BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!

Subject: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 01:13 PM

This Picture Has Creationists Terrified according to Mother Jones!

"This evening, Bill Nye the Science Guy will debate creationist leader Ken Ham at the Creation Museum in Kentucky."


I'm going to try to watch this. I hope that at least Steve Shaw, Musket, The Snail and pete do as well. I'm interested in reading their reviews.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:54 PM

Yes should be interesting. I don't know how extensive hams science background is, but he has been defending creation for a long time, and no doubt has come across mothers claim before. in fact I remember being challenged on this myself. needless to say ,I found the answer to it on CMI.
What struck me is that the fusion of telomeres was claimed as a prediction of evolution in 2005, but did,nt I read in the article that they had the data in the eighties?
which would be a postdiction.
and I shall be interested in reading your review, too
"...let not he who puts on his armour, boast as he who takes it off"

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:03 PM

You interpret this...

"The authors of the 1982 Science paper had no hesitancy in declaring that "the telomeric fusion of chromosomes 2p and 2q accounts for the reduction of the 24 pairs of chromosomes of the great apes to 23 in modern man." But they could not confirm this with the high-powered techniques of modern genetics."

as this....

What struck me is that the fusion of telomeres was claimed as a prediction of evolution in 2005, but did,nt I read in the article that they had the data in the eighties?


Read it again please.

I don't thing it is so much a "prediction of evolution" as an explanation of why we have fewer chromosomes than our cousins. What confuses me is how you seem to accept how closely related we are to apes while rejecting the scientific explanation of how that came to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:19 PM

This is unfortunate, and Bill Nye should know better. I'm a bit disappointed in him.

Agreeing to "debate" with these brain-dead idiots simply legitimizes their nonsensical claims as something worth debating, when in fact it is complete and utter bullshit.

Same thibng as "debating" with a Holocaust denier.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:25 PM

The word is tonight not tonite.

You'd think the moderators would correct typos in the same way they do when I tell it like it is...

100% agree with Greg. It only encourages weirdos.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:33 PM

usual scientific, follow the evidence wherever it leads impartiality from Gregg and musket.....not!
so it's ok for you to debate me.... but not Nye, ham!
maybe Nye thinks that with such international coverage, he can finally show creation science to be the nonsense you claim it is!

I wont see it tonight, as it will be in the night here. hope catch up later.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:40 PM

No, my delusional friend.

Reality shows creation to be the nonsense it is.

On a serious note , I enjoyed the Maori guide showing us around parts of New Zealand a few years ago. He was a nice rational person, and started every tourist speech with "we traditionally believe .."

I reckon if more people used that line , we may not need so many guns.

Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:54 PM

just looked up the fused telemore thing.
Kenneth brown reckoned only two options
ape/human fuse or.....
God deceiving us by making it look that way.
just demonstrates the power of the paradigm muddling an otherwise capable mind
3rd option...an early human fusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:05 PM

Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson can do the job. So what it if it appears to be grandstanding? It won't give any less legitimacy to science and it might actually introduce the bleary-eyed followers of creationists to the idea of what science really is. Truth as scientists (and much of the rest of the thinking world) knows it.

Through the "equal time" policy of many news stations (mostly television) the press has been giving great press to tiny players, treating them as equals in news debates because they think they have to always have the opposition there to argue the other side, even if the opposition they find is a puny lunatic fringe entity amounting to nothing. That single policy of "balance" has in fact created a great deal if imbalance. Go ahead, Bill Nye, shine your Fresnel light of science on the idiocy of creationism.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:37 PM

oops... make that miller not brown.
what you call a tiny lunatic fringe, stilly , makes up a sizeable proportion in the US, SO EQUAL COVER IS very reasonable.
I doubt it will be the demolition job, you expect, even if Nye seems to have an edge. but credit to both gents to engage in an open to the world media debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:55 PM

"3rd option...an early human fusing. "

What is wrong with you? Blasphemer! EARLY HUMAN? Is that before Adam? or After Adam? Was mankind a perfect creation in God's image or not?!

I'm sorry, I'm not letting you claim the Adam story and that there were developmental humans not related to apes and not involved in an evolutionary process.

Like all evidence that the world is more than 6,000 years it has to be the evidence that we see or "God made it look that way" those are the only two theories that fit the evidence. One of those theories in not scientific.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:55 PM

it might actually introduce the bleary-eyed followers of creationists to the idea of what science really is

NOT A FUCKIN' CHANCE

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 06:28 PM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

Gallup Poll from 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 07:27 PM

Duck Dynasty on tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 08:02 PM

The Flat Earth Society has an opinion, but they don't have facts. That's the difference. As Neil deGrasse Tyson has said, scientists don't go into your churches to tell you what to believe, and churches have no business in the classroom dictating how to teach science. It's totally illogical.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 09:10 PM

churches have no business in the classroom dictating how to teach science. It's totally illogical.

Not only illigical, its assinine & fuckwitted.

But then fundagelicals are by definition fuckwits.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 09:42 PM

Its OK! I'm safe! I can believe in Creationism but I am not required to murder my wife when she cooks me bacon because some parts of the Bible are science texts and others are "poetry" and Ken Ham gets to decide which is which!

Also I learned that some ice is 680,000 years old, a tree in Denmark has 10,000 rings and Bill Nye wants me to tell my representatives to fund science education.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jeri
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 10:20 PM

One side relies on evidence and logic and the other relies on "I believe this". So most people with brains will say Nye won and the other side will say they won because whatever they choose to believe must be true because somebody a long, long time ago said so.

I watched for a while. Although Nye said some interesting things, my ability to voluntarily tolerate willful stupidity just not what it was... and it never was very good.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 10:35 PM

Pete; Do you think that public opinion could change the law of gravity?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 12:08 AM

Actually, Nye made the public opinion arguments. He spoke of the billions of religious people who did not accept Ham's theory of creation.

Ham basically said, in a round about way, said that the old way to heaven was through Jesus and believing Genesis. He was making the argument that there was only two competing theories of creation, his and science's.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 05:40 AM

Creation? I can't adam-and-eve that theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 08:47 AM

Rhyming slang?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 10:50 AM

". . . a tree in Denmark has 10,000 rings . . .".

Why does that strike a bell in my memory?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 11:53 AM

Guest: BOOOOO!
(What a ding-dong!)

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 12:03 PM

Struck a chord?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 12:05 PM

". . . a tree in Denmark has 10,000 rings . . .".

Then again, the question may be, how many of them are from auto-dialers in telemarketer's boiler rooms?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 12:31 PM

Just a bit clappered, guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: SINSULL
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 02:27 PM

Did Ham really say that he accepts the Bible literally up to the flood? After that it's any man for himself?
I had hoped to get an understanding of how intelligent people accept the bible literally. I did not. I saw a lot of successful scientists claiming to be creationists but not going into detail.
A disappointment.
But I did learn that there are two sciences: one of observation and the other of history. You can't know history because you weren't there. Dare I ask - if no original texts of Genesis exist today and what we have has been repeatedly re-interpreted by the scribes who copied them (no one was in the Garden of Eden to write a history, I believe) then historical science doesn't exist.

Or have I overthought this?

As I said, I was hoping for more.

The most saddening/frightening moment for me occurred before the debate even began. A young boy of about 9 was with his mother eagerly anticipating the show. He was sure Ham would win the debate "because he is right".

Evolution is of course still a theory but one with confirming discoveries happening every day. So sad that that little one will never know.

There is a beautifully written book by David Quamman (sp?) called Song of the Dodo. It details the rise and sometimes fall of life on isolated islands.More proof of evolving species.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 03:04 PM

"But I did learn that there are two sciences: one of observation and the other of history. You can't know history because you weren't there. "

That was Ham's contention

"Dare I ask - if no original texts of Genesis exist today and what we have has been repeatedly re-interpreted by the scribes who copied them (no one was in the Garden of Eden to write a history, I believe) then historical science doesn't exist."

Nye addressed that point when he compared it to a game of telephone.

I think the most telling point was after Nye had gone into me detail that the ice core in Antarctica had 680,000 layers representing at least that many thaws and freezes (Summers and winters.), that Ham ignored that at the time but later said "there was a lot of snow that year." As if that explained the 680,000 layers.

Ham did nothing other than try to sew doubt. His theory is not viable because it is nothing but a bait and switch to his version of Jesus. One clever thing he did do was incorporate many of the criticisms of what he does into his criticisms of Nye.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 07:33 PM

*sigh* I wish someone... someday... would take a philosopher of logic to a debate like that. I also wish they'd subject a guy like Ham to a Socratic dialogue and ask him carefully phrased questions about the levels of his belief and defenses for each level.

"So, Mr. Ham, how DO you determine the origins of the Bible and its authenticity and accuracy without circular reasoning?"

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 08:03 PM

I'd be happy to settle for him being reminded to answer the questions asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 08:50 PM

'"So, Mr. Ham, how DO you determine the origins of the Bible and its authenticity and accuracy without circular reasoning?"'

That's three questions and a loaded condition, figuratively speaking of course :-).

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 01:32 PM

"*sigh* I wish someone... someday... would take a philosopher of logic to a debate like that."

Daniel Dennett has been giving talks & writing some "dense" books - as in they go pretty deep into logic, philosphy and science- you might want to look into them.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 02:06 PM

lost my last post....
saw it last night. generally respectful though Nye did employ some dubious ploys, like firing off so many challenges that would take far too long to address all in limited rebuttal time.
but at least he got more bottle than dawkins, who wont debate an equally qualified creationist, and criticizes Nye for doing so.
as expected responses from most of you, but at least lesser prejudiced joe public can see through the ...no such thing as a creation believing scientist, and they only use the bible for their science....Darwinist dogma soundbites.

presumably stim the answer is yes, since you evidently think the law of biogenesis is decided by majority opinion .

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 02:30 PM

" like firing off so many challenges that would take far too long to address all in limited rebuttal time."

I'm sorry pete. I didn't see Ham proper address one of Nye's points with anything more substantial than questions and evasions.

Nye offered science. Ham offered "faith" and evasion. If the Bible is your "scientific" proof and some of the Bible is not scientific proof which Ham readily admitted. Who gets to choose exactly which passages to ignore?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 04:49 PM

I wonder what is actually gained from two people debating from two extremely polarized perspectives - with little possibility of either learning much from each other (as with open minded viewers). Rather than a possibility of any gains, I suspect it was more or less designed to entertain. SMACKDOWN may be an appropriate entertainment word to describe it :)

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 05:08 PM

I suspect it only changed the minds of those who weren't convinced already.

I can't take the flat earthers seriously, and I can't take creationism seriously. I don't think arguing with them is anything but frustrating since the science-minded look to empirical data and logic and the followers of creationism look to "I read it somewhere I like, so it must be true". Scientists can change their minds when confronted with new evidence. Creationists can't, because if anything new conflicts with anything already existing, they focus on finding a way to make the evidence fit the dogma.

So I don't think it's worth arguing about. Bill Nye, however, is primarily an educator. That's how I see him, anyway. So he'd make sense to people who haven't closed their minds.

And as for creationist "scientists", you can't be a scientist and completely ignore science.

I'm not saying the people who believe this can't be good folks--I believe Pete is. But I also think that if we were somewhere playing music, this is a subject I would try hard to avoid.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 05:32 PM

SINS: David Quammen

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 06:33 PM

Both Nye and ham increased their audiences, I think. A recent poll suggested that 92% thought that Bill won the debate. So if you think of the two hours as a one hour commercial for science education and a one hour pitch for unwavering, unquestioning belief, there was a purpose.

Nye looked out into the camera about 4 times and asked for the increased support of science education. If he had to buy that many eyeballs in an ad campaign it would cost millions. Then there are the interviews for the publicity campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 08:01 PM

From your post, Should one detect you already have your mind made up and are convinced about a few things, Jeri?
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 08:50 PM

People like David Quammen and John McPhee write about natural history in a way that is engaging and extremely thought provoking. But being a writer and having the time to think, write, and edit, versus being an onscreen person and being able to think fast on your feet is a real gift. I've heard (and spoken with) Quammen on a local radio program a couple of times, he's very good. But the only other person I can think of who might take out Ham with a one-two punch is Tyson (Neil, not Michael).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 10:38 PM

I was about to post a quick remark about someone I used to know who could give a good response... then I decided to look him up and WOW! He's already been involved! (I was in several of his classes in college)

Dr. Gerald Paske is quoted in a Creation.com article about how to reconcile & interpret the different points of view! (scroll down a ways... but read the article, too)

Dr Paske reflects MY opinion that one cannot adequately defend one position if they cannot accurately explain their opponent's!


Dr. Paske also wrote why_the_fundamentalist_right_is_so_fundamentally_wrong/ *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 11:07 PM

its on Amazon.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 04:24 AM

pete. What in pete's sake is an equally qualified creationist ?

The reason Prof Dawkins doesn't debate with one is that one hasn't evolved sufficiently yet. So he has to make do with people steeped in theology, Archbishops of Canterbury etc.

If you want someone equally qualified as a creationist for a debate, may I suggest my mate. He reckons the moon landings didn't happen and that Princess Di was killed off. He'd be able to debate at the right level.

In the meantime, I haven't seem my pet greyhound for two weeks and am looking forward to chewing the fat with him on Saturday night over wine / water and supper / gravy bones.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Stu
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 08:43 AM

saw it last night. generally respectful though Nye did employ some dubious ploys,

Well, Ham's use of some research, namely the observing of evolution in E. coli has provoked a robust response from one the scientists who actually did (and are doing) the work. In fact, in this article Zack Blount says Ham and his 'expert witness' were unfamiliar with the research and had not even read the paper Blount and colleagues had published. From a creationist this is expected (as Pete shows, his opinions are based on what other say on CMI, no a critical appraisal of the evidence), of the scientist involved it's plain unscientific and unethical for him to comment in a public forum as a supposed 'expert'. Blount suggests the wording used is "a lie".

Blount's article is here: http://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/zachary-blount-on-ham-on-nye-

Pretty strong stuff. The thing is, Ham shows a distinct lack of moral integrity in this debate by deliberately misrepresenting the honest, unglamorous hard work of a team of scientists. He twists their results and gives false witness, as so many creationists do to the work of so many. Surely this goes against the most fundamental tenets of their faith? Have they zero integrity?

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 08:57 AM

For anyone who can think critically, Nye was the clear winner.

For everyone else, it was Ham.

He was by far the more polished debater, more relaxed, and seemingly more confident. He didn't need to joke about his bowtie. All he had to do to keep up appearances was to repeat, "I don't know, I wasn't there," implying "Neither were you, so how do you know?" When Nye asked how Noah and his family could have built a huge seaworthy Ark by themselves and kept 14,000 animals (Ham's figure) afloat for a year, Ham said "I don't know, I wasn't there." Of course, he could have said, "Because God gave them the ability," but he didn't. That would have been a little too obviously ad hoc.

Nye accused him of invoking "magic." But instead of showing that he wasn't, Ham ignored the charge. Obviously it didn't deserve a reply. (Just ignoring a serious charge is Trick Number One in any debater's book, and many people are impressed!)

Just how Ham's repeated confessions of complete ignorance could be taken as a defense of his position is beyond me, but that was his main strategy. Then he explained that he *did* know what happened in the past, because Genesis explains it, and if you add up the ages of the patriarchs plus 2014, you get a little over 6000 years for the age of the Earth. Which brings us back to the circular argument commented on above.

What's more, the resolution that "Creationism is a viable explanation..." set the bar far too low. How many viewers know exactly what "viable" means? If (as many think) it simply means "possible," then Ham wins immediately: of course Creationism is "possible" - if you assume, as does Ham, that anything inconsistent with Genesis is wrong! The resolution should have been "Creationism is the best explanation..." or "Creationism is a better explanation than Darwinism."

But even Ham acknowledges that he believes in evolution. Nye looked surprised when Ham said "of course" plants and animals evolve - but never into new species. (None of the finches Darwin found had evolved into, say, eagles.)

Even that admission would have been unthinkable years ago, but it lets Creationists say that the claim they *don't* believe in evolution is a "secularist" smear.

I don't have the time or energy to analyze it all, but Ham looked better and sounded better. And in the Entertainment Age, isn't that what really counts?

C'mon, you know it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 08:57 AM

BBC reporting 2,000,000 year old footprints found in The UK.

Meanwhile some bible society is moaning in The Independent that children and their parents don't know bible stories. They say we are preventing children getting a good start in life.

Mine never had bible stories but had read most of Tolkien by their teens and Harry Potter books were on shopping lists by then too.

The difference being no stupid fool was trying to tell them they were real. Even Santa and the tooth fairy buggered off by puberty. Bible stories are fascinating in abstract but have dangerous people promoting them who want to fuck with your mind. Hence they were off my reading list for the boys. At his wedding my eldest told those present their mother and I had taught him how to think, not what to think.

Nice to get something right.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:36 AM

Ed T, it doesn't take much to figure that out, does it?
There are so many different creation stories, but they're stories. Find someone who takes the Christian one literally, and I think they'll be a Christian. That's what "belief" is. Don't need testing, don't need curiosity and questioning, don't need to ever revise theories, don't need to ever think you don't have access to all the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:57 AM

Good point about Blount Stu. Then there was the "working" astronomy on Mr Ham's payroll who said that there was no astronomical evidence inconsistent with creationism. I guess he is right if you don't count pretty much everything discovered since Einstein was a patent clerk.

Subject: RE: BS: Nye v Ham SMACKDOWN!!!! Tonite!!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 10:13 AM

For anyone who can think critically, Nye was the clear winner.

Should read for anyone that can think. Period. Full stop.