Bill Nye and Ken Hamm will debate

[ctc]

Here is the brilliant Richard Dawkins clearly explaining to us the foolishness of giving creationism credibility in a debate format.

Enjoy the 2 minute piece.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abugiGHOHg0

[head n arm]

I find it interesting that the only people who don't want this debate to happen are the atheists and scientists. Some have even resorted to name calling when they mention Ham. Why wouldn't you all be excited for the chance to have science just speak for itself? Why the name calling on Ham? Why the hesitation for the debate at all?

[ctc]

I find it interesting that the only people who don't want this debate to happen are the atheists and scientists. Some have even resorted to name calling when they mention Ham. Why wouldn't you all be excited for the chance to have science just speak for itself? Why the name calling on Ham? Why the hesitation for the debate at all?

When you really don't have anything intelligent to say and cannot scientifically actually support your position - resort to ad hominem attacks.

[coachsparky]

I personally agree with the side of the debate on whether it is a good idea to debate or not that says it is.  The right side, the scientific side, has been ignoring the moronic view, the creationist side, for too long and the result is that America is getting dumber and the percentage of people believing the lies of the creationist has increased.  We can not allow ignorance to win the day, we have to start engaging them and let them expose themselves as the liars and fools they are publicly so that people have a hard clear line between facts and intelligence and lies, ignorance  and superstition to choose between.

[SVV]

I find it interesting that the only people who don't want this debate to happen are the atheists and scientists. Some have even resorted to name calling when they mention Ham. Why wouldn't you all be excited for the chance to have science just speak for itself? Why the name calling on Ham? Why the hesitation for the debate at all?

I don't doubt that Nye will thoroughly embarrass Ham, but I'd rather see a scientist from the field of biology...or no one at all since the creationist side isn't a real side.

[coachsparky]

I find it interesting that the only people who don't want this debate to happen are the atheists and scientists. Some have even resorted to name calling when they mention Ham. Why wouldn't you all be excited for the chance to have science just speak for itself? Why the name calling on Ham? Why the hesitation for the debate at all?

When you really don't have anything intelligent to say and cannot scientifically actually support your position - resort to ad hominem attacks.

Sounds like you are describing the creationist.  Scientist actually have very intelligent thins to say and have the only scientific support that exists for the discussion of origins and evolution.

[ctc]

I find it interesting that the only people who don't want this debate to happen are the atheists and scientists. Some have even resorted to name calling when they mention Ham. Why wouldn't you all be excited for the chance to have science just speak for itself? Why the name calling on Ham? Why the hesitation for the debate at all?

I don't doubt that Nye will thoroughly embarrass Ham, but I'd rather see a scientist from the field of biology...or no one at all since the creationist side isn't a real side.

But the evolutionist's side is a real side.  Let's see -

1.  Somehow all the right chemicals came together to make amino acids - magically
2.  All the 21 different amino acids were all together surviving the UV rays and oxygen deterioration - magically
3.  Only left handed amino acids got together and not a single right handed one - magically
4.  They aligned in order to make a single protein - magically
5.  This same hap-chance happened over 60 times to make one single protein - magically
6.  These 60 or more proteins aligned together perfectly - magically
7.  Accidentally, DNA with enough information to fill 1000 volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica got together - magically
8.  Ability to read this massive information came together - magically
9.  Ability to survive, feed, reproduce came fully intact with the first life - magically

Yes, SVV, you believe in magic.  I believe the only sensible solution - Creator God.  You can have your faith in magic.  I'll stick with the ONLY viable answer.

[coachsparky]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

[coachsparky]

1.  Somehow all the right chemicals came together to make amino acids - magically

There was nothing magical about it.  The process has been duplicate over and over again in the laboratory, hence it is an experimentally proven natural process.

2.  All the 21 different amino acids were all together surviving the UV rays and oxygen deterioration - magically

They survive today, why wouldn't they 2 billion years ago.  Again, nature shows itself, no magic involved.

3.  Only left handed amino acids got together and not a single right handed one - magically

In the original experiment.  However there is natural evidence for both kind of amino acids.  Again no need for magig.

4.  They aligned in order to make a single protein - magically

Again this process has been demonstrated when combining the right amino acids in a lab, natural process which has been repeated, no need for magic.

5.  This same hap-chance happened over 60 times to make one single protein - magically

It actually only had to happen one time and then their were billions of years for the natural process to work.  No magic involved.

6.  These 60 or more proteins aligned together perfectly - magically

CTC seems to think he knows what was involved in the first living cell, which not even the smartest scientist claims to know.  No magic was needed however.

7.  Accidentally, DNA with enough information to fill 1000 volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica got together - magically

This is a red herring created by some one trying to make a point.  The information is like computer code 0's and 1's.  Not to hard to imagine and nothing too complicated for the natural process.  No magic involved.

8.  Ability to read this massive information came together - magically

No ones reading this information, it is a natural system that evolved over time by natural processes, no magic involved.

9.  Ability to survive, feed, reproduce came fully intact with the first life - magically

The source of energy was the sun, no need to feed any more than any plant has to feed.  It took many millions of years, not all at once fully intact, so no it was not magical it was a slow tedious natural process.

Yes, SVV, you believe in magic.  I believe the only sensible solution - Creator God.  You can have your faith in magic.  I'll stick with the ONLY viable answer.

The only one who believes something occurred suddenly and by magic is ctc who believe by faith in the magic a supernatural world.  As for myself, other scientifically minded and I assume SVV, we will stick with the only viable natural answers given to us by the meticulous and studious process of science.

[coachsparky]

ctc's explanation for the origins of life:

A magic man without a physical body came from "outside of time and space"(whatever that means) and poofed the first cells into existence in a puff of smoke, simply through the power of thought.

Because obviously that makes sense, that there are magic men without physical bodies, and that they can simply think matter and energy into existence and shape.

The very basis for their blind faith in this proposition is, yes, our current ignorance. We don't know - therefore immaterial magic men with omnipotence.

[head n arm]

I find it interesting that the only people who don't want this debate to happen are the atheists and scientists. Some have even resorted to name calling when they mention Ham. Why wouldn't you all be excited for the chance to have science just speak for itself? Why the name calling on Ham? Why the hesitation for the debate at all?

I don't doubt that Nye will thoroughly embarrass Ham, but I'd rather see a scientist from the field of biology...or no one at all since the creationist side isn't a real side.

So as a science type guy, you have already gone into this with a closed mind. That is what I find hilarious from every "scientist".

Per a scientist's philosophy, have an open mind! But I know most won't and knew most wouldn't. It is written in the Bible. (Matthew 13:10-11)

[coachsparky]

I find it interesting that the only people who don't want this debate to happen are the atheists and scientists. Some have even resorted to name calling when they mention Ham. Why wouldn't you all be excited for the chance to have science just speak for itself? Why the name calling on Ham? Why the hesitation for the debate at all?

I don't doubt that Nye will thoroughly embarrass Ham, but I'd rather see a scientist from the field of biology...or no one at all since the creationist side isn't a real side.

So as a science type guy, you have already gone into this with a closed mind. That is what I find hilarious from every "scientist".

Per a scientist's philosophy, have an open mind! But I know most won't and knew most wouldn't. It is written in the Bible. (Matthew 13:10-11)

An open mind for what?  Ham will simply point to the writing of the Bible and claim it is God's word and cannot be wrong.  All, and I do mean every single bit of evidence, supports evolution.  There is nothing the supports a young Earth creationist claim except the Bible which is simply a book written by men.

[mspart]

I'm just getting so excited about this.  Bill Nye the science guy against Ken Hamm the Genesis guy!!  I won't be able to watch it but will be interested in the feedback here.  It will probably change the course of history.

mspart

[coachsparky]

I'm just getting so excited about this.  Bill Nye the science guy against Ken Hamm the Genesis guy!!  I won't be able to watch it but will be interested in the feedback here.  It will probably change the course of history.

mspart

Nice to see you have a sense of humor, most right wingers don't.

[SVV]

So as a science type guy, you have already gone into this with a closed mind. That is what I find hilarious from every "scientist".

Per a scientist's philosophy, have an open mind! But I know most won't and knew most wouldn't. It is written in the Bible. (Matthew 13:10-11)

This isn't a debatable topic, at least from the stance that Ham is going to take.  I know his take on this and he's absolutely wrong.  If he presented something new or interesting then I'd be more inclined to watch, but he won't.