In the Spring of 2010, evangelical Bible scholar Bruce Waltke, in speaking about the overwhelming evidence for evolution, said “To deny that reality will make us a cult, some odd group that is not really interacting with the real world.”

In response to this, Ken Ham, president of Kentucky’s Creation Museum, commented, “What he is saying ultimately undermines the authority of God’s word.”

Both statements seem to be true. (I don’t think you necessarily need to have faith in a god to accept the basic logic of Ham’s statement.) Also, that’s really all you need to know about young earth creationism. It is God’s word, and the FAQ on the matter is the Bible.

Last night, science communicator Bill Nye debated Ken Ham at Ham’s Creation Museum in Kentucky. This debate came about because of a statement Bill Nye made not long ago suggesting that creationism, and in particular efforts to force creationism into textbooks and, via other means, into classrooms, does harm to children and ultimately to society. Ham took that statement as a cue to challenge Nye to a debate, and Nye accepted.

Many people, myself included, objected to Bill Nye’s acceptance of this challenge. The reasons for that objection are outlined here, and here. I need not repeat them.

The debate happened last night. When it comes to creationism, I admit that I am not an objective observer, but I can try. I think Ken Ham did fine in that debate. He spoke before his own audience. A remarkably white but gender and age diverse gathering of followers of the Bible and believers in creationism seem to have responded well to Ham. His rhetoric was consistent. We know everything, we understand the most important issues of origins, creation, and evolution, and all of this information comes mainly from the Bible. There are a few other details.

At the same time, however, Bill Nye also did well in this debate, objectively speaking. He presented science, science, science and more science. He presented the science clearly, convincingly, chose his examples well, personalized the discussion wherever possible even to the point of doing a Lewis Black moment (pulling out a fossil he had picked up earlier in the week!). During the few moments when we were allowed to see the evangelical audience during Bill Nye’s presentation they looked, frankly, charmed. And how could they not be, Bill Nye is a charming guy!

In my view, again biased in favor of science because, well, because it’s the correct view, Bill Nye won the debate by a large margin. Friends on Twitter and Facebook equated the debate to the Superbowl, with Bill Nye being the Seahawks and Ken Ham being Denver. Apt. Perhaps even an understatement. Even a poll on a Christian web site gave a strong win to Nye

One could say that it was easy. Bill Nye made it look easy. He focused on the science, as I mentioned, but he also frequently applied that science to Ken Ham’s young earth creationism. One might wonder if Noah’s Ark could have stayed afloat during the great flood, with all those animals on it, for as long as the Bible says it did. But during this debate, Bill Nye sunk that Ark again and again. In addition to an excellent and convincing high altitude view of evolutionary science, and effective deconstruction of young earth creationism, Nye also made frequent and engaging references to the amazing outcome of unfettered scientific study and technology, which I think helps people appreciate and personalized science. He even made an argument from patriotism (not a scientific argument for evolution, but an argument for honest pursuit of knowledge).

Ken Ham’s argument for the young age of the Earth was unassailable. The Bible tells us the age of the Earth, period. Ham claims all of the dating methods are fallible, none are as good as eye witness evidence. (That would be God.) This is unassailable because it is untestable, but based on good science, we can say it is wrong. But you can’t really do much about a religious belief. Ham presented counter evidence contrary to the generally accepted science, but it was the usual bogus, incorrect, easily dismissed set of arguments. For example, some really old stuff was dated to really old (as it is) with the potassium argon method but to only 40-something thousand years using radiocarbon dating. The reason for that, of course, is that radiocarbon dating generally does not function beyond 40-something thousand years old, so all older material produces a young date with that particular method. If you measure the height of a great mountain with a ruler, the mountain will come out to be one foot tall, unless you get a bigger ruler. Also, somewhere in there I think Ken Ham made the argument that we should not wear clothes. Yet he was wearing clothes. Please explain.

An edited version of this debate, with just the Bill Nye parts, will make an excellent overview of why evolutionary biology is the way to go and young earth creationism is not.

There were definitely several moment where I wish I could have jumped on the stage and given Bill’s answer for him. For example, Ham scored a point by deconstructing functional interpretations of mammalian dental anatomy, in relation to the question of whether all the animals were vegetarians during Ark-times. I could have crushed that response in a way that would introduce even more evidence for evolution. But Bill Nye is an expert in other areas. Moreover, Bill Nye did the right thing by not responding to most of Ham’s specific points, but rather, continuing to return to his own main points. Nye, in a sense, provided a slower and more ponderous, and well done, science version of the Gish Gallop. He had a number of powerful points and stuck to them, and mostly avoided going off track.

The fact that Bill Nye did very well in this debate does not mean that we should all start debating creationists, especially at events with a door charge that goes to support an entity like the Creation Museum. Put a different way: Bill Nye is a professional. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. But the widespread concern, including that expressed by yours truly, for this particular debate was wrong. I will be happily be dining on crow today at lunch.

Bill_Nye_Science_Vs_Ken_Ham_Bible

Comments

  1. #1 Heath
    February 5, 2014

    I agree Nye won and he earned my respect all around. I tend toward the creation model of origins and thought Ham came up short; especially when there were responses to Nye. Ham focused on the philosophy of science instead of on the facts of research. The philosophy of science is an important topic in the creation/evolution debate, but Ham did not deliver on the necessary supporting facts. For instance, on Nye’s point regarding the 16M species versus 7K kinds (reduced further in number by Ham – way to support the other guys argument), Ham never gave a counter argument. The fact is using a creation/flood model, the gene pool would be richest in individual creatures post creation, and then to a lesser extent post flood; with the gene pool getting more specialized over time. Adaption to environmental changes would rely largely on existing genetic alternatives, so in time the alternatives within a group would thin, and adaption would become more difficult, and thus extinction of a specialized gene. Following the flood the growth of new species from the highly diverse kinds would be very rapid but then would follow an exponential decay curve toward extinction over time. This matches observed science; evolution partially avoids this problem of extinction (and thinning gene diversity) by saying that it is human activity that is the problem.

    Ham focused too much on historical science. As Nye requested of Ham, present your model, make a prediction, and then let’s observe if the data supports. Both evolution and creation models do have a historical element, but both should also have a predictable observable element. Where I see evolution/naturalist model struggling in the observable is: a controlled demonstration of matter to life, a controlled demonstration of empty space self-generating matter, a controlled demonstration of conscientiousness arising, a control mutation experiment with significant progression from one species to another (using the fruit fly for example). The something from nothing transition is difficult for evolution model, but is directly in line with creation model.

  2. #2 Heath
    February 5, 2014

    Spelling correction – *consciousness

  3. #3 Craig
    February 5, 2014

    Good summary. There really wasn’t even a debate. Ken Ham’s concept of “historical science” as if that was a real thing undermined everything else he tried to say. There is no such thing as “historical science” as Ham described it. If there were, then no scientific progress would ever be made.

    I do wish he had been called out on his contention that because science can never observe things in the past (demonstrably untrue) that we have to rely on someone who was there, i.e. god. Even if this argument were true on its face, which it isn’t, what evidence does he have that the book he keeps referencing represents any form of truth? He ignores the biggest assumption in his argument, that the bible represents the literal word of god. Of course since he conveniently contends that observation is not the only valid scientific method, he can ignore that little anomaly in his analysis.

    The bottom line is that any rational person will see that Bill Nye won based on facts and arguments. On the other hand “true believers” will say that Ham won because obviously the bible i the only truth.

  4. #4 Michael baird
    Defuniak springs,florida
    February 5, 2014

    I think we forget sometimes that GOD is all powerfull, and if he can create a world in six days; why can’t he give the necessary tools to a carpenter to make a boat to carry the animals in. Plus how many KINDS of animals there were at that time not today. If GOD wanted to make a boat with paper he can because he is all powerfull.

  5. #5 Michael Kelsey
    SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
    February 5, 2014

    @Heath: You seem to have several misconceptions or at least misunderstandings of both terminoligy and concept.

    1) “Evolution” doesn’t have anything to say about abiogenesis. It never has, and never will. That is a question for physical and organic chemists. Evolution tells us, in detail, what happens over time to populations of organisms in a complex environment.

    2) “Evolution” doesn’t say anything about the origin of matter from energy (what you call “empty space”). It never has, and it never will. If you’re truly interested, rather than just raising straw man arguments you’ve cribbed from others, you may wish to look up the “Casimir effect” for a discussion of the energy present in empty space, preferably incorporated into a good undergraduate course in quantum mechanics.

    3) Look up any of the following terms, together with the word “observed evolution”: Galapagos finches, Lake Victoria Cichlids, guppies, Escherichia coli. There are many more concrete examples, but those are the easiest to understand. We have a vast amount of observational data on speciation, including the observed evolution of new traits (including previously “impossible” abilities, such as the digestion of citrate in the evolved E. coli).

  6. #6 Dr Puck
    Cleveland Ohio
    February 5, 2014

    If the bible is taken to be the only necessary account, begged questions about how the observer’s (God’s) observations came to be written in Aramaic/where/when/by what, are primary to establishing warrants for supposing, next, that such accounts are certainly true. All ancillary speculations are without point until there’s more than the patently tautological: It’s true because the Bible is true.

    Thus: “Following the flood the growth of new species from the highly diverse kinds would be very rapid but then would follow an exponential decay curve toward extinction over time. This matches observed science; evolution partially avoids this problem of extinction (and thinning gene diversity) by saying that it is human activity that is the problem.” is nonsensical. It has no context at all in any domain-specific sense.

    There is no ‘creationist philosophy of creationist science’ for the obvious reason that you cannot develop a propositional domain out of the singular proposition: ‘ the accounts contained (in this document) are true because they are necessarily true.’

    All secondary creationist speculation promiscuously grabs concepts and ends up malarkey simply because such speculations have no point if they begin with, in effect, ‘the Bible is not falsifiable.’

    Luckily enough, each and every such speculation is instantly consumed in the Popperian inferno and turned to ashes.

  7. #7 Sylvester B
    Houston,TX
    February 5, 2014

    Good for Bill Nye! I always think a good airing of contentious ideas will give a good outcome.

    BTW: The Houston Chronicle reported today that Bill had said the earth was formed billions of years ago BY THE BIG BANG. I cannot believe that this is correct; but it does show the lack of scientific background in the press corps.

  8. #8 Sylvester B
    Houston,TX
    February 5, 2014

    Clarification: I cannot believe that Bill Nye said it. And I truly do not believe that the earth was formed by the big bang. (Incidentally, the multiverse theory doesn’t need the big bang).

  9. #9 Sylvester B
    houston,TX
    February 5, 2014

    An aside. I like to read the Bible. The King James version in particular. It is great literature, and in some cases acceptable historical insight. Its moral precepts are mostly good (if you delete references to Joshuah’s scorched earth policy) and we could do worse than to live our lives in accordance therewith.
    The more modern versions (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses version) may be more understandable in today’s jargon or (JWV) closer to the real meaning of the original, but they are not as literary.

  10. #10 Greg Laden
    February 5, 2014

    Everything was formed by the Big Bang. Yet, nothing was formed by the Big Bang except a bunch of bosons and stuff.

  11. #11 Ouija Meter
    February 5, 2014

    @heath–I had never heard this formulation before, sounds like you envision the biosphere immediately after the creation event to be filled with many intermediate forms, which have gradually died away, leaving distinct species. This sort of mirrors the evolutionary view that, for example, the biota represented in the Burgess shale assemblage were all much more closely related to one another than any of their descendants are, e.g. comparing members of different phyla.

  12. #12 btao
    United States
    February 5, 2014

    So if… whoever created God, must have been the one God was observing? Right?

    Debates with believers are inherently pointless. “God said so” is not an argument. When your parents said “because I said so,” everyone eventually asks, why? Why did you say so? I don’t understand!

    Oh, wait. Not everyone does that. Or, the parents are too dumb to even answer those life questions of a child, so they become a humble servant of God, unaware of how many answers to life’s mysteries exist.

  13. #13 John Garret
    Route 66
    February 5, 2014

    I love science and do have faith at the same time. When I run an experiment, sometimes I pray that it works to my hypothesis. and when it goes to *^&!, who do I blame?

    Well anyways, looking at the Bible for the unexplained isn’t the correct answer either.

    I’d like to ask a some questions:
    1. Can one argue that there are many Adams (Men) and many Eves (Women) of different cultures? (hence some people cannot understand one another, but when it comes to sex (it’s all the same). The Cain and Able are different people of nations. (That could be the reason why there are wars among people)
    2. The Ark and the Flood,(if there was an ark, where did it land and where are examples of it’s remains. Why did it not get recorded of what type of material it was made from or detailed drawings or accounts of it’s structure? There’s some information in the Bible, but not detailed enough.
    3. Who wrote the Bible? or why didn’t one take down historical data properly?

  14. #14 Matt
    boston
    February 5, 2014

    I can’t understand how anyone would think that the Bible is any more true than any of the other hundreds of religious texts that have been written over the past 10,000 years.

    Just because you happened to be brought in a part of the world, during a time period where this is the prevailing religion, you somehow believe that YOU have the RIGHT religion, just because it’s the first one someone told you about. If you were alive in Ancient Greece you’d be worshiping Zeus and the Olympians because that’s the first thing you’d hear about. Or if you were born in India you’d be into Hinduism.

    If you take one moment to think outside of yourself and look at the world objectively, it’s really obvious that religion is a human construct, which has changed over time and through cultures. It’s pretty obvious that it’s all just written by people for whatever reason, and utilized by people, for many reasons.

    It might be scary to realize this, so you may want to hold onto your Jesus bedtime stores, because it makes the world less scary, and you don’t have to take personal responsibility, you can just trust in god.

    The fact is that science has given humans more actual tangible results and actual explanations for our universe in just a few hundred years, than religion has given us in 10,000

    Saying “God did it” is not an answer to a question. It’s a cop out, even less useful than “I don’t know” Because you don’t know, no one knows. And if you believe in an old book, just because someone told you it’s true, then you my friend are a sucker.

    Please donate generously to your church. $$$

  15. #15 Eric Lund
    February 5, 2014

    Ken Ham’s argument for the young age of the Earth was unassailable. The Bible tells us the age of the Earth, period.

    One of the blogs I read regularly is Slacktivist (Fred Clark). Clark, an evangelical Christian who actually knows a thing or two about Biblical scholarship, thinks as little of Ham’s interpretation of the Bible as PZ Myers thinks of Ham’s understanding of biology.

  16. #16 Lulabelle
    Netherlands
    February 5, 2014

    Bill Nye lost all credibility when he suggested the Big Bang which is way out there ( no pun intended). I thought the debate was over origins. Also Darwin’s theory was over 100 years ago, science has now illustrated that if Darwin were here today he would be embarrassed about his own assumptions.

  17. #17 Lisa
    KY
    February 5, 2014

    Well , I can’t wait until every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that He is Lord!!!! Then we will know who was right!!!!

  18. […] Greg Laden, Who won the Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate? Bill Nye! […]

  19. #19 Yoel
    Miami, FL
    February 5, 2014

    In my humble opinion, I believe the best point raised by Ham was that because you can not reproduce, recreate or proof in a control environment ie. a bird becoming a cat or a rose becoming a pine tree, etc. it takes as much FAITH to believe in either argument.

  20. #20 Heath
    February 5, 2014

    @Michael Kelsey.. to clarify I used term “evolution/naturalist model” with naturalism to more broadly include things outside biology such as physics and chemistry. I am familiar with a fair number of your references. Also, for your benefit, I am systems and nuclear engineer and worked at Los Alamos Lab on the ground test accelerator project.

  21. #21 Jeffrey Strobach
    Orlando, FL
    February 5, 2014

    Ken Ham blew it last night with his “Young Earth” theory. If he had just come out and said that science is right in line with creation and creationism, it would have been a different outcome. Let’s start out with God created the heavens and the earth… with a word God spoke the universe into creation (The BIG Bang), and all the elements began to form and coalesce into what are now galaxies, suns and planets and on some, a wonderful process began, which is life. The process continued and after millions of years and many changes, life as we know it today slowly became a reality. Then man, who was the smartest of the animals realized God and HIS power over all creation, and worshiped HIM. Today we know so much more than we did even 10 years ago, much less 6000 years ago. We now know, for instance, that man has been around for much longer then that. But when did he really become aware of much more than just the basics? When did he begin to communicate and create language and then write down his understandings? We were not there, but we do know that there were several iterations of man, before we became what are now. Is that evolution? Why is that not God’s plan?

  22. #22 Heath
    February 5, 2014

    @Ouija Meter.. thank you for giving some consideration to my comment. And to further clarify, these original ‘intermediate’ forms (kinds) each represented a high level of genetic diversity. Per a creation model, a primary initial mode of die out would have then been the flood and a major contributor to the fossil record. The flood would have then resulted in a new starting point with a less diverse secondary ‘intermediate’ form (thus the fossil record would be expected to show a significant set of extinct creatures). And post flood, as these secondary ‘intermediate’ forms continued to reproduce over time, resulting into increasingly specialized forms due to environmental preferences, the end result would be a high degree and diversity of specialization, with fewer and fewer options for adaptive responses to environmental change; thereby the risk of extinction increasing in likelihood. This was what Ham showed but did not explain well in his ‘orchard’ model.

  23. #23 Tim
    Wichita
    February 5, 2014

    I have to laugh at all the people who questioned the way Bill Nye phrased the view about the Big Bang being to origin of the Earth. The Big Bang created EVERYTHING in this expanding universe. While the Earth was not created at the moment of the Big Bang event, its eventual rise came from the light chemical elements that were created by the Big Bang (which is actually the wrong thing to call it since explosions don’t occur in space in the same way they do here on Earth and what really occurred was the vast expansion of space from a very hot, dense point). Bill Nye won the debate. Hands down. Nye was able to cite scientifically proven facts that even the smallest child could understand given a proper explanation. Ham used the same worn out arguments that “creationists” spout any time anyone questions their so called faith. Regurgitating something from a book of anecdotes and fables does not make you an expert worthy of debating even the most inexperienced scientist. I have three degrees, one in theology, one in ecological/environmental microbiology and one in organismal evolutionary biology and not once in either of my three fields have I ever seen any concrete proof of any claim made in Bible, including an elderly man and 7 people having the ability to create an ark, a worldwide flood that has occurred in the last 6,000 years if the Biblical timeline is correct (which it most certainly is not), or two of every animal congregating onto said ark. Religion was created as a way to control the masses by those in power. It is why wars are waged…in order to distract the population from larger issues that affect them. What better way to distract them than to start a fight with a common enemy? Tell you what…here’s a great experiment for all you creationists. Find a livestock farm and get permission to observe it over a few days. Watch a cow on its own for a day or two. Typically they make their own decisions and decide when to eat, sleep, where to go, etc. Then place said cow into the herd. Watch how quickly they confirm to the herd mentality. No farm available? Go to any elevator in any nearby building and stand backwards and ride it up and down for a while. As people start to pile in, watch how quickly they mimic you, especially if someone else is doing it. THAT’S herd mentality…and that is what religion uses to make you conform and control you. Science allows individuals to reason and research issues, versus religions, which say worship or go to a fictional place where you will burn for questioning the herd mentality. For once, try not being one of the “sheeple” and disagree with the herd. Once you do that, you’ll be able to open your eyes and view the world (and the universe) in a whole new light.

  24. #24 Ed Haydin
    United States
    February 5, 2014

    I thought that Bill Nye was pretty slick and successful in turning the debate into a means for political manipulation! ……Even though this debate was supposed to be between the viability of evolution compared to special creation. In that aspect I thought he scored really high! Rather than sticking to the topic of debate, he soundly attacked and ridiculed Ken Ham and the Bible! However in doing so, he left Ken Ham wide open to present a well organized, logical argument both for Biblical creation as well as against the inconsistent geological arguments which evolution attempts to promote.
    Here are a number of points for consideration:

    1.Ham successfully argued that evolutionary theory is an un-testable theory which can not be tested by true scientific methods. This relegates “belief” in evolutionary “science” to the same level as “belief” in creation.

    2. Nye was able to offer No falsifiable experimental proof of his evolutionary scientific conclusions. His named “predictions” were actually predictions based upon evidence derived from recent observational science. Ham admittedly had no conflict with observational science which supports the creation model as well as Nye’s claim for evolution.

    3. Nye offered no substantial geological evidence of progressive evolution to support evolution’s claims. This after hundreds of years of fruitless geologic research. Ken Ham lost a great opportunity to capitalize on Nye’s reference to Grand Canyon geology supposedly “proving” hundreds of millions of years of age between the sedimentary deposits. All Ham would have had to do is show the Grand Canyon photo which displays those ancient layers all “folded” in a loop with no cracks or breakage proving that they were all plastic at the time they were simultaneously folded! That was a great score for Bill Nye!

    4. Nye neglected to offer an explanation for the inherent intelligence found in the atomic elements resulting from evolution’s “Big Bang” from which organized matter/substance “evolves”. (Of course we all know that in evolutionary terms, “time” = “intelligence”) Ham effectively pointed out that intelligent organization of matter requires a source of intelligence in order for it to organize. That source is of course the Creator of this universe in which we live!

    5. Nye’s claim that evolution works opposite the normal hierarchical processes does not eliminate the need for inherent intelligence required for a selective process of elimination. How can non-intelligence possibly know when the most intelligent choice has been made? Evolution’s proposed processes are Contrary to logic – which (logic) in itself is intelligence.

    6. Nye’s Evolutionary theory is Contrary to all falsifiable proofs of the laws of physics and chemistry under which this universe is organized. Unfortunately, though he alluded to it, Ham neglected to hammer that point home as well.

    7. Nye’s evolutionary science had No explanation for the origin of matter or energy in the universe which violates another of the basic laws of physics – Cause & Effect? (Sorry, but the “big bang” just removes evolution one step away from the same question.)

    8. Neither debater offered any explanation for the appearance of the incredibly organized human brain which allows the evolutionist to develop such a complex theory without material substantiation, or the Creationist to recognize and relate to an intelligent Creator. Well, maybe Ham did allude to it…….. God, the Creator designed it!

    9. Neither had an explanation for the incredible information stored in the single celled human zygote which is able to manufacture the multi-trillion celled, self sustaining structure which houses the human soul and spirit for its short duration of earthly existence, prior to its final place of eternal abode……. well, maybe Ham alluded to that as well…….

    10. It should have been pointed out that scientists, out of all classes of people, should recognize the unmistakable fingerprint of the Creator of this universe with all that it encompasses – including themselves, along with the unmistakable message that each of us are accountable to Him Whom has offered us the incredible gift of eternal life! This of course, through forgiveness of our sinful rejection of Him, by the means of the substitutionary death of His Son Jesus Christ of Nazareth! (Oh yes, Ham did point that out……. several times.) Oh by the way, the Bible also points out that Jesus Himself was the means by which God the Father created the universe!

    The most important question coming out of this debate for anyone to consider is this: Won’t you wisely consider repenting from your dis-belief and willingly receive Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and Lord?

    Approach The Creator and let Him know that you are willing to trust in Him if He will give you the ability to believe!

  25. #25 Lisa
    Ohio
    February 5, 2014

    Bill Nye’s “observational science” is an ever-changing understanding based on available information to date. Whereas our belief/trust/faith is in the absolute truth provided us by God, the creator of all. Frankly, all the debate in the world can not bring someone to the truth without them coming to the point of being willing to breech that chasm with faith in Jesus. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit, not just the Bible, points us to truth.

  26. #26 Ukulelemike
    Herlong, CA
    February 5, 2014

    Sadly, I believe that Ken Ham let go a lot of softball issues brought up by Bill Nye. Many of his arguments have been answered before, like the so-called ‘annual’ ice rings, which are no such thing. Or issues of the creation of the Grand canyon and its layers, the complete lack of an actual ‘fossil record’ or geologic column anywhere outside of textbooks. So much has been clearly answered.
    I believe the main point Ham tried to make was that both sides use the same information, the same evidence, but both view it from disticntly differing and, ultimately, unprovable positions, in this life, at least.
    Nye also, with his continual insistenace that if someone believes in biblical creation negates their ability to ‘do good science’ as it were, is both ridiculous and false, ignoring the fact that he, and many like him, are standing squarely upon the shoulders of Bible-believeing creationists like Copernicus, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur, Morse, and a multitude of others, amy who are literally the fathers of many branches of science. As well, what does evolutionary thought have to do with the invention of the cell phone, with or without a camera, a car, any new technology? Absolutely nothing as seen by the inventor of the MRI, a creationist Christian.
    No, I think the whole debate was overall poorly done, as the format was useless-should have been more back-and-forth, rather than two periods of two guys giving their arguments, but not really answering each other’s points.

  27. #27 Benjamin Hawkins
    United States
    February 5, 2014

    “[All you need to know about young earth creationism is that it] is God’s word, and the FAQ on the matter is the Bible.”

    Well, the FAQ on the matter is *a particular interpretation* of the Bible, which is often *assumed* to be the correct one by young earth creationists and many of those in the secular world who criticize them.

    Careful reading of texts is not something people are generally trained in, and that is part of the problem. People don’t even begin, usually, by asking the question (and I mean *really* asking the question), “What sort of text is this?”

    If they did, they would find that there are a number of problems with the view that the Genesis accounts (plural—Genesis 1:1-2:3 is often treated as one account, and Genesis 2:4-25 is often treated as another) are intended as historical scientific accounts.

    If they are, then there are some oddities that require explaining. But again, that’s operating under the assumption that these texts are intended to function the way a modern scientific textbook is.

    If you’re interested in people who want to read the Bible on its own terms and the natural world on *its* own terms, please check out (and by all means, critique) this group of folks: http://biologos.org/.

  28. #28 Matthew Pocock
    United Kingdom
    February 5, 2014

    @Michael baird I agree that if a god can do anything, that it could have made an unseaworthy boat float and all the rest of that crazy stuff. But then we are self-evidently well into the realm of supernatural explanations, not science. The debate was about if Ham’s flavour of creationism was a valid basis for science, and it demonstrably was demonstrated not to be, even by what Ham said.

  29. #29 Mike Harvison
    Tampa, FL
    February 5, 2014

    Science can tell us how we became human, religion can tell us how to be human. Respect for each other’s “magisteria” is the way forward for the religious and scientific alike.

  30. #30 dean
    February 5, 2014

    It certainly is interesting, and a little distressing, to see the knots people twist themselves into in order to defend the congenital liar Ham and his views.
    The Grand Canyon doesn’t support the explanations of science? There is something wrong with realizing that as we gain knowledge existing descriptions can be improved? (As compared to sticking with the writings first organized by goat herders and re-written and re-organized in years since by men with the goal of maintaining their own power.) Statements like

    Ham successfully argued that evolutionary theory is an un-testable theory …

    that make sense only to people unwilling to learn?

    The

  31. #31 john doe
    United States
    February 5, 2014

    Bible is true…EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY EQUATION SAYS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AND 6 DAYS ARE BOTH TRUE DEPENDING ON SPACE-TIME COORDINATES; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.999999999999999999999999999­­99999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000­­500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119­­988e-12; PLACING YHWH 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.
    distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,19­­2,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000­­,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999­­999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,0­­00,000,000,000 – 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photons
    space time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light survived, hence time kicks in), this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years; 6 OF OUR DAYS ARE STRETCHED OUT AND CONTAIN 14 BILLION EARLY YEARS OF THE UNIVERSE

    *respectfully*
    let’s start without the math…lets be theoretical
    When you get closer to light speed…time slows down
    When you reach light speed…time stops for you (NASA has an article online saying this..and its well known)
    So if someone were near the farthest photons…travelling near light speed…that persons time would get really really slow depending on their velocity
    we know that relativity is true…we have to reset the time of satellites every day
    gravity stretches space…when space is stretched…time slows down
    the universe is stretching
    a billion light years away is a billion years ago…two billion lights years away is two billion years ago
    all astronomers interpret the stretching of space as the stretching of time
    whether the time is literal 6 days or not has been a long dabate among bible believers
    Schroeder is saying the 6 days is where the Bible says YHWH is at…above the universe…and that since the early universe time was not stretched out it was much faster so the math shows that 6 of our days contain 14 billion years when the universe was not as stretched..all scientist know stretching of space slows time down
    the vedic indians said a day with their deities was hundreds of thousands of years
    the bible has relativity in many places…it says a 1000 years is as a day, and as a watch in the night (about 3 hours); Other passages that were written decades after Christ said this is the last hour (deacades) it would appear that there is relativity in the Bible
    The ENGLISH translations did butcher the HEBREW LANGUAGE of genesis one
    Here is the order in Hebrew…
    *********
    darkness on the surface of the deep (black hole, abyss in septuigint)
    light…singular not plural..there is only one light…1000 years ago there were Jews saying the universe began smaller than a grain of mustard
    light separates from darkness as the universe cools to the point that photons are freed
    atmosphere is formed and things start seperating
    land and water on the earth seperate to for sea and land (singular)
    land and seas become plural
    plants are formed from the eretz (earth) eretz can mean dirt, land, nation, or the globe…the oldest fossils we have resemble plantlike structures…some of the ancient jewish theologians said plants were begun this time by their creation was ongoing through the rest of the days
    the atmosphere becomes oxygenated and sun, moon and starlight reaches the earth…shines upon the earth…Genesis stresse two times the sun shined down on the earth…made in hebrew is asah…
    also all the tenses in Gen 1 are imperfect in the hebrew language…
    the Hebrew word for made is…
    asah-to do, fashion, accomplish, make
    (Qal)
    to do, work, make, produce
    to do
    to work
    to deal (with)
    to act, act with effect, effect
    to make
    to make
    to produce
    to prepare
    to make (an offering)
    to attend to, put in order
    to observe, celebrate
    to acquire (property)
    to appoint, ordain, institute
    to bring about
    to use
    to spend, pass
    as you see…asah does NOT necessarily mean “made from scratch” there are many other meanings such as work, deal, act with effect, perpare, attend to, put in order, observe, celebrate, acquire, appoint, ordain, institute, use, spend
    this era is when the atmosphere became oxygenated and is very near the time that the luminosity of the sun began to rise intsead of plummeting
    two times the text says the sun shined upon the earth
    set (nathan)-to give, put, set
    (Qal)
    to give, bestow, grant, permit, ascribe, employ, devote, consecrate, dedicate, pay wages, sell, exchange, lend, commit, entrust, give over, deliver up, yield produce, occasion, produce, requite to, report, mention, utter, stretch out, extend
    to put, set, put on, put upon, set, appoint, assign, designate
    to make, constitute
    here you can see that set can mean a good number of things
    this era…something significant did happen with the sun moon and stars..they became visible on the eart and the suns luminosity began to rise
    another point to prove my point…in Job 38 it places stars before the earth..therefore asah does not mean made from scratch
    another point..look up the dictionaries online…a reflector can be called a light…see for yourself…the dictionaries say it
    if the bulb in a flashlight is gone..is it still not called a light?
    ************
    continuing…
    tanniyn- dragon, serpent, sea monster
    dragon or dinosaur
    sea or river monster
    serpent, venomous snake
    as you can see…most of the definitions are reptiles or amphibians
    unfortunately..the KJV translated it as whales becuase they were not aware of these other things
    1000 years ago..there were Jewish theologions that knew this was reptiles
    owph-flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
    fowl, birds
    winged insects
    unfortunately the KJV translators were not aware of the flying insects and their large sizes…KJV chose birds when the Hebrew intended flying insects
    ************
    Also Eve was created from adam
    Create (bara)-to create, shape, form
    (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
    of heaven and earth
    of individual man
    of new conditions and circumstances
    of transformations
    as you see…bara can mean to transform…actually Eve was transformed from Adam..YHWH didnt make her from scratch…he used Adams body and DNA
    therefore…YHWH could have made animals from animals
    unfortunately…many christians and atheists are too lazy to open a dictionary…even the websters english says that create can simply mean to change appearance of something
    ************
    The English botched the Hebrew…but the Hebrew is actually in harmony with the modern scientific record…if you go by the Hebrew and not the English…as you can see
    the original Hebrew tenses are imperfect meaning ongoing action rather than completed that day
    and 6 days near the outer universe are 14 billion years here…it all depends on your velocity and how much space has been stretched..this is basic physics without the math…so its easier to understand…its in all physics texts
    I counted about 18 things in all in Genesis in the correct order..the permutations are 18! are 1 in 10^15 odds or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 odds

    there are 2000 fulfilled prophecies in the Bible the avarage odds are 1 in 10 each meaning the total odds are 1 in 10^2000
    1 in 1 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 odds

    Fred Hoyle estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!
    Dr Harold Morowitz the probability of the chance formation of the simplest, smallest lifeform know, is about 1 in 1*10^340,000,000. Dr Carl Sagan, odds against the simplest of life forms taking shape on our planet by chance. 1 in 1*10^2,000,000,000. Dawkins, Gould, Morowitz, Nye all said -no one knows how life started. Mr. Dawkins do you know of a mutation that increases the information of a Genome *Dawkins rolls his eyes, drops his jaw looking lost for an answer* Stephen J. Gould: “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University. “Evolution’s Erratic Pace”, Natural History Vol. 5, May 1977).In 1982 Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in Biology after discovering DNA, wrote:”An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the Origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going” (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, Futura, London 1982).Sir Fred Hoyle, a famous UK astronomer, wrote: “A super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology … The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number of 10 with 40 thousand noughts (zeros) after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of a purposeful intelligence,” (Nature: vol.294:105, Nov 12 1981).In 1930 British physicist Sir James Jeans wrote:”Nature seems very conversant with the rules of pure mathematics … In the same way, a scientific study of the action of the Universe has suggested a conclusion which may be summed up… in the statement that the Universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician… the Universe can best be pictured, although still very imperfectly and inadequately, as consisting of pure thought… If the Universe is a Universe of thought, then its Creation must have been an act of thought. Indeed the finiteness of space compels us to think of the creator as working outside time and space, which are part of his Creation, just as an artist is outside his canvas,” (The Mysterious Universe p 146).NASA astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote:Robert Jastrow “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a Biblical view of the Origin of the world: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply in a definite moment of time, in a flash of light and energy”, (God and the Astronomers, page 14).Physicist and Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias wrote:”Astronomy leads us to a unique event, an Universe which was created out of nothing, one with a very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”Robert Shapiro wrote:”The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the Universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle”,”The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” – Charles Darwin 1902 edition.Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature.Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358.”[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.”—*L. Harrison Matthews, “Introduction to Origin of Species,” p. xxii (1977 edition).”The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or faith? L. H. Matthews, introduction to Origin of Species 1872 Darwin: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”’Letter to Asa Gray, 18 June [1857] (see the letter)

    EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY TEACHES THAT 6 DAYS ABOVE THE UNIVERSE AND 13.7 BILLION YEARS HERE WOULD PASS AT THE SAME TIME
    relativity teaches that the faster a person goes the slower their time occurs…as a person approaches the speed of light their time gets slower…YHWH is near the farthest photons ..the farthest objects in the universe…he is moving away from us near the speed of light riding the universe…below is a rocket simulation from a science website using the same principle..the rocket experiences a day ..the earth observers days are listed under the days column.

    here is einsteins time dilation formula
    T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;

    now…plugging in the 13.7 billion years in days, and the 6 days we get…

    13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.999999999999999999999999999­­99999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000­­500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119­­988e-12

    .99999999999999999999999999999999% speed of light is near the farthest photons (objects) in the universe…assuming Gott is correct on the 93 billion light year estimated width of the universe…this amounts to 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons

    here is the rocket example form a non associated science site…

    Rest Frame Time Elapsed
    per Day on Ship
    v/c Days Years
    0.0 1.00 0.003
    0.1 1.01 0.003
    0.2 1.02 0.003
    0.3 1.05 0.003
    0.4 1.09 0.003
    0.5 1.15 0.003
    0.6 1.25 0.003
    0.7 1.40 0.004
    0.8 1.67 0.005
    0.9 2.29 0.006
    0.95 3.20 0.009
    0.97 4.11 0.011
    0.99 7.09 0.019
    0.995 10.01 0.027
    0.999 22.37 0.061
    0.9999 70.71 0.194
    0.99999 223.61 0.613
    0.999999 707.11 1.937
    0.9999999 2236.07 6.126
    0.99999999 7071.07 19.373
    0.999999999 22360.68 61.262
    0.9999999999 70710.68 193.728
    0.99999999999 223606.79 612.621
    0.999999999999 707114.60 1937.300
    0.9999999999999 2235720.41 6125.261
    0.99999999999999 7073895.38 19380.535
    0.999999999999999 22369621.33 61286.634

    .99999999999999999999999999999999 13.7 billion years (age of universe) and 6 days for the person moving near light speed

    Bible is true…EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY EQUATION SAYS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AND 6 DAYS ARE BOTH TRUE DEPENDING ON SPACE-TIME COORDINATES; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.999999999999999999999999999­­99999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000­­500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119­­988e-12; PLACING YHWH 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,19­­2,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000­­,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999­­999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,0­­00,000,000,000 – 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photonsspace time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light survived, hence time kicks in), this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years; 6 OF OUR DAYS ARE STRETCHED OUT AND CONTAIN 14 BILLION EARLY YEARS OF THE UNIVERSE
    create is bara in hebrew and can mean to transform
    made is asah in hebrew and means to work on-not to make from scratch
    tenses are imperfect in original hebrew
    tanniyn usually means giant reptile rather than whale
    owph could mean winged insect or fowl…insects are what appears in the fossil order

    odds, origin of DNA code, how life started(scientifically)-dawkins said nobody knows, there is no proven means of increasing complexity by chance, the fossil record is mostly gaps, human changes are too rapid for chance mutations, quote their own showing the pitfalls

    actually the 6 days work out to be 1/2 millimeter from the farthest photons when you plug in the numbers…but…if you read the first verse the heavens and earth were created before they were created because the tense is perfect then the word and (waw vav) means the 6 days of creation follow…to they were finished before they were created..then chapter 2 says they were created in a day…so..we have 3 different times

    by the way…verse 1:1 where it was finished before the full 6 days…woud place YHWH even closer to the farthest photons..paper thin closeness or smaller

    there are only two ways to interpret this
    1. the days are symbolic
    2. the day are literal which would mean relativity

    gone forever are the days that time is a difficulty…thanks to Einstein

  32. #32 john doe
    February 5, 2014

    begat does not always mean a direct decsendant..there are gaps of generations in the bible that are 100′s of years…also the jews in the talmud believed there were people before adam but adam was perhaps the first spiritual man

  33. #33 Tom Gentry
    February 5, 2014

    Bill Nye won the debate? Really? When asked the question of where does matter come from and where did conscience come from in humans, his response was “I don’t know.” He was so lame. There is an infinite amount that he doesn’t know. There are plenty of famous scientists throughout history who believed in creationism (Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, etc.) Is he smarter than they? NO

  34. #34 manny
    Davis
    February 5, 2014

    Too bad Duane Gish passed away, it would have been a different story.

  35. #35 Tim
    February 5, 2014

    Wow, John Doe’s insanely long and incoherent rant is an example of a self-refuting argument. Not that it supports the idea that Cretinists, er, Creationists are deluded schizophrenics who love to spew out reams of insane garbage…

  36. #36 Brad
    Florida
    February 5, 2014

    To John Doe: I did not read your entire diatribe but quickly noticed a couple things you need to recalculate. First, a ‘light year’ is 6 trillion miles in distance, so “a billion light years away is a billion years ago…two billion lights years away is two billion years ago” is not even close to accurate but must be multiplied by 6 trillion to determine the number of years represented. Secondly, when God ‘created’ Eve, the Bible used a different word, not ‘bara’, but a word with an architectural reference meaning to build or sculpt into a form, as in art. In other words, Adam was made (bara), but Eve was BUILT! And when Adam saw her for the first time, the Hebrew describes his reaction as ‘stuttering”, such as “And me, as for me, I……” It does not translate into English as such and thereby loses his response & facts of the event!

  37. #37 Gary Joseph
    February 5, 2014

    All this recent talk debating evolution/creation (ultimately for some the existence of God) with Bill Nye The Science Guy and Ken Ham is exciting. As many may know, this is a non discussion for me personally. In 2005 I was dead for 30 minutes of a heart attack at age 50 and met God. He shielded his brilliant overwhelming glory from view behind a gray screen that could barely contain His awesome power and light. Unfortunately, non-believers will not take my word for it! In the end, each person will discover while here on earth that God is real by faith and that he created all that is, or at the very least in the end, each will discover God from the dark foreboding reality of the grave. Hopefully, not the latter, it may be too late. My testimony is in the book “Proof of the Afterlife – The Conversation Continues.” All proceeds from it are donated to Servants of the Father of Mercy – they deliver food, water, clothing, blankets and spiritual supplies to the homeless living remotely under bridges and in alleyways. There’s real proof that God is real!

  38. #38 Thorts
    Seattle
    February 5, 2014

    I am a doctor and scientist. One thing that is never brought up in these types of debates that discuss how science works, is the following. Acceptable knowledge is built from observation through hypothesis generation to experimentation to more observation. Ultimately, if a body of knowledge is supported enough, a generalized theory and be voiced. BUT…. Pointing out rare observations that do not clearly fit are not theory-breakers. Any alternative theory, such as creationism, MUST ALSO EXPLAIN all of the other observations. So, creationism must also explain the red shift evidence that the earth is 13 billion years old. It must explain the dozens of intermediate horse fossils showing their evolution. There are billions…BILLIONS…of individual pieces of data that must be individually explained by an alternative theory. Creationism has no explanation for the VAST majority of these. Until it can, IT IS NOT SCIENCE. IT SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT AS SCIENCE.

  39. #39 John Garret
    Route 66
    February 5, 2014

    @ Tom Gentry:
    you state that “There are plenty of famous scientists throughout history who believed in creationism (Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur”

    Can you site where they (Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur) have said to the public that they believe in Creationism?

    Were you there?

  40. #40 Daniel
    February 5, 2014

    Evolutionist presume that the world was created by the Big Bang. How is it that something can come out of nothing? The complexity of our DNA and genes are so much more complex than anything in the world. Look at a tv, someone designed it. It didn’t come out of nothing. At the end of Darwin’s life he said that he was wrong. Carbon dating is also unreliable. Two scientist took out a shell of a living mussel and carbon dated it and it dated to 2000 years even though the mussel only lived for a

  41. #41 Daniel
    February 5, 2014

    A couple years. Evolutionism is not observable, measurable, or repeatable therefore it is not considered true science.

  42. #42 Daniel
    February 5, 2014

    For us to genetically mutate is impossible. Almost always mutations are bad if not please tell me what mutation has actually done something that helped humans. Hugo de vries said that the giraffes stretched their neck because all the bottom leaves of the trees were gone. If their necks got longer the children wouldn’t have long necks because the long necks don’t occur in the gametes. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
    II Peter 3:3-6 – (66 AD)

  43. #43 Michael Kelsey
    SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
    February 5, 2014

    @Daniel #42: You ask “please tell me what mutation has actually done something that helped humans.” I can name two specific point mutations right off the top of my head: one, the mutation which causes sickle-cell anemia, and which also confers immunity against malaria (presumably, the sickle-cell is a side effect); and two, the mutation which extended lactose tolerance from childhood into adulthood. We know those are both mutations because they only appear in _some_ human populations, not all.

    Why exactly are you bringing up Lamarkism? Or is it that your scientific education stops in the seventeenth century, like your religious education?

  44. #44 Lint Hatcher
    February 5, 2014

    It seems to me that Michael Kelsey’s comment – that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis and never will – denies the entire purpose of the debate. He even seems to chastise Heath for suggesting the theory of evolution has ever had anything to do with the origin of life. Maybe evolution has no business addressing origins, as Kelsey suggests, but the evolution “package” includes a closed system minus any Creator. Therefore, proponents of evolution do not shrink from offering theories about how life might develop from non-living material. Any debate with a “creationist” is by definition about origins.

  45. #45 Steve reed
    St. Louis mo
    February 5, 2014

    Bad news. A non countably infinite number of theories exist to explain any observations for the same reason an equal set of functions can generate any set of data points.

  46. #46 Joe
    February 5, 2014

    Doe – You can’t back into statistics like that. Imagine all the variables involved in everyone that is here comenting on this blog is… well, here to comment on it. Every great great grandma having that specific baby who grew up and married that other specific person with all their life variables, etc, etc, etc until there was us who happened to be interested in this topic, speak English, find this blog….etc, etc… how many zeros do you suppose are involved; and yet, here we are…

  47. #47 Stu
    Bali, Indonesia
    February 5, 2014

    The major problem with debating religious people in a scientific debate is that the religious believe in MAGIC. Clear and simple. If a person who values truth and science say that no one could stay alive in the belly of a great fish then the religious person can go to their default: god, miracles and faith.
    I think the best way to treat this situation is through the Socratic method of asking questions. If we can make them question their beliefs then we can promote critical thinking and through critical thinking people will look towards science.

  48. #48 Rick Meidell
    Redlands California
    February 5, 2014

    @Daniel #42 and Michael #43: Specifically there is a single mutation in the most common form of Sickle Cell disease that results in a single amino acid difference in one of the four chains of hemoglobin. The switch forms hemoglobin that is less deformable than “normal hemoglobin. The less “deformable hemoglobin is the more likely red blood cells will prematurely break down as they transit the micro-circulation. This can and does result in anemia as well as other significant pathology that in total result in a much shortened life span. The genetics of Sickle Cell Disease is called autosomal recessive. Recessive traits are expressed only if gametes from both father and mother have the mutation. If only one gamete has the mutation no expression is seen. It can be easily seen from this that two parents who have the trait for the disease (Heterozygous) but are not affected will have the following pattern of offspring: 1/4 will have no mutation; 1/2 will be heterozygous for the mutation and 1/4 will have the disease. By chance, being heterozygous for Sickle Trait gives measurable protection against the parasite that causes Malaria. DNA anthropology can now trace the origin of this mutation to Equatorial Africa a region where Malaria is rampant. Here we can see that for parents who are heterozygous for Sickle trait 1/4th of their offspring will not have the mutation and will not have protection against malaria. In all probability they have a lower chance of survival into adulthood and to have offspring themselves. 1/4th of the offspring will be homozygous for the mutation and have sickle cell disease and will also have poorer prospects for survival. But 1/2 of the offspring will have the protective characteristic of the trait and will enjoy protection from malaria. In a similar evaluation 1/2 of offspring from one parent who is heterozygous and another who does not carry the mutation will be protected. In the case of Sickle cell disease we know from the science of genetics and chemistry that the seemingly irreducibly complexity of the genetics and biochemistry of this disease can be deciphered.

  49. #49 Al Verum
    February 5, 2014

    God spoke into existence a universe with the appearance of age. It has to be this way. Everything created by man has an appearance of age especially when taking into account the sum and history of a product and its parts.
    To me the most amazing thing is that around the globe “Recorded History” is recognized at about 4-6000 years BC. Isn’t it fascinating that with the millions upon millions of years we have with humans evolving in complexity we only have recorded events and dialogue for the last 6-8000 years.
    Shouldn’t we have evidence of recorded history long before this or did human evolution not attain the necessary skill set until 6000 years ago? This would be millions of years after much of our cognitive and social skills were developed and reinforced throughout human culture and subcultures.
    It does not make sense – at all. We should have a much longer documented and recorded history if evolution is true.
    Do not rely upon “cave paintings and drawings” as examples – these cannot be dated. They will use material found in the vicinity of a “cave painting” date that material and then extrapolate the results to the painting or drawings. Hardly scientific.
    If any recorded information could be found that was 20 – 100 thousand years ago then evolutionists would have a case, but they can’t make a case without evidence. They have to admit that the oldest recorded history we have is under 10,000 years old. That admission up against millions of years of complex human evolution doesn’t look good – at all.
    Doesn’t it seem peculiar that humans have only recently figured out the intricacies of written/visual communication and the means to do. These facts, against the backdrop of millions and millions of years, doesn’t seem plausible? Evolutionists are not fighting creationists at this point they are trying to fight historical facts. We should be discussing documentation that goes back hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.
    It is too much to swallow that it took millions of years to get to an era when knowledge and the means to gaining knowledge just happened to explode over a 6000 year period. Pure fantasy.
    Frankly if what evolutionary scientists say is true it would make sense that the evolution / creation debate should have been settled a million years ago.

  50. #50 Zanne
    February 5, 2014

    Interesting points from people here. Heath, I think you had a good analysis.

    I do think that both Nye and Ham made some good points and there were some thought-provoking moments. I admit that I disagreed with both of them at times.

    For instance, when Nye was insisting that science would stagnate if people were brought up believing in creationism. Prior to Darwinism, I believe there were many people who believed in a form of Creationism and that did not halt scientific progress. Granted I understand his concern that perhaps the pursuit of some of the big questions might be halted if people thought they had all of the answers.

    Ham kept mentioning the “we don’t know because we weren’t there” thing. My comment on that front would be that we don’t know because we weren’t there when things were written down for the Bible so we don’t know if the accounts were true. We only have these stories and we don’t know if they were truly historical, or exaggerations, or flat out fables. His assumption that eyewitness reports are more accurate is also very faulty. Studies have shown that human memory of events can be extremely faulty and subject to change via subtle suggestions. That is why there will be different stories from different people who were present at the same event. Not only does the brain fill in the blanks when things are not remembered clearly, but there is also the way people interpret/perceive things. Some people interpreted the debate as seeing that Nye won and others interpreted the result as Ham winning. Now, if something is filmed/recorded with instruments then it can be more trustworthy.
    I disagreed with Nye’s assertion that America was the absolute leader in science. There are other countries that are inventing things and making discoveries at a faster/more prolific rate than America– but he did admit to his patriotism which I think had skewed his perception.
    Back to Ham, I disagreed with his assumption that science was all based on Christianity. Did he forget that there was science before Christianity existed?
    I gave points to Nye for pointing out that the Bible has been translated and that Ham was picking and choosing what he wanted to believe as literal from the Bible and then trying to claim that he was some sort of authority on interpreting it.
    On the taking Genesis literally front, I wanted to sit down and suggest to Ham that one of the reasons many Christians don’t support the young earth theory is because some view Gensis as a metaphor for growing up and becoming enlightened. As young children we are protected by our parents and we trust them implicitly. Many children view their parents as infallible. Then when they grow older they become aware that things are not perfect. They gain knowledge. They realize that the world is a dangerous place.
    Also, if one is going to try to use the timeline in Genesis, remember that the Bible basically says that 1,000 years is the blink of an eye to God. Humans are supposed to be made in the image of God and the average human blinks once every five seconds. So they blink about 17,280 times. Well, multiply that by 1,000. We get 17,280,000. Now, that might not equate billions of years, but it is well over the proposed 6,000 years. Also, if the earth did not exist to have days, how would a day even be interpreted? There is no frame of reference for the actual duration pre-existence of the Earth and its solar system.
    I respect Ham’s conviction in his beliefs, but I do think he loses some credibility when he keeps going back to the “because the Bible told me so” mantra.
    As someone else here pointed out: What makes the Bible any more accurate/true than other religious texts? Ham’s arguments about what the Bible had that other texts didn’t was weak and inaccurate. I wonder if anyone has ever mentioned to him that many of the Biblical stories borrow heavily from pre-existing mythology and just alters things– a bit like Harry Potter. While I do think there is *some* historical merit to the Bible, I think there is a lot of embellishment. There were also groups who omitted and added things to the Bible in order to suit their agendas and control the masses.
    I have to agree with Nye that it is wrong to indoctrinate children with Creationism in public schools. If parents want to teach their children that, then they should be able to do so.
    Sorry for rambling so much.

  51. #51 Joseph
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    February 5, 2014

    To some no explanation is needed. To others no explanation will do.
    From: St. Bernadette Soubirous, Lourdes, France

  52. #52 john doe
    February 5, 2014

    Bible is true…EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY EQUATION SAYS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AND 6 DAYS ARE BOTH TRUE DEPENDING ON SPACE-TIME COORDINATES; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.999999999999999999999999999­­99999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000­­500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119­­988e-12; PLACING YHWH 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.
    distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,19­­2,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000­­,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999­­999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,0­­00,000,000,000 – 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photons
    space time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light survived, hence time kicks in), this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years; 6 OF OUR DAYS ARE STRETCHED OUT AND CONTAIN 14 BILLION EARLY YEARS OF THE UNIVERSE

    *respectfully*
    let’s start without the math…lets be theoretical
    When you get closer to light speed…time slows down
    When you reach light speed…time stops for you (NASA has an article online saying this..and its well known)
    So if someone were near the farthest photons…travelling near light speed…that persons time would get really really slow depending on their velocity
    we know that relativity is true…we have to reset the time of satellites every day
    gravity stretches space…when space is stretched…time slows down
    the universe is stretching
    all astronomers interpret the stretching of space as the stretching of time
    whether the time is literal 6 days or not has been a long dabate among bible believers
    Schroeder is saying the 6 days is where the Bible says YHWH is at…above the universe…and that since the early universe time was not stretched out it was much faster so the math shows that 6 of our days contain 14 billion years when the universe was not as stretched..all scientist know stretching of space slows time down
    the vedic indians said a day with their deities was hundreds of thousands of years
    the bible has relativity in many places…it says a 1000 years is as a day, and as a watch in the night (about 3 hours); Other passages that were written decades after Christ said this is the last hour (deacades) it would appear that there is relativity in the Bible
    The ENGLISH translations did butcher the HEBREW LANGUAGE of genesis one
    Here is the order in Hebrew…
    *********
    darkness on the surface of the deep (black hole, abyss in septuigint)
    light…singular not plural..there is only one light…1000 years ago there were Jews saying the universe began smaller than a grain of mustard
    light separates from darkness as the universe cools to the point that photons are freed
    atmosphere is formed and things start seperating
    land and water on the earth seperate to for sea and land (singular)
    land and seas become plural
    plants are formed from the eretz (earth) eretz can mean dirt, land, nation, or the globe…the oldest fossils we have resemble plantlike structures…some of the ancient jewish theologians said plants were begun this time by their creation was ongoing through the rest of the days
    the atmosphere becomes oxygenated and sun, moon and starlight reaches the earth…shines upon the earth…Genesis stresse two times the sun shined down on the earth…made in hebrew is asah…
    also all the tenses in Gen 1 are imperfect in the hebrew language…
    the Hebrew word for made is…
    asah-to do, fashion, accomplish, make
    (Qal)
    to do, work, make, produce
    to do
    to work
    to deal (with)
    to act, act with effect, effect
    to make
    to make
    to produce
    to prepare
    to make (an offering)
    to attend to, put in order
    to observe, celebrate
    to acquire (property)
    to appoint, ordain, institute
    to bring about
    to use
    to spend, pass
    as you see…asah does NOT necessarily mean “made from scratch” there are many other meanings such as work, deal, act with effect, perpare, attend to, put in order, observe, celebrate, acquire, appoint, ordain, institute, use, spend
    this era is when the atmosphere became oxygenated and is very near the time that the luminosity of the sun began to rise intsead of plummeting
    two times the text says the sun shined upon the earth
    set (nathan)-to give, put, set
    (Qal)
    to give, bestow, grant, permit, ascribe, employ, devote, consecrate, dedicate, pay wages, sell, exchange, lend, commit, entrust, give over, deliver up, yield produce, occasion, produce, requite to, report, mention, utter, stretch out, extend
    to put, set, put on, put upon, set, appoint, assign, designate
    to make, constitute
    here you can see that set can mean a good number of things
    this era…something significant did happen with the sun moon and stars..they became visible on the eart and the suns luminosity began to rise
    another point to prove my point…in Job 38 it places stars before the earth..therefore asah does not mean made from scratch
    another point..look up the dictionaries online…a reflector can be called a light…see for yourself…the dictionaries say it
    if the bulb in a flashlight is gone..is it still not called a light?
    ************
    continuing…
    tanniyn- dragon, serpent, sea monster
    dragon or dinosaur
    sea or river monster
    serpent, venomous snake
    as you can see…most of the definitions are reptiles or amphibians
    unfortunately..the KJV translated it as whales becuase they were not aware of these other things
    1000 years ago..there were Jewish theologions that knew this was reptiles
    owph-flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
    fowl, birds
    winged insects
    unfortunately the KJV translators were not aware of the flying insects and their large sizes…KJV chose birds when the Hebrew intended flying insects
    ************
    Also Eve was created from adam
    Create (bara)-to create, shape, form
    (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
    of heaven and earth
    of individual man
    of new conditions and circumstances
    of transformations
    as you see…bara can mean to transform…actually Eve was transformed from Adam..YHWH didnt make her from scratch…he used Adams body and DNA
    therefore…YHWH could have made animals from animals
    unfortunately…many christians and atheists are too lazy to open a dictionary…even the websters english says that create can simply mean to change appearance of something
    ************
    The English botched the Hebrew…but the Hebrew is actually in harmony with the modern scientific record…if you go by the Hebrew and not the English…as you can see
    the original Hebrew tenses are imperfect meaning ongoing action rather than completed that day
    and 6 days near the outer universe are 14 billion years here…it all depends on your velocity and how much space has been stretched..this is basic physics without the math…so its easier to understand…its in all physics texts
    I counted about 18 things in all in Genesis in the correct order..the permutations are 18! are 1 in 10^15 odds or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 odds

    there are 2000 fulfilled prophecies in the Bible the avarage odds are 1 in 10 each meaning the total odds are 1 in 10^2000
    1 in 1 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 odds

    Fred Hoyle estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!
    Dr Harold Morowitz the probability of the chance formation of the simplest, smallest lifeform know, is about 1 in 1*10^340,000,000. Dr Carl Sagan, odds against the simplest of life forms taking shape on our planet by chance. 1 in 1*10^2,000,000,000. Dawkins, Gould, Morowitz, Nye all said -no one knows how life started. Mr. Dawkins do you know of a mutation that increases the information of a Genome *Dawkins rolls his eyes, drops his jaw looking lost for an answer* Stephen J. Gould: “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University. “Evolution’s Erratic Pace”, Natural History Vol. 5, May 1977).In 1982 Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in Biology after discovering DNA, wrote:”An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the Origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going” (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, Futura, London 1982).Sir Fred Hoyle, a famous UK astronomer, wrote: “A super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology … The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number of 10 with 40 thousand noughts (zeros) after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of a purposeful intelligence,” (Nature: vol.294:105, Nov 12 1981).In 1930 British physicist Sir James Jeans wrote:”Nature seems very conversant with the rules of pure mathematics … In the same way, a scientific study of the action of the Universe has suggested a conclusion which may be summed up… in the statement that the Universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician… the Universe can best be pictured, although still very imperfectly and inadequately, as consisting of pure thought… If the Universe is a Universe of thought, then its Creation must have been an act of thought. Indeed the finiteness of space compels us to think of the creator as working outside time and space, which are part of his Creation, just as an artist is outside his canvas,” (The Mysterious Universe p 146).NASA astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote:Robert Jastrow “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a Biblical view of the Origin of the world: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply in a definite moment of time, in a flash of light and energy”, (God and the Astronomers, page 14).Physicist and Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias wrote:”Astronomy leads us to a unique event, an Universe which was created out of nothing, one with a very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”Robert Shapiro wrote:”The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the Universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle”,”The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” – Charles Darwin 1902 edition.Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature.Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358.”[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.”—*L. Harrison Matthews, “Introduction to Origin of Species,” p. xxii (1977 edition).”The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or faith? L. H. Matthews, introduction to Origin of Species 1872 Darwin: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”’Letter to Asa Gray, 18 June [1857] (see the letter)

    EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY TEACHES THAT 6 DAYS ABOVE THE UNIVERSE AND 13.7 BILLION YEARS HERE WOULD PASS AT THE SAME TIME
    relativity teaches that the faster a person goes the slower their time occurs…as a person approaches the speed of light their time gets slower…YHWH is near the farthest photons ..the farthest objects in the universe…he is moving away from us near the speed of light riding the universe…below is a rocket simulation from a science website using the same principle..the rocket experiences a day ..the earth observers days are listed under the days column.

    here is einsteins time dilation formula
    T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;

    now…plugging in the 13.7 billion years in days, and the 6 days we get…

    13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.999999999999999999999999999­­99999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000­­500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119­­988e-12

    .99999999999999999999999999999999% speed of light is near the farthest photons (objects) in the universe…assuming Gott is correct on the 93 billion light year estimated width of the universe…this amounts to 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons

    here is the rocket example form a non associated science site…

    Rest Frame Time Elapsed
    per Day on Ship
    v/c Days Years
    0.0 1.00 0.003
    0.1 1.01 0.003
    0.2 1.02 0.003
    0.3 1.05 0.003
    0.4 1.09 0.003
    0.5 1.15 0.003
    0.6 1.25 0.003
    0.7 1.40 0.004
    0.8 1.67 0.005
    0.9 2.29 0.006
    0.95 3.20 0.009
    0.97 4.11 0.011
    0.99 7.09 0.019
    0.995 10.01 0.027
    0.999 22.37 0.061
    0.9999 70.71 0.194
    0.99999 223.61 0.613
    0.999999 707.11 1.937
    0.9999999 2236.07 6.126
    0.99999999 7071.07 19.373
    0.999999999 22360.68 61.262
    0.9999999999 70710.68 193.728
    0.99999999999 223606.79 612.621
    0.999999999999 707114.60 1937.300
    0.9999999999999 2235720.41 6125.261
    0.99999999999999 7073895.38 19380.535
    0.999999999999999 22369621.33 61286.634

    .99999999999999999999999999999999 13.7 billion years (age of universe) and 6 days for the person moving near light speed

    Bible is true…EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY EQUATION SAYS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AND 6 DAYS ARE BOTH TRUE DEPENDING ON SPACE-TIME COORDINATES; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.999999999999999999999999999­­99999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000­­500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119­­988e-12; PLACING YHWH 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,19­­2,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000­­,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999­­999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,0­­00,000,000,000 – 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photonsspace time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light survived, hence time kicks in), this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years; 6 OF OUR DAYS ARE STRETCHED OUT AND CONTAIN 14 BILLION EARLY YEARS OF THE UNIVERSE
    create is bara in hebrew and can mean to transform
    made is asah in hebrew and means to work on-not to make from scratch
    tenses are imperfect in original hebrew
    tanniyn usually means giant reptile rather than whale
    owph could mean winged insect or fowl…insects are what appears in the fossil order

    odds, origin of DNA code, how life started(scientifically)-dawkins said nobody knows, there is no proven means of increasing complexity by chance, the fossil record is mostly gaps, human changes are too rapid for chance mutations, quote their own showing the pitfalls

    actually the 6 days work out to be 1/2 millimeter from the farthest photons when you plug in the numbers…but…if you read the first verse the heavens and earth were created before they were created because the tense is perfect then the word and (waw vav) means the 6 days of creation follow…to they were finished before they were created..then chapter 2 says they were created in a day…so..we have 3 different times

    by the way…verse 1:1 where it was finished before the full 6 days…woud place YHWH even closer to the farthest photons..paper thin closeness or smaller

    there are only two ways to interpret this
    1. the days are symbolic
    2. the day are literal which would mean relativity

    gone forever are the days that time is a difficulty…thanks to Einstein

  53. #53 G
    February 5, 2014

    I am so sick of this debate and could spend hours if not days debating it yet refuse to get into it due to the ignorance of it in general.
    Up front I do not believe in Evolution and that is not because I don’t believe in science and not simply because I am a devout Christian. I don’t believe in Evolution in summary due to the fact it is a Theory…at best even science refers to it and the big bang as a theory after 10 million alleged years.

    Here is my basic up front simple guy argument.

    1. Evolution is a theory that is not proven as stated above. There has been no noticeable change in anything I have seen in science or in life in my 33 years to support this except for weirdos who put their faith into it to be different.
    2. Creation is real If i make a chair i created that and see results again there is not evolution (and change is not evolution) documented to my knowledge.
    3. Time if the earth is that old why is evolution not still going on? Have you evolved? Why have animals not evolved to have thumbs or language like people? Why do giraffes (a common argument for evolution) still have long necks (the argument is they evolved to have long necks to eat trees leaves so why have they evolved back or why haven’t other animals evolved to have long necks?
    4. History: Science and History do not support the theory of the big bang or evolution. The bible whether you believe in it or not does serve as a history book from the time it says earth begins. If we have been around for 10 million years where is the history from that age period? Where are the evidence of the wars and civilizations from prior to 10,000 years ago? Why have in the last 2000 years we have went from Medival times to urban cities with electricty photo copy machines, cars, etc etc? Do you really think it took us 10 million years from the big bang to make a fire escape? If you think that is the case you are an idiot like the alledged cave man you believe in.

    In short my logic is simple I believe the Bible is real and literal (I do not support the Gap theory like some other idiots) and can back my beliefs with logical facts in ordinary science history technology etc. I am not attempting to change anyone elses mind simply stating the idea of entertaining evolution is ignorance in my mind given the fact that nothing supports it minus the circular reasoning of the science community and the believers they create.

    Final Point if you can put your faith in Science and believe that nothing exploded somehow creating everything and the life as we know it stick with it brother because that is way more faith then me and my family just believing in there is a God and he made us. Btw if you are right I just die no harm done. If I am right well you will regret your decision forever.

    God Bless,
    G

  54. #54 David
    Earth
    February 5, 2014

    Post-Debate Answers Live w/Ken Ham (Feb. 5)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IUHWp8XBpo#

    Successful Predictions by Creation Scientists
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

    Bill Nye Scores on Debate Presentation if Not Logic
    http://crev.info/2014/02/bill-nye-scores/

    Clash over worldviews
    http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate

  55. #55 Denis
    USA
    February 5, 2014

    Wow. Some very interesting posts and ideas from everyone on here.

  56. #56 Jesse Ogilvie
    United States
    February 6, 2014

    For those of whom believe in the “GOD” almighty, your wrong. Sorry. Watch ZEITGEIST..it is the truth. Would you believe in a god 4,000 years from now if it said that a man today made the earth in the present now just because it is written in a book? Seriousaly..religion in general is a joke and the basis of all evil in the world. You all are just a bunch on cult belongings wackos who can’t see past your own ignorance and are simple minded to be brain washed into such accusations. There is more evidence out there to support everything but what u believe to be true and for you to think that god put that evidence there to question your faith….come on. Enough said. Your not worth it because you can’t even understand how stupid ken ham looks and acts in this debate.

  57. #57 Greg Laden
    February 6, 2014
  58. #58 Kathy Walton
    Kentucky
    February 6, 2014

    Ken Has changed my life, and my family! We now understand the “Words” God have given us, and we are now blessed to be the children of real science and scientist change our world! Christians must surrender their false hopes and recognize the model that has changed our world. Amen!

  59. #59 John
    South Africa
    February 6, 2014

    @Craig: thank you for making the point that bothered me most. Ham was allowed to get away with presenting the Bible as evidence that does not require corroboration because it is the Bible. Talk about a circular argument! (Creationists have no way of knowing whether the Bible was in fact written by Satan.)

  60. […] by all accounts, Nye won the debate. Except for those accounts where he lost the debate. And the accounts that say that nobody really […]

  61. #62 Brony
    February 6, 2014

    I too was wrong about Bill Nye. He performed well and his performance will be a valuable thing to study for others. Congratulations Mr. Nye!

  62. #63 Sylvester B
    Houston,TX
    February 6, 2014

    Greg: “Everything was formed by the Big Bang. Yet, nothing was formed by the Big Bang except a bunch of bosons and stuff.” Of course, the building blocks were created. But the quote from the Chronicle said “the earth” was created. Was that an accurate quote of Bill Nye’s statement? I don’t think so.

  63. #64 H
    NY
    February 6, 2014

    G- You should’ve paid attention in junior high and high school. A basic understanding of biology and history will answer your elementary questions. Your answer of ” God did it” is childish at best. Since the bible has all the answers, can you please let us know when it says that we will be able to finally travel to distant stars or communicate via invisible sounds thru magic wires? It can’t you idiot, because it was written by superstitious desert dwellers with less knowledge of the world than today’s 6th grader.

  64. #65 H
    February 6, 2014

    Kathy. If you wanted to learn what god actually wrote in the bible- shouldn’t you at least invest time to read it in the language it was written in? Oh I guess you’re too lazy

  65. #66 John
    February 6, 2014

    Nye got the prediction part of science well enough.
    He could have used the “usefulness” part of science to cover where he uses “joy of discovery”, “assumptions”, “what you want to know”, and the “you weren’t there” counter. The joy of discovery is an evolved trait. “Usefulness” also sets the stage for we don’t know it all yet but we are learning.

    Science is about the models of today. Nye could have lectured/corrected (a point) on the idea of prediction and to do science we make assumptions. If these assumptions (about the past) help make predictions – it’s good science. We don’t need to be there. Also counters the historical science (false science) thrust. The arguments about what really happened in the past is off point and not science. Science’s view of what happened in the past has changed. Therefore, we shouldn’t get hung up on describing the model of the past as if it is fact. For example, there are other models about the Big Bang such as the cyclic models, steady state models, etc. In religion there are eternal universe models with Gods being part of the universe.

    Further science doesn’t have a model of everything. We are learning. So Nye’s comments about we have yet to learn things, but we will learn, is on point. This also takes care of the flagellum thing.

    Prediction is publishing a forecast that has not yet been observed. Then later the thing is observed. Ham’s “predictions” were known when the bible was written. Therefore, not a prediction. Changing the definition of words is an ID (propaganda) thing that should be challenged. We should also distinguish between an indivual ID believer making a prediction and prediction of the model.

    I disagree with Jason. Nye did a really good job all the way through. His later pushing prediction, the impact on the children of the future, the impact on the future of the US, and who sets the standards was to the point of ID in schools.

    However, we see the new face of ID which is much more dangerous than the face presented in the debate with Jason. We also see the goal is the same – indoctrinate in schools.

    Ham presented a good case for ID – one of the best I’ve seen. BUT Nye won the debate. Ham didn’t loose, Nye won. The target of such a debate is the religious people who would naturally be swayed by a Bible argument. Those who think Ham lost loose sight of who the target audience was. That Ham was targeting these folks seems obvious. It’s why he kept saying “Bible”. Given his target, he was not making a mistake in continually referring to the Bible as a source of everything.

    Having said this, I would ask Nye about his response to the question about whether God created a universe with evolution rather than complexity. Did God create: (a) the universe in such a way that mankind would arise and complexity would increase. Or (b) the complexity and evolution couldn’t possibly do this – (the ID) case.
    I think I understand science doesn’t want to speak of a specific religion such as God. But could bring up religion and case (a). Remember the focus is religious people who need to understand science not the IDers. Perhaps scientists should not be so afraid of referring to God or religion’s usefulness to mankind.

    Nye also let Ham get away with the idea that evolution is toward increased complexity. Nye did start to get into it with the blind fish but lost his way. I think this ID thought will be seen in future debates. It needs to be countered. I suggest:
    One of the most common misunderstandings of MODERN evolution (label it as a misunderstanding in the debate) is that one species can be “more highly evolved” than another, that evolution is necessarily progressive and/or leads to greater “complexity”, or that its converse is “devolution”. Evolution provides no assurance that later generations are more intelligent, complex, or morally worthy than earlier generations. The claim that evolution results in progress is NOT part of modern evolutionary theory; it derives from earlier belief systems that were held around the time Darwin devised his theory of evolution. Natural selection will only favor an increased complexity “progression” if it increases chance of survival, i.e. the ability to live long enough to raise offspring to reproductive (note not sexual) maturity. The same mechanism can actually favor lower intelligence, lower complexity, and so on if those traits become a selective advantage in the organism’s environment. One way of understanding the apparent “progression” of lifeforms over time is to remember that the earliest life began as maximally simple forms. Evolution caused life to become more complex, because becoming simpler wasn’t advantageous. Once individual lineages have attained sufficient complexity, however, simplifications (specialization) are as likely as increased complexity. This can be seen in many parasite species, for example, which have evolved simpler forms from more complex ancestor. Being fit for the environment rules not increased complexity.
    The 2LOT argument of IDers was raised as it usually is. I thought Nye was going to loose it but he recovered nicely and got the open system into the argument. I think the IDers got it but few others.

  66. #67 John
    NC
    February 6, 2014

    I’m unsure why people are commenting on Nye’s incorrect comments (yes several) on cosmology. I suppose it leaves the door open to question his experise.

  67. #68 Jim
    N. Ky
    February 6, 2014

    First let me say that most of you will object to my response as nonsense. I sometimes say for an example: I don’t believe in elevators. Does that have any bearing on the existence of elevators?obviously not. I base my faith, yes faith on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Therefore when we always asserts the truthfulness of the Old Testament and it’s accuracy; I accept it. BTW there is more evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead than there is that Julius Caesar ever existed. Much, much more I could/should say but that should be enough for you to choke on(figuratively) and to go crazy over. One salient point I thought was worth noting when Mr. Nye talked about such joy in researching, etc. Ken Ham asked him why such joy if you only have this life and then you are dead; no afterlife?? Poo-poo me all you desire but you know intrinsically that you are an eternal being; consider Jesus!?!?! I am sorry to say you may now begin your rants; but please know you will have to answer your Creator some day for your denial of His existence; so I rather hope you will be more honest within. And yes I will be glad to entertain any serious inquiry my email is jcoleman@insightbb.com…:) I pray you do. Thks Jim

  68. #69 cosmostheinlost
    Seattle, WA
    February 6, 2014

    This whole debate is a sorry sideshow to the real dialogue going on between science and religion. Here is a link that’s a convenient entryway into the productive work being done:

    http://cosmostheinlost.com/2013/09/30/top-10-list-turned-supernova-science-religion/

  69. #70 Icorigin
    Sanapolis (MN)
    February 6, 2014

    Vladimir Icorikov

    “What if . . . ?”

    There are two kinds of assertions, and they are either presumptions, or assumptions.

    If you (the reader of what you are now reading), and yours truly (the writer of what you are now reading), want to seriously think, be sufficiently frank and forthright, and respectably honest enough, we can and should both concur that the environmental phenomena around us exists – both pertaining to physical objects and to forces of nature we have detected and yet detect with our sight, hearing, smell, and touch senses.

    Such admission by the two of us is fortunate, because if either or both of us doubt, dispute, or disagree with the above premises, neither one or both of us would be worth talking to, but instead reprehensible and even dangerous weirdos worth having law enforcement officers and their assistants take charge concerning (and not regarding) us.

    Note that I used the questionable word: “us”.

    I — and you also — must be careful to NOT speak for each other unless justified in doing so, and so also the word: “we” has to be used only when applicable and appropriate!

    In other words, what is real is therefore (logically) NOT an illusion. And even if we assessed some phenomena around us to be illusions, it would behoove both of us to wisely discern which from what, and both act and behave accordingly.

    Take, for example, the existence of both red and green stoplights at intersections – both of which environmental phenomena are directly related to the environmental phenomena of potentially-red-and-blue-strobelight-flashing squad cars perhaps in the near vicinity more than eager to relate to how you and/or I react to the two different-colored stoplights.

    Now, either or both of us might presume that red and green stoplights are illusions, and/or that green means stop and red means go, but there is a realistic extremely-high-probability chance that those police officers previously alluded to might think otherwise.

    In their case, they – quite ready and able to arrest and ticket violators who wrongly (?) react to the different-colored stoplights (in their “opinion”) – assume that the lights are indeed reality and not illusion (and literally mean EXACTLY what they are supposed to mean regardless of “interpretive differences” or “contextual disagreements” – be they “constitutional” or not issues of either “freedom of [nefarious] speech” or “freedom of [coexisting] religion” or “reproductive choice” purportedly integrated with “women’s health.”

    Because of that, we are fearful to contradict their take on it, and adjust our driving behavior with accommodation to their assessment.

    Having established all that so far, that things around us DO exist and are not instead a lying illusion, and that we adjust our actions and behavior accordingly in the assumption that such is fact instead of myth, fairy tale, legend, tale, rumor, or heresay, we perhaps then continue into metaphysical speculations about the origin of all around us which does exist.

    It is a noteworthy characteristic of the sane (contrasted with crazy or lunatic) to assume that real and non-illusional phenomena of nature around us (including those phenomena of nature humanity has manipulated for the construction and maintenance of buildings, walls, floors, ceilings, heaters, air conditioners, carpets, glass windows, light bulbs or equivalent, etc.) did not create themselves by themselves, particularly non-lifeform objects and forces (many of which – like the Creator(s)? thereof – are invisible to the non-aided human eye, such as wind, gravity, infrared and ultraviolet and microwave and X-ray radiation).

    Even regarding lifeforms which reproduce, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the starters or first ones in existence did not create themselves by themselves.

    Show me a paper dictionary that assembles itself out of forestwood, or a car with all its parts assembling itself (preferably off the assembly line) out of iron ore rocks buried underground, and I will consider giving you a popsicle. But only one. Per day. For a week. Or a month. Maybe.

    Again, at this point, we have to repeat what was stated before, and more.

    Such admission by the two of us about non-virtual reality is fortunate, because if either or both of us doubt, dispute, or disagree with the above premises, neither one or both of us would be worth talking to, but instead pathetic and even dangerous weirdos worth having law enforcement officers and their assistants take charge concerning (and not regarding) us.

    The Origin of all things, at least in their initial manifestation, must – of necessity – be related to some Superior Force, or Thing, or Group of Things, or Lifeform (rather than person-less Inanimate Object, shall we assume?) . . . or – as one fascinating and intriguing Phenomenon of Reality (i.e. Holy Writ) puts it in variously-translated alphabet characters within its printed pages: God.

    Please do not be shocked, dismayed, or even mildly taken back by this author mentioning the “religious” word: “God” associated with the concept of Creator.

    You, the reader, are both strongly admonished and urgently implored to not now go off on some senseless rampage or hatefully-vicious binge or vendetta or crusade with a wildly-capricious conglomeration of slander and ridicule. Such does no good in continuing open-minded and non-fettered communication as to thinking about the origin of phenomena around us, and certainly does not negate the existence of the word: “God” within that environmental phenomenon known as: “The Bible” – nor does one’s mindless and myopic disdain or scurrilous potty-mouthing negate anything in The Bible itself.

    Dealer’s Choice is choosing to not consider contents of the inferior-content Qur’an, Book of Mormon, Apocrypha, and a plethora of lesser litteration.

    What (or better yet, Who) “God” is, relating to the thought and concept of ‘Creator,’ is comprehensively-enough and sufficiently elaborated upon within The HOLY Bible – a Bible penned by humanity themselves, comprised of beyond-mere-conjecture illumination and enlightenment and information which mere human mortals are not capable of concocting by themselves without Divine inspiration.

    Don’t get me wrong. Lying and dishonest fairy tales, legends, myths, allegories and metaphors, symbolism, and such can be facetiously made up by those who for some cause not only crave causing doubt and disbelief but relish and “get their kicks” and “jollies” imposing not simply silly and stupid, but downright dangerous and even lethal, misinformation.

    What is contained within the contents of The Bible – in stark and refreshing and thankful contrast – is not simply the best description of environmental reality which currently exists, but gives humans an awareness, recognition, and fantastic overview of beyond-mere-physical “spiritual” phenomena not limited by the five human senses (and in addition, according to Biblical Scriptures, overriding mere physical phenomena and the limited parameters of such).

    All the malicious doubt and denial in the entire world by impious revilers – by all those so given in to besieging and persecuting those of an entirely different mindset – has not and does not and will not negate the existent reality of either The Bible or the contents therein . . . though hollow and ineffectual sordid claims to the contrary have been, are, and will be made.

    To quote from “the Forbidden Book” (i.e. part of the Sacred-66-books, Judeo/Christian, Old-and-New-Testament, Holy Bible) [ and "Excuse Me, for so doing" ]:

    First Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
    19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.”
    20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
    21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the “foolishness” of what we preach to save those who believe.
    22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
    23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
    24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
    25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than humans, and the weakness of God is stronger than humans.
    26 For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth;
    27 but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong,
    28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
    29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
    30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;
    31 therefore, as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.”

    First Corinthians 2:1 When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom.
    2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
    3 And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling;
    4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
    5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
    6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away.
    7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification.
    8 None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
    9 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,”
    10 God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
    11 For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
    12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.
    13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.
    14 The non-spiritual [man] does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to [him], and [he] is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
    15 The spiritual [man] judges all things, but is [himself] to be judged by no one.
    16 “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

    Part of that “mature” mentioned in verse 6 above relates to a healthy aversion against women in government, even though there was the silly-fluke case of Big Judge Deborah and Wimpy Barak in the Old Testament, and the vague meaning of the word “chief” in the New Testament:

    Acts 17:4 And some of them believed and joined themselves to Paul and Silas, both a great group of the worshiping Greeks, and not a few of the “chief” (whatever that means) women.

    But the majority jist of Scripture strongly indicates that women are not “chief” among adult males, and should not be called “sir” if in uniform (as, for example, an all-women-only Navy WAVE or Army WAC):

    Ecclesiastes 7:28 …One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found.

    Isaiah 3:12 My people: children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. Oh my people, your leaders mislead you, and confuse the course of your paths.

    Nahum 3:12 All your fortresses are like fig trees with first-ripe figs–if shaken they fall into the mouth of the eater.
    Nahum 3:13 Hey, your troops are women within you. The gates of your land are wide open to your foes; fire has devoured your barricades.

    First Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    12 I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
    13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
    14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
    15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with propriety.

    Relating to ‘Adam and Eve’ in verses 13 and 14 above, the mixed-gender couple was called man and wife right from the start in Genesis and thus legitimately and “legally” married without State-issued marriage-license certification (as it was in the United States during the 1700s and 1800s) by an IRS-501(c)(3)-non-profit-”officialized” reverend ordained from an IRS-501(c)(3)-non-profit-”officialized” seminary with all the heavy-handed IRS-mischief “equal-rights”-for-women-feminists-and-homopervert-sexual-orientation baggage associated with that.

    Obviously outside the limited scope of “in and for church” only, Adam and Eve were not merely the first familial unity, but also the first government unit – proven by the fact that they themselves contrived sin-instigated skimpy clothes by their own restriction (Gen. 3:7), soon enhanced by God’s choice of long-hair-bound/long-sleeved-and-long-robed/moccasins-wearing wardrobe for them (Gen. 3:21) — mandatory (for the sake of decency devoid of becoming and being public nuisances exhibiting disorderly conduct … see First Timothy 2:8-9) because other reproduced husband/wife governmental units came on the scene who also were required to be clothed in general public view for the sake of sane-survival general public modesty. Such is not only commonly characteristic of civilized indigenous human tribes, but also respectable neighborhood city councils, county and state assemblies, state and federal house and senate, and so forth.

    So here we come to the “what if . . .”

    Being that it has been said in Scripture that Satan used such: “what if . . .” contrariness in the Garden of Eden against The Original Mother of Us All (i.e. Great-Gramma+ Eve), let’s use it positively for good.

    What if the Earth is not “four billion years old?”

    Have I now committed The Unpardonable Mortal Sin by that simple non-religious suggestion?

    Where and How did fake “scientists” anti-scientifically and non-scientifically come up with that millions/billions-years-old fiction?

    How come the tall mountains have not been worn away to global flatness by gradual-but-supposedly-long-term erosion during that immense time period?

    Are quack “scholars” erroneously basing the “four billion years” on presumptions about radioactive dating of isotopes, miscalculating how much of the original or parent material there was to start with, while ignoring and not taking into consideration addition of identical isotopes mixing in during Noah’s Worldwide Catastrophic Flood?

    Why are sea-creature fossils found at the tops of the mountains? Can stalactites and stalagmites form by calcification in a VERY short time, as have diamonds from compressed carbon in an equally short time?

    Could not probably-constant-speed enroute starlight from “millions-of-light-years-distant” stars and galaxies and nebulas which have been and yet are visible to human observers on Earth during the several thousand years of human history have been created along with the stars and galaxies and nebulas such supposedly are related to?

    What if hallucinating pseudo-”scientists” and biased/bigoted-against-Genesis deceivers concocted that “4-billion” figure out of the blue — using erroneous-source starting-point-and-time presumptions, exacerbating the falsity with presumptive never-never-land processes which never happened?

    What if “God” (the Creator) DID create everything as historically recorded in Genesis?

    The atheist and agnostic retort: “We simply do not know.”

    WHY should they be content with “not knowing,” when there is at least ONE answer (what is contained within The Bible)?

    Are they that way with other things in their lives? Do they want to know and find out if McDonald’s still exists and is open for business when they are hungry? Do they not want to discover if their car will start to get them to McDonald’s when they turn the ignition key? Do they not want to see if their BIOS passcode will get them into their computer after they have inserted fast food and drink into the big holes under their noses and gorged their arrogant bellies at McDonalds, or Arby’s, Wendy’s, Hardees, KFC, or Burger King?

    Do they take pseudo-sophisticated pride in bragging to everyone that they “do not know?”

    Or are they being hypocritical dastardly liars, claiming that they have no answer, when they damn well already know even the intricate details of Scripture’s Genesis chapter one . . . but for some vile and filthy God-forsaken irrationalization have refused to accept that answer?

    To (surprise surprise!) quote from the Bible once more ["Oh NO! Here he goes again!"]:

    Second Corinthians 11:12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.
    13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
    14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
    15 So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
    16 I repeat, let no one think me foolish; but even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little.
    17 (What I am saying I say not with the Lord’s authority but as a “fool,” in this boastful confidence; [ and - shazam! - this "foolish" "non-authoritative" blurbing which follows is going to make it into canonical Scripture by Holy-Spirit enforcement ]
    18 since many boast of worldly things, I too will boast.)
    19 For you gladly bear with fools, being “wise” yourselves! [ and are you smart enough to sense my biting sarcasm? ]
    20 For you bear it if a man makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face.
    21 To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that! [ and are you smart enough to sense my biting sarcasm? ] But whatever any one dares to boast of – I am speaking as a “fool” – I also dare to boast of that.
    22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. [ and it gets even better, as I really hit you with a lot more! ]

    Are they suspicious or jealous against Christian believers who suggest to such prideful no-nothings that what is contained in Genesis of The Bible at least could be true and factual and valid?

    Do close-minded atheists and agnostics (having no ready-for-actual-observation and honestly-documented proof of real-time evolution or even fossil-record evolution) dogmatically (thus hypocritically) despise those allegedly-”dogmatic” Christian creationists who in fact perfectly tie in the exact semantics of The Bible for what is in fact actually found in nature and their environment around them?

    It is vital for lying doubters and scurrilous slanderers to not put words into the mouths of creationists which creationists never actually said, but merely indicated might be a possibility (even though a supposedly absurd one).

    I remember one spiteful anti-creationist/anti-Bible doubter, trembling at times with somewhat-controlled demonically-sassy antagonism, say to me that I believed that pink elephants would come out of his rectum (although the term he used for his rectum was expletively defamatory). But in truth, I never actually said those words, rather that it is possible that pink elephants could or might be emitted out of the lamentable guy’s fecal orifice. So there was a total disconnect as to what he said I said, with what I actually said. To follow up, I would gather that the elephants would have to be compressed and then expand upon emission, else the pain would probably be completely unbearable, with a quick and merciful death promptly petitioned for.

    Perhaps if he ever met me again, he would blurt out: “You are so ruefully closed-minded.” And my response might be: “If I was so closed-minded, I would not even be talking to you.”

    Speaking of pain, I assume (and not presume) that the reason an atheist or agnostic or some similarly disbelieving loonytoon does not presume that red and green stoplights are a deceptive illusion, is their fear of intense pain they could quite possibly inflict themselves with by being broadsided on the driver’s side by some innocent victim violently but innocently connecting with them at some intersection, possibly with the police viewing the entire collision incident and ready to administer copious and irrevocable blame for (or “against” – depending upon your point of view) the disbelieving atheist or agnostic clearly at fault in that situation.

    Ephesians 5:14 Therefore it is said, “Awake, Oh sleeper, and rise up from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.”

    In conclusion, it is sensible and admirable to assume that some answer presently available pertaining to origins (i.e. The Bible) is the ONLY viable answer (so far) instead of presuming either that there is: (1) no answer, or (2) that the Bible answers are wrong, a lie, invalid, deceptive, and erroneous (without having any reasonable grounds whatsoever for disregarding, castigating, and/or debasing them).

    It is disgraceful to dislike the profession of having “faith” — not false “faith” in the heretical and apostate myth of evolution, but rather in the marvelously-informative contents of The Bible.

    Though scoffers will not admit it, they exercise non-catatonic faith in the perfectly-predictable phenomena (of the Creator who they rebelliously shun and blaspheme) as (for instance) they non-catatonically trust (yes: trust) that the floor on which they are now standing or sitting will not suddenly collapse under them, and the roof won’t non-expectantly cave in on top of them, and that God’s meteor from outer space will refrain from coming down and crashing on their thick skulls and air-brained contents therein without being formally invited whether by so-called “spam” public-service-announcement e-mails from devout and concerned Christian missionaries or The Spirit directly, morse-code telegraphs from whoever, or whatever.

    They non-admittedly (and, again: non-catatonically, without being self-immobilized with terror-griped paralysis) trust a non-sadistic God’s constant correctly-proportioned atmosphere so that they are not excruciatingly suffocating, gravity so they are not flung upward off the Earth and consequently consigned to writhing in anguish with the air-pressure-missing torture of suddenly boiling blood.

    They trust friction on the roads they drive, gasoline to stay liquid until vaporized, rubber in tires to not quickly disintegrate, and God’s Sun to not explode all of a sudden and incinerate them, yet they hypocritically brag that they neither believe in the Creator who sustains their very lives in remarkable pleasantness while He understandably and occasionally punishes them and Job-like collateral damage for and in their wayward asinine ignorance, with His hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, poisonous gases and spiders and snakes and irritating mosquitos which they should have – by now – learned to predict and control or avoid instead of fooling around bothering and harassing His saints who take pleasure in admitting that they at least trust and love Him and His.

    It is common sense to go with something (such as the Bible’s answers to origins) that is — instead of bellering out goofy presuppositions and ridiculous theories that are not . . . which Scripture-concordant philosophy is very valuable in assuming that a drifting life raft still near enough for someone to jump into off the melting iceberg is “the thing to do” rather than refusing to admit the existence of the life raft or criticizing and condemning it for not being a preferred color, size, material, origin of manufactured production or brand, country of origin, known identity of purchase provider, or nitpickiness-calculated placement in the water.

    Why don’t articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post and The Boston Globe state EXACTLY the precise same words about the very same news item, and so why do scoffers criticize somewhat-different highlights written within the four gospels of the New Testament? And keep in mind that four thousand men could be part of five thousand men, and the Lord can use The Devil to do the Lord’s will without the Lord being reprimandable — even though the Lord “gets the credit” who ultimately controls it all.

    The atheist and agnostic evolutionist must ["must?"] read precisely and only what the given words of The Bible really are — rather than prejudicially and pompously defame what they mistakenly presume misrepresentatives have said it to have said … gullibly depending upon pseudo-know-it-alls with or without academic credentials and post-graduate degrees in pseudo-”scholarly” brainwashed superstition and laughably-fraudulent “education” — and then carefully scrutinize and analyze if it adequately-enough correctly relates to genuine and authentic reality and the bonafide reality of natural phenomena around us and what we are somewhat certain has happened in the past.

    The only alternative concerning them is for them to pathetically and despicably wallow and flounder in the misty-fog abyss of depraved egocentric uncertainty and doubt accentuated into mean-spirited tirades of ranting blatter – causing misery both on themselves and against others.

    Second Thessalonians 3:2 …and that we may be delivered [away] from wicked and evil humans; for not all have faith.
    Does God, according to His Divinely-inspired-Word Holy Bible, accept or promote so-called “gay” “rights?”

    Does the LORD deem homosexual orientation “right” or instead “wrong?”

    Does the Almighty Judge consider homogays (i.e. homoeffeminate and/or homosodomites) “equal with heterosexuals?”

    Did the Creator, who destroyed all lifeforms (except Noah plus his immediate family and select Ark-transported lifeforms) on planet Earth with a global Flood, mean for the colors of the rainbow seen thereafter by Noah and Company to be interpreted as a promotion of homosexuality?

    Let’s find out by quoting some of His humanly-authored Scripture, some of which was verbally dictated to Moses according to:

    Numbers 7:89 =

    And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the Lord, he heard The Voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and It spoke to him.

    Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

    Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
    25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
    26 For this cause God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
    27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

    First Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the non-righteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (i.e. homogays), nor [same-gender] sodomites,
    First Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

    Evolutionists do NOT WANT to accept THE ONE Biblical Answer!

    As to timing the supposedly-old age of some large trees on Earth, it behooves honest and accurate scientists to use mechanisms to correctly determine starting points of time, and open-mindededly investigate known-and-not-known alteration factors in time durations all along the way from the first incidence or appearance of possibly-already-adult-from-the-beginning trees, to the present.

    It is not legitimate for evolution espousers like Bill Nye to – without acceptable cause and without adequate proofs – disregard the Biblical answers as to origins of environmental phenomena on Earth. Indeed, Ken Ham could press Nye and similar disbelievers who reject the Scriptural answers to origins as to WHY he and they do so, and thus if one definition of absurd and despicable “fool” is to reject – for no scientific reason(s) and substantiation – the Scriptural accounts of creation in the Old Testament book of Genesis.

    Moreover, not only “fool” would be an appropriate term for the aforementioned who reject what is obvious and right in front of them, declared by clearly sane and intelligent, genuine and scholarly, scientists, but – consequently also, the term: “stupid” would be applicable. Pathetic it is for those atheists and naysayers who have the innate intelligence to think otherwise do not — but because of their insidious rebellion against subjection to the God and Christ of Scripture, they make themselves asinine idiots, imbeciles, or at least morons . . . and dangerous-against-society ones at that – as they “glory in their [evolutionist-superstition] shame.”

    The claimed eagerness of Nye to “find out the answers” belies and contradicts his hypocritical negation against that very endeavor. Nye, in fact, does NOT WANT to find out origins answers, because if he did, he would at least give verifiable and testable proofs as to why THE ONE answer given in the Bible pertaining to creation must be misconstrued a diabolically-deliberate and outright-lying fable, legend, tale, metaphorical allegory, or deceitful myth, concocted by non-inspired devious Bible authors who blasphemously misrepresented both the Creator and the phenomena He created — all to hatefully and prejudicially defame the heretic fabrication of evolutionary theory which allegedly existed from the beginning (but actually did NOT so exist).

  70. #71 Greg Laden
    February 6, 2014

    I noticed creationists can be wordy.

  71. #72 Brony
    February 6, 2014

    @ jon doe 31, 52
    Posting it twice does not make it true. Joe @ 46 answered you and until you actually try responding to him you look like a dishonest ranter.

    @ Al Verum 49
    ” To me the most amazing thing is that around the globe “Recorded History” is recognized at about 4-6000 years BC.”
    That means writing. We have artifacts from before that. Spoken language would have predated writing and art come from as far as 200,000 years ago, and artifacts going back over 1,000,000.

    @ G 53

    ” In short my logic is simple I believe the Bible is real and literal”
    Your whole comment really summarizes to that.

    #1 is you pretending your experience is the same as everyone’s experience, #2 physical objects are not populations of reproducing organisms, #3 scientists are not saying that evolution is not still going on (it is), #4 insisting that something is not true because of your book is not an argument or evidence.

    The rest of us require evidence outside of an old book. Independent confirmation in other words. We find the evidence for evolution and the age of the earth convincing. I would take that seriously as the number of religious people seems to be dropping world-wide. Just pointing at a book and getting emotional has limited use in a multimedia world.

    @ David 54
    Those “predictions” were dealt with a long time ago. Just one example,
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html
    Sure you can refuse to accept the counter arguments, but I hope you were unaware of these objections because that would indicate that you were dishonestly pretending that posting those claims actually meant something. If you were already aware of these counterarguments you should have had an argument that included responses to the counterclaims.

    As for the rest of it, your ignorance on the counterclaims leads me to suspect that you should probably go see if it has already been responded to before you just go claiming it means anything. I will look at the post-debate stuff though because that is new.

    @ Icorigin 70
    ” Having established all that so far, that things around us DO exist and are not instead a lying illusion, and that we adjust our actions and behavior accordingly in the assumption that such is fact instead of myth, fairy tale, legend, tale, rumor, or heresay, we perhaps then continue into metaphysical speculations about the origin of all around us which does exist.”

    Just as long as there is something rational between flashing lights and traffic law, and whatever you want to plug into ” metaphysical speculations about the origin of all around us which does exist.”

    ” Even regarding lifeforms which reproduce, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the starters or first ones in existence did not create themselves by themselves.”

    No scientific hypotheses involving origin-of-life issues believe anything had brains or intention back then so I don’t know why you would bring this up.

    ” Show me a paper dictionary that assembles itself out of forestwood, or a car with all its parts assembling itself (preferably off the assembly line) out of iron ore rocks buried underground, and I will consider giving you a popsicle. But only one. Per day. For a week. Or a month. Maybe.”

    And STOP.
    This bears no resemblance to actual origin-of-life research. All current hypotheses involving the origins of life involve chemical events that were individually likely given the geochemical, and organic chemical conditions at the time. For example molecular replicators would have assembled out of the chemicals present with the existing chemistry. Sure the chances of the world we see now being formed from all those individual events was tiny, but it was one end point out of a huge number of them.

    Basically the same answer that Joe gabe to jon doe in #46.

    You can disagree with current origin-of-life research and that is fair, but first you have to be able to respond to it like you know what it actually says.

  72. #73 Brony
    February 6, 2014

    @ Greg 71

    I find that if you just attack one critical claim at a time it’s manageable. After all if the whole affair collapses without it you don’t need to do much more.

    And if point one still stands you can always move onto point 2…

  73. #74 dean
    February 6, 2014

    I noticed creationists can be wordy

    and incoherent.

  74. #75 Ben
    Texas
    February 6, 2014

    Now, it doesn’t matter how much Nye information doesn’t have, when Ham does not even attempt to the answer the questions that are posed to him. He simply repeats his slogan over and over again, this is especially evident in the Crowd Questions.

    He even flat out states that his mind can never be changed. This is irrational behavior, the refusal to accept what one observes before them. He uses his illusionary term ‘Historical Science’ as a crutch and a blanket statement to counter all points poised against him or Bill.

    Even their interpretation of the text is flawed. ‘Day’ is in fact a word in Hebrew that means ‘time’. An specified amount of time.

    When I’ve asked creationists in my local area, if other religions can accept evolution, why can’t your denomination? And their response every time, is this word for word, “Their Religion is wrong.” Why? What is your reasoning for this? They refuse to say anything else but this. They offer nothing else.

  75. #76 Me
    Orillia
    February 6, 2014

    Humans, with our complex minds are blown away at the fact the earth provides everything we need to survive, Air, fresh water etc. The sun is exactly far enough away so we don’t burn, yet close enough to keep us from freezing. The animals are unique, and somehow have intelligence to survive on their own. How can someone so silly think this all just happened. Someone gave this a lot of thought.

  76. #77 Gary
    New Jersey
    February 6, 2014

    After watching the debate twice, once last night and then again today I can say that Bill Nye came across as a rather cold speaker who kept attacking Ken Ham thru out the debate. He never referred to the Creation Museum as just that , he called it a ” facility “. In general his tone was a demeaning one. I always enjoyed Bill Nye in the past however in this debate he could only be regarded as second place. Ken Ham did a very fine job of stating the Biblical account as he always has for many years but the best thing he did was presenting the Good News. God Bless Ken Ham and the Creation Museum !!!!!!!!!!!!

  77. #78 Erika
    Charlotte, NC
    February 6, 2014

    It blows my mind to think people believe something came from nothing. And I feel really sorry for the many believers in science and go looking for that truth because I promise you, if you genuinely look for God you will find him and understand faith and how faith beats science any day! Hashtag truth

  78. #79 Joyce Bright
    February 6, 2014

    It is hard to wake up every morning and go outside and think how all this happened by accident. Everything happpened so perfectly to sustain life as we know it. Science and theories are flawed. I would much rather know I was created and have a purpose than to think I evolved from apes.

  79. #80 Repent
    February 6, 2014

    Darwinian evolution is a faith.

  80. #81 DC
    Kentucky
    February 7, 2014

    How small a mind that can’t comprehend the vastness of the universe and must explain what they can’t comprehend to “God made it”. I think that is the definition of “something from nothing.” And this notion that for there to have purpose, or to be a good person, or to be a productive member of society, one must believe in God (most times it has to be the Christain God) to be insulting and small minded.

  81. #82 Christian but science
    China
    February 7, 2014

    I am a Christian who believe in Science
    if i have one question to Ken Ham is How The Chinese who had 5000 over years of history survived while noah ark only had 8 human, and there is no record of a super flood in the Chinese history..?

  82. #83 Marco
    February 7, 2014

    “Everything happpened so perfectly to sustain life as we know it”

    This is a circular argument, of course. If it happened slightly different, there would most likely be life, but NOT as we know it. Heck, there may well be life unlike we know it somewhere else in the universe.

  83. #84 holy cow
    February 7, 2014

    The question that always pops in my head when I hear this debate is, how can any people of faith dis the ‘creation’ so hard by denying the beauty and complexity of the universe which has been discovered by our observation? Science is what illuminates creation, yet it is denied. If you are of faith, aren’t you denying God’s work?

  84. #85 I_call_BS
    US
    February 7, 2014

    @China…Are you sure about that?

    The Xia Dynasty (2070 BC – 1600 BC) is the first dynasty in China to be described in ancient historical chronicles. Although the Xia is an important element in early Chinese history, reliable information on the history of China before 13th century BC can only come from archaeological evidence, thus the concrete existence of the Xia is yet to be proven, despite efforts by Chinese archaeologists to link Xia with archaeological sites.

  85. #86 Paul
    Atlanta
    February 7, 2014

    I side with atheism and science and watch a lot of the debates posted on yt that have richard dawkins, christopher hitchens, same harris, and others; i have to say compared to those debates, this one was awful on both sides. you cant expect much from ken ham, but bill nye seriously lost an opportunity here to speak clearly, not attack his opponent and instead focus on creation directly, and to teach the audience a little science and how its done instead of just stating the results of science. For example he couldve explained the discrepancies of dating methods and how they are individually accurate when used in the right situation.

  86. #87 john doe
    February 7, 2014

    here is the rocket example form a non associated science site…

    Rest Frame Time Elapsed
    per Day on Ship

    v/c Days Years
    0.0 1.00 0.003
    0.1 1.01 0.003
    0.2 1.02 0.003
    0.3 1.05 0.003
    0.4 1.09 0.003
    0.5 1.15 0.003
    0.6 1.25 0.003
    0.7 1.40 0.004
    0.8 1.67 0.005
    0.9 2.29 0.006
    0.95 3.20 0.009
    0.97 4.11 0.011
    0.99 7.09 0.019
    0.995 10.01 0.027
    0.999 22.37 0.061
    0.9999 70.71 0.194
    0.99999 223.61 0.613
    0.999999 707.11 1.937
    0.9999999 2236.07 6.126
    0.99999999 7071.07 19.373
    0.999999999 22360.68 61.262
    0.9999999999 70710.68 193.728
    0.99999999999 223606.79 612.621
    0.999999999999 707114.60 1937.300
    0.9999999999999 2235720.41 6125.261
    0.99999999999999 7073895.38 19380.535
    0.999999999999999 22369621.33 61286.634

    .99999999999999999999999999999999 speed of light @ 6 days near farthest photons= 13.7 billion years

  87. #88 john doe
    February 7, 2014

    BIBLE AND SCIENCE AGREE…EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY EQUATION SAYS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AND 6 DAYS ARE BOTH TRUE DEPENDING ON SPACE-TIME COORDINATES; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.999999999999999999999999999­­99999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000­­500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119­­988e-12; PLACING YHWH 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.
    distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,19­­2,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000­­,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999­­999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,0­­00,000,000,000 – 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photons
    space time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light survived, hence time kicks in), this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years; 6 OF OUR DAYS ARE STRETCHED OUT AND CONTAIN 14 BILLION EARLY YEARS OF THE UNIVERSE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
    the expanse was not made in 1:2 where YHWH is hovering above the waters….therefore since he was above the waters above that were above those below and there was no expanse therefore only one face… he was above the universe…the hebrew words for heaven are mayim (waters)…and shamayimn(fire and waters)

  88. #89 john doe
    February 7, 2014

    *respectfully*
    let’s start without the math…lets be theoretical
    When you get closer to light speed…time slows down
    When you reach light speed…time stops for you (NASA has an article online saying this..and its well known)
    So if someone were near the farthest photons…travelling near light speed…that persons time would get really really slow depending on their velocity
    we know that relativity is true…we have to reset the time of satellites every day
    gravity stretches space…when space is stretched…time slows down
    the universe is stretching
    a billion light years away is a billion years ago…two billion lights years away is two billion years ago
    all astronomers interpret the stretching of space as the stretching of time
    whether the time is literal 6 days or not has been a long dabate among bible believers
    Schroeder is saying the 6 days is where the Bible says YHWH is at…above the universe…and that since the early universe time was not stretched out it was much faster so the math shows that 6 of our days contain 14 billion years when the universe was not as stretched..all scientist know stretching of space slows time down
    the vedic indians said a day with their deities was hundreds of thousands of years
    the bible has relativity in many places…it says a 1000 years is as a day, and as a watch in the night (about 3 hours); Other passages that were written decades after Christ said this is the last hour (deacades) it would appear that there is relativity in the Bible
    The ENGLISH translations did butcher the HEBREW LANGUAGE of genesis one
    Here is the order in Hebrew…
    *********
    darkness on the surface of the deep (black hole, abyss in septuigint)
    light…singular not plural..there is only one light…1000 years ago there were Jews saying the universe began smaller than a grain of mustard
    light separates from darkness as the universe cools to the point that photons are freed
    atmosphere is formed and things start seperating
    land and water on the earth seperate to for sea and land (singular)
    land and seas become plural
    plants are formed from the eretz (earth) eretz can mean dirt, land, nation, or the globe…the oldest fossils we have resemble plantlike structures…some of the ancient jewish theologians said plants were begun this time by their creation was ongoing through the rest of the days
    the atmosphere becomes oxygenated and sun, moon and starlight reaches the earth…shines upon the earth…Genesis stresse two times the sun shined down on the earth…made in hebrew is asah…
    also all the tenses in Gen 1 are imperfect in the hebrew language…
    the Hebrew word for made is…
    asah-to do, fashion, accomplish, make
    (Qal)
    to do, work, make, produce
    to do
    to work
    to deal (with)
    to act, act with effect, effect
    to make
    to make
    to produce
    to prepare
    to make (an offering)
    to attend to, put in order
    to observe, celebrate
    to acquire (property)
    to appoint, ordain, institute
    to bring about
    to use
    to spend, pass
    as you see…asah does NOT necessarily mean “made from scratch” there are many other meanings such as work, deal, act with effect, perpare, attend to, put in order, observe, celebrate, acquire, appoint, ordain, institute, use, spend
    this era is when the atmosphere became oxygenated and is very near the time that the luminosity of the sun began to rise intsead of plummeting
    two times the text says the sun shined upon the earth
    set (nathan)-to give, put, set
    (Qal)
    to give, bestow, grant, permit, ascribe, employ, devote, consecrate, dedicate, pay wages, sell, exchange, lend, commit, entrust, give over, deliver up, yield produce, occasion, produce, requite to, report, mention, utter, stretch out, extend
    to put, set, put on, put upon, set, appoint, assign, designate
    to make, constitute
    here you can see that set can mean a good number of things
    this era…something significant did happen with the sun moon and stars..they became visible on the eart and the suns luminosity began to rise
    another point to prove my point…in Job 38 it places stars before the earth..therefore asah does not mean made from scratch
    another point..look up the dictionaries online…a reflector can be called a light…see for yourself…the dictionaries say it
    if the bulb in a flashlight is gone..is it still not called a light?
    ************
    continuing…
    tanniyn- dragon, serpent, sea monster
    dragon or dinosaur
    sea or river monster
    serpent, venomous snake
    as you can see…most of the definitions are reptiles or amphibians
    unfortunately..the KJV translated it as whales becuase they were not aware of these other things
    1000 years ago..there were Jewish theologions that knew this was reptiles
    owph-flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
    fowl, birds
    winged insects
    unfortunately the KJV translators were not aware of the flying insects and their large sizes…KJV chose birds when the Hebrew intended flying insects
    ************
    Also Eve was created from adam
    Create (bara)-to create, shape, form
    (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
    of heaven and earth
    of individual man
    of new conditions and circumstances
    of transformations
    as you see…bara can mean to transform…actually Eve was transformed from Adam..YHWH didnt make her from scratch…he used Adams body and DNA
    therefore…YHWH could have made animals from animals
    unfortunately…many christians and atheists are too lazy to open a dictionary…even the websters english says that create can simply mean to change appearance of something
    ************
    The English botched the Hebrew…but the Hebrew is actually in harmony with the modern scientific record…if you go by the Hebrew and not the English…as you can see
    the original Hebrew tenses are imperfect meaning ongoing action rather than completed that day
    and 6 days near the outer universe are 14 billion years here…it all depends on your velocity and how much space has been stretched..this is basic physics without the math…so its easier to understand…its in all physics texts
    I counted about 18 things in all in Genesis in the correct order..the permutations are 18! are 1 in 10^15 odds or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 odds

  89. #90 I_call_BS
    US
    February 7, 2014

    @Paul

    How can you side with atheism and science when atheism is a belief but science is science? (side note – the choice to not believe in a deity is still a belief) Aren’t you doing the exact thing you decry young earth believers of doing by trying to mix science and belief?

    Teach a little science? You mean like the fact that to be called science it has to follow the scientific principle (ALL of it)? What you are all missing is the last piece of the method which states that the hypothesis needs to be reproducible/testable. Sorry, but there are zero experiments that reproduce the big bang or molecules to man evolution.

    Ugh, where to begin with all the problems with radiocarbon dating?
    Let’s even use a website intended to discredit such “dumb” young earth believers (http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating):
    Question: Kieth and Anderson radiocarbon-dated the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years. ICR creationists claim that this discredits C-14 dating. How do you reply?

    Answer: It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that’s about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are.
    - Hmm, I hope they don’t become marine biologists because mussels depend on oxygen in the water to survive. If their theory is that the water and humus they are surviving on is so old it hasn’t mixed with the air enough, then these mussels would be dead long before they came along to do their tests. Not to mention most of the earth’s carbon 14 exists in oceans.

    Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn’t have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

    Answer: Very simply…This [background] radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a “radiocarbon” date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn’t at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
    -Hmm, why didn’t they answer the question? In order to calculate the apparent “age” of the object, the current amount of C-14 needs to be known. So the point is, the coal/oil HAS a measurable amount of C-14 but shouldn’t if it is that old. And statistically speaking, I’d be very hard pressed to trust a calculation that measures things in the 20,000 year range when the “background” radiation puts things in the 50,000 year range.

    Question: Creationists such as Cook (1966) claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C-14 in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying. If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C-14 the atmosphere had. If we extrapolate as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C-14 in it at all. If they are right, this means all C-14 ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. How do you reply?

    Answer: Yes, Cook is right that C-14 is forming today faster than it’s decaying. However, the amount of C-14 has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines.
    -Hmm, talk about circular reasoning! Of course we know the rates of C-14 creation in the atmosphere over the last 10,000 years – C-14 dating tells us what they were!…

    …There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: one can count rings or one can radiocarbon-date the wood. Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to 6200 BC, one can check out the C-14 dates against the tree-ring-count dates.
    -Hmm, once again tree ring counts validate C-14 dating. Or wait, does C-14 dating validate tree ring counts? That darn circular reasoning has me all messed up.

    It is assumed that decay rates are constant. — that is, rates we measure today are assumed to be the same as rates throughout all history. Simply because we have no method of altering decay rates, is not sufficient to justify that assumption. We know very little about the conditions under which the elements were first formed — and even that information is based on speculation and assumption. Certainly those conditions were different then than now. It is assumed that daughter products used in dating come from only one parent source. That assumption may not be justified.

    Sounds like there are plenty of reasons Bill should have stayed away from “explaining” those discrepancies because he would have floundered even more!

  90. #91 Phil
    Hong Kong
    February 7, 2014

    The debate really should have been over in a few sentences. Ken’s model says the Earth is ONLY 6000 years old, then where were the dinosaurs? Certainly, for their size and amazing fierceness, some human being would have made note into the bible they say they saw a freaking dinosaur. (of course no human was here 65+million years old, and even if they were, the model would already be wrong).

    Fact is, such a debate was always in favor of Ken Ham, because he could just ramble with a bunch of questions (and boy did he talk fast) and it would take Nye forever to explain to normal individuals with limited science knowledge.

    Ken kept arguing that science based the age of the Earth on asteroids, and that no rock is billions of years old. The Canadian Shield itself is over 3 billion years old. He also said, there were many methods of dating that didn’t date the Earth several billions of years (because those methods are incorrect and missing other factors). Fact is, 100% of the methods do NOT say the Earth is 6000 years old. If you use the most accurate methods and all of them converge at around 4.5 billion and you can repeat the experiments and measurements and it’ll still be that.

    lastly, @ the person who said “Nye was lame” for saying “I don’t know” Scientists DON’T ever claim anything they don’t know. They are honest. Scientists are the most critical about themselves. If ANY scientist were to make a mistake, other scientists will be the first to point it out. Scientists never say an absolute anything, “oh he has your traits, he must be your son” Scientists use statistics, probabilities to infer, “sir you are 99.9% likelihood to NOT be the father” That means if we run the test 1000 times, possibly there could be 1 time it became positive.

    Observation science can’t show evolution process? OH YES IT CAN.
    1. You can see it simply by growing bacteria on a dish and adding stresses and antibacterial things. Eventually, you would see all the weak bacteria dead and only the super ones alive.
    2. Every, and I say EVERY, person with AIDS has had their HIV virus mutate and evolve into something else. HIV normally can only attack one of the two T cells in your body, so even if you lose all of one, you still have the other. But over several years in time, where you have trillions of viruses, and almost no T cells of one type, eventually a new HIV virus will be able to attack the other T cell that is plentiful, and prosper and it is at THIS POINT, you are classified as having AIDS, because now both T cells populations are decimated and you could die to anything like a simple infection.

    I personally studied Cell Biol and Genetics, and was particularly interested in genetic evolution. By looking at Mitochondria DNA, it’s easy to calculate how long ago was the last ancestor shared between humans and chimps, humans and gorillas, snakes and crocs… it’s actually quite easy to understand and spectacularly clear and logical.

  91. #92 BioD
    February 7, 2014

    Bill Nye did a good job
    Ken Ham did not do so well articulating some of his points even though he knows much more
    Neither proved anything
    Both claimed many things
    Bill Nye claimed there is an old tree that is over 9000 years old.
    Old Tjikko he said was dated by dendrochronology
    The fact is, the rings were NEVER counted to over 9000 years.
    Counting the rings only gives an age of a few hundred years
    The tree’s roots were dated using Radio carbon.
    Ken Ham has always discounted that as full of errors

  92. #93 Greg Laden
    February 7, 2014

    Let us not quibble about the age of the ancient ones. Not when Pando may be as much as a million years old. Certainly more than 80,000.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees

  93. #94 Greg Laden
    February 7, 2014

    Also, counting rings, or dendrochronology, is not limited to a few hundred years.
    .

  94. #95 I_call_BS
    US
    February 7, 2014

    Greg, you can’t be serious?

    Wikipedia…full of words like “may be,”cannot be,” “thought to be,” and “presumed.”

    Oh, and none of the trees in Pando are older than a few hundred years old but the “organism” is 80,000 years old. Based on what? Fallacious carbon dating?

    What tree hugger would ever let anyone take core samples out of a living legend?

    Come on, that isn’t science or even facts.

  95. #96 I_call_BS
    US
    February 7, 2014

    Sorry to any tree huggers…I do think we should respect and care for the trees and meant no disrespect to you.

  96. #97 Greg Laden
    February 7, 2014

    There are tree ring sequences over 5k from the present. The oldest one or two are apparently not known to Wikipedia. But of those listed, just under 5 k, they are well documented.

    Coring is not harmful to the trees.

    I am sorry you don’t understand the nature of Pando … Shame that a preconceived notion that the earth is 6k years old limits you so. But it is nice to have people around who can show us the medieval mind in operation.

  97. #98 I_call_BS
    February 7, 2014

    It’s Wikipedia, fix it and cite your sources.

    I do understand the “nature” of Pando. My point is that there is nothing scientific about saying it’s age is “certainly more than 80,000″ years old when the methods used to determine said age are dubious at best.

  98. #99 Greg Laden
    February 7, 2014

    Tell us how old you think Pando is.

  99. #100 Gilbert
    Canada
    February 8, 2014

    I do understand the platform from which Bill presented his theory. From a holistic view point, Bill’s presentation is purely scientific. We are cognizant of the fact that it requires scientific methodology to interpret the age of history. We are cognizant of the fact that mankind is an intelligent design and it requires someone smarter than human to design human. We are cognizant of the fact that biology was not a random act. Bill’s theoretical exhibit of science is nothing more than one of the capsule from the proscription of creation science.
    Let us not get bent out of shape about who win, lose, or draw. Ken’s presentation was inclusive. He presented a chronological account of creation; he presented the event which explained how the fossils are geographically located and how the canyon came into being. He overwhelmingly expressed that behind all the science & ecological unanswered questions about young or old earth there is an IT (intelligent) designer.

  100. #101 Brian LaMay
    Murrieta, CA
    February 8, 2014

    Don’t know why, Greg, you consider Bill Nye to have resoundingly won the debate. Each man made points the other seemed unable to refute. Both liberally cited scientific evidence for their claims. Each, I believe, succeeded somewhat in casting doubt on the other’s view of origins.

    There seems in this forum a tendency to laud Nye for staying within the realm of science and to discredit Ham for straying beyond its parameters. But both of them appealed to “logic” outside the rubric of science. For example, Nye assailed Ham’s reliance on a translated text that’s seen numerous iterations. But his telephone analogy doesn’t wash because — unlike the spoken word — the written word isn’t ethereal. We have manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic that date to the first century AD — and conscientious linguists can and have diligently compared those texts. Yet it befuddled Nye that Ham would rely so confidently on those texts. In assailing that reliance, he breached scientific boundaries.

    By the way, along those lines, take a gander at Isaiah 40:22. It says unequivocally that the Earth is round and that, as Ham noted, God stretches out the heavens. In fact, the original Greek uses a present participle form. Could that be a smoking gun for a Creator’s role in an expanding universe?

    At any rate, that verse hardly reflects the musings of a “medieval,” flat-Earth mind-set.

    Ham was right to draw a distinction between observable science and historical science — and to cite proof that secular scientists also make that distinction (the textbook). However, he was wrong to assert that historical science is never observable; Nye refuted that contention with examples.

    I believe Ham’s claim that a person’s world view influences the way they interpret the evdence is compelling. The cartoon of Ham and Nye drawing from the same bin of evidence was trenchant. On second thought, maybe that’s not the root cause of the divide here.

    Instead, maybe it’s the fact that many scientists are averse to analyzing the world around them through anything but the prism of science. That’s why Ham often proclaimed “I do know” when Nye disclaimed “I don’t know.”

    Such debates would be more useful, I believe, if waged by opposing panels of scholars representing a handful of disciplines (say science, philosophy, logic, sociology). Otherwise, any truths arrived at are half-baked and out of context from the standpoint of existential ethos.

    One final point, if I, too, may digress from the arena of science: Ever hear of Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel? The former was a law student and agnostic, the latter an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune and an avowed atheist. Both were eminent researchers who resolved to, through earnest study and argumentation, disprove the Bible’s claims about Jesus.

    Both were left so overwhelmed by the vindication of the Bible
    through their research — they accepted that Christ is God of the Universe.

    McDowell proclaimed what both Ham and Nye acknowledged: You can’t reproduce the origins of life and the world in a laboratory. But, judging by deeply corroborating eyewitness testimony, detailed prophetic accuracy and the painstaking integrity of the historical record, the Bible is true. Its affirmation “would be an open and shut case in a court of law,” McDowell concluded.

  101. #102 I_call_BS
    February 8, 2014

    Do I get a prize for being the 100th comment?

    I think you know the answer to that already.

    I’ll make this my last few comments:

    I think each man feels they won the debate. Nye got to tell the people of Kentucky how they’ll ruin themselves by adhering to a belief he doesn’t agree with but can’t disprove. Ham got to present the gospel message and even if nobody listens, provide logical fallacies that should be enough for the discerning scientist to realize they hold to a belief just as strongly.

    And I’m sure you all thought you knew what my name meant, but it actually was I call Bible study.

    Thanks for at least approving the comments of people you don’t agree with…but you really ought to stop approving whatever Mr Doe is trying to say.

  102. #103 daedalus2u
    http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/
    February 8, 2014

    @john doe, the problem with your approach is that the objects at great distance are also large. A galaxy a billion light years away is about the same size as galaxies that are nearer. It takes light the same length of time to cross a distant galaxy as it does to cross a nearby galaxy.

    We know it takes light different lengths of time to travel from the Earth from the Sun, depending on the pathway it takes. A photon from the equator and a photon from the pole travel different distances and so take different lengths of time to reach the Earth.

    The same must be true of stars in distant galaxies. Light traveling 1,00,100,000 light years will take longer than light that travels 1,000,000,000 light years to reach the Earth.

    The Earth is rotating, once per day. Light from different parts of a distant galaxy is captured (or not) when that light reaches the Earth. If that light is traveling different distances (and we know it is), then what we are seeing is where the light originated, when the photons were released. If a distant galaxy is thousands of light years in diameter, then the light reaching us today originated at times that were thousands of years apart.

    It is simple geometry. You can’t have light that appears to be from very distant and large objects appear to be coming from very distant and large objects unless those objects actually are very distant and large. The alternative is that the trajectory of each photon was individually specified so as to give the illusion of large objects at great distances.

    Not just photons, but neutrinos too.

  103. #104 Marco
    February 8, 2014

    @Brian LaMay: Lee Strobel, seriously? That’s the man who repeatedly cites supposed microletters on coins, as reported by one Jerry Vardaman, as “the strongest example of archaeological confirmation” that the biblical story about Jesus’ birth is true. If that’s the strongest evidence, there is actually NO evidence! Vardaman only provided drawings, never allowed others to examine the coins, and most hilariously found the words REX JESVS on a coin. Oops. Oops? Yes, “oops”. The “J” did not exist until medieval times!

    Sobel has been pretty good in selling his story as the critical journalist who has done everything he can to disprove christianity. He has explained his former atheism as a way to justify his bad lifestyle. That is, he was never a real atheist. He was like the guy with a comb-over so he could pretend not to be bald.

  104. #105 Marco
    February 8, 2014

    @Brian LaMay: Also Josh McDowell is a good example of the closet-believer. His life story actually states he gave up on *religion* for a while. And then he supposedly set out to disprove “christianity”, not the existence of a god.

  105. #106 andre
    February 8, 2014

    science has nothing to say about first causes, but the bible has lots to say about man’s rejection of truth. when the bible says that Jesus, who proved himself to be God by raising himself from the dead, was the one who created this universe, i put my faith in him, not man.

    before that day when He comes to judge the earth it will be just as it was before Noah stepped into the ark.

  106. #107 Brian LaMay
    February 8, 2014

    Sorry, Marco, I didn’t realize pure motives were a prerequisite for being an atheist. So Strobel’s introspection — his sense of his own depravity — disqualified him?Perhaps Strobel should have dispensed with the coin “evidence” – but there is other archaeological evidence: the Shroud of Turin, the Nazareth Inscription, to name two. You may categorize the archaelogical evidence for the resurrection as flimsy at best. Conversely, how can one ignore the compelling circumstantial evidence for Creation: a seemingly mechanized cosmos that bespeaks order and connectdness, like parts in a machine. How about art? Can you have art without an artsit? Is it logical to assume that artists can be inspired to create by “uncreated, unengineered” beauty that screams the earmarks of creation? Now you’re talking flimsy. No one in this argument is blameless when it comes to the accusation of parking logic alongside the curb. As Ken Ham noted, world view inherently informs — and risks tainting — our interpretation of scientific evidence.

  107. #108 Jim Powell
    February 8, 2014

    What I found interesting is how Bill Nye speaks of the “joy” of discovery as if he’s religious about the science he embraces. Just as Christians speak similar of the “joy” they have knowing their creator. Both sides speak passionate about their own beliefs. And frankly, both sides have valid points. However, I would rather have joy in both. You can have the best of both worlds. Our creator made it so.

  108. #109 lotharson
    Europe
    February 8, 2014

    I think that Bill Nye has clearly to be congratulated for his warm and kind tone during the whole debate.

    I offered my own progressive Christian thoughts on the debate here .

    Cheers from Europe were Creationist is really fringe.

  109. #110 Bio D
    February 8, 2014

    Dear Greg,

    When a dubious method like carbon dating is used to prop up dubious results, then it’s all a castles in the air.

    The tree rings were NOT counted to over 9000 years as was my contention and that sir, just happens to be true.

    Before Mary, no one whether in Old earth creation camp or hardcore evolution camp thought soft tissue could survive past 100-200,000 years even in the permafrost of Siberia.
    Then came Mary Schweitzer with soft tissue in a T Rex supposedly 65 million years old.

    Then everybody in the evolution camp went berserk on that saying she was crazy and mistaken, contamination …blah blah blah…

    But the fact Remains……

    While they threw the facts to save the paradigm, I think someone has to be an absolute idiot to believe cartilage and blood cells or meat (from a “200 million “ year old fish) can survive proposed deep time….

  110. #111 achristian1985
    TX
    February 8, 2014

    The Specific Cause of the “Evolution vs. ‘Creationism’” Controversy, and of the apparent discrepancy between science and the Bible

    1. Human beings cannot understand abstract, invisible realities without first learning visible, concrete references. Radio waves are a good example: you cannot detect them directly with the 5 physical senses- yet they are nonetheless real. Spiritual matters are likewise not amenable to direct mental comprehension.
    2. It is impossible to understand the Bible merely with the finite human mind alone, regardless of how much time and theology you employ to do so. The truths contained in the Bible must be REVEALED spiritually in order to be correctly understood mentally.
    3. The best means to convey this is the illustration of learning a language. You cannot directly learn a language, the components of the language must first be directly correlated to visible concrete objects. A human being (a child, for instance) is first shown a visible picture of a physical object and then the audible or written symbolic language component is linked to it to give comprehension.
    4. Likewise, the spiritual reality to come forth in the New Testament would be totally incomprehensible without firstly having the detailed typology of the Old Testament.
    This is the crux of the reason why the mind alone is incapable of understanding the Bible: some of the accounts are literal, and some are allegorical. Without revelation, you confuse the two and fall into systematized error.
    5. For example: “Behold the Lamb of God”. Certainly allegorical- Christ is not being described as the 4-legged offspring of a sheep here. ‘The New Jerusalem, the bride of the lamb’. Is the lamb marrying a physical city? No! Again, obviously allegorical. If the Bible is the Word of God, then scientific, empirical knowledge cannot help but verify it. Any apparent discrepancy is due to one of three things: A. Unjustified, inductive extrapolations of scientific findings. B. Incorrect, dogmatic (present on both sides of the E. vs. C. issue) interpretations of either secular or scriptural evidence. C. Lack of evidence in critical, specific areas for the purpose of preserving free will. Example: IF science ascertained factually that there was no fossil record prior to 6,000 years ago (i. e.: Adam and Eve, the human race magically and instantaneously appeared) don’t you realize that this would be such prima facie evidence of direct Divine intervention that it would interfere with free will?
    Now, to apply these parameters to the crux of the matter.
    Life, like radio waves, is abstract and mysterious: it cannot be analyzed and comprehended directly. So any depiction of the process of life must be communicated allegorically.
    6. The Bible is a book of LIFE, NOT a book of knowledge. Genesis Chapter One is an account of the propagation of life, NOT creation per se. It is an allegorical depiction of the relationship of the Spirit, the Word, light, and life. It is NOT a scientific chronology of creation. If a person interprets it literally instead of allegorically, then they are doomed to try to fit the square peg of the fossil record into the round hole of their mistaken (and incorrect scripturally) dogmatic, religious fallacy.
    To my dear brothers and sisters: When did ‘Creationism, et. al.’ become an article of the faith? Why is it virtually considered heresy to believe that God may have used evolution to create man?
    To those who are not yet my brothers and sisters: The world is headed inexorably in one direction, and no one can prevent it. Christ will return and, by all indications, sooner not later. THIS FACT, and not any amount of accumulation of the details of the physical universe, needs to be your primary consideration. The outward picture of the Flood and the Ark is a type foretelling a spiritual reality to come. It would be ‘wise and prudent’ for you to expend a modicum of time and effort to ascertain what the ‘ark’ symbolizes, and how you can enter into Him before the flood comes.
    http://www.amessageforthehumanrace.org

  111. #112 Marco
    February 9, 2014

    Brain LaMay: pure motives are important, because it is clear that Strobel did not go in his self-proclaimed search with pure motives. He *claims* he set out to disprove christianity, but in reality he didn’t. The coin “evidence” is a prime example of his dishonesty. Surely anyone who is truly skeptical would have asked himself why Vardaman was the only to see those letters, and even a letter than was non-existent at the time. A truly skeptical man even when on a quest to *prove* christianity would have disowned that as any evidence!

    The Turin Shroud is also very weak as any evidence. Apart from the problems properly dating the shroud, it is equally difficult to place it in the right region, and then to assign it to one specific person (those who have seen inscriptions are like Vardaman: the only people to see them).

    The Nazaret inscription has the same problems, although it is more likely to be from the right period and possibly from the right region. But there is no reference whatsoever to Jesus, and there is no evidence linking it to the resurrection. Grave robbing was common in those years, as a later edict shows. Necromancy was not uncommon, so that would even explain removing bodies from graves.

  112. #113 G
    NOT the G at #53
    February 10, 2014

    For the record, I am not the same G as the G who posted #53. This should be evident from my history of postings here.

    I’m the G who believes in evolution, vaccination, the Big Bang, and scientific methods & findings generally. I have no objection to others believing whatever is natural to them, or whatever they deliberately choose. I object vigorously to those who seek to impose various unfalsifiable or undecidable beliefs uopn the public such as by inserting “intelligent design” into public school curricula, and I object vigorously to attempts to legislate away the rights of individuals and groups based on religious or ideological beliefs.

    I don’t think it’s worthwhile to argue evolution vs. creation with fundamentalists. Live and let live, teach science in the public schools, and teach religion in Sunday schools and their equivalents in other denominations.

  113. #114 G
    February 10, 2014

    For the record, I am not the same G as the G who posted #53 or in #113.

    I’m the G who believes in variation, vaccination, the Big Bang (God spoke and bang, it happened), and scientific methods & findings generally. I have no objection to others believing whatever is natural to them, or whatever they deliberately choose. I object vigorously to those who seek to impose various unfalsifiable or undecidable beliefs upon the public such as by inserting “molecules to man” into public school curricula, and I object vigorously to attempts to legislate away the rights of individuals and groups based on religious or ideological beliefs.

    I don’t think it’s worthwhile to argue evolution vs. creation with naturalists. Live and let live, teach real science in the public schools, and teach communion with God in Sunday schools.

  114. #115 Sam
    February 10, 2014

    One of the most basic scientific rules is that “matter cannot come from non-matter.” This rule is broken in the evolutionist worldview

  115. #116 Phil
    February 10, 2014

    For some unknown reason every evolutionist is under this illusion that evolution is scientific fact. Something cannot be scientific fact until there is no unknowns and evolutionist still have no anwser for where the atoms of the big bang came from, which makes it an unknown therefore evolution is just a scientific THEORY, not FACT.

  116. #117 Greg Laden
    February 10, 2014

    Sam, what would be an example of that?

  117. #118 ArchAngel
    Ohio
    February 10, 2014

    @ #82
    Actually there is a history of the flood in Chinese history its called the Chinese Oracle Bones and the in the Chinese Flood “Myth” maybe if you were actually taught your ancient history you would have known that. most people forget that Daniel went east which might explain why so many Chinese carry the name….

  118. #119 GeoffNow
    West Virginia
    February 11, 2014

    I was very impressed with how Nye handled himself during the debate. He focused on using facts and reason to prove his points and did a great job. I was somewhat disappointed that he was unable to respond to Ham’s comments about the origins of consciousness and matter. In my opinion, Ham also did a good job in the debate, even though I disagree with Young Earth Creationism. Ham simply focused too much on backing each of his points with the Bible as his only reference. To put it simply, I agree Bill Nye won, but Ken Ham did a decent job of representing his group.

  119. #120 DDL
    February 12, 2014

    It’s ok, I used to believe in scientific theories too. But they are just that, theories. I began to question them before I met my savior. Just 4 questions for you Big Bang enthusiasts.

    #1 If something came from nothing in both versions of creation, which is more believable, that matter and energy came from nowhere or someone created them?

    #2 Who said science contradicts the Bible? Time-space theory can be used to explain time differences. The Hebrew translation of the Bible has many translations that don’tmake sense in English, so some of the Bible “facts” being disputed aren’t even discernable.

    #3 Some “facts” disputing the whole big bang theory have been brought up and ignored previously, like seashells on mountaintops, so I won’t go there. But the system currently used for dating materials is vastly wrong a good number of times. If a 25 year old silver dollar can be dated 2000 years old, something is wrong with the system. How can you trust the science if the science can’t prove itself? The old saying the exception to the rule proves the rule is nonsense. 2+2=4 but never 5 or 3.

    #4, the most important question of all, how does life come from nothing? It happened millions of years ago numerous times, with more time several new species must have been created, right? Granted you can change to the crazy “we were planted by aliens” theory, but that still leaves out the question of where they came from.

    I’m sure answers will be provided attempting to discredit me or my beliefs, but not one of you can answer any of those questions to prove your theory, whereas all my questions are answered.

  120. #121 Marco
    February 12, 2014

    Sam, when you say that “matter cannot come from non-matter”, could you explain what exactly you consider to be “non-matter”? E.g., are photons matter, and what about neutrinos?

    Also, if you claim “matter cannot come from non-matter” are you not saying that your god is material, too?

  121. #122 Marco
    February 12, 2014

    Sam, when you say that “matter cannot come from non-matter”, could you explain what exactly you consider to be “non-matter”? E.g., are photons matter, and what about neutrinos?

    Also, if you claim “matter cannot come from non-matter” are you not saying that your god is material, too?

  122. #123 Marco
    February 12, 2014

    Oops, sorry for the duplicate, Greg, just delete one (and this one, too) if need be.

  123. #124 Marco
    February 12, 2014

    ArchAngel, it might be nice if you get some further education on the oracle bones of China. There is no such things as the “Chinese Oracle Bones” telling a story of floods.

    Also, “Daniel” (and I guess you mean its closest variant “Dan”) is not a very common name in China. Not even close.

  124. #125 Richard Simons
    February 12, 2014

    But they are just that, theories.

    You don’t know what is meant by ‘theory’. It is not a guess, but an explanation for observations. A theory never grows into a fact, no matter how much evidence accrues. (A law is something that can be expressed as a mathematical equation.)

    not one of you can answer any of those questions to prove your theory,

    You don’t know what is meant by ‘theory’. No theory can ever be proven, although an essential feature of all theories is that they could, potentially, be disproved.

    Some “facts” disputing the whole big bang theory have been brought up and ignored previously, like seashells on mountaintops

    I cannot imagine how seashells on mountaintops could have any relevance to the big bang theory.

    “If a 25 year old silver dollar can be dated 2000 years old, something is wrong with the system dating procedure.

    [W]ith more time several new species must have been created, right?

    Why? I get the impression you have only the haziest of ideas of the theory of evolution and almost zero knowledge of the facts that support it.

  125. #126 Richard Simons
    February 12, 2014

    Sorry – I intended to do a strike-through of ‘system’ in the previous comment. I need to check up on my HTML.

  126. #127 Disturbing Thoughts Podcast
    Los Angeles
    February 14, 2014

    Check out our podcast we talk all about this debate! It was super fun! “Disturbing Thoughts Podcast” on iTunes… http://goo.gl/Wdkb26

  127. #128 Ross
    United States
    February 17, 2014

    Off topic, but why does the remarkably white Greg Laden think it significant that the debate’s audience was remarkably white? Was this a racial slam or an observation that minorities aren’t interested in science?

  128. #129 Greg Laden
    February 17, 2014

    Not off topic, Ross, but a bit obnoxious and not very well thought out.

    An audience can demonstrate diversity or lack thereof, a person can not.

    It was neither a racial slam nor an observation that minorities aren’t interested in science. The room was full of creationists. None of them were interested in science. And none of them were minorities.

  129. […] recent debate between Bill Nye and creationist Ken Ham has renewed my disdain for those who reject evolution or those who present a corrupted version of […]

  130. #131 Sikm
    Anonymous
    February 19, 2014

    Explain where did all these things come from to even consider evolution, let alone life? If we came from being cells in a primordial soup then where did cells come from? If energy runs everything and everyone then where did energy originate? If the universe came from a “Big Bang” then where did the Big Bang originate? You can’t get something from nothing, that’s like trying to build a house having all the materials you need but with no hand or direction to establish its architecture. There has to be an intelligence behind all of this, but you ask, Where did God originate? HE IS ETERNAL GOD IS OURSIDE OF SPACE AND TIME BEYOND SCIENCE. By saying we came from a primordial soup that’s not only degradation of human beings but it also leaves us trapped in uncertainty, in a hopeless inevitable and dark destiny of “nothing beyond death” state of existence which leads to despair. EVOLUTION IS DEAD….GOD IS ALIVE AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE BIBLE HAS BEEN PUT TO THE TEST AND CONTINUAL ATTEMPTS AT DEBUNKING IT, THE EFFORTS OF THOSE DARWINIAN SKEPTICS WERE FUTILE. One more thing mr nye the lying guy, can you explain the absolutely overwhelming historical evidence and preservation of The Bible and the accuracy of its prophecies? Can you explain consciousness? Sciences never could and science as a whole is built upon the foundation of a hypothesis which ultimately is just theory. The Bible was built upon a Rock of Truth, The Son of God, Jesus Christ. He came as God in the flesh, died on a cross for our sins, and was resurrected the third day as the Savior of the world. I can go on and on, but I will not be caught up in the affairs of the world, I have a mighty Living God to serve and He loves you all very much…. God bless you all and thank you for reading this….

  131. #132 James Wissinger
    PA
    February 20, 2014

    The main problem I see is both sides lean to a “I’m right and you’re wrong” mind set. Both men made statements that were truthful and to point. I objected to both on differing issues. ie Mr. Nye loses my support (not of his view but of his approach) when he frequently referred to himself as a reasonable man. (so if I do not stand in complete agreement with you I must be unreasonable). Not a good way to win supporters. Mr Ham made several condratictory statements to his own cause. (also not a good way to win support) I am a Christian and (as Mr Nye pointed out agree in many issues with science) I accept much of what science has to offer; however, I do not believe science has it completely correct and supporters on both sides should look to the areas they are in agreement on and proceed to learn from each other. If my religion totally disagrees with sciene or visa/versa then I should look at both to see why. one may be wrong or just incorrectly interpreted or not quite on the mark (either one may need tweeked). However they usually support each other and go hand in hand rather than fight each other and demand the I am right and you are wrong philosophy.

  132. #133 Marco
    February 21, 2014

    “but you ask, Where did God originate? HE IS ETERNAL GOD IS OURSIDE OF SPACE AND TIME BEYOND SCIENCE.”

    Ah yes, first ask “where did energy originate?” and then just postulate it’s “god”, and that “god” just exists. Occam’s Razor would stipulate that if you accept that “god” just exists, you should even easier accept that energy just has always existed. No need to make a more complex hypothesis. There goes the “god hypothesis” out of the window.

  133. #134 Curry
    February 21, 2014

    Hey y’all!! Well I just thought that I’d like to add my opinion to this… But first, meaning no disrespect, the link to the Christian website that agreed that Ham lost was actually an atheist website.
    I am a biblical 6 day Creationist, and I do agree that Nye did probably win, and Ham didn’t do the best job defending the Bible. My reasons are many, but I agree with creationist Jay Seegert’s commentary on it. If any of you would like to check it out, it is here: http://www.cewisc.org/Bill-Nye-Ken-Ham-Debat/

  134. #135 Marco
    February 22, 2014

    Uhm, Curry, the link given was not a direct link. The latter is here:
    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/bill.nye.vs.ken.ham.debate.live.stream.free.watch.online.creation.vs.evolution.debate.here.start.time/35688.htm
    Be sure to click on the “see results” option.

  135. […] complete debate here. The general consensus around the internet is that Bill Nye won the debate (here and here). However, among the congratulatory posts praising Bill Nye’s dominance, Atif Kukaswadia […]

  136. #137 Hiro Protagonist
    February 27, 2014

    I rather enjoy the anonymity of blogs such as these; in particular, the fact that I have to visualize who you are when reading your responses.

    I say this because when reading Sikm’s response, I pictured a small child in a baby blue onsie who just heard something he/she did not like (and undoubtedly could not understand) and immediately plucked the pacifier out from his/her mouth and began regurgitating the same few lines you hear from every “believer,” whilst stomping his or her feet in a heated temper tantrum.

    It was adorable.

  137. #138 Allaina Hope
    ilovenyc7224
    February 27, 2014

    Okay seriously. Why the heck would any person think we came from monkeys. For crying out loud. Why are there still monkeys huh. So we just magically stated having babies. Give me a break.

  138. #139 Marco
    February 28, 2014

    Okay seriously. Why the heck does someone claim we came from monkeys and then states there are still monkeys today? Has this person not paid attention during their science classes at all?

    Well, I’ll not give you a break, I give you some remedial homework:
    http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/07/23/why-are-there-still-monkeys/

    As Linnaeus already argued, we humans ARE monkeys (as in: primates).

  139. #140 Hiro Protagonist
    February 28, 2014

    Haha, it are comments such as Allaina’s that make my day.

    If you do not understand why there are still monkeys or how we are ‘related’ to chimps or how evolution works in general, there is this great thing called the internet. You are using it right now.

    Why there are still monkeys and how we are connected to them is very simple to understand when you study it. It is also very cool.

  140. #141 @bashpr0mpt
    on Twitter
    March 1, 2014

    The debate was good because it made more people around the world aware of just how psychotic Ken Ham and new age Christ culters from these weird and kooky recently created American takes on Christianity truly are.

  141. #142 morethanharry
    New York, NY
    March 4, 2014

    @ I_call_BS

    Why would water mixing or oxygen having anything to do with C-14 dating of a mussell?

    YOU ARE MAKING YOURSELF LOOK SILLY, C-14 DATING IS BASED ON CONTENT OF THE CARBON 14 ISOTOPE.

    This why it’s so good at dating trees, bc the dating method relies on your c-14/c-12 ratio, and trees have the best ratios. Why would that be? How does C-14 dating actually work. Once you know the answers to these questions then we can have a serious scientifc discussion on inadequacies about the method. (hint: a trees carbon source is CO2 in the air, while a fresh water mussells is in the humus and limestone).

    Also, we have never physically observed a vaccine in action, several biological signaling pathways that we inhibit to cure types of leukemia (see gleevec), quantum phenomenon (guess I’m not really using this ipad it’s all in my imagination), etc… just bc you don’t actually observe something doesn’t mean you can’t collect enough evidence and use logical methods to determine it’s true (most of us do this on a daily basis). Say your eating a hamburger while talking to the butcher, the butcher is explaining where your burger came from, he then takes you to the ranch where the cow was slaughter, and you see people slaughtering other cows for hamburgers….. did you hamburger actually come from the hamburger facrtory? Most definitely yes, assuming you were rigorous in your investigation.

    You mam or sir obviously have no idea what this science thing is your doing it wrong! Also, Atheism is a lack of belief, if anything atheism like science is rational skepticism.

  142. #144 Tel
    March 5, 2014

    Ken Ham won of course. You people only extol your prejudices.

  143. #145 William Simpson
    USA
    March 5, 2014

    Ken Ham did what most professing Christians will not do today. That is to present the Gospel to a society/culture which is hostile towards the One true GOD Jesus Christ. I fully understand the back lash that he has received from both enemy and supposed believers in Christ. I published a book several years ago that presents the undeniable evidence of how the Gospel’s message of salvation by grace through Jesus Christ alone will transform a person’s life. The book was received with mixed reviews and the publisher even backed away from the marketing agreement. Currently the book has a 5 star rating on Amazon and I have made the eBook free to anyone that wants to read it. To those who identify themselves as atheist or anyone else, read this testimony but be prepared for your world-view to be challenged.

    Link: http://wsimpson.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/living-in-the-hope-of-my-imagination-ebook/

  144. #146 Hiro Protagonist
    March 6, 2014

    @William Simpson

    Your God’s gospel will most certainly transform a person’s life; I have no doubt in that. I mean, just read Leviticus 20. This will transform any good person into an self-righteous murderer. For God’s sake (please excuse the pun), every single person should surely be put to death. I am sorry but any loving parent would not so easily dispatch their children from this world, regardless of their “sins.” I suppose this just means that humans are far more loving, accepting, and indeed moral than your God. A “creation” better than its creator. No wonder YOUR God is a jealous one.

    Oh, and creationism is absurd to any thinking person. If we were created by a perfect being, then why do we have so many faults and glitches? Because God has left us to a broken world you say? Hmm, ok. Well then why do we have almost useless body parts such as an appendix? Why do human embryos have tails during embryogenesis? This by no means is an efficient design; and certainly not a design of a perfect being.

    One more thing. If Jesus Christ is the one true God and necessary for redemption, then that means around 5 BILLION poor souls on this planet are going straight to hell. Not to mention those would-be catholics who tragically die before they are baptized. If there is a God, he should be held accountable for this nonsensical, nefarious actions.

    Anyways, I will absolutely read your book; with an open mind. But in return, I as ask that you take the time to research and understand evolution; also with an open mind. I promise you that if you are receptive to it, and it clicks, you will find more beauty and majesty in life that you previously have.

  145. #147 Philip Bruce Heywood
    Queensland Australia
    March 16, 2014

    Let’s find who is on the team for NYE. “Sir Fancis Bacon? Surely not? He was a father of science. “A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.” Sir W. Thomson? The world respected physicist(degrees K.)? “Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us. ….. I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism….. The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism………….. The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words…….Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion.” Einstein? No, never Einstein. “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” Galileo? Persecuted by religionists whilst debunking the concensus thinking of his age? ‘… he praised … Copernicus for his belief in the voice of reason, although it contradicted sense experience. Such a faith rested on the conviction that the world was the product of a personal, rational Creator … This biblically inspired faith … is possibly the most precious bequest of this great Florentine …’ (Encyclopedia of World Biography). …..
    I desist from quoting fifty other fathers and builders of science and rationality – all with this same or a similar message.
    Who is on the team for HAM? What team? Him and that preacher bloke, Pat Robertson, who just finished telling him to shut up, because he brings common sense into disrepute? His nonsense educational resources accepted by a figurative handful of people worldwide? What or who is on his “team”? No, not all the creationist founders of science? They won’t volunteer to join his team. Not even Newton, although he may have been a young Earth advocate.
    What does the Bible say?. If you are Richard Dawkins, this could be all ‘magic’? Give Dawkins his due, I’d rather be married by him than by Ken Ham. And I believe in christian weddings. I don’t know how you would shut either of them up, if speaking at the reception. But neither of them can tell the geologic column from a cockeyed bandicoot.
    First: It says the foundations of the Earth for our intents and purposes are of seeming incalculable age. Ken Ham, the literalist, has cut the fifty verses which speak of an old Earth out of his Bible.
    Second: All plants existed as living species before they became tangible. OOOOH Magic. Ham never found that verse. (It’s in Chapter 2 of Genesis and he never got that far.)
    Third. All plants were ‘made’ (a relatively minor action) Day 3, and a process was put in place to ‘let the earth bring them forth’. Flowering and fruiting vegetation did not realize or become tangible until Day 6. Literal Hebrew, line and verse, pagan religion according to Ham. Magic, of course. Geologically? — spot on.
    All complex or animal category life was created (ex nihilo) Day5. This, of course, is the Cambrian. There were, in fact, no true animals in the Pre-Cambrian. God implies in his immutable word there were none. He had not then created complex life. Only plant-category life. The fossils, if you aren’t an antiquated Darwin devotee, and do read recent research, concur.
    Now we separate the men from the boys and show the astounding accuracy of GENESIS.
    Rabbits etc. existed, Day 5. (That’s in GENESIS. It is also a fact in the mind of every expert palaeontologist.) But their fossils did not. They were not then manifested in their final, predestined form. More magic. More pagan religion (Ham). Rabbits, etc., having been created ex nihilo Day 5, became tangible Day 6. And that’s when their fossils appear. The words employed (= made, formed of earth) are much less significant and allow a secondary action or modification. How? Try information technology, demanded by GENESIS and foreshadowed by the world’s leading palaeontologist, Sir Richard Owen, before Darwin got into print. Darwin may have something to contribute but latest research is leaning more towards Lamarck, c/o Epigenetics. Hint; it may be helpful to introduce quantum physics. You see, science does advance.
    It goes without saying that anyone who has actually learned geology, and thinks to boot, knows that a thermostat of some sort must have kept the climate from destructive extremes. Once again, it’s in the Bible, in conjunction with science, line and verse – but to be up with the relevant technology is to be conversant with discoveries of the past six months. And modern ‘scientific thinking’, it seems, having forgotten its foundations, its rationale, and probably its lunch, is going steadily backwards from the mid-1800′s as fast as it can. Before people wake up that Darwinism is a quasi-religious impossibility from Aristotelian never-never-land. That, in English, means Galileo, Lord Kelvin, Einstein, Bacon, etc., if re-incarnated, would be obliged to figuratively knock some heads together.
    Regards, P.B.H., CreationTheory dot com, etc, etc..

  146. #148 abeeps
    los angeles
    March 18, 2014

    Fascinating to read all of these comments (although I did avoid going through the “wordy” diatribes that scream cray-cray). I found myself reading the first few sentences of a comment and I was inclined (with prejudice, obviously) to assume that if the commentator sounded intelligent, then they must be pro-evolution. I was surprised/enlightened/mystified/disturbed to discover that I was wrong at least 30-40% of the time. Of course, by the time I came to the end of one of these arguments, it became clear that their well-meaning but unsuccessful attempts to support their beliefs with factual evidence came down to one or two common and illogical conclusions: Creationism is correct because I believe in God and because the bible told me so. These assumptions, however, don’t prove ID any more than Ham’s rant that Creationism must be true because all of these really smart guys believe in it, too.
    I think the problem is generational and has everything to do with how one is brought up and that age old motivator: fear. When you are raised to believe that you are a bad person if you don’t believe in god (yaweh, Mohammed, etc.) then you undoubtedly must find atheists/agnostics/questioners in general to be abhorrent and disgusting -but more importantly, our ideas must really frighten you. How dare we deny the existence of a god! Creationism must be true because if it isn’t, then that means my God doesn’t exist. And if God doesn’t exist then who is responsible for me and for my actions. I alone am? Aaah!! Run away, run away!!

    Saying “how can we have something from nothing” is not an argument in favor of creationism.Saying “you can’t have something from nothing, so it must be God!” is not proof that the Earth is 6000 years old. Science that says “if it isn’t A or B – then it must be God!” isn’t science. Saying that the world was created by some dude no one has ever seen and no one in our lifetime has proven, without a doubt, actually exists, is not observational science or historical science – it’s just nonsense. And, by the way, where exactly is this god? Why can’t we ask him what he thinks?

    Saying that “a car doesn’t come out of thin air” so it must be the same with Earth (which is equating God & man – I thought that was a no-no?) is suggesting that God must be the one who made the Earth then – how is this empirical evidence? Why are we even having these ridiculous arguments and why is the bible – based on ancient and “childish superstitions” as Einstein so aptly observed – your basis for truth and proof? The Noah’s Ark references are really hilarious. So thousands of species of animals went on this boat and they were all indigenous to that area around the boat – within a 5 mile radius? Tropical and arctic species alike? Noah must have lived in a really cool place. He was, according to the bible, 900 years old, so it must have been a really REALLY cool place…

    I am sure that folks back then, trying to explain that which was then explainable, experienced a catastrophic flood or a monsoon or a hurricane with tidal waves – and having never experienced such an event before and without any knowledge of others existing around the globe (if they even thought it was a globe) assumed that it must be the work of an angry God. Noah and his boat could have originated as a tale of a survivor who tried to save his family and whatever animals he could and then evolved (as stories always do) into a fantastic tale of bravery and defiance and triumph. A tale you could tell your children and your children’s children, to teach and to entertain. To use it as a basis for scientific fact and to determine our origins and the age of the Earth?? Preposterous.

    I love the woman who complained about being from monkeys. So being from a guy’s rib makes more sense to you?

    Of course, it must be true if the bible tells us it is so. The Koran, obviously is not true, even though more people in the world believe in it that than they do the bible.
    Ugh. I could go on, but it is pointless. Religion has persisted for centuries and, even though the recent crop up of born-agains is a bit disturbing, I do believe that future generations will come to their senses and accept Bill Nye as their lord and savior.
    I kid, I kid.

  147. #149 rex
    Utah
    March 23, 2014

    Bill Nye in his debate with Ken Ham never asserted that people who believe that the Bible, as the word of God are anti-science. He asserted that the interpretation of something written by men claiming it to be the word of God, as scientific fact was incorrect, and did not follow the scientific method, which has
    revealed to men those things that are said to be hidden from us by God. He stated several times that scientists welcomed challenges to established theories and if Creationism as a theory, can stand up to the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, then bring it, and if it rocks the foundations of what is often referred to as the theory of Evolution, then science is willing to discard that theory. In Kentucky, where this debate took place, lawmakers want to teach Creationism as a scientific theory saying that Evolution isn’t a plausible theory because Darwin “made it up.” The theory of Evolution was based upon observations of what Darwin termed natural selection. Theory does not mean wild-ass guess. The theory, which should really be called theories of evolution, was his attempts to explain what he observed in the natural world. If we are to believe Darwin made up natural selection, we would have to suppose that gravity and relativity aren’t science either…maybe Newton and Einstein just made them up. Joseph Smith made up “Mormonism” and L. Ron Hubbard made up “Scientology,” yet they are accepted as religions world-wide. Who is to say that what’s in the Bible wasn’t made up? Just believing it’s true does not make it an established fact, or science. People are free to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn’t claim something is science unless they can repeat it with consistent results. There is a substantial amount of repeatable and verifiable evidence, that the earth is a whole lot older than it is claimed to be in Biblical history. Everywhere we can scan in our limited view of the universe, physics obeys the same laws. That’s why we call them laws. What kind of God would tinker with the physical building blocks of his creation in order to confuse the people to whom he claims to want to reveal his secrets?
    I also wonder what moral law was this God, the creator, following when (according to the Bible story) he wiped out all the life forms on the planet, except for the ones that it pleased him to keep? Adolph Hitler got nothing but scorn and death when he tried the same trick on the Jews.

  148. #150 J Embe
    March 25, 2014

    I’m always amazed by people with blind leaps of faith following things that there is no evidence for. I feel sorry for Bill Nye and everyone else who blindly follow things that there is no evidence and also does not make sense logically. Faith in the Bible grounded history and science that can be demonstrated id the logical way to put your faith. The debate isn’t Faith versus science. The debate is Blind Faith in Illogical concepts that can’t be tested, versus faith in a God that can create the amazing things that we can see. I can’t imaging being stuck in the blindness of evolution just to keep myself from answering to an almighty creator!! But there’s still hope for Bill Nye and anyone else open to a creator!!

  149. #151 Carolyn Baity
    April 14, 2014

    I absolutely agree Ken Ham won that debate with out a doubt. Mr. Ham stated it come down to man ideas over God ways. man ways are always wrong, and because of unbelief that what it come down to in the life of sinner that on their way to HELL.

  150. #152 Hiro Protagonist
    April 17, 2014

    Previous two posts are evidence that humans are monkeys.

  151. #154 Jesus Christ
    California,Los Angeles
    April 19, 2014

    The Bible was written by man. In the world of science many subjects and questions are left unanswered. Creationism only supports there ideas with what “The Bible” and what “God” say/said. To many these answers aren’t substantial enough.They aren’t proven in any way. PROVE TO ME/US there is a God who made life, who made everything we see, who died for our sins, who “will come back”, who killed his creations, who judges and sends his creations to hell for not following him, who has magical powers and hates gays. Please do.

  152. #155 Greg Laden
    April 19, 2014

    It wasn’t written by a man. There were probably many people involved in developing the stories across huge areas of space and time, and many may well have been women. Though there is a bit of a male bias to say the least in the meaning of the stories, even misogynistic myths are retold by women in some cultures, so that cant’ be rules out. Much of the OT is a collection, roughly ordered in a semi-sensible post hoc historical framework, of a great diversity of origin myths.

  153. #156 Observer
    Maryland
    April 20, 2014

    @Greg Laden:

    A question: Are you a a believer in the theory of punctual equilibrium or gradualism?

  154. #157 Greg Laden
    April 20, 2014

    Yes, I think they’re both good.

  155. #158 Politicalguineapig
    April 20, 2014

    I have to say again, red states don’t need science.

  156. #159 Observer
    April 21, 2014

    @Politicalguineapig
    Which is why Georgia Tech is one of the leading technological institutes in the world, right? Anyways…
    @Greg
    How likely do you think the Bible is true?