The Entire Bill Nye/Ken Ham Evolution/Creation Debate

February 5, 2014

bill-nye-ken-ham-evolution-young-earth-debate.jpg

This is a 2-hour 45-minute Youtube video (watch the whole thing and it'll almost be time to leave for the day!) of the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate on evolution vs young earth creation. Who won? Nobody -- nobody won. Zero opinions were changed, just as I expected. You have to indoctrinate the youth!

"Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era," Ham said, according to the Associated Press. "I believe the word 'science' has been high-jacked by secularists."


"I just want to remind us all there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious, who get enriched by the wonderful sense of community by their religion," Nye said. "But these same people do not embrace the extraordinary view that the Earth is somehow only 6,000 years old.

"If we continue to eschew science... we are not going to move forward," he added. "We will not embrace natural laws. We will not make discoveries. We will not invent and innovate and stay ahead."

Listen, all I want to know is why the person who edited the video left 15-minutes of countdown to the debate on the front end of the clip. I didn't even make it to the actual debate. Eight minutes of watching the countdown and I bailed. I might pick up where I left off tonight, but I don't know if I have another seven minutes in me. "Why don't you just skip ahead?" Huh? "Just skip to the debate." What do you mean? "YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH THE COUNTDOWN." You're not changing my opinion.

Keep going for the video.

Thanks to me, for remembering to do a follow-up because I have an impeccable memory and...something else I was going to say.

  • Deksam

    Heres a thought: If God can make everything he can change anything, then he can surely change the length of a second of time, simply by changing the effect of gravity to a greater weight. Gravity is produced by electrons spinning faster then the speed of light in every atom, [we can't see this because all we have as a measuring stick is only the speed of light] thus the high speed electrons create a vortex of time in each atom, the bigger mass of atoms the more time is being pulled into it, explaining gravity. Speed up that atom faster and it creates even more gravity also speeding up time. The flood happened as a change of gravity and time, making huge animals now too heavy to walk and die or later drown when all water molecules suddenly became too heavy to be suspended in the atmosphere. [so before the flood it had never rained, later a lot of the water settled into the deepest recesses of the earth]

    So what may have happened is before the flood a second took more time to do as todays concept of a second does. Like a record, if you will, being played extra slow, so that whole record of history could be 6000 years till today, But who knows how slow the record was being played before the flood, millions of years by todays concept of time maybe?...??? Just thinking outside the box =)

  • Thor

    As I scientist I would like to point out that nothing in science is ever PROVEN WRONG OR RIGHT. It is all support. Some things are supported more that other, some less, some gain support, and some lose support. It is all statistics. Religious people seem to quite often not understand this. For example, when the word theory is uttered religious people immediately associated the word with the idea of weakness. Although, the very word itself implies the power of the word. A theory is not a hypothesis. It is the idea of a collection of hypothesis' with positive support, found through years of rigorous scientific testing, all supporting/explaining a common scientific phenomena. The point of science is not to say right or wrong, but to find support. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. If you do not understand this concept please look it up.

  • Magnus Canis

    You sound an awful like those crazy religious folks that can't process an argument. Try this on I stated it before,

    The Discovery of Vulcan by La Verrier
    Spontaneous Generation by Aristotle
    Expanding Earth by Darwin
    Phlogiston Theory by Becher
    Martian Canals by Giovanni
    Luminiferous Asther by Michelson
    Blank Slate by a bunch of people
    Phrenology as a whole
    Einstein’s Static Universe (obvious)
    Fleischmann and Pon’s Cold Fusion

    All Theories that have been proven wrong.

  • Monochromatyczny Wojownik

    Well, I am little shocked that Americans have such taliban'esque problems. I am from a backwater eastern block country, and here almost noone believes in such religious bullshit, and it would NEVER pass in schools. How it is that USA is considered the most 'developed country' ?!?

  • Magnus Canis

    Because we understand that everyone has a right, not just the select few. Freedom comes with understanding and acceptance.

  • Monochromatyczny Wojownik

    Seriously? So what will you be teaching kids next, that the earth is flat? Or its a giant turtle! If you dont stop this madness, you will became a third world country all by yourselfs! Cant you see your own downfall?

  • Truthfull

    Saddest thing is why do they both believe in either or. Darwinism is only an explanation of creationism. In the end there is an energy backing all of reality, a stream of constant flow. The Big Bang is an explanation of let there be light. The thought that time to God is the same as time for man is dripping with hubris.

    Bill Nye is the more accurate of the two, sad that neither of them can see that science and religion both preach the concept of one point of origin.

  • Magnus Canis

    Well said, most people forget that up until the current fad, every scientists understood "First Cause" and assigned to thier own personal religion to it. This sudden deitification of man only serves to show how arrogant and ignorant we have become.

  • Magnus Canis

    Allow me to help you both out. The Scientific method has been plagued by both cultural and personal biases. See at the head of the “method” is a human capable of being swayed by either lack of understanding or simple neglect. If you would like proof here are a few failures of the “Scientific Method.”

    The Discovery of Vulcan by La Verrier
    Spontaneous Generation by Aristotle
    Expanding Earth by Darwin
    Phlogiston Theory by Becher
    Martian Canals by Giovanni
    Luminiferous Asther by Michelson
    Blank Slate by a bunch of people
    Phrenology as a whole
    Einstein’s Static Universe (obvious)
    Fleischmann and Pon’s Cold Fusion

    All at one time or another thought to be the final word in the Scientific community all proven wrong once people were brave enough to question the science.

    Let me share this with you, true scientist welcome honest debate and refuse a “final” answer because they are wise enough to know
    that science changes and how we thought something worked changes as our understanding of the “it” changes. Hawking spent the better part of early career proving black holes and now is working to disprove that. Perhaps you should learn that everything should be questioned and things that you are unwilling to allow to change, is called religion, rather you call it science or church. If you can’t accept it being questioned you’re a zealot.

    Cheers!

  • Adibobea9

    If they only had the knowledge I have, they would see that both science and religion can coexist. Pride surely hinders both sides to accepting truth…

  • Post_Nazi

    You're missing the points entirely.

    Nye wasn't saying science and religion couldn't coexist, and even GWs quoted text assured that. Creationism isn't a part of religious text, and is a relatively new, unfounded belief. The Earth is old and evolution is real, even the Vatican agrees. Leave it to the simple US, one of the few religious countries to believe the Bible in literal wording. Christians' fundamental flaw is that they just interpret and believe however they want without a checks and balance system. You'd think a guideline for humanity (the Bible) would have been quite clear in right and wrong and bad and good and don't do this but do do this.

  • Grungebreath

    lol do do

  • Fez

    Ham won. Not because I'm a loonybin Young Earth Creationist and i support his views, but because this was ultimately a money-making scheme for Ham.

    He challenged Nye, a simple television personality who is enthusiastic about science, to a debate which would take part at Ham's Creation Museum, a place which teaches young, impressionable children that the myth of Creationism is a well-documented fact. The purpose of this debate as organized by Ham was only to make his argument look on-par with modern science. Nye lost because he lowered himself to Ham's level.

    The 'debate' was also to generate funds for his Creationism Museum from ticket sales and other merchandise. Ham was never truly in it for the debate. He was in it for the profit. Bill took Ham's challenge and fell for this trap hook, line and sinker.

    I've lost a bit of respect for Nye because of this 'debate'.

  • Lurker111

    So you lost respect for him because he had a civil debate with the opposing side instead of just ignoring it and completely disregarding it as "whacko" theory?

    Regardless of who you think is wrong or right, I gained respect for him because he was willing to hear the other side and learn where he/she is coming from in the pursuit of advancing real-world science. Nye is the science guy.

  • Fez

    I never said that I lost ALL of my respect for him. I still respect him for the popularization of science that he did with his TV show. The issue i have with him debating Ham is that it only makes Ham feel validated as a fellow scientist. Creationism is as much science as the Stalk theory is reproductional biology or Flat Earth is geology. It does not belong in the science class nor does it deserve to be taken seriously as science.

  • Post_Nazi

    Tsk tsk.

    You think Ham won on the basis that he endorsed it? Nye doesn't care if his museum does well, but through this debate he is able to bitchslap thousands of people with truth and science. More people will see this than will go to that Museum, and that means Nye wins on the side of logic.

  • Fez

    What makes you think that most of the people that have watched the video will be on Nye's side? The debate was greatly advertized to creationists, too. Not to mention it's likely that, since Ham organized this in the first place, he would have likely been the one to mass propagate it. It's likely that he only chose Nye because of his following, knowing that the debate would get plenty of media attention and thus, more money. Creationists aren't as sparse as you think they are.

    Sure, on the side of reason and logic, Nye won, but on the side of overall profit and the propagating of ideas (bullshit ones at that), Ham has won hands down.

  • browse28

    GW - thanks for not outright calling Ham an idiot, like all the other bloggers. Staying neutral on this was the classy thing to do and I appreciate it. I think both guys did their best to present info on a topic that neither could know extensively because it's EFFING HUGE.

    Ham's 2 major issues - 1. the age of earth DOES NOT biblically have to be 6000 years. The bible does not exhaustively account for time. It does necessitate that the earth be AT LEAST 6000 years old. It's a jumping off point. 2. To assert that nothing could change your mind EVER is sad. As a christian, I understand where he's coming from, but the apostle Paul already dealt with this question. He said that if Jesus did not resurrect, then we are all idiots. For me, if it were proven historically that Jesus did not resurrect, I'd have to find something else to do with my life.

    Nye often appealed to the bible being translated a number of times, ultimately making its way to english. The bible is translated into modern language from documents in THE SOURCE language, not from secondary source. There are thousands of manuscripts in the original languages that lead us to believe we have reasonably accurate ideas of what the documents originally said. Also, the assertion that Ham wants us to believe him at his word is just as true in the case of Nye: Nye wants us to believe him at his word. Theolgians disagree amongst themselves. Scientists disagree amongst themselves.

    In the end, you have two men who have positions based on worldviews for which we cannot have 100% certaintly. I appreciate VERY MUCH the willingness of BOTH MEN to speak at lenght on what they believe to be true.

  • Nick

    (Sorry I'm late to this. I have a 4 month old with the flu)You're absolutely right about Paul's teaching on Jesus' resurrection. Which I believe with my whole heart. I am one however who believes every word of the Bible. The main reason is that the bible clearly lays out what is symbolism and what is literal. It's written as a literal history and takes itself seriously. In Psalms, Daniel and Revelation we get what is clearly symbolism. So the I take the use of the word "day" to mean the same thing the word means in the rest of the bible. It even clarifies it by saying "the evening and the morning." Also the creation story tells us how sin entered the world(through Adam, not Eve) and that is the only reason for Jesus doing what he did. That's all I've got as my little girl is waking up.

  • baal

    Ham is an idiot. Fruit bat teeth do not show that you could put predators and prey on the ark and have them sing happy campfire songs together.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Previous Post
Next Post