This will be your chance to discuss the debate as it happens. At the time I'm posting this the debate will start soon. Here is a link to where you can see it. Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham
There have been some issues raised about Nye taking on this debate. Feel free to express your views on that point as well.
Ken Ham referenced a man who help sequence the human genome as an atheist scientist. Funny thing about that is the Human Genome project wouldn't have been completed without the practical application of the theory of evolution.
Bill Nye has all the facts on his side, but he is in an arena where facts don't matter. That could throw his game off. Ken Han is an experienced debater and has the home field advantage. Bill is walking into this with an automatic disadvantage.
So far it seem Ken's tactic I to just wheel out a string of scientists in an attempt to legitimize creationism. I think it's important to note how many of these scientists are actually biologists.
Remember you wouldn't go to a foot doctor for a tooth ache.
Definitely. Han has that "arena" bought out and he distributed the tickets himself to those who would be supportive to his cause. So Bill Nye will pretty much have zero support, unless there are audience members incognito to throw Han off his biased game.
I know this specifically because Nemo talked to me about it Lol He might come on once he knows this thread was made.
Bill Nye pointing out CSI was a good start for the argument Ken is using about "historical science". Investigating crime scenes is about trying to reconstruct a past event. The process a forensics scientist would use is the same as what we would use to evaluate the past.
I like his cherry picking of the scientists...and the one who was like "there is nothing in astronomy that disagrees with recent creation" even though there is like EVERYTHING in astronomy that disagrees with it!
Love his "we didn't see it form, therefore creationism is viable" argument
And vaccines...answering that question for Bill Nye
My question for Ham on the point that evolution can happen but they can't turn into other radically different species would be what stops the process?
If you can accept that that a species can change, and they can even become a different species, what is putting the breaks on that process keeping a species from continuing to change to the point where it couldn't visually be recognized as as ever being related?
