I might tune in briefly to see whether Ham stoops to using the Gish Gallop (Gish being a creationist).

Otherwise, it will be two men talking past each other because they don't speak the same language.

check it out, the audience will probably be stacked overwhelmingly with Ham followers, I can't find out who moderates At least it will be on line for me.

The discovery of Sumerian tablets of a description of a Round Ark thousands of years older than the bible has his group up in arms because their own pet project at their 'museum'

Details here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12291213

Bill Nye: Well, there are some obvious problems with the creation model of origins with regards to what we know from carbon dating, tectonics, genetics, and abiogenesis.

Ken Ham: Yeah, well, did you know Hitler liked Darwin?

Bill Nye: I don't think you understand the difference between Darwinism in the evolutionary sense and Social Darwinism and eugenics--

Ken Ham: You're a Nazi.

Bill Nye: That's completely unrelated and an ad hominem att--

Ken Ham: I hate your Nazi bow tie. Heil Darwin!

Bill Nye: *SNARK*

Creationists have spent over 40 years refining their tactics for such "debates".

They use the assumption that they're going to be doctrinaire bible-thumpers and intentionally go against it to help paint science as unreasonable and doctrinaire. They're almost always affable, witty, and are able to sound knowledgeable in a format that does not permit lengthy, detailed examination of claims. And this usually in front of an audience that does not have the depth of knowledge on the subject to assess the claims independently (and is usually a crowd friendly to the creationist).

These aren't really debates, they're marketing. There's no penalty for deceptiveness, sloppiness, or inaccuracy. All they want is the "win".

Nye will be trying to counter PR with facts. Good luck with that. IMO, he shouldn't have given them the platform.

The top panel is what the rest of us hear, with the word "Ginger" being what Hamm says, and everything else is what Nye says.

The bottom panel is how creationists perceive it.

It's theater, not intellectual. It gives Ham legitimacy he doesn't deserve. Instead of a debate, Nye should have used the challenge to publicly ridicule Ken Ham.

Ridicule is the only response.

They are always played outside of the rules of scientific evidence and scientific reasoning and thereby enable a number of forensic tropes.

Conjecture about things like a "cosmic designer" are argued as primae faciae acceptable competing alternatives, rather than both outside the realm of science and unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. The very existence of such conjectures within such false/scientifically unacceptable dichotomies becomes "proof" that alternate "reasonable" ideas exist and thereby that evolutionary theory has a viable competitor. The title of the upcoming debate indicates that this will be one of its major themes.

At the same time, variation in scientific interpretation in response to changing evidence about such things as the possible course of chemical/molecular evolution leading to protobionts is presented as proof of dissent and disagreement that discredits evolution on the whole within science.

Toss in a few anecdotes about error/biases of scientists (Haeckel's drawing of comparative ontogeny is popular here) or seemingly incongruous phenomena (older geologic strata on top of younger strata is a favorite) as general discrediting of all science and you have a 60-90 minute circus.

These debates never change anyone's mind.

Yet, post event polls of the masses who witness the event will show that within the witnesses there remains disagreement This will be proclaimed as evidence of decisive victory by the side arguing that creation remains a viable alternative.

After all, he has successful convinced thousands of people that the Flintstones was a documentary. This debate may be theater, but Bill Nye understands theater. After all he used theater to teach kids science with Bill Nye the Science guy. I don't know if it is wise for him to accept this debate, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Bill Nye is not a dummy.

Ham will bus in hundreds of true believers. Nye will be speaking to a crowd, none of whom will change their mind. But Ham will obtain legitimacy from the very fact that the debate happens.

Scientists don't debate the heliocentric solar system. They should not debate biology either.

If I were Nye I would have told Ham to shove it up his creationist ass.

including evolution, to create the world we now live in?

Or are those two sentences fundamentally the same?

Bryant

Man was created in "God's" image, not Cheeta's.

It also contradicts the literal interpretation of their Bible. Or rather, select people's literal interpretation of their Bible.

But if someone says that "I believe God used scientific means, including evolution, to create humanity" is that just another form of creationism?

Bryant

could accept evolution if it was couched within Creationism.

So yes, as soon as you put a god in front of ATI (all that is), you are talking about Creationism. Hmmm...that would mean that everybody not atheist is a Creationist.

If you meant Creationism as an alternative to Evolution, than not every believer is a Creationist. Because certainly there are believers who accept evolution and who don't want creationism taught in the schools (I'm one of them).

But in a broader sense of do you believe in a Creator - well, there are faiths that don't really address creation, they would be fine, but certainly Jews, Muslims and Christians do believe in a Creating God.

Bryant

One subset of Creationists cannot accept evolution, or much of science (although they're perfectly willing to accept science when it is convenient for them).

The other subset of Creationists can accept evolution and other scientific theories, models, etc., but believe that God still was the designer and creator of the universe and everything in it.

But everybody who believes in a Creator behind the universe, whether a creator who created everything in 7 earth days some 6,000 years ago or a creator who created in his/her own time frame by his/her methods, is essentially a creationist.

The precise and relevant difference is that creationism is at best, a philosophy, whilst evolution/astronomy is science.

Much as asking "what's the difference between Gravity and those who believe that the invisible hand of God smacks people down to earth where they belong." And while the second may or may not be true, it's not measurable, it's not observable, it's not testable-- hence, it's not science. Therefore, it has no place in either science or science classes.

It's fantasy.

A science vs science fiction debate would be rather interesting since a lot of good science fiction can be used as modeling for social, economical, military and other avenues in terms of how we'll interpret and handle things.

Placing creationism in the realm of science fiction is not the way to go.

From a commenter on another blog..

Science will always trump religion. Nye should have better things to do with his time.

Debate outcome is Ham declares victory, nothing he talks about will influence the science community.

It is hard to confront a huckster because he has that built in audience of believers that WANT to believe no matter what. He knows it and thrives on it. Ham is the FOX news of creationism. Just a guy selling lies to people that really want to be lied to.

Creationists are the equivalent to children putting their fingers in their ears and screaming as loud as they can.

It's a waste of Nye's time.

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.

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!

Ken Ham has nothing to say about evolution scientifically. His whole argument seems to be "religion is a science, therefore why not teach our religion?"

if you believe in the fantasy NOTHING will convince you or your followers to think any other way.

Christianity doesn't exactly reject scientific thought, but apparently some dumb people have decided to warp it in such a way.