Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

I think the important thing to understnad is who Bill says he does it for in that video. It is not about the adult Creationists that will attend the debate, nor is about the adult science lovers, who already agree with evolution and scientific discovery. Rather, to him, the education of children, especially those dwelling under ignorant teachings, is the most important aspect.I think he knows that he won't turn any of the ardent creationists away from their beliefs, but he may implant a kernel of knowledge into some of the young people who are brought along with their parents. Now, even though their parents' tried to stop them from receiving an education, they are going to know that there is a different view and that this different view can explain a lot more of the evidence. Plus, if he can make it somewhat fun from his side, these kids may use YouTube to find his episodes of his show, which are all available on YouTube and can continue to educate.

While I do not think that debate will have any effect on the hardcore Creationists (Indeed, already individuals who were older in the audience have claimed they were more strongly in belief of the Bible even though the evidence says otherwise), I think that Bill Nye may have achieved the purpose he set out to do. Funny enough, I think he used a version of the Gish Gallop against Ken Ham throughout the debate. Instead of pointless facts that need to be refuted, Bill Nye simply kept throwing out relevant evidence that has to be discounted in order to accept the creation model.Ken Ham was left with no time to answer the multiple lines of evidence and had to fall back on "I trust in God" and "All the facts were already given to us in the Bible". Plus, his admittion that nothing evidence wise was enough to change his viewpoint, versus Bill Nye's show me evidence and I will change my views right away, showed the fact that creationists will refuse evidence bluntly if it contradicts their beliefs, thus there is no chance to predict any future outcomes.The best thing I think that came out of this debate were the facts that Bill Nye kept giving, which I believe achieved his purpose of planting a seed of doubt for those who were on the fence in regards to creation, especially the younger generation. Also, he did it with his normal sense of whimsy and humor, something that the younger generation (at least for me when I was younger) can connect to more readily. I think that Bill benefitted from looking at this not as a college level debate, nor a high school level debate, but rather as a debate against someone denying items in elementary school science. In other words, science that can be witnessed and how it can be applied to previous situations. Offering the option of trusting Ken Ham's views or the evidence you can replicate with your own eyes could drive some individuals to question why they must deny, as Ham even put it, observational science.All in all, I will say Bill Nye won, but Ken Ham did offer some decent points early in the debate until he began having to simply fall back on because that's the way God said.ABE - Oh! And definitely agree that Bill missed an excellent opportunity to point out the misuse of carbon dating on the piece of wood in the 60 million year old rock from Australia. Ken Ham even blatantly said, "They tested the basalt with K-AR dating and the wood with Carbon dating." It would have been simple for Bill to point out that of course Carbon dating showed a younger age because it is only accurate up to so long ago before the carbon in the sample cannot be distinguished from background. Oh well, I will give Bill this mistake because it has be refuted a thousand times.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

No...get this portion correct. Creationists have a human written and translated witness to the unseen past, whereas scientists have the what is written into nature itself. Only one is lying and my guess would not be the evidence. It's not a war of interpretations, creationists have incorrect interpretations becuse they force themselves into these very constraints you mention. Scientists, on the other hand, are unconstrained and must go where the evidence points. Neither is proven, which you are correct on, it's just that one area (science) has loads of evidence and does not discount any of it when formulating theories while the other (Creationism) is forced by its constrained worldview to discount evidence that does not agree.This was even shown in the debate by Ham stating that nothing would change his mind, while Bill said simply that evidence would do so for him. I will give you that creationist scientists can do actual science and have done so in the past. The funny thing is that these discoveries aren't based on the ever-changing model of science that is required for creationism, but rather on the hard, testable sciences based on the physical laws of nature. There is no difference between historical science and observational science, this is simply a red herring made up by the creation movement to confuse the believers into denying that which they could observe for themselves. All science is testable, even the long age of the Earth, it is tested by disproving that which does not work, such as a young Earth.Example: You know there must be a past, correct? There is no guarantee that it is any length in time, I claim it began last Thursday. You return this with, well I have a receipt for an item purchased on January 7th. Now, I am forced to retreat further back to stating that it was actually the Thursday before the 7th of January. We continue to gather evidence that forces my beliefs on when the past began further back, we are testing a longer past through the disproving of a short one.This is similar to what the original individuals calculating the age of the Earth went through, albeit on a much smaller scale. They started with an age of 6,000 years, just as you did but the evidence forced them to consistently push this further and further back. You are now left with, as Bill Nye put it, an extraordinary claim because the evidence all points a different way (unless you posit changing laws of nature which would also require extraordinary evidence). And as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Yet, creationists simply say, "The Bible" (Such as Ken Ham did all night), as their extraordinary evidence. This is not sufficient to deny the reality and evidence we can witness with our own eyes, which is why Bill Nye asked individuals to actually look at their world, which would be a powerful motivator against creationism.Ken Ham's description required, as shown by Bill during the debate, an enormous adjustment to the laws of nature, such as 11 new species every day to equal that which is extant (33 new according to Ham's revised "Kinds" list), 170 summer-winter cycles each year to account for snow-ice patterns, and for the trees about three growth rings per year, plus surviving underwater....Where is the evidence of these changing laws, outside of just assuming God told us right? Whereas, science has evidence of the laws of nature staying constant, so much so that they are able to make predicitions about theories such as where individual species may turn up (Tiktaalik), how radioactivity will work (smoke detectors/Nuclear fission), or how long sediments take to lay down and become lithified and the process that occurs (Reading the rocks and anticipating future findings). Even the creationist scientists have to use these natural laws when they are actually doing science, instead of just trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the other believers to keep them deluded. Wrong! Science also explains ALL the evidence, something that creation science is woefully unprepared to tackle. Again, this was shown in last night's debate by Ken Ham simply repeating his "I trust in God and he said it is this way" argument. If science isn't sure about something yet, no answer is shoehorned in, but rather it is determined more information is required and the current answer is we do not know. It is not a matter of interpretation until your creation scientists can show how the natural laws were adjusted and how no human being was able to notice any of these extreme patterns of natural activity that changed pace throughout a communicative period of human existence. Why did no human notice these new species that had to be popping up all over the place to make the flood work? I agree that a large flood could lead to a mass burial and future fossilization.... for your flood, of course, removing the fact that fossilization takes a very long time according to the processes (current evidence) we now have. Yet, it cannot arrange the organization of those fossils and you must deny this portion of the evidence, an example of evidence creationism forces you to ignore unless you create a new hydrological method of sorting items. You have yet to answer why the large animals are not at the bottom, followed on up until you reach the tiny multicellular creatures. This is how water sorts objects and the size of the flood would not change this one bit. The onus is on you show a mechanism that would create a new hydrological sorting system. Until you can do so, this is merely an assertion supported with no evidence, thus not science.On a side note, did anyone else notice that individuals who side with Answers in Genesis still asked the stupid question about the Second Law of Thermodynamics to Bill Nye during the QandA section, even though even AiG says not to use that argument! Come on, people. At least come up with a consistent story between one another before trotting your ridiculous ideas out in front of the public. Scientists tend to come to similar conclusions as one another because of the whole repeatable requirement they operate under, something creationism avoids by claiming God's miracles are a one time thing. I can make up magic stuff too, it is just not nearly as satisfying as an accurate picture of things around me.

Then, back to the question of why has no one...in recorded history....pointed out these multiplying species? According to the flood model you would have 11 new species every day, all starting from the same geographical location (Mt. Ararat) throughout the entireity of human civilization(post-flood), where are the recorded mentions of this? Of course, now you'll say that it was commonplace so no one remarked on it, but com'n stop with your special pleading. Your method is not science because it refuses to predict future results, does not accept all the evidence, and showhorns in a placeholder for things we don't understand.Your boy Ken Ham did the exact same thing you are doing throughout the debate and ignored evidence without trying to give a different explanation outside of "God tells me it's this way, so that's how it is." If you want a magic man in the sky who can change the laws of nature and have animals evolve at a rate that is completely unfathomable to modern evolutionary thinking, and a canyon carved by magic water that sorts items differently than every other example of water we have plus can carve an enormous canyon in ways that have never been observed then feel free to believe that and teach it within your church. But don't, for one second, consider it science because it spits in the face of everything that science is and that is pure disrespect for the individuals who have chosen honesty over blantant falsehoods and completed their jobs regardless of their beliefs. Enjoy your magic solutions, I'll trust in evidence.

They do this science based upon the known laws of nature and the ideal that these laws will act nearly identical no matter the circumstances, not on creationist hokum. Or, such as the astronomer he showed, they must posit a lying deity that would create light already in motion otherwise there is no way billions of stars should be visible to us.

Starting from the 7,000 kinds originally posited by Ken Ham, to get to the current number of species in the world from the ark, 4,500 years ago, these species would need to be micro-evolving at the rate of 11 new species every single day. Now Ham is claiming kinds only total 1,000, which brings the number of species every day up to 33 new species. How have no humans, who also would have started from the Ark landing spot same as the animals, seen these species multiplying and evolving at the rate required for your scenario. You claim Bill Nye made points that did not affect anything, but these directly shows the ludicrous insertions into known mechanisms that creationist must go through, completely on the base of zero evidence (during a time when humans could write, too). Simply Amazing!

That is exactly what we would expect to find! A form of critter between the supposed ancestral "kind" of feline and the various types of felines that currently exist. These intermediary forms should be between the Middle East (Supposed Ark landing point) and the region where the feline type (Lion, Tiger, Panther, etc...) currently lives. You claim there is no way to tell what cats were like on the ark, but because the flood killed almost all animals in your scenario, wouldn't any felines fossilized in the Strata (formed by the flood in your viewpoint) point a marker toward the original cat "kind"? We should especially see the intermediaries between these large cats and the future domesticated feline and this should appear not in the strata, because the flood already laid it down, but in the same area where we find human remains, in the sediments that have not had time to lithify. He is saying in the recent past (the same sediments we find modern humans in) we do not find evidence of transitionals between an ancestral "kind" and the modern form of felines. Rather, we continuously see modern forms in these same areas as modern humans. In the case of civilization, yes like today's housecats. In the wild, we see the forms of lions, tigers, cheetahs in the recent past, but no connections between these cats are included in the recent past. Now Coyote has left the field of archaeology and is entering into paleontogy. Archaeology deals primarily with the search for human remains, artifacts and civilizations while paleontology is the field that enters the strata to find ancient biological life of all types. The main area that archaologists explore has to do with human origins. Coyote is discussing that paleontologists, when looking through the strata do see these transitional forms between modern animals (cats, lions, etc..) and more ancient forms. However, these findings do not help your scenario because these ancient creatures are buried in what you would call pre-flood or during the flood catastrophes. None of the animals in the strata would be available to "micro-evolve" into something else, on the account of being dead in your scenario. Noah would have taken one pair (or seven, not sure on the clean animal rules here), and it should be represented by some fossil cat buried in the flood, say.....something like this Scientists discovered the oldest cat fossilThis would be a good idea for something that would have led to all other forms of feline in your scenario. Here is the problem though, in recent digs into the more recent past, where human ancestors are found, these cats (and transitionals to the modern forms) are not found. This would be required for your scenario.Finally, I saw that you have shrunk the evolution to modern forms from "kinds" down to approximately 1,000 years in your estimate. So, figuring this out similarly to how Bill Nye did, this would mean that your 7,000 "kinds" would have to turn into approximately 44 Brand-new species per day!!! That is still an amazing thing to witness and any human alive would be writing about it and would have been fascinated by the abundance of new creatures every day! Also, as per your question on this yes Bill did include insects in his count because insects are animals...Coyote, if I got anything wrong, please feel free to correct me on it. Thanks!

Not exactly sure why you were very impressed with Ken Ham's debating style in this one. He was forced to the position of admitting that he had no evidence but that he trusts the bible, which instantly removes creationism from any discussion of being in the classroom, which was his goal. The only "evidence" he was able to come with was him pointing out that some creationists have done science and if some can then so can everyone. The problem being that these individuals, while they may believe this stuff, did not invent their products based on creationist principles, but on scientific knowledge. In other words, to make their inventions or discoveries they had to rely on things the scientific community had already agreed on. Outside of this, Ken Ham had nothing substantial to add and his entire portion of the debate sounded like a child whining, "But, I want to be included too!" It was left unanswered because it is a BS excuse that has no bearing on the actual world of science. Bill chose to recite the facts that we know and how they do not align with creationist thinking in any way, in fact they go completely against it. And he made sure to reiterate that this is evidence that anyone can gather and bring their own intellect to witness the evidence that exists. Even many of the creation websites are saying Bill won this debate, which was quite a surprise to me. That's because you are used to little piddling creationist crowds, which are a minority because of their massive lack of evidence. It was not Ken Ham, creationism, the Creation Museum, or any other outside factor that got 1,000,000 people to watch a debate. It was Bill Nye and the massive force that he has become using social media and his place as head of the planetary society to drum up the media hype for this event. Bill has quite a few followers, especially among people like me who grew up watching his show in every science class from 6th grade through early High School. So, there is another thing you can thank Bill Nye, the science defender, for. Giving your's and Ken Ham's theory a chance to be heard and laughed at by a million people.

First off, DWise was accusing Ken Ham of lying, which he made a point to do within the debate, and it was a moment where Bill Nye could have slammed into him for it and Bill missed it. The example I speak of was when Mr. Ham discussed the fact that a portion of the strata was dated to a long age (can't remember exactly what it was, pretty sure millions of years) by one form of radiometric dating (I believe Uranium/Thorium dating) and a piece of wood in the rock was Carbon dated to 45,000 years. Well, Mr. Ham was lying with a lie of omission. He failed to mention 45,000 years is near the end of the accuracy of Carbon dating and items over this date come back with simply a >45,000 years. Bill could have called him out on this lie on stage, but missed the opportunity. And Dwise is asking how you can defend someone who blatantly lied like that for Jesus?As for calling his behavior low....first, you misinterpreted what he said, second telling someone they are lying when they are (Ken Ham, not you) is not low, it is called honesty. If I tell you you are lying to yourself about real world evidence to prop up your belief, I am not stooping to low shots. I am giving you my honest opinion about the situation. Plus, with the behavior you have displayed in this forum since your joining, you have no right to request anything of anyone in regards to etiquette. I am still wondering if you even watched the debate? From all of your posts, it seems like you watched a portion, perhaps Ken Ham's first thirty minutes, and then declared victory without even listening to what Bill had to say. Asking you to use evidence from the debate to defend your statements is an acceptable request to make and should be complied with, otherwise it simply shows that you have no leg to stand on for your opinion. I watched the debate twice now, yet still don't understand what you think were good points made by Ken Ham, because I did not see any good points that he made throughout the entire thing.....twice! So, please point me to the direction where I can find these wonderful comments. If all you are saying is that his point that the words science and evolution have been conflated, then I have to disagree that he adequately defended this point. Rather, he made an assertion that he could not defend and simply continued to restate. He could never point to a difference between observational and historical science, because all science is required to be based on observation...even those that deal with historical facts..