph.D. (born 5 October 1966), an outspoken atheist, is a senior research associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology.

    Although Sean Carroll doesn’t seem too concerned with having to face Dr. Craig in the upcoming meeting (since he thinks he has the truth on his side), the comments section on his blog, in a post about the debate/Dialogue with Dr. Craig, reveals quite a bit of angst amongst the atheistic crowd about the upcoming debate.
    http://www.preposterousunivers.....ig-debate/

  6. @lifepsy – Agreed, these guys are hysterically amusing. “mantra” is such a good word for it.

    Creationism vs. evolution however is not worth debating. Why? Simple, there is nothing to debate.

    Then why are there a) so many debates, and b) so much material to cover there’s never enough time to cover everything?

    Evolution is a scientific fact

    Theres no place like home, there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home…

    , backed by mountains of evidence, peer-reviewed papers you could stack to the moon

    None of which can produce a single clear, reproducible or evidential case of “macro”-evolution

    and an incredible scientific community consensus.

    True – 100% of evolutionists believe in Evolution, although it would seem there isn’t a clear majority of them who agree on any particular mechanism for Evolution.

    Creationism is a debunked mythology that is based solely in faith.

    Partially-true, as creationists are quick to admit. Just because you have based your hypothesis on a historical written record of an event doesn’t make it wrong. And if it has been “debunked”, it should be a quick, simple debate, right?

    It has zero peer-reviewed papers to back up its claims,

    Meaning it has no peer-reviewed papers in Evolution journals – apparently creationist journals don’t count. Here, let me Google that for you.

    it has absolutely no scientific consensus

    Snort. Irony much?

    and is not even considered science due to the fact it cannot be tested.

    Canard. First, if it can’t be tested, how could it be “debunked”? Second, YEC makes an enormous number of testable claims. Like, for example, that DNA should be found in most fossils, including dinos. C14 should also be found in most organics. Fossil record should reflect time-limited population counts. There will be limits to species variability. Radioactive elements should show limited half-life’s of decay (didn’t say they all were correct, did I?). Amount of “junk” DNA should be less than several thousand years of degenerative mutation can account for. Vestigial organs aren’t. Etc. ad nauseam.

    My biggest question, when I read these kinds of assaults on creationism (and ID) is always, do these people really believe what they are saying? Are they that self-delusional, does their religious belief in Evolution blind them to the ridiculous-ness of their assertions, or are they just engaged in a willfully deceptive PR effort?
    Am I the only one who thinks “Bagdad Bob” preaching victory as the tanks come over the hill?

  7. Atheists are already making excuses:
    http://youtu.be/NvlqrxOAX7A

  8. Poor Nye! Everyone thinks he’s a goner! I think the bar is being lowered to save him.
    In reality if evolution was true and creationisms criticisms and own assertions were not true then NYE should be flying high in expectation of a knockout fight!
    ID folks can learn from this too. Sharpen your wits.
    YEC folks must do well in debates to service. A selection process, if you will, has gone on a long time.

    Ham should aim at the whole concept of intelligence behind investigation.
    Evolutionism is not intellectually well done as its defenders tend to be kids who liked dinosaurs. Not the creame of the crop.
    Attack Nye on the merits of evidence behind evolution.
    Anyways it just raises the conflict to a higher pitch.
    Hopefully it breeds more debates.
    Then we can all retire on the ashes of Darwin’s folly.

  9. Poor Nye! Everyone thinks he’s a goner! I think the bar is being lowered to save him.
    In reality if evolution was true and creationisms criticisms and own assertions were not true then NYE should be flying high in expectation of a knockout fight!
    ID folks can learn from this too. Sharpen your wits.
    YEC folks must do well in debates to service. A selection process, if you will, has gone on a long time.

    Ham should aim at the whole concept of intelligence behind investigation.
    Evolutionism is not intellectually well done as its defenders tend to be kids who liked dinosaurs. Not the creame of the crop.
    Attack Nye on the merits of evidence behind evolution.
    Anyways it just raises the conflict to a higher pitch.
    Hopefully it breeds more debates.
    Then we can all retire on the ashes of Darwin’s folly.

  10. drc466: My biggest question, when I read these kinds of assaults on creationism (and ID) is always, do these people really believe what they are saying? Are they that self-delusional, does their religious belief in Evolution blind them to the ridiculous-ness of their assertions, or are they just engaged in a willfully deceptive PR effort?
    Am I the only one who thinks “Bagdad Bob” preaching victory as the tanks come over the hill?

    My question exactly. We have to assume that such people are fully aware of the fact that they are telling lies. Probably they believe that by doing so they are fighting for a “good” cause.
    There are some striking similarities with politically correct media coverage.

  11. Perhaps, UD won’t mind posting a thread with the live link to watch the video. I’m not sure if this will show up or not:

  12. Guess it didn’t… one more try without any greater than (GT) or less than (LT) symbols. Below are the two tags (opening and closing tags) without the GT & LT symbols. All of the first group of information is actually an attribute in the first iframe tag… i.e. there is no content between the two tags:

    iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/z6kgvhG3AkI?autoplay=1&rel=0″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen

    /iframe

Leave a Reply