Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There are quite a few reviews and editorials about the Ken Ham and Bill "I Played a Scientist On TV" Nye debate, so I am going to keep my remarks brief. No need for a full analysis, others are doing that rather well. Evolutionists and atheists are claiming victory. Creationists are doing the same, but are divided. Some of us (yes, us ) are not claiming it to be a "slam dunk". In an earlier interview , I stated that I expected Ken Ham to win the debate. I was right. Sort of. There were qualifiers, that Ham had to keep Nye on topic and watch out for logical fallacies. Nye did not disappoint, indulging in prejudicial conjecture (such as saying that the Bible is wrong, it can't happen, what about this that and the other, but didn't bother to do research on the topics, just made assertions), straw man arguments, elephant hurling (Nye was asking Ham numerous questions, but the format did not allow for proper responses), subtle ad ho

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen First of all, I'll allow that I'm biased regarding Bill Nye the Scientism Guy (like so), because of his atheistic anti-creation activism, abuse of logic, and militant advocacy for his version of global climate change. Even so, I shall endeavor to be as objective as I can in this article about the unofficial "second debate" between Nye and Ken Ham at the Ark Encounter [ 1 ]. I was annoyed while watching it, and one time, a Nye fallacy actually made me LOL. A bit of background is in order. Bill Nye made vituperous attacks on creationism, and against Answers in Genesis in particular. Two AiG scientists challenged him to a debate [ 2 ], especially Dr. Georgia Purdom. He ignored them. Is it because "the Science Guy" is not an actual scientist? He earned a Bachelor of Science, but went no further in his formal education. [ 3 ] Eventually, the formal Ham-Nye debate was established [ 4 ]. I wrote an article about it, which included several

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Atheists are in a tizzy over the debate, and have launched into damage control mode. Their assertions and accusations are amusing as well as defamatory and libelous. The big debate between creation science apologist Ken Ham and Bill "I Play a Scientist on TV" Nye is schedule to take place on February 4, 2014 at 7 PM Eastern Time.  Excuses are already being offered. One is that Bill Nye is naïve and going against an expert charlatan , so he doesn't stand a chance. Richard Dawkins thinks this debate is a bad idea as well . Various articles, comments and so on around the Web are polarized. Some say that Nye will make Ham crumble to scientific facts (news flash: assertions are not "facts", Skippy). P.Z. Myers seems to agree .  Humanists are saying it's a good thing for similar reasons , that "science" will win over Ham's faith-based assertions, which is more prejudicial conjecture (and there is a false claim in the p

So, Bill Nye wrote a book. Ken Ham, his debate opponent on February 4, 2014, has authored, co-authored and edited dozens of books. Ham writes a lot, nobody bats an eye. Nye writes one book, and everyone loses their minds . The difference is that Nye is a celebrity propagandist for evolution, which he equivocates with "science", and Ham teaches biblical creation science — which is considered "cool" to bash nowadays. Wikimedia Commons / Ed Schipul  ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) Bill Nye apparently can't stand Ken Ham. In interviews and things, he refers to Ham as "that guy" . The question has been raised that if Nye trounced Ham in the debate like his fans claim, why doesn't he promote the video, which is available to watch free online? Perhaps it's because he misrepresented many things and told several untruths. Or maybe because the debate format itself was appallingly bad. Even so, Ken Ham's not afraid or ashamed of the debate. I had to edit i

As most of you probably know, evolution cheerleader Bill Nye let fly with an anti-creationist video that got him into trouble with creationists. Ken Ham, Dr. Georgia Purdom and Answers in Genesis issued a debate challenge , followed by an additional challenge . Modified from Clker An update in Ken Ham's October 25,2012 Weblog has additional information: A number of people have asked Answers in Genesis if we would be open to the possibility of debating the TV personality known as “Bill Nye the Science Guy” (of PBS TV and the Disney Channel)—after Nye’s harsh anti-creationist video went viral on YouTube.  At last count, over 4.8 million people have watched him make a number of misrepresentations about the creationist position. We posted our own rebuttals to YouTube (“ Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children ” and “ Ken Ham Responds to Bill Nye ‘The Humanist Guy’ ”). We did publicly challenge Bill Nye to a debate on my blog, but we have also made a

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen   This may come as a shock to anti-creationists, but Bill Nye is not a threat to the Bible or biblical creation science. He thinks he's on a crusade for "science", and so do many of his fans. If those things he opposed were actually wrong, and if Nye was capable of understanding science and logic in the first place, then he might make some valid points. His cheering section frequently shows disunderstanding of science, logic, philosophy, and more, so they are enablers that encourage his bad behavior. I'm on record for saying that in the big debate with Ken Ham that he used terrible logic . But that's okay for people who want to defend "science" (that is, equivocating "evolution" with "science") from the big, bad creationists who want people to use critical thinking and actually examine the evidence. (Rabid evolutionists tell you what to think, many creationists like me want to tell you how to think.)

Remember the February 4, 2014 debate between Ken Ham and Bill "I'm not a scientist, but I played one on TV" Nye? You know, the debate that Ham is encouraging people to watch, and it can be seen for free here , but Nye doesn't talk about? Strange, evolutionists and atheists were claiming victory. Actually, Nye used numerous logical fallacies as well as thinly-veiled personal attacks , and his supporters ( such as this one ) tend to use fallacies as well. Recently, I was contacted by Michael Boehm of " Youth Apologetics Training ", and have been listening to his podcasts. (Don't be ruffled by the "youth" part, this isn't kid stuff and adults like the podcasts, too.) He covers many topics. I was pleasantly surprised to find that he interviewed Ian Juby of "Genesis Week" , and I regret not knowing about both Michael's work and this interview long ago. Sorry about the picture, I couldn't get a more recent picture of Ian J

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Let it be known that I am challenging Dr. James White to a formal debate. The topic will be the validity of debating, and I will be taking the position that they are worthless. Hold on a moment while he stops laughing at how the "debate" was over before it began because I refuted myself.  Dr. White has done a passel of formal and other kinds of debates on various topics with many people, and I've learned a great deal about the debate process itself. (Want to see him in action? Here's the a debate with Dan "Don't Quote From My Books Even Though They're For Sale in the Foyer" Barker .) Dr. White has discussed the debates on " The Dividing Line ", and that's good and bad. Good because he is giving helpful information, and bad because I cannot give chapter and verse on where he said something I'd like to quote (unless I'm taking notes like I did here ), but taking notes is usually too impractical. I thou

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The creation-evolution controversy has been kicking up dust like a cavalry charge out on the plains. There's a great deal of noise, and all the dust makes it hard to see what's really going on. Atheists and anti-creationists use the confusion to try to sway people to their way of thinking. Much of this involves manipulation of emotions with name calling (labeling), blatant misrepresentation and outright falsehoods about what creationists actually believe and teach, and presenting bad evolutionary "science" as facts. The whole thing has been intensifying , which can be seen after the Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate on February 4, 2014, where Nye used bad science, dreadful logic, and sneaky debate tactics — much to the delight of his adoring fans. The orig ins controversy is not restricted to academic interests. There are people who will insist that their leftist, materialist worldview is the only one that is rational, and if someone is running