Heads Up! Tonight!

February 04, 2014 By: Juanita Jean Category: Uncategorized

People who believe in gravity even if it’s only a theory will want to be aware that religion has issued a challenge to science and you have a front row seat right here at The Creation Museum.

A debate between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Ken Ham the And Then Eve Gave Adam An Apple Guy will be shown on the internet machine starting at 7:00 tonight Eastern Time.  That’s 6:00 normal people time.

Screen Shot 2014-02-04 at 9.36.09 AM

They promise it will be available on You Tube after the debate but warn …

Yes, the live stream is really 100% FREE of charge on debatelive.org as well as Google+ Hangouts On Air powered by YouTube, and will be available to re-watch on our YouTube channel immediately following the debate. (We are unsure how many days following the event the video will remain available on YouTube to re-watch.)

Well, isn’t that special?  I know things on YouTube that have been there 6 years.  Some maybe longer, but I know of some 6 year old ones personally.

I suspect how long it remains online depend on how much Bill Nye wins.  Wink.  Wink.

Join in and see it happen live!

Thanks to Mark for the heads up.

Be Sociable, Share!

27 Comments to “Heads Up! Tonight!”

  1. AlanInAustin says:

    CORRECTION: 7PM ET is **6PM** CT.

  2. Polite Kool Marxist says:

    Power of prayer versus gravity. Let Ken Ham pray, while Bill Nye suspends a Bible over his head and drops it. Taking bets on the outcome ….

  3. Juanita Jean says:

    Thank you, Alan in Austin, I corrected it before MY science teacher called.

  4. Hams only responses will be “uh-uh” and “cause I said so…”

  5. I love Bill Nye. Next I would like to see Neil Degrasse Tyson explain to Bill O’Reilly about how the tides work.

  6. No, this is not going to be Evolution v. Creationism. This is going to be Bill Nye reporting facts while Ken Ham ducks, dodges, throws up straw men of “controversy” and plays the because-God-says-so card non-stop. Nye shouldn’t even be doing this. It’s going to be exactly like trying to debate politics or economics with a Teabagger: the wall of ignorance is impenetrable. (Though in Ham’s case, I suspect it’s as much personal meal-ticket blather as committed belief.)

  7. Don A in Pennsyltucky says:

    About 35 years ago, I had the opportunity to witness what was billed as a debate between a geneticist on the faculty of the Anthropology Dept and a creationist dude who was the pastor of the First Church of Some Cow-Forsaken Hole-in-the-Wall in Colorado. I strongly suspect that this one will follow the same script which features the Scientist talking about Science and the Religionist distorting selected cherry-picked paragraphs from various scholarly journals. All things considered, I’ll probably find a wall, paint it, and watch the paint dry because it will be a more productive use of my time.

  8. Ralph Wiggam says:

    This will not be a debate, it will be beating a dead horse.

    But it may be more entertaining than a recent lopsided football game.

  9. I don’t think this was a good choice on Nye’s part. Especially since it’s on Hamm’s home turf. No one who believes in creationism is going to have a change of heart. They can’t, because they need to twist the facts to fit their particular religious belief system. If you believe every word of the Bible is literally the word of God, then nothing anyone says is going to affect you. This country is doomed to fall further and further behind in science as we return to the thinking of the Dark Ages. Sad….

  10. Braxton Braggart says:

    I’m with TTPT; I don’t see this accomplishing anything. Scientific reality, like historical reality, isn’t decided by popularity polls or who scores the most zingers in a televised debate. And lord knows, Ken Ham can word-vomit more nonsense in 30 seconds than a rational, carefully-laid-out rebuttal can clean up in 30 minutes. I wish Bill Nye all the best, but more important, I kind of wish he wouldn’t at all.

  11. daChipster says:

    Can’t we just watch Inherit the Wind?

    Seriously, however, I get the arguments that this debate is a lose-lose for Nye, but durnitall! he’s RIGHT! We’ve GOT to take the fight to these guys the way they did in Tennessee almost a hundred years ago. You can’t just wave them away dismissively and go on about the business of being educated. Because this type of anti-science know-nothingness is FESTERING in the shadows and sewers, and dragging innocent kids into its clutches, like in Stephen King’s It.

    The only way to kill these evil clowns is to drag them into the sunlight and LAUGH at them.

    We have got to start fighting back. It’s not about religion, because there are plenty of different ways that religion looks at this argument, but only one way that science does… the SCIENTIFIC way.

  12. Way to go, Chipster! I agree.

  13. W. C. Peterson says:

    I would expect a “Gish Gallop” from Ham, and quiet, rational logic from Nye. It was the same debate tactic Romney used in the first presidential debate. If Nye isn’t on his toes — really on his toes — the Creationists will call the debate for Ham.

  14. The creationist is gonna spin the loss any which way he pleases.

    Go, Science guy!

  15. Wyatt_Earl says:

    700 tickets to the event sold out in 2 minutes. Ham’s folks bought’em all. Expect Bill Nye to have a hostile audience.

  16. Oy, JJ! What the gohmert is with the crack about 7 PM Eastern time being “6 PM normal people time”? What the gohmert have we got over here– two heads? Please don’t follow the GOP line of thinking that those of us in the east aren’t “normal” or “real” Americans!!!

    I enjoy laughing at your jokes, but that ain’t one. Thank you.

    As for this “debate”, I’m afraid it’s going to end up as usual– about like trying to debate the loony who says that dinosaur fossils were put here by Satan to deceive us. There’s no way to debate that. When one side accepts reality and the other starts out by denying it, you can’t have a rational discussion by definition.

  17. Science needs to be defined at the git-go. Along with other hot-button words.
    IMO, science is not meant to prove or disprove the existence of God. Should it lead to that, fine. If not, fine.
    Nye should ask, “Are the laws of nature immutable?” If yes, when and how did they change with what kind of evidentiary support? If not, the laws have indicated that the universe in nearly 14 billion years old and the earth about 4-5 billion years old. Therefore, if the universe were created 6-10,000 years ago per the creationists’ claim with these laws of nature indices showing otherwise, can the conclusion be drawn that God is a joker, a deceiver; what is his purpose?
    Is the literalcy of the Bible the problem or moreso our interpretation? I’ve heard that there are about 40,000 different Christian denominations and several dozen different Bibles that have evolved since the early days of Christianity. Why isn’t every Christian then on the same page, same hymnal?
    Seems like the Socratic method by Nye would be more effective in dealing with prejudiced, biased, agenda-ized minds aiming for the more rational audience.

  18. We’ll be having something like that here in Houston. We have one Dr. Hugh Ross, Christian apologist and creationist (and unfortunately, a real Ph.D. in astrophysics) who is going to be having a ‘debate’ on God vs. Science. I feel like going to this just to have a good long laugh at the sheer stupidity that has to go into believing in creationism, be it short term or long term.

  19. This d bate might hold some amusement value. However I stand with gravity (so to speak). Gravity’s not just a good idea any more, it’s the Law.

  20. Marge Wood says:

    There’s nothing wrong with creationism as long as you don’t call it science. THAT’s where the problem comes. Creationism was a good way to explain how the earth began to preliterate people. Hmm. Maybe we are evolving back to preliterate people. Pick which color button you want to press to make something happen….

  21. Michael O'Hara says:

    Was Ham wearing Chris Christie’s suit?
    MR. NYE hit it out of the park!

  22. Karen Spalding says:

    I watched the debate. Nye did a great job. After hearing Ham redefine the word “science,” and after listening to Ham explain his model, I am now more convinced that ever that creationism has NO place in a public school curriculum under any category of studies. It is Evangelical Christian teaching plain and simple. They should feel free to teach their children this stuff at “their” Sunday School, but if teaching this is not a violation of religious freedoms then nothing is. This is not what I was taught in Sunday School, this is not what my children were taught in Sunday School, and it should not be what my grandchildren are taught in Sunday School or in Public School.

  23. Marcia in CO says:

    I’m kind of a mind that, first we were created.
    And then, second, we evolved.
    That way the belief of either “theory” is incorporated into one end solution.
    I believe in the Bible and believe it is the Truth and I don’t try to twist it around to suit only my understanding of it and I don’t try to force others to believe the way I do. I rather take umbrage to those who think I am stupid because of the way I believe.

  24. daChipster says:

    I like the Vatican’s stance on this: Evolution? Absolutely! Earth? Ancient! First Bang? BIG! But what came before that, hmmm? In Catholic high school we learned the teleological and ontological proofs of God’s existence in theology including the Uncaused Cause. We also learned everything after that is science.