• Easily. It Wasn't Even Close.

    Nye did an amazing job presenting the evidence for evolution in particular and science in general, while slipping Ham's attempts to box him in with endless logical fallacies and circular arguments. Nye kept his cool, and with grace and respect was even able to appeal to the moderately religious viewers, something the more aggressive atheists such as Dawkins, Harris, or Hirsi Ali don't make a habit of.

    Very well done! One for the books.

  • Nye takes it.

    Bill Nye successfully rebutted Ham's arguments and stayed consistent with the evidence. Acted calm during the debate.

    Ken Ham stayed strong and consistent with science in the beginning until he completely lost it with the Bible and young earth. Did not address Nye's arguments nor present the evidence against him.

  • Ken Ham did horrendous.

    I'm a Christian, and I do not shy from the fact Ken did horrendously in this debate. The whole "redefining of science," was a complete opinion battle. Ken did not show any 'observable' evidence of the earth's age such as tree girdling etc. Ken needed evidence from the layers and a counter argument for the Grand Canyon, perhaps even a glimpse at the ship found in Turkey.

  • Bill! Bill! Bill!

    Bill Nye presented his case in a consistent and clear way, unlike Ken Ham who was unable to prove his case or discredit Nye's case. I would recommend watching the video solely for a moment in Rebuttal where Ham begins to reference the Bible and Nye has the most hilarious "had enough of your crap" look. But objectively, Nye presented the better case and used evidence that is widely accepted as opposed to his counterpart.

    Subjectively, Props to Nye for playing the away game in the Creationist museum, it's always harder when the enemy is at home.

  • Nye failed me

    Nye did a few things wrong and I cannot forgive that, because he debated a guy that actually thought that all animals used to be vegetarians:

    He used to point out how this statement will be fatal for America. I am not American and I think that is the most riddiculous point ever, because it is not a point at all. Wheater some fact is good or bad for economy is not proofing the fact itself right or wrong. Nye should be ashamed to use that sort of "mental manipulation".

    He repeatedly did not answer Ken Hams questions just to repeat his US-propaganda-phrase. There were plenty, simple facts to use but he choose to be platonic and idiotic. Pure Darwinism is as outdated as the Genesis-word-by-word-interpretation. This should have been a central point for Nye.

    Instead both argued about old topics with old facts and I think this is less forgivable for the "Science" guy.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.