Creationism Darwinism News

The End must be Nye if PZ Myers is weighing in …

Spread the love

 … on the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate (Ham on Nye) at the Creation Museum, February 4.

Some of us wonder if  pressure to cancel it will succeed.

Anyway, this from Myers, a.k.a. The Sage of Morris, Minnesota:

This debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye is a mistake. It’s a fundraiser for the Creation Museum.

Really? What an astonishing thought.

And Nye is getting nothing at all out of it himself? He needs a better manager. More from the Sage:

Bill Nye is going to debate Ken Ham. But he wouldn’t debate Aron Ra and me. I guess he was fishing for a bigger media bang for the buck.

Well goodness, can you blame Ham? The Sage speaks for himself so often it would be pointless to make a trip to hear him. And who’s ever heard of Aron Ra if they don’t hang out with new atheists?

And, the Sage on Nye’s CNN YouTube.

If I were making odds on this matchup, I’d say Nye’s chances just slipped a bit with that performance. My own personal bet would be that this is going to be an event in which both sides spend most of their time talking past each other, and that they’ll both flop hard except with their most fervent proponents.

I hope Eugenie Scott and Nye are having conversations right now. Serious conversations.

Okay we get it now.

Readers, was Nye really so bad in that CNN vid? Or are these people just trying to make him cancel the show? Mad maybe, because they weren’t asked? What you think?

See also: Scopes courthouse debate February 3 probably representative,

Follow UD News at Twitter!

18 Replies to “The End must be Nye if PZ Myers is weighing in …

  1. 1
    Frampton71 says:

    The fact that Nye referred to Ham as “this guy” tells you all you need to know. This is a sign of complete ignorance or complete disrespect. Either of which will prove lethal to Nye in a debate, much less both.

    My feeling is this debate will not happen, and if it does, it will be a big disappointment. Nye will likely come around and actually research the arguments that will be thrown at him, and realize he’s headed face first into a buzz saw.

    If he goes in with arrogant ignorance of the other side, there won’t be much debate on the science, it will be Nye ignoring Ham’s points, and arguing from authority. A bore for all involved.

    Every interview I’ve seen with Nye, he seems to have a complete lack of knowledge for the other side. There will be lots of references to a flat earth, and evolution being a theory like “gravity”. Yawn.

  2. 2
    Robert Byers says:

    for the record even the DECLINE TO ENGAGE is a media event and brings attention to YEC.
    these guys can’t win. We can’t fail.
    They are very afraid of YEC creationists before the public!!
    We must be that damn good! i thought we were too
    We can always say THEY IS AFRAID THEY IS!
    How bad could it be for a THEORY of science to be defended by a guy who had a show explaining sciency stuff?!!
    Would Nye be willing to debate forum writers HERE?
    Or how about Canadian posters after a few beers?
    Just trying to help here!!

  3. 3
    JGuy says:

    I kinda hope the audience isn’t stacked with creationists. Just for the sake that Nye wouldn’t be able to attribute his imminent loss to the audience being imbalanced. Of course, that excuse won’t replace the words that will be on record.

  4. 4

    It’s interesting how anyone can think that whatever Nye says can proscribe reality. It’s as silly as thinking that whatever Ham says would describe reality.

    What exists or what is fact or even what is the truth isn’t decide by who is the best debater.

    Reality is what remains when you close your eyes and remain quiet. Reality speaks for itself and we just have to watch and listen.

    The religious and ID alike focus on promoting their respective stories as stage productions but those will remain but amusing side-shows to the center-ring in which you’ll find the Greatest Show on Earth.

  5. 5
    JGuy says:

    LP.

    Did you mean describe where you wrote proscribe?

    By “the Greatest Show on Earth” are you using this in the way Dawkins does with his book including the same in the title?

  6. 6

    JGuy,

    proscribe is what I want; it means to forbid. Nothing science says forbids reality. Scientists describe what they see of reality. Take it or leave it but reality doesn’t change because you can’t debate.

    As for the Greatest Show on Earth hat tip ? Honestly what do you think ?

  7. 7
    julianbre says:

    Nye will be crushed by Ham! I would love to be at the debate.

  8. 8
    JGuy says:

    LP

    I had to ask about the use of the term proscribe. By the way, thanks for the definition, it match up to what I had previously found in the dictionary (a tool I use sometimes to look up the meanings of words). Anyway, I asked since it didn’t really make much sense – as I don’t see any discussion anywhere where people are saying or alluding to the idea that Nye’s words “forbid reality”. If you had said described that would have made sense in the ongoing context. And I assumed you made a typo since describe would have actually made sense. And since you followed it with a comment about Ham and “describing realty”.

    I’ll just leave that. Moving on..

    I thought you were referencing Dawkins book. I just preferred to hear it explicitly from you, since you would then be making an implicit assertion that Nye will be describing (same as Dawkins book) is realty… somewhat self-contradictory to your opinion of just closing one’s eyes and being quiet.

  9. 9
    JGuy says:

    edit: I thought you were referencing Dawkins book. I just preferred to hear it explicitly from you, since you would then be making an implicit assertion that Nye will be describing (same as Dawkins book) what is reality… somewhat self-contradictory to your opinion of only needing to just close one’s eyes and be quiet.

  10. 10

    JGuy,

    no, “describe” would not have made sense. That’s what Nye does today. I’m putting forward what Nye doesn’t do today and also putting forward what Ham doesn’t do today.If it doesn’t make sense to you then you haven’t considered the fact that these two people are on opposite sides of a debate.

    What I means by “Reality is what remains when you close your eyes and remain quiet. Reality speaks for itself and we just have to watch and listen.” is that you can go out and discover this for yourself.

  11. 11
    Box says:

    Lincoln Phipps: “Reality is what remains when you close your eyes and remain quiet. Reality speaks for itself and we just have to watch and listen.”

    When LP, closes his eyes, remains quiet and opens his senses, I must assume that he – being the new atheist he proclaims to be – reaches the conclusion:
    no consciousness worth mentioning, there is just empty space and particles in motion.

  12. 12
    Axel says:

    Spot on, Box.

  13. 13

    Box shows the nihilism that can happen to those whose diet consists of dogma.

    Box’s brutal reductionist view reduces people to just meat is the same as reducing art to just paint. Is it a lack of imagination or envy of skill to look at a box of paints and never see the potential of what they can be, of what great pictures can be created ?

    When box reduces people to chemicals then box doesn’t look at people and understand the potential of that person. Is it because box has a deterministic view that all that can be has been defined by a God before the person’s birth ? Does box view people as utterly corrupted from a fall ?

    We’ll probably never know for sure what fears drive box. Only box knows.

  14. 14
    Axel says:

    … and only poor old Phippsie knows what he’s gibbering about.

    Although, effectively factual, the import of Box’s point was ironical. I believe missing irony is not unknown among Americans, while others rejoice in it.

  15. 15
    Joe says:

    Lincon Phipps-

    We understand that it bothers you that you cannot support your position, but acting like a child is not going to help you make your case.

  16. 16
    Box says:

    @ Phipps,

    LP: Box shows the nihilism that can happen to those whose diet consists of dogma. Box’s brutal reductionist view reduces people to just meat (…)

    Wait a minute … you are the new atheist here. You are the nihilist who’s materialistic dogma reduces people to meat. Since isn’t it so that, like kindred spirits such as Dennett and Dawkins, you hold that consciousness is an illusion?

  17. 17
    lifepsy says:

    Has anyone here seen how AronRa attempts to defend Evolution? He just incessantly rattles off taxonomic classifications and his followers swoon thinking somewhere in all of it there is an argument being made.

    I think he actually believes that taxonomic classifications are real, tangible things, and not man-made constructs.

    At 1:40 in this video where AronRa is weighing in on the Ham-Nye debate, he appears to argue that Human-Ape common ancestry has been empirically proven because researchers decided to include both groups in the rank of Hominidae… How does one even respond to such strange logic?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRMmV-c2uDM

  18. 18
    Barb says:

    LP @ 4:

    Reality is what remains when you close your eyes and remain quiet. Reality speaks for itself and we just have to watch and listen.

    How do we watch reality if our eyes are closed?

Leave a Reply