Talk:Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

smithsonian EL[edit]

See basically done discussion here Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Signs of Bias?[edit]

It is interesting that the sources about 'winner' of the debate mostly reflect the opinion of groups that oppose young earth creationism and would thus have a cause for bias against Ken Ham. Although it is possible that Nye truly had the upper-hand, it would be beneficial to include more arguments and opinions coming from the YEC side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.178.138 (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it is part of the topic, we can quote some notable apologetics. However, for Wikipedia, science uses higher standards, with YEC being considered fringe (as it is to any geologist or biologist), and subjects like Flood Geology are considered pseudo-science. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fringe_theories_and_pseudoscience for more details. There even are involved discretionary sanctions (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience). Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR 04:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
That being said, for the audience at the Creation Museum their champion (and winner) was Ken Ham: they were told things they believed or strengthened their beliefs, so obviously they thought that it was a debate between a godly viewpoint and a a satanic one. So, the winner is in the eye of the beholder. It can be said, though, that from the standpoint of scientific objectivity Nye was the winner. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)