Naturally, Ken Ham and other creationists have never used disparaging language in describing their opponents. They are unfailingly polite and courteous when attempting to take the US science curriculum back to the Dark Ages.
Who said THAT?? 
Ken Ham, for one.
Merely quoting from the Times column. And, of course, you must remember the Bishop Ussher, using calculations based on the Bible, deduced that the earth was created*** at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC***. So this means that the earth is precisely 6017 years and 85 days old (as of nightfall today). You’d probably be amazed at how many folks devoutly believe this. According to the Times article, at least 46% of them do.
And dinosaurs and humans coexisted for quite a while. You could have your own T Rex for a pet.
Actually, one of the things that make the whole Noah’s Ark thing sort of puzzling, is how two kangaroo’s, after debarking from the Ark, managed to find their way from a mountain in Turkey all the way to Australia safely, and didn’t leave any progeny anywhere else on the way. I wonder how long it took them for the journey? They must have been hellacious swimmers.
Why pick on Kangaroos? Kangaroos can cover large distances and swim well. I’m not suggesting the issue you raise isn’t real, but there are even more convincing examples. What about some little snail found only in Tasmania?
There are something like four times as many churches in the US as schools.
So? What does this prove other than that the US has diversity of religious practice?
I don’t consider Ussher’s calculations to be accurate.
Or maybe the same people who gathered up the animals returned them to where they picked them up, eh wot? 
Good point. It’s absolute batshit crazy to think Noah left his dry docked boat to travel every backwater crevice of the world to gather all of them together then distributed them after. I wonder how many lifetimes such a thing would take? Not that it matters as creationists can solve any conundrum with God poofed it so. How do you argue logic with someone who believes in poofing? Need to bridge a gap in reasoning? Poof it! Still, I respect the effort Nye put forth. I don’t respect the poofing tards because it’s lazy intellect to fill gaps with poofs. I suppose in the interest of civility one could refrain from calling them pooftards even though they so obviously are but why do so here where folks actually adhere to reason?
I just noticed my name precludes entry into this discussion. I’m automaticly suspect. Sorry.
You are a fountain of straight lines. 
I would want to know the actual specific questions to the poll and the actual answers that were available. The media does not always have a good track record for reporting the various opinion polls accurately, at least some of them. In regards to this type of poll, there’s a difference between believing God created the Universe and Earth but also believing science and that the Earth is several billions of years old and the Universe older, and God created it in 6 days thus the Earth is only 6,000 years old. The first believes in a general view of God without taking the Bible literally and have no problem with evolution or other parts of science; the second of course are the Young Earth creationists and Intelligent Design folks who want to push their religious views into science classes and degrade evolution and other science that they don’t agree with because it contradicts the Bible.
You have avoided the challenge of explaining why Ken Ham’s views of 6,000 year old earth deserve to be treated with respect.
Avoid personal attacks (take 'em to the Pit if you can’t contain yourself) and stay on topic, everyone.
Thanks,
twicks
All right, I’ll take up the challenge here and now.
You will, I assume, grant that the Bible is a condensed account. (Just as well, considering that in English it contains about 750,000 words!)
The creation of the earth is recounted in Verse 1. The preparation of it as an inhabitable, and inhabited, planet, begins in Verse 3. I submit that there is a time element here, and the events of Verse 1 need not be construed as restricted to beginning no earlier than 6000 years ago.
So you’re saying you’re fine with seeing the Earth as billions of years old while still believing in the essence of the Bible? A lot of Christians who aren’t literalists feel comfortable with that. How does that translate to Ken Hamm deserving respect for believing the Earth is only 6,000 years old just because he believes the Bible says that?
BTW, the Bible doesn’t explicitly say the Earth is 6,000 years old; the age had to be inferred from the various genealogies in the Bible, so pretty much interpreted.
It shows that our educational system isn’t what’s producing this nonsense. (And indirectly that this idea that secularists are taking over and there’s no place to get religious indoctrination any more is ridiculous).
As an aside, though, it really doesn’t show that the US has a diversity of religious practice, unless by “diversity” you mean “different kinds of Christians.” Non-Christian places of worship are a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of churches, about 12,000 out of almost 400,000.
You realize this has no additional substance to it than Ham’s argument, right? You haven’t provided anything to rebut other than a ‘guess’ that some ‘time element’ exists between 1 and 3 - you haven’t defined what that “time element” was - a “microsecond” is a “time element” as much as a “billion quadrillion years” is.
Yup. I’m a bit disappointed that Nye didn’t take the opportunity (I think he had three) to slam that easy lob. The final chance was one of the last questions: “What is the basis of your belief?” Ham’s response was basically “Gospel”. Nye did a great thing by asking for the question to be asked again, and I thought he’d respond with a simple: “The EVIDENCE” and give it a good long pause, and then maybe saying, “Because, if it’s not about the evidence, it’s not science, and science is what we’re discussing today.” PERIOD. Sigh … opportunity lost.
Yeah, I questioned the wisdom of the setup here, but it turned out very well, and I have to give Nye credit. I thought he missed some great chances for excellent and succinct replies, but he still did way better than I’d ever be able to do.
As a friend of mine I was just discussing this with said, scientists tend to be people who sit alone for long hours pondering each step carefully, and don’t tend to be the type who does well in a debate. He has a point. But Nye isn’t a scientist as much as an apologist for science (for which I applaud him). Still, he’s not the greatest debator of our age. I’d like to see Bill Clinton well-prepped to handle it!
The link Patty O’Furniture posted and I quoted below is an excellent response to this. However, it behooves us to acknowledge that evolution is indeed a historical science (in addition to, rather than as opposed to, an observational science.)
I wish Nye had taken the many chances to ask whether, due to the limits of “historical science”, we can use any observation today to say anything about yesterday (or prehistory). If the answer is no, then we’re clearly not talking about science. If the evidence doesn’t matter, it’s not science, and shouldn’t be taught in science class.
Right – he refuses to accept that he gets hoist on his own petard (just as anyone who discredits reasoning based on reason being impaired after the Fall.)
One of his best moments. I also liked the snow layers and tree rings. Too bad he didn’t remember those when asked if there was other evidence for the age of the Earth (other than radio-dating)
Agreed.
I think you’re mistaken on that. Ham said that Darwin claimed 5 races, and quoted an early 20th century textbook in an absurd claim, and then said that the Bible says there’s but one race.
Yeah, no kidding. I found that a bit ironic! And SCIENTIFIC! lol
That’s a great link, and for those of us who care about science, it’s a perfect rebuttal to Ham’s central point, and the only one that saved him from complete slaughter because Nye didn’t quite manage to answer it.
In any case, I was heartened by a good honest debate where the participants showed respect and followed the rules and got a chance to make their arguments, with an audience that acted with equal maturity. God Bless 'em all!