http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2014/1/16/why-bill-nye-shouldn-t-debate-ken-ham#juvia-comments-box
Good comments if you scroll down…i.e.
I am a little more optimistic. Why? Because the debate topic is not about the viability or otherwise of evolution. It is 'Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific world?' If Ham attacks evolution Nye can and must remind him that Ham task is to demonstrate that 'creation' (presumably Ham YEC's dogma) is a model at all and, if so, that it is 'viable' TODAY ie scientifically viable. How can it be when YECs start with dogma NOT evidence, and they then pick and choose evidence and twist the meaning of evidence (and reject all scientific investigations of and conclusions about the past because, they ask, "were you there" - answer "no, only God was there and Genesis is therefore 'scientific')? Thus creationism is dogma and apologetics - and anti-scientific.
Meanwhile one of the other liars who works for Answers in Genesis (Georgia Purdom) has written as follows on her Facebook page:
"There have been a lot of articles responding to the upcoming Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate and I thought I would post just one example today. I had to kind of chuckle as I read this because the writer, although for the Nye side, has Nye losing the debate! Of course that's because he says Ken and, creationists in general, are dishonest. The majority of what I have seen against Ken and AiG are nothing more than ad hom attacks as usual. Please, please be praying for this event. That the truth of God's Word will be boldly proclaimed and many, many hearts will be softened for the Gospel.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2014/1/16/why-bill-nye-shouldn-t-debate-ken-ham"
= new reply since forum marked as read