Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ก.พ. 2014
- Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins in Today’s Modern, Scientific Era? Watch a trimmed-down and fully edited version of this debate here: • Ken Ham CLASHES With B...
Leading creation apologist and bestselling Christian author Ken Ham hosted Emmy Award-winning science educator and CEO of the Planetary Society Bill Nye at the Creation Museum in February of 2014 for a live broadcast viewed by millions of people.
We've posted a list of recommended articles, videos, radio broadcasts, books, and other resources that answer the majority of Nye’s statements and questions:
answersingenesis.org/counteri... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Watch a trimmed-down and fully edited version of this debate here: th-cam.com/video/vNDquZB_yHI/w-d-xo.html
I always like to ponder that maybe Mars was a planet for the angels before God stripped it from them 🤔
Question for both men; What would it take for you to put your hands up and admit , albeit in shock, that the other guy was right?
Bill Nye said if you found even one set of Kangeroo remains between the middle east and Australia then it would
prove the Ark did end in the middle east and kangeroos etc moved down to australia directly from it.
Ken Ham's rigid thinking is that god is real and theres nothing that could persuade him otherwise. What is the point then in him debating? if his mind is already made up and will not change?
@@BelfastManUtdTherapy When asked what if anything would change your mind, the closest thing Ken answered was stating nothing would change his mind.
That is a closed mind. The statement of faith that is part of the AIG basically boils down to if the Bible says 2+2=5 then you have to accept that as men are fallible.
Ken, this was so disappointing. Bill Nye was speaking science, you were mostly appealing to scriptures. I think you were at the wrong event that evening. You can bring in scripture as a bridge after you speak about science.
Oh yeah, sure I will, I bet you took a really balanced approach as to what should remain and what should be cut(!)
Unlike the gentleman you were debating, I'm perfectly prepared to say that your arguments were PATHETIC. I am in awe of his restraint, though even he couldn't prevent his feelings from being evident in his expression.
You cite scientists and their evidence only when they agree with your view and disregard the vast majority with better evidence that don't while being completely open that there is no evidence that could possibly convince you that your beliefs aren't factual.
The most valid point in your entire presentation was at 3:19 (the Dawkins foundation statement) and even that I can't agree with because at least there are 10 million people who were able to see the difference between a reasoned argument and pure ignorance as a result of this 'debate'.
For that, I thank you.
I always trust the guy who admits to not knowing everything versus the guy who claims to know everything.
@@tadow_od Absolutely not.
@@wendigo53 doesn't the bible say he knows everything lol and according to this people that's his word... so like I guess he is claiming to know everything even if he doesn't exist to claim it.
Bill Nye discounts all the scientific evidence Ham presented, he does this and it results in a unfair argument where one side’s evidence is accepted and the other’s isn’t.
@@andreistoriei2050Yeah, that’s what being an omniscient being means
@@wendigo53 I mean, if God is as powerful as the Bible says, he can be blamed for pretty much everything that happens. All is within his control, therefore he bears the end blame for all things that happen, good or bad.
Bill Nye the science Guy versus Ken Ham the Bible man
Lol, Finally something we can all agree on
No bill nye the leftist guy.
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 And? He's still correct about everything he says here. His political opinions are irrelevant to this
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 I’m just being funny. I agree with Jesus on creation. (Even if Ken Ham is right or wrong)
@@sweetlifealley lol you believe in a magic man. Do you also belief Gandalf is real?
"It is better to have a question that can't be answered than an answer that can't be questioned."--Carl Sagan
Science-Denial always resembles previous Branches of itself.
I dunno, maybe worth a thought before supporing something: maybe its GLOBALLY FROWNED UPON for a reason?
...like anthropogenic global warming you mean?
@@BwanaFinklestein Like large-scale election fraud
Why? And better to whom? 🤔
@@gustavocruz2321 Because by creating a false answer to the question you end the debate altogether, shutting down the ones who still want to know the facts. It's a defensive mechanism to maintain stupidity.
When one side admits nothing will change their mind while the other side only needs evidence, it's obvious who's being intellectually honest and who isn't. This was awesome.
The problem is that people like Bill are ideologues of the cult of Secular Humanism, and while they pretend that they'll always follow the evidence, they ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They function on faith that processes happened in nature to create what exists now, even though those processes are starkly contradicted by the universal laws of nature, which makes them objective impossibilities.
For example, Variation within kinds of animals is the result of genetic variability already programmed into the DNA of species, caused to manifest by the removal of more dominant genetic traits through breeding. As such this variation is in full accordance with the law of Entropy, but is the opposite process from the one that the Secular Humanists claim created all of the kinds of anmials on Earth. The spontaneous emergence of new genetic code that turn one kind of animal into another doesn't happen, as it would violate the law of Entropy. Such change has never been observed anywhere on Earth. Yet Secular Humanists claim that Macro-evolution is "proven" even though it's actually utterly without evidence. In truth, the Secular Humanists conflate their hypotheses and conjecture with the actual facts, which is why people think there's actual evidence for Macro-Evolution, even though there isn't.
@lennardchurch8483 - 1/64 of all mutations creates new genetic code
@@globalcoupledances Mutations are the deterioration of DNA, errors in the replication of genetic code. They don't create new body parts, and they're universally neutral or detrimental to the survival of a species. There's a reason in modern biology mutations are called "genetic disorders".
@lennardchurch8483 - Creationist dogma is that healthy genome doesn't survive, only bad mutations survive. According to creationists antibiotics are not necessary because the bacteria in your body underwent so many mutations that they become extinct.
@@lennardchurch8483 are you serious with this comment? No mutations are good? That's just dumb, have you never heard about viruses? Or bacteria? Or farm animals? Or cash crops? Or literally any creature? We observe positive mutations constantly and you're just pretending we don't?
Also, abiogenesis wasn't just 'poof' now there's DNA from nothing, all the chemicals were already there they just came together in a spontaneous way (you know, the way thermodynamic processes tend to happen)
Regardless of who's side you're on, you have to admit this was a much more civil, respectful, and productive debate than anything we've seen on the political stage lately.
It’s super refreshing, honestly.
But I do think it has less to do with the political climate back then and more to do with the fact that both of these men are extraordinarily respectful and well meaning individuals who’ve managed to stay out of major controversies. I applaud and respect both of them.
side you are on?
Respectful in tone is not the same as respectful in concept. Ham is a liar. Just check his graph about wolves. Its upside down.
Agreed on that, people have to start treating people like people
Yeah no if you are on the creationist die who believes the universe is no more than 6000 years old you are wrong
This is the kind of maturity we should be able to expect from our leaders. We need to raise the bar
Our leaders are paid to confuse and frustrate Americans, it's on purpose. Nye is paid to deliver lies in a calm manner for those who take in info in this manner. The politicians and Nye are liars and are paid by the same group of people....these very people killed 40 million Christians in the early 1900's and will not let the event be taught in American schools...same people.
Scientists are different than politicians. They are trained to learn and teach, not to govern and bicker over petty issues to maintain personal power.
@@tinobemellow scientists gatekeep to protect their careers just like politicians. scientists are human beings with beliefs and views. Read Sheldrake he talks about how people who teach the passive voice in science are actually mediocre scientists. Sheldrake is branded a pseudo scientist because he rejects naturalistic dogma and wants to set science free.
your way of saying adults shouldn't all be expected to act like adults is incredibly telling. No matter the occupation, we know how to be adults. People like you excusing their behavior is only beneficial to them so thanks a lot for holding us back by basically saying if you're a politician we can forget how we were raised.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to have Trump behave similar to these gentlemen
"We weren't there, we didn't see these tree rings forming." I don't know whether to cry or laugh.
It basically contradicts kens entire argument.
you alght?
Exactly 😂.
What if the bible was written just 40 years ago? We didn't see the bible forming?
@@SumriseHD Brilliant. 🤣
It’s nice to see that civil debates are possible, instead of the screaming matches we mostly see today. Also, it’s absolutely hilarious that Bill basically said “I’m very concerned about the way you think” to Ken
Why
i think it's time we stopped "respecting" religions, basically people like ken will support god in any immorality he wants to undertake, god kills everyone on the planet, ken is backing him all the way - it's sick.
@@turnip1744 most “debates” I’ve seen online ends up with the two parties insulting each other 90% of the time. So I just thought it was nice to see one that didn’t
@@femboy_slayer Bill is notorious for throwing insults during debates.
@@turnip1744 I’m only talking about this specific debate. Here, both sides were relatively chill and didn’t resort to a screaming match
Every few years I have to come back and rewatch this masterpiece. I only hope that everyone watching learns to think critically and question the motives and intentions behind the things they are taught.
"Masterpiece" is a pretty strong word for it in my opinion. But I agree with the rest of your comment.
That's kinda the point that science teaches you.
I did and now I’m an atheist
Which goes for both sides
Yeah I fully agree, question everything your church has told you!
Brings to mind..."It is really hard to win an argument against an intelligent person but impossible against a ignorant one"
Fr, people like Ken Ham never acknowledge when they are beat
@@Phoenix_1776 bruh, he was able to answer all the questions that bill nye couldn’t by using the Bible and logic. He didn’t lose
@@feetyeet8538 "bible and logic"
you can't put those words next to each other, no way.
@@feetyeet8538 The Bible isn’t an accurate source of information when it comes to science. Actually, the fact that religious people claim it has all the answers further proves it’s lack of credibility
@@Phoenix_1776 Let’s get this straight man. The Bible is about history, and there’s a reason why history and science aren’t the same thing. Can you use the scientific method to figure out that George Washington was the 1st president of the US? NO you know why? Because we can’t go back in time and observe his inauguration and talk to him and study his presidency. So according to “Science ” you can’t prove that he was the first president of US. But we obviously know that he was, so how do we know this? We know this because there were eyewitnesses that watched his inauguration and his presidency and those eyewitnesses wrote down those historical events so that now in the present we are able to read those historical documents and have proof that he actually was the first president. This is why it is important to understand the difference between science and history. Because of this the only way that you would have proof that the historical events of the Bible are true is if they’re were eyewitnesses that wrote down what they saw because as I’ve previously established (YOU CANT USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ON HISTORY) And what do we have when we look at the Bible, exactly that. “THE BIBLE IS A RELIABLE COLLECTION OF HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS WRITTEN DOWN BY EYEWITNESSES DURING THE LIFETIME OF OTHER EYEWITNESSES. THEY REPORT TO US SUPERNATURAL EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE IN FULFILLMENT OF SPECIFIC PROPHECIES AND CLAIM THAT THEIR WRITINGS ARE DIVINE RATHER THAN HUMAN IN ORIGIN.” This is why the Bible is true.
It really is remarkable how civil and positive the large majority of comments are on this video
I think it's because some people (on both sides) just want to argue and be "right" and there's no civility. They aren't really interested in intellectual conversation and debate. Most of us that will sit through a 2 hour video know how to be respectful to people we disagree with.
I am so thankful that I am a Christian who knows the truth about the Bible and God. In the Bible God tells us that he created the Earth in 6 days on the 7th he rested . God did not talk about science or the Big Bang theory. So until God comes down to earth and tells me then what he said was wrong about creating the earth, I'm going to believe him and not believe what the scientists tell me.
@@berthascott4268
Rather odd to completely disregard the years of work that scientists, geologists, zoologists, archeologists, and paleontologists
Put in to tell us the facts of the world we live in
For some ancient text that has been debunked numerous times
@YourLocalEldritchHorror The Bible has been consistently reliable. Only getting 1 major update ;)
Science has pivoted many times.
That's why I don't drink mercury.
As a matter of psychology, it is possible to be so entrenched in a belief, to the point where facts don't matter....
That's Ken!
So u deceive your own self in the name of psychology
That can apply to bill, Ken or literally everyone in the world so that just means nothing
It is also a matter of psychology that one starts to believe what he considers to be a fact because it is taught so widely, when it is not fact, it is theory (such as the theory of evolution, or the big bang theory). I've never heard of the evolution fact or the big bang fact. So, just because we are taught these theories in school does not justify them as being fact as they are made out to be.
@@RockyProductions360 i’m pretty sure most people know what a theory is. I don’t think anyone is out here claiming to know how the world started as a 100% fact, that’s just not knowledge we have yet, but there are people still trying to figure it out.
But same with religion. I have never heard being religious taught as a fact, it’s always said you need to “believe.” it is a theory as well, and not a scientifically backed theory either.
These men are so respectful to each other and their views. I wish we had more of these debates regarding any topic in today’s soundbite ridden culture
Mr. Nye did a fairly decent job not letting his utter contempt for Mr. Ham show, but if you look into his eyes you can see it.
Im so mind blown with all that talent and genius all in one room.
@@ShangDi_became_Jesus I am assuming you mean Nye's genius vs. Ham.
That's what debate is. If you think the presidential debates are actual debates, they aren't. They have become a mud-slinging event made to stir up controversy. Because controversy sells and most people watching have no idea what a debate is.
@@rossandtami0812 The fact that you got nothing out of what Ken Ham was saying doesn't mean there was nothing there. Your contempt for what Ken Ham was saying and christianity in general will lead you to one of 2 ends. Either Ken is wrong and there's no harm no foul, or Nye is wrong and you're eternally damned! I would think that choice would at least make you curious of the other option.
This makes the presidential debate look like an argument between two kindergardeners.
Telling me, maybe we should send presidential candidates to the Creation Museum to take a class on how to have a mature grown-up conversation\debate while keeping your dignity.
@@213mug how about we don't send people to the Creation Indoctrination Center and instead tear it down to the ground and replace it with something that has actual value to society?
Two very jeriatric kindergartners
Ham's best argument is
'You weren't there' . Ridiculous
I have it on good authority that Ham also wasn't there during the old testament.
The best response to his whole argument is "how would you know, you weren't there either"
i would rate his argument that counters every athiestic point with evidence as the best, just my opinion tho
@@radikalneko1187 It's just your opinion that he has counter evidence, and it's difficult to support that opinion
actually you cant use that argument to disprove my or anyones evidence, because personally I agree with him, im just laying that aside for now to refer to objective reality.@@chrispalmer7893
Never understood why believers would debate God’s existence to anyone. Believing in God is not about proof. Sometimes I think it’s a pride thing- ( I’LL prove God exists, that’ll fix ‘em) Anyone who truly believes in God was not convinced because of scientific evidence I don’t think. God reveals himself in His way and time. And He doesn’t need anyone’s help to validate Himself.
Greatly enjoyed this debate because of how respectful the two were. For the most part, they kept the discussion on the topic at hand instead of letting it progress to an argument about the other person. Respect to both.
@@wk8000 Well Christians believe in magic too. They call them miracles.
@@wk8000 if it's so easy to say God always existed why can't the universe have aways existed?
@@wk8000 If that's what you saw, that's what you saw. I personally saw a man who tried to, at least take seriously, a person making incredible claims, with very little information to demonstrate why such claims should be taken seriously.
@W K and what you believe in...isnt magic? You literally believe in a big invisible man who created everything out of nothingness. Your communion is a symbol of drinking blood, your prayers are nothing but a religious form of manifestation and spellcasting, and you blind yourself to the very obvious truths of our time. Science is observable, science is retestable, and science is reliable.
@@sltmdrtmtcWhy?
Bill Nye is really trying to control himself from bursting into laughter when he is talking about Ham's vegetarian lion
Why? Ken Ham gave tangible examples of bears and bats with large, sharp, fangs and teeth seemingly implying a carnivore - and yet they eat plants. How is that funny?
@@lukeedison1632 They are not tangible examples because Ken Ham is trying to change the order of the natural world to fit into his narrative - the bible. It just does not work because he has no evidence - his evidence is "because the bible says so". There never were herbivore lions. Lions are apex predators and members of the cat family, which are obligate carnivores. This means that their bodies are adapted to digesting and deriving nutrients from meat, and they have not evolved the specialized digestive systems necessary for breaking down plant matter.
Each species that you mention has evolved in a particular way and hence they have a particular diet. Because of their diet, they will have a set of teeth that assist with their diet. For example, Pandas do have sharp"ish" incisors and flat wide molars and are predominantly herbivores. The reason they have sharp incisors is to help break through the hard outer part of the bamboo. Their teeth and jaw have evolved for them to be able to eat that diet. Same with the bats. BTW, most bats eat insects and small rodents/ animals. The three species that eat fruit have flatter teeth.
So no, Mr Ham has absolutely no evidence to change his belief into the fact that lions were ever herbivores!
@@lukeedison1632 Bears are omnivores and they have the proper teeth. Lions not so much!
@@lukeedison1632 Bears aren’t only carnivores though it’s evident in the structure of their teeth specifically their molars. Lions however have teeth more suited for biting into prey and their molars are pointed
@@zachrowe6271 Nvm I searched it up and they don’t even contain molars for digesting plant material
Something I love about Nye debate, his debate wasn't even to argue with ken. It was to remind the audience that science isn't big scary false stuff, but is what is keeping us going better tomorrow. He wants people to help evolve us forward technology. To learn more to question more
"big scary false stuff"
Sorry exactly what do you mean and how?
@@ThyBountyHunter I meant isn't big scary stuff as a lot of creationists do believe because it rebukes their logic
@@si-fianimegirl6940 gotcha, thanks for that clarification, I know I sometimes type something different than what I am thinking.
@@ThyBountyHunter I'm horrible at texting honestly so if you pint a mistake out im quick to say I'm sorry about my mistake! Thank for pointing it out! :)
@@si-fianimegirl6940it doesn’t rebuke anything in fact it confirms a creator
I watched this years ago. It was so good I am back for more.
If it was a political debate I wouldn’t have watched but 10 minutes of it,holding your ground and be respectful to one another is what civilized people do.Great debate.
wut. Ken isn't civilized, he's proposing everyone live in the dark ages.
@@evolicious he didn't convey anything like that at all lol, what are you on
@@littlehollow He might has well have. His viewpoint is based around the ignorance of time and scientific based measurements and plain, outright, measurable evidence.
@@evolicious The truth is that neither one of them has unequivable evidence to prove his view. The bone structures which were found in remote places during the last century were later found NOT to be of humanoid structure. Those who were proponents of human evolution were quick to label these pieces by human names. The skull which was labeled " Lucy" was later found to be of the Scientific name: Australopithecus afarensis or "southern ape." Every bone sample found in the last century and given a human name, was later discovered to be of animal origin. Most of these same species were later found to be in the more remote regions, decades later.
It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creationism.
I found it more "dark ages", "cruel", and " repulsive" to know that some of the older evolutionists used their theory of evolution to advocate that "blacks were more primitive and less intelligent than whites."
I also admit that the cruel torture and deaths done by the Inquisitions and other rejigious groups were due to the human ego to control others, instead of out of religious piety and charity.
Ken Ham has true history within the word of God to back him up 👆 nye has not a leg to stand on with the theory of evolution that cannot be proven
Who do you think won?
Like: Nye
Reply: Ham
Me:👍
👍
You got em’ good buddy
Ken Ham! 🎉
Nobody ever wins when it's a debate about science, but beliefs come into play. I only chose Bill because I do NOT have a religious belief. If I did, my belief would trump science, and then I would force science to fit my belief.
@@amysho2192 Ken Ham had no argument. All he said throughout the whole debate was, “it’s in the Bible” or “well the Bible says…” It’s a bad argument to try to prove a book using the book, it doesn’t work. I agree that beliefs are biased to who wins, but it’s only logical to conclude that Nye won. The book Ham is arguing for is the same book that supports slavery, justifies killing gay people just for being gay, and justifies stoning those who “do it” before marriage.
@Tucker26 yes, I agree with you. But he can't see it that way because he's very much psychologically entagled. Cults leave no room for reason. He feels he's 100% right. So many Americans are also in this cult. I used to be. My whole family still is! The faith takes priority over reason. Faith BECOMES your reason. The debate was pretty pointless, as Christians will not change their minds.
Well, I eventually found my way out, so I guess some people may have benefited from it. If only a seed was planted.
The debate should have been over the moment Ham admits that no evidence would ever convince him that he's wrong.
I didn't hear him say that.
@@user-fy9gz9yl7uIt starts at 1:48:00
@@user-fy9gz9yl7uspecifically 1:51:06
@@user-fy9gz9yl7u He said he was going to trust God's "word" no matter what. That would include contradictory evidence.
That’s not how a debate works. No debate would last longer then 5 minutes.
The frustrating thing about these discussions is that the participants hardly answer each others questions. Thats something I would like to see
Bill answered his questions though
Nye pretty much answered all his questions, Ham went with the typical Bible is truth rebuttle creationists always have.
@@eliasjakemoran6434 He also ignores the responses by Ken and keeps asking
@@mrpadillaofficial Yeah, because Ken avoids some questions or gives piss poor answers
@@eliasjakemoran6434 One example. In minute 1:25:42 Ken Ham states “the laws of nature haven’t changed”
Later in minute 1:32:18 Bill Nye says again that Ken Ham believes laws of nature have changed.
The fact that Answers in Genesis posted this is incredible. Thank you for your transparency
What?
@@Lionfellowhe means that Ken lost so posting this must’ve been tough
@@miniclan68 yeah that does seem like what they meant lol- no idea why it would be "transparent" otherwise.
@@miniclan68 no its as simple as it being transparent because they’re providing their viewers with both sides of the argument so people can decide on their own. Both schools of thought are equally valid as neither can be categorically proven without reasonable doubt, one due to unobservable timescales and one due to the need for an intelligent creator
@@jcmorgan26 wow. Your post was a litany of logical fallacies.
I wasn't there when ancient romans built great roadways, but I can tell you through observation of many, many pieces of evidence how they did it. Whether or not you were present for something does not change whether or not you can determine how and if it happened. If Ham wants to keep leaning on that argument then he will never be able to claim religion as a matter of fact because he was not there for any of the story of the bible or before it.
Oh? Then how did they build the pyramids? Your entire argument just became null. Get rekt kiddo.
@@user-knhgvg454gOK then, how did God make Adam? At least history gives us probale methods used at the time. Ham is just ridiculous.
Do you know that Tiberius was the emperor of Rome during the time when Jesus was crucified? How do you know? Because of writings and other evidences that date to near the time of his Reign that confirm this. Did you also know that there are four times the number of writings about Jesus outside of the Bible that talk about the miracle of his resurrection. 500 eyewitnesses testified to the fact that he did resurrect. If Jesus resurrected from the dead, then he was God and every single word of the Bible is true.
@@billie-jeanmede2984this is false. There are only two non-biblical and non-interested (I.e. non Christian) sources that even mention Jesus’ existence - much less his resurrection: Josephus and Tacitus. And the Josephus reference is considered by a significant number of scholars to be a forgery.
The 500 witnesses comes from Paul in the Bible. It is not independent evidence.
@@billie-jeanmede2984The bible describes a flat earth in the Old Testament. The gospels disagree on the day that Jesus was crucified (look closely at the Gospel of John compared to the others) and (other than virgin birth and location) all details of his birth.
How can every single word of the Bible be true?
The expression on Bill Nye's face as he listens to the rebuttals are chilling. Maybe it's the lighting, but I think he is deeply concerned with what he is hearing. He must truly hate misinformation.
Any honest person would hate misinformation....I know I do.
@@ThyBountyHunter Bill should stop spreading his misinformation.
@@adamlineback4082 Oh cool, a claim, now prove it.
Quote one thing from this debate that Bill has misinformed others.
Quote it then prove it is misinformation.
I keep challenging people to do this or where Bill was wrong or lied.
I have had Zero people accept my challenge and prove their point....lets add you to that list.
Oh if you ignore this post and don't respond this can be taken as a direct admittance that you have nothing.
@ThyBountyHunter most people don't even check on replies they've made
@@mrnewb4725 Well when a person responds they get a notification of said reply, unless they put that person on ignore which if they do says a lot.
Just because someone came up with an idea that turned out to be a life changing invention, does not mean that whatever else that person claims, automatically becomes a truth.
That also applies to people who claimed to see/hear God and invented a spiritual explanation to the world. You shouldn't rely on them either!!
He was just saying, that scientists who believe in Biblical creationism can still be scientists, they don't have to be atheists and their work isn't less credible than the atheists work.
@@quantom1827 When the claims that the bible makes aren't scientific, the notion of a biblical creationist scientist is an oxymoron.
@@cristianbenites4521
"that also ecplains"
God created us, we didn't create God. Schools, universities, hospitals, laws all came from Christian backgrounds. Without Christians mankind would still be contemplating his navel.
@@Antiorganizer
Which claims does the Bible make that aren't scientific?
I was 9 when this debate happened and I remember watching this live. Wow, time passes by fast.
Ken likes to say bill is making assumptions a lot, but his entire foundation is based on the assumption that the Bible is factual and historical accurate. He also likes to say “he has a book” a lot. Are the people with Qurans damned for eternity? The people who worship the Torah? Their books are pretty important to them but mean nothing to him. Why just the Bible? How can you in good faith stand there and say Bill is making assumptions? Also he never answered Bill’s questions. Every single time he found a way to “misinterpret” the phrasing and spit out some word soup for the entire rebuttal time only to be saved by the bell. Do you expect me to believe he misunderstood the word literally? It literally means literally. He just looped it through some metal gymnastics to project the narrative he desires.
@Who_IsLike_God you say they’re assumptions, but that’s objectively false. Ken is saying we are assuming the age of the ice layers, but no. We test empirical evidence such as the number of neurons in the air bubbles to date the age. That just one example of it, and if you can’t understand how that’s not an assumption, I can’t help you. The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.
@Who_IsLike_God I also see you dodged the question. Why is the Bible is the one true book and not any other religion?
@Who_IsLike_God for fucks sake give me a summary
Thanks for holding this debate forum. America would be much better informed of our political candidates would hold debates with similar guidelines for give and take and question and answer periods instead of biased media moderators skewing the discussion or topic at hand.
It’s alarming that we have candidates from a particular side of the aisle that run away from debates. They’re afraid of allowing voters to get a good look at what they stand for.
Do you think this debate was (a) a contest to see who had the "better" arguments, (b) a joint search for true understanding, or (c) two people talking passed each other who will never reach a common understanding? (Hint, only one of these options is consistent with rational debate and critical thinking.)
@@PeerAdder this was a debate between two people, one claiming they are right cause they are, other providing the evidence for their arguments.
@@PeerAdder Peer, I appreciate open dialogue on a subject in question verses labeling and hyperbole that does not advance my understanding.
The point s that Americans are not informed, but instead believe in ridiculous lies or are left so confused and frustrated that they just give up in frustration. Nye falls along the lines of the 'smooth liar'...he is no better than any politician who's role it is to leave you in confusion and frustration.
“How can we have 170 summer winter cycles in one year”
Come to East Tennessee during spring😂
Nye is really good at bringing up good arguments while sounding very casual
No, he does not
@@purelyrandom1230yes he does, give one example where he does not make a valid point.
What Mr. Nye speaks of happened to the Muslim faith in parts of the world ... they were a center of learning until conservative Muslims decided some things couldn't be discussed,,,
Yes of it wasnt for ken ham, you would still have a kaliphate
I completely agree with you. If Christians were to go down Ken Ham’s route, we would end up in a similar situation to today’s fundamentalist Muslims. Some of the world’s greatest scientists were profoundly Christian, but capable of accepting empirical evidence.
I was a Christian until I read the Bible, and said hang on, read it again, and again, and again, wrote down my questions and went to my elder and got the classic:
God works in mysterious ways
It is called "mysterious" because nobody can provide any evidence for a god.
@@MayLNg I know, because the evidence for a Christian god is zero, it doesn’t exist at all, the whole thing is stolen from every other religion.
The holy bible can’t even keep its story straight before the next page says a different thing.
@@MayLNgactually God is a perfectly normal and rational conclusion with sufficient evidence. Your house is 100 percent evidence of a builder. Your phone is 100 percent evidence of a designer. The irrational view actually, is no creator of any sort.
@@bikesrcool_1958
You are employing false and deceptive logic. You do not have a single evidence for any "creation" or for any "creator". Can you list one (evidence) and how would we test that "evidence" to show creation or your god?.
@@MayLNg deceptive logic? I’m using rational logic. Please tell me that your house had designers and builders
How do you guys explain what was before the Big Bang?
Nye: That's a great mystery we're constantly trying to discover. Now, nobody knows for sure, but soon we may discover it. Never stop searching.
Ham: Well, there's a book out there that explains everything.
How do you guys explain the existence of soul and unique essence in us people?
Nye: That's a great mystery we're constantly trying to discover. Now, nobody knows for sure, but soon we may discover it. Never stop searching.
Ham: Well, there's a book out there that explains everything.
What is one thing more than anything else upon which you base your belief?
Nye: I base my belief on information and the process that we call science. It fills me with joy to make discoveries everyday.
Ham: Well, there's a book out there that explains everything.
Mr. Ham, just one question. Have you ever read anything else in your life?
Ham: Why should I if there's a book out there that I very much like?
Funny how in your comment Nye can’t prove anything yet the Bible is claimed to be truthful. You just reject it because it sounds edgy 😂
@@Idekreallythe bible claims the bible is truthful.
If I said "I made the universe" would that be better than saying "I don't know" because I'm claiming to be truthful?
@@happyhappy85 It's more in the misrepresentation of how and what Science can answer in regards to those questions. Science is not faith based and should not be held to the same standard as faith. People believe in Science because it is testable and is evidence based. There is nothing wrong with faith but it is not testable nor are the arguments presented in the initial post answered in the bible in a level science requires. A soul is not a scientific term but a religious one. Science is still exploring the Big Bang but everything that contributes to Science validates observations more than creationist claims. Evidence to support creationism can't come from the Bible it must come from things that can be tested and observed. Saying we don't know what made the universe is better than extrapolating to an intelligent creator must have been responsible.
"Nye: I base my belief on information and the process that we call science." That should be worrisome ...
Naturalist scientists boast how their science corrects itself all the time. Why? Because it makes mistakes all the time! Still Nye says that he has his belief on it. So, Nye believes in mistaken beliefs.😀
@@jounisuninenI think we might be skewing Nye’s words very incorrectly. The problem isn’t that “science” makes mistakes. I believe science gives room for people to make mistakes in such a way that they can be open to correct answers or finding better ways to do better things.
The Bible - or at least Ken Ham’s interpretation, far as I’m aware - doesn’t allow for any mistakes. So when skeptics or studiers find contradicting messages, translations out of line, archaeological evidence pointing to a different conclusion than what the Bible holds; I believe Christians are either forced to “push the envelope” and come up with a cherry-picked explanation for how the Bible fits this scheme like a one-size-suits-all trick pony, or reconsider their initial standing.
In other words, blind “faith” or critical thought and open to wrongness, open to being corrected, open to discovery.
It takes more faith to believe that something came from nothing than to believe that a Divine Creator made it all...
But is that the argument evolutionists are making, Mike?
@counterculture10 Yes, I believe so. Bill spoke as though he were referring to fact when, in actuality, it's nothing more than a theory that doesn't hold water.
I refuse to believe that chaos brought forth brevity.
@@VaMike9 Evolution says nothing about cosmology. The something from nothing argument used by Christians is a red herring.
That's an interesting perspective,
and it speaks to a fundamental question about the nature of belief. Here are some things to consider:
Definitions of "Nothing": Scientifically, "nothing" doesn't necessarily mean complete emptiness. It could refer to a state with very low energy or simple particles.
The Origin of the Universe: The Big Bang theory, the prevailing cosmological model, doesn't claim the universe came from "nothing" in the absolute sense. It suggests a very hot, dense state that expanded and cooled. We don't yet fully understand what existed before that.
Faith vs. Evidence: Science relies on evidence and experimentation to build a picture of the natural world. While some aspects of the universe's origin remain mysterious, the evidence for evolution is vast. Faith, on the other hand, is belief without requiring concrete evidence.
Levels of Complexity: Believing in a complex Divine Creator is a form of faith. Evolution, on the other hand, explains how complexity can arise from simpler beginnings through natural selection acting on random mutations.
Here's an analogy:
Imagine a watch. You can believe a watchmaker designed it with a specific purpose (akin to a Divine Creator). Or, you can believe the watch's parts came together through natural processes over time (akin to evolution).
Ultimately, the choice between these viewpoints is a personal one.
Some additional thoughts:
Science and Religion: Many people find a way to reconcile their faith with scientific discoveries.
The Unknown: The mysteries of the universe can inspire both scientific curiosity and spiritual reflection.
@@Markus-hq1gh I like what you said but I don't think the watch analogy is a good one. We know the watch is designed, but we don't know that the universe is. In the latter, there is chaos and randomness present (especially when you look at the Big Picture) whereas in the former there really isn't. Each part has a specific function.
Now, if we we can only get our politicians to debate in this civil manner. 😊
They do. Behind the scenes. It's kinda like the car salesman. At home, he may be a great dad, a good neighbor and even a godly man. At work, he does what he has to do to keep his job.
Too many people are swayed by the feeling that one candidate is stronger or more correct because they were louder, more aggressive or more dominant in a debate. (Not that most people haven't made up their mind by the time of the debate)
@@jeffanderson1708 too many people are swayed because they see a 5 second clip on tiktok and then they fully support that one person
@@3547cdr5 adorable.
Idk I like when sleepy joe gets his talking points from his ear piece
I just love that bill nye looks like Abraham Lincoln
Untrue.
@@davidandthatotherguy1369they’re right
how do you listen to the answers given my Mr.ham and are satisfied? his half-baked explanations and excuses for his theories are so unsatisfactory.
Meanwhile Bill Nye ignores Ken Ham's statements that the evidence is interpreted and speaks without any acknowledgment of Ken Ham's statements that creationism does not hold back technology and instead pushes it forward. Because as Ken Ham said, many modern inventions like the MRI scanner and the Hubble telescope were made by creationists. And he ignored the fact that naturalism falls under the same criticism that creationism does with confirmation bias. I don't know about you, but many people are ignoring the fact that Bill Nye is essentially taking the stance of an agnostic at 2:14:00 . But you can't be agnostic, saying there is no way to be sure it was a higher power like God causing the universe, and say that creationism is not viable. That must be because he is only partially accepting that atheism also lacks viability.
@@noahjacob5552 The object of the debate was not to directly debate everything each person said but to stick to what they do best. After all if you want to stop being biased you'd realize that Ken ignored all of Bills arguments, never addressed the hogging/sagging. What about the missing fossils? Ken invoked god 77 times and the Bible 51 times.
Ken is better at making things seem plausible or to lie. Best way to deal with a lie is ignore it. Don't foster it at all. Ken said "observational science" there is no such thing. In science one does observe but there is no school or paper given for observational science.
The fact a person is a creationist and made something doesn't mean the belief was credited for the creation like the Hubble telescope or the MRI. After all many of those who worked on the Atomic Bomb were also theists and creationists....
Fact is you cannot just claim there can be no agnostic. One can certainly say or believe there is no way to know.
He is saying theism lacks viability as well as atheism...there is nothing wrong with that, that is being honest to oneself.
As an atheist I have no issues with it as I can understand....why do you have issues?
@@ThyBountyHunter @ThyBountyHunter you seem to have missed many things. Maybe it's because of your stance on ignoring anything you consider to be a lie.
Ken Ham cited a secular textbook for the distinction between observational science and historical science. You either skipped through the debate or you ignored it because you refuse to admit facts even when they are backed by evidence.
Another evidence based fact that you are ignoring is Ken Ham addressing the hogging and sagging by talking about the Chinese Treasure ships which worked fine.
You are even ignoring the context to the Hubble argument. Bill Nye said that creationism stops the progression of technology, and a creationist building the Hubble telescope as well as another building the MRI scanner proves that claim is false. And that is exactly because these people study observational science and not historical science As Ken Ham said. Rewatch Ken Ham's 30 minute presentation if you still have trouble understanding that.
You even took my point about agnosticism out of context. I don't have a problem with it. I also was *not* saying you can't be agnostic. I was saying that being agnostic while repeating the claim that theism lacks viability is a contradiction. That is because when you say both theism and atheism lack viability, that is basically the same as saying there is no way to know. But if you say theism lacks viability, you can't really be an agnostic.
Former christian here, back when this happened my Calvary Chapel youth group (same megachurch as Ken Ham) organized a big event with lots of people using a giant projector to watch this. At the end everyone walked out with nothing but disappointment 😂 I'm glad I escaped the cult lol, this debate probably had a bit to do with it
There is no such thing as former Christian. If you left just means you were never part of the body of Christ. "These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us." (1 John 2:19)
Glad you got out, so did I! And it’s taken years to heal from being in a mainstream cult that Christianity is. I love, love, love being able to use all of my brain and to not artificially have to cut myself off because anyone or any book says so!
@@MrCrispypata
What a load of blabber. Who do YOU think you are to tell my fellow ex-christian they "were never christians"? Are you a mind reader?
Romans chapter 8 explains that God chooses who He wants to be saved. So yes, if you claim to be an “ex Christian” then you weren’t saved from the start. God decides whether you are saved or not.
@@shinratensei7652
More blabber. That's an excuse to sweep it under the carpet and not take account of your own failure within. Typical cultist.
Why can’t people debate like this anymore? Both so well spoken, well done great listen
Should of been done over covid.
Too many people are swayed by the feeling that one candidate is stronger or more correct because they were louder, more aggressive or more dominant in a debate. (Not that most people haven't made up their mind by the time of the debate)
Truly what it’s all about. The respect and professionalism was far out! Nice debate
people debate like this daily across the world... just not posted on youtube
we used to have debates like this before the 21st century
now it's "annoy them" strategies
This debate will age like fine wine 🍷
Oh it has.
Why tho did God appears in the sky
@@axel-fh1ru 10/10 grammar
@@CobbleBompster English is my second language 💅
@@axel-fh1ru why did you put the 💅 emoji? 💀
That's actually scary, Ken Ham basically says you can't trust him, convincing other religious fanatics like him that haven't understood or looked at the science that it's actually just his word against Bill's.
You're wrong about Ken, he knows a lot of science, but decided to use the word of God instead of his vast knowledge of science to expose Bill Nye as a hater of God. That's why Bill kept looking angry and saying are we going to believe an old book translated to English over and over through the years. Bill kept saying he isn't a theologian, he has never studied the Bible and it shows. The Bible is the most interesting and knowledgeable book on earth..
@@lorrikammien3719 ....yikes. No, Ken Ham knows quite literally nothing about the natural world. He denies evolution while constantly straw manning it because he, like many other extreme theists, doesn't understand it at all, or even attempt to. He's satisfied with his blind belief in something that goes against everything we've learnt as a species. I hope you're not the same although I wouldn't bet on it. The bible is in no way knowledgeable about anything scientific or moral. its an archaic attempt to explain our world written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night. Back to your point though Bill doesn't hate God, just like I don't. You don't hate something you don't think exists. Bill is reaching into the depths of the religious extreme in a valiant attempt to educate those who might listen to someone as delusional as Ken Ham. He understands someone like Ken is long gone to his beliefs and reason will get him nowhere, he is just trying to reach the audience in helping them forget their dogma and use their brain. Let's hope any of this hits the mark and doesnt fly by like Nye's words to Ham
@@lorrikammien3719 Exactly!
@@lorrikammien3719 Why should we believe that the Bible is true, especially when it contradicts itself countless times?
@@profcalculus474 the Bible doesn't contradict itself, it only has people misinterpreting it. We will all stand before the Lord as sinners, I wouldn't want to be the one standing there telling the Lord that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Only the fool says in his heart there is no God.
Very well structured debate and well done on both sides.
Both men and the moderator put forth a respectful debate on a subject that is a bit concerning is even up for debate. "We can't use reason to persuade a person of a new position who did not use reason to establish their current position."
when they say of a new position do they mean they cant change their view to a new position or someone who was in an old one and is now in a new one?
I just remembered that I watched this livestream as it was live in class, in high school.
I did too. All the teachers were mad at Bill hahahahaha losers :)
Dinosaurs were killed because of a catastrophic flood and the fossil record and the earth's geology proves this.
You must've been home schooled.
I can't decide if Ham on Nye is better with or without pickles.
You win
As an European, I'm shocked that a country as evolved as the US is still debating creationism! Absolutely appalling!😢
Well that was your first incorrect assumption, we’re not as evolved as we appear to be. We got rich really fast, being rich doesn’t mean we’re highly evolved.
Evolution is a lie Jesus is Lord
Dude, debate is about as civilized a conflict as you can get
The Debate is so interesting that you can not pause halfway. Great debate.
This wasn't a debate, it was an adult trying to teach a child basic science.
@@evolicious lol no one considers Bill Nye as someone who knows science
@@HS-zk5nn he has more credibility than Ken Ham
@@thomasclark7254 I am sure you see it that way when one has a science degree and the other doesnt
I just paused halfway in
Ken Ham did a great job. Unlike many creationist scientists he did not pretend everything in the Bible has to be proven scientifically, he upheld the Bible as his starting point without shame, He believes in creation in 6 days exactly as the Bible puts it. I respect him for that plus the scientific facts he pointed out
And here we are almost 10 years later! This conversation would be considered extremely controversial. That's a drastic change would you say? Food for thought.
@@PhilipK635 500 years ago evolution wasnt even on the table.
@@billycool6237 amazing how evidence changes our understanding right.
“You weren’t there”
Bet
*hops on the time machine*
avengers: endgame
That is hilarious
ken ham unironically claiming that the universe was created this instant
I'm surprised Bill mentioned the basalt sliding over the wood, instead of pointing out the different dating methods used. Ken mentioned that the rock was dated using potassium-argon dating (which is accurate from 4.3 billion years to 100k years in the past), while the wood was dated using radio carbon dating (dates ranging from approximately 50k years to 500 years in the past). This means the wood could easily have been as old as the basalt layer, but the dating method used was the wrong method for the necessary age range.
Well, if the wood still contained C-14, that would be proof it's younger than 50.000 years, as carbon dating simply doesn't work if it no longer had that carbon.
I’m not sure which came first, this debate or the tour of “The Ark” but Nye brought up different dating methods and every time Ham would dismiss it with false science or deflecting back onto how the the Bible was fact
@@blnkdan Please list the false science you are claiming Ken Ham was bringing up.
@@ManofManySorrowseverything he said about anything having to do with science
since basalt is an igneous rock, the wood would have burned comletely. The whole thing does not make any sense to me. I think he just pulled it out of his...
I love how the creationist says “I think we should be the ones teaching children” and then claims creationist deniers are pushing their agenda onto people 😂😂
I disagree. They should be teaching the children....a course in creative writing.
What would change your mind?
Ken Ham: Nothing
Bill Nye: Evidence
Well that about sums things up
Yes it does. It's the difference between an indoctrinated mind and an open one.
Evolution is not science!!!
Does it though? Ken Ham brought evidence and it didn't change Bill's mind
@@marktritt8381 It is implied that not just any evidence is sufficient but GOOD evidence is needed. What good evidence did Ken bring?
This video should be taught in all schools. This is what science is and what an open mind looks like.
This is a debate, not science. And Bill is NOT a freaking Scientist. He only has a degree in engineering. Even NASA didn't want to hire him .
You're right. Ham did a great job against Bill Nye the buttstuff guy
@@MrJack556how open minded of you
@@tbzwinch860 if open minded means believing men can be woman and that there are 80 genders then nah I'm good
@@MrJack556trans people living in your head rent free
This turned out to be one of the most historic debates ever recorded😂
For humor, yes. Most humans have transgressed such bigoted doctrines.
Most won't get it
@@Jay-ft3xh if you’re a naturalist/materialist at all, you don’t have a place to speak philosophically. Your worldview runs into so many philosophical absurdities it’s baffling.
Recommend checking out the debate of Hitchens and Stephen Fry at the Vatican. "Is the Catholic Church a Force For Good"
@@jamespitts10 Such as?
Watching this 9 years since the live debate, I found this extremely compelling and thought provoking.
Although I do have to note that Ham's beliefs seem to originate from his faith and it was obvious that nothing could change his mind. Is having such a fixed mindset and rooting your entire worldview on something that is not and cannot be proven and have insufficient evidence for really a good thing?
He constantly used the Bible as "evidence", basically using God to prove God. I would also like to point out that the Bible would usually be considered to be false and inaccurate by the non-believer which was who he was arguing.
So you agree that the Bible is God breathed? Otherwise Ken Ham is just using a historical account, barely different than any other first hand accounts.
@@SandersClan Ken Ham is clueless about actual history; he is an expert liar only.
The bible is entirely true so ham should have leaned on that more.
I think it's fine for him to lean on his faith and belief in the Bible, but he needs more than just that. Jesus didn't use the Bible when he reached out to non-believers. If you're going to debate, then you require more than something people will choose to ignore.
"...rooting your entire worldview on something that is not and cannot be proven ..." Like atheists rooting their entire worldview on abiogenesis and evolution while abiogenesis would be against the laws of physics, and empirical tests have proved that "evolution" is just intraspecific adaptive variation which never leads to a new taxonomic genus or family.
Bill Nye: but I wear a bow tie
Interesting that people are pre-occupied with what he is wearing vs trying to disprove him....if they could.
Ken ham his brain made of spam.
I'd love to see a debate between scientists, especially the creation scientists. Because as objective and open as I tried to be watching this, there was virtually nothing Mr. Ham said that was even remotely compelling.
"especially the creation scientists" and "there was virtually nothing Mr. Ham said that was even remotely compelling."
Ham believes we got CREATION by supernatural means and Nye by natural means. To your tiny brain though, Ham is wrong. So show that or admit you don't think much. Certainly you're aware of creationist don't believe in a natural creation.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
That's YOUR fault.
@@noahc2078 Um...my fault for what? Not being impressed with terrible arguments?
Clearly there ARE creation scientists, I'd love to see a debate with them.
@@dogsandyoga1743 Bill Nye isn't even a scientist, and his arguments were pretty much a really long version of what's called the question begging epithet, where he basically gave is evidence immediately acted like it was indisputable, whereas Ken started by leveling the playing field with the assertion that creationists and evolutionists see the SAME evidence in different lights. Bill Nye basically excused it all. Ken's arguments were far more compelling.
That’s perfectly fine
“Beliefs about the past” are not necessarily the same as factual history.
Exactly
Same apply to the Bible?
@@cajohnson130 Of course, the whole point Ken Ham is trying to make is that each side is a belief and challenges you to think about which side you want to pick. Each side is as valid as the other, but the implications of each world view is vastly different. That is exactly the message Ken wants to get accross to everyone, the belief you hold about these topics is the most important thing in life. Choose wisely.
@@dakloos316 look I understand what your saying but I disagree. Reality is not something you can choose. We share a reality and either your beliefs try to match that reality or it doesn't. Ken Ham is not interested I truth. His main goal is making the literal Bible narrative fit no matter what. He also says he would never change his mind where as science changes with new evidence. That's its strength. Creationism needs the results to match the scripture at all costs. You should follow the evidence no matter the result, not ad hoc explain it away or start with your conclusion and work backwards. Science is not worried about a narrative to disprove the Bible. If the data shows a young earth, that's what the finding would show. It simply is not compatible with a 6k year old earth. All results in all fields show this to be the case.
I'm praying for Bill 🙏🙏🙏❤
Why? If there is a Supreme Creator who loves us why the need to pray? Your God should love him unconditionally.
"Religion Poisons Everything" - Christopher Hitchens
Religion is merely an institution that seeks to be in harmony with ultimate reality. There’s nothing inherently bad or harmful about that. What is harmful is a dogmatic, legalistic, controlling closed-mindedness. That could manifest in any human institution, religious or not.
@@PhilipK635 Depends on what religion you ask.
@@magepunk2376 Religion itself isn't inherently awful. It is awful when it promotes being scientifically misinformed, and when it goes against the rights of anyone besides the individual who accepts said religion. I would argue that the Abrahamic religions are fundamentally awful-- but I do not have enough knowledge about the other religions of the world to make a value judgment on each. Daoism looks pretty cool.
So does atheism
@@bikesrcool_1958 Atheism poisons everything? The lack of a belief in gods? You'd better have some airtight arguments to back that up, homie.
They always say "you weren't there,you didn't see it"...then how can they believe the bible...
Well because God was there and told us to write down what happened
@Zero-0-Cypher it’s not really hard to understand Ken’s argument. He says there are two types of science, “observational” and “historical”. Observational is what you observe in the present. We can see the Eiffel Tower. We know it is 1,083 because we can measure it and we can measure it because we can see it and touch it. Gustave Eiffel built the tower between 1887 and 1889. But, how do we know that? We weren’t alive in 1887. We weren’t there to see him build the tower, so how do we know if Gustave Eiffel was a real person and if he build the tower of Eiffel? Well, his grave is one thing that tells us he was an actual person. Why? Because we can observe (see and touch) his grave stone. And also there are books (historical science) that tell us about him and tell us he built the Eiffel Tower. That is the difference between Observation and Historical science and that is what Ken Ham is saying.
You can believe the Bible because the death burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ has been historically proven. Not even Academia argues whehter Jesus was fake because there is proof. What it comes down to is do you believe what Jesus Christ said about Himself being the Son of God and the Savior of the world from their sins. That He alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that only through Him can you everlasting life if you believe in Him
@@michaelsears6702 And you are so confused that it's not a misunderstandig of the argument.
Is that his argument still doesn't make sense.
@@gabrielgamez2033 There is zero evidence of Jesus resurrection.
The bible is full of historical inaccuracies...
Thoroughly enjoyed this debate. Another really good one (for those interested) is Peter Atkins vs John Lennox. 😊
How frustrating can it be where someone comes prepared with real data that can be tested and someone else doesn’t even take it serious and just keeps repeating “there’s a book”.
I know right, Billy boy just talks about evolution from a flawed book while Ham based his facts on a several thousand year old book written from more than 1 perspective united by God!!!
@@CheckMateWins notice how my comment did NOT mention a book from Bills side. I SAID “real data that can be tested”. The Bible doesn’t have data that can tested in a lab hence the term “faith”. You should read my comment again smart guy otherwise you’ll misinterpret more writings. You just only proved my point. Thanks for the screenshot. Haha.
Flat earthers: "we believe the earth is a disk and that the heliocentric model is a global conspiracy."
Young earth Creationists: "hold my beer"
Mannnn the memories.. I remember being shown this debate by my science teacher who was a substitute the whole spring semester (freshmen Fairfield HS 2015).. the substitute is Chinese and I think he moved to China later at some point but… he was an incredible teacher. Always showed us films lolol. Great times! ❤❤
Chinese spy causing dissent in the status quo
What a brave and brilliant teacher to use a different culture to debate within that culture.
Fairfield CT?
What’s ironic is that my Sunday school teacher showed this to us as well. Crazy how we can single out the things we like to hear.
If you take out the purpose of this debate you’ll find that you have two grown men arguing for 2 and a half hours about the age of a rock.
To be fair, it’s a particularly big rock
@@mr.scarfy6851 compared to what? It's a grain of sand to the universe
if you take out the purpose of my house you will find four walls and a roof
@@lisaac9477 true, they are actually arguing over the age of a grain of sand
@@violetyeah9095 and a door
That was a painful watch. It's sad listening to someone desperately hanging onto their belief despite the realization that they're wrong, hitting them square in the face. Some people, sadly, would rather hang onto something they believed in their entire life, than admit they were wrong and accept that their life's work has been a waste of time.
Eventually that view will fade away just as belief in Egyptian gods, Greek gods, Roman gods, Norse gods etc all did.
It's sad that people believe that God of the universe is but just another false beleif
You're right. That's exactly why evolutionists cling to their system so fiercely. But it will fade away.
Yep, we're using ad block for this one.
I already commented but, wouldn't it be awesome if political debates could be respectful and decent human beings like these two to one another and to opposing views? would be a lot less problems and polarization if people respected each other and weren't threatened by each other and could argue with a live and let live mentality still.
True that!
It's very difficult to take someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old very seriously. The notion is on the same level as a flat earth in terms of ridiculousness.
@@Easy1two3 It's hard to take anyone serious that believes the world is billions of years old....
@@Easy1two3 Just like you guys believe in evolution, and we came from a big bang, then tadpole in a soup of water to a creature in water to crawl out to mammals to monkeys to humans....lmao
@@eriknorman7409 that's what the evidence suggests. Sorry your world view doesn't align with the facts, but that's just the way it is.
Interesting debate, well done.
Ken's responses in the Q&A portion were essentially, "because the Bible says so". Combined with his response to the question, "what, if anything, would change your mind?", it's pretty tough to take anything he says seriously from a scientific standpoint.
Yeah that Ken's bonkers.
This is a funny approach to take seeing as the whole basis of Christianity is believing everything in the Bible, because denying anything in it would be denying God. The fact that ken in the beginning said “science and God can go hand in hand” and that’s what you got from this is beyond funny.
@@Provo.00 The real problem with science and religion (Christianity specifically) going "hand in hand" is that faith is critical to Christianity and faith is the antithesis of science. Believing something just because, despite the lack of evidence or even in spite of evidence to the contrary, is just about unscientific as you can get.
"what, if anything, would change your mind?" The answer of the uncrowned King of atheists Richard Dawkins was "Nothing".
@@Chris-xo2rq "...faith is the antithesis of science. Believing something just because, despite the lack of evidence or even in spite of evidence to the contrary, is just about unscientific as you can get."
So evolutionists and other atheists are unscientific because they believe in abiogenesis and evolution while there is no scientific evidence for either ...
Great debate! Thoroughly enjoyed the discussion, youre both highly intelligent gentlemen, respect to you both.
"The battle is really about authority". Yes, indeed, it is.
One shows his authority with humility and the other through arrogance.
I love the ice layer thing. If you go to Cleveland Ohio in the winter or anywhere else for that matter where snow falls, you will see that if you dig in an area untouched by anyone for about 1 month that there are about 15 to 20 layers, all separated by a thin layer of dirt and other particles carried by the wind that coats the top of the snow in between snowfalls. Each being crushed by the weight of the previous snowfall.
How long do it take those layers to form?
That's exactly what I was thinking. It reminded me of a recent 'discovery' of walking rocks in the Arizona desert, that actually turned out to be rocks getting scooted every winter on thin sheets of ice that melted quickly. If someone unaware of the time the ice was there assumed that each 'walk' of a rock (there were wavy patterns in it) was a year and not a single night, the 'date' of the rocks walking or whatever would be off astronomically. We don't know anything until we can actually observe it. The tree rings, too, made me wonder if there aren't extra rings from years that had hard refreezes, making it look like multiple years when cut.
You are simplifying what layers means. It is not how many times it snows providing layers but rather yearly totals. Bill explains this to Ken on his ark tour.
@@catherinerosner970 So are you saying that simple answers are not truth, and that only complicated one's are?
@@catherinerosner970 It is ASSUMED yearly totals. Once again, there is assumptions that it is based on, not observations.
I'm so glad this guy decided to start debating the second that Christopher Hitchens turned out to be dead
The idea that the earth is 6000 years old is so absurd, i cant understand why any serious person would waste the time debating someone that holds that belief.
Why? How many years does it take to produce something from nothing?
@@SummerRing-of2splmao what ??????
@@SummerRing-of2sp about 11-12 billion years, as our models predict. Your religion is fake
Because there's a good amount of evidence for it
1:17:00 yes - there’s a problem. Your “geologist” sent wood to C14 dating and got approximately the max age that C14 dating can be used for. That’s like me getting on the kitchen scale and concluding that my mass is only 5 kg because the scale maxes out at 5 kg 😂
And the St Helens lava is sort of the opposite I believe. Here you’re asking how old something very new is with a method designed for something much older. That’s like me using my bathroom scale to weigh of ingredients to make 0.5 kg of cake.
How do you know that the grand canyon is millions of years old?
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 because I read more than one book
@@ninecowsh9228 I read more than one book to.
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 Several independent methods all based on the laws of nature points towards an earth that is roughly 4.5 billion years old I’m inclined to believe that. Plus that a lot of laws of nature should be broken in order to make it only 6000 years old. Only one book claims that it’s 6000 years old and it was written when people also strongly believed the earth was flat.
This is an interesting debate to watch today and I’m sure will be even more interesting to watch 5 years from now and further
I watch it every few years. One of the greatest debates I've ever heard
Yes it becomes more and more relevant. I must admit only 18 months ago or so my perspective was completely different than it is now. I love you Jezus! 🙏💟
I’m in the same boat, the 9 years of ‘progress’ since this debate really undermine one of these arguments.
@@andrewsimms4904just curious which one do u say it undermines?
@@andrewsimms4904 not really, dont know what you are trying to hint at with 'progress'. please your serial produced argument in further detail to have an actual discussion, as we are not in the circlejerk you seem familiar to be in.
1:42:11
I paused after Hamm asked “Do you know the book that actually tells use where matter came from?”
Wish me luck🤞🏼
🎉
It's highly ironic hearing a Creationist basically saying "seeing is believing when it comes to science, therefore the Bible accounts for anything we can't see" 😂
That's a misunderstanding of what is being said. If the Bible is true, then it is an account of people who have seen or were there closer to the time of creation and would have a much more accurate account than speculation and "I don't knows"
@@marktritt8381 Please read what you just wrote. What's wrong with it? I am lacking the energy right now to type it out.
Best debate ever, watched all of it, I think I watched it two times before
Me too and Ken Ham is just as ridiculous and comical in his stupidity every time.
@@teknoaija1762 yep he looked so bad in this debate. Did you see when they went through the Ark Encounter together? Here’s a spoiler the only thing Ken is worried about is how nice they did building it and Bill Nye was concerned with all the fake science and lies that building is full of.
@@teknoaija1762 wow your just lovely to talk to I bet
@@joelcarter2535😂💯
@@adoniplaitis4765 😄
Im glad I found this again. This debate is the one that made me think and change from being a creationist. Still a Christian but no longer a creationist. This debate also made leave the republican party.
Good on you bro 👍
Most Christians accept the theory of evolution :) So there is nothing unchristian about accepting evolution. Regardless of what a few power hungry people may assert.
My pastor friend prayed for a guy who was on the heart transplant waiting list at Stanford, but God gave him a new heart. My/another pastor prayed for a neighbors truck, who had an emergency and God put new wiring. A mechanic asked the following day, “who put new wiring?”
Two friends at separate locations, each prayed against storms they experienced while traveling and the ground dried as if had never rained. Andrew Wommack prayed for his son who had been dead for 5 hours, with a toe tag in a cooler, and he came back to life. I prayed for my nieces lung and by the time she went to a specialist at Stanford, because other doctors didn’t have an answer for her situation in San Jose, God had healed her.
Imagine joining the part that tries to turn children into transsexuals because you don't like some of the creationists.
-_-
What about this debate had to do with democrats or republicans?🤨
When ken ham said theres nothing that could change his mind, it had most theist rethink and evaluate creationism. So many left their religion to become critical thinkers because of this debate...
Im happy they didn’t disable the comments.
For The first 8 or so years it was off.
This was a very useful source for my debate paper, thank you!
Maybe you should read the Lincoln/Douglas debate. Nye/Ham was a show, like pro wrestling with Nye as the Heel.
Nothing was debated. Nye stated facts and ham lied, as always.
@@Johnsmith-hp6tw Nein, they both had compelling arguments.
@@WildAchiever "arguments" are irrelevant. Facts matter. Evolution is a fact. No debate exists.
@@Johnsmith-hp6tw Nye stated hypothesis, not facts. Facts are proven, nothing about evolution has been proven...
The purpose of a “debate” is to come to some conclusion on who is right and who isn’t…in my view Ken’s logic is all by faith and Bills was what we can touch. Very good job gentleman!!!!
Bill Nye also had a faith based argument. He can't prove any of his arguments with first hand testimony. All he can do is speculate based in evidence. Christians interpret based on the historical texts of the bible.
You might not believe the testimony of scripture, but then it's your job to prove how it's a bad historical document, not how it contradicts science. Science claims to know how our universe formed, and is unwilling to consider the possibility for supernatural creation.
Christianity claims to know how the universe formed based on the word of God.
The question you must then ask yourself is this, "do you trust other humans to interpret evidence correctly if you're on trial for a murder you didn't commit? This is important, because if most people can look at true facts about a murder case, and come to a false conclusion, then how can you say that conclusions drawn about the universe and about life based on evidence alone can be trustworthy?
The only way you can know for a shadow of a doubt what happened when it comes to a murder case or anything else, you must rely on somebody who was there. Christians say that God was, and he told us the truth about his creation.
you can touch....billions of years....or, what are you referrencing you can touch?
Sure!!!! Pick up a rock
@@josuemoran676 carbon dating
@@josuemoran676 radioactive isotope dating allows us to know the age of things millions of years old with staggering accuracy.
I love how much of a teacher bill is. Before stating his opinion he explained/ gave a mini lesson on the theory of thermo dynamics
I think this quote from Gervais sums this up perfectly: Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book… and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result.
Yeah because of observational science though, it would still have flaws in the world by which occurrences in the past arent explainable or recreated
It just sounds like you’re religious about science. The majority of scientific published research can’t be replicated. And, the way you’re portraying science as giving some kind of objective truth simply misunderstands science which is constantly disproving itself and doesn’t make the claim of itself that you are of it. The point about destroying a holy book is a really meaningless statement. I don’t get this.
Respectfully, This is a basic misunderstanding of science. Science doenst prove. In fact, scientific proof doesn’t exist in a literal form. Science is the act of forming speculation based on evidence around us. Now to reply to the Geravis quote, it is a quote of assumption. Assuming any holy book didn’t exist and claiming an outcome is speculation, and obviously it can’t be proven. It’s odd how so much of the argument against faith is based on speculation and assumptions, especially since these are things atheists condemn. But that’s just a respectful observation, not meaning to offend anyone
@@stevenlacey9462if it can’t be replicated it isn’t considered valid.
Quote isn't great because it assumes religious texts are not true in the first place. If they are true, some form of the religion would remain.
I absolutely love how Bill Nye always repeats that Ken Ham follows the bible “as translated in English.” He’s subtley pointing to the fact that so much has been lost or mistranslated. Love Bill Nye!
The Bible is not mistranslated. I will admit that we don't always experience the full intention that the authors were trying to get to the audience but that does not mean it isn't true or accurate. For example there are many different words for love in greek, philia, eros, storge and agape and they each represent different types of love. We still translate it as love. John 3:16 says, "'For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Despite our rebellion against God he still loves us!
@jadonzero but thats what mistranslation means?
@@bergenlunde7022 Well mistranslation would mean it is incorrectly translated. The word is still love."Eros" is sexual love whereas "philia" is brotherly love (Where we get philadelphia the city of brotherly love) All mean love but when we study the original writing we can further explore the text. Romans 5:8 says, "But Got shows his love for us that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." The word used in this verse is "agapen" for love which is the ultimate form of love that is an unconditional choice to love. If we trust in Jesus nothing will ever separate us from Gods perfect limitless love!
You know you can read a copy from 600 ad that is fully written in Hebrew.
Actually, I'm sure Ken knows the Hebrew text which is a part of why he brings a wonderfully made debate. Hey Bill, some of us read Hebrew
The best counter argument against you weren't there, would be... You were neither
Of course we weren’t, but God was. And He made it easy for us by telling us.
Science is constantly testing and will change with new data. It is always trying to prove itself wrong. The Bible just proclaims things that should not be questioned and can't be tested.
You just accept these things because a religious book says it? How can you think this is comparable?
But Larry King probably was
Ken presenting a video to prove his point.
Video person:”hi, genesis is true….besides, I’m the reincarnation of Napoleon”.
Ken:”see? This proves my point”
Bill Nye - If you go outside and take a look around there is your evidence or if we don't know we will admit we don't know and currently working on finding out which is what scientific discovery is about
Ken Ham - See we got this book
There is no evidence that the earth is millions of years.
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 There is sooooo much evidence. You have to put down the only book you have ever read and pick up a different one to find it though.
@@Factchekka What evidence?
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 Did you even listen to the debate Dude? Bill Nye covered a lot of ground there. He even brought physical evidence with him in the form of a fossil.
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 yes there is. Look it up.
One thing we can all agree on. Bill is not satisfied!
Neither are the entire Academic world.
If you are having trouble spotting fallacies in debates, watch more Ken Ham videos.
I thought he said his name was “ Canned Ham” and now I can’t unhear it.
Canned ham is what his brain is made of !