People have a ulterior motives and hidden agendas. The people that enter this debate will all say their only interest is the children. They want the children to have a good science education or in the case of theists to get them eternal life. Because it's 'for the children' we're supposed to believe their motives are pure and unselfish.

But if peoples' beliefs and motives were so pure, certain things would flow from that. An atheist would fight to keep religion out of science class. A Christian wouldn't want evolution creating doubt that could lead to loss of salvation for the little ones.

But the real motive of those motive of atheists and theists that are OK with teaching evolution alongside creationism is just to get along. It's political. That is why it is so easy to poke holes in their arguments.

If someone really believes the bible, one should behave like Ken Ham. One can criticize his belief in the bible but not his anti-evolution teaching stance.

But when you're sick, do you want a doctor that 'cherry-picks' medical data to come up with a treatment or do you want a rigorous and consistent method of determining the truth of what is best for you?

I think 'cherry-picking' is the survival faculty at work. The political instinct of making allies and destroying adversaries all the while presenting your motives as altruistic.

When I worked for corporations, the supposed motivation of everyone was the company's bottom line. One always presents your agenda as increasing sales or reducing cost. But of course, everyone's real motive is personal survival. To move up the corporate ladder, to not be fired, to minimize work, to CYA. But one must play along with the game. So it is with life in general.

I don't think there can be many 'intellectually honest' debates because like you, nearly everyone buys into the delusion of unselfish motives. I don't think anyone is doing it 'for the children'.
Personally, I find this delusion more damaging than religion. I don't think there can be intellectual honesty until there is honesty about people's real agenda.

There really isn't anything inherently rational about being honest or anything irrational about lying. Indeed, I think a strong argument could be made that honesty is often irrational. 

I like the math after the flood

8 people, 4 women, 4 men, started to repopulate the world.

Those 4 women would need to push out a baby every 9 months until the day they died. Then accounting for the birth of male babies verses female babies, your cutting your birth potential and on top of that, having brothers impregnate their sisters, cousins and such. Not to forget mentioning birth defects, death at birth, etc. That alone makes it absolutely impossible to repopulate the world in 4,000 years.

That's kind of scary.

CSPAN aired the debate last night.

Oh but lets not call religion poison guys, it isn't like Ham isn't dumbing people down with his bullshit. Ham is doing the right thing. We all know science is Jesus based. Nye is such a prick for challenging such absurdities, why cant he just allow Ham to peddle his poison? DAMN YOU NYE!

Oh I get it, when you cuss you are on a Jihad. When you don't cuss no one ever takes even mere questioning as blasphemy.

As I have said and will continue to say, no one, no atheist or theist living in the west has any right to bitch about merely being offended. What offends me is when people are more concerned about being offended, than actuall oppressive laws, or physical violence, and even bad use of logic like what Ham peddles.

Ham is the asshole. He cares more about propping up a myth than actual science. It is like selling "Thor makes lightening" science ficition. To expect me to play nice with such crap is absurd.

Bill Nye's take on the debate: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bill_nyes_take_on_the_nye-ham_debate/

Now it seems Ken Ham is suing the state of Kentucky for not giving his theme park an a tax-incentive worth up to $18 million dollars.   (Apparently the junk bonds he was selling before didn't raise the necessary capital).  Ham does not accept that his for-profit organization is ineligible for tax incentives because it applies discrimination in its hiring -- all employess are required to sign a statement of faith.  

From Answers In Genesis' statement:

...the state was so insistent on treating our religious entity as a second-class citizen that we were simply left with no alternative but to proceed to court. This is the latest example of increasing government hostility towards religion in America, and it’s certainly among the most blatant.

This is good. A bureaucrat is doing his or her job correctly, and AIG is wasting millions of dollars failing to succeed in legally breaking the law. I like this a lot.

Lmfao! A for-profit religious entity? Okay Ken.

Sucks to suck, bro.

Oh yeah, cause the U.S. government is soooo hostile towards Christianity. And your business attempting to commit tax fraud speaks for all religion in the country.

Yeah.....no.

lol I was thinking the same... 

I'll betcha the bar tab that I could get enough quality bourbon in ya to make you change your mind.