Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham - The Short Version
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ย. 2024
- The full debate between science educator Bill Nye and the President of the Creation Museum Ken Ham runs nearly 3 hours. If you're just looking for the highlights and key takeaways from both sides, watch this cut.
Watch the full debate here: • Bill Nye Debates Ken H...
Video courtesy of Answers in Genesis.
www.youtube.co... www.mashable.com
LIKE us on FACEBOOK: / mashable.video
FOLLOW us on TWITTER: / mashablevideo
FOLLOW us on TUMBLR: / mashable
FOLLOW our INSTAGRAM: / mashable
JOIN our circle on GOOGLE PLUS: plus.google.com...
Subscribe!: bit.ly/1ko5eNd
Mashable is the leading independent news site for all things tech, social media, and internet culture.
/ mashable
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 80 | คู่เอก "รักษ์ vs ยอดนำชัย"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ckLMRorsMeY/mqdefault.jpg)
Bill Nye the Science Guy VS Ken Ham the Bible Man
@DearlyBelovedofGod Ken ham is much more scientifically literate I'm sure
@DearlyBelovedofGod Mechanical engineering is a science degree you feeble moron.
@Chase Miller then he fools every kids by says "Bill Nye the science guy" 😂
Poor kids 😔 getting fooled Everytime 😂
Now that's funny right der, I don't care who you are.
@@DT--kt3vj you got schooled dude. Lol.
Both of these gentlemen have very short last names and I think that is something we can all agree on.
bru
Bullshit!
(jk) 🙃
No, actually
Im sure we can find a way to disagree give me a minute
Nye
Ham
Moderator: "What, if anything, would ever change your mind?"
Ham: "Nothing."
Nye: "Evidence."
And thats the difference
The fact that Ham says "nothing" is also evidence to him never finding the truth for himself.
Nye Has Been Presented With Evidence And He Did Not Change His Mind, Bill Nye Lied, At Least Ken Ham Was Honest.
@@Dark_Force_Of_Wishes Nye didn't lie. You forget the fact that bad evidence is not able to change minds.
@@Dark_Force_Of_Wishes NO ONE should be convinced by bad evidence.
And Ham never provides evidence, he makes assertions and demands they be accepted as true simply because he has asserted them, without evidence.
I like this debate, congrats both. No shouting, showing manners, being civil and showing maturity
That's actually standard for a debate. Most people have just become emotional idiots and can't help but scream when someone disagrees with what they believe. Adults used to be able to disagree on things. There's no discourse anymore
@@get_lucky6402 unfortunate, and TH-cam comment sections on debates involving Christianity never seem to hold this principle
@@gangsterg1936 The problem is that most Christians get very emotional when you start to question their beliefs
@@dustingmorgan true. Often the discourse boils down to Christians getting emotional, and/or atheists acting with a superiority complex.
@@dustingmorgan out of curiosity, what brought you to this video?
Title rename idea:
*Bow-tie vs Traditional tie*
Yes
Yes
Yo
Yes lol
Long live the doctor.
This was the most peaceful discussion about religion i have ever seen. Nobody was talkong over eachother and people weren't yelling
Ik!! Its really nice to see for a change
then you haven't seen many if any discussions about religion
But I can hear Bill Nye's arrogance in his voice.
@@JosiahFickinger I can hear the more In Ken Ham's voice
@@carlospomares3225 Not really, you can tell Bill Nye is super annoyed.
I really do appreciate how civil each one about presenting his view. There's no need for yelling
Watch the 2hr tour Ken gives Bill at the Ark exhibit. This video changed my view on Bill
@@Joe-nt3fu in what way?
@@robinthestate6548 Towards the end of the tour Bill was talking with children an pretty much calling them stupid for having a different belief system than him.
@@Joe-nt3fu yeah but that was after all kens little minions started trying to tell bill that he was wrong
@@usernametaken7738 You mean guest. Bill shouldn't go out in public if he can't keep control of himself. Bill should stick with 5 grade science projects.
If only presidential debates could be done this way. Love this video, thank you for the sum up video.
Thing is this is 2 smart people having a calm fight. Presidental elections are usually between 2 dumb but popular people.
@@thewhitewolf58 Lol
@@CesarClouds actually i semi take that back they might be dumb but they want the drama of "winning" by being loud and emotional. Probably because its the easiest way as comming off as a "fighter" though mainly because media loves high drama almost cartoon battles.
@@thewhitewolf58 And the sad part is that's what the voting citizens want and then complain when they vote them into office.
They can, they just won't.
My friends, no matter your position, that's how a debate should be done. Bravo for both.
Indeed. I’m no Creationists and I’m appalled by Mr. Ham’s dishonesty, but, he is definitely a good debater.
Very true
@@moistedits4455 you could say he is a master.
@@moistedits4455
What was he dishonest about?
@@coolnobodycares About Noah being an actual event.
Ken Ham blocked me... All I asked was if Noah had Dolphins on the Ark
ExtantFrodo2 meh
ExtantFrodo2 dolphins can go a long time underwater. Probably that verse is talking about animals that constantly have to breathe.
@@ExtantFrodo2Then y do they have their gills for ????
😂 Noah Ark makes no sense can you imagine lions chickens gazelles pigs giraffes zebras and horses with tigers alligators all in the same boat now a class predators in the same boat with pigs dogs and every other small animal what would a sheep goats even survive 🤣🤣
@@shamaravind6195 Everything living respires. Doesn't matter whether it's with lungs or gills or air pores (like insects). God loves aquatic animals more than puppies and kittens. Remember that those believers are worshiping a fish lover.
I will never forgive noah for bringing pair of mosquito 🤣🤣🤣
smh
Noah be out there bringing wasp
@Eli Snyder ?
@Eli Snyder 😂
They can fly😂
I love the look of bills face, like "you gotta be kidding"
This was actually a pretty kind debate compared to political debates
well political debates are usually about looking better than your opponent. More bringing down their image than actually debating a topic
@@-postboy-8766 yeah its hard to compare the two since political debates are almost always about self interest since the winning party gains something, while in this debate there is nothing to gain or lose
That's because it was very fiercely moderated
There's a video where Bill visits the Ark museum and the debate between the two was a lot less kind lol
Doesn't Bill Nye have a degree in gender studies?
@@rppiii6737 He has a degree in mechanical engineering
Wow this is like even more logical and calm than our elections
Why aren't these guys our Republican and Democrat elected officials, besides they are way smarter than what we have at the present.
Because these guys were actually educated
@@stinger59605
Calling Ken Ham educated is like saying Donald trump is humble.
@@rehaan6428 Ken ham is educated. But his devotion to his religion is so strong, he willfully ignores the evidence saying his religion is false.
Well both guys on stage are actual educated human beings... both are questionable in politics
These guys behaved more than the presidents lol
The fact that's true is funny and sad at the same time
I take it you have never actually seen a debate before this one.
@@dustingmorgan I take it you've never seen the 2020 debate. I'm pretty sure he was referring to that.
A small child could watch this and understand that Ken is doing mental gymnastics to “prove” his points.
Surprisingly civil.
Fortunately TH-cam viewers have gotten together to fix the problem...
Not really
Its seem that we have to ask the right questions to get the right answers..bill nye doesnt do that ,but instead he jokingly pokes fun at the global flood version in the bible by saying all plant life would have died which isnt true..seeds can lay domant for hundreds of years..an of its true a asteroid hit the earth of displaced billions of gallons of sea watervall over the earth..bill nye isnt the guy to answer or even question tje bible version of what happened to the dinosaurs...
Rickey Ripley 59 True, but they don't grow within a day after a major global flood event that would be near impossible for all that grass and such to survive that much pressure and such underwater therefore the grass before the flood didn't survive. So how did the animals get food after they got off the Ark, and how did they end up all over the globe from a single mountain in Asia.
ApeX D34ST Grass seeds sprout when exposed to sunlight and moisture, a gardening website says it only takes 5-30 days for the seed to germinate and produce growth.
Spencer Brown 5-30 Days? Ummm, you sure your average cow can survive on small tiny nit bits of grass just barely poking out if the ground, oh and all the other species as well of herbivores. Incase I read that wrong, the whole tiny nit bits of grass argument is still valid.
I think a pretty important moment in this debate was when both men were asked what it would take for them to change their minds and admit the other side is right.
Bill Nye gave a few examples of what it would take to convince him of creation, and then Ken Ham said absolutely nothing will ever change his mind about creation and the word of god...
Like, is that even ok in a debate?
Exactly. I challenge every Christian to watch this debate and still have the same beliefs at the end. It is perfectly ok to believe that their may be "a higher power" but to follow this and other huge organized religions blindly is foolish. Almost all of the bigger religions have an agenda they are pushing in one way or another. Look at the ark encounter for example. 100 million dollars to build and it's around 50 bucks a pop for a ticket. If they really wanted to help others they could have donated that money elsewhere. And the sad part is that is only one scheme. Can you imagine what else is going on in the name of "god"?
Its called faith.
Ken Ham has "faith" when you have this faith in god this strong, it shows the truth in The Word.
Scientific method is based on factual information that we currently have to predict or measure a viable theory or outcome that is in rational/logical coherent agreement with what we already know. Christianity has no information or fact except a book written thousands of years ago by multiple different people who weren't even there when the "events" unfolded. The bible is not a platform for any kind of evidence. The scientific method is based in real things, the bible is a bunch of compiled stories that has been edited, filtered through, rewritten, translated, passed down by word-to-mouth over multiple generations(oral communication) and on top of it all it speaks of magical events that has never occurred since and likely never will. And the only "evidence" we have is what Christians like to call "faith". In other words, there is no proof that a single word in the bible is true. There is nothing in there that points to the validity of the written information.
The problem is they're indoctrinated to believe that even the mere act of questioning the written events is a sin. It's how the devil gets you, and then you burn in hell. Carrot and stick. Heaven for the good obedient sheep, and hell for anyone who thinks it sounds like a bunch of fictional nonsense.
I was a Christian for no less than 20 years. I understand how difficult it is to wrap your head around, but as soon as you understand how utterly ridiculous any religion is, you'll start living your life free of fear and restriction from vague rules set in place by old conservative story writers in a culture that is almost identical to that of Islam. People were stoned, wars were fought. All in the name of a fictional deity. There is no proof that god exists, and there never will be. It's a system that deliberately keeps you from asking questions, because the mere act of asking questions will make people see how void of subjective truth the book really is.
Faith is another construct of infallibility, created only to excuse the lack of any kind of useful information. It's a huge circle jerk of cult-like brainwashing designed to make gullible people not ask questions in fear of eternal damnation, or in some versions of Christianity simple for go the chance to get into "heaven".
There are so many different religions, and many of them state they are the right one. Even within Christianity itself you have 30000-43000 denominations who all claim their way is the only true way to interpret the bible and if you don't follow them, you're going to hell.
Silly? No. It's not silly, it's completely insane. Brainwashing is really difficult to undo, which is why we see so many Christians willing to (sometimes literally) kill for their "faith".
There is no proof of gods existence. If you could show real infallible proof, the unbelievers would have to be the ones who so blatantly choose to ignore fact. But what's even worse is that even the very existence of a god, doesn't prove that the bible is "the word" of said entity. Organized religion is essentially organized brainwashing, and the world will never know peace until we are allowed to be skeptical about the information we're presented.
Who wrote the bible? Even the first scripture is written at least 70 years after the very last events of the bible are said to have occurred. And the hebrew bible is said to be from 6th century B.C. The bible is not a historical scripture, nor is it any kind of reliable source of information which is why you need "faith" in the first place (religious indoctrination and brainwashing).
You can't make a sensible argument to any religious person that will make them see the systematic cuckery of their belief, because it's made as a loop stopping them from thinking rationally about it's objective truth.
“Faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have evidence”
I'm kind of afraid to look at the comments section.
Im looking at it already. I'd rather drink bleach now. You have any clorox?
+Bigga lmao!
+Bigga Do you mean Clorox or NaOCl?
+mylobage I prefer brand bleach. Clorox is the best type of bleach in the market. Even Amanda Todd loved it, thats why she endorsed the product.
Same :( so toxic. Ppl being disrespectful towards each other. Our life on earth is so short and our time is precious, we only have each other but we kept on arguing otherwise T-T
This is how you argue a point instead of one another. They avoided that massive fallacy of attacking the person for their beliefs and instead tackle the beliefs. By the end Ken Ham says nothing will change his mind. Nye says evidence. Without hesitation he says evidence. We all need to learn how to look at the world through this lens of objectivity and logic.
@SteamingBurito
I agree so let’s observe the US as a whole over the course of its history and examine the morality, crime of the nation. If you look back only 70 to 80 years you start to see a big shift in metrics that are detrimental to any culture, just about all of the issues are a direct result from our departure from the word of god.
- divorce rates spike
- crime goes up drastically
- people are in need of more financial assistance
- mental health issues spike
So the written word of GOD is powerful, you can’t begin to fathom the power he has, you are looking at rocks trying to determine what ?? You have the written word that literally proves his existence just by the order it brings as well as the prosperity.
That’s evidence
But there’s no observable evidence that Darwinian evolution ever happened either
No amount of evidence would change his mind. There is already a mountain of evidence.
The evidence that debunks evolution could fall on top of Nye's head and he wouldn't recognize it as such. It was very foolish for him to have thrown such a statement out there because it's such an OBVIOUS lie. The problem is, it is PROVABLY wrong because he HAS seen the evidence, yet he simply overlooks it in lieu of his pet theory.
@@Sngbrd1001 The evidence for an infinite universe via the James Webb deep space telescope giving us a glimpse of two trillion Galaxies each with an average of two hundred billion stars and time measured in billions of light years is actual evidence instead of a narrow interpretation of a book written by men....
The whole “we didn't see it happen so we don't know how it happened" argument could also apply to the Bible. Ken Ham never saw the Bible be written, so how do we know it's truly God's word and not the word of humans?
@@dedefakolujo5304 ... What.
@@dedefakolujo5304 and men could easily write that? Do you see the point here
@Martin Luther yes. I am a former Christian
@Martin Luther a book that big. There’s many things you could guess about the future and be right. And your subjective idea of profound does not mean god exists.
@Martin Luther Have you ever read any books on science? especially those in regards to geology and evolution? Or do you only want us to read your book?
I was not at the American Revolution, therefore, it did not happen
but there is recorded evidence of that. is there recorded evidence for evolution? no. your argument is invalid.
kaci were you there when they recorded the evidence? therefor, your argument is invalid
David Liu the American revolution is just art and paper. No evidence. I learn for myself
It’s yo boi Vlad are you saying you don’t think the american revolution happened?
@@kaci7129 if you think there is no evidence for evolution you are just simply wrong.
When Bill Nye talks in this video, I always expect some 12 year old kid dressed in 90's fashion to appear and teach me a DIY science experiment
Ken Ham used to be my science teacher, here in Australia, in the early 1980's.
Yes, he actually taught science.
And now he's just a wacko believing in fantasies. How Bill Nye can keep his composure, is beyond me.
It’s really sad what lies can do to someone all in his desperate pursuit of money by lying to people about eternal happiness
All of this time and I never knew his name was actually bill nye 😂 I thought it was a stage name
And get this...
Ken Ham is actually named Ken HAM!
@@chaddoom7993 bill nye the science guy and ken ham the Bible man 😂
@@glorytofathersonandholyspirit lol
"I didn't see it happen, therefore it didn't happen"
explain the fucking ark them ham you didn't see that either
Exactly
So far, no angry Christians! You're doing great.
1. A more accurate paraphrase of what he said would be "I didn't see it happen so how can I know for sure it happened"
2. The ark has documents and written things from that time as they occurred, evolution has no such documents.
+Weston Euler
Are you actually saying that because people there's 'documents' about the ark that there is more solid evidence for the ark than there is for evolution because no one has written any documents about it??
WOW.
First off, the documents you seem to be talking about couldn't have been written at the time of evolution because it's happening all the time and takes MILLIONS of years. Secondly, there are also documents of the Greek heroes who fought Cyclopes and gorgons, so by your logic this is proof of them also. Thirdly, evolution does not have 'documents' but it has actual evidence like fossil similarities and layers, similarities amongst living organisms, and DNA testing.
If you want to learn more about the evidence for evolution, I recommend this site: necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html
+trippleblah you rekt im
Saw the whole thing. Ken Ham pretty much stated the bible as evidence. Bill gave explanations.
Bible is not a historical book. Hence untrue . It has no scientific basis for it to be true
@@kumarsamyak3560 yes it does have scientific knowledge. It said things about the world and people. Before we even knew. Then years later it came out to be true. One example I can give u off the top of my head is, the bible describing the world being a sphere and Round. When scientists at that time believed it was flat.
@@alecwilliams3612 the Bible also stated that the earth was the center of the solar system. Seems like a pretty major mistake for an all knowing god...
@@eamesy I’m not sure what ur talking about and where u got that information. Do u mind telling me where In the bible it says that.
@Nischal Ashamgari haha you don’t know anything. Ur Just following along with one of ur fellow atheists claims without any biblical proof to back it up. U probably never even picked up a bible before and read one full page. Nevertheless remember a specific bible verse. Get outta here.
The debate here is much more peaceful than in internet
most people on the internet never learned how to debate in High School
@@dustingmorgan True
I love how they can have reasonable conversations with backed arguments instead of shouting about how their side is correct. The debate is truly beautiful when you can see the battle between minds.
I love this comment! Thank you
Oh please Ken Ham is a fucking nut.
@@jarrettludolph6000 He is definitely not a guy with a different view... He is a huckster, a con-man, a snake oil salesman, an ignorant fake.
@RadioTSM {Operator Teddy Timis} LOL! So typical of the Theists salesmen.
April May God loves you so much so, April, that He sent His Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross and take the punishment that you and I deserve for our sins. You are so loved by God :) which is why I urge you to turn to Him before it is too late.
If you missed last night's evolution debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, you can catch the highlights here: on.mash.to/1kVzpO8
Ken Ham wasn't that bad, its tough debating Bill Nye!
Chris Spencer You do realize an assumption is not an actual belief ? Also you can believe and a god and not a be a complete idiot.
Esmond Missen Especially when Ham kept repeating that smarmy line, "You know Bill, there's a book about that."
I love the part about 22 new species of life everyday in my backyard lol
To me the best part was when Ham said the bible was part literal and part poetry (full version near the end). Funny how Ham knows which is which.
Brian me Bill Nye destroyed him with maths. Kangaroos hopping across the land bridge to Australia was also great.
When Ken Ham states that no one today was there to observe the grand canyon being formed. Well why not also state, no one today was there to observe Biblical stories?
Many people have....and he has blocked their twitter accounts.
@@ThyBountyHunter
Oh ok
It just seemed kind of obvious.
Thanks
@@RedRebel8 His point is that you can’t prove creationism but you can never disprove it. Therefore it all comes down to faith.
but the magic book says so 😡😡😡😡
@Daniel Bouhadana Sorry, but you cant prove that evolution is real because its historical science, not observational science. In other words, we didn't live 4.5 billion years ago so we can't say the earth was formed then. If you were gonna say we can use radioactive or carbon dating, many biology scientists have stated that the method is innaccurate and honestly we have no way of knowing if it actually works.
Ham: “You can’t prove how old the earth is”
Carbon dating: *exists*
That's helpful, since it illustrates how little you know about carbon-14 dating and radiometric dating, which is used on some kinds of rocks, while carbon-14 dating, which I guess is what you referred to when you wrote: "carbon dating: exists" to show how smart you are, refers to carbon-containing things such as wood, tissue, coal and the like.
I would point out a great deal of empirical evidence which strongly supports Creation and the Flood, but that would probably be wasted effort. Readers who are interested in the fate of their eternal soul, though, might want to investigate the evidence shared in recent comments, since much such evidence has been shared on this thread.
@@007TruthSeeker That was childish, 007Truthseeker, for this "F e" puppet to babble about how carbon dating exists is a valid means of estimating how old the earth is. Ironically, carbon-14 dating has been used to prove that the earth is very young, since significant amounts of C-14 have been regularly discovered within diamonds. Significant amounts of C-14 have been discovered in coal, too, which was supposed to be many millions of years old, but coal is not as impermeable to C-14 as diamonds are, so atheists can claim that the C-14 could have worked its way into the coal specimens in which C-14 was discovered, but they can't claim that C-14 could have diffused into the diamonds which have been found to have significant amounts of C-14.
You can't prove how old the earth is using carbon dating, at most you can get around 60,000 years of age of any given datable material, and it is estimated that the earth is way older than that.
Carbon dating? Look at uranium lead dating, or even potassium argon. Noah's ark is a fable, one that promotes the idea that incest is cool, so is genocide, God endorsed it, and praise be. Read.
@@austinritchie5292 we get the weather wrong… how the hell do you think we can get carbon dating or any other predictive science perfect?
Ken Ham logic: “I didn’t observe my grandmother being born because I wasn’t there.. so I cannot prove she was born.. she may not have been born..”
@Jide Olabisi Because most of the things you listed are immorality wrong. Rape, abortion ect. are wrong and people these days think they can do anything. And you can. Christians hark on masturbation, abortion, and blasfamy because it's wrong! And people that was taught wrong think that oh I can do whatever I want. You can but according to are moralities that lead to the best and peaceful life possible you must sacrifice lust, pride etc. A perfect being God has never sinned creating a perfect God. You people do what you want but you don't care about morals, or the right thing. You just do what makes you happy without hesitation.
@@hersheylindon7677 ignore them, that's a "troll".
Jide Olabisi you don’t have to believe in god to understand basic human morals. Religions rules were based off of human morals, not the other way around
Boris Tsygan, except that God is infinitely removed from religious systems which are all creations of mankind as failed delusional schemes to appease their ever-present & much suppressed guilt from their rebellion against God.
@Jide Olabisi do you: unless you harm yourself or others is the atheist ic belief. Now watching porn, masturbating etc is not harming anyone. But killing a baby?. When did an atheist ever say to you that we should condone killing a baby or other things o
f the like?. If you need an almighty something to ensure you maintain your morals then aren't you the problem?
Nill Bye vs Hen Kam
Kill Hye vs Ben Nam
best comment 10/10
1135782 absolute madlad
Mitch Rover “Kill Hye”
Ok.
Done, what next
*Hen Kam* is brilliant. The egg laying action alone or worth the subscription! 👍
If the flood was real, shouldn't we be able to find 4000 year old fish fossiles scattered literaly everywhere on earth?
Yeah but those are a long way underground. I find shark teeth in a creek bed behind my house and I live in Kansas, so yes I guess you could say we do find those things.
Weston Euler I'm talking about Mountain tops and shit
Did you carbon date the shark tooth?
+Weston Euler Probably not a shark tooth
If evolution were real, shouldn't we be able to find a 6,000,000,000 year old fossil? Or, maybe, 50,000 year old fossils scattered literally all over the earth?
Bill: Makes a good point
Ken: YOU WEREN'T THERE
Ken makes a good point
@@CoolGuy-pn1vm In his dreams.
You could even say that George Washington was the first president of the United States and he’ll still say “you weren’t there!”
It goes the other way too. He could ask Ham how he knows about the flood, was he there? Sort if thing
@@juanjoyaborja.3054
Nye wasn’t there.
This guy is not Australian. We don't recognize him as a person
Well, don't you dare dump him on us Kiwis XD
SpyTurtle - TF2 Griefing & Fun No way! Doesn't deserve any country.
Jaymax Note to self: become manager at NASA, invite Ken Ham on a space mission along with other people I don't like, then have the spaceship "accidentally" blow up.
Brendan Paine And don't forget the nuke on board (for scientific testing, of course.)
+Jaymax aye laddy the no true scotts man falisy
Who is more trustworthy and honest?
The guy that states that evidence can change his mind....or the guy that states that nothing would ever make him change his mind?
@jetcraze
Evidence for Hams ignorance, yes
Ham is also claiming that modern Lamas evolved from Camels.... wich is correct btw, but in his Imagination it took them only a few hundred years.
A sort of super duper turbo evolution to fit reality to his moronic narrativ to press all life on a small wooden box, that would not have been seaworthy.....to survive a global flood for which there is zero. evidence and which contradics all knowledge we have 🤷🏼♂️
...
but nothing would make his mind change, because he is arrogant and ignorant.
best combination in all worlds
I trust Ken Hamm. Man has more logic than Bill does. The Bible will always be true while some parts of science won't
@@Sailorbyday
if by logic you mean stubborn ignorance, yes.
@@riebenzahl-524 Actually that's all you buddy. Not saying Bill Nye doesn't have logic. Just that Mr Hamm has more of it. You have none
@@Sailorbyday
lol
hams Argument is only based on ignorance and even claiming, that no evidence will change his silly believe....so much for creatarded logic
Ken Hams logic: If you didn't see the debate, than it never happened
VexumEdits Tell me, were you alive when your supposed "big bang" happened?
GruntGroupGuys "I don't know, therefore God."
I am asking a question you have given me no answer, or you are avoiding my question because you have no answer.
I love it when you creationists suddenly go serious mode over sarcastic remarks.
No that's not sarcastic give me an answer sir.
Wow, it actually was a short version of the debate. I thought this would be an edit making one side look great and the other look bad
They accomplish that pretty well in this video, lol
I mean, Ken Ham doesn't need any help looking bad. lmao
@@ChrissonatorOFL maybe if he wore an ugly bow tie you would give him a chance?
The existence of Uranium, and it's halflife completely obliterates the idea of an Earth that's 6000 years old
Not really if your assumptions are that it was created that way.
@@jacobmoore2036 imagine having the iq of a fried pineapple
The idea that there IS AN EARTH completely obliterates the idea of atheism/evolution.
@@evanjones751 did you forget about the other planets?
@@Zoomin69 Were not talking about other planets...you missed the point.
The rebuttal segment of the debate was very irritating to watch, most of Mr. Ham's counter-response was "How do you know, you weren't there."
Bill should have said "the same can be said of believing a word of your bible"
That's exactly why Bill took so much heat over doing this debate. It was pointless. Creationists will always use the go-to excuse of "You weren't there" or "Because the Bible says so." You cannot win a debate against creationists. They make up their own rules without having an understanding of the scientific process.
Like Ken's response to Bill saying we don't know what was before the big bang and that we are working to find out. Ken's response was something along the lines of "There is a book that says what happened. It's called the Bible" and Ken wants to leave it at that. Nothing more, just God did it and that's it. In any other debate, Ken would be laughed off the stage for pulling that crap. Neil deGrasse Tyson has a good method of dealing with creationists: He doesn't.
I would of said, "You weren't there ether so how the fuck are any of us supposed to prove it? If none of us were there there is no proof. And without proof it simply means it doesn't exist."
KaydanAidan He would have been using the same straw man argument which would have been no better then Ken Ham using it in the first place. By laying out his evidence and not using the straw man argument one can hope that at least a few people saw through it. He may have not won over any of the most devout creationists but I am willing to bet Bill won over some that were on the fence.
well, most of Mr. Nye’s response (if you actually watch the debate) is mostly consisting of “Grand Canyon”, “four thousand years”, “Ken Ham’s flood”, and saying “Mr. Ham” over and over again.
Ken ham: well you don't know for 100% certain that dating methods are accurate so that means the Bible is true
Sure he does. Carbon Dating already has been proved to be very flawed by your own athiestic scientists.
@@crollinsphoto first of all not true. Second of all, even if it's not perfect that doesn't somehow prove the Bible is accurate
@@crollinsphoto you might want to sit down and think about the commenters post. Your reply has zero to do with his point. ZERO.
Plant a tree. Keep a record of the date the tree was planted. Within a year see how many ring it has. Keep a record of that. Keep doing that for 5yrs. That will teach you that it is possible to know how old the planet is.
Radio carbon dating is false
Props on Bill for going into the lion's den and having that debate at that creation science museum on top of maintaining decorum.
Ironic that you chose a metaphor out of the Bible.
I don't think the location matters, and it's not like he's surrounded by religious imagery or anything.
@@gangsterg1936 To people opposed to God, any place that is greatly used for Him will seem foreign and hostile. Just look at recent hostilities toward His servants.
As if Mr. Ken didn't do the same by keeping his decorum while debating creationism, except there is no such thing as "lion's den" for him.
@@mssn3166 The world's a lion's den for him, but he doesn't need to give a darn for the same reason Daniel didn't.
I just kept singing "Bill Nye the science guy." Whenever it's bill's turn 😂
Ari Grande 😂 that’s gold
You sound like a 5 year old
me too lol
Girl I'm still singing it lol.
@@bababab6906 so what
Lol if his logic is that you have to see evolution in order for it to be proven then how do you explain never seeing god.
I have faith that evolution happened
Cup Of Pete In The Morning hard to call it faith when there’s scientific reasoning and logic behind it.
@@ryanfogle3748 it was sarcasm Ryan
Ketchup Flavored Mustard There are all kinds of examples. I’ll start off with one. The speed of Light is 3.0 x 10^8 m/s. How can we see stars more than 10,000 light years away if the universe was created less than 10k years ago. Using mass spectrometry, known light intensities of burning chemicals, and geometry we can observe that the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old because that’s the furthest back we can see.
Wait we actually HAVE seen evolution multiple times, in multiple ways
This is like an argument with a child holding an ice cream
"Eat that ice cream because if you stand in the sun with it , it will melt!"
Child: No it wont coz it tastes nice!"
Nudesoftheworld Eroticdrawings I like your name!
I’m on the child’s side
@@Unicysis you right! Even before the ice cream melts I've already eaten all of it.
@@ehhhhh596 I said that not because I need to be spoonfed, but I know what is sweet in my life
@@kevinOneil6742 Yeah, evolutionists are a bunch of outlaws anyway
I will always be so thankful to Bill Nye. I was homeschooled with an evangelical curriculum. If it hadn't been for Bill I may not have learned any actual science as a child.
I remember being fed lies too. Lies like “the bible contradicts science”
We all know that if the Bible had said that 2+2=7 then Ken Ham would be defending that to his last breath
Who's "we"?
Lol 😂😂 no everyone believe that so that person should stop using we
I don't believe that the bible says 2+2 = 7 ok so don't use we because not everyone be careful of how you use your words.
@@DesignNation_ read the comment again. You definitely misinterpreted the whole comment.
Harpy Eagle r/whooooooosh
If you get a warm and fuzzy feeling from believing in god than more power to you but please let's keep church and state separate. And respect the freedom and rights of others to believe in what they want. To each their own.
Pretty sure systematic indoctrination and brainwashing of children shouldn't be legal.
@@Peteru69 I agree, indoctrination and brainwashing shouldn't be legal. Hence, stop religious schooling since that's what they're doing.
@Bran Evans Man, I didn't know you could just reject proof by saying you don't believe it. Science does have empirical proof, and you are quite stupid to say that it does not and that any religion does.
@Bran Evans what's actually stupid is that you thought I said everything came from nothing. I actually said that science does not know what is before the Big Bang and asserted that creationists are the one that say God made everything from nothing. Honestly, you don't even have the speech recognition skills of a fourth grader.
You ask me for proof, yet give none yourself. I made no claim that science knew what came before; you did. You cannot ask me for proof then think you'll change my mind without proof of your own. And before you say The Bible and I retort and you say I wasn't there, you weren't there when they wrote the Bible either, so with your upcoming argument I suppose you would see yourself in the right when we would be on the same, level playing field. You claim I'm the victim of groupthink, but you believe a book that can't even be backed up by experiment. My science textbooks can be backed up by experiment. Burn them and erase all scientific memory to present and we'll eventually reach the same equations and conclusions; burn all the Bibles erase memory of Christianity and you will see that other religious texts will arise. The fundamental difference between the Bible and our science is that we can back ours up with experiment and can recreate what came before, whereas the Bible simply cannot be proven. You say we can't prove our science, but we are getting a lot closer than you are to proving the Bible.
Before you say that I blindly believe science, take a step back and realize that all of Christianity is based on believing a book that nobody alive today has witnessed being written. You can't say my argument is invalid because I wasn't there because I can say the exact same thing to you.
Thing is, religion will come and go, but the laws of our universe won't change. Things will still feel attraction to each other, and take away our knowledge we will still come to the same conclusion. Take away the knowledge of a God and people will come up with other gods and not return back to the same idea of the previous one.
I would recommend you work a bit on your counter-positions, since your claim about me can show that you are a hypocrite :)
@@SolisAstral Here's the thing. I'm not dissing anyone's right to religion. I went to Christian School. Was raised in church my whole life. A lot of information was held back and I literally was so confused by things not making sense I gave up on it. I learned more in the real world so to speak. Knowledge made me happy. I never think a child should be kept from that knowledge.
I don't understand how Ham can completely overlook the insanity of his position.
Put it this way- if Ken Ham's logic were applied to the justice system, virtually nobody would be convicted of any crime to which there is not eyewitness testimony, not even video surveillance (on the basis that it can be falsified), because "you weren't there"; yet he will gladly accept testimony given by an unknown, unproven invisible 3rd party (which cannot be cross-examined) as the only evidence needed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecuter- "We found video surveillance of him stabbing the victim 47 times, We found the suspects blood at the crime scene, we found the victims blood on the suspects clothes, skin, and in his apartment, we found the weapon used, we have 2 witnesses to the crime that testified against the suspect, we found death threats written from the suspect to the victim, we found audio of the suspect admitting to the crime, and we found stolen property from the victims residence in the suspects residence"
Defense Attorney- "We found a book in the suspects home that says he's innocent"
"We the jury find the suspect innocent on all charges"
lol, okay Ken Ham
The atheist is the insane one they believe they come from a rock and that all of life came from void 😂😂
Yanken BeanStrum lol u must really be ignorant u think that life came from absolutely no where for no reason which is more ridiculous u think nothing made everything which goes to show u r fundamentally insane
@@Hayk101
"You think that life came from nowhere for absolutely no reason."
Except that isn't what abiogenesis states. Although you're probably dumb enough to think the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution are all part of the same entity when in reality they're completely seperate.
"You are fundamentally insane."
You believe in a book written about 3,000 years ago by primitive desert-dwelling savages who believed Earth to be flat that states a dust sculpture was transformed into a human, and that the descendants of said human were eternally doomed by talking snake. *_You_* are the one who is fundamentally insane, my friend.
Yanken BeanStrum u believe nothing made everything in pretty sure u r the fool sir it doesn’t matter wat u say u r simply wrong 😂😂😂🤦♂️
1 fact will convince 20 scientists but 20 facts won't convince 1 theist
@Dante4Christ it's absolutely true and it's been said by people like Falwell to Ham
@Dante4Christ not just 'someone' fundamentalist christians with followings.
@Dante4Christ Direclty copied and pasted from Ken Ham's AIG statement of faith.
"No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information (Numbers 23:19; 2 Samuel 22:31; Psalm 18:30; Isaiah 46:9-10, 55:9; Romans 3:4; 2 Timothy 3:16). "
What this means is 20 facts of science will not convince those who are part of AIG.
Which supports their point.
As his point was 1 theist cannot be convinced with so much fact it is clear.
@Dante4Christ
It is built into the AiG employment agreement. If they find facts that counter their beliefs they are to put them aside. Indefinitely.
1:47 - "You're assuming things in regard to the past that aren't necessarily true". Doesn't Ken Ham know what irony is??
Javier Sds what do you mean -_-
History is written by the victors. The prevailing narrative has been obviously tampered with by freemasonic influences. If you know anything about TRUE 33 degree masonry, they are fanatic luciferians. Ofcourse they would paint history in a way that discredits the Bible. Think about it
@@briancooley8777 Are you telling me that snakes and burning bushes can talk? That we were condemned by eating a forbidden fruit, speak different languages because of Babel and were allowed to continue existing by eight people boarding a wooden ship with a couple of every living animal in the planet? That human beings can survive three days inside a giant fish, people can actually come back from the dead and turn water into wine? And you are telling me that there is a conspiracy to keep the people from knowing that it all really happened?
@@alejandrovillalba3143 What do you think?🤔
Javier Sds if you understand science, then you know there are always unproven assumptions underlying theories. Unproven or not proveable.
Dating methods of rocks and the universe are educated guesses they have a huge range of uncertainty.
evolution requires vast periods of time to occur; without deep time, it can be proven to occur too slowly to work. The ages of things can’t be proven. They’re guessed at.
The moon is far far younger than they ever expected based on soil thickness;
All you need to know to determine who is really interested in truth:
Answers in Genesis: Comments are turned off.
I imagine that AiG needs to fend off a lot of hostile feedback. They protect rank and file employees with an email firewall. That said, it is definitely the case that Ken Ham is not in the least interested in contrary opinion. He and his ilk subscribe to a brand of Christianity called 'presuppositional apologetics'. The Bible is quite literally divine revelation. No defense of that position is needed. And any apparently contradictory evidence is obviously misinterpreted. Hence such claims that we're all looking at the same data, but according to different worldviews; and the distinction between observational science (OK) and historical science (evolution, not OK). We can't know about the latter because we weren't there. All such rationalization is of course nonsense.
@@nicholaschristie-blick3139 Yep. Exactly right
@@nicholaschristie-blick3139 Also wow aren't you a professor at Columbia? I am honored that you would reply to me!
underrated comment
That’s because people have been hateful and downright vicious towards him and his followers. I’m sure if you had a genuine question and emailed him respectfully, he’d be more than willing to at least make an attempt to answer your question and perhaps have a discussion.
Ham's whole argument is that nothing can be proved because nobody was there to witness it. If that's the case, then both Nye and Ham are equally incorrect; it just becomes a game of 'he said she said.'
I agree with this assessment.
But the debate wasn't over the correctness of creationism, but rather if it was viable in modern society. I'd argue the answer to that is mostly yes (even though I disagree with creationism) because in the big picture of how Earth formed, how old it is, etc., it isn't really that important to most areas of science, and having a less restricted view on what is possible might just prove to be beneficial in some aspects.
God witnessed it , it’s documented in the Holy Bible which is the oldest most accurate historical text in the world
@@annavitalia but did someone witness God witnessing it? How do we know God isn't just trolling us? How do we know anything at all? The cake is a LIE!!!!
That’s what you get from this short edited version. I wonder why that is?
Host: "Hypothetically...?"
Ken: "There is no hypothetical! There is only this book called the Bible!"
Ken: "There are many scientists around the world who are creationists."
Also Ken: "A large number of people believing in something is not indicative of their belief being true."
lmao ken ham is kinda a moron
I laughed out loud when I read this. I remember watching Ken Ham’s comments during his debate with Bill Nye, but I somehow missed that particular inconsistent/hypocritical comment. Ken Ham is not ignorant (because this means he doesn’t have all the facts). Ken Ham is a fool and a shyster. He purposely is attempting to deceive the public with his Ark Park, while raking in millions of dollars doing it.
lmao 🤣poor Ham
To be fair, the point with the second one is not to say “some people believe therefore it’s true;”
Instead the point is “There are still scientists who are Christians.”
Just as there are atheists who are not scientists, so are there Christians who are scientists and vise-versa.
The point is to debunk the claim that “Christians are hick uneducated and incorrect ha ha.”
Not “Big number therefore I’m right.”
Ken ham never claimed to have any substantial evidence that God exists where as atheists do. So Ken Ham was just trying to say that their belief was no less far fetched than his belief.
dude the comment section is crazy get ready if you are about to enter
Bill Nye rocks a bow tie, your argument is invalid.
U WOT M8 he is the only one who can
Nye: There's an extensive amount of evidence found in fossils of different kind of animals that show us that evolution did happen!
Ham: NO I HAVE BOOK.
Nye: Assumption because it appears to be so.
Ham:Records of historical events
That could still be gods doing
01:42 "We didnt actually see those tree rings forming."
Okay then... Did you see Jesus walk on water?
Exactly 💀
The deciples saw him and were willing to risk their lives to say it was true
@@mitchall2793 We actually didn't see those people risk their lives....
See how the logic is nonsense?
@@LouiePGallo but they wrote it in the bible
@@mitchall2793 We didn't see them write the Bible...
And the rest of the modern world outside the U.S. watch on in horrified disbelief that this is even up for debate.
Can confirm
Yeah X'D
Ken Ham is Australian
Let's be honest, the middle east, and, like, _most_ of Africa have absolutely no place to judge.
You're as ignorant of the world as creationist are of biology then.
Bill's face in the thumbnail is exactly how this made me feel.
lol i'm simply impressed that this 'debate' actually happened
I’m sorry, did he say Bill Nye was assuming??? This man is basing everything off of a book that was translated poorly 😭
Everyone here is assuming, but Ken Ham has faith just like I do. There are many facts that help prove both ideas, but either way, if Creation has even a chance of being true, wouldn't you prefer to believe and have a chance of going to Heaven, rather than being persistent, and have a chance of going to Hell? Because according to Atheism, when you die, there will be nothingness. So I believe it would be wiser to have a chance of no Hell, versus being stubborn, and deciding between Hell or nothingness. I don't know about you, but Heaven just sounds better.
@@I_unar Bill Nye isn’t assuming. Everything he has said is backed by science.
I’m not a Christian but I’m also not an atheist. I do not believe the message that current age Christianity spreads.
@@I_unar There are no facts that prove that there is a supreme being that created the universe. Just be honest and say that you're afraid of the idea of death feeling the same way you felt before you were born. You may think it's sad to think that way, but it really isn't. It's called being realistic and basing your world view on facts rather than an ancient book written by humans to push their moral code on others. It's really not hard to understand.
@nftscreenshotter6436 there are lots of facts that prove God is real. This is where you're assuming without having done your research. Being "realistic" as you call it would really be being unrealistic. If you are being realistic you would really believe the Bible, because thats what's real. There's a lot more FACTS supporting the Bible than there are supporting evolution. An evolutionists point of view is based on a lot of stuff that was made up and just people assuming based on what they see. But God did give us free will for a reason. He didn't want a bunch of robots worshipping him without a choice. He wanted people to choose to worship him. And those who don't belive in him and Jesus and have a relationship with them will ultimately go to hell. Jesus said,"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me" John 14:6
@@nftscreenshotter6436You don't need to prove something to reasonably and logically believe in it. Just like how the big bang isn't proven but given the evidence is highly probable. Yet most would regard anyone who says the big bang didn't happen as idiots.
Best attack of the debate:
"Observational science: Blue."
@shawn rue it was a reference to one of the questions they were asked :) Thanks for commenting and have a good one yourself!
Okay I love that Bill’s MacBook has stickers all over the back :)
He’s the cutest
the debate could alternatively be summed up with their answer to the question "What would it take to change your mind?"
Ken: Nothing will change my mind.
Bill: Good evidence will change my mind.
Paraphrasing a bit but that's what they said.
yes - good focus on this key summary issue. The a priori view, or maybe better "viewing", expressed by Ham is in fact called Presuppositionalism in Christian theology. There are a handful of key issues like this, which both Christians and non-Christians remain ignorant of, before attempting to enter dialog, discussion or debate. - Something like all the sensible, logical, revealing questions and subjects married couples don't know about and don't think they need to know about, before making commitment for life. We all need to do some better thinking, better homework.
Yeah I believe in god but when Ken said "Nothing will change my mind" I just can't understand it. It's a poor respond and by saying that you're saying to your self that you are ignorant. If I show you something hot and ask you to touch it you'll burn your hand. And if you still believe it's not hot after that you are a dummy. Come on... He's very smart but that was the only the he said that I just disagree with.
@@EvilBartXD not necessarily because if you're a person of faith theres no good evidence to prove Gods word is wrong, if you truly believe. Ken's obviously open to hear new ideas tho which means he is not ignorant but has strong faith.
@@snowflakebomber9303 that's illogical, how can you say there's no evidence in the world that will break your belief. Maybe there isn't any good evidence, but to say nothing can prove me that god doesn't exist is wrong. How are you ever gonna be open minded and ever admit if your wrong or right if you you're thinking in that kind of way. Now I believe in god but as a person you have to be open to the possibility of god not existing while still having your belief of god. You can fully trust in your belief without being so blind, or else how would you ever know what's right and wrong in this world
@@JackBlackYonko Burden of proof lies on the affirmative case, the case for God’s existence, not the other way around. Naturally that evidence won’t exist in the strict sense because it proving a negative. How do you prove something to not exist outside of a priori conclusions? The married bachelor is an example, as it is conceptual. So proving God’s nonexistence, cannot be done conceptually unless it holds contradictory qualities (omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient).
Proof of God’s nonexistence instead comes from a posteriori aka empirical evidence. Cases where there should be evidence of a God/it’s actions, we should see them. If not, that acts as evidence to the contrary. But since atheism is just the rejection of a claim (theism), the proof lies with you and your own Gods proof. Any evidence that exists exists contradictory to an existing claim of Godly proof. So for instance, the fossil record, geology, radiometric dating, EMR spectrum and the principles of light, primatology, etc, all act as evidence countering the creationist narrative. If the affirmative case cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt a solid prima facie case for God that overcomes alternative theories, then the God hypothesis isn’t feasible
I love how their names are so short
1:41 best BRUH look from bill
that was actually a really annoying thing about him. he kept staring at Ken Ham disrespectfully, even makes him nervous. Zero social awareness
@@jacobpeters5458 Do you really think that Ken Ham deserves anything but disrespect? Pretty sure he deserves to be tarred and Feathered, put on his fake ass ark and dropped off the grand canyon
@@kevinOneil6742 you make a VERY VALID point sir
@@jacobpeters5458 ken ham is an idiot. Of course someone will stare at you if you talk nonsense
@@Fish-ey9lt not someone with class
This should be renamed to "Bill Nye's reasonable logic makes Ken Ham increasingly defensive"
true
no you cant get a point across a dumb bilol nye
@Bran Evans It's not necessarily that everything came from nothing. It's just we don't know yet what came before the Big Bang. Please don't assume science says nothing was before the Big Bang - if anything, that's religion; by the Bible, God created the world where there was nothing previously. At least science is okay with admitting its models were wrong, accepting new ideas, and admitting it doesn't know all the answers yet.
@@SolisAstral If you question the origin of the universe, it's like questioning the water cycle:
Where does evaporated water come from? - From the condensated water.
Where does condensated water come from? - From the precipitated water.
Where does precipated water come from? - From the ran off water.
Where does ran off water come from? - From the evaporated water.
And the cycle goes on and on and on...
If you question the origin of the universe, I would say from the big bang.
If you question the origin of the big bang, I would say from the singularity.
If you question the origin of the singularity, I would say from the big crunch.
If you question the origin of the big crunch, I would say from the universe.
If God does exist, why did he made principles that lead to his non-existence? If God created science, why we can't connect science to him? Even principles are self-looping, so there's also indeed no creator. Energy loops, matter loops, the burnt paper turns into carbon and gas, it just turns into something else to become paper again. The universe exists in the first place because it loops so there's no beginning and ending.
Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. Means that energy and universe exist in the first place. There is no creator. Just accept the fact that there is no zero in the universe, there's a fixed number of materials and energy. The universe is just a continuous loop of energy. It inflates through the big bang, reaches the maximum inflation, deflates through the big crunch, and reaches the maximum deflation, and the cycle goes on.
@@jamessmith65536 um? I'm against creationism? What are you yammering on about? Literally I am a STEM double major of two physical sciences XD
Ever notice how comments are blocked by AIG videos? This is a tell tale sign that the authors KNOW they are on shaky ground and they want to limit the exposure of that fact.
Lol
At first glance that's extremely fishy. Being able to read comments help formulate opinions. But then I thought, if they left comments on it would probably break the internet, or at least You Tube 😜
Yes in some videos....you can't have an opinion!! Wonder why!??
Or maybe they're tired of human spam bots who just show up to harass. Seriously, I could write a book about the shameless and irrelevant trash I've seen smeared on even simple music videos, never mind informational ones.
It is written: The words of a fool start fights; do him a favor and gag him. -Proverbs 18:6
I like how we're just going to gloss over the fact that doubling the oceans volume with freshwater would mess up ocean chemistry so drastically that most things would die
Related problems are 1) the absence of any plausible source for the extra water; and 2) no explanation for where all the water went as it drained off the continents at the end. Catastrophic plate tectonics is incompatible with everything we know about crustal geology and the temperature-dependent viscosity of the mantle, which is ultimately responsible for the rate of plate motion.
@@nicholaschristie-blick3139 Seems you don't know of the ice age. There was ice up to two miles thick covering parts of the continents (ice is water). After getting hit by a comet / meteorite around 12,600 years ago, ice dams were broken and there was a rapid meltdown. That caused massive floods and a 400 foot rise in oceans levels. Don't know what the hell plate tectonics has to do with anything. Antarctica is currently under a deep layer of ice (water) when at one time it was not and trees grew there.
@@Elhardt There was no global flood. That's a myth. And the global flood that never happened has nothing to do with ice ages (plural). The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) was about 20,000 years ago. Deglaciation since that time has nothing to do with a comet or the destruction of ice dams. Plate tectonics enters the picture only in creationist lore, as a catastrophic event coeval with the imagined global flood. The well established mechanics of plate tectonics precludes that view. An ice sheet developed in East Antarctica 34 million years ago. The global climate was more equable prior to that time. [I am an academic scientist. This is my field of expertise.]
the flood story is literally about God killing everything not on the ark using the flood. that's the point
@@slick_Ric I may be not remembering it fully but I thought he was only angry with the humans? We'rew all the animals just in the crossfire
After watching this, YT suggested I watch a video about flat earthers. So there's that.
Yes people who believe in flat earth are as stupid as people who believe in whatever Bill Nye is preaching.
I will never understand why these discussions are even fair. One side comes with evidence on top of evidence and the other side points to a book as equivalent.
Ken Ham absolutely got his ham steamed by Bill Nye
He was obviously grilled.
@@autumn702Good times had by all. I'm pooped!
I like how fair this video is, since it shows the main points each person was trying to raise.
Shut up...past me.
No one is "being indoctrinated to believe creationists can't be scientists." However, it is patently obvious to anyone who understands science as a process that creationists are not doing science when they profess creationism.
And when Ken talks about the past, need I point out that he wasn't there? His argument is that "he has a book." Ken, in point of fact, has a compilation of ancient writings by mostly pseudonymous authors who clearly lived in a time long before the scientific revolution. And despite the dodgy source material, Ken is adamant that the works must, on faith, be regarded as inerrant and that any evidence that contradicts them must be ignored. Whereas Ken "has a book," geologists have training and experience sufficient to recognize the different depositional environments in which the sediments that form the rocks of the Grand Canyon were deposited, as well as draw reasonable conclusions about the geologic and geomorphic processes which shaped the landscapes we behold today.
@Bran Evansbecause it hasn't happened since, and we are better at handling the difficult things in life, and accepting our inevitable demise
@Bran Evans I am afraid of that. did you ever check out the position of our little milky way in the the filament like arm of a much bigger system of galaxies. Wow, I feel like an ant.
Bill Nye is that retired guy in the neighbourhood that defends the kids that kicked the football in the angry neighbours backyard.
Not really
Reaching a conclusion based on research is very different from reaching a conclusion based on faith and then doing research to try and back up your faith based conclusion.
Try math. Add ur bills up to what u earn.. then ur math is bunk just like ur science.. 😄 🤣 😂
Kind of like assuming ice rings are annual. Btw, there were thousands of ice rings formed above those planes. So why was Bill Nye still using that as a valid dating method when it has been proven to be false?
Thank you for pointing out the flaws of evolution.
@@Sarcasticass lol evolution doesn’t require faith the Bible literally does
@@uhuh.2232 I challenge you to show me a single example of any organism evolving a new function.
A new function would require a new “code” to be added to the DNA sequence. DNA is inherited from the parents and such a code would have to already exist or it couldn’t be in the offsprings genome.
If you believe this new information sprang into existence by chance I’d say thats a pretty big leap of faith since there is no scientific basis for that belief.
Man this is just like that Jimmy Neutron vs Timmy Turner episode of Fairly Odd Parents
W comment
Underrated comment
Onservational science doesn't necessarily mean direct observation
Observational science is the science of observing one thing(s) over a certain period of time. For example, you decide to track the population of ants in an ant farm for a certain period of time. You see that the ant population changes in compensation of the amount of available food, air, and other necessary biotic factors. You then conclude that ants rely on these factors for life. Observational science is direct observation through a physical mean (technology, sight, e.t.c.). Otherwise, its not observational science.
Well what does it mean then?
If you come home and you see your TV is gone, your door is broken, do you assume it was stolen? Or did an alien suck it out of your house? You can see the evidence of something that happened, but you didn't see how it happened, but there is a lot of evidence left over, like DNA, hair, footprints, etc.
What indirect observation do u have that isn't directly observed
Face Of Yah it takes Pluto over 200 years to orbit the sun, however we haven’t known about Pluto for 200 years. So how do we know how long it takes or that it even orbits the sun? Well, we calculate it’s distance from the sun and it’s rate of speed and use what we know from other planetoids. Observational science is about picking up patterns and making predictions. Not directly seeing something yourself.
Police: Mr Ham, you're house has been broken into
Ham: wHeRE yOu tHeRe?
Police: No?
Ham: tHeN iT mIgHt nOt hAvE haPPenEd
but if it's a fact that it's been broken into that means someone witnessed it (the police or some bystanders). Otherwise nobody would know it's been broken into
Look at all these comments? did any of you actually listen to this full argument or are you just commenting on the fact that they sound calm and respectable? Because the whole point of this video is topic they're discussing. But not surprised that TH-camrs don't even have attention spans to listen to the actual content
Bill Nye saying that "You would expect animals to swim to the top of the water after a flood" ... Actually no I would expect those animals to be totally dead from the pressure and movement of the water.
But buoyancy is a thing is it not? I guess bodies didn't float back then. I'll add that to my list of scientific facts that changed after the flood.
The question is why they've been arranged in layers?
The flood rained. It didn't all pour in at once, giving them time for at least some to swim.
@@cres3497 the water came from beneath the ocean too. Scientists in 2013/2014 discovered the earth has water underneath the earth/ocean sort of crystallized pockets of water that scientists actually believe contains more total water then the ocean itself meaning the whole land we are sitting on could go underwater.
No animals and humans natural reaction would be to float up, you’re argument is wrong
REMEMBER THAT TIME THE MAGIC BELIEVERS PRAYED CANCER AWAY...... YA, NEITHER DO I.
"We've done countless calculations over decades and come up with this conclusion"
"I dont care god did it"
Real solid argument
I mean that's legit all it boils down to. King Crocoduck did an amazing breakdown of the entire debate that's well worth looking at.
@@prototypep4 That is what every religous vs science debate comes down to lol
The argument that everything came from nothing without a creator is pretty weak, especially when you look at the incredible degree of engineering involved. That takes more faith than I have.
@@adama739 science doesn’t believe we came from nothing. We just do not know what that something was. When there is no proof of anything potential it is most reasonable to say “we don’t know” instead of saying “some powerful being created us just because everything happened to fall into place.” Which is not true everything happened by chance. We are here by mistake. If you know the scientific understand of how the universe came to be you would realize that everything was just by chance and it does not matter wether we live or die
@@adama739 why is that? Is it because you don't understand the sheer magnitude of time? Or is it just incompatible with you that you are literally the product of chance and are not special in any way, shape or form? Here's the logic step you're missing. If the universe is too complex to exist without a creator, then the creator is too complex to exist naturally and thus must also have had a creator. If you try to argue god is unfathomable and can exist without a creator then why can the universe also not simply exist the same way?
Im a pastor and Ken Ham is an embarrassment to the Christian faith.
The Christian faith is an embarrassment by itself, simply put. All the child Taoist and murderers are just 1 of thousands if not millions of contradictions. In fact, blind faith alone is the most dishonest position one could hold.
Lmao it’s an embarrassment to itself . The divine being you worship is an insecure , jealous , vengeful and moronic being and that’s odd because it sounds like a human and not a perfect loving being . Nothing but proven myths and legends and a TON of contradictions because it’s all made up by a bunch of mem
As an Australian I would like to apologise for producing Ken Ham 🇦🇺
cheer that you got lost of him, obviously those guys can only make money in the USA, where all nations shipped there religious extremists to
Apology not accepted. You will remain dangling upside down for the time being!!! ;)
@@con.troller4183
😭🇦🇺
@@dalmallama4634 There there. I'll send you some snow-shoes and maple syrup from my igloo in Canada.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein
"The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this." -A. Einstein
Tito Lounge, It would be interesting to put Albert Einstein’s quotes into a timeline to see how his views changed within his life span.
Your are taking that out of context, Einstein meant something different by religion,
also this was not a debate between religion and science
ken Sham makes a mockery of both Science AND Religion
he makes science look evil, and religion look stupid
he never said that at all
also science without religion is not lame religion was amde by humanity to explain the unknown science is actual knowledge from hundreds of years of study that is being continued today
This will explain why Bill Nye believes the way he does.
Two of today's most popular scientists, Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson, each claim Sagan as their inspiration.
How would you like to have Carl Sagan as your astronomy professor? For Nye, this was reality. While Nye was studying at Cornell University in the late 70s, Sagan was his astronomy professor. Nye learned much about the universe from Sagan, saying that his lectures were like Cosmos episodes. At his 10-year class reunion in 1987, Nye told Sagan about his idea for a TV show that he wanted to gear towards children. Sagan advised him to “focus on pure science, kids resonate with pure science.” Bill Nye the Science Guy premiered in 1993, winning numerous accolades (including 19 Emmy awards) and inspiring a generation of future scientists.
Nye later went on to be the CEO of The Planetary Society, an organization founded by Sagan. Now, Nye gets to continue part of Sagan’s legacy. If you grew up loving Bill Nye’s show, you owe much of that love to Carl Sagan.
I have Sagan's "Cosmos" on my bookshelf.
Loved Carl Sagan and still recall his "Pale Blue Dot" which was seen as a tiny dot located just above the huge rings of Saturn and was, in reality, the earth.
Carl Sagan is by far the best science communicator in history. The man was just brilliant through and through.
Watching Cosmos for the first time quite literally changed the way I view life and the universe, and I will be eternally grateful for that.
@@Mastermirror89 Unfortunately for me, when Carl Sagan's Cosmos was first aired, I missed about 3/4 of it. At the time, I worked a rotating shift, was often at work when it aired, but, more important....at the time my airhead 1st wife controlled the TV, wasn't interested in anything educational, so I often retired to my room and read. Even after all of this time, I still haven't watched many episodes, however.......one I did see showed a close up of Saturn's marvelous ring system. Above the rings was a tiny pale blue dot...our earth. That was a fantastic photo and a chill just ran through me even now thinking about it....our entire earth reduced to a tiny pale blue dot.
On an aside....I never saw my first total solar eclipse until 1979, when I took a week off of work w/o pay and drove 1000 miles to do so. I was so thunderstruck, the following year I went to Kenya to view my 2nd....and, so it has gone.
My 2nd wife is very intelligent and interested in astronomy.....three years ago we did a five country tour of South America, did a lifetime dream of mine by walking the steps of Machu Pichu, ended up witnessing a total solar eclipse low over the snow-capped Andes Mts from Argentina, and set while still partially eclipsed....my 10th and my 2nd wife's 4th. In a few years, one will pass right through the town of Sydney (her home country) we plan to be there.
In the meantime, it's been a while since I've fired up my motorcycle...winter's over, sun is out....time to take a spin. BHE
Doubt is the beginning of wisdom.
Faith feeds ignorance.
wow you must have a hard time taking medicine if the Dr gives you an Rx. Not to mention how do you go around every bridge you ever encounter? Dare say you would NEVER step foot on a plane or boat. Yep that faith makes a persons life so ignorant and does so much damage with all the convenience it can help achieve.
@@aaronowen4425 Planes can be seen flying every day, boats sailing oceans, people can be seen crossing bridges. Millions of people share these experiences every day.
That's not faith, it's called trust.
@@autumn702 LOL I would suggest you look up the definition for faith and trust (I'll give you a hint when you look up faith most likely trust will be used to define it and when you look up trust faith will be used as a definer for it). (I have observed God answer prayers for me, I have seen things written in the bible come to fruition etc...) and I am not the only one.
@@aaronowen4425 Words can have more than one meaning. In this context, "faith" means: "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." I find that definition to be very apropos.
And when I look up "trust" here's what I get: "Firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something."
"Reliability" is a keyword here, because that's how science works, it is based on the reliability of evidence and test results, the ability for it to support a theory. If the evidence supporting a theory or scientific belief is no longer reliable and no longer has the ability to support it, and there is new, more reliable, evidence that contradicts, then the theory goes.
Science.
(And in case you're wondering, yes there are scientific beliefs, better known as hypotheses or predictions inferred and extrapolated from current evidence and data.)
The reverse is true with religious books. If new evidence disagrees or dares to disprove the infallible truth of your chosen deity / deities, then the evidence goes.
You can "observe" your god answering prayers (what about the times when it doesn't?) just like I can observe fairies moving my keys, or the right thing happening at just the right time (coincidence).
Have things written in your religious book come to fruition because of some spiritual prophecy and divine intervention? Or was it because the religion's followers made it happen? Or was it coincidence? Remember: correlation ≠ causation.
Or maybe it's apophenia. There's another word for you look up.
@@aaronowen4425 You do realise that words can have more than one meaning, sometimes with slight difference, which is implied depending on context? But if you really want to split hairs and cherry pick information, which I know Creationists are so good at, here's another definition of "faith": "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." I find this one to be more apropos here.
And let me look up the word "trust": "Firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something." That's how science works, not with blind faith. If a scientific theory is supported by evidence that is no longer reliable, or the evidence no longer has the ability to support it, then the theory goes and is replaced with a better theory that is supported by more reliable evidence.
Science.
(And yes, there are scientific beliefs, in case you begin to wonder. Better known as hypotheses or predictions inferred by current evidence and our understanding of things.)
The opposite is true with any religious book and belief. If you find evidence that dares suggest your belief, your identity, is wrong, and the mighty infallible writings of your chosen deity is wrong, then the evidence must go.
Science starts with questions to find answers, religion starts with answers and never questions it. So much for freewill.
You can "observe" your god answering your prayers just like I can observe mice with fairy wings moving my keys so I can't find them. What about all the times your god didn't "answer" your prayers? Was it saying "no" or was it because you are praying to nothing?
Every week I can "pray" for it to rain on Thursday, and every Thursday it doesn't until one week it does.
Remember, correlation ≠ causation.
And are those things in the bible coming to fruition because of divine influence? Or is it coincidence? Maybe it's the religion's devout followers making it happen? I sometimes see my favourite number appear in the world but that does not mean it has some spiritual meaning or any other signifigance.
Apophenia would be another very appropiate word for you here. Look that up.
Ken Ham's whole argument seems to be "Science doesn't work."
"And I'll prove it with science!"
That’s not what he’s saying. You clearly didn’t understand what he said. He said that science cannot exist through a natural evolutionary worldview. If everything I just accidental, there’s not reason or motivation to do anything related or not related to science at all. The fact that anything moral, uniform or intelligent exist is not the result of natural, accidental evolution over billions of years. Let’s take DNA for an example. As y’all evolutionist, do you even sit and think, where did that code come from? How can nature possibly think of something so incredibly complex and perfect? How can nature even think at all? Anything of code cannot come naturally. Only from a mind. An intelligent creator who loves us and created you and me. There is not doubt about that. The fact that people are teaching children about this, and keeping it in textbooks is unbelievable. Evolutionist have been trying to create even the most simple proteins to life we have,, (which are still extremely complex) and have still not succeeded. They try, try again and nothing works. But still, it is presented in a text book, or a scientific classroom as fact. That fact that we even have science at all cannot come from something natural. So therefore, an unscientific theory should not be thought in a scientific classroom. Where you there billions of years ago when the supposed Big Bang or evolution occurred? Where you there to witness monkeys and chimps become human like creatures? And although Christians might not have been there, we have historical documents that god inspired man to write about his creation. All you have is a few bone. Give me an example of a fossil that is a mix of supposed human ancestor and human. And since you couldn’t be there to witness it, neither have you witnessed it in modern human history since it takes millions of years, you have to have a blind faith and hope that you’re right even though you can’t prove that. And then, you turn right back around and call creationist assumers and tell them they walk on a tight rope. Just doesn’t make any sense.
The Wanderer Did you not read anything I just said? Please read it and I’ll get back with you. 😊
The Wanderer again. If you would have thoroughly read what I just wrote then you would understand that nothing of science can exist through natural evolution through billions of years. The fact that you’re even having this debate right now is just debunking you. Also, can I call you broccoli 🥦
The Wanderer I have no idea what you just said. Honestly, it really was so bad grammatically that I couldn’t read it. Did you even read the long friggin essay I wrote? Cause to me it seems as if you’re guessing and just throwing stuff out there. Answer this: If everything is just a result of natural chance over billions of year, then how can you possibly believe anything matters at all? I have a Christian foundation and I believe that god created everything to be very good, and uniform and logical and intelligent.
After finding fossils of marsupials on an island just off the Antarctic Peninsula that was dated around 35 to 40 million years old, the polar paleontologist William Zinmeister said: "For years and years people thought marsupials had to be there. Thus ties together all the suppositions made about Antarctica. The things we found are what you'd expect we would have."
The evolutiosts teach that monkeys somehow surfed across the ocean by themselves. Then they teach now that octopus came from outer space since they refute their lies and they "survived re-entry" as well supposedly! Wake up! Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Jesus loves you!
Yes... because S. America, Antarctica and Australia were all part of a giant continent. Guess what other fossils are found in Antarctica? Glossopteris. Extinct trees. Guess where those same fossils are found? S. America, Africa, Madagascar, India, Australia... Which were all part of Pangea long before marsupials existed. And finally, guess which continent has the second most marsupial species, Australia being first? South America!
Denying that this points to joined land masses millions of years ago is self-delusional and self ignorant.
In the famous quote by Stan Marsh...
"Couldn't evolution be the answer to how and not the answer to why?"
Jas Rod
There doesn’t have to be a why in science.
@@roems6396 It's a joke from South Park.
bill gates
It’s not a complete framework of what? What are you talking about? Yes, science is a tool. It is the best tool that we have to discover what is true about our universe. Nothing is a “complete framework” of anything.
@bill gates The big, important questions, science will never be able to answer or disprove/debunk because the more evidence that mounts proves quite to the contrary that there is extraterrestrial life which exists outside of time/space has authority over man GOD created the framework for science which is why it can be used to prove the bible...but yet the focus is on refuting the existence because if you can convince people there is no Satan then there is no enemy to combat and you will be susceptible to his inception into his new world order
@@roems6396 Perhaps. But there DOES have to be a "why" to thr human population. All human beings have an undying need to know "why". Perhaps there is a reason for it? :)
Beat debate I've ever seen with this topic. No yelling, just talking. Amazing
This is what a normal debate sounds like
There are plenty debates online that don’t include yelling and shouting.
@martinw28703 True, but there are rare.
ken : we didnt see the layers forming so its not true
also ken: believes in god
“A first-order expectation of the global flood narrative is that all of the animals supposedly rescued by Noah aboard the Ark ought to have existed prior to the flood. Yet nowhere on Earth is even one representative of those organisms found in any pre-Cambrian layer. Not one, in thousands upon thousands of meters of strata. That observation all by itself precludes the global flood myth.”
Science uses logic and evidence... religions use faith... there is no competition as science wins hands down...
Well actually no
@@hakiikah8343 faith is nothing more than a coin flip. Go watch some reruns of CSI they can explain what evidence is lol.
@FirstNameSecondNameThirdNameLastName maybe take your own advice. Athiesm has no magic sky fairy. So no faith needed, so no group delusions of anything. Maybe stop listening to the conman telling you stupid things, all your cukt keader wants is your money, his true god!
But youre a believer so actual facts somehow elude you!
@Nischal Ashamgari yes and no genocidal magic sky daddy needed!
Evolution not Science you dumbass
The mental gymnastics Ken Hamm has to do, just to convince himself of his own b.s. is crazy.
And childish.
Ken: This is how we calculated the age of the Earth *scribbles with crayons*. Ken proceeds to proudly display a graph with Adam and Noah living 800+ years old.
Living that long is not that hard to believe, very few viruses no pollution in the air, not much killing
@Tomas Valdivia look man I’m not a scientist alright to be a Christian you gotta have faith, and I have faith idk what to tell everyone. Really y’all are kinda dumb cause if there is no god we are all going to the same place but if there is im in heaven y’all in hell
@@Ruger34 Actually with all the difference religions you being a Christian does not mean you will go to Heaven even if God exists. Maybe you picked the wrong religion since there are thousands. Maybe you are following the wrong Christian denomination. Maybe none of the religions are correct. What if God is like the god of the HP Lovecraft universe where he does not care what happens to humans or even acknowledge us. In the end we just pick a belief and hope it is the correct one.
@@Ruger34 I’m atheist, and I have a question. Do you believe God is all powerful
If you read the Bible you would see why they lived that long