Quantcast

Bill Nye Embarrasses Ken Ham Even More on CNN Following Debate (VIDEO)

bill-nye-ken-ham-cnnWhen I heard that Bill Nye would be having a debate with creationist Ken Ham, I figured it would be mostly comical.  I also assumed it would be about an hour or so long.  The second part I was definitely wrong about.

What I thought was going to be a quick debate between two men who clearly didn’t agree on much of anything actually turned out to be a 2 1/2 hour-long marathon where Bill Nye absolutely embarrassed Ken Ham.

And that’s coming from a Christian.

The debate wasn’t even close.  Basically, Ham’s entire argument was, “If you weren’t there to verify it, then you’re just assuming so you can’t prove it.  However, the only proof I have is the book called the Bible.”

Seriously, that was about 90% of his “proof.”  That and random blurbs from scientists who identified themselves as creationists.  Though I have no idea how pointing out that the man who invented the MRI is a creationist somehow “proves” much of anything.

People who think the moon landing was a hoax still believe water is vital for human survival.  That doesn’t make them some kind of “credible scientific expert” on space travel.

Well, just when I thought 2 1/2 hours wasn’t enough, it apparently spilled out onto CNN’s Piers Morgan Live in an “after debate” segment featuring the two men.

And wow, it was even more comical than the original.

Piers Morgan brought up the subject of climate change (something that wasn’t discussed during the debate) for which Bill Nye once again offered a scientific explanation about planetary warming being a cause for storms, whereas Ken Ham went off on a tangent about – well, basically nothing.

Even when Morgan pressed Mr. Ham on whether or not he believed in climate change, he refused to answer.  He even went as far as to say, when Morgan said he assumed that he didn’t believe in global warming, “Where have I ever said that, I’ve never said that.”  Though Mr. Nye clearly didn’t mind answering for him by saying, “You mentioned it on a radio broadcast.”

This then shifted to Morgan asking Ham if he believes dinosaurs lived with man.  Ham responded by saying he believed, “All the land animals were made on day six and Adam and Eve were made on day six,” indicating that he does believe dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

Morgan then pushed him on the fact that we find fossil bones more than 70 millions years old, to which Ham stated, “You don’t find dinosaur bones with labels on them.  Where’d you get the 70 millions years from?  Prove that to me.”

Wow.

Essentially, Ham’s entire argument is that if you weren’t there you’re only “assuming.”  Any scientific evidence that contradicts his beliefs is just “assumptions” that aren’t proven.  Yet the only “proof” he provides is by saying, “Well, the Bible says…”

I mean, it’s an absolute joke.

Ham essentially dismisses the scientific community, which includes countless scientists, endless hours of research and centuries of data which have shaped the proven scientific facts most people now believe because, well – he simply doesn’t want to believe them.  They’re just assumptions according to him.

Oh, but all he has to do is say, “The Bible says…” and that’s his “proof.”

It was, quite honestly, one of the most comical things I’ve ever watched.  I almost felt bad for Ken Ham at points because you could tell his whole argument was based on talking in circles whereas Bill Nye’s argument was taken from actual scientific fact which he proved time and time again.

While I’m sure many “creationists” who tuned in probably think Ham might have won this debate, by believing that they’re only proving their own delusion.  Because saying, “Well, the Bible says..” is not a viable answer to a question which seeks proof of your accusation.

And that’s basically the only answer Ken Ham had all night.

If you want to take a look, here’s the video:

The following two tabs change content below.
Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives, and author of the popular Right Off A Cliff column. He is also the founder of the Right Off A Cliff facebook page, on which he routinely voices his opinions and stirs the pot for the Progressive movement. Follow Allen on Twitter as well, @Allen_Clifton.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • DesertSun59

    Ken Ham’s argument of ‘you weren’t there so you don’t know’ is typical of those of his ilk. His premise extends far beyond science tho. Taking this premise of ‘you weren’t there, so you don’t know’ extends to the topic of law. Using his premise, no investigation of ANY crime would ever be useable or even needed. If a murder occurred and no one was there to see who did it, it would be irrelevant to him what happened. No amount of investigation would be sufficient to reveal the murderer, the cause of death, how long the deceased had been dead, etc. This is how he treats fossil evidence. You weren’t there, so you don’t know how old that fossil is. His Bible says all land animals were created on the sixth day, so ALL of them have to be as old as the oldest human.

    Ham is a fool of the first order. Those who take him seriously are addicted to Bronze Age mythology and have a particular hatred for reality. I suspect they’re heavily medicated people. Heavily medicated people (either by alcohol, prescrip drugs or illegal ones) are not particularly in touch with reality.

    • TheOneWhoNocks

      Of course they’re medicated. They’re high on the opiate of the masses.

    • john evers

      He was not present when the stories from the bible happened so he is just assuming that they happened.

      • Sunnysmom

        Exactly!! I wasn’t alive to see for myself Jesus be crucified, does that mean it didn’t happen?

      • white trash religious teaparty

        don’t forget: a tough working jewish carpenter named Joseph stayed with his wife even as she bore a son ( supposedly VIRGIN) which means dumbass JOE didn’t suspect his WIFE was a recipient of another mans probe??
        ” BIBLE SAYS SO” ,,,,, ergo: true

      • Matt

        Um… is there a reason your avatar is flashing us with boob? A bra or bathing suit was too much covering?

      • white trash religious teaparty

        its called BOOB(s),,,,,,,,,,,,,, plural
        I like pissing off religious rightwing scum who tell me its a sign im going to hell (NOTE: christians on the rightwing are pissed off as their women are overweight and flat)
        ,,,,,and if don’t like my girls breasts—————- tooooobad

    • DukeAJuke

      Ham is not the fool you think he his. He makes his living preying on the ignorant and his entire financial well being depends on his ability to coerce money from them. He uses religion to his advantage. I personally believe he is evil for doing this, but at the same time you have to applaud his ingenuity.

      • Mystery Poster

        Do you mean PRAYING or PREYING?

      • Paige

        Exactly! He’s doing the exact same thing as Rush, Hannity, Beck and the rest of them… They’re crazy like foxes. It’s sad that continue to spew out whatever their followers ‘need to hear’ in order to get even more money. Ham is doing the same thing. It’s a shame that people are that ignorant and keep these people relevant.

      • Adam Kratt

        Actually crime is taxable. That is how they got Al Capone he didn’t pay taxes on his criminal income.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Why do you think religion is tax free in America. It’s an ongoing criminal enterprise and taxing crime is NOT in the IRS tax codes. (Seriously check. Bank robbery proceeds are NOT taxable income according to the IRS. Neither is cash from a manufactured crime like selling plant leaves to a neighbor for medicinal purposes. Proof: How many drug dealers doing Reaganomically mandated prison time have EVER been IRS audited for tax evasion? 0

      • DukeAJuke

        Religion is tax free because the government fears religion and it’s potential influence over elections. By granting religious groups tax-free status, the government is basically paying religious groups to stay out of politics. Its the only real control the government has over religious groups.

      • Stephen Barlow

        But how many religious groups violate that law, even to the extent of money laundering? Why do you think the IRS investigation of 503 and 504 groups terrified them so much?

        they got CAUGHT CHEATING IN GOD’s name.

      • Guest

        hate to tell you, but al capone was sent to jail for not paying taxes on his ill-gotten gains.

      • Wit

        That’s because that was the only way they could catch Capone for any illegal activity. If they could have got him on murder, racketeering or anything thing else that he was involved in then they would have.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        They couldn’t find anyone to testify against him. Not because no one knew anything; because if you did, you were a dead man walking.

      • ZippyDK

        If nonsense is all you produce, can you still consider yourself productive?

      • white trash religious teaparty

        yes—————–
        we engender FOX “news” opinion shows

      • white trash religious teaparty

        amen to you———-all of these “elmer gantry’s” do that: successful erasing ( ongoing) of the pockets and wallets of non thinking lemmings. My dear mom was one.
        wanna F*CK with a religionist? tell them (all) that when a MIRACLE of restoring an amputee to 100% happens –and is chronicled– U ( and I ) will give all of our time and money to spreading the word
        cure an amputee,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, period

      • bobbeecher

        He is basically the 21st century Snake Oil Salesman. He bamboozles the gullible and uneducated and grows rich by exploiting them.

        He is just one more example of how religion poisons everything.

    • RickRayFSM

      I believe what they have is called “The God Virus.”

    • Seth Haddix

      I applaud your assessment. At the same time I would like to point out that Nye does not at any point deign to acknowledge Ham’s fanatical assertion that “because I haven’t seen it, it cannot be true” is viable. This, I believe, was not a mere over sight of Nye’s, but a developed strategy. By simply stating that Ham himself was not witness to the events of the Bible, Nye would negate the entire basis of the creationist’s argument. I think, that as a scientist and agnostic, Nye’s fascination with the unknown does not allow him to fully dismiss the theory of the divine. This plurality, however, is not appreciated by Ham, to whom the un-scriptured and undocumented must be false. It is the difference between intelligent curiosity and blind acceptance and this, I believe, is the true difference between conventional science and creationist doctrine.

    • John Paul Severin

      Argument ad hominem is a closed minded tactic. It’s fine to disagree and dismiss his view, but calling him a fool and dismissing him as a person is pretty arrogant. I’ll completely grant you- it’s impossible to argue/ convince Ham as any evidence brought to him is completely discounted by his belief about what he calls “historical science”. It’s a little ridiculous to argue in that manner, but read my response above about science’s reliance on faith and maybe you’ll see that the view points aren’t really that different. Both seem to be “religions” in their own way. Best
      quote I heard about the debate- This essentially creates a false
      dichotomy because, it is highly likely that both sides are limited in
      their perspectives.

      • John Cross

        John, Your comments are deceptive. Yes, there are two elements of belief in Science. Ontologically, science begins with 1) the premise that the world is real (Empiricism) and 2) That all we can know of the world is derived from our senses (Rationality). From this follows the epistomological conclusion that all “knowledge” is suspect. Scientific method is NOT based on faith but on constant questioning. Science is theory driven, and the scientific method is to attempt to disprove theories to see if they stand up to critique. It is the exact opposite of religious faith which is the affirmation of what is “known” from whatever source. This also means that science cannot DISPROVE the existence of God and thus even of creationism. This is where creationists get the upper hand with people like yourself who confuse science with knowledge. Yes, I assume that the world is round because scientists have told me it is. That does not constitute an article of faith. I am free to test that assertion at any time by trying to find the edge of a hypothetical flat Earth, but I am pretty sure I would be wasting my time. At the same time, I benefit from the use of the internal combustion engine without fully understanding how molecules produce that effect. That does not mean I take it to be a miracle. I know there is a rational explanation and that I could test it if I wanted to. Indeed, in many areas of science (and society) I am involved in testing theories and questioning assertions of fact such as yours and those of the religious extremists. The religious extremist, however, refuses to question the version of reality they have created (or had brainwashed on them). Everything is a miracle and everything in their worldview is correct–everything that contradicts it must be a lie. This is the danger, since such people, if they get power, believe that they are justified in almost any act of savagery to enforce their conception of what is right.

      • John Paul Severin

        Thanks very much for this explanation. Very well put. I didn’t intend to be deceptive. That being said, to paint creationists or people with faith as small-minded fools for holding a differing point of view is unfortunate and seems to happen all too often. As Ham points out, faith does not exclude you from participating in science.
        One of the big gaps of science is the inability to answer why to the deeper questions. As in, ‘why are we here’ and questions along those lines. Science can attempt to answer ‘what is the cause’, but often times that isn’t enough for people. Dawkins asserts that “why” is a silly question which doesn’t deserve attention similar to ‘what is the color of jealousy’. I disagree with that.
        I have to go back to my favorite quote about the debate- This essentially creates a false
        dichotomy because, it is highly likely that both sides are limited in their perspectives.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        luckily the perspective of the science driven minds is expanding whilst the perspective of the VOODOO ( see: religion/faith) mind has its mailing address in the la brea tar pits ( stuck) and has no new evidence as their book seems to be closed —– mirroring their minds

      • Gregorious33

        It doesn’t seem that the idea was to paint extremists or creationists as small minded fools, quite the opposite actually. The idea and the point is that these groups small and scattered as they are live under a “spell” of delusion, a willingness to accept something despite evidence being quite the contrary. Delusion and duality are huge problems in the worlds religious peoples, excusing violent acts using their god as the justification. Science is always changing as we do spend the time to question and re-question as more information pours forth. The fact that we have simply explained away the myth of creation but are still finding flaws in current theory, just shows that we are breaking away from superstition allowing more logical and rational ideas to be formed. No longer do we think thunder and lightning are caused by thor fighting monsters in the sky to protect the earth from harm, and once victory ensues he goes home on a rainbow bridge. We know that barometric pressure causes the intensity in the clouds charging particles and the force of two particle streamers making contact with one another sends a bolt of lightning from the ground up and the rainbow is a prism effect simply caused by light refracting off the rain water from the storm. I’m not even a scientist and I know it wasn’t thor. That being said bigotry of any ilk is wrong but we need to move forward. By allowing creation to be taught as fact in schools or even as option we leave the doors to delusion open and monsters like Ham will continue keeping people deluded in order to gain lordship, power and money over them. Honestly the more minds asking questions with an open attitude rather than one written in a book by a king to keep control over the masses, the better our planet will be and the more real answers we will find. One Love, Keep Learning.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        creation is correct as we have living proof—
        creation-ISM ( mandated by an outdated book of VOODOO) is a funny/pathetic movie where the ending never plays out –except in “prophecies”
        NOTE: if a religious ( especially regressive atavistic CHRISTIANS) tell u of ” a miracle ” in THIER life; edify them that when –and ONLY when– an amputee is “miraculously” cured by their superstitious GOD THEN you( and me) will endeavor to give 100% of our social/physical and financial energy to that REEEEELIGION.

        cant cure an amputee? Seems that all-powerful CHRIST/god has a limit or two

    • Satyrwyld

      “Yes. I was there.”
      “No you weren’t!”
      “How would you know? Were you there?”

      • white trash religious teaparty

        I gotta steal that one!!!
        I owe U a dollar

    • buricco

      It’s one of their programmed responses: “Were you there?” – they teach kids to shut down their teachers at school by asking that.

    • max

      You’ve mischaracterized Ham’s position in ways that miss the true danger that people like Ham pose to science and indeed to the flourishing of human life, the preservation of open societies, and the advancement of all forms of knowledge. Ham is not making the typical “you weren’t there…” argument. His is a much more radical and dangerous proposition. he’s essentially saying that even if you were there and could provide convincing proof that would meet his criteria it still would not be enough- because the only true measure of reality is contained in the Bible (as he interprets it) and anything, even evidence that can be provided from the present to contradict it must be measured against the Bible and found wanting. His worldview demands a complete surrender of ones intellectual curiosity, ones faculty for reason because they have been corrupted by the fall and are incapable of providing the type of insights into the nature of reality that are contained in the bible. Science and indeed the entirety of human intellectual discovery are within Ham’s world view good for providing us with creature contorts (he kept saying things like- we like technology, we use cell phones. And to him this is what science is good for. Indeed the whole premise of his “facility” is to put science in service of religion. And part of that involves cutting out and destroying any science that does not fit conveniently into that mission regardless of whether or not it is true or not. It is the hallmark of any form of ideological fundamentalism.

    • Nathan D. Baker

      Which is then taken to the next step which is that Ken Hamm was not there when the bible was written so how does he know that it is accurate?

    • Seth Cook

      If there’s an old book to explain his points then Ham is right! Simply write a book PROVING his points. It’s just that easy. DUH!

  • john smith

    Bones being 70 million years old, yes i believe that, i also believe in God and Jesus Christ, so that makes the bible suspect!

  • surfjac

    Let’s see, I want to sum this up this way…
    You don’t bring a pillow to a gun fight. I’m surprised mr. ham didn’t show the Flintstones Christmas Special as further proof of his lunac…er, ideas.

  • Concerto

    Or you could believe as I was taught in Catholic School that God is awesome and powerful and we should never assume that when the bible says “a day” that means a 24hour day. A day for God could be 100 million years. The stories of the Bible are there to teach us lessons not to be taken literally, kind of like Aesop’s fables.

    • JT

      Early in the debate it was made clear that each day was a 24 hour period, thus proving his amazingness.

    • https://www.facebook.com/patriotsforohio Rowan Green

      When I went to a Jesuit high school, we talked about Darwin’s theory in religion class, essentially pointing out that talking about “how” has nothing to do with God being behind it, and the Bible was never even mentioned in Biology class. Although the biology teacher ridiculed Young Earth Creationists for being idiots. While there are some creationist Catholics, the Church does not reject actual science. They learned that lesson with Galileo.

      • TigiOma

        And the Pope was overjoyed at the truth of Galileo’s words that he put him under House Arrest for Heresy for 20+ years…

      • white trash religious teaparty

        FOX “news” blueprint

    • MBear

      and what lesson are we supposed to learn from the rules about stoning people to death? or slavery?

      I’m very curious.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        misprint,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,just as NOW its OK for a NON virgin woman to marry
        ( can U say,,,,,,”cherry picking”?)

    • TigiOma

      Actually, if you convert the 6000 “Bible Years” to Scientific years, you have to multiply by 750,000… ;)

    • Jay Brandt

      According to the story the sun and moon weren’t created until the 4th “day”… So, what was a day for those first three?

      • white trash religious teaparty

        looking for that damn lighter/match to start the sun a blazing!!

    • white trash religious teaparty

      so when and why did GOD create fire ants and michelle malkin???

  • Toaster Bot

    Bill Nye seems pretty reasonable, then why are we cherry picking the nut-jobs of the Christian community to debate with? Why not have a scientist studying multiple dimensions, star gates, quantum entanglement, or ekpyrotic universe theory? It’s not a fair fight if you are going to play basketball with a retard and then call him out on double-dribble.

    • Stephen Yang

      In this case, Ken Ham was the one that invited Nye to come speak.

      • Matthew Schwartz

        Lots of people know Bill Nye. Whose heard of Ken Ham before a month ago?

    • white trash religious teaparty

      playing bball with michelle Bachmann? NO!!! I want sarah palin: shes 100X sexier

  • openlyblack

    Debating a person with a closed mind is like giving medicine to a corpse.

    • Bruce Veasey

      Thomas Paine. A very good quote, but not really applicable to this guy. He is a fraud, and con. His intelligence is being used to manipulate and control, not to learn or better society.

    • white trash religious teaparty

      or mentoring/tutoring my pet argentine TEGU in how to transcribe MOZART upon a harp

  • Blurb

    People who believe in the bible like ken ham does, believe in it as an act of faith. They really cant prove anything but to them, i think its all about having faith. Which i think is inappropriate in the field of science.

    • Miguel Caparros

      Sorry to come in so late. The issue that the creationist are trying to do is replace the current science school curriculum with their theory of intelligent design and they are doing it through taking over Charter Schools. Be afraid, and if your children or grand children are in a Charter School, you should go and sit in, read the text book and interview your children before they are brain washed idiots.

      • lynn

        That’s nuts…and if you know any brain washed idiots it probably started in the home..have YOU ever sat in at a Charter School..I have worked in one for over 4 years and I have never heard anyone even speak on this subject..the curriculum is only different because it is geared to the individual student..where the heck do you get your information???

      • Cathryn Sykes

        There are charter schools and there are charter schools….

      • doodlebug0

        You’ve been in one charter school. One school does not tell the story of charter schools.

      • Ryan

        He didn’t say ALL Charter Schools. Maybe not YOUR Charter School, but denying that this, absolutely true, problem is real does a huge disservice to our nation’s youths.
        Do a quick Google search for Creationism being taught in schools.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        When someone tells me that creationism must be taught in schools, I just ask them, “Don’t you take your kids to church? Don’t they go to Sunday school? Can’t they learn about creationism there? Can’t you teach them yourselves? How often do YOU read the Bible to your kids? How often do YOU pray with them? Do you have the Ten Commandments posted on YOUR wall?” The problem is not teaching creationism….you could teach that in a class on comparative religion, along with the creation stories of other religions. The problem is that they want to teach creationism as the ONLY explanation of how the earth and all living things were created!

    • TigiOma

      “Faith” by definition is belief in the ABSENCE of EVIDENCE…Ham’s an idiot…

  • Brian

    Ham rejects science but freely utilizes all the benefits of scientific discovery to spread his willful ignorance. Bravo.

    • white trash religious teaparty

      wonder if he splashes the Viagra….?

  • Sunnysmom

    I don’t understand why science/evolution and faith have to be viewed as mutually exclusive, except through the lens of Ken Ham and biblical zealots. The existence of evolution doesn’t mean we aren’t also spiritual beings occupying physical bodies that evolve. Heck, there may even be a “creator” of sorts for all I know..the agnostic in me will be happy to find out one day, or not ;-) The reincarnationist in me hopes I get a chance to come back and fix a few things next time around.

    None of these beginnings arguments should determine the way we live our lives on earth right now with each other…I didn’t need to read the bible to know I ought not to lie, steal, cheat or kill. This life is a great journey of adventure and discovery, but if you close your mind to only consider the writings in one ancient text, you really limit the possibilities for your life. IMO.

    • Greg Hanson

      well said

    • enuma

      They’re not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they are wholly separate magisteria. Science deals with the falsifiable; it’s a process of elimination. Like Bill Nye said, when something doesn’t work, when your hypothesis or theory makes predictions that turn out to be inaccurate, you need to be able to throw that hypothesis or theory out and never look back.

      For faith to be in the same domain as science, you would need to conceive of a god/spiritual being/creator that could be tested with the potential to be conclusively disproved in the same way that Lamarckian inheritance was conclusively disproved.

      • Sunnysmom

        Fair enough and I certainly agree from an academic standpoint.

      • Bruce Veasey

        Sunny, that acknowledgment is what is lacking from far too many christians nowadays. If they would only be open to honest discourse, and be willing to change their minds with new evidence, these debates wouldn’t be needed, and frauds like Ham, who is named quite appropriately btw, wouldn’t be given the press he gets.

      • Sunnysmom

        Ham alone scares me less than the people who actually follow his ill-conceived logic so blindly.

  • Jay Brandt

    Dr Nye: I have here over 100 years of research, the testimony of 64 national academies of science and the consensus of 99.9% of scientists from all around the world.

    Ham: I have this here 4,000 yr old book…..

    that we don’t even know if it’s translated correctly…and if it was meant to be a science book don’t you think they could have added “hey people of Israel wash your hands, sayeth the Lord in Heaven, just trust me, you’ll understand in a few thousand years and meanwhile millions of lives will be saved”.

    • Cathryn Sykes

      Good point about translation: From Hebrew to Aramaic to Latin to a number of versions in English. Yet they say that every word is the “exact word of God.”

      • David Combs

        Don’t forget King James of England held the families of those translating hostage to assure he got the translation he wanted, historical fact you will never hear look it up the truth will set you free……So Many written scriptures that were never included in the KJV or most western translations…….Heck the Torah states Israel is to “NEVER” have their own state or country due to their sin’s. Put that in your Kool-Aid & drink it……

      • Wit

        Interesting side note – King James was a closeted homosexual. Who knows how he might have changed the bible to deflect attention from his sexuality.

      • Kevin Stone

        I don’t understand the translation argument. Do you think the Bible is the exact word of God in Hebrew or Aramaic? Do you think that even if God were speaking through humans that humans are suddenly infallible and couldn’t have made numerous mistakes in those languages? The Bible is a collection of stories brought together and voted upon for perceived congruity and consistency of message by multiple councils over two hundred years. I don’t even see how we arrive at the translation argument when there’s that. Do you kind of see what I’m saying? Why do we even need the translation argument? The Bible, like all books, was written by man, for man.

      • Brian

        You need every argument possible when you’re going against the majority.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        We know that, Kevin. We’re pitching these facts to those who say that EVERY WORD IN THE BIBLE, EXACTLY AS WRITTEN, IS ABSOLUTE AND UNASSAILABLE TRUTH! Because there are plenty of people who believe exactly that. Pointing out that the Bible wasn’t written in English, and Christians can’t even agree on an English version help put a big hole in that argument.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        cherry picked by todays regressive white trash practitioners of VOODOO/superstition

      • Chester Davis

        and the Catholic, Protestant, and Ethiopian Orthodox Bibles are slightly different. And only some Christians accept the KJV as the one correct Bible.

    • Wit

      Sorry, not to be nit-picky but christianity itself is not more than 2,000 years old. The bible was ‘written’ during the council of Nicea about 400 years after the time of christ so in it’s original form the bible is only about 1,600 years old.

      • Jay Brandt

        Well, that’s if you’re only referring to the New Testament as the bible…most of Ham’s ludicrous claims come from the Old Testament…or as some if us call it….The Bible.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        ask ham where CAINS wife came from……
        ……………..or how noah kept the lions from eating the lambs,,,or the fire ants from eating noah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or HOW THE HELL DID NOAH GET ALL THE ANIMALS into the OTHER continents????? “MINI arks”???

      • Wit

        So if the old testament is the actual bible then why aren’t you a Jew instead?

      • Jay Brandt

        The Old Testament, or as it’s really called, the Thanach, is the basis for Judaism, Christianity and Islam…that’s why we’re all called The People of the Book. Of the three, only Judaism held to the original, which is the basis for all law as we know it. The other two released it’s followers from the Law…and we’ve seen over the last 2,000 yrs where that’s gotten us, not to mention the craziness…like the Hams and Taliban of the world are showing us today.

      • Wit

        “The other two released it’s followers from the Law…and we’ve seen over the last 2,000 yrs where that’s gotten us” – in your opinion. World civilizations were thriving, and quite civilized, long before the old testament so your assertion that it’s the end all, be all of how things should be doesn’t really mean much.

      • Jay Brandt

        “End all be all”…quiet a leap if logic…I certainly never implied that…it would take a much longer discussion than I’m willing to have here to sort through that…however, the Bhagavagita is also a goog source of ‘divine’ inspiration and predates all the books discussed here by at least 1,000 years.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        And there’s no craziness in the Old Testament? Or the Torah? Me, I think there’s plenty. One of my least favorites is the “marry the virgin to her rapist” rule.(After paying her father or her betrothed for the fact that she’s now damaged goods.) And, please, don’t tell me that this was a way to support her, because otherwise she’d be tossed into the street to starve….because I think the idea that a raped girl should be tossed into the street to starve is DAMN crazy!

      • Jay Brandt

        I would no more justifyOld Testament craziness then Christians should justify discriminating against gays or Ham
        should justify his six thousand year old earth nonsense….
        and neither would any rabbi I’ve ever known

      • Jay Brandt

        I would no more defend the craziness in the Old Testament (nor would any Rabbi I’ve ever known) than Ham should use it to defend his anti-science flat earth philosophy, nor should other Christians use their faith as a shield to hide their bigotry behind as they are doing with their anti-gay laws in Arizona. Jews have long ago realized that the Torah and Bible teach lessons…but are not science text books, nor something to be taken word for word as in the passage you reference above. What a tribal society did 4,000 yrs ago is not the most appropriate guide for social interactions today…although we can certainly find interpretations that suit our modern society…perhaps the passage you quoted could be interpreted to mean we should care for a young woman that has been attacked and not turn away or scorn her.

    • Ivan Pierre

      Well, not exactly 4000 years. Old parts a more from the 6th century BCE, around Josias time, whom ‘discovers’ it. Ham seems not to know even theological, historical and epigraphic researches… :D

  • CHOMPandSTOMP

    “A lot more research needs to be done in this area (in regards to climate change)” – Ken Ham

    • CHOMPandSTOMP

      ~ 5:30

  • Dany Lynen Trujillo

    God is the smartest scientist in the universe! If man was created in God’s image than God as well as man evolved and through the process of evolution becomes more intelligent, progresses at a level! But not all levels in the progression of mental evolvement have been achieved! The example of this is man’s continued avarice, lust for power and control, and man’s inhumanity to man. The killing of one another and all of God’s animal and mammal creations, such as the killing by the Japanese in Taiji, Japan, the slaughter of Dolphins for no real purpose!

    • Brian

      Man created god in is image, not the other way around.

      • Dany Lynen Trujillo

        I ‘ll go along with that! sounds correct to me But their is a supreme being somewhere in the universe!

  • Samantha Shelton

    I truly think most people are missing the point here… In my opinion the answer to all of this is not choosing which side of the debate is correct, but instead realizing that both sides could be correct. Scientific observation and mathematical equation prove that light from stars which are millions of light years away could not have reached the Earth in 6000 years. Thus the universe cannot be 6000 years old. On the other hand biblical doctrine states that the earth, the universe, and all other things were made in 6 days and one can count the generational timeline from there on. But who is to say how long a day is in the eyes of God? Or that god, in his infinite power, couldn’t change the length of those days as he saw fit. One day in the understanding of God could be millions or even billions of years to our limited human reckoning. A marriage of these two concepts is the most elegant answer to the main question here, which is how do we consolidate spontaneous life, concsiousness, and universal beginning with concrete scientific discoveries about the physical world and life’s history on planet Earth.

    • tyz228

      who is to say that Thor, or Zeus, couldn’t have created the world 5 minutes ago complete with records and apparent memories of the past? That something is logically possible doesn’t mean it’s equally in the running for being true. The question of the debate was whether creationism is a viable view for science to use going forward. It’s possible that there are fairies in my garden. It’s possible, just possible, that the reason some people die young is because there are invisible spirits who steal years from their lives. But it’s not something anyone should take seriously.

      • Brian

        Actually, I can prove Thor and Zeus didn’t do that simply by applying Cartesian method. In fact, I can prove all of existence with that. Religious existential crises are impossible.

      • tyz228

        LOL. the “Cartesian method”? you mean the method of doubt that leaves Descartes knowing only his own momentary existence, nothing outside it, nothing before or after? You do realize that no one takes the Cartesian solution to that skeptical problem seriously, right? It doesn’t work. And the only way Descartes thought he could make it work was by appealing to God. For which he had no good argument. Try again?

      • Brian

        You misunderstand. I’m not trying to say it proves anything other than reality. If a rock is there, it is there, regardlessof he limits of my perception, that is objective fact from any non-delusional point of view.

      • tyz228

        Then I have no idea what you mean by “Cartesian”. The only thing Descartes was able to find absolutely certain was not the existence of rocks, or any other “objective” fact. The only thing he found certain was his own existence as a thinking thing, at the moment he was thinking. Everything else, events, the past, and rocks, are unknowable, by Cartesian standards. So the idea that the world was created 5 minutes ago complete with memories of a nonexistent past would give you the same apparent evidence you have in (what we assume) is the actual world where the past is a bit longer than 5 minutes. Or, to put it another way, by Cartesian reasoning, you get your current perception of the rock. Any experience you have will be in the present moment. The past is something you conjecture to make sense of the present. That’s why, eg., Bertrand Russell brought up the point about a 5-minute old universe. It’s not logically refutable, and trying to explain how my current perceptions allow me infer the past are all epistemically problematic.

      • tyz228

        I guess you don’t understand what “Cartesian” means. Descartes’ method was to treat as false everything belief that isn’t absolutely certain. Your claim to know a rock is there is based on perception, which can be fallible. Same with any claim about the past, since no present perception can guarantee that there was a past. The only thing Descartes found that could actually meet his standard was the claim that he existed, because he must exist to think. So you’re just confused about Descartes did: he limited certain knowledge to something entirely subjective.

    • birdman1234

      Chemist here. The problem is the whole “teach the controversy” bit. In science, there is the scientific method. A key tenet of the method is that a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. A part of being a good scientist is that you have have to be able to admit your hypothesis was wrong. Now for something like the speed of light in a vacuum, you would need some damn compelling evidence to overturn the consensus, but if the proof is there and repeatable, enjoy your Nobel. Wrong isn’t always a bad thing though. Something, something, hundred ways not to make a light bulb. The problem with elevating the Ken Ham perspective to the same level of possibility as the mountains of data collected over the centuries is that it can not be tested. Saying “God did it” has the same worth in the scientific literature as “Invisible Space Elves did it.” I can’t prove it but I can’t disprove it and I sure as hell can’t repeat it. When Jesus comes back and starts publishing miracles in a peer reviewed journal, I will have to really take another look at my world view. Until then, I have no reason to give Ken Ham’s ideas much credit. If your faith gives you comfort, great. If your faith gives you a wonderful community to be a part of, fantastic. I have no problem with that. My issue comes when I’m told to give these kinds of ideas credibility in a scientific discourse. The have no place in the science class or the laboratory.

      • Champ

        I wish the governing body here in Texas would have this same perspective. I believe they are actively trying to teach creationism in schools. Unfortunately, we have too many Ken Hamm types here in Texas.

    • Brian

      How long is a day in the eyes of god? Now you’re making the ridiculous assumption that the bible was written by something other than people. The ancient Hebrew nomads only had one concept of a day, and that was roughly 24 hours. What’s more, if this “god” has a measurement of days, that implies he’s not immortal, or omniscient, or omnipotent (contradicting concepts anyway). Limited human reckoning? We can mathematically prove how old the universe is and where it came from, especially since the Higgs-Boson has been found. Life wasn’t spontaneous. Amino acids in a pool of primordial soup plus a catalyst formed life at its absolute most simple and basic form, whether it was on or off this planet. Consciousness is merely an electrical field and series of chemical reactions.
      There is absolutely no reason to “marry” the concept of a god with hard science unless you’re both ignorant of facts and afraid to let go of your faith when faced with evidence that outright proves it false.

  • Cathryn Sykes

    So all the types of animals that ever existed were on earth by the sixth day? Then where did we get the Chinese Crested dog? The Irish Wolfhound? The Pekinese? The St. Bernard? We got them using the same mechanism that evolution uses…..we select from animals born with random genetic mutations that make them slightly different from their parents. Nature does the selecting based on ability to survive in the environment. We do the selecting, at least with dogs, based on what we think is useful, beautiful or cute. The mechanism is the same.

    • RiffRaff

      I’ve been told that man-made animals are an abomination before… As an educated Christian – so I asked if a person of mixed descent, like myself, is also an abomination as it’s the same concept…. I was told “people are different”….. I decided it didn’t sound right and thusly started practising my faith away from the church.

  • vjhunny

    Holy cow, Ken Ham just talks in circles and never makes any real sense. I got a headache just listening to him.

    • white trash religious teaparty

      taught by michelle Bachmann ( SEE: Bachmann/ Bernie sanders interview on CNN)

  • mizlisa19

    How does Bill keep a straight face listening to his crap. Does Ham not realize the bible is the CLAIM that is being proven wrong. His is the myth! Ham seems to think he’s bringing some argument. The burden of proof is on the bible, not on tested and retested and retested facts and results. Unfortunately it never happens that way. It seems Ham doesn’t quite understand where his place was in this. Saying “it’s in the bible” is no more proof or fact than me saying it’s in my fairytale book.

    • max

      Ham’s response to one of the questions was telling. Asked to imagine a hypothetical which might change his mind- something to the effect of If you find definitive proof of the kind that fits your criteria that the earth is older than 6,000 years would you change your view. Ken’s answer was essentially that no hypothetical can exists. He wouldn’t even deign to entertain the hypothetical scenario. 1 Reason it seems to me is because he is afraid of what even playing that kind of game might begin to do to his worldview. A second and perhaps more troubling reason might have to do specifically with his world view: the fact that for Ham and those that subscribe to his teachings the Bible is beyond proof- but not only that- its content is in some ontological way the ground of proof and the ultimate proof. Viewed from this perspective science is little more than our always flawed human attempt to access the truth that the bible contains and indeed is. Despite his protestations to the contrary Ham neither respects nor values science as anything other than a poor handmaiden to be slaved to his own brand of Christian spirituality/doctrine. To get a sense of how this worldview could play out should it gain popular support and real political power one might look at the impact that the work of Al-Ghazali had on the muslim intellectual tradition during the Middle Ages. And it was the threat that Ham’s views pose to science, technology the political, economic and social wellbeing of our country that Bill Nye kept coming back to. The reason that he could keep a straight face was that he recognized that the threat that Ham’s view represents is no laughing matter.

    • white trash religious teaparty

      hey!!! I know mad magazine is accurate and its been around longer than I have

  • kaos

    I point also his whole “proof” wasn’t there either it was written long after the fact. The argument might then say “it’s the word of God” again not exactly, the majority is written by men and the events transcribed as seen through their eyes though even then the exact wording has changed dramatically. Anything else is an interpretation of the individuals understanding of “Gods word”.

    • Sunnysmom

      Agreed. Any arguments based on the bible being absolute and the infallible word of God automatically turn me away. While perhaps divinely inspired, it is written and translated by man and therefore makes it fundamentally flawed. If it is absolute and infallible, there are many human rights atrocities suggested in Leviticus not being fulfilled because it’s kinda a crime and you’ll go to jail.

  • http://m7computers.com/ spockmonster

    Creationaists are like Jihadist Muslims, wanting to suppress any facet of life that isn’t strict bible stuff. Religion is a mental disease.

    • white trash religious teaparty

      wrong– acceptance of religion(s) == mental disease
      religion is a control mechanism to make money

  • Egg-Headed Scientist

    Global warming exists alright…..in the minds of the alarmists. Climate change has occurred since long before petroleum was ever used as fuel. There are warm phases and cold phases and they’ve occurred since time began. Space is infinite and “greenhouse gases”, have plenty of area to escape and migrate to. We couldn’t change the weather or the climate if we tried. Period.

    • killer3000ad

      It’s exactly that sort denialist thinking that will be the death of your descendants.

    • birdman1234

      Chemist here. While you are correct that climate change has been occurring since before petrochemicals were used by man as fuel (the climate has been changing since the earth has had a climate), that is not what the worry is. The troubling thing is the rate at which the change is occurring. Ever since the industrial revolution, the rate at which the average temperature has increased has grown gigantically. The population of the Earth has also risen a huge amount in the last 2 centuries. That’s a lot of people burning a lot of coal and other petrochemicals. All this burning leads to greenhouse gasses. Many of these, despite being a gas, are denser molecules than the surrounding gasses so they sink (a la the smog cities in China that have been on the news lately). These same molecules also store energy better than their lighter cousins, thus leading to the overall warming effect that we see. While burning a campfire isn’t going to do much, billions of them over time will. As for them escaping, they dont for the same reason the non greenhouse gasses like oxygen dont: Gravity. It holds it all in. We are more likely to lose gasses from the interstellar wind than from them just floating away. I can give you some literature on the subject if you would like to read more.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        im afraid hes buried in the biblical malaise of his “faith”/church and FOX “news”
        “flintstones,,,,,meet the flintstones”

    • ThinkRationally

      E-H G, saying that the climate has been changing for a very long time establishes nothing with respect to human-caused global warming. This silly argument only works if there is some kind of mutual exclusivity between the two. The two are not mutually exclusive–both can be happening.

      “We couldn’t change the weather or the climate if we tried. Period.”

      How have you established this fact? Just saying something doesn’t make it true. We are quite capable of drastically changing weather and climate in a single day–ever heard of nuclear winter? It is just as possible that we are capable of changing it more slowly.

    • Brian

      Climate change normally happens over very long periods of time. Hundreds of thousands to millions of years for a few degrees celsius. The world has warmed up by more than 2 degrees Celsius over the course of the last 150 years, which coincides with the start of the industrial age.
      2 degrees celsius has never taken less than 500,000 years in the history of the world barring a celestial, cataclysmic event, and none of those have happened recently. It’s terrifyingly rapid, and almost certainly man-made.

      • Guest
    • white trash religious teaparty

      really? we can escape OUR planet if its “infected”…??? WOW!!! great!!! ummmmmmmm———-where O where will we go? alpha century? and how do we travel these HUGE distances? with JEEEEESUS???
      idiot: earth has limited resources to absorb our pollutants. luckily we wont see the destruction in this lifetime

    • PoppaDavid

      Saying that there have been cycles in the past is only the start of the discussion NOT the answer. When you review the CO2 cycles and the temperature cycles, you will observe that the temperature cycle precedes the CO2 cycle in all previous rise/fall changes. In this change the CO2 is leading the temperature change. That is a significant difference that must be explained by your theory. Anthroporphic impact does explain it. Deniers have failed to offer any other agency.

  • theTruth

    The thing is that you can actually prove everything to him, but nobody can do it in one sitting. If he went through a real college and took real science courses from the ground up he would see how it all works. Getting a degree out of a cereal box isn’t worth much.

  • wazzel

    Ham is such an 1diot! He only offered two replies over-and-over all night long…

    1). “God did it”, so there is nothing to discuss.

    2). I”I don’t believe in Science and you weren’t there, so you don’t know anything.

    (BTW Kenny, “YOU weren’t there” when scriptures were written or when god did his magic act either)

  • Jack Rawlinson

    Was Ken Ham there when the events described in the Bible happened?

  • http://www.religiouscriticism.com/ Religious Critic

    Bottom line: Ham’s “science” is an attempt to prove the Bible, which means starting with a conclusion in mind. Ergo, not science.

  • Stephen Barlow

    Ok… in a nutshell, Ham’s ONLY REAL ARGUMENT is: ‘you weren’t there so how can you ‘prove it’?

    But Ham wasn’t there when the ‘Garden was created… LONG BEFORE THE WRITTEN ACCOUNTS in the earliest scriptures. Which were human creations long after ANY fact.

    SO with his own argument, HAM DISMISSES THE BIBLE in it’s entirety BECAUSE: … HE was not there to write it as a first hand account.

  • Stephen Barlow

    Using his own logic… Ham himself does not exist. He wasn’t there to witness his birth. He wasn’t there to witness his parent’s birth either so… If he can’t ‘prove by witnessing’ that his parents ever existed, then how could he have been conceived, let alone been birthed into an intelligent society?

    If he never existed.. then he never said he didn’t beleive in Global Warming..

  • ChristianityisReal

    WOW!! I am not defending Ken Ham by any means but go visit the Creation Museum and all questions will be answered about Creation.

    • Greg Scott

      You do know the Flintstones isn’t a documentary,right?

    • Brian

      I have visited it. It was childish and unimpressive.

    • white trash religious teaparty

      funny how your h*tbag GOD ( JEEEEESUS) has NEVER cured an amputee———–
      seems your middle eastern boy has limits????

  • gypsyrose

    Why do we waste air time on people like Ham? He is so ignorant and dangerous to those who are also as ignorant. Why does the press continue to give these people time to air such nonsense? Meaningless and waste of precious time.

  • ChuckyJesus

    Ham uses what’s called an escape hatch argument. This utter nonsense of “Observational science vs. Historical science” is just a fancy way of saying, “Were you there?” No, but as Nye correctly pointed out, there’s no such thing as “historical science,” there’s just science. If Ham’s requirement of “being there” were to be held to, no evidence discovered at crime scenes could EVER be used for prosectuion, and we’d have to open all of the prison doors wide to let out murderers, rapists, and robbers, oh my! Watch an episode of CSI and see how science works! BTW, I’ve had a class in forensics, and CSI gets it right pretty well. The worst thing they do is to have the criminalists act as cops, which, in real life, does not happen.

    • ChuckyJesus

      BTW, one can easily turn this argument around on Ham (and I wish Nye had done so), and ask if he was there during the six-day creation of the universe. We could also ask him which of the two creation stories in Genesis he would recommend we believe in?

  • Bloodeagle

    Hey look more circle jerking!

  • Josh

    Anyone notice that Morgan’s argument ‘does it matter if there is even a 1% risk” is a fundamentally bad way of arguing public policy.

    There’s an obvious tradeoff related with trying to wind down fossil fuel production in the next fifty years, so at some point you do have to take into account the risk that you are wrong about climate matters. Its just like how the statement “there is a X percent chance you will wreck” isn’t an argument for never riding a bike.

    In this particular case, the scientific consensus appears to be strong enough that we need to act; but that doesn’t make any argument in support of agreeable policy correct.

  • BobLoblaw

    That was one of the greatest debates since the infamous “oops” debate.

  • John Paul Severin

    Actually, Ken’s debate held up rather well if you come at it with a respectful and objective perspective. You also, as he mentioned, have to recognize the intrinsic nature of science being faith based. In essence, creationism and evolutionary theory are the same at their core in that they both rely on a leap of faith at some point. Science is limited by the current information and technology at the time and so relies on faith in man’s suppositions. Creationism is simply faith in God. They aren’t mutually exclusive to any reasonable man as the Science guy would say.
    In fact, the one thing science has proven time and time again is that whatever the current thinking is, it is at worst in error and at best incomplete. It is the best we can do at the time. We will continue to adapt and understand more as the information grows and technology increases which will disprove some “facts” and add to others… with that said, why would you put your faith in current science based on that track record?

    • Brian

      Science is based on evidence and testing, not on faith. Regardless of limits, anything proven scientifically is much more objective than folk tales written 4000 years ago by nomadic, Middle-Eastern goat herders.
      Your argument that because knowledge constantly changes scientific method is unreliable is utterly ridiculous. The whole point of science is to revise knowledge when new evidence is brought forth. This was covered in the debate when Bill Nye and Ken Ham were asked “What will change your mind”. Ken Ham responded “Nothing” and Bill Nye responded “Evidence”.
      This isn’t a matter of faith or belief. If you believe in superstition when there’s evidence pointing to the contrary, yet have no evidence to back your beliefs up, you are simply delusional.

      • John Paul Severin

        When you say “proven” scientifically, you are taking a leap of faith. Obviously because of the inherent limitations of science, you can never be 100% certain. You don’t know it to be true, but you believe (based on evidence). You put your faith in the method, in the current research, in repeatability, in the current technology, in the scientific consensus.
        It’s also funny that there are science zealots just like there are religious zealots. People who foam at the mouth when someone disagrees with him/her. It just seems a lot more similar to me than not.

      • Brian

        No, I most certainly am not taking a leap of faith. Evidence is evidence and the burden of proof is always on the claimant. This isn’t a difficult concept. Nothing is taken seriously in science without hard evidence. Faith does not play anywhere into it. If you sit there and say that evidence causing revision means scietific methos is unreliable, you are completely and utterly wrong. Revision based on evidence is ultimate reliability and the very foundation of reason. Religion is irrational because it is based on faith and superstition and only changes when convenient, rather than when proven wrong. Genesis has been proven completely false and yet people still cling to it. This is delusion.

      • Brian

        Also zealotry implies delusion and faith. One who is not swayed by proof is not scientific, thus a “science zealot” cannot exist. You are merely making comparisons to justify your insecurities, I think.

      • https://plus.google.com/+WardChanley Ward Chanley

        You’re conflating “faith” and “proof” in ways that make no sense if you actually think words need, well, meaning. Can I *prove* to you we’re not all in Plato’s Cave? (sub. the Matrix, if you’re not familiar.) Nope.

        But is it even remotely likely that this is all an utterly convincing simulation and that “reality” is something else we can’t actually “prove”? Maybe, but then what would be the point? Science isn’t asking philosophical questions about the nature of truth (we have several useful branches of philosophy for that already) – it’s simply looking an the evidence and testing its predictions about that evidence.

  • Erik Griffiths

    Ken Ham caught in a lie, and not his usual ones. How embarrassing he must be for Christians.

    • white trash religious teaparty

      Christians are never embarrassed————-
      they have the alpha/omega of JEEEEESUS and they can spin an answer for anything

  • Ron Chartier

    I think Mr. Ham has been watching too many Flintstones reruns on Fox. Oh wait, that can’t be right. The bible doesn’t say anything about TV, so it doesn’t exist.

    • white trash religious teaparty

      can U imagine how screwed up the Christian church would be if IN the flintstones both couples went to church a lot on the show???

  • Jasterisk

    What I want to know is, if people were here the same time Dinosaurs were (4000 years ago) where did they go and how did they get so far underground?

    • Ivan Pierre

      Well more precisely we are the 7 Adar 5774… Jews have calculated the creation date from a long, long time. And have the advantage to have read their Thora, in contrary of mosts (il)literate christians… :D

  • Pat

    Amusingly, Ham’s own argument goes against him. He wasn’t there when the Bible was written, nor when it was translated – and re-translated – over many many years. The King James Bible was massively edited and revised to reflect the politics of King James and his ilk. The original Bible contained some massively different concepts that today’s Christian Right would be appalled to see.

  • http://torhershman.blogspot.com/ tor_hershman

    Of course, since I have only watched the Network News (a.k.a. Religious Authority approved Skippy Goebbels) report, I don’t have that much info. I will not watch the entire debate until I’m gettin’ as much money and/or publicity as Nye & Ham got.
    However, for Bill Nye to represent an Atheist POV…well…..I ain’t viewed anything like that since Neville Chamberlin got back from Berlin.
    You don’t get on PBS without being Religious Authority approved, TOO!

  • White True Patriot

    God’s two books are the Holy Bible and Mein Kampf. If you don’t follow them get your communist Jew atheist faggot asses out of God’s America and move to Faggotstan.

  • Mr Smith

    Point #1
    Mr. Ham was not there when the Bible was written so how does he know its accurate.
    Mr. Nye should have asked; “Mr. Ham you claim that we can not know the truth because we were not there, based on your own statement you have established that you can not possibly know if the bible is true and accurate since you were not there when it was conceived and first written. What proof do you have Mr. Ham that the bible is factual and accurate, and, that there truly exists a god that created the universe in 6 days?”

    When debating never ever use an argument that can be turned against you putting you on the defensive establishing that you don’t know what your talking about.

    Point #2
    Its established fact that the bible was written by man not God and has been heavily edited by governments and religious leaders over time and was duplicated from memory buy many different people.

    Stand a group of people in a line. Whisper a message in the ear of the first person and have them repeat the message down the line, by the time it gets to the end what is left of the message is comical. Now imagine doing the same thing with a whole book of information over hundreds of years and thousands of people.

    Topping it off with the established mistranslated of the original texts and glaring contradictions. The bible he claims to site as empirical truth, in any court of law can be proven to be conjecture, hearsay and an unreliable source of information.

    Real science on the other hand relies on establishing accuracy and repeatable tests proving beyond any doubt of its conclusions. Short of that it is labeled a theory, a hypothesis or is dis proven. This can not be said about faith. Wanting it to be true does not ever make it true.

  • PaulMaddux

    Can evolution and creationism coexist?