Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD

  • Thread starter Thread starter 777ShesinHisHands777
  • Start date Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Angela53510 said:
I think it was a draw. Ham was good in his initial presentation, but he should have hammered the DNA evidence. Sticking to a 6000 year model of creation turned me off to his presentation. Esp. if the flood was 2000 years after creation. Both Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations existed 5000 years ago, well before the flood date Ham would have needed. He also missed the development of language - springing spontaneously out of no where in diverse civilizations. Ham should have been content with a 10,000 year model, instead of Bishop Ussher's creation of the world at 4004 BC. (Hebrew usage of the word "father" can include grandfather or many generations - hence the difficulty with adding up the life times of those mentioned in the genealogies!)

I believe in a short earth creation, but Ham didn't convince me.

As for Nye, he was all over the place. He was very clever mixing politics into the discussion, and how creation would ruin science and inventions, despite all the examples Ham gave of creation scientists inventing things. He also stonewalled any attempt to make him into an atheist. Agnosticism was the closest he came to admitting his religious beliefs. He had a lot of facts, but no coherent presentation of how the world came into being, or how life started. And he admitted as much! But life was a "joy" to discover.

Like Ham said, what was the point of living and discovering, if there was nothing after this life?

All, in all, I was rather disappointed!
Click to expand...

Bill Nye's frequent scare tactic was we need science (and by implication, we need evolution?) but he stopped short of saying the creationists are anti science, anti invention and will cause the USA to fall by the way side. That was a scare tactic. The debate was not on the future of America but on Creation vs. evolution.

Bill Nye tried to humor the crowd which is a fair tactic. Ham was short and direct with little rhetoric that could of helped him. I think Nye chose Ham as an easy pigeon to knock off with his young earth stance. Too bad Nye did not get a better opponent. The evidence does support an old earth. For example most stars are much farther away than 6000 light years.
 
Tr said:
Bill is not afraid to say "I don't know"
Click to expand...

If he doesn't know how the universe came into existence or how life came into existence, then he has absolutely no basis to conclude that creationism is false.
 
It was all predictable,except Hams knowledge of science + scripture far exceeded Nye's knowledge of science + scripture. Nye misrepresented scripture on a number of counts.
 
danschance said:
1) DNA is protien but you need DNA to make protien.
Click to expand...

Proteins are made up of amino acids and are usually single chains, although it can be folded into other shapes. DNA differs in its chemical composition and is double-stranded.
 
I guess I was also annoyed that Nye kept saying that the Bible was an old, antiquated book translated into American English. Excuse me?? At least Ham didn't take that bait. It was so old and rotten, no one would have!
 
Well, I speak Canadian English. Funny how my American Bible comes out in my mouth with a Canadian accent.

I also wondered if he was baiting KJV only people.
 
danschance said:
Bill Nye's frequent scare tactic was we need science (and by implication, we need evolution?) but he stopped short of saying the creationists are anti science, anti invention and will cause the USA to fall by the way side. That was a scare tactic. The debate was not on the future of America but on Creation vs. evolution.

Bill Nye tried to humor the crowd which is a fair tactic. Ham was short and direct with little rhetoric that could of helped him. I think Nye chose Ham as an easy pigeon to knock off with his young earth stance. Too bad Nye did not get a better opponent. The evidence does support an old earth. For example most stars are much farther away than 6000 light years.
Click to expand...

Why should we abandon scripture for old earth creationism?
 
Ken Ham isn't a great debater, he repeats himself to much and sometimes doesn't argue his case well but he's a good public speaker. Bill Nye also isn't a great debater and often uses strange political and other unrelated material in his talks, but he's very charismatic and humorous and that will probably count for more. I've almost finished watching the debate. I'm surprised by Ham. I'm a YEC but Answers in Genesis, and especially Creation Ministries International, have exceptional resources that do a much better job of arguing a biblical creation worldview.
 
Angela53510 said:
I think it was a draw. Ham was good in his initial presentation, but he should have hammered the DNA evidence. Sticking to a 6000 year model of creation turned me off to his presentation. Esp. if the flood was 2000 years after creation. Both Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations existed 5000 years ago, well before the flood date Ham would have needed. He also missed the development of language - springing spontaneously out of no where in diverse civilizations. Ham should have been content with a 10,000 year model, instead of Bishop Ussher's creation of the world at 4004 BC. (Hebrew usage of the word "father" can include grandfather or many generations - hence the difficulty with adding up the life times of those mentioned in the genealogies!)

I believe in a short earth creation, but Ham didn't convince me.

As for Nye, he was all over the place. He was very clever mixing politics into the discussion, and how creation would ruin science and inventions, despite all the examples Ham gave of creation scientists inventing things. He also stonewalled any attempt to make him into an atheist. Agnosticism was the closest he came to admitting his religious beliefs. He had a lot of facts, but no coherent presentation of how the world came into being, or how life started. And he admitted as much! But life was a "joy" to discover.

Like Ham said, what was the point of living and discovering, if there was nothing after this life?

All, in all, I was rather disappointed!
Click to expand...

Isn't that date determined by humanists? Therefore they'll have a different dating system. As for languages, the Tower of Babel involved the scattering of nations and the beginning of more than one language. As for the difficulties concerning genealogies, I've never thought about it like that - it's certainly an intriguing possibility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought it was very annoying when Nye kept repeating that we needed science ( who was debating that?) and that the bible was an old book translated into English (relevance?).
 
Tintin said:
Isn't that date determined by humanists? Therefore they'll have a different dating system.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this bit wasn't so well-thought out. I've been a 6,000 year biblical creationist, but I'm open to considering creation being up to 10,000 years old.

I'm 2 hours, 20mins into the debate. How much longer does it go for?
 
Nye stepped on himself when he was talking about the bacteria in the cows stomach 'deciding to split'.
Since when do bacteria decide anything?
 
Tintin said:
Sorry, this bit wasn't so well-thought out. I've been a 6,000 year biblical creationist, but I'm open to considering creation being up to 10,000 years old.

I'm 2 hours, 20mins into the debate. How much longer does it go for?
Click to expand...

10 more min
 
crossnote said:
10 more min
Click to expand...

Thanks, Crossnote.

Bill Nye seems to be stumbling with the belief of interpreting different books in the Bible within the context they're written. So silly! Doesn't he do that with everything he watches, listens to, reads etc? Don't we all do that? Why then doesn't context matter when we're talking about the Bible?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back