Bill Nye Ken Ham Debate In Depth Recap Synopsis and Who Won


The Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate has just concluded, and  Nye has emerged the clear winner. The event has been widely anticipated for weeks, and was available for free on YouTube. The recorded event can also be accessed on YouTube for a period of time. DVDs and downloads are also available for purchase on the Creation Museum’s website. Here is an in-depth recap and synopsis of the events as they unfolded, leading up to the dramatic victory of  Nye, much to the delight of the secular community.

7:00 p.m: There’s a strange animated commercial for the Creation Museum. Ok, here comes Tom Foreman from CNN as the moderator. The stage looks good. The question that will be asked is “is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era.” Where are Nye and Ham?

7:01: Here they come! They shake hands and exchange what looks like pleasant words. Ham will go first because he won the coin toss. Foreman is doing introductions.

7:04: Ham gets five minutes for an opening statement. He says secularists have “highjacked” the word science. He’s carting out Stuart Burgess, a scientist and inventor… whoa… he jumps over to defining the word science. He says there are different types of science: observational and historical. Again he says the word science has been highjacked. Aaaand right on to the Bible verses. His main point here is that historical science is basically the Bible.

7:10: Nye’s turn. He’s counting bowties. Uh oh. He’s telling a story about bowties. Why is he doing that? Oh boy. Tuxedos… bow ties… his grandfather needed help tying a tie. Ohh it’s a joke. Ok. Now he’s talking about CSI. Ah, ok, he is explaining that there’s no such thing as “historical” science. That’s a Ken Ham construct, he says. Ham has a remarkable view about a worldwide flood. Nye asks if the story of the flood is reasonable. He’s moving on to fossil evidence and how there is no fossil evidence of the great flood. He says that we have to embrace science to keep up with technology and that Ham’s model is not viable.

7:15: Ham is carting out the small group of scientists who are young earth creationists: Raymond Damadian who invented the MRI scanner; Danny Falkner is into astronomy; Dr. Stuart Burgess invented some piece for a satellite. Ham admits that these scientists are “a small minority in the scientific world.” Burgess says that a lot of scientists are just afraid to speak out because of the “atheist lobby.” Again Ham is back on the “historical science” idea. He uses “historical geology” to illustrate this idea of historical science. “There’s a difference between what you observe and what you interpret with regard to the past,” says Ham. He explains that it’s a battle over philosophical world views and that you either believe God is the ultimate authority or man is the ultimate authority. He says kids are not being taught to think critically in schools and that there are different animal “kinds” and a “creation orchard”; and that observational science confirms this.

He says that the evolutionary tree is “belief” because we can’t see one “kind” changing into another. He says we can see and observe animals being different from each other and that’s observational science. Again, he says the word science and the word evolution have both been high jacked. Andrew Fabich is on screen giving his credentials and says he believes in creationism. Ham is excited to announce that the antiquated view which used to be taught was based on Darwin’s ideas about the highest race being Caucasian. He says that because this “foundation” of Darwin is wrong, all of Darwin’s ideas are wrong.

7:40- Still on Ham. Ham says you can’t observe the age of the earth and that students are being confused by terms. Ham says evolution is a belief, and that his beliefs stem from the Bible and what he can observe and see today. He says he admits his historical science idea is based on the Bible and that he takes Genesis as literal history. Now he’s quoting the Bible again and telling the story of the Bible and Jesus.

7:41: Jesus. More Jesus. More Jesus. Back to the difference between “historical” and “observational” science. Again he asserts that God is the ultimate authority. He says he wants children to be taught the right foundation. Back to Jesus dying on the cross… aaaand… his turn is over.

7:74: It’s Nye’s turn. Nye says thanks to Ham because he learned something from the presentation. He leads with a fossil and explains that we’re standing on millions of layers of ancient life. There is not enough time in 4,000 years for there to be millions of years of fossil layers present, he says. His colleagues drill out ice rods called snow ice and he finds 680,000 layers of winter/summer cycles within the layers. It’s impossible that the ice could have formed in 4,000 years. He’s showing trees that are 6,800 years old and 9,550 years old. How could those trees be there is there was a flood 4,000 years ago? he asks. Trees can’t survive under water.

He explains that scientists study and see exactly how long it takes sediment to turn to stone. He’s showing pictures of the Grand Canyon and says there should be a Grand Canyon on every continent if the flood had happened. He says as we look at fossils we are looking at the past. You never, ever find a higher animal mixed into the lower ones, but if the water drained away so fast after the flood, there would be many animals mixed together. He says scientists challenges one person to find one example of animals existing concurrently in fossils.

If there were just man and all other species, where would you put modern humans among all the animal skulls in fossil history? he asks. He says that if a giant wooden ship went aground safely in the Middle East, we would expect that some evidence of kangaroos traveling from the Middle East to Australia would be found in the last 4,000 years. There is no land bridge like the one claimed, and there are no fossils to support the creation theory. Nye says there are about 16 million species that exist today. If these species came from the 7,000 “kinds” as Ham claims, we would expect to find at least 11 new species every day. We would have seen these changes among us, but there is no evidence for that.

Inherent in the Ham’s view, says Nye, is that Noah’s family would have built a ship that would have housed 7,000 kinds of animals, and they would have had to feed those animals, but we can run a scientific test that disproves their ability to do so. A huge wooden ship was actually built many years ago, but that ship would twist in the sea, and in all the twisting, it leaked and eventually sank. The best ship builders in the world could not build a ship that would be viable.

“What we want in science is an ability to predict,” Nye says; a natural law that we can understand. He gives the example of the Tiktaalik which is an animal that is a cross between a lizard and a frog. Scientists predicted they would find it and they indeed discovered it where they thought they would. Nye is talking about “traditional fish sex” now, and is asking why does anybody have sex? The answer, he says, is your enemies. Your enemies are germs and parasites and the purpose for sexual reproduction is that it causes genes that are susceptible to fewer parasites.

He goes on to say that the explanation provided by evolution gives scientists the ability to make predictions, and he says it is generally agreed that the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago. Oh no. It’s the periodic table of elements. He explains that elements come into being when stars explode and that it’s possible to tell exactly how old each fossil is and therefore how old the earth is. It is easy to observe these fossils and the animals represented therein, he says. He asks Ham how there can be billions of stars that are much older than 6,000 years old. How can we have rocks and trees that are “far, far, far older than you claim the earth is?” he asks.

He concludes with saying that the Constitution states we should promote science and pleads with Kentucky to not let students fall behind in science education.


Here comes the five minute rebuttal. Ham goes first: He repeats that we can’t observe the age of the earth. He says his understanding of science is built on the Bible and that God created the world in six days. Adam, Abraham and Christ equals 6,000 years. He says different dating methods give different dates and that you can’t age date a rock. Then more Jesus, Jesus, the Bible, Christ. The Bible. Death is a result of man’s sin. Adam and Eve, Jesus. The Bible, the Bible, God, God, the Bible. There are hundreds of dating methods out there and they are all fallible, he says, and he claims that the word of God is the only fallible dating method.

Nye’s counter-rebuttal:

Nye says dating methods are very reliable and that using the Bible as a dating method is “troubling.” Nye says we can definitely observe the past and that’s all they do in astronomy. The heart of the disagreement, Nye says, is that Ham is using magical thinking and it’s not conventional mainstream science. He refutes Ham’s claim that animals were all vegetarians. He concludes by saying The Bible is not a science text and we should not use it as such.

Ham’s counter rebuttal:

Ham again carts out the small minority of creation scientists and says they agree with him. He says Nye is confusing terms. He says species did not get on the ark, but rather “kinds” did. He says Nye’s fossils illustrate his (Ham’s) point and that since we didn’t see the layers of fossils being laid down, we can’t say how old they are. It all comes down to interpretation, he says. He says Nye can’t claim Noah was unskilled because Nye never met him.

Nye’s counter rebuttal:

Nye says he is completely unsatisfied because Ham did not address his questions. In Ham’s view, Nye says, we would have 35-40 new species every day. Nye is skeptical of Noah being a great ship maker because he would have had to have superpowers to do so, and that’s not reasonable. Nye wants to know why we should accept Ham’s word for it that natural law completely changed 4,000 years ago but there is no record of it. Nye says that there are millions of religious people who do not accept creationism. What is to become of all those people who do not see it Ham’s way? He says if Ham can come up with any fossil to prove the theory he would love to see it and that we need scientists and engineers for the future so that we can continue to innovate. “We need innovation and that means science education,” he says.

Time for audience questions! The following is a synopsis of a sampling of questions and answers:

How do you account for celestial bodies?

Ham’s answer: the Bible accounts for it. God is all-powerful. More stuff about God. “Wow, what a God.”

Nye’s answer: Astronomy, natural laws, science.

How did the atoms that created the Big Bang get there?

Nye: It’s a mystery. We want to know, so let’s keep trying to find out. The universe is accelerating and we don’t know exactly why. “This is why we get up and go to work every day.”

Ham’s answer: “God created the heavens and the earth.” The Bible, the Bible, God, the Creator.

What evidence besides the Bible supports creationism?

Ham’s answer: Just because the majority says it’s true does not mean it is true, because the majority often gets it wrong. I made predictions and my prediction about one race was right. We are not scientifically able to prove it but we can investigate the present.

How did consciousness come from matter?

Nye’s answer: “We don’t know.” It’s a great mystery.  We want to know and that’s what we are trying to find out.

Ham: The Bible. God. The Bible. God gave it to us. God’s glory.

What, if anything would ever change your mind?

Ham: I can’t prove it to you, but basically, God and Jesus. “The Bible is the word of God.” No one will ever convince him that the word of God is not true. Like, ever.

Nye: “We just need one piece of evidence like a fossil that swam from one level to another.” We would need evidence that rock layers could form in 4,000 years. Bring me any of those things and I would change my mind immediately.

What scientific evidence supports your view of the age of the earth?

Nye: Radiometric evidence, radioactivity. “If things were any other way, things would be different.” These are provable facts.

Ham: Scientists are just making assumptions and most of them contradict each other.

Can you explain the speed of continental drifting?

Ham: I’m not an expert in this area. Scientists are just making assumptions when they measure the rate at which continents drift.

Nye: We can measure sea floor spreading and we can measure exactly how continents drift.

What’s your favorite color?

Nye: Green

Ham: “Observational science, blue.”

Is there room for God in science?

Nye: Billions of religious people accept science. Everyone uses science. Using science is not all that connected to spiritual beliefs yet science and belief are compatible.

Ham: “God is necessary for science.”

Do you believe the entire Bible should be taken literally?

Ham: “I take the Bible naturally.” Some parts are more poetic and some is prophetic. God, God, God etc.

Nye: It seems like Ham is cherry picking.

What is the one thing upon which you base your belief?

Ham: the Bible. There’s no other book like it. It tells us everything we need to know. Man is a sinner. The Gospel…Jesus died on the cross. Salvation, Jesus, God, God, the Bible. The Bible, the Bible, the Bible. God will reveal himself to you.

Nye: “I base my beliefs on the information and the process that we call science. It fills me with joy. It is a wonderful and astonishing thing to me. If we abandon all that we have learned, if we let go of everything we have learned before us, if we stop looking for answers, we will be defeated…We have to embrace science education. We have to keep science education in science classes.”

In the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate, the answer to those asking who won is: it’s clear Nye emerged the winner because he relied on a large amount of fossil and scientific evidence. Ham relied almost exclusively on the Bible and provided no fossil or scientific evidence whatsoever. As predicted, the debate was friendly and completely civil. In addition to this in depth synopsis and recap, the debate will be available at for a few days, and on YouTube.

By: Rebecca Savastio

Source: Live debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham














238 Responses to "Bill Nye Ken Ham Debate In Depth Recap Synopsis and Who Won"

  1. truecreation_dot_info   April 29, 2015 at 8:35 am

    In general, the scientists who dissent from the basics of evolutionary theory are driven by ideological goals, usually based on faith, whether or not it is faith in the God of the Bible. In many cases, they do not hide the fact that they use presuppositional logic when formulating their “theories”; that is, they start by selecting their desired outcome and then seek only evidence that supports that outcome. They readily and openly admit that they sift facts through a filter, discarding any facts that do not fit with a literal interpretation of the Bible because they “simply cannot be true.” Presuppositional logic may be fine for understanding some foundational parts of the gospel message. It is of dubious value when used as an apologetic tool. But it fails miserably and completely as a scientific method. Let’s be clear — this is not science. If you seek answers to questions about the natural world using presuppositional logic, you will open yourself up to any number of incorrect answers. This goes a long way toward explaining why the results disseminated by the various “creation science” and “intelligent design” organizations rarely agree with each other! Which “Bible-based” outcome would you like? You can choose from many different ones, simply by believing the results from the various creationist organizations. I say “believe” rather than “accept”, because your reception of these results will be based on faith, not reason, nor trust in the practice of reason. Some evangelical Christian educators lambaste the teaching of evolution and “materialistic” science, claiming that it is an example of a heinous relativism that pervades the American educational system. They are encouraging relativism by using presuppositional logic.

  2. Andrew Slovak   April 24, 2014 at 11:54 am

    If I truly believed that 2+2 = 5, wouldn’t that make me an idiot?

  3. Mike Garber   March 24, 2014 at 1:12 pm

    “You should always listen to both sides with an open mind.”
    “You should always listen to both sides with an open mind.”

    Tell that to Ken Ham. When Ken admitted that there was no evidence that could be conceivably produced that would change his mind, it was “game over”.

  4. Zack Fulmer   March 24, 2014 at 11:19 am

    obviously this was written by an evolutionist,”god god bible bible i hate other beliefs”
    You should always listen to both sides with an open mind. Creation and science are both combined. even if you don’t believe in creationism you don’t have to write about it like anyone that believes it is an idiot. i will admit that ham probably wasn’t the best man for this job but he’s not a dummy either.

  5. William D. Simpson   March 5, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    Its not about who won or lost. Ken Ham did what most professing Christians will not do today. That is to present the Gospel to an unbelieving 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.

    • TheDukeOfHighwayJ   March 7, 2014 at 9:35 am

      “Ken Ham ….. present the Gospel ….”
      Which had no bearing on the topic of whether the OT account of the creation has any validity.

      “…. to an unbelieving society/culture ….”
      Which also has no bearing on the topic, as faith in Christ has no connection to the validity of the OT account of the creation..

      “which is hostile….”
      If you kept bringing an unrelated topic to a discussion, you’d get a bit of hostility, too.

  6. Jack K   February 23, 2014 at 7:30 am

    Why go through all of this extra debate. It’s called Faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If you do not have it you will never understand the truth. Very simple. “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” Romans 10:17.

  7. Noah Bradley   February 19, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    Nobody won. This debate wasn’t worth having. Ken’s view of Creationism isn’t worth debating and Bill Nye did nothing but joke around and repeat the same science-y mumbo jumbo while completely avoiding the question.

  8. TheDukeOfHighwayJ   February 17, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    Sounds very cult-like. Albeit, it tad more grandiose than most.

  9. nick houllis   February 17, 2014 at 3:41 am

    I believe in God but I do not believe in creationism. Science actually proves the bible but the bible is not a literal word. Its the word of god translated to people from thousands of years ago.
    Imagine explaning DNA to someone 200 years ago? well imagine explaining any science to someone 5000 years ago?
    Think about this..
    what is a day to god?
    why cant parts of the bible just be stories and there still be a god? The idea that an all powerful god would prevent any untruths in the bible is the same as saying an all powerful god would not allow children to be kiilled/tortured.

    Either way…you cannont disprove science and science must move forward if were ever to understand the real nature of the universe.

    I would say this author would have more credit if his recap of Ham were trying to write what he actually said. The reverse could be true on a creation site where the author says “and nye said Science this, science that, proof proof proof…observation this, observation that…”

    • Andrew Slovak   April 24, 2014 at 11:58 am

      Observation this, observation that is a way more credible source than God this, God that.

  10. Kirkules   February 10, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    It is completely viable and accurate to use the Bible as support. Ken Ham uses the Bible as historical evidence, not as a completely religious document. The author of this article is very ignorant in their use of substituting Ken Ham’s arguments with, “The Bible, God, Jesus, The Bible.” Biblical evidence is just as accurate as any other form of evidence. State the facts and let others draw their own conclusions from that rather than shoving your own biases down our throats.

    • Trevor D   February 10, 2014 at 11:06 pm

      The world was not created in 6 days. We know this, it’s established fact.

      Therefore the bible is not accurate and therefore cannot be used as evidence along side *real* evidence which has been repeatedly tested, verified and which can be used to make predictions.

      The bible is fiction. Just like all other religious text found on this planet.

      • Jason   February 15, 2014 at 8:56 am

        The bible does not state it was created in 6 24hr days, the bible says a day to god is “as a thousand years”, so it could have been thousands if not milllions of years, as I have commented before. And it shoes the earth was after the universe aka heavens.

        • Murchad99   February 16, 2014 at 3:53 pm

          “so it could have been thousands if not milllions of years”

          Well that’s one of many problems with calling the Bible a historical source… you must cherry-pick which parts to take literally, which parts to reinterpret to suit your needs, and which parts to discard entirely as parables or moral cautionary tales. And all of this cherry-picking and reinterpretation occurs in line with specific agenda.

          The only part of the bible that is remotely acceptable for use as a “historical source” are the portions recording the tribal history of the Jews, and later the early societies of Christianity. It’s historical because it’s rooted in actual history, despite very little of it being independently verifiable and despite much of it strongly resembling the pseudo-historical exaggerated mythology and legend of other cultures.

          There are many people who say (quite correctly) that the bible can teach you a great many things and make you, in their eyes, a much better person. They can also claim that if there is a god, the bible has the inherent ability to bring your mind closer to understanding Him. But those who claim the bible is historical fact worthy of trusting over observable and verifiable evidence and testing deserve the scorn and dismissal they receive from scientists and most mainstream religious people alike.

  11. Mike Garber   February 9, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    Trevor is right. How silly would it be if I beleived in unicorns and asked you to prove they dont exist. Pretty silly.

  12. Jason Gilmore   February 9, 2014 at 8:31 am

    Since majority of people here don’t believe in God and believe in the unproven theory of evolution, here is a challenge, prove to me there is no God.

    • Trevor D   February 9, 2014 at 12:42 pm

      Sorry, it doesn’t work like that. YOU are the one that is making this claim your god exists, therefore the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that there it exists, not the other way around. Furthermore, I challenge you to prove that your bible is in fact divine and why it supersedes all other religious texts that other religions use as the basis for their faith.
      Do it, I bet you can’t.

      • edenoutpost   February 9, 2014 at 1:20 pm

        YAHWEH my Creator has always existed and always will. You and I may not, but He has been, is and forever will be. For me, God is personal and has worked many wonders in my life. I have trusted Him and He has delivered me in miraculous ways many times. I hear His voice in His Word and in my heart. I see His character revealed in nature and in the heavens. I have tasted and have seen that the Lord is good. I have hope and a sure future. Death is but a sleep and I fear it not. I know Him in whom I have believed and have perfect peace. Jesus is real to those who invite Him into their hearts and minds. The proof is in the daily walk and communion with the Creator. God’s word is true and that is historically proven over and again. True science verifies the bible’s authenticity for those willing to admit it. The simple fact that we think, reason and have moral sensibilities proves to me that a higher intelligence than I exists. God speaks in a thousand ways to those listening.

        • Trevor D   February 9, 2014 at 3:14 pm

          I realize you believe you know god, that you believe he exists. Yet that doesn’t mean it *actually* exists…
          Know that none of what you said fulfills the request for evidence and none of it will change the mind of someone looking for the truth in OUR SHARED REALITY.
          Tell me, what’s the difference between your trust, your hope, your belief that your god is real and that of say a Shintoist, or a Hindu, a Jew or a Muslim? Their faith in their version of a deity (or deities) is no doubt as strong as yours yet you all believe in different truths and ideals. What makes your version of reality more truthful than theirs? What makes you right?

          And again, can you prove that the bible is the divine word of god? SHOW ME EVIDENCE. Telling me to listen to god in my heart isn’t going to cut it.

          You know what it looks like to an observer when you are praying or are supposedly having a conversation with (or simply ‘listening’ to) your god?

          Nothing, it looks like you’re simply doing nothing.

          You will claim to be having a spiritual moment with god, yet all you are doing is essentially sitting there talking to yourself. That’s what is observed. People of all faiths will claim to have a personal connection to god and that they speak to him directly, or at least hear his voice.
          This claim that you know that god exists because you hear his voice and his word and in your heart just isn’t going to sway the opinion of a rational human being looking for answers.
          You know what it looks like to me? You are speaking to yourself. It’s a delusion. I can prove that because when you claim to speak to god or are listening to your god speak to you all you can be seen doing at that moment is absolutely nothing.

      • Jason Gilmore   February 10, 2014 at 9:31 am

        Ok, as I commented before, people believed the earth was flat, yet the Bible stated it is a circle, people believed the earth was supported by giant turtles and animals yet the Bible states it hangs upon nothing. The Bible shows life begins at conception which was contrary to what many scientists previously believed. The Bible set forth cleanliness laws in the book of Leviticus that were ignored by people 100-500 years ago but people now see the truth and reason of. The Bible foretold the fall of Babylons king and realease of the people of Jerusalem 200 years before it happened, not only naming the leader to do that but also how and it happened just as foretold, the Bible foretold the dividing of Alexander the greats kingdom, which happened, the Bible gave the birthplace of Jesus, and listed things he would experience before his death hundreds of years before it occurred. There is numerous amounts of evidence and proof the Bible is not just a random book but that it is a historical and modern day collection of documents that were inspired by someone higher than ourselves.
        But unless you have any faith in such a being, you will continue to ignore the proof right before you.

        • Trevor D   February 10, 2014 at 2:11 pm

          That’s your evidence? Not impressive in the slightest.

          Makes me wonder why Galileo Galilei was disposed of by the Catholic church for proving the Earth revolved around the sun. You think the bible would of predicted that…

          Here’s a list of failed prophecies in the bible:

          Isn’t the bible supposed to be the perfect word of god? Then why the mistakes and contradictions? Why the failed prophecies?

          It’s a man-made object, that’s why.

          Also, I was raised a creationist. My mother taught scripture at the public school and then the public high school I went to, so I’m no stranger to your faith. What changed?

          I accepted reality. You’d be surprised with how beautiful it is.

          • edenoutpost   February 10, 2014 at 2:37 pm

            Friend, your reality is only great until the day comes that you discover a greater reality than the one you now hold onto. One that hits you square in the face and you realize you put your trust in nothing of real value and now its too late to fix it. The bible has no contradictions, when it is understood through the help of God’s Spirit, for spiritual things are spiritually discerned. God hides His deeper wisdom from those who refuse to come to Him in humility and as little children to learn from their heavenly Father. The finite mind of mankind is what makes it at times appear to have contradictions. God inspired the bible and ONLY God can give you the proper understanding of it. If you want contradictions then look no further then the wisdom of the worldly wise and the evolution theories. The examples given regarding the bible were valid examples where Scripture understood the real world far better then the so-called scientists and religionists of the day. Much of what is professed to be Christianity today is in reality a dark and poor example of true Christianity. Jesus Himself is the ONLY unflawed example of God’s character of love and of true godliness. The closer we come to reflecting His character the closer we come to true godliness. He who has the Son has life and he who has not the Son of God has not life. It really is that simple.

          • Trevor D   February 10, 2014 at 10:38 pm

            How do you know god inspired the bible?

            Anyone can claim to be inspired by god to justify their actions e.g. suicide bombers, politicians (Tony Blair went to war because god told him to), parents who exorcise their children (and kill them in the process), abortion clinic bombers ect. There are people in asylums that claim to speak to god – who are you to say otherwise?

            Are they truly speaking to god? Or themselves? Now what’s more likely?

            What about other religious texts that were supposedly inspired by their respective gods? Why does your religion reign supreme and the others deemed as false?

            You’ve been indoctrinated, like all religious people, and you will struggle at all costs to preserve your faith even if it means ignoring facts.

            I refuse to ignore reality. I care if what I believe is true. Life is wonderful, yes, even without one of the countless gods that man has created.

          • edenoutpost   February 10, 2014 at 11:45 pm

            I’ve read the Bible cover to cover many times and have studied its history and have compared its claims and prophecies. I have no doubt that it is inspired by God’s Holy Spirit through holy men of old. I’ve done my homework and beyond that I have known God’s leading and personal presence in my life. I certainly have no concerns regarding doubting my faith or the bible. My faith in Jesus is rock solid. Trust in God is a well established reality in my life for over 35 years. If you are satisfied living without God then you are obviously free to do so, but don’t call my choosing to love and obey God ignoring reality. When you die that is it and its over for you, because without Jesus you have no eternal life. When I die that will be a whole new beginning for me and I have no fear of death at all. I would not even spend time responding on this site were it not for the fact that I care about others and want them to know the same hope I have found in Jesus. He is the creator of this world and the entire universe. He is a personal Savior and friend. Knowing God and following the bible in no way removes me from reality or from the deep love of true science. God created all the laws of nature and He is the author of science. It is the religion of evolution that I have a problem with. It is nothing more than the deceptions of the fallen angel Lucifer, now called Satan. Whether you believe in him or not … he is very real and has duped most of the world into believing his lies relating to God and nature. If one person finds hope by the things I post, then I am fully satisfied. I have no agenda apart from spreading the good news that God loves us all and that He sent His only-begotten Son to die for us that we might have eternal life with Him. Without a personal experience with God no one has hope beyond this life. Most world religions are works oriented and will end in death. Jesus alone is the savior of the world and in His name alone is there salvation. If you don’t believe this then it is your loss and I pity you greatly. If we were born to live a few years and then die … what a bleak and worthless existence. I know that is not true and that we are created with a purpose to live forever in a beautiful world, the earth made new. I hope you will find your way there as well. Jesus is the only door to that eternal reality.

          • Trevor D   February 11, 2014 at 12:37 am

            Harold Camping no doubt read the bible cover to cover and compared its claims and prophecies…He is what you would call a holy man, he had no doubt, yet he was obviously wrong, wrong, and wrong in his predictions. He was deluded and he scared a lot of people in the process, all whilst he relieved them of their money and livelihood.

            People who claim to have this profound personal insight with god must always be treated with skepticism, otherwise the least critical thinkers amongst us will be manipulated and outright used by those making these outlandish claims. It happens daily.

            Your claims of eternal life are pointless, same with stating satan is a real thing. You have simply no way of proving they exist and If you could, guess what, I would change my mind in a heartbeat. Why? Because you would have the evidence to show me.
            Good luck with that.

            We are our brain. Everything about us is there. Once it dies, we die. That’s just the reality of the situation. In the meantime I’m going to learn and love as much as possible while I’m here alive and well. That’s not bleak, That’s not worthless. That’s me living life.

            Look, I don’t want to harp on about this to you. You seem like a good person who cares about people and I don’t want to constantly disparage you because you have faith in the deity of your choosing..
            Truth is, if it ever comes down to it I will fight for the death for your right to choose in *whatever* you want to believe – I just don’t have to respect it if it doesn’t make sense
            The big issue is when the religious, specifically creationists want to circumvent the teaching of science in public schools and replace it with their own creationist myths – that’s when we will clash. Literally replacing provable facts with myth?
            It’s absurd and morally wrong.

            But again, I don’t want to constantly tell you how I think you’re wrong and so forth, you seem like a nice person and I truly wish you all the best in the future.

          • Jason   February 10, 2014 at 3:11 pm

            Your basing your “understanding” on a wiki page? lol I feel sorry for you and your so-called reality. No matter what anyone says when your convinced, your convinced, nothing will change that, I believe what I believe because I am convinced without a doubt it is the truth. And if I happen to be wrong, if there is no God, and we are all here to fend for our selves with no hope for the future, and all of our lives will end, then as Ham put it, whats the point of all of this? What’s the point to do anything good? What is the point to discover anything? Shouldn’t we just live, kill, have sex, and do what ever we want without worrying about consequences? Evolutionists and atheists will never convince anyone who truly believes in God there is no God, and apparently vice versa.
            So, oh well.

          • Trevor D   February 10, 2014 at 10:58 pm

            You presumed I am basing my understanding on a wiki page. I merely posted a link and you jumped to that conclusion, no doubt to create a strawman and shift attention away from the article itself. Very predictable, Jason and I’m not at all surprised.
            The article is one of many that critiques the bible and highlights its *many* contradictions and failed prophecies. Not like you’d read any of them anyway, right?

            What’s the point of all this?

            You sound so pessimistic about the *one* life we know for sure we have. It actually scares me that people like you, when faced with undeniable facts will do their utmost to ignore it, just to preserve their preconceived notions about reality. That’s intentional ignorance. That’s fanaticism. And it’s dangerous to humanities future.

            People convert to different religions everyday and yes, even from atheism to religion and vice-versa. That’s the world we live in, ever changing, always with something new to experience and to learn. It’s just people like you who ignore facts in order to preserve their faith who don’t learn anything new – Now I understand why you see no point.

      • Jason   February 10, 2014 at 3:13 pm

        Also, evolutionists try to disprove God, so that is the way it works, you want to disprove God, than go ahead and prove it.

  13. Jason Gilmore   February 8, 2014 at 9:31 am

    No one won the debate, all this does is give each side reasons to believe what they believe. For me I believe and see clear evidence that there is a creator behind the natural laws we see, the rotation and alignment of planets, and growth of life here in the earth, it is a impossibility for all of that to happen by chance, and if you believe you can take a hand full of marbles, throw them on the ground and they land in a perfect circle and perfectly spaced between each other you have some serious mental issues, that is how evolutionists think. There is incredibly clear evidence aka proof there is a creator. There is no proof it all came by chance. I love the point Ham made, we don’t see random animals springing from other animals, in other words you don’t see cats giving birth to dogs, or fish to birds, yet evolutionists want to believe that is what happened, it’s sad and hilarious at the same time.

    • Guenter Dantrimont   February 15, 2014 at 2:44 am

      quote: “I love the point Ham made, we don’t see random animals springing from other animals, in other words you don’t see cats giving birth to dogs, or fish to birds, yet evolutionists want to believe that is what happened, it’s sad and hilarious at the same time.”

      More than a strawman argument: If you find a cat giving birth to a dog etc you would definitely DISPROVE evolution, since evolution theory (=model) predicts this will never happen. If your perception of natural science is deluded to such a high degree it is no wonder that you believe in creationism instead.

  14. Danes   February 8, 2014 at 2:56 am

    The Bible was written in hebrew not aramic! You people are all experts here,yet everyone of you don’t know anything,you just listen to ,,scientist,, and not doing your own research…

    • Marcel Koníček   February 8, 2014 at 6:13 am

      Certain parts of bible were written (or at least this form surivived until today) in Aramaic, not aramic, other we know to be hebrew. New testament was chiefly written in greek and all the parts were translated to the other languages at one point (so we have septuaginta, the greek version of the hebrew bible). This is what I have learned in my studies of religionistic at least… Please dont tell other people they lack rigor when you cant even write the word “Aramaic”!

  15. Richard Wells   February 6, 2014 at 7:56 pm

    Ham believes that “certain part of the bible are to be believed literally”, and that he gets to choose which parts are literal. Yet the original bible were written in Aramaic, then translated into Hebrew, then into Greek, then into Latin, then into German, and finally into English all over a period of thousands of years. Is it reasonalbe to believe that today’s English version of the bible is the actual word of God?

  16. bgurrl   February 6, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    Can people please stop using the flat Earth myth.

  17. Bill G   February 6, 2014 at 9:23 am

    Personally, I am agnostic, but I wish Bill Nye had driven home the point that science

    is not inherently incompatible with faith, it is simply a different discipline or

    focus. And science should simply remain a different discipline.

    If you accept creationism a la Ken Ham, not only do you have to exclude much

    scientific evidence, you also have to go through several hoops of excluding other

    people’s faith based beliefs:

    1) You have to believe that the Bible is the only true word of God, excluding all

    other religions and religous text. In other words, all other religious beliefs are

    excluded from creationism.

    2) You have to believe that the version of the Bible Ken Ham uses (King James?) is the

    only correct version of the bible, somehow all of the previous translations in

    English, Greek, Hebrew, etc. didn’t quite get it right. In other words, many

    christians are excluded from creationism.

    3) And most importantly, you have to believe God’s word on creation literally

    describes what he did. If we are God’s children, would he literally tell us all of

    the complicated ways that he created the universe? When we explain complicated

    matters to our own small children, do we not expain those matters in simple terms or


    To me, if you are strong of faith:

    1) You can believe that God communicated his word to different peoples in different


    2) You can believe that the bible, even with its imperfections communicates God’s


    3) You can confirm your faith with the wonderful discoveries of science. When we

    discover more about the universe around us, including the past, doesn’t that make the

    universe that much more wonderful? Therefore, doesn’t it make God’s creations that

    much more marvelous than literally described in the Bible?

  18. Tom Gentry   February 6, 2014 at 6:02 am

    One of the most telling responses from Nye was when asked what if anything would change your mind, he pointed to physical evidence rather than God making Himself known to Nye. In other words, he is not interested in communing with God no matter what. He is only interested wanting to know how things can be explained.

    • christian   February 6, 2014 at 11:19 am

      Actually it was Ham who refused to commune with God and listen to the Science that he credits God with creating. Nye was speaking (in Hams words) Gods language of science thus communing with him, while Ham trusts his own ignorant beliefs over the evidence his god left for him.

  19. BabbieG   February 6, 2014 at 12:39 am

    I wish Bill Nye would have brought up the recent discovery of traces of Neanderthal DNA in present-day humans. Were Neanderthals on Noah’s Ark since they would have been a “type” of human being?

    Second, stating that the Bible was inspired by God and therefore it must be true would be like me saying . . . “I was inspired by Nature and decided to write a book about trees. Nature is therefore the source of the content in my book and whatever is written in the book about trees MUST be true . . . it was inspired by Nature”.

    Would that explanation be acceptable? Even if my book claimed that when you hear leaves rustling in the wind, its actually trees talking to each other. It’s true!! My book was “inspired by Nature”, and Nature cannot be questioned.

  20. john lawton   February 5, 2014 at 7:31 pm <—-oldest tree link…5,600+ years old…

  21. AL verum   February 5, 2014 at 7:21 pm

    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.

    • TheDukeOfHighwayJ   February 6, 2014 at 1:37 pm


  22. Maynard McGuffin   February 5, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    I was reading this until the author of this article misspelled “hijack.”

  23. edenoutpost   February 5, 2014 at 4:21 pm

    Here is my take on the debate … in my own words.

    Ham: The Creator speaks and things exist.
    Nye: Everything came from nothing, we are still trying to figure out how.

    Ham: The Bible explains our origins clearly.
    Nye: We don’t know where we came from or where we are going.

    Both: Observational science is important.

    Ham: Historical Science is religion or belief.
    Nye: Historical science is provable, I’m just not sure how.

    Clearly Ham has the upper hand and offers hope for the future for those who love and serve God.
    Nye has nothing to offer concerning the future. Everybody dies. End of story.

    • jfmguitarist   February 5, 2014 at 9:33 pm

      sounds like wishful thinking, edenoutpost. sorry, but wish-thinking never gets the upper hand on reality. Nye relied on actual science, which endeavors to build and grow our knowledge of the universe… Ham relied on an old book: “it’s true because it’s in the book…. how do i know the book is true? well lt says so in the book”. That’s begging the question, aka circular logic, and it gets you nowhere.

      • TheDukeOfHighwayJ   February 6, 2014 at 1:41 pm

        And based on a book written thousands of years ago, and as we all now know…. you cant trust knowing the cause of past events.

    • Austin Williamson   February 7, 2014 at 10:29 pm

      Which god? Which version of the rulebook? In fact, do they even play by a rulebook?

      Before you rush out to say either YHWH or Jesus, please take a moment to slap yourself in the face. Even a few years after 33 AD, there were differing opinions on who Jesus was (the SON of god, or was he a son of a second? or was god? did it even matter?)

      Ham has nothing to offer in terms of knowledge.
      Nye does.

      Ham has a comfort story.
      Nye has a dream.

      Given the choice between comforting ourselves or building a better future for our descendants, which would you rather have?

    • Jason Gilmore   February 9, 2014 at 8:25 am

      Very well summed up. To say “no god can’t be real because I can’t see Him” is not a reason to not believe in God especially when there is so much natural proof is exists and was behind the creation of things.

      • Austin Williamson   February 9, 2014 at 1:46 pm

        Ah, Gilmore – it’s not that we don’t believe in a higher power, it’s that we don’t believe in a higher power that interferes with the natural operation of the universe.

        What’s greater: a mechanic who builds a car that never needs tweaking, or a mechanic who’s always changing something on the weekend?

        In fact, we deists have more faith in the creator than those who constantly call for divine intervention (Roberson, please stop calling strikes on people – your aim is lousy)

        • Jason Gilmore   February 10, 2014 at 9:25 am

          I’m glad you have faith in a creator, it is sad though you feel He has no interest in His creation though.

          • Austin Williamson   February 10, 2014 at 6:22 pm

            I dunno if it’s sad, but if I succeeded in creating a simulated universe, I might be more interested to sit back and watch (with popcorn).

            Then there’s the juvenile half of me that thinks it would be fun to do stupid stuff (meteor strike! earthquake! tornado! sharknado!) just to see how it would affect the organisms.

  24. Jack Parker   February 5, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    Ham started out a little stronger in terms of form, but once Nye warmed up, it was over. He clobbered Ham. (Clobbered Ham would make a great band name!)

    My take on it was not nearly this in-depth, but for what it’s worth, here it is:

  25. PhD in science   February 5, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    When someone doesn’t have anything intellect to say in response, they begin to attack the individual. Where have I seen this before?

  26. Stuart   February 5, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    I have a question for those who believe that Mr. Ham won the debate: Given the number of alternative Creationist stories, as well as the “fact” that no human was available for direct observation of the creation of the Universe, what independent, observation-based proof can you offer that any individual creation story is any more valid than any of the others? Since my understanding of Mr. Ham’s argument is that any of the argument come down to “faith” in the original precepts isn’t it logical that all creationist stories are equally valid?

  27. ADime   February 5, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    The only remark I have on this is that you should have interpreted Ham’s part in a more respectful manner. I watched the debate and your synopsis is quite accurate, but show some respect for a man who’s dedicated his life to at least something and has achieved a variety of success, unlike many other people who can’t even share the time to watch a debate about one of the most crucial questions in their lives and choose to watch pictures of cats in the spare time they get.

  28. Mike Malone   February 5, 2014 at 12:25 pm

    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.

    • christian   February 6, 2014 at 11:16 am

      Exactly Mike, you just proved Nyes point and disproved that of Ham. There is no way we can prove that God did not create the universe, but we can very easily disprove that he did it in 5 actual days only 6000 years ago. Most logical Christians have come to this conclusion a long time ago. These new wave creationists are doing no service to rational Christians like yourself. All Nye was there to do was discredit Hams theory of young earth creationism and he did it. Nye himself said that this doesn’t disprove other more rational explanations like yours, and it is still possible that creation happened much earlier in history and over a much longer time period.

    • Jason Gilmore   February 9, 2014 at 8:08 am

      The Bible says that a day is “as a thousand years” so Gods time table is much different than humans. I believe in God, and creation, but I do not believe it only took 6 24hour days to create the earth, it could have taken thousands upon thousands if not millions of human years to create the universe nd the earth. But I’d much rather believe the earth was created by an all powerful being with a plan than believe that it began by some random chaotic event, that just doesn’t make any sense. We have natural laws, Ham stated these laws were out in place by someone, no such laws could have come by chance.

      • edenoutpost   February 9, 2014 at 11:07 am

        The earth was created long after the original universe was made, so there is no problem with light traveling to earth. The earth and its local solar system were created in 6 literal days and thus the weekly cycle and rest on the Sabbath day (7th day). There are unlimited galaxies and unlimited worlds that have not fallen. Our world was a special creation and I personally believe that the redeemed will replace those fallen angels who fell in heaven. We will have the high privilege of being members of the Royal Family of God (we are given crowns) and will sit with Christ on His throne as joint-heirs with Him. This humble planet will one day be exalted to be the center of the universe, where God’s throne will be in the New Jerusalem. All galaxies circle the throne of Diety and He is the source of all life and creation.

  29. Sean   February 5, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    Nye won by a huge margin. Saying “There’s this book,” is completely idiotic and a straight up ignorant answer by Ham. You cannot keep going back to a book that was written by random people for answers. This alone is moronic and scares most of the world that people rely so heavily on a piece of made up literature. Nye isn’t the best at debating/speaking, but he never claimed to be, he is a scientist. Nye had all the evidence needed in this argument and shut down all of Ham’s claims. Ham couldn’t answer any of Nye’s questions straight forward and mostly just talked in circles using mumbo jumo words that made anything he was saying not understandable, Nye was very straight forward with answers and with questions he had.

    If I write down a bunch of stuff – laws and rules and why things are the way they are, then translate it to a bunch of different languages over and over again. Will people believe me? Because that is exactly what has happened and is still happening.

    • Jason Gilmore   February 10, 2014 at 9:22 am

      So you doubt the Bible because it is a historical document that has been translated from Hebrew and Greek into English and numerous other languages? So we shouldn’t trust any historical document then written more than 200 years ago? Or any piece of paper written in another language? The Bible has survived the test of time, men believed the earth was flat, yet the Bible stated it was a circle, people believed the earth was hung upon giant turtles and animals, yet the Bible says the earth hangs on nothing. The Bible shows life begins at conception, proven by scientific discovery. As well the Bible foretold the fall and dividing of numerous kingdoms and those prophecies came true. A big prophecy is the fall of Babylons king and the take over by the medes, the individual to lead the army was even named 200 years before it happened in the book of Isaiah. You can say all you want that it is a old book with numerous errors, yet you have no proof or evidence of that statement. Do people misunderstand parts of the Bible, heck ya many do and have, that doesn’t make the book wrong.

      • edenoutpost   February 10, 2014 at 10:29 am

        Amen. The Word of the living God is sure. It will stand even when the naysayers are all gone. If it were not for those who love and obey the Word of God, the inhabitants of earth would have perished long ago. God’s mercy and long-suffering will soon cease for those who continue to despise and neglect His Word. He is righteous and pure and will in no wise pardon the unrepentant ones who steadfastly refuse to come to Him. The clock is ticking and soon there will indeed be a big bang and then much wailing, as Christ comes in the clouds, in all His glory, with the shout of the Archangel and the trumpet of God. God’s people who trusted in Him will go home while the wicked and unbelievers will be destroyed by the brightness of His coming. After the 1000 years they will be raised to stand in the executive judgment of God. They all will be consumed and will perish in the lake that burns with fire when the earth is purified and cleansed of all sin and unrepentant sinners. They are destroyed, once and for all, as if they had never been. Today is the day of salvation, today if you hear His voice come to Him before it is forever too late.

        • Jason Gilmore   February 10, 2014 at 10:50 am

          Just fyi Eden, it is this type of religionist preaching that typically turns people away from religion. I wholeheartedly believe in God, and appreciate greatly His son for giving his life. But there needs to be balance when talking to people about biblical things. And coming at people as strong as this will 9/10 times turn them away because they will think it’s “another religious nut job”. Believe me, my family and I preach to people constantly on a weekly basis, but we typically do so subtly and respectfully. It is much better received. Although I may have been a little abrupt with comments about evolutionists in this series of comments…..

          • edenoutpost   February 10, 2014 at 1:39 pm

            Thank you Jason for your comments. Here is where I am coming from: It is clearly taught in God’s Word that His people are to give a final warning message to the world and at the same time seek to reveal the amazing love of our Creator. Revelation 14. It is a message of divine love and divine justice. God loves the sinner (all of us) and very much desires to forgive and restore us all, yet time for repentance is quickly running out and God will soon, of necessity because of His justice, cleanse His universe of sin and those who choose to cling to sin. Yes we are to show love and patience and yet there is also the real need to speak frankly, else the blood is upon us who know God’s message of truth and fail to sound the warning to others. The wages of sin is death, eternal death and those who feel no need to turn from sin are in grave danger every moment. If I was walking in the dark towards a hidden cliff would you softly say “ummm be careful” or would you in love and concern give the trumpet a certain sound and let the warning go out loud and clear, “Beware the cliff ahead. Stop or perish.” Your comments are taken in love. Thank you for your concern.

  30. Tim   February 5, 2014 at 11:52 am


    The bible is for cherry-picking whatever you do or don’t want out of it and ignoring the rest.

  31. Laura Murphy   February 5, 2014 at 10:41 am

    Bill Nye did not win. Nye only kept his stupidity going, couldn’t answer his questions. Went off topic, and was derogatory when speaking to Mr. Ham. The jury was evidently already decided before the debate began, or they were delirious. Totally ridiculous debate. Many things wrong.

    • pythagoreanvegancommunity   February 5, 2014 at 10:58 am

      Ham didn’t win the debate. His answer to everything was simply god. That’s not an answer. That’s just what one says when he has no answer.

    • JESUSWILLSAVEYOU   February 5, 2014 at 12:32 pm


      • James   February 5, 2014 at 2:08 pm

        If only Jesus was true, you are just as ignorant as Ham. This shouldn’t even be a debate as it is only a STORY and not real.

      • Maynard McGuffin   February 5, 2014 at 4:42 pm

        MY CAPSLOCK IS LOUD!!!!!!

      • edenoutpost   February 5, 2014 at 5:55 pm – Brother, there is no everlasting burning hell. There is a lake of fire, which will destroy the fallen angels and the unrepentant wicked at the end of the age. They will be judged as their works have been and then they will be no more. God is Love and not a sadistic torturer. Jesus is the Creator of the worlds and He knows science infinitely better than any poor human on this planet. I trust Him to know “how” everything works and where they came from. Meanwhile evolutionists keep wondering .. and wondering.

      • TheDukeOfHighwayJ   February 6, 2014 at 1:45 pm


        What a friend you have in Jesus. Nice friend!

        • edenoutpost   February 8, 2014 at 9:20 am

          No they won’t. There is no eternal burning hell.
          There is a lake of fire that will consume and destroy the wicked once for all, but no eternal torture. The fallen angels and unrepentant wicked will perish … they will not have life. The wages of sin is death, not eternal life in hell. Do a word study on the word hell and see that it most often refers to the grave. God is love and no one is going to believe in Him by treating them with damnation.

      • Jason Gilmore   February 9, 2014 at 8:14 am

        Actually you are wrong, there is no eternal hellfire, nor would a God of love do such things to people. God punished ancient people because of their cruel actions, it would be hypocritical of Him to act the same. He wants people to know Him, and He wants people to live, he does not get enjoyment out of seeing people suffer, hell fire is a twisted belief. And yes I believe in creation.

  32. Scott Miskowiak   February 5, 2014 at 10:29 am

    Nye did not win that debate! Not even close. Ken Ham won that by a landslide. While Bill Nye was stuttering through his points searching for proof, Ken Ham was prepared and had evidence after evidence of creation.
    Bill Nye: How did the big bang happen? We don’t know.
    Ken Ham: There’s this book that was written thousands of years ago that tells us how it happened.

    Evolutionists will argue until they’re blue in the face that Nye won that debate. But it’s simply not true. Ken Ham won it based on clear observational science and the inherent word of God.

    • Miguel   February 5, 2014 at 11:04 am

      Just because scientists can not explain why or how something happened, does not mean you can simply put god as an answer, not knowing means we have the lack of technology or knowledge at this moment to figure that out, only future technologies and knowledge can answer with great accuracy why we have here. God will not be the answer to that however.

    • Jacob   February 5, 2014 at 11:33 am

      You’re already wrong when you say the “inherent word of God.” Something can’t be evidence and a claim at the same time. The Bible is a claim, not evidence.

      Nye presented evidence that is widely accepted within the scientific community. Don’t be so naive.

      • summaryjudgment55   February 5, 2014 at 3:55 pm

        “Widely accepted within the scientific community” tends to exclude all beliefs contrary to what is popular today, much like when the earth was flat (although the Bible said it was a sphere suspended in space 3000 years prior to this idea changing within the scientific community).

        • Ro   February 5, 2014 at 8:42 pm

          The bible refers to the earth as a circle, not a sphere.

      • Jason Gilmore   February 9, 2014 at 8:16 am

        The Bible is evidence. The Bible foretold the fall of Babylon 200 years before it happened, it even named the person who would end the world power before he was even born, that’s not a translation error or some secret twist translators out in, it’s proof it is inspired by a being higher than humans.

    • Marcus   February 5, 2014 at 11:40 am

      In what way did Nye lost? every point he made is back up by evidence and logical reasoning, something that Ken Ham was not able to produce. His rebuttal for most questions is God did it and the bible. The Bible is just a book, a very very old book which was translated and reinterpreted countless time. To use that as evidence is like saying magic is real because of the Harry Potter book series.

    • ZJayJohnston   February 6, 2014 at 2:43 am

      It doesn’t matter if Ham gives a definite answer to the origin of life if he can’t even prove that what was between then and now credible evidence to support his claim. Nye isn’t going to give you an answer of the origin of life unless he has actual evidence of it(which he does for the Big Bang theory) Han has no evidence what so ever that his statement is true and in science evidence is EVERYTHING. I bet you Ham can’t give a definite answer on where the bible came from, which was most likely from when Christianity was first accepted politically in this world, the priests came together within a roman cathedral and create the bible through months of planning, but where did they get their information? There is NOTHING that was available in that time period that had any hints of recorded history of the events of the bible, so how did these priest come up with such specific facts of the bible itself? Saying ham won because he had a definite answer for the origin of life but could only prove it with a book that has no credible value in the world of science is absurd. He has absolutely no evidence of his claim, yet he won the debate of it cause he had an answer? Nye won with honestly, logic, and evidence. You can’t when a debate of science by just saying your belief is right without evidence.

      • Jason Gilmore   February 8, 2014 at 9:33 am

        Sorry there is no proof of the big bang theory. That is why it is called a theory lol, if it was fact it would just be called the Big Bang. Lol.

        • Jonathan Hatch   February 8, 2014 at 11:35 pm

          Cosmic microwave background and the expansion of space support the big bang theory.

          • edenoutpost   February 9, 2014 at 10:44 am

            An expanding universe is solid science, but a big-bang, in which everything comes from nothing, only makes since if God is the source of the universe. How God created the universe is a great mystery that only He understands, but a creation without a Creator is nonsense.

        • TheDukeOfHighwayJ   February 9, 2014 at 8:22 am

          Nobody said any thing about proof, Jason besides the whole concept of proof doesnt actually exist in Science. But there IS a boatload of evidence, in fact the evidence fits the BB theory better than any other; thats why its the currrent leading contender.

          Thats how science works.

  33. Isaiah Slemons   February 5, 2014 at 9:38 am

    LOL. She didnt EXACTLY cover what Nye said… even close. When asked the color question Nye went off on a rant about plants and evolution. This is a biased report. Not worthy of being taken seriously.

    • JESUSWILLSAVEYOU   February 5, 2014 at 10:00 am


      • edenoutpost   February 8, 2014 at 9:59 am

        copy paste copy paste …. is this your only talent? Please stop misrepresenting our Creator God. Yes, he loves all mankind, but He does not burn anyone in an everlasting hell. He will destroy, once and for all, in a lake of fire, those who are finally unrepentant and refuse to walk in righteousness and truth. This is a strange act to God for it is not His character to destroy. He is the Author of life. His goal is to save all who will come unto Him. Sodom and Gomorrah are an example and they were destroyed and the fire went out.

        Luke 17:29 “But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

        2Pet. 2:6 “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly…”

        Jude 7 “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

        These cities exist today and you can visit them. They are piles of ash with sulfur embedded in them everywhere.

  34. Chris   February 5, 2014 at 8:48 am

    @Tony – each of these examples show mutation that has benefit – I don’t deny that. But does the mutation result in increased complexity of the DNA? Absolutely not. Never has DNA become more complex as a result of mutation. It changes, but does not become more complex. The DNA of a single cell organism is far less complex than that of a human. In order for that to happen, the DNA’s length and complexity must have “evolved”. With all the different species on earth, you would think that at least some changes would have occurred in the lifetime of observable science, but it’s never happened. So much for Micro Evolution – not to mention the fantasy Macro Evolution which was invented to smokescreen the issue.

    • JESUSWILLSAVEYOU   February 5, 2014 at 8:51 am


    • Jeffrey Phillips Freeman   February 5, 2014 at 12:21 pm

      Actually it has been observed countless times. For example take Achondroplasia Dwarfism. This is a mutation in the DNA that adds new information that wasnt previously there (the DNA becomes more complex). The result is physical manifestation such as a drastic reduction in stature. There are many examples of similar mutations that add complexity to the DNA observable in our lifetime. Most microevolution is, however, phenotypical (not changing the dna just the genes present). But some has been confirmed to add complexity.

      • PhD in science   February 5, 2014 at 2:20 pm

        Actually Achondroplasia Dwarfism is a loss of regulation of the FGFR3 gene, causing it be expressed constitutively. It is not a new information.

        • 10 PhD's in Sciunse   February 5, 2014 at 2:43 pm

          Actually your off on a few accounts. First off lets be clear FGFR3 is a receptor, a protein, and a gene. The protein binds to the cell wall and acts as a receptor. The “loss of regulation” you speak of happens when the gene which produces the FGFR3 mutates into a totally new, but similar gene (new information) causing the receptor that is produced from this gene to no longer work properly. The loss of regulation you speak of is not at the cell level, it occurs due to new genetic information being introduced that was not previously there.

        • 10 PhD's in Sciunse   February 5, 2014 at 2:49 pm

          Oh and one piece of detail I left out, just to make sure there is no further confusion. The genetic mutation I speak of is very well know it occurs at position 380 of the gene where a Glycine molecule is replaced by an Arginine molecule (Gly380Arg). While this is only one “bit” of information, it is new information all the same.

      • PhD in science   February 5, 2014 at 5:57 pm

        You are right; I was not familiar with the FGFR3 protein. So I looked it up (as should everyone – don’t take someone else’s word for anything). Read about the mutation in the FGFR3 transmembrane domain (Shiang, et al. 1994. Cell, 76: 335-342). It is a DNA mutation (a mistake made during replication of the DNA), resulting in a protein with an amino acid substitution. And this substitution results in a protein that is less effective than the normal one, which means it is a LOSS of information, not a gain.

  35. Chris   February 5, 2014 at 8:40 am

    @Burzghash – As far as Micro and Macro evolution is concerned, Evolutionists simply could not account for all the mutations required to get to the point we are at today with Micro Evolution – simply because there was not enough time for it to happen. Macro Evolution was invented to explain this deficiency even though it has never been observed. Macro Evolution is simply a fantasy.

    As for all the other “proofs” of evolution, I don’t deny the evidence that there existed fossils of life forms that seem to be between land and water. They are not proof of evolution. I just believe that God created them as they were and that they did not evolve that way. Both Creationists and Evolutionists have the same evidence, it’s the interpretation of the evidence that differs. Creationism just makes more sense logically.

    • JESUSWILLSAVEYOU   February 5, 2014 at 8:44 am


      • gabul   February 5, 2014 at 10:09 am


  36. Chris   February 5, 2014 at 8:32 am

    I actually did believe in evolution once. That was before I actually researched it and actually “thought” about my position rather than blindly believing what was so called “proven”. I didn’t have a preconceived idea since I was not always a Christian nor was I always a Creationist. The belief that a human being in all its complexities could have evolved by time (no matter how long) and by chance would make you one of the following: Ignorant (don’t know the facts), Intentionally blind (ignoring the facts) or intellectually inferior (unable to understand the facts). Evolution as the sole source of life on earth as we know it is a ridiculous theory. The circulatory system alone is proof enough. It’s funny, the artificial heart has undergone intense engineering over many years by many people and it is just one component of the circulatory system. It did not evolve in a lab of components. They were all thrown in to a bag, shaken around and “Look! a working artificial heart!”. I think the Evolution position is more of intentional blindness than anything else because if you can explain away a creator, then you don’t have to worry about Him to whom you will one day be accountable.

    • JESUSWILLSAVEYOU   February 5, 2014 at 8:39 am


    • Collin   February 5, 2014 at 8:40 am

      I actually did believe in GOD once. That was before I actually researched it and actually “thought” about my position rather than blindly believing what was so called “proven”. I didn’t have a preconceived idea since I was not always a Christian nor was I always a Creationist. The belief that GOD CREATED EVERYTHING would make you one of the following: Ignorant (don’t know the facts), Intentionally blind (ignoring the facts) or intellectually inferior (unable to understand the facts). GOD as the sole source of life on earth as we know it is a ridiculous theory. The BIBLE alone is proof enough. It’s funny, the BIBLE has undergone intense engineering over many years by many people and it is just one component of CHRISTIANITY. It did not evolve in a lab of components. They were all thrown in to a bag, shaken around and “Look! a BIBLE”. I think the GOD position is more of intentional blindness than anything else because if you can explain away EVOLUTION, then you don’t have to worry about YOU SOLELY BEING ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS..

      • Patrick Damon   February 5, 2014 at 12:31 pm

        You sir, win all internets of the world.

      • edenoutpost   February 8, 2014 at 9:41 am

        Check your own evolution “facts” and see how often they change over time. Even evolutionists admit they don’t have the answers to their own questions. I pity anyone who lets go of real Life and takes hold of a false theory that brings death. God is the source of life for the universe and He is the reason you can breathe and exist, whether you believe in Him or not. Instead of God you believe in man’s theories. You changed one belief for another. There is no proof of evolution anywhere. There are observable laws of nature that God has put in place but none of this can explain spiritual realities. God is spirit and He is life. The bible is His book and He preserves it. Here are the videos of a professor who once was an evolutionist, until he started checking his own “facts.”

    • K   February 5, 2014 at 7:11 pm

      Seriously? What is so hard to believe that a human being could have evolved over time? Mr. Ham tried to use the origin of dogs to try to argue against evolution and what’s funny about that is studying the selective evolution of dogs caused by human interaction actually supports the general theory of evolution. In only about 10000 years and with most of the evolution occurring within the last 2 to 4 thousand years, look at what we were able to do to dogs. Look at the almost countless variations we see when we look at every dog that exists in the world. Now that was done by us. What do you think could have been done in 20000 years? Would this sort of change be possible without human interaction? Sure. It wouldn’t be as quick though. Now take that time frame and span it over hundreds of thousands of years. A million years. 100 million years. 542 million years. Go all the way back to the Ediacara Biota and we’re at over 600 million years. The ancestors of bacteria? 4 billion years. Nobody should be saying evolution explains the source of life because it doesn’t yet and this should not be what is being argued. Evolution describes what happens TO life and more specifically, it explains the change that occurs in the successive generations of an organism. It has so much support because there is so much compelling evidence. Just because it doesn’t explain where life started, doesn’t mean the rest is wrong. We’ll find out someday how it all started.

  37. nikki   February 5, 2014 at 8:25 am

    This is ridiculous, this article is so one sided. You don’t even give the option for your readers to even hear out on what Ham mostly had to say. This article is crap.

    • gabul   February 5, 2014 at 8:31 am

      Someone didn’t watch the debate….

  38. B   February 5, 2014 at 7:28 am

    This is a pathetic and slanted summary of the event of last night. I wonder if the author watched the debate, or wrote this beforehand.

    • gabul   February 5, 2014 at 7:58 am

      If anything is slanted about the debate, its that Nye won by a landslide. Nye had so much evidence on Ham he could entomb him.

    • Jonathan Holowka   February 5, 2014 at 8:22 am

      Seems pretty accurate to me. I watched the whole thing and Ham negated any evidence no badly how much it was staring him in the face by washing it away with the argument that “it’s in the bible.”

  39. Vance   February 5, 2014 at 6:54 am

    So I guess this has not been read: It is a great article on the debate.

    • gabul   February 5, 2014 at 6:59 am

      Creationist hogwash. Not science.

    • Burzghash   February 5, 2014 at 7:09 am

      North worth the read.

  40. shannon   February 5, 2014 at 6:49 am

    If God created man did he make him as a newborn?no,God is capable of making the earth middle aged(billions or trillions of years old) just as he did man.the chance that man and earth and all it’s super complexities came by chance is a joke .science maxim,things progress without intervention from order to disorder!

    • Burzghash   February 5, 2014 at 7:08 am

      Just because you don’t understand how it could possibly happen, is not an argument against things happening by chance. “I don’t understand how this happened… so God did it” is not an argument.

    • TJ   February 5, 2014 at 7:36 am

      Shannon, what you’re referencing is called the “mature creation” view. It argues that God created the universe mature. It is, in my opinion, the best version of the 6-day creation view. Now here’s the problem it creates. If it is correct then we would have to agree that the universe really does “look” millions or billions of years old. If that is the case then debating the scientific merits of this view is utterly useless because the view itself admits that the universe looks old from the perspective of science. So if one holds to the mature creation view you would also have to admit it is a view that is held completely by faith and not by attempting to argue for it from science. And that’s fine if you want to do that. But people like Ham are trying to have it both ways and creating a big logical inconsistency by doing so.

  41. Chris   February 5, 2014 at 6:34 am

    To say that evolution has been proven true just shows how misinformed you are. You can’t prove evolution. You can prove adaptation and mutation (which are both observable) but never, and I mean never, has a mutation or adaptation resulted in a positive change that increased the complexity of DNA which is absolutely required for a less complex being to become a more complex being. In fact, show me where something has ever had a positive permanent DNA changing mutation – ever! If evolution were proven true, then we would expect that to be happening not only once (which it never has) but all the time.

    • gabul   February 5, 2014 at 6:57 am

      Simple One. Prehistoric fish evolved legs and lungs to walk on land and eat more fruit and vegetation. Seems positive and more complex to me, and any layman can understand that. Evidence = countless fossil records.

      Another positive mutation: opposable thumbs. You know, the one’s you morons have up your a@#es

    • Tony Byers   February 5, 2014 at 7:13 am

      1.Sickle cell anemia mutatio gives resistance to maleria.
      2. Mutation in gene CCR5-delta32 gives resistance to HIV.
      3. Mutation in LRP5 causes denser bones resistant to fracture.

      Here are 3 for starters.


    • Burzghash   February 5, 2014 at 7:15 am

      Already answered below – but yes, we have countless examples of evolution resulting in increasing complexity and beneficial changes. For some reason, creationists think they can simply redefine terms, and pretend that the evidence and the things we’ve seen and analyzed aren’t ‘real evolution’, when in fact they are. Evolution is simply the compounding of genetic changes over a long period of time. There is nothing inherent that says the change must be good or bad – what allows the good to continue to produce and the bad to be discarded is natural selection. A helpful change gives species competitive advantages and allows them to thrive. Changes which are not helpful in adapting to their environment do not have such an advantage and either do not procreate as successfully as others, or are wiped out entirely if the change is incompatible with the current environment the creature lives in.

      All of these little changes (which can in fact be observed and for which there is monumental supporting evidence), over a long enough period of time, result in big changes. A species watched over a long enough timeline can change significantly, resulting in branching and entirely new species. And unfortunately for creationists, they have absolutely no argument whatsoever against the idea that compounded small changes eventually result in large changes. But they still insist by pretending that ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ evolution are two distinct things and the latter has never been observed; the latter doesn’t have to be observed. If we know small changes are occurring, there is nothing to suggest that large changes won’t be the inevitable result of continued small changes.

  42. Chris   February 5, 2014 at 6:26 am

    The evidence does not prove the age of the earth as Ken Ham showed by the flawed dating methods. But I’m not surprised that that evidence is ignored by both you and Bill Nye. Aging the earth or even the universe comes down to religion. For Creationists, it is God who created. For staunch evolutionists, it is the god of chance and time. There is absolutely no evidence that proves the age of the earth or the universe. Any belief in any time line is exactly that: belief. I would rather believe that a Creator brought about the order and intricacy of the universe than to say it came about by time and chance. In fact, I believe it takes less “faith” to believe in the story of creation than to believe that “something” came from “nothing” and “order” came from “disorder”.

    • Burzghash   February 5, 2014 at 7:16 am

      Just because you can continue mindlessly regurgitating “There’s no proof!” doesn’t mean there isn’t. Your inability to process that information and your eagerness to willingly discard anything that doesn’t reinforce your preexisting beliefs is not an argument against dating methods.

  43. Joe   February 5, 2014 at 6:11 am

    The question is of all the scientists in the world and all the questions out there what percent of everything do we know? 50% 25% 10%? Of everything out there lets say us as a human race know 5% of the universe. 5% is an awfully small amount. You mean to tell me that out of the 95% remaining there is not a chance that there is an all powerful all might GOD the creator of all?!? “Science” is supposed to have an open and investigating mind set. This review just like the scientific world only wants to see it one way. Now I’m not saying some Christians aren’t like that either but come on let’s be open minded about this. 95% probably being very generous of the unknown is a very high number. Like Mr. Nye said last night I challenge the scientific world to prove they know without a shadow of a doubt that there is 0% chance of a creator. All the digs at Mr. Ham of prove this and prove that is very interesting scene as how science disproves itself constantly. I am a Christian I do believe in GOD the creator. The timeline is irrelevant.

    • broken   February 5, 2014 at 10:35 am

      No one (not even Bill Nye) was saying (in this particular debate topic) there was no God. He was only saying the world has existed for more than 6,000 years, which is in that 5% of things we know. Sure there are plenty of unknowns in science, because we are continuing to discover and learn. I would not say though that everything we don’t know must be a God thing. Back before we learned anything scientifically I’m sure people thought the only explanation for rain was God. Now we know that’s not the case.

  44. Trevon Small   February 5, 2014 at 6:04 am

    I believe in God because of my faith but either way both had truth in the debate and it was a debate anyway because of proving points on both sides but then again the debate was unreasonable because both Bill and Ham could not explain the origin of the beginning. Nye said he don’t know how the big bang started and Ham used the Bible to sum up the origin so if they couldn’t explain the beginning then all the facts they brought up were invalid to get each other to understand so basically no one won. I rather believe in God than saying a big bang created me because there’s basically no purpose of living if that’s the case.

  45. Angela   February 5, 2014 at 5:47 am

    Wow Bias much? And also please explain why it’s so crazy to say a higher being did it and not crazy to say it happened by accident?

    • Collin   February 5, 2014 at 5:52 am

      Did you watch the thing? This is pretty spot on.

      It’s ‘crazy’ to say the earth is 6,000 years old in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

      • Justin   February 5, 2014 at 6:14 am

        Evidence? What evidence do we have? We have theories, numerous theories of how old the earth is. But sadly, none of us were there, and the whole “carbon dating” all boils down to theories. We don’t know how old the earth is. What we have are different versions to believe. The sad part is, is that we are using a “theory” to teach science education in America. The point was clearly shown, if you are unbiased, that both ways are theoretical, and should be accepted openly.

        • Smite   February 5, 2014 at 6:45 am


        • Mike   February 5, 2014 at 6:55 am

          No. No. No.

        • Mike   February 5, 2014 at 7:01 am

          I believe you are lacking a fundamental misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. If you would kindly read this wikipedia article you could see why your reasoning is utterly wrong:

        • Collin   February 5, 2014 at 8:06 am

          They can’t be both openly accepted because one is based on the extant world and one is based on belief. As mentioned in another reply, all these theories are accepted because they started as hypotheses and became theories once all evidence to the contrary washed. If something new comes along and disproves a theory, it’s scrapped. That’s how it works, not someone comes along and thinks something new and it’s accepted.

  46. TheOX   February 5, 2014 at 5:21 am

    This is a business a for Ken Ham. If he can get Creation in schools, he’ll be the main supplier of that curricula – tax free to boot!. Bill Nye does alright himself but the difference is Bill is sane and makes me laugh – whereas Ken says I’m going to hell, which would be fine with me as long as Ken is not there.

    And if Ken and his ilk go to Heaven, I can’t imagine what hell heaven must be. I think Marilyn Monroe and Elvis are in Hell, too. Pretty much all famous artists are in hell – Modigliani, Jimi Hendrix, Whitney Houston, Frida, Bruce Lee, every Rock band (even Creed), every Jew, etc. Heck, hell sounds totally awesome. Heaven on the other hand is filled with Amish, Mormons, pregnant nuns, pedophile priests, suicide bombers, and there’s no beer. No thanks!

    • Vance   February 5, 2014 at 7:02 am

      If you read some of the articles in the news you will see that Bill Nye did not go there to debate for free (NBC is where I believe reading this). He made good money to be there. There were 900 seats going for $25/each ($22,500). It is said that this does not cover even half of the money needed to pay Bill Nye to be there.

      So who is in it for the money? Who took the loss financially?

      • gabul   February 5, 2014 at 8:21 am

        Ha. If anything this is free publicity for Ken Ham and his laughable museum. Ham even said himself that it was a peak day for social media concerning the museum.

        Poor Nye only encouraged more people to pay attention this pseudo-science.

        Though I would rather see no more business for Ham and lackeys, it is important to observe how the stupid think. I suppose we can learn how to teach the less stupid how to think logically and for themselves.

  47. Zach   February 5, 2014 at 5:00 am

    This was a very biased article. I didn’t see the debate last night, and I feel like I just read the story from one point of view. Thank you for wasting my time.

    • Collin   February 5, 2014 at 5:50 am

      If you think this article was a waste of time, don’t bother watching the ‘debate’. Ham’s viewpoint boiled down to “I believe in God”, historical vs observational science, and people that have done science things agree with him. Nye attempted to include actual science fact, but Ham quickly refuted anything he didn’t agree with by way of The Literal Bible, and really basically saying over and over again “There’s no way you could know, you weren’t there.”

    • Joe   February 5, 2014 at 5:55 am

      No, that was pretty much how the debate went.

  48. Melanie   February 5, 2014 at 4:37 am

    Ultimately, Christianity is based on faith, now science. I do agree with what Ham had to say about the historical science. Evolution cannot be proven anymore than Creation can be proven. In the end, we all choose what we believe in, whether it’s based on so-called science or faith. No miracle in the Bible can be proven by science. If God exists (and He does!), then He is supernatural-existing outside our natural world with it’s natural laws. He cannot be explained by science.

    In the end, no-Ken Ham did not prove that the Genesis account is true. That would be impossible. However, Bill Nye (and all other evolutionists) cannot prove that the theory of evolution is true either. We each have to choose which supernatural miracle we believe in-Creation or a “big bang”.

    • Melanie   February 5, 2014 at 4:39 am

      Oops-I meant “not science”!

      • Daniel C   February 5, 2014 at 5:03 am

        Uh sorry but Evolution can and has been proven true. There is endless amounts of evidence to support it and it is quite unreasonable for some people to just ignore that evidence and go on claiming it cannot be proven.

    • Rebecca   February 5, 2014 at 10:27 am

      There are many of us Christians that believe God used Evolution as a tool to a certain extent. We also don’t take the bible literally. It can be difficult to believe the bible is the one true word of GOD, seeing as men have changed it over thousands of years to make it fit their agendas.

  49. Mark   February 5, 2014 at 4:34 am

    biased article. the winner was bill nye due to fossils and evidence? Bill nye never once talked about evolution or how and or why it has stopped. he spoke of fossils yet there are millions of acres on this earth that havent been excavated.He never once could disprove the bible and never once proved or disproved his science as flawed or having fault. the fact is the only thing scientist know is what they see, they have no faith and only have trust in their constant. well like Ham said, what happens when your constant is no longer constant and how can you be sure your constant is so if you cannot see it nor can you prove it exist. Ham was right. also nowhere did i see anyone explain how rude Bill nye was during this debate, his continual disrespect by making claims Dr. Ham was not a scientist was dispicable.

    • Daniel C   February 5, 2014 at 5:04 am

      But he is not a scientist….

    • Bobbar   February 5, 2014 at 5:32 am

      Evolution has not stopped. Where in the world did that conjecture come from?

    • Tom McLachlin   February 5, 2014 at 6:24 am

      Bill Nye wasn’t trying to disprove the bible, he succeeding in disproving Ken Ham’s interpretation of the bible. As Bill said, there are billions of people whose lives are enriched by religion who also believe in science and evolution.

      Bill Nye didn’t talk about evolution stopping because it hasn’t stopped.

      Bill Nye never once said Ken Ham wasn’t a scientist (but I will.) Bill did say that creation science can’t be used to make predictions which are then supported by evidence – which is also true. New Earth Creationists are trying to bend reality to make it fit with preconceived religious convictions. That isn’t science, it is preaching religion using big words.

    • Jimbo   February 5, 2014 at 8:27 am

      I think your understanding of evolution needs help. It doesn’t “stop”. Things happen very slowly over time, that’s why its called evolution.
      And I don’t think Bill needs to “disprove” the bible, it does a pretty good job of contradicting itself on its own.

  50. Tom McLachlin   February 5, 2014 at 4:21 am

    Thank you for a nice play-by-play summary of the debate Rebecca.

    I agree with you that Bill Nye certainly did a better job of showing how the universe and our world can be explained by science. Ken Ham’s position was “I’m a christian and god did it – by magic.”

    If Americans must choose between Nye’s complex reality or Ham’s simple fiction, both America and the world will be better off choosing reality.

    Even Ken Ham says parts of the bible are just poetry, but he didn’t say how he determines which parts to believe and which parts to ignore..

    Finally, In response to Ken Ham trotting out three creationist scientists, I’m surprised the Bill Nye didn’t mention project “Steve” – for every scientist who supports creation, there is another scientist whose first name is Stephen, or some derivative who does not support creation. Such a tiny fraction of the scientific community support creationism that project “Steve” easily wins on numbers.

  51. earlysda   February 5, 2014 at 4:10 am

    Bill Nye claims to represent “science”, yet gave us zero examples of Evolution while it is happening. He is in the same boat as Richard Dawkins, but at least Mr. Dawkins is truthful enough to admit that Evolution hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.

    • Mike   February 5, 2014 at 5:02 am

      Wow. You could not be more of a liar if you tried. He gave several examples. Dawkins has a book full of examples, which goes into explicit details about experiments which have observed it happening! It’s called The Greatest Show On Earth. Read it sometime.

    • Daniel C   February 5, 2014 at 5:06 am

      Troll much? Evolution has been covered to exhaustion, it does not need to be proven anymore, there is no question about it.

  52. Dubliner   February 5, 2014 at 3:55 am

    I’m glad to read that Nye was so successful in this debate though I despair that such debates are remotely relevant in the US. The rest of the developed western world accepted the reality of evolution a hundred years ago. This artificial refusal to accept evidence is merely a cultural trait in the US. Join the rest of the developed world and let go of childish bronze age explanations. Your country has brilliant scientists but your people fight science t every turn.

  53. Jon   February 5, 2014 at 3:50 am

    The problem with creationism and religion in general is: Where were you born? If you were born in the US, there’s a good chance that you’re Christian. In the Middle East Muslim, or maybe Jewish. India, Hindu. East Asia, Buddhist. Utah, Mormon. While these religions may have some superficial similarity, in the end they are wildly different. Either one is true, and we have no idea which one, or they’re all wrong. They don’t invite scrutiny, because they can’t withstand it. Science, and mathematics, the language of science, are the same all over the universe. Pi is pi, everywhere. If you divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter, you get pi, no matter where you are. Science thrives on scrutiny, because it’s all about finding the truth through experimentation. You can understand how the world works much better by testing, measuring and comparing results than by just accepting that everything was designed the way it is. Otherwise, it’s too easy to stop asking questions. Think back to when you were a child, when in order to keep you from asking any more questions about something you desperately wanted the answer to your mom or dad would just say, “Because I said so!” That’s what creationism does. It ends the line of inquiry, because it already has the answer. The problem science has currently is that at the extremes, its theories still require some faith. The quantum world in particular, that makes up the basic building blocks of our universe, is still rather mystifying. But just because we don’t understand everything yet, and there are so many questions left to answer, doesn’t invalidate all that we’ve learned from science. Science is the tool, the process to answer those questions, not blind faith.

    • Nikki Callahan   February 5, 2014 at 4:49 am

      Actually Jon the bible regularly invites people to know what they believe, why they believe it, and to constantly seek out more understanding within the bible.

      Throughout Scripture we find that reason, wisdom, and logic are lifted up as good traits. For example, Proverbs 3:13 says we are blessed when we find knowledge and understanding. Hebrews 5:12-14 reproves teachers for not learning and growing in understanding. Paul commends the church at Berea because they searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11). In many places throughout Acts the apostle Paul was said to “reason” with the lost, attempting to prove to them the truth of his words. James 1:5 even tells us to ask God for wisdom, which He gives “generously to all without finding fault.”

      • Mike   February 5, 2014 at 5:03 am

        And the justification for believing the scripture is: ____________

  54. S. Lee   February 5, 2014 at 3:24 am

    THE “CLEAR” Winner of this debate, was not “Bill Nye” or for that matter even Ken Ham, The winner of this debate was the LORD JESUS CHRIST, HIs theory does not need to be proven to anyone !!!! WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, Mr Nye, fumbled over every “Theory” he presented. He obviously has no understanding of the Lords Cretions, how did the trees survive the Great flood, Its called THE POWER OF GOD MR NYE !!!! I will continue to pray for you Mr Nye…….

    • Trevor D   February 5, 2014 at 4:25 am

      Replace “Mr Nye fumbled over every theory he presented” with “S.Lee did not (more like flat out refused to) understand the theories Mr Nye presented” for a more accurate state of affairs.

    • Majora Luna (@majora_luna)   February 5, 2014 at 4:32 am

      I pity you. You’re a complete moron.

    • Jimbo   February 5, 2014 at 8:31 am

      Man this is either a very well done troll or you need help!
      “The winner of this debate was the LORD JESUS CHRIST” lol

  55. MrSiteMaster2   February 5, 2014 at 2:56 am

    “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means.” – George Bernard Shaw

    For Ham to win this, he had to prove that not only is the bible true but that his literal interpretation of it’s true. Otherwise people who are neutral on this just won’t accept the talking snake and Noah’s Ark over peer reviewed science.

  56. RaWr   February 5, 2014 at 2:27 am

    This is what I find inexorably disturbing. The debate was by no means an equal debate, as the topic at hand would NEVER be in the favor of creationism EVER. Creationism is simply nothing more than Literal Biblical Creationism. ANYBODY would be hard pressed to even find an inkling of scientific validation of ANY religious beliefs. This ‘debate’ I think has gone on for FAR too long, and in all honestly COMPLETELY undermines Christianity as a whole, as the creationism is INCREDIBLY singular, and effective minimizes religious standing.

    The position of Creationism is RELIGION, and masquerading it around as science, in my opinion, is rather sickening. It makes Christianity look and act egocentric in away, and this brand of ‘faith’ I think is rather dangerous when applied to society in general. This sense of ‘egoistic inflation’ is NOT something that we Christians, or from my knowledge most of us, should not be following along with. Creationism is something I find readily appalling. Religion is something that is DEEPLY personal, and I honestly find no real conflict with being a christian who believes in a scientific world view. To dichotomize this ‘argument’ is to be intellectually dishonest, or willingly deceive people.

  57. Trevor D   February 5, 2014 at 1:44 am

    Wow. I’m amazed at how many comments accuse Rebecca of bias and then go on to attack her integrity and professionalism.

    You lost creationists, like you are always going to in debates against people who know a thing or two about the world we live in. To attack someone for being objective and stating opinion just goes to show how much losing this debate hurt you.

    So many cringeworthy comments by butthurt creationists posted here. I can almost taste the tears..

    ‘PhD in science’ – Enough with the lame argument from authority motif you’ve got going on. You must be really insecure to tell people about your ‘credentials’

    ‘brotherwill’ – Wow, how very christian of you. You make me sick.

    ‘michael’ – your twisted interpretation of reality is the reason why the world sucks today.You need to reconsider how to think honestly if you want to become a real person.

    ‘gmoney’ – hyperbole much?

    ‘Boba Fett’ – Like you would know.

    • RaWr   February 5, 2014 at 2:32 am

      I honestly agree with you. Creationism is a POX on the mind. I thought this article stated, very well I might add, what actually happened during the debate.

    • PhD in science   February 5, 2014 at 6:12 pm

      I did not take a position on the debate, only the bias in the article (as the author acknowledged herself). My comment to seek out primary research/articles rather than accept the opinion presented by a secondary author would be upheld by EVERY academic in the world regardless of background, discipline, religion or science. My comment offended you (for which reason I am not sure as I did not even indicate a position) and you have attacked me personally. Please leave out derogatory comments and respond to the idea or content.

  58. HinkleyHadAVision   February 5, 2014 at 1:25 am

    Man, all these generic whiny intellectually bankrupt conservatives sure did come out of the woodwork.

  59. Kimberly Ruble   February 5, 2014 at 1:03 am

    Great article Rebecca. It was well written, and I have to say I agree with you. I have been to the Creation Museum, and it is hard to take. Bill Nye won hands down. He was smart, funny, and did so much better than that block of wood next to him.

  60. Herpy McDerp   February 5, 2014 at 12:56 am

    This is scary. Extremely scary. I can’t believe so many people take Ken Ham seriously. In other first-world countries, he would probably be in an insane asylum. I am really glad I’m not American.

    • n i k k i (@kiki__xx)   February 5, 2014 at 2:39 am

      “I am really glad I’m not American.”

      Umm, Bill Nye is also an American, and most people obviously believe him over Ham. Derp.

    • James Dean   February 5, 2014 at 3:11 am

      funny you say this because Ken Ham is Australian and Bill Nye is American. Maybe don’t generalize things about which you know very little. It makes you look really dumb.

      • Miguel   February 5, 2014 at 11:23 am

        It’s okay, if they actually watched the debate they would know Ken is an aussie and Bill is American

  61. TrueCreation_dot_info   February 5, 2014 at 12:43 am

    A stumbling block for Christians is the “random, undirected” process of evolution. It is easy to equate “undirected” with “without purpose”, How could a random, purposeless process be compatible with faith in a God who formed us in His image? In everyday parlance, evolution is sometimes described as an unguided, purposeless process. Unfortunately, this statement sometimes finds its way into scientific literature. It is important, as a Christian, to not succumb to a knee-jerk reaction to such a statement. Evolution is purposeless only in the sense that there is no detectable cause working to guide it. When studied within the natural laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, we see that evolution is not working toward any goal other than the survival of species and the genes that they carry. As Christians, we believe that God has complete sovereignty over every cause and effect in the universe. However, that does not mean that God is actively intervening in such a way that He detectably breaks the physical laws of the universe, except in the case of a miracle.There is no reason for us to expect that billions of miracles have occurred, over the span of billions of years, in order for God to achieve the diversity of life on this planet. God is perfectly capable of creating a universe in which this happens according to natural laws, and every evidence we have found so far indicates that this is in fact what has occurred.

    • Mike   February 5, 2014 at 5:05 am

      When you speak of this to your fellow believers, don’t use the word “random.” The opposite to “guided process” isn’t “random process”; it’s just “unguided process.” Unguided processes can still be quite ordered and regular, in accordance with the laws of nature. They are not random.

  62. kyleminardi   February 5, 2014 at 12:23 am

    Objectivity fail.

  63. Caleb   February 5, 2014 at 12:15 am

    In all honesty, Ken Ham debated at a level high the Bill Nye.
    I found Bill Nye all over the place, and even in the first 2 questions wasn’t able to answer the question, just really emphasise for me again, Evolution is a theory.
    I think for this debate, Ken Ham was more convincing in the way he spoke and rebuttalled Bill Nye.
    All in all, a good debate, which really allows the viewer to see both sides of the spectrum and if they chose to, challenge either ones arguements.

    • Herpy McDerp   February 5, 2014 at 2:20 am

      There are no “both sides”. There is reality and then there are the delusional ravings of a religious fanatic.

    • Gøddess FourWinds   February 5, 2014 at 2:26 am

      It’s a Scientific Theory. That’s not the same thing as an “everyday theory.” There is a difference. Look it up.

    • James Dean   February 5, 2014 at 3:12 am

      rebuttalled. hahahahahaahahah

    • Majora Luna (@majora_luna)   February 5, 2014 at 4:35 am

      Gravity is also a theory but I don’t see you jumping out of any buildings.

      Ken ham was the better “debater” because when your position can’t actually rely on any facts or logic, you need to rely on style and presentation. i.e. smoke and mirrors.

  64. Dave   February 5, 2014 at 12:11 am

    Very accurate review. Religionists do not want to know the truth so they avoid reading books by Dawkins, Stenger, Coyne, et al. You will never convince, no matter what the evidence, a religionist to believe the scientific explanation for life and the planet and universe. Nye had fun trying though.

  65. Liam   February 5, 2014 at 12:02 am

    People complaining about bias in this review , please go to the top of the article and see it is saved under opinion . Also Dr. Ham for claiming to be an educated scholar could only put forward the ramblings of an idiot. Speaking as an atheist I do have bias but I’ve seen more constructive arguments from children.

  66. Fletcher   February 5, 2014 at 12:01 am

    You give the creationist too much credit. He only cited the bible and no real Science. Nye was the hands down winner to anyone with any education.

  67. gabul   February 4, 2014 at 10:52 pm

    Loved the review. Nye destroyed Ham and your recap clearly showed that with Ham’s illogical, idiotic ramblings. It is fascinating how so many people can be blind to evidence right in front of their faces because of strong religious belief. Creation museum … what a complete farce of an institution.

    • Tim Dalinian Jones   February 5, 2014 at 12:50 am

      “Saved under Opinion, Rebecca Savastio, Science”
      Hey Rebecca, thanks for your opinion on this “debate”, with which I concur (as with gabul’s opinion too), having stayed up way late to watch its YouTube livestream via XBMC in London, UK.

      When it comes to the ID tactic of ‘teach the controversy’ between evolution vs. creationism, there is no “debate”: the methodical application of the scientific method, backed by credible evidence in countless lines of inquiry, converges on one brilliant, explanatory, and uncontentious scientific framework that underpins all the life science disciplines, encapsulated as evolution. The only “controversy” is that which is stirred up by science-illiterate xtians, who necessarily have to invent the ludicrous false dichotomy between ‘observational science’ in the here and now vs. ‘historical science’ in the “You Weren’t There!” past to avoid the illogicality of doublethink. It’s one way that they cover for their category error of mistaking a book of ancient pre-scientific history and superstitions for a inerrant god-given science manual.

      I guess Bill Nye is also a nice guy, in that he steered clear of an approach I think is appropriate: using logic, psychology, and history-of-ideas lines of argument to expose the mendacious psychopathology of young Earth creationists. All Ken Ham’s verbiage is illustrative of the cart-before-the-horse anti-science of his method: start with his conclusion (bible = inerrant god-given science manual, therefore age-of-Earth = 6,000 years), then construct arguments that superficially look like they mimic evidence-based science to lead up to his pre-conceived idée fixe conclusion.

      Personally, I find it rather sad that such an intellectually poisonous viral meme as xtianity can lead obviously intelligent people to devote themselves to propagating such a patently obvious non-sensical and anti-rational belief framework.

  68. Stephanie Soetendal   February 4, 2014 at 10:22 pm

    Horrible review, biased and your writing is far from sophisticated. Where did you go to school? Most importantly, who hired you?

    • TheAuralRhythmic   February 4, 2014 at 10:50 pm

      Why does any of that matter to you? In fact, why do you think it’s peachy to take it upon yourself to ask such derogatory questions? We get it – You and countless others don’t like the article. But there are ways to vocalize this without resorting to attempted slander. I apologize if this is such a novel concept to you, Madame, but it’s the truth.

      • TheAuralRhythmic   February 4, 2014 at 10:54 pm

        Also, might I add a quick addendum to this post – It seems that you’ve failed to read the tags of this article. The very first one states ‘Opinion.’ Y’know – One’s personal perspective on what they’ve seen. As such – It doesn’t matter how refined this author’s writing is, as long as they felt that they’ve sufficiently brought out their, well, opinion. I’d prefer to post this before someone rides on the hopes of arguing a technicality that is faulty at best. When you don’t claim to be non-biased, it’s usually expected that you aren’t going to be unbiased.

        Common sense, really.

    • MrSiteMaster2   February 5, 2014 at 2:02 am

      You can also write a review but most of the ones I’ve seen are similar to this one.

  69. BecauseGod   February 4, 2014 at 9:21 pm

    You didnt agree with my preconceived notions, so im going to call this article biased and call you a bad journalist! Everyone knows Ham won the debate because god!

  70. Dan   February 4, 2014 at 9:20 pm

    this review is highly biased.

    • Majora Luna (@majora_luna)   February 5, 2014 at 4:38 am

      Facts tend to have a bias. Especially from the point of view of stupid people.

  71. Ziffulmyer   February 4, 2014 at 8:06 pm

    I watched the debate. I agree with your review. Bill Nye really came through

  72. Mark Falls   February 4, 2014 at 8:04 pm

    Did you even watch the debate? Nearly every one of Ham’s answers included citation of scientific evidence. As far as quoting the Bible goes, Ham admitted his bias. Nye pretended that he didn’t have one. Furthermore, Nye degenerated to subtle and not-so-subtle ad hominem, which usually indicates desperation. He repeatedly inferred that creationists were something other than scientists in spite of Ham’s demonstration to the contrary.

    • Neil M   February 5, 2014 at 12:11 am

      “Nearly every one of Ham’s answers included citation of scientific evidence.”

      – Majority of his answers did not. They were his interpretation of how things came to be as opposed to Nye’s factual references. From what I saw there was very little scientific evidence to validate his argument on creationism.

      “Nye degenerated to subtle and not-so-subtle ad hominem, which usually indicates desperation.”

      – Desperation? for what reason?
      He was countering with facts, pointing out the impossibilities of Ham’s theories and elaborating in detail on how Ham’s points have no factual evidence to support them. From what I saw, Nye was certainly not desperate and provided clear, factual answers.

    • K   February 5, 2014 at 12:55 am

      Scientific evidence? Provide one example of something scientific he presented that truly supports young earth creationism. Did you notice that one graph he used as evidence to support his position? The one with the “common ancestor” to the dogs that was being displayed upside down ostensibly (I’m sure he’ll say) to match the graphic to the right? So he’s using this graph as evidence but conveniently fails to point out the time frame goes back 400000 years. Nice! He loves cherry picking. Ham and the rest of the young earth creationists are a joke. You CAN believe in evolution AND still believe in God. I did for a number of years. What’s the problem with believing that God caused the big bang to happen? What’s the problem with believing an immortal being created a universe out of nothing over 13.7 billion years ago, waited over 8 billion years, and then created our sun and solar system only to wait another few billion years before making life AND then waited ANOTHER 542 million years plus to create us? It may sound ridiculous but there is nothing wrong with it. Now believing the earth is only 6 to 15 THOUSAND years old in spite of the vast amount of evidence that shows this can’t be true (and radiometric carbon dating is not the only piece of evidence that supports this) is absolutely ridiculous. Finally, there were so many things wrong with Ken Ham’s argument but the idea that if we aren’t actually there, we can’t use science to come up with theoretical possibilities supported by verifiable data is ludicrous, and no there is no such things as historical science in the way Ken Ham presented it. This term has been taken by young earth creationists and distorted in a feeble attempt to support their position. Evolution is based on science and creationism is based on a belief. Let’s keep it that way. Young earth creationism is a belief too but anyone with a rational mind should be able to acknowledge it is an untenable one that should be purged from existence.These people give the people that believe in the traditional form of creationism a bad name.

  73. quickstrong   February 4, 2014 at 8:02 pm

    if this is an unbiased review then I am the missing link.

    • Terri   February 5, 2014 at 1:27 am

      took the words right out of my mouth. I often forget how many unbelievers are out there because of my strong faith in God. All things are possible with God and my relationship with God doesn’t make me go around quoting how many years old the earth is. I really don’t care. That’s not the important issue here. The bottom line is the fact that there is a coming a day where there will be no more debates, just a judgment day. All of the scientists without a salvation in Jesus Christ will have all eternity to figure out the science of hell.

      • MrSiteMaster2   February 5, 2014 at 1:59 am

        I think you’ll find the age of the earth is very important in these types of debates.

  74. Boba Fett   February 4, 2014 at 8:01 pm

    Nice tongue in cheek, totally biased review. Sounds like a liberal Hollywood Democrat. All you doubters will realize what not believing in God gets you once you die.

    • Herpy McDerp   February 5, 2014 at 12:54 am

      Religious fanatics are funny.

    • Hunter   February 5, 2014 at 2:10 am

      So, Boba. I have to know…..

      Did God help you crawl out of the Sarlacc monster?

      • John Graganella   February 5, 2014 at 8:07 am


  75. Rob   February 4, 2014 at 8:01 pm

    Fantastic synopsis. I’m not sure what was more entertaining… Ken Ham claiming that it is impossible to know the age of the Earth or the Universe… or him claiming that all animals were vegetarians before the great flood.

  76. gmoney   February 4, 2014 at 8:00 pm

    most biased reading i have ever read awful review your credibility shines like a black hole

  77. michael   February 4, 2014 at 8:00 pm

    Your twisted interpretation of the debate is the reason the media sucks today. You need to reconsider how to write honestly if you want to have a career.

  78. PhD in science   February 4, 2014 at 7:59 pm

    Wow, this is a really biased review! Please watch the debate and relevant literature and make your own educated choices, rather than reading this.

    • Majora Luna (@majora_luna)   February 5, 2014 at 4:41 am

      There really is zero bias here. Nye was all FACTS FACTS FACTS while Ham was all BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE!

      Bringing in clips of other creationist scientists did nothing but scream “Hey! Creationism can’t stand on its own so lets get all these guys to vouch for it!”

      Ham was all smoke and mirrors, Nye was FACTS FACTS FACTS.

  79. Pam   February 4, 2014 at 7:58 pm

    I think you totally misrepresented Ham’s point: I believe that his point was that “Historical Science” whether Nye’s or Ham’s is based on a belief system–neither provable because no one was there (thus not observable). Nye’s faith is in the evolutionary model and human reason and Ham’s faith is in the biblical model and a power beyond human reason.

    • Josh Wagner   February 5, 2014 at 1:33 am

      Ham’s distinction between “Historical” and “Observable” science is nothing but distracting rhetoric based on a gross misunderstanding of how reasoning and observation operate together.

      Look, if you genuinely believe there is such a vast truth gulf that comes down to nothing but belief systems then you need to immediately get on the phone to your congressman and demand that we make some serious changes to the justice system. Thousands of people are put in prison each year based on crimes they “allegedly” committed in the past that no one observed them committing. Fingerprints? Motive? Smoking guns? DNA evidence? These are merely present circumstances that have nothing to do with what happened in a dark alley in the past. Judges, juries, and lawyers were not around to observe these crimes, so who are they to send all of these poor innocent citizens to prison?

      An understanding of our universe, present and past, is not a binary operation. Reasonable conclusions can be drawn about the past based on current evidence left over from when the past was the present. These echoes, combined with logic and flexible theoretical frameworks (open to revision if and when new evidence presents itself) are more than enough to establish informed judgements, particularly when a theory is able to make a prediction regarding something in the past revealing a future circumstance, and that prediction is verified AFTER THE FACT (as Bill demonstrated in at least 2 cases).

      Part of what makes science difficult enough to require years of study is this sleuthing element required to be able to reason backwards in time. In a lot of ways it feels counter intuitive if you haven’t been trained at all. The good news is it’s very easy to start to learn how it works and get a feel of how rewarding and enlightening the process can be–whether you’re working out a scientific problem or trying to solve a murder mystery. Of course no one can say with 100% certainty whether any theory is correct. There’s always the possibility new evidence will emerge to adjust (or obliterate) your theory, but you CAN absolutely say that one line of reasoning is extremely likely vs. another which is flawed and nearly impossible to support in light of what we see in the world around us. This is exactly what tonight’s debate demonstrated.

    • Hunter   February 5, 2014 at 2:12 am

      The difference is, Nye presented facts. Ham was going off of faith.

      Facts are always going to trump faith.

      • JESUSWILLSAVEYOU   February 5, 2014 at 8:35 am


        • Hunter   February 5, 2014 at 9:47 am

          Cool! When he does, have him bring a snowplow!

      • edenoutpost   February 8, 2014 at 9:45 am
        Here are some videos made by a University professor who was once an evolutionist … until he started checking his own “facts.”

        • Guenter Dantrimont   February 17, 2014 at 4:45 pm

          edenpost, why watching hours of your linked “big flood”, when a short 6 minute clip shows how Ken Ham contradited himself?

          Logically Peter Hadfield aka potholer54 has a lot more about creationists – a whole series. But in contrast to you I do not force the reader to sacrifice his precious lifetime. Maybe for the ones believing in eternal afterlife this is no consideration however. LOL

        • Guenter Dantrimont   February 17, 2014 at 5:11 pm

          PS: I even made the mistake to watch the first of this literally “amazing” (=unbelievable!) videos of Walter Veith. Now I must go wash my brain. He talks about the big bang but has obviously no clue about physics, especially quantum mechanics.

          No serious cosmologist claims the “cosmological principle” forces literally homegenous distribution of matter in the universe, what indeed would exclude the existence of stars, galaxies and finally us humans.

          Walter Veith builds up a strawman of amazing fault. Quantum Mechanics might be “just a theory” like evolution, but each transistor and finally the whole internet depends on QM, so it can’t be so totally wrong. And it caused minor fluctuations in the big bang, causing a not literally homogenous distribution of matter. So what do you see in any explosion? You see rotation – always!

          You see rotation even if there are just straight water waves running between stones on the coast. You need not to be a genius to understand, how rotation comes into the universe, if you ever saw a langing airplane while it was raining.

          So his main arguments are only suitable to convince children or adults that never left their house in their live.

          This is ridiculous. If you have no better arguments againts the big bang, you better switch off your computer and never switch it on again.

  80. Rebecca Savastio   February 4, 2014 at 7:51 pm

    Brotherwill, it is labeled “opinion” right at the top. Welcome to the United States… we have free speech here.

  81. jdw   February 4, 2014 at 7:46 pm

    Excellent review. Ham had no answers other than ‘bible says this’ and ‘bible says that’, so it must be true.

  82. brotherwill   February 4, 2014 at 7:24 pm

    Absolutely biased and one sided review that was likely written before the debate. Seriously, I sincerely hope you don’t think you are a journalist in any shape or form.

    • MrSiteMaster2   February 5, 2014 at 2:18 am

      I watched the debate and this review is pretty accurate, but you can write your own review.

    • Burzghash   February 5, 2014 at 7:20 am

      No, the review is pretty spot on. The fact that it makes you butthurt because it didn’t come to the conclusion you wanted it to is not a poor reflection on the writer or the article. But then again, we live in an age where people think reality is determined by what makes them feel good, and both sides of a story (no matter how ridiculous or nonsense one side might be) deserve “equal consideration”.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.