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.
Bill wins because any real event or science Ken brings up if you do 30 seconds of research on it you will see that it does not fit with what he is saying. His "evidence" comes from a creation scientist but the hypotheses has not been proven or reviewed or published, its just a write-up based on a false idea.

Bill actually brought up a lot of good proof for the subject of age of the earth and The Big Bang Theory.
 
Watch here>>>>>>>> [video=youtube;z6kgvhG3AkI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI#t=8294[/video]
 
When he spoke about the ark being the largest ship ever he misspoke, I saw the discussion it was in line with the primitive people being able to build a larger more durable ship than the Wyoming? ship I think that was the name of the boat that broke apart in the sea due to the construction methods and these were expert ship builders.

danschance said:
Nye is appealing to a logical fallacy of experience. He states the ark was extraordinary to the point it could not be built. He has stated that Noah did not have the proper know how to build such an extraordinary boat. Is the ark really extraordinary? Nye stated the ark is the largest ship ever built-and that is plain false. The length of the ark was 512 feet long. The Sea Giant, oil tanker is 1,507 feet long. So Bill Nye's facts are exaggerated.

It was built over 120 years by 8 men or 960 man-years or 350400 man-days. That would be enough to build 2 aircraft carriers.

Bill Nye also pointed to a Zoo and stated how large the zoo is as if animals need the entire space to live. Zoo space includes walk ways, streets, parking lots, restaurants, bath rooms, gift shops and staff facilities. I imagine 40% of a zoo is for humans. So again Nye is exaggerating his facts.
Click to expand...
 
Tr said:
Bill wins because any real event or science Ken brings up if you do 30 seconds of research on it you will see that it does not fit with what he is saying. His "evidence" comes from a creation scientist but the hypotheses has not been proven or reviewed or published, its just a write-up based on a false idea.

Bill actually brought up a lot of good proof for the subject of age of the earth and The Big Bang Theory.
Click to expand...

There is no room for critical thought in secular science. It's evolutionary theory or nothing. There's no room for critical discussion because there's no other option provided. That's disingenuous. Therefore, science journals won't accept creation-based science articles because they don't align with their humanistic worldview, and therefore they won't publish them. They want to push their evolutionary agenda as the only option and they do it well. With biblical literacy on the rise and evolution being taught as fact, the religion of naturalism finds its foothold much more easily and even many Christians begin to take to believing man's reason over God's revelation, as found in the Bible.
 
Finally Ham is speaking on DNA, the Achilles heel of evolution.
 
Another lame thing Nye is doing is his constant reference to "Ken Ham's model". That is just childish.
 
Tr said:
Bill wins because any real event or science Ken brings up if you do 30 seconds of research on it you will see that it does not fit with what he is saying. His "evidence" comes from a creation scientist but the hypotheses has not been proven or reviewed or published, its just a write-up based on a false idea.

Bill actually brought up a lot of good proof for the subject of age of the earth and The Big Bang Theory.
Click to expand...

Evolution and the big bang are just writings and ideas from man based on a hypothesis that has not been proven.
 
Tr said:
When he spoke about the ark being the largest ship ever he misspoke, I saw the discussion it was in line with the primitive people being able to build a larger more durable ship than the Wyoming? ship I think that was the name of the boat that broke apart in the sea due to the construction methods and these were expert ship builders.
Click to expand...

It is your belief that people were primitive and then increased in intelligence. The biblical creation worldview is that God created humans fully-formed, complete in intelligence and with no sin and consequences of sin (death, disease, injury etc.) So due to the effects of sin and its destruction on the human bloodline, due to DNA mutations - the reality is that people started off more intelligent and completely sinless; then over the course of human history, fell into sin and became less and less intelligent. Absolutely, Noah and his family could've built the Ark! So-called primitive people weren't so primitive after all. It wasn't aliens that helped humanity. The crazy-amazing ancient evidence we have for the genius of man (much of it in the form of architecture) testifies to the reality of the Bible.

Again, for a Christian, you sure seem to have a remarkably low view of your foundational faith text - the Bible.
 
Tr said:
You clearly do not understand evolution.
Click to expand...

In other words, anyone who doesn't blindly accept the preachings of the evolutionists is not smart enough to understand evolution, and is therefore wrong. You clearly do not understand the logical and rational reasons for why we reject the idea of evolution.
 
Tintin said:
Again, for a Christian, you sure seem to have a remarkably low view of your foundational faith text - the Bible.
Click to expand...

Psst... Christians don't vehemently oppose the Bible in favor of purely anti-Christian doctrine.
 
Tintin said:
I know that, but his profile says he's a Christian. You would think that would mean something.
Click to expand...

You'd think, but at the same time you know there are many people that claim to be followers of Christ and are not (and the Bible even tells us about this). Another appropriate phrase here would be actions speak louder than words.
 
Tintin said:
It is your belief that people were primitive and then increased in intelligence. The biblical creation worldview is that God created humans fully-formed, complete in intelligence and with no sin and consequences of sin (death, disease, injury etc.) So due to the effects of sin and its destruction on the human bloodline, due to DNA mutations - the reality is that people started off more intelligent and completely sinless; then over the course of human history, fell into sin and became less and less intelligent. Absolutely, Noah and his family could've built the Ark! So-called primitive people weren't so primitive after all. It wasn't aliens that helped humanity. The crazy-amazing ancient evidence we have for the genius of man (much of it in the form of architecture) testifies to the reality of the Bible.

Again, for a Christian, you sure seem to have a remarkably low view of your foundational faith text - the Bible.
Click to expand...

Thanks! Like was not good enough.
 
Ken Ham is an embarrassment to Australia.

I think we should officially disown him in the most harshest way: Let's claim he's actually from New Zealand.

When we say he's actually form NZ.... then people would be like: "Ahhh that's explains a lot. Say no more. "
 
Tr said:
You clearly do not understand evolution.
Click to expand...
Clearly you do not know simple facts about evolution.

1) DNA is protien but you need DNA to make protien.

2) DNA is so large and complex that scientists claim it is impossible for it to spontaneously evolve.

3) DNA is a self correction code that makes variation with outside a species unlikely.

Perhaps you can try something new, like reading on DNA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
David_1 said:
Ken Ham is an embarrassment to Australia.

I think we should officially disown him in the most harshest way: Let's claim he's actually from New Zealand.

When we say he's actually form NZ.... then people would be like: "Ahhh that's explains a lot. Say no more. "
Click to expand...

I agree. Ken Ham's instance on a young earth and his faith in the bible does not win a debate. He needs facts. Bill Nye, a person I like also did poorly. I would give each a "D".
 
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!
 
They need a format where each side can answer the other side's points.
Instead one side gave a litany of points, and the one responding addressed few, or even none.

Cut the intro speeches to 10 minutes, then use the rest of the time for assertion vs assertion back and forth.

What you end up with is both camps thinking they won, simply because the other side didn't have the time to answer every point. And the speakers can dodge points by claiming they don't have enough time to answer.

It's too bad the debate format was lacking. These were two equally smart people who could have really had a point for point back and forth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back