# Bill Nye(evolution) Vs Ken Ham(creation) Debate



## smash (Apr 28, 2010)

Did anyone watch the debate, just a few days ago, between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on the topic of Evolution Vs Creationism? 

The topic of debate: Is creation a viable model of origins?

This is a touchy subject especially when dealing with religion and beliefs but I do believe that the debate that took place was important in addressing the issue where certain ideologies, which have not been proved or disproved, is being indoctrinated into current, and future generations of young minds.

This debate, in my opinion, is considered one of the most important debates of the century as we are in a modern society where science and engineering are paving the way through the advancement of human civilization and the idea that a single entity(not talking about mother nature) is able to create all the vast wonders that you see in nature is questionable.

If there are religious individuals who do believe in god and are easily offended, please keep in mind that this is a public forum and you are free to not participate.

So I'm going to begin. First of all, I do not believe in a god nor am I religious BUT I do keep an open mind and if I can see and touch something or I can prove the existence using science or math then I will believe in it. Facts and evidence is key, you cannot just say that because it is written in the bible then it must be so.

Overall, I thought that the debate was a little bit of a let down. Reason is that both Bill and Ken were very passive overall toward one another. With such a topic, the only way to effectively address the topic is to just get in there and go face to face head on.

Bill seemed to have come into the debate with facts and wanted to talk about rock formation, fossil records and radioactive dating in order to prove that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Ken on the other hand took the first 30minutes elaborating that creationists can be good if not great scientists, and I'll agree on that, but that wasn't the debate topic. He also seemed to have gone more of the political route explaining what is and what isn't and defining terms of what the word science really means and how creation is related which still does not address the debate topic.


----------



## smccleme (Aug 20, 2012)

I watched it, but I did not learn much. Ham primarily preached, and Bill's points were poorly developed; he jumped all over the place.


----------



## Diztrbd1 (Apr 21, 2010)

missed it myself......I believe we had the debate here once before. Hopefully this doesn't become something the mods will have to keep a close eye on as it is a bit touchy for some, but here is the other one you might be interested in reading through: http://www.bcaquaria.com/forum/aqua-lounge-7/evolution-creation-13026/


----------



## Momobobo (Sep 28, 2010)

Did not watch. Well, watched 2 minutes of Ham. Stopped after he went on about breeds of dogs but using the term species (i.e. "all these different species of dogs...") . Sorry, nope, nada. A few members from the UBC freethinkers club did. Told me it was nothing great. From what I heard, Ham actually had a much better presentation. Bill was not up to par to Dawkins or Hitchens for this kind of act. It was just your everyday standard atheist vs creationist debate. I can't bring myself to watch these anymore. It just dumbfounds and irritates me how ignorant and ,for lack of better word, stupid creationists are.



> Bill seemed to have come into the debate with facts and wanted to talk about rock formation, fossil records and radioactive dating in order to prove that the earth is more than 6000 years old.


Theists point out these things to "shoot" down science but just make themselves look like idiots. And there is nothing you can achieve in a debate to convince them otherwise, it is the equivalent of trying to teach a child math if (s)he does not accept that 1+1=2.

"Radioactive dating (does not or) is not accurate!" Ken Ham used this in the debate didn't he?
"Evolution is JUST a theory" 
"Well, when you SHOW me (macro)evolution I'll believe it!"

Here is an example, these are creationist audience members that were asked to "ask a question to Nye." (what I am getting at is these people do not understand the concept they so smugly think "disproves" science)
22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

Debates honestly solve nothing. You come in already on one side and each side depends that you accept a premise. If you don't accept the premise of a God, then Creationism will never make sense. If you do not trust...well, science and the scientific method you will never accept agnosticism or atheism. Each side only comes to the debate solely to see the other ridiculed, not open minded and actually wanting to learn. Have you ever debated with a member of the anti-vaccine movement? You lay out the facts and they just scream that the facts are lies and just shut you out. Same idea. It is frustrating for sure.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic (Apr 22, 2010)

In 99.99999 percent of the cases, you will never get a Creationist to agree with evolution NOR will you get an Evolutionist to agree with creationism. 

It's like the Guns vs No Guns debate. Each side is deeply entrenched and not going to change their minds. 

Seriously, for topics like these, people will change SPOUSES easier than they will change their opinions on which side they support.


----------



## liquid_krystale (Dec 13, 2011)

As others have pointed out, the premise behind each side's arguments are so radically different that there is no chance of them ever reconciling. At one time I did attend one of these debate events at UBC, but ultimately there is no point in such exercises when one or more parties do not understand fully the points against which they are arguing, and it just degenerates into a heated, emotionally charged sh*tstorm.

When you are effectively undermining someone's whole world view by arguing your stance, you can bet that you'll get shut out and emotions will run high.


----------



## kacairns (Apr 10, 2012)

Can't we all just smoke some wacky tabacky sit down and sing kumbaya while jumping around and make sounds like apes and agree that regardless of ones point of view, we all suck? =)


----------



## Momobobo (Sep 28, 2010)

Hey now, human beings have great potential!


----------



## nigerian prince (Mar 8, 2013)

i actually swapped on the gun debate, i wouldnt say its even close to that, i dont know what it could best be compared to


SeaHorse_Fanatic said:


> In 99.99999 percent of the cases, you will never get a Creationist to agree with evolution NOR will you get an Evolutionist to agree with creationism.
> 
> It's like the Guns vs No Guns debate. Each side is deeply entrenched and not going to change their minds.
> 
> Seriously, for topics like these, people will change SPOUSES easier than they will change their opinions on which side they support.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic (Apr 22, 2010)

nigerian prince said:


> i actually swapped on the gun debate, i wouldnt say its even close to that, i dont know what it could best be compared to


I meant among Americans 

Canadians tend to be more open minded about guns. Americans, its literally a shoot-to-kill type topic. My sister has a Christian friend who works as a border guard and he's always talking guns and totally POed that he can't carry his gun around Vancouver. He's always saying how "naked" he feels going un-armed, like when he's walking around Stanley Park!!!


----------



## CeeZer (Jan 24, 2014)

There is a much greater chance to get attacked by a person with a knife in either Canada or USA and knives are way more deadly than gun shot wounds. Stats say that.
For a 'very' trained 'gunner' to shoot an attacker, he/she needs at least 1.2sec or 'untrained' attacker has to be at least 7 meters away before the attack, so there.
Canadians on average are NOT more open about guns than US persons.
If he feels 'naked', he's either paranoid or doesn't know how to be aware of the surroundings.


----------



## nigerian prince (Mar 8, 2013)

well it a right we dont have here unfortunatly, but i respect either view here in the lower mainland its gererally a safe place..


SeaHorse_Fanatic said:


> I meant among Americans
> 
> Canadians tend to be more open minded about guns. Americans, its literally a shoot-to-kill type topic. My sister has a Christian friend who works as a border guard and he's always talking guns and totally POed that he can't carry his gun around Vancouver. He's always saying how "naked" he feels going un-armed, like when he's walking around Stanley Park!!!


----------



## CeeZer (Jan 24, 2014)

nigerian prince said:


> well it a right we dont have here unfortunatly, but i respect either view here in the lower mainland its gererally a safe place..


So, are you saying YOUR OWN safety is somebody else' responsibility? Like Police?
They will (may) come a few minutes later after you call, or may not at all. If you have a chance to call. And a chance to wait those 'few' minutes.

BTW, did you know that PROTECTING you is NOT their (Police) responsibility? They are NOT accountable and are NOT *required* by law to protect anyone?


----------



## CRS Fan (Apr 21, 2010)

Let's please not get heated over personal opinions. Opinions are like bums.... everyone has one. The issue at hand is that everyone will "defend" their "opinion" based on their life experiences. It doesn't make them right or wrong. It just make them "opinionated". Please do not bash one another on this forum. Debates will happen..... BUT we are not a debate club. 

I will close this thread as it has gone sideways (based on the opinions expressed) and we want to be appreciated by the bulk of members (NOT just those who believe they are educated enough to be in the "know").

Respectfully,

Stuart


----------

