Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD

[Veritas]

From dictionary dot com:

abiogenesis. the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter; also, the archaic theory that utilizes this process to explain the origin of life.

Sorry, but just because you say it is substantively different doesn't mean it is. That isn't an ad hominem statement at all.

Evolution may - in your mind - be constrained to living matter changing into entirely different species of living matter, but what is taught is that life arose from a primordial soup, and as Nye said many times, adds increasing complexity as time goes on. Abiogenesis is living matter arising from non living matter. Now we have to define life, don't we?

Just because you contain many of the same chemical and organic compounds as a rock, you are not a rock. Right?

BTW, Ham did fail to completely total Nye, and he did have enough opportunity to do so.

 

[Stinger]

If you don't mean to talk down to me then propose to me an argument that addresses the context at hand rather than assume to tell me that I don't understand the topic. Ad hominem arguments might win points with a young Earth crowd but I'm not them.

Hello Jhana,

There are some things that simply take a long time just to get to a basic level of understanding. This is a multi-faceted topic with each facet having its own learning curve. Here are a few areas to be investigated: various indicators for the age of the earth, the complexity of life on a cellular level (even a single-cell organism is incredibly complex), probability and statistics with regard to obtaining a highly ordered system from a disordered one, evidence for a world-wide flood, etc. Any one of these would take a lot of time.

For example, did you know that most geo-chronological indicators (different physical processes which can be used in an attempt to age the earth) indicate an age far less than a billion years, and many of these are in the range of a few million years or less - some much less. Popular science only promotes the ones (perhaps 10% of the total) which indicate long ages. Why is that?

We now have a much better understanding of cellular complexity than we did when evolution was 1st proposed and promoted. This really raises the question of how all this complexity came to be. And to attribute this to random processes over long periods of time imposes a burden that physics just cannot support.

The evidence for a world-wide flood (and when/how it may have occurred) can also be researched.

To learn about any of this would take you a fair amount of time. You could start looking at websites (perhaps like Ken Ham's AnswersInGenesis) for the different ways the earth can be dated, and the results indicated, and the assumptions behind each, and evidence for Noah's flood. If you took even a single semester of basic college biology, you should come away with a pretty good appreciation for the complexity of a cell, though that also could be learned through online research. To get a relatively decent handle on the physics (like the 2nd law of thermodynamics) would take longer, but I might could walk you through a simple thought experiment which should get the general jist of the uphill battle evolution faces when it claims that order can come from disorder via chance. Even trying to get order in a relatively simple system by random chance is a real eye-opener. Just realize that no one is going to be able to do justice to this topic in a single post, and I certainly have limited time. Most of this is stuff you need to research on your own, and unless you are willing to put forth the effort to seriously consider it, it will just be a waste of time, which is why other than possibly walking you through a simple statistical example, I'm not going to try to prove this all to you - the evidence is already out there on the web if you are willing to dig for it.

 

[PennEd]

Yeah, this is a guy is somebody who we should listen to on science and creation issues! NOT!!!!


Oopsie, Bill Nye, That ‘Science Guy’, Confuses The Arctic With The Antarctic During ‘Climate Debate’ | Weasel Zippers

 

[Jhana]

Hello Jhana,

There are some things that simply take a long time just to get to a basic level of understanding. This is a multi-faceted topic with each facet having its own learning curve. Here are a few areas to be investigated: various indicators for the age of the earth, the complexity of life on a cellular level (even a single-cell organism is incredibly complex), probability and statistics with regard to obtaining a highly ordered system from a disordered one, evidence for a world-wide flood, etc. Any one of these would take a lot of time.

For example, did you know that most geo-chronological indicators (different physical processes which can be used in an attempt to age the earth) indicate an age far less than a billion years, and many of these are in the range of a few million years or less - some much less. Popular science only promotes the ones (perhaps 10% of the total) which indicate long ages. Why is that?

We now have a much better understanding of cellular complexity than we did when evolution was 1st proposed and promoted. This really raises the question of how all this complexity came to be. And to attribute this to random processes over long periods of time imposes a burden that physics just cannot support.

The evidence for a world-wide flood (and when/how it may have occurred) can also be researched.

To learn about any of this would take you a fair amount of time. You could start looking at websites (perhaps like Ken Ham's AnswersInGenesis) for the different ways the earth can be dated, and the results indicated, and the assumptions behind each, and evidence for Noah's flood. If you took even a single semester of basic college biology, you should come away with a pretty good appreciation for the complexity of a cell, though that also could be learned through online research. To get a relatively decent handle on the physics (like the 2nd law of thermodynamics) would take longer, but I might could walk you through a simple thought experiment which should get the general jist of the uphill battle evolution faces when it claims that order can come from disorder via chance. Even trying to get order in a relatively simple system by random chance is a real eye-opener. Just realize that no one is going to be able to do justice to this topic in a single post, and I certainly have limited time. Most of this is stuff you need to research on your own, and unless you are willing to put forth the effort to seriously consider it, it will just be a waste of time, which is why other than possibly walking you through a simple statistical example, I'm not going to try to prove this all to you - the evidence is already out there on the web if you are willing to dig for it.

I took biology, physics and chemistry.

I understand how complex protein is, never-mind a fully formed strand of DNA, but you still haven't given me an argument supporting the idea of a 6,000 year old Earth the way other scientific methods can prove that it's older than that. And you still haven't given me a scientific argument to suggest life can't form from chemicals. All you've done is tell me how magnificently unlikely it is, and how I wouldn't be able to understand it if you did give me an argument.

The chemicals and compounds needed for life have been on the Earth for a very long time. The means for life is already there. Taking the law of probability in an infinite universe into account, it isn't unlikely that life would form, it's certain.

You gave me an argument about spontaneous generation being a flawed idea and failed to acknowledge the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. I support the theory that the latter can happen. The former is fairly preposterous.

My second point is this. To take the view that the Earth is 6000 years old, means that God created the stars and heavens within a week, six thousand years ago. That means that the moon, planets and stars are also only 6000 years old, by this account.

Now, we know that light takes millions of lightyears to travel from some stars to Earth, simply by their distance. So if the stars were made 6000 years ago, how do you account for the light from said stars having traveled for billions of years within a 6000 year period? Does the light travel faster than light everywhere in the universe except Earth?

 

[Huckleberry]

I understand how complex protein is, never-mind a fully formed strand of DNA, but you still haven't given me an argument supporting the idea of a 6,000 year old Earth the way other scientific methods can prove that it's older than that. And you still haven't given me a scientific argument to suggest life can't form from chemicals. All you've done is tell me how magnificently unlikely it is, and how I wouldn't be able to understand it if you did give me an argument.

The chemicals and compounds needed for life have been on the Earth for a very long time. The means for life is already there. Taking the law of probability in an infinite universe into account, it isn't unlikely that life would form, it's certain.

You gave me an argument about spontaneous generation being a flawed idea and failed to acknowledge the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. I support the theory that the latter can happen. The former is fairly preposterous.

So, in a nutshell, matter went from hydrogen to human all by itself, right?
And this self-engineering of the DNA code was inevitable?
And you're hereby declaring the universe to be infinite?
Stop me if I'm off-base here. I don't want to put words in your mouth.

My second point is this. To take the view that the Earth is 6000 years old, means that God created the stars and heavens within a week, six thousand years ago. That means that the moon, planets and stars are also only 6000 years old, by this account.

Now, we know that light takes millions of lightyears to travel from some stars to Earth, simply by their distance. So if the stars were made 6000 years ago, how do you account for the light from said stars having traveled for billions of years within a 6000 year period? Does the light travel faster than light everywhere in the universe except Earth?

Are you sincerely trying to find answers to your questions,
or are you here to argue for the sake of argument?
Everything you're addressing has already been hashed out all over the internet.

 

[PennEd]

I took biology, physics and chemistry.

I understand how complex protein is, never-mind a fully formed strand of DNA, but you still haven't given me an argument supporting the idea of a 6,000 year old Earth the way other scientific methods can prove that it's older than that. And you still haven't given me a scientific argument to suggest life can't form from chemicals. All you've done is tell me how magnificently unlikely it is, and how I wouldn't be able to understand it if you did give me an argument.

The chemicals and compounds needed for life have been on the Earth for a very long time. The means for life is already there. Taking the law of probability in an infinite universe into account, it isn't unlikely that life would form, it's certain.

You gave me an argument about spontaneous generation being a flawed idea and failed to acknowledge the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. I support the theory that the latter can happen. The former is fairly preposterous.

My second point is this. To take the view that the Earth is 6000 years old, means that God created the stars and heavens within a week, six thousand years ago. That means that the moon, planets and stars are also only 6000 years old, by this account.

Now, we know that light takes millions of lightyears to travel from some stars to Earth, simply by their distance. So if the stars were made 6000 years ago, how do you account for the light from said stars having traveled for billions of years within a 6000 year period? Does the light travel faster than light everywhere in the universe except Earth?

I've already answered this question. You either didn't see it or refuse to accept the possibility.

There are 2 possibilities for your question.

The 1st is that God created a built in age of the light, similar to how a newly created Adam would appear to be a full grown adult man. No Christian I know thinks Adam was an infant when 1st created.

The second is the possibility that the speed of light may not have always been constant. Just because you have been dutifully taught that it is doesn't make it so. One thing is certain. No one measured it at the beginning of time.

Please try not to be so close-minded.

 

[Tintin]

The universe is expanding. That would account for a lot in terms of outer space activity and aging them.

 

[Jhana]

I've already answered this question. You either didn't see it or refuse to accept the possibility.

There are 2 possibilities for your question.

The 1st is that God created a built in age of the light, similar to how a newly created Adam would appear to be a full grown adult man. No Christian I know thinks Adam was an infant when 1st created.

The second is the possibility that the speed of light may not have always been constant. Just because you have been dutifully taught that it is doesn't make it so. One thing is certain. No one measured it at the beginning of time.

Please try not to be so close-minded.

'A built in age of the light'? Really?

Look. Light comes from these stars, which are some billions of miles away. We know they are billions of miles away because gometry and the earth's orbit allow us to take measurements at 6 month intervals, when the Earth is at opposite sides of the sun, thus we are 180 degrees apart at each measurement. By looking at the stars through a telescope and using astronomical knowledge to track the stars' positions at 6 month intervals, we can determine their distance from us, and knowing the speed of light, we can then estimate how long the light from a given star takes to travel here.

Some are billions of lightyears away, and they keep getting further, which means that the light, as time passes, is taking longer and longer and longer to reach us. Currently, we know that light from some of these stars has taken millions of years to get here, thus in reality, the star is actually much, much further away at this present moment in time (since the universe is expanding), but it takes so so long for the light to reach us that what we see in the sky is actually light from millions of years into the past.

Visible light's speed is constant in a vacuum. If you understand what light essentially is, this will become evident to you. Visible light is basically an electromagnetic radiation, and all electromagnetic radiation travels at the same speed. If electromagnetic radiation was not at a constant speed, that would violate the established laws of physics.

Once you understand the concept that we are looking at light from millions of years ago, judging by the distance that we can CURRENTLY see the star at, and once you realize that because that light is millions of years old, the star is actually much, much further away than what we can currently see, then the idea of a 6000 year old universe becomes somewhat ridiculous.

 

[Stinger]

'A built in age of the light'? Really?

Look. ...

Once you understand the concept that we are looking at light from millions of years ago, judging by the distance that we can CURRENTLY see the star at, and once you realize that because that light is millions of years old, the star is actually much, much further away than what we can currently see, then the idea of a 6000 year old universe becomes somewhat ridiculous.

Hello Jhana,

I'm actually not a fan of the "built in age of light' theory myself, but do you understand how relativistic theory might(?) be applied during a creation event? Time is relative, and time need not have progressed uniformly during a creation event. It could be that the earth is thousands of years old, and much of the universe millions (or billions) of years old, yet all were created during the creation week. So, what would it mean to have the fabric of space itself expanding outward with a highly nonuniform mass distribution? Would the center of this event have experienced a vastly different (perhaps much slower) propagation of time? These are things we can't grasp, for no one can pull the universe (and space itself) back in to investigate. So there is far more than we will ever be able to discern about any creation event. We simply can't know what all may have happened, so I wouldn't be so quick to assume that appearance of old age of distant objects (and perhaps an actual old age for them) is proof that everything is that same old age.

 

[Jhana]

Hello Jhana,

I'm actually not a fan of the "built in age of light' theory myself, but do you understand how relativistic theory might(?) be applied during a creation event? Time is relative, and time need not have progressed uniformly during a creation event. It could be that the earth is thousands of years old, and much of the universe millions (or billions) of years old, yet all were created during the creation week. So, what would it mean to have the fabric of space itself expanding outward with a highly nonuniform mass distribution? Would the center of this event have experienced a vastly different (perhaps much slower) propagation of time? These are things we can't grasp, for no one can pull the universe (and space itself) back in to investigate. So there is far more than we will ever be able to discern about any creation event. We simply can't know what all may have happened, so I wouldn't be so quick to assume that appearance of old age of distant objects (and perhaps an actual old age for them) is proof that everything is that same old age.

First of all, what you theorize is that the Earth was the center of the universe. The universe has no 'center'. Second of all, '7 days' are seven 24 hour periods of time. How can you have the first couple of days being stars and universe creation (billions of years) and then the majority of those days 6000 years ago all at once?

Personally, having studied this kind of thing as a hobby, and then in my education, I just don't see how the Earth can be 6000 years old. It takes a lot of unfounded theorizing and contradicting what the majority of astrophysicists, geologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, astronomers, molecular biologists, physics experts and mathematicians say.

I just don't see it.

The Hebrew word for day, 'yom', can mean 'age'. I think that's a more rational explanation, given the evidence.

 

[Percepi]

I've already answered this question. You either didn't see it or refuse to accept the possibility.

There are 2 possibilities for your question.

The 1st is that God created a built in age of the light, similar to how a newly created Adam would appear to be a full grown adult man. No Christian I know thinks Adam was an infant when 1st created.

The second is the possibility that the speed of light may not have always been constant. Just because you have been dutifully taught that it is doesn't make it so. One thing is certain. No one measured it at the beginning of time.

Please try not to be so close-minded.

Those are possibilities, but we can't claim these to be scientific truths unless we have evidence to support these claims (evidence that fits the scientific method model).

 

[PennEd]

Those are possibilities, but we can't claim these to be scientific truths unless we have evidence to support these claims (evidence that fits the scientific method model).

Here ya go.

Speed of light may not be constant, physicists say | Fox News

 

[Jhana]

Here ya go.

Speed of light may not be constant, physicists say | Fox News

the proposed differences are tiny. We know light behaves differently in different mediums. It's nothing new. This article is talking about a differential of 0.005 femtoseconds in different vacuum conditions. That's 0,05 millionths of a billionth of a second per square meter, and it's not applicable all the time either. It makes very little difference.

 

[Denken]

Im happy scientists are staying out of this, its not worth their time. Its a political matter.

 

[Hizikyah]

Fact Check: Did Bill Nye Tell A Huge Lie About The Fossil Layers?

 

[Hizikyah]

Did you get a chance to see the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye “the Science Guy” the other night? It was definitely entertaining. Unfortunately, it didn’t do much to clarify the issues that millions of Americans tuned in to learn more about. In fact, viewers got a lot of information from Bill Nye that simply is not true.

Image: Bill Nye (Wikimedia Commons).

For example, Bill Nye made it sound like science has discovered fossil layers all over the earth that are neatly stacked on top of one another with less evolved creatures in the earlier layers and more advanced creatures in the upper layers. He also made the incredible claim that you cannot find a single fossil which is in the wrong layer. This is such an elementary mistake, and exhibits such a complete ignorance of what the fossil record actually shows, that he should have been laughed off the stage. This is exactly the kind of extreme anti-intellectualism that Nye was supposedly trying to warn people about. Sadly, our society has been so “dumbed down” that there are lots of people out there that will actually believe him.

During the debate, Bill Nye said that if we could find “just one” fossil that was out of place that we could change the world.

Well, apparently he is either completely ignorant or he purposely told a huge lie to the American people.

According to Dr. Donald Burge, the curator of vertebrate paleontology at the College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum, mammal fossils are found in nearly every dinosaur dig that he has ever been associated with…

“We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”

By the way, Dr. Burge is an evolutionist.

Not only that, a whole host of modern creatures have been found in “dinosaur rock layers”. The following is an excerpt from an article by Calvin Smith…

To the surprise of many, ducks,1 squirrels,2 platypus,3beaver-like4 and badger-like5 creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with bees, cockroaches,frogs and pine trees. Most people don’t picture a T. rex walking along with a duck flying overhead, but that’s what the so-called ‘dino-era’ fossils would prove!

In fact, a total of 432 different mammal species have been identified in rock layers containing dinosaurs.

So does that mean that mammals have been around for tens of millions of years?

No, what it could mean is that the way that evolutionists have been dating the dinosaurs is fundamentally flawed.

Most people do not realize this, but T-Rex bones have actually been discovered that still contain soft tissue inside of them.

If those bones truly were “millions of years old” that would be impossible.

And carbon dating also provides strong evidence that the evolutionary timeline is seriously messed up.

Due to the rate that it decays, there should be absolutely no measurable radioactive carbon left in any fossils that are “greater than 100,000 years old”.

No matter how much radioactive carbon was there in the first place, it should be completely gone from anything that was once living after 100,000 years.

But we find it in all of the ancient fossils that we dig up that get tested. We even find it in coal, diamonds and in dinosaur bones.

If Bill Nye wants to believe in the theory of evolution that is his choice. But he should quit calling it “science”. Those that choose to believe in the theory of evolution are choosing to have blind faith in an ancient pagan religious philosophy despite what the scientific evidence actually demonstrates.

If the theory of evolution was actually true, there should be millions upon millions of transitional fossils in the rock layers that show the development of one species into another species.

Instead, we find just the opposite.

But don’t take my word for it. Just check out what one of the most famous evolutionists in the entire world has to say about the matter…

The most famous paleontologist in the world, Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould, said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” (Note” “extreme rarity” is Harvard-speak for “nada, zilch, zippo.”)

So what does the fossil record actually show?

It actually contains remarkable evidence for a sudden creation. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Bryan Fischer…

What the fossil record teaches us, in contrast to the theory of evolution, is that increasingly complex life forms appear fully formed in the fossil record, just as if they were put there by a Creator. This is especially true of what is called the “Pre-Cambrian Explosion,” the vast, overwhelming, and quite sudden appearance of complex life forms at the dawn of time. Evolutionists are at a total loss to explain the Pre-Cambrian Explosion.

The biblical record indicates quite clearly that all things, including increasingly complex life forms, came fully formed from the hand of God.

Thus the fossil record is a powerful argument for the existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer while at the same time being fatal for the theory of evolution.

Science is supposed to be about what you can observe, but nobody has ever seen Darwinian evolution take place. You cannot see it in the fossil record and you cannot see it in the laboratory.

Just consider this quote from evolutionary microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago…

“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular systems, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

And consider this one from University of Bristol scientist Alan Linton…

“Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.”

For much more on all of this, please see my previous article entitled “44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults“.

Once again, please feel free to believe whatever you want to believe. Bill Nye certainly does and Pat Robertson certainly does. I definitely strongly disagree with both of them.

But I hope that everyone out there will quit claiming that evolution is a “proven fact” like Bill Nye has been claiming.

He is only embarrassing himself in front of the entire country.

And the truth is that Bill Nye even admits that there is a vast array of things about human origins that he does not know. Here is more from Bryan Fischer…

Where did the atoms that made up the Big Bang come from? Nye has no idea. Where did man’s consciousness come from? Nye has no idea. How can matter produce life? Nye has absolutely no idea. This surely is all one needs to know to recognize the utter bankruptcy of the theory of evolution.

In the end, by making a ridiculous spectacle of himself and mocking Christianity, Bill Nye is actually fulfilling Bible prophecy. The following was written nearly 2000 years ago…

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

Bill Nye can scoff at the Bible all that he wants, but he can never change the truth.

 

[Denken]

Bill Nye never lied during it. if you think he did well, thats another issue. And remember the arguement is whether Creationism is a science, its not. it wasnt about science vs religion. had nothing to do with science really, it was only about whether Creationism/Christianity is Science. If you believe it is, ok then dont get angry when it is attacked by science and you cant say its true its in the bible

 

[danalee]

What's really sad to me is that while we can debate until we're exhausted on this subject, no one will ever be convinced of anything unless they invite God into their lives. I often encourage people to give it one shot, just speak to him, in an honest tone, he will match your faith because you have opened an avenue for him to speak to you. People just don't understand that we are simply not strong enough to handle his splendor and glorious being. He expresses himself in the physical plane through the beauty and design in his creations, and in his designs we remember on a deep level that we are of him. Too much thinking is the parable represented by Eve and the apple. Once we try and conceptualize the world on our own without God's instruction, we become lost as he is too great for our minds to understand. If you don't open yourself to him, he cannot show you his miracles because you wouldn't believe it even if he presented them to you. Life in itself is a miracle, and they are missing and missing it, very sad they can't see.

 

[Tintin]

Yes, Nye lied during the "debate". Also, if religion isn't allowed in the classroom, remove the teaching of evolutionary theory too. That's based on faith, not observable evidence - it's religion. Absolutely.

 

[Denken]

Yes, Nye lied during the "debate". Also, if religion isn't allowed in the classroom, remove the teaching of evolutionary theory too. That's based on faith, not observable evidence - it's religion. Absolutely.

What did he lie about, the other im not ganna try and explain something to someone who doesnt understand what he is saying. It will be a waste of both our time