Ken Ham is a putz.
So he’s the snake offering forbidden knowledge? 
He’s more slug-like.
Having seen the reviews, both here and on ARS Technica, I have to admit I no longer feel the need to watch the debate itself.
What irks me is the tendency for Christian debaters to invent distinctions which don’t exist and create accompanying terminology and then go on to build complex arguments and claims based upon those non-existent distinctions. Partial-birth abortion.1 Historical science.2 Macro-evolution.3
In the brief week that we discussed this kind of debate strategy in my Logic 101 course (before moving on to boolean and syllogistic logic) the professor called that a Straw Man argument: Rather than argue against the opponent (i.e. his valid point), you build a straw man that appears similar to the opponent (i.e. his valid point) and knock it down. Unsophisticated observers of the debate will believe you overcame the opponent (i.e. his valid point) when, in fact, you didn’t and never really tried.
Really? So why is it that Republicans in the United States claim to be The Traditional Family Values (i.e. pro-Christianity) Party yet they’re dead-set on destroying the nation-wide healthcare legislation and the supplemental food funding programs? And it’s not like they’ve been cattle-prodded into this position by the t party* and their delegates; the Republican party has been opposed to helping the downtrodden since the days of Reconstruction. Gee, if Jesus was preaching that ‘lets-all-be-nice-to-each-other’ ethos a couple millennia ago, that would make United States’ Republicans astoundingly hypocritical!
The time came, the time went, nobody was smitten by a bolt of lighting. I’ll take that as proof there’s nod God to hear our prayers.
The Ars Technica review had screen-shots of Nye demonstrating (with some beautifully easy-to-follow math) that growing from the thousands of Ark-types to the zillions of diversified examples we find around the world today would require daily births of dozens of new mutant subtypes – and with gestational periods typically lasting weeks to months for the larger animals, that would be impossible. And even if we’re talking miracles, the hypergrowth of a 1-day gestation-to-birth would basically kill most animal mothers by shredding the uterus from the inside out; an egg would basically explode.
Milk.
Dishwashing detergent.
One of those round things that sticks on the side of the trash can to hide the rotten mustard smell.
TOILET PAPER!!!
Red Leaf or Iceberg Lettuce
Careful, there! You’ve picked the wrong figurehead. Hitler was doing his thing in the name of Christianity, epitomizing the philosophy by showing how much he forgave the Jews who had hurt him and his fellow Germans. And he picked up the idea from the American (U.S.A.) eugenics movement which was supported by such notable Christian names as J.H. Kellogg (of cereal fame), Sylvester Graham (inventor of Graham Crackers), Alexander Graham Bell (of the telephone fame), and particularly California’s mandatory sterilization laws of the late 1930s. The extreme Christian view (fortunately it’s not dominant) is/was that anyone not Christian should be converted or wiped off the earth. That’s what Manifest Destiny was about.
—G!
1 No, there’s just abortion and it’s still legal in this country. Accept it!
2 No, there’s just science. It’s about the math, and math hasn’t changed since counting began.
3 No, there’s just evolution. It works in the present no differently than it worked in the past.
- Really, people. It’s not about the Asian leaves at the heart of the world’s first international drug war and imported to the Colonies by the victor. It’s about that lower-case t that good ol’ boys used to plant on a lawn and set aflame in the name of white protestant power. Their alleged focus on government spending is a poor camouflage for politicalization of racism. You know this because, at the end of the 2013 budget showdown, they claimed they had won even when the Republican party caved in. The only way they had won was in damaging the lives of [predominantly non-white] lower class constituents. They didn’t even pretend to claim that the founding fathers would have wanted that.
Nod God – he’s asleep when you need Him!
Oh my goodness, Blackburn is the congressperson who MOST makes my brain go explodey - mostly due to proximity (her district is next to mine). I can’t wait to watch but I’ll have to do it sitting on my hands so I don’t reflexively punch the TV.
I thought this was a good video response to how Ham tried to redefine what science is (saying that what he calls “historical science” is invalid because it can’t be directly observed). Ham then proceeds to use ‘historical science’ in support of his ideas about species variation:
On what nonsense DO they waste their time? 
“Creotard.” …my, that’s objective…I wonder if Mr. Nye coined that word or it was thought up by one of you geniuses on the SDMB.
I don’t know if “creotard” was inveted here but I’d buy a ticket to the debate just to see and hear Nye call Ham a creotard. Unfrotunately, that would never happen because Bill has too much class. I however, do not suffer from such virtue.
[Homer Simpson] “It’s funny because it’s true.”[/HS]
It is possible to be objective and disparaging at the same time.
It’s really unfortunate that certain Christians (and maybe some other religions) have wedded themselves so much to a literal reading of the Bible and that the Earth (and I guess the Universe?) is only 6,000 years old. It makes them ignorant of and hostile to science and hostile to other things like really loving and taking care of your neighbors, even if they’re gay or whatever. Their hostility to science has real world implications, including pushback on climate change (making it apparent their pushback on science isn’t just about evolution). They seem to forget (or want to gloss over) that given they’re likely reading the Bible in English, it has been translated a number of times over the centuries and they therefore are interpreting it. From what I understand, Hebrew doesn’t always have exact translations, so there has been many interpretations of the text through the numerous translations.
It’s also possible to be courteous. Why don’t you try that?
Are you suggesting that I personally am failing to be courteous in some specific way?
Regardless, courtesy is sometimes neither appropriate nor deserved. And sometimes it’s unnecessary. Whether this is one if those situations, I’ll leave open for discussion.
Out of your own mouth you condemn yourself. That’s not simply discourteous, it’s repulsive.
I would like to request that you show your work. In other words, I invite you to offer an argument. I assume that you are saying you disagree with something I have said. What exactly? And how?
dougie_monty, the merits of civility when debating contentious subject is a good topic and would merit a new thread. I would find it interesting.
In the confines of this thread, limiting your contributions to the tone and manner of the OP amounts to little more than ad hominem tut-tutting.
FWIW, the term “creotard” has been in use for a while, neither the OP or Bill Nye invented it.
Give me time. I have plenty of fish to fry today.
Unfortunately, the creationists seem to be winning. Just read in the Seattle Times this morning that something like 46 percent of Americans believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. A real testament to our education system.