Amazon.com Widgets

Did Bill Nye win the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate?

Asked by: Abraxzis
  • Bill Nye > Ken Ham

    Ken Ham based the majority of his "science" on the Bible, which is not evidence, but a claim. It's hilarious people put so much faith into something illogical. I'm not talking about folkloric Christians who know the Bible is inaccurate, but just uses its philosophical positive statements such as "Love thy neighbor as thyself" Also when Ken Ham said "Were you there!" I laughed at his sincerity of the question since he wasn't there for some mythological creation story that a Cannanite originating deity who was made monotheistic from a Midianite cult, created the earth in six days, and that women was made from a rib of a "divine paleo-human man" and they were disconnected from the "Creator" because they ate the fruit that God literally put there... Yeah makes so much logic and reasoning... Phew!

  • Bill Nye won outright

    Mr. Ham's arguments are ignoratio elenchi for the most part, and he presents barely any argument in affirming or negating the resolution. Mr. Nye's arguments, however, were represented with such clear articulation that it would be almost impossible to strawman his contentions. Mr. Ham's contention was based upon the axiomatic premise: were you there? Well, I could say with much confidence that I wasn't there during the Napoleonic Wars, but I know with much certainty that it happened.

  • Were you there?

    Ken Hams argument was based almost entirely on his "were you there?" argument. This ridiculously stupid, our entire crime system is based not only on eye witness testimony, but of evidence. Scientific evidence. If you honestly believe that Ken Ham had a convincing argument, then you must also fight to overturn 90% of the murder convictions is this country.

  • Ken Ham Won

    Ken Ham based his argument on the truth. Bill Nye based his arguments on philosophy, faith, and scientific hypothesis.
    Ken Ham called upon the only witness to the actual event. Bill Nye presupposes that nobody witnessed the original creation. To disprove Ken Ham, you have to prove God was not there. Bill Nye, nor can science prove that fact with 100% certainty.

  • In my opinion, it was a very foolish debate. It got nowhere.

    Both sides were ranting on the evidence they had and were using the evidence they had to contradict the other's. Bill Nye insisted science, and how the ark was created though no one has ever seen it's structure. All the Bible mentions is the dimensions and the space, nothing else. Ham insisted the Bible and allowed less and less room for science. Both men were freaking biased. It's just Nye waxed slightly more eloquent. Whoopedeedo. Erasmus and Luther seem similar, but Ken Ham doesn't fit the bill, in any way, for Luther.


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