Ham seems to be bringing forth an argument that the world is only as old as it looks to lay person. He is backing it up with scientists who agree with his world view, essentially using their degrees as making his ideas more credible. He is also trying to show show that the words of science have been co-opted by another religion, that of atheists. Ken Ham is a smooth speaker and presents these ideas using easy language and simple words. He does not need to explain anything in detail because the level of knowledge he is using is at a low level.
Nye is using the argument that the world is a lot older than 6000 years old. He is doing this by giving examples of things that are observably older than the Biblical flood which supposedly wiped everything out. He is using science to explain things, but the problem is that he is trying to condense and simplify the science that is complex and takes many years to understand into simple phrases in a limited period of time. As such he is skipping over some of the details, even some of the connections to why what he is talking about is relevant to his argument. He is stammering while he is speaking, which makes his arguments appear confused.
Right now in the middle of the debate they have opened up their positions and the trues debate is yet to begin, but it seemed to be Ken's argument to lose. I would point out that Bill Nye's arguments so far are good, but he needed more time to put them forward. It seems that as always, it is easier to make outrageous claims and it is difficult to refute them, even if they are easily refutable.
The second half of the debate took a different direction, after they had made their arguments in the first half against or for their side, this next section was to refute the others ideas. Ken Ham was still polished and Bill Nye was still choppy, but less so as he was more able to speak on what he was passionate about.
Most of this was centered on what was right and what was wrong. Ken Ham knew what Bill Nye was going to focus on, the geological age of the earth as brought to us by radiometric dating, so he launched into a prepared counter argument that included slides and reports from various creationist scientists explaining that the science of radiometric dating was bogus and unreliable. His evidence was incredible, actually uncredible, but since there was no way to do any fact checking on the spot, had to be taken as fact. I could take the time, I could pause the debate and check it out. Ken Ham presented petrified wood found encased in basalt rock. He suggested that the basalt poured over the trees and this was the result. But that does not fit the evidence, primarily the radiometric data, the lava was 30 million years old and the wood was 45 thousand years old. Secondly if the formed at the same time, as Ken Ham was suggesting, the lava, which would have been 2100°C at the time would have melted steel and burned any wood that was present. Instead the creationist geologist found wood particles in basalt. A much more likely situation would be that tree roots grew in cracks in basalt.
The third section of the debate, the last quarter of the debate, was a question and answer session. Members of the audience submitted questions at the start of the debate and they were segregated into Ken Ham and Bill Nye questions, each directed question was followed by a two minute response and a one minute counter response. Each participant was alternately asked questions. And very few questions were answered as the questioner put e question. The style of the debate did not allow any chance to rebut any false information after the rebuttal.
At one point Ken Ham was asked to give evidence that the world is only six thousand years old, without the bible as a source, he ducked the question for the full two minutes, but when Bill Nye got his minute rebuttal, he did not point out that Ken had ducked the question, that other than the Bible, he has nothing. Shortly after that, Bill Nye was asked other than radiometrics, what proof did he have that the world was 4.5 billion year old. Bill dropped the ball, he stated that the proof of radiometrics was all that's he needed. Near the end he talked about the search for the age of the Earth, but it was too late and the argument was weak. He should have said that the science of radiometrics is strong and points to a Earth 4.5 billion years old, but there is proof for a slightly younger Earth, but one that is much older than the Young Earth Creationists Earth age, the speed of genetic mutation in mitochondrial DNA, plate tectonics, complexity of life and the order of life in the fossil column (if not exact age, then comparison there of), and others. In Ken Ham's rebuttal he states that there are no rocks on Earth that are 4.5 billion years old, and the only evidence is from space. So does not mean the earth is that old. That sort of thinking is erroneous and disingenuous as well. First, radiometric processes work on the Earth and off the Earth the same way, they are not affected by location, radioactive decay is inherent feature of materials. Two, Ken Ham adding that tidbit of information was suggesting his argument was wrong, creationists believe the entire universe was created ate the time the world was created, in fact they believe that the Earth was created before e universe. Three, there are rocks in Australia and Canada that are from close to that time period. They are zirconiums with Uranium 235 inside them. Zirconiums are minerals that incapsulate other minerals and are not porous, so what is in them cannot get out. This means the uranium decays and the daughter minerals have to stay right beside them. Uranium 235 has a half life of about 4.5 billion years, and almost half the uranium is still there along with its daughter material.
So who one the debate?
That really depends on which side you were on to begin with. Really. You see partisan politics is rife everywhere. Who had the best arguments? Who was the best speaker? Who used the pulpit the the greatest effect?
I am a ardent Rationalist and an Atheist; I have enough of a science background to battle creationists and where I lack, I can root out and find the counter arguments on the Internet. But Ken Ham won, for a number of reasons. 1. The style of debate was in his favour, quick assertions of ideas, with little in the way of scientific fact. 2. He has a practiced speech with nice easy flow; he is clearly a professional speaker. Where Bill Nye is not and his speech was choppy and incoherent. 3. He spoke to his audience, and his audience is not scientifically literate. They don't understand complex things and they don't want to. They want people to tell them it is not necessary to know this stuff because it is all wrong. They are intellectually lazy. And let me say that there is nothing wrong with that— NO, there is something wrong with that, because it means that they are predisposed to not thinking, that are letting someone else do their thinking and thus, someone else can manipulate them and they will never know.
But then I don't think Bill Nye really cared if he won or not. This is not me saying that because, "I think Bill won because I support science"; I don't think he cared because he knew that he was losing the debate by just having it, but he was using it as an opportunity to reach an audience that he would never have access to. People who are closed minded towards science would never listen to his point of view, but if he were debating a creationist, he gets those people to watch him. Bill Nye, the science guy, was using the platform to address an issue that is affecting his world: the dumbing down of society and the lack of scientific innovation. Bill points out that it was scientific innovation that drove America to the top of the world's economy, but America's lack of scientific innovation in the present, was dragging America down. He used the platform to plea for the watchers to get government to increase science funding and research funding, about three times. He used the platform to point out that the venue state had know center of scientific knowledge. He pleaded with the viewing audience on at least two occasions to go out and learn science, for patriotic reasons and for economic reasons.
Now for what the podcasts have said about the debates, most I bet would say that Bill Nye won, but that is because people are so partisan these days.
Surprise, SGU said that if you thought Nye would have won before you listened to the debate, he won, but if you thought Ham would win before you entered the debate, then he won. They agreed with my analysis of the debate, with different details. They did not come to the same conclusion as to why Nye entered the contest, they had no conclusion that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment