Thoughts on the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham Creationism Debate

Last night, Bill Nye the Science Guy and Ken Ham the Creation Man debated the question, “Is creationism a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” I was happy the “great creationism debate” happened, but I have mixed feelings about how it turned out. ((Disclaimer: The following article is long, and it contains lots of references to philosophical concepts. Sorry.))

First, it wasn’t really much of a debate. Both sides had important points to emphasize and ideas to present, but there was little dialogue between the two worldviews. Questions asked by one side to the other were left unanswered, and all in all the debate afforded ample fodder for confirmation bias—and little else.

The main arguments of the debate ran like this: Bill Nye emphasized that consensus science done “on the outside” was based on methodical observation and evidence, that the distinction made by Ken Ham between observational and historical science was invalid, and that the future of technological innovation in America depended on students being free from the ideological prejudices of religious sentiment. His main, relatively unaddressed, question for Ken Ham was, “What scientific predictions has creationism made that could not have been made from an evolutionary perspective?”

Ken Ham emphasized that observational science and the available evidence was exactly the same for both evolutionists and creationists, that the terms science and evolution had been preclusively defined (“hijacked”) by “secularists,” that there was a distinction between observational science in the present and “historical science” concerning the past, and that the question of origins for both evolutionists and creationists was a question of authority (the word of man vs. the Word of God) rather than one based on evidential claims or observational science. Ham’s main, relatively unaddressed, question for Bill Nye was, “How does an evolutionary perspective account for the existence of laws of logic, the consistency of natural laws, or the reliability of the scientific method?”

I thought both presentations were somewhat muddled, though Nye appeared to have been far less prepared than Ham. It was obvious that Ham and Nye had very different foundations, but the foundations were only briefly discussed by Ham in the beginning and were largely taken for granted by Nye. This was frustrating.

My background is in philosophy of science, and if there is one crucial aspect of my education that I wish I could plant in the minds of every American, it is this: “The scientific method cannot be its own philosophical foundation. As a method, it requires an ideological, non-verifiable starting point from which to operate. In other words, the foundation of science can not be, strictly speaking, scientific.”

The classic blunder of materialists/naturalists is that they have assumed that metaphysical claims and assumptions are not necessary for the operation of observational science. A classic example of this blunder occurred earlier last century when prominent materialist philosophers developed the main tenet of Logical Positivism: “Synthetic metaphysical claims, being observationally unverifiable, are not cognitively meaningful.”

Let me unpack this. What the Logical Positivists meant, and what most materialists/naturalists that have followed them still believe, is that if a truth claim is not analytically self-affirming (e.g., “All bachelors are unmarried.”), it must be verifiable by the scientific method in order to be meaningful. Put simply, materialists believe that any statement about the outside world that cannot be verified by the senses is meaningless. So, for instance, naturalists believe that this statement—“God is an invisible spirit.”—is meaningless.

That doesn’t mean they are saying that metaphysical truth claims are necessarily hurtful or bad, though some would go that far. But materialists would claim that metaphysical claims do not contribute to our body of meaningful knowledge because they are not definitionally self-affirming (i.e., it is a synthetic, not analytic, truth claim) and they are also not verifiable through the scientific method. Logical positivists believed, and most modern materialists including Bill Nye still believe, that empirical observations couched in sound logic are the only valid or meaningful claims of truth.

Poetry and art may be beautiful, religion may have its place for the imagination and a personal ethic, but truth and knowledge, say the materialists, must be left entirely to logic and empirical observations. Truth and knowledge, then, are for scientists and logicians (and only scientists and logicians) to determine. ((Let me say as an aside that even though Logical Positivism was largely discredited in the mid-20th century—most notably by the Incompleteness Theorems of the inimitable Kurt Godël and the common sense of detractors—, most scientists and most Americans still implicitly hold to its specific brand of philosophical naturalism. They just don’t call it that anymore for the most part.))

But there is one major problem with the first and most major tenet of naturalism. Have you detected it? It completely fails its own test! Look at it again: “Synthetic metaphysical claims, being observationally unverifiable, are not cognitively meaningful.” Or put more simply to prove a point: “All metaphysical claims are meaningless.” What is that statement? A synthetic metaphysical claim. Is it observationally verifiable? No, not definitively. So, by its own test, the main tenet of materialism fails. The main truth claim of Logical Positivism, on which everything in atheist science rests, is by its own test—meaningless.

What does that mean? That there is no path to truth? No. It means that truth, if it exists, must lie beyond logic and observation. It means that metaphysical claims and assumptions, interpretive frameworks and presuppositions, come before evidence—they inform logic and observation. The scientific method cannot operate in a vacuum, just like a geometric “proof” cannot function without prevenient definitions—called axioms. There are fundamental questions, like the nature and origins of reality, which will not and cannot be decided after you have looked at the evidence because the axioms—the framework—of your interpretation are necessary before you can make any sense of evidence.

Evidential claims are notoriously faulty because of this. You can confirm pretty much anything with the available evidence. It all depends on your starting point. To say you can make sense of data without an already-existent philosophical framework is like saying you can harness electricity without an electrical grid. Before evidence can become fact, it must travel through interpretation. This radically undercuts any claims that scientists may make concerning the neutrality of evidence. The only neutral evidence is unused evidence.

Unfortunately, the rhetorical bias and definitional trickery of modern scientific dogmatism was not questioned in this debate the way it should have been. The fundamental failing of modern science is the mistaken belief that philosophical and ideological foundations are not necessary to properly use the tool of the scientific method. By saying that metaphysical claims are not necessary for the operation of science (that they are “separate” concerns that should not “prejudice” science), scientists have hoodwinked the masses into believing that science is objective and unbiased. It is not. At all. Pre-observational assumptions define the exact limits of what science will and can prove. Science is not founded on science. Scientific knowledge is interpreted and framed by philosophical assumptions and questions.

One of the most deceptive comparisons Bill Nye made in the course of the debate was when he claimed that followers of Ken Ham’s model were taking Ham’s word for the interpretation of a three-thousand year old book rather than trusting their own “backyard” observational senses. (“Hey, I found a fossil on the way to the debate today.”) This may be unwitting prejudice, but it is fabulously naïve. Does Nye really believe that amateur scientists aren’t “taking someone’s word” for it when they believe in evolutionary science? Would anyone guess billions of years, or come to Darwin’s theories, if the grand consensus of the scientific clergy hadn’t been shoved into their consciousness? Highly doubtful.

Bottom line: the debate between creation and evolution is not a question of evidence/reason vs. faith—or science vs. religion. It’s a question of deciding which set of philosophical axioms you are going to use to frame the scientific method. It’s a question of which religious claims you will use science to elaborate.

The main problem with all of this is that people equate science and truth. They equate the (illusory) concept of fact with truth. This is a grave mistake. Truth is bigger than fact. Truth determines and interprets fact. Truth is beyond fact. You can present some truths with science. But some truths cannot be expressed without art. Others depend on history. Others depend on philosophy. If your entire philosophy of truth is that only observationally verifiable claims can be true, you will not find any truth at all. Even that own statement won’t pass muster. You will be lost in relativism, meaninglessness, and hopeless, pointless despair. And that is where we are in the academic world.

I would challenge Nye that the future of America actually depends on rejecting naturalism and embracing Christian theism. Especially for a person who claims to base his view of the present on observing the traces of the past, Nye apparently hasn’t considered a whole lot about the underpinnings of science and the foundation of America. Christian Protestantism created modern science. That is not contestable in any meaningful way. Every major figure in the scientific revolution was a devout Christian who believed that nature was a consistent revelation of God’s character worth exploring methodically. And Christianity was by far the greatest philosophical influence on the founders of the United States, a country Nye claims to love.

By contrast, the United States has only fallen in international academic circles since the advent of evolutionary teaching in public schools. But Nye isn’t really interested in looking at all the evidence. His claims to the contrary are disingenuous. He can’t even see the mountain of evidence that contradicts his view because he has a philosophical prejudice that filters it out. And you could say I do as well. Yes, that is true. That’s the point. Debating the evidence is futile. The evidence is the same for everyone. It’s the worldviews and foundations that really need to duke it out. And unfortunately, that didn’t really happen last night.

192 responses

  1. Nye did a careful and rehearsed dance around the unchanged reality – – – Evolution is a flawed theory based on bad science.

    • The debate will never end… Both side have to be willing to hear and see each others point of view. I have known Christians that put much time into studying the idea of evolution and have found some truths there, but not truth through the whole theory – like seeing changes we might define as evolution on a micro-biology level (single cell organism) , but never on things larger like animals. I do not know any atheist that have done the reverse, meaning the refuse to look outside their little world of thought, they think they know better or know all that creationist have to offer. I have heard of many atheist set to to take apart the Bible, and find all the “errors”, only after years of research to become baptized and a very devote Christian. Point being, if you can not or will not study both sides with an open mind you will never find the end. I believe God is wise and in that wisdom he would design a universe that would always be changing and advancing at some level…

      • Creationists begin with the premise that they are right and that any evidence to the contrary must be faulty in some way. They do not seek truth, only confirmation of their own mythology. The big difference between science and religion here is that science is a tool focused on assessing the validity of its propositions. Religion has absolutely no way to test any of its ideas, and its proponents seem to like it that way it gives them free rein to promote imagination over evidence and revelation over experiment.

          • Science is certain of nothing and requires proof of everything religion is certain of everything and requires proof of nothing. THAT is the difference between the two.

          • Does that mean since science is not ceetain of anything that means you should not be certain to believe in the big bang. Bob, you just shot yourself in the foot. Bye. My food on my game is ready

          • You simply do not understand science. I think the best question in the debate was “what would get you to change your mind”. NOTHING could EVER convince a creationists to change their mind while a number of things could get science to do so & that’s the difference between an open mind & a closed one

          • If science is certain of nothing, then you are apparently not a scientist, but a religionist by your definition, as you seem certain of everything.

          • NOT true. IF science had the evidence to support a giant space bird flew in from outer space, laid an egg & the universe hatched from it I would believe it because they would have the evidence to support it. Now, what would it take to convince you that genesis was BS? A believe with no room for doubt is not a belief, it’s a superstition.

          • I’m an engineer by profession and a skeptic by nature. Evidence is never “proof” of anything – even though a preponderance of it supports hypotheses (theory). The reason is related to Einstein’s theory of relativity – where observation is still subservient to perspective.

            I’m not convinced that Genesis is or isn’t “BS”, as you say. What makes you convinced that it is if you’re so open-minded? What makes something “impossible” to you?

          • Are you convinced the Hindu, Native-American, Chinese, Scientology, Japanese & Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Creation myths are BS? If so, why? There is precisely the same amount of evidence to support these (or ANY of a thousand other) creation myths as there is genesis which is ZERO?

          • Well, I can tell you why I don’t believe in God or an afterlife, and can even tell you what evidence would persuade me that I was mistaken. Can you do the same? If not, who’s open minded & who’s not?

          • Not believing in something is no different than believing it doesn’t exist – it’s still a belief. It’s no indicator of open-mindedness.

          • Do you even understand what an open mind is? I could easily be convinced that by beliefs are wrong. What could convince you that yours are????

          • Easy. Prove where it all started. We can, you can’t. A story doesn’t start with the middle, it has to have a beginning. You can’t claim evolution to be fact, when you don’t know where it all started.

          • Let me explain something that you & every creationist simply do not understand. Some 2,000 year old incomprehensive anonymous and occult writings from the Middle East is NOT “proof”!

          • You can’t prove a beginning, so how are we different? I know what it is, you just don’t like our idea, so you shun is away from everything.

          • What beliefs are you talking about? I thought I had already mentioned that I am naturally skeptical. Just about everything I’m aware of has a contrary point of view, which makes things very interesting.

            There is one thing that seems to stand on a firmer foundation than any of its detractors, however, and that is the Bible – perhaps because it’s had a head start (by its scope and ubiquity) and doesn’t support any created thing (like man) having God-like authority, but subjects all into accountability to a creator.

            Unfortunately, many – if not most – have used it as a stick or a whip with which to keep others under them, but they are tyrants who denied its authority over themselves. Nonetheless, interpretations of this controversial book are all subject to the perspective of the interpreter, which is erroneous to begin with, making it difficult – if not impossible – to disprove.

          • I’m talking about your belief in the bible. What could convince you that it was nothing more then a bronze age myth?

          • You can’t get past page 1 without running into contradictions! Genesis has contradictory creation accounts.Humans were created after the other animals & Humans were created before the other animals, The first man and woman were created simultaneously. man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man’s rib. It goes downhill from there.

          • Oh, you’re talking about the two separate accounts of the same creative process, one in the first chapter where living creatures were made on “days” 5 and 6, and the other account in the second chapter where days are not mentioned.

            Well, it’s simple to see that the first chapter indicates a specific sequence of creative events, but I don’t understand why you would demand the same criteria be applied to the second chapter when it had already been done that way. To me, the second chapter isn’t focusing on timing sequence at all, but instead focuses on relationship, hierarchy, and domain. I don’t believe the two accounts are mutually exclusive of each other, so I don’t have a problem with what order things are mentioned.

            I think it’s useful to point out that Charles Darwin – considered an adversary by many Bible believers – in chapter six of his “The Origin of Species” asks, “Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?” I think these are very wise words and should give us pause prior to assuming we understand everything rightly the first (or any) time. After all, our perspectives are relatively very limited and limiting.

            What’s next?

          • Well, of course there’s a snake, a donkey, and a burning bush spoke human language; the entire world was flooded, covering the mountains to drown evil; all animal species, millions of them, rode on one boat; language variations stem from the tower of Babel; Moses had a magic wand; the Nile turned to blood; a stick turned into a snake; witches, wizards, and sorcerers really exist; food rained from the sky for 40 years; people were cured by the sight of a brass serpent; the sun stood still to help Joshua win a battle, and it went backward for King Hezekiah; men survived unaided in a fiery furnace; a detached hand floated in the air and wrote on a wall; men followed a star which directed them to a particular house; Jesus walked on water unaided; fish and bread magically multiplied to feed the hungry; water instantly turned into wine; mental illness is caused by demons; a “devil” with wings exists who causes evil; people were healed by stepping into a pool agitated by angels; disembodied voiced spoke from the sky; Jesus vanished and later materialized from thin air; people were healed by Peter’s shadow; angels broke people out of jail; a fiery lake of eternal torment awaits unbelievers under the earth … while there is life-after-death in a city which is 1,500 miles cubed, with mansions and food, for Christians only.

          • Wow – that IS a lot of crazy stuff! Laying it out the way you did, it looks even more out-of-this-world wacko gizmo-magic than I was imagining. Good job! A person would have to be certifiably insane to take such stuff seriously.

            Unless, of course, the world we can see, hear, feel, smell, and taste with the typical array of senses and physical abilities is only a partial subset of what is really “there”. It’s precisely because I consider that a real possibility that I have not written the Bible off as a fictitious fairy tale as you have. In fact, the very laughingstock nature of many of the characters and accounts of the Bible make it even more intriguing to me that anyone or group of people would dream up such a concoction if they were attempting to fabricate something believable.

            I don’t blindly believe ludicrosity, but it’s not proof of fabrication to me, either.

          • That would be AWESOME! (and more than a little creepy) – but I’ve never seen it and I’m pretty certain I never will. I’ve got the camera ready, but with my luck I can’t even get my car to act up when I bring it to the mechanic for acting up half the time. I hope you don’t mind if I don’t hold my breath on that one.

          • I have yet to see from you what would convince you God exists. But if you need to know what would convince me, you just need to show me where did it all start? Big Bang? Where did it come from? Life on earth? Where did it come from? Did it just pop into existence from darkness? I can tell you where it started. God has always existed, and always will. While you think thats ridiculous, at least I can give you an explaination where it started, but you have no clue for your theory. Fyi, multi verse doesnt count. Because, where did they come from?

          • You cannot define god into existence. If god doesn’t require a designer because, well, he just doesn’t, then the universe doesn’t require one because, well, it just doesn’t! I could easily be convinced that god exists. All he/she/it would have to do is come down from the clouds & revel himself for ALL to see or a million other ways. Jesus promises many times that he will answer our prayers, if we had a national prayer day & the entire nation prays for a war veteran that’s an amputee that God spontaneously and miraculously restores the soldier’s legs & he did, THAT would make a believer out of me.

          • I don’t have to “define” God into existence. He always has existed. If you’re asking for God to come down and say, “Here I am”, he already did that, several times (Jesus) and will again as Revelation states in the Bible.

            Jesus said the poor will always be with you. So you cant pray and ask for no more poverty as there always will be poverty. All we can do is help those out of our own personal kindness (not forced government intervention). Also, since God cannot lie, he cannot make no more wars and suffering. In the book of Revelation, there is much suffering and a final war. So there will always be war. What you are asking for is for God to be how you want Him to be in order to see proof. It doesnt work like that. Just as the church shouldn’t change for society, societyy needs to change their attitude for the church and God. Not make God what you want him and think he should be.

            And btw, you still cant answer where it all started.

          • That’s called “special pleading” If god has always existed then why can’t the universe just have always existed? Jesus was VERY clear & promises many times that he will answer our prayers yet No matter how many people pray. No matter how sincere those people are. No matter how much they believe. No matter how devout and deserving the recipient. Nothing will happen. Prayer does not restore the severed limbs of amputees. There is no documented case of an amputated leg being restored spontaneously. Why not?

          • For thousands of years, what scientific basis has there been saying everything has just existed? There isn’t any. You cant scientifically prove it, and since you want to base everything scientifically with rationality, that already debunks that claim. Since by your view, the irrational cant be scientific. Jesus never said every prayer will be answered. You can pray for lessening in suffering, or pray for safety and help, but ultimate prevention can’t be done if the Bible says it will always be. There is always a reason for suffering, even for the most devout. Did I deserve to be cheated on and divorce? No. But had I not I wouldn’t have net the wonderful wife I have today.

            And again, you are asking for miracles you want, otherwise they aren’t miracles to you. Either accept miracles that do happen, or continue to ask for demands from God, which isn’t bright.

          • I’m not asking for miracles I want, I’m saying that in the history of the world god has NEVER answered the prayers of an amputee to have their limbs restored. If you believe that if science cannot prove something doesn’t exist then it does exist then you would have to believe that millions on mythical creatures & gods do in fact exist.

          • Lol exactly. To you, God isn’t real unless a limb grows back or money rains from the sky, or a pink unicorn shows up before you. You don’t question God or His prayers he answers (Christians don’t anyways).

            Religion isn’t an all or nothing belief. I don’t believe in the Hindu gods, or Allah, or that I will become a god myself in my own level of heaven (Mormonism). There have always been different religions, and since the founding of Israel, there have been leading astray to other gods. So saying why is yours better or real and these aren’t makes no sense. Thousands of theories have been introduced and many different scientists have followed them. How is this any different? But you believe so devoutly in the name of science, that only evolution could be real, not anything else. Isn’t that exactly the same?

          • NO, it’s NOT the same. The ONE thing that makes science different from EVERY religion in the history of the world is EVIDENCE!!!! Science has evidence to support their claims & religion doesn’t!

          • There are many theories that have little or no evidence, yet people cling to them vehemently. It is the same. Your difference is you wouldc rather believe its always been here, is because you hate the idea of a higher power. You hate the idea of having to be held accountable for your actions, other than man made law.

          • Your problem is you don’t even understand the word theory in scientific terms. A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. I don’t hate the idea of a higher power. There’s just not a single shred of evidence that one exists.

          • Ill put it a different way. There are scientists that believe we came as cells on crystals to earth, aliens brought simple life, the Big Bang forming of the earth started simple life with meteors and comets, the list goes on. My point is, different scientists have different ideas how it all started, just as there are many different religions with different origons, but you cant prove that or where it came from or how. We do by saying God created it. Science to me is a gift to explore, and try to understand Gods creation. Not try to prove God wrong or beat His own game and claim we are gods ourselves. Which is what you claim, in a different way

          • It’s called the “god of the gaps”. You place god into gaps of scientific understanding. The problem as science moves forward your god becomes more distant.

          • Every Story has a beginning. None of your scienific Ideas or facts of evolution have no meaning if you have no beginning. We may say because of God, but you cant say, because we said so

          • Well, for one thing the universe isn’t a “story”. It’s real & for another thing your story of god has no beginning. What do you think god was doing from eternity until 6,000 years ago when he suddenly decided to do something?

          • Do you understand what “special pleading” means? Perhaps you should look it up. If god doesn’t require a designer because, well, he just doesn’t, then the universe doesn’t require one because, well, it just doesn’t.

          • Then you are just special pleading if that is your response to mine. If you have no idea where the universe started other than, it was just there, then why can’t we say that God was just there all the time? I’m not understanding your logic other than you just hate us.

          • Of course one small difference is you can look up into the sky & see the universe so we know for a fact the universe does exist. The same cannot be said for god.

          • We have gone over this many times Bob, there is a lot of evidence to support the Bible. Like we know for a fact Jesus of Nazareth actually walked on this Planet. I’ve sent you links to Christian and non-christian sites that verify this statement. Majority of History scholars will tell you he existed, the top scholars. The faith part (if he was/is the son of God), is not something that is document…. but that is the point of faith. Science and the Bible match up, but you are to closed minded to see the examples. You just hate the word of God, and the Bible tells us most people will hate it. I hope you will see it someday. More examples… Science says that all the land was one… name Pangaea, the Bible 100% agrees with that. Sciences says that man was last or at least one of the last creatures created (formed), well holy cow so does the Bible say that man was last. Sciences has name and classified all animal, well holy cow the Bible said we did that too (can argue we still are naming them)… Everything is there, you just have to open your mind. Stop getting hung up on things like time. As we were not there, we do not know the length of a day at the start of time…. after all we define a day as the Earth spinning around one full turn. Well there was no Earth at one point, so no day by our definition. So, just how long did it take to make the Earth and Heavens on during that first day?? We do not know, but there was a lot to make countless planets, stars and moon etc… Yea, it was not one of our days that is for sure.

          • Paul, we don’t know for a fact that Jesus walked on this planet. No Primary Source (First-Person) Accounts of Jesus Exist. There is No Evidence for the Story of the Birth of Jesus, There is No Evidence for the Story of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. You have to ask yourself this. If Jesus in fact did all the things claimed in the NT why didn’t a single person living during the time of jesus mention a word of it??? CLEARLY zombies walking around the Holy City would have been mentioned but not a peep

          • No, it wouldn’t. The people who Christ came the first time for killed Him because He wasn’t what they wanted. It isn’t a question of seeing, it’s a question of believing. You don’t see the truth for what it is because you don’t want to. No matter what people say, or what they do (or don’t do), you refuse to believe.
            That’s the way it is, and it will remain that way until you decide to open your heart and mind to the truth. Until then this is all just academic to you.

          • This is a perfectly simple and correct definitioin, yet there are currently 3 up votes including mine, to 6 down votes. This is a pretty good reflection of the makeup of the USA, which is in continual denial of facts from religion to the national debt.

            Ponder this: Our Planet (Earth for most of us) is powered by a small, insignificant star in the Milky Way Galaxy, which contains approximately 300,000,000,000 Stars. All of those stars could have a solar system, with several planets. It is now known that there are at least 500,000,000,000 Galaxies, and probably over a trillion. The number grows as our power to observe them increases.

            If there is a God, and he produced all of that just for us, The definition of Overkill is severely understated.

          • NOT true. Science looks that the evidence to see what conclusions they can draw from it. creationists have the conclusion & see what evidence they can find to support it. Now, you people may not understand the difference but it’s HUGE!

          • I believe that we have science to further understand God’s creation. Though we never fully will, we can continue to explore to understand and marvel at the complexety of what is out there. Not try to prove He doesn’t exist or beat Him at His own game.

      • Paul, I’m curious, there are over a thousand different creation myths. Have you studied each & everyone of them before you came to the conclusion that the creation myth found in genesis was in fact real? If not, how can you be sure that the Egyptian creation myth from the Old Kingdom (2575-2134 BCE): isn’t true?

        Hymn to Atum,”
        When I first began to create
        When I alone was planning and designing many creatures,
        I had not sneezed Shu the wind,
        I had not spat Tefnut the rain,
        There was not a single living creature.
        I planned many living creatures;
        All were in my heart, and their children and their grandchildren.
        Then I copulated with my own fist.
        I masturbated with my own hand.
        I ejaculated into my own mouth.
        I sneezed to create Shu the wind,
        I spat to create Tefnut the rain.
        Old Man Nun reared them?

        • yes, have review many different ones… Most very comical. However, the Bibles and commonly except science matches up perfectly… You just have to understand, what we understand as time has changed (length of a day longer every year), and that time is not right away… So, you are in God time not human time, which means we have no real idea how much time it took God while he created the heavens and earth before he said let there be light.

          • Paul, the bible is FULL of scientific errors. The Flat Earth, .The Sky and Atmospheric Conditions, The Stationary Earth, The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars & a host of others.

          • No it has no scientific error. If you think it does, bring me the exact passage. I’ll save you time. Does not exist. Only exist in the minds of those that have not studied the Bible. Never once does the Bible say the earth is flat. Sky and atmospheric conditions that is describe in Genesis match perfect to what science describes for the atmospheric conditions while the earth was developing. Never once does the Bible talk about the movement or lack of movement of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and Stars…. Bob you just do not have a good back ground on the subject. Again re-read (if you claim to have read the Bible) Genesis… but first turn off your hate. Then read as if kid being told how the world was created. Example in the past (ancient times) no one would say: well the atmospheric conditions were thick and cloudy. It would have been difficult for any life form to breath as Oxygen levels were not high enough to suppose life as we know it. Humans had not developed these words and so it would not have been understood…. Just like if you were talking to a young kid, he would not understand what was said. However, kid would understand on the second day God made vegetation and on the third day one could see the stars in the sky. Think about it. The atmosphere was thick, vegetation came around and used the the CO2 (plants favorite food) in this thick atmosphere The CO2 was converted to Oxygen which made for clearer skies so one could actually look into the heavens and see the stars. Just like science thinks it happened, so does the Bible state it.

          • According to the Genesis creation myth, the Earth was formed before the Sun. Aside from bio-mechanical problems, this flatly contradicts the nebular hypothesis of stellar formation, in which planets form in the accretion disk created by a young star. The Moon is NOT a light source, In the field of medicine, the Bible says in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.14, Verse No.49 to 53 – it gives a novel way for disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy… disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy. It says that… ‘Take two birds, kill one bird, take wood, scale it – and the other living bird, dip it in water… and under running water – later on sprinkle the house 7 times with it. Sprinkle the house with blood to disinfect against plague of leprosy? You know blood is a good media of germs, bacteria, as well as toxins! Unscientific! In Genesis 1:6-8 God created a firmament (which he named “Heaven”) to divide the water on earth and the water in the sky. Do we really have a solid sky holding water over us? How the heck did we get to the moon? Does the space shuttle have a “firmament opener” on the front of it? This would explain why every time it rained in the Bible, that God had to “open the windows of heaven” (Gen. 7:1 and Isa. 24:18 are examples). These openings allowed all the water above the solid sky to leak out. Maybe we broke a window on our first space mission, and have flown out the broken window every time since. 1 Samuel 2:8 states that “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, And He has set the world upon them”. If you go to any seashore, you are bound to see houses built on pillars, and yet the houses don’t move. How strange, In Genesis 1:16 says “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.” According to this, the moon is a light source just like the sun, only not as bright. If this was the case, we couldn’t land on the moon, it would be too hot. It is also strange that it took God the day to make the sun and the moon, but the stars are portrayed as an afterthought of sorts. “He made the stars also”, this is a definite sign that the Bible is inspired by man. It is clear that man could not have perceived that the stars were the same as the sun, but in most cases much larger. Naturally they thought that these specks were just thrown about. The verse should read “God created the stars and planetary objects, he also made the earth, sun, and moon”. But man, in those days, would have never seen it that way.
            Isaiah 13:10 also says that the moon is a source of light. “moon shall not cause her light to shine.” Again this is another example of the Bible seeming to be inspired by man and limited to his own perception.
            According to Leviticus 11:5-6 Rabbits (Coney) chew their cud and because of this they are unclean. Last time I checked, rabbits don’t chew cud.
            According to the Bible, our brother mammal, the bat, is a bird. This one has been debated through e-mail quite a bit, but if one looks in Leviticus 11:13 a list of Fowls is started, and the Bat is included in this list in Leviticus 11:19.
            The locust, grasshopper, and beetle all have four feet according to Leviticus 11:22, then in the next verse, it mentions a group of flying animals with four feet. I can’t think of any.

            In Job 11:9 it says that heaven and hell’s measurements are “Their measure is longer than the earth And broader than the sea”. How long is a sphere? There is no length in a sphere. Now a flat two dimensional object would have a length.

            .

          • In correct on Earth being formed before the Sun. First line of the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The Heavens is everything beyond the Earth… Moon, stars, Sun….

            Leveticus is under old covenant with God. We as Christian are to follow the new covenant. The old covenant had animal sacrifices that would give one God’s blessing and or protection. Ever since he sent his son to be sacrificed for all sins no animal sacrifice is allowed. So, did it work back then, you and I do not know as neither of us were alive then.

            Genesis 1:6-8 regarding solid sky. Not to hip on science are we Bob. Solid water would be Ice… Yes, can be in the sky and this was during the formation/development of the Earth so we can not say what the layout look like (at this point I would assuming no mountains for example). The Earth would be smaller then today’s Earth and gravity force would have different pulls then verse today.

            God had to open a window… Yes, colorful description to say, he made it rain. Your point??

            Of course the Moon is a source of light. You see by the light it reflex from the sun. It would not have to be hot to reflex the sun light as nothing nor anyone said these sources all create their own source of light. Just talks about providing a source of light. You really are not very good a science are you Bob.

            Stars, Moon, Sun and everything else again not an after thought… again read first sentence in the Bible. It is noted on the third day the stars appeared in the sky. Appear does not mean were created. As talked about in previous post, the atmosphere was to thick to see through (like science agree it would have been thick, hard to breath and see), So after the plants started to grow the air cleared and you could see the stars in the sky.

            The real reason for Jews not to be allowed to eat rabbit:
            The Torah specifies that the camel, the rock badger, the hare and the pig are not kosher because each lacks one of these two qualifications: you may eat any animal that has cloven hooves and chews its cud:
            It is known that rabbits practice what is called “refection,” in which indigestible vegetable matter contains certain bacteria and is passed as droppings and then eaten again. This process enables the rabbit to
            better digest it. This process is very similar to rumination, and it gives the impression of chewing the cud. So, the Hebrew phrase “chewing the cud” should not be taken in the modern technical sense, but in the
            ancient sense of a chewing motion that includes both rumination and refection in the modern sense

            Only seeing bats list on time in 11:19. not sure were your going there as do not see the other half of your debate.

            No I do not know of any 4 flying animals but that does not mean they did not exist or an even better thought, the translation does not come across correctly. Again as stated in another post, if you really want to cut in and attack the Bible you will have to be able to read the original, which is going to be in ancient Greek and learning Hebrew as well.

            Yes, there is length to a sphere. The Earth is about: 24,859.82 miles. Do not try to make things more difficult.

          • I bet you like to play tennis without a net! Many of the stories are scientifically
            impossible, like the tale of Joshua stopping the sun moving across the sky.
            This story assumes (as was the thinking then) that the earth was flat and was
            at the center of the universe. We simply know this to be false. Second, for the
            sun to stop would mean that the earth would have to cease rotating on its axis
            an event which would destroy the planet

          • http://openmindedatheist.blogspot.com/2008/04/where-does-bible-say-world-is-flat.html
            Sadly, Daddy, the Bible WAS written by mere mortals who had no idea that the Earth was not flat. God may have divinely inspired much of it, but clearly the Bible has many scientific fallacies that were widely held before Galileo.
            Many of the Bible’s stories are directly borrowed from other creation myths, so let’s not pile on the mortals who didn’t know better. They had NO WAY of knowing the Earth was roundish, in fact, it was heresy against God to claim that the Earth was round. Remember that.

          • Actually the scientific fallacies that the Church defended in Galileo’s time were from the ancient Greeks, and wrongly believed to be God’s truth.
            The source was from Greek “science”…. not the Bible!

          • The Bible blatantly states REPEATEDLY that the Earth is flat, NOT round. God ought to have known better than to instruct the multiple writers of the Bible to refer to the Earth as flat. Yet he didn’t? He just allowed them to look really stupid when he could have — if he’d wanted — told them from the start how round the Earth is.

          • “REPEATEDLY” Really?
            How about some actual QUOTES with Chapter and Verse!
            Or I’m calling you a LIER!

          • No where in the Bible does it say the Earth is flat, nor is it ever implied. It is illogical to think that most men of ancient times thought the world was flat, as every planet/moon they could see was round. A logical person would assuming if nothing else that the Earth must be round too. Yes, some people did believe it to be flat and created the stories like boats falling off the ends of the Earth if you sailed out to far. These where not stories in or from the Bible.

        • Do you understand what “educated” means? For the vast majority, it means you’ve been taught to repeat “facts”.
          ’nuff said…

          • You obviously do not understand what “educated” means. Do you actually believe that some bronze age goat herders had a better understand of the cosmos’s than the brightest most educated theoretical physics’ of today?

          • There are a number of meanings to the word “educated”, but in practice its almost always being given bought and paid-for “facts” to regurgitate. Or perhaps you weren’t subjected to government-funded schooling?

            As to the “bronze age goat herders”, I really have no idea what understanding they had and neither do you. It wouldn’t surprise me, however, if it turned out that beings (humans? who knows?) with much greater intelligence than us once populated the earth. We’re not all that smart – we still speak many variant languages and live relatively short lives, and I’m fairly certain that the great pyramids weren’t built using the methods we’ve been “taught”.

    • I realize you dimwits believe that abracadabra is “real” science but that’s just because you lack even the most basic understanding of what science actually is!

      • When you start your effort by addressing the readers as “dimwits”, do you really expect them to keep reading just in case you have something more constructive to offer? You might want to try another tactic unless your purpose is to simply flail verbal fists all over the place.

          • Since nonliving matter produces living matter i take it that the old idea if maggots growing out of meat is possible????? Cause there is not much difference between Meat growing maggots ( Spontaneous Generation ) and dust molecules making a big explosion ( evolution/big bang ) so with that said, I leave bob the tomato to think

          • If an atom can be mostly space and a rock that feels like the hardest thing in our experience is mostly non-matter, I don’t think we’re in any position to say what is and what isn’t possible – unless we think we’re God or something…

      • Bob, why don’t you answer the many other posts I have made which show evolution is an impossibility? It’s because you can’t;
        1. You failed to answer the question of mathematical probability
        2. You failed to answer the question of thermodynamics/entropy
        3. You failed to answer the question of the D-form/L-form amino acids conundrum.
        4. You failed to answer the mitochondrial conundrum
        5. You failed to answer the questions of Biblical prophetic certainty (or was that in another blog I comment on?)
        In any event, answer just ONE of those questions and we can go from there. Otherwise you just sound like a misguided and angry person who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
        PS – I’m still praying for you to become enlightened. 🙂

        • Bob doesn’t debate with anybody who can counter his nonsensical world view with facts. In fact he’s not even here to debate, he’s just far left lunatic who enjoys calling names and hurling insults to see if he can get a rise out of anyone on the other side politically or philosophically.

          • ONLY a religious KOOK would believe the planet is 6,000 years old! It’s NOT just “far left lunatic’s” that accept scientific facts!

          • You guys are getting all sucked and roped in by the poor little lonely scumbag homo TROLL, Blobbie He has of course very predictably raised his fat grotesque head on this article. Remember he has an addiction to this conservative blog and you guy’s jumped right in and FED HIM!!! Look up the definition of blog TROLL. A TROLL is best ignored or stalked and will eventually go away. Remember that when you spend energy replying to him that his post will soon be all deleted when he gets THE BOOT as occurs every three to four weeks.

            Remember that BloBBie the homo liberal TROLL is the product of years of REVISIONIST HISTORY and Marxist educators which have completely brainwashed him. He hates Christians and conservative and any traditional values due to his homo-erotic shame and disgust with himself while embracing his deviant lifestyle. It’s obvious that he has little human contact outside of his domain of addiction evidenced by his jacked up dogma and world view.

            Don’t forget that you are wasting time dialoguing with someone who actually believes everything that obamao says and supports his every action and THAT is really STUPID and doesn’t deserve any respect just on it’s own..

          • That’s why I don’t reply to him. I just try to warn others not to waste their time debating him. I have wasted quite a few hours of my life debating him and finally decided that it is no use since he is a reprobate. I really feel sorry for people like him who are so far gone that God won’t even waste His time with them any longer. When Jesus said “Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they turn again and rend you” this is what he had in mind. Rebuking the stubborn sinner three times is the Biblical perspective, after that my conscious is clear and I consider it best to leave them alone.

          • Bob, now you know how Galileo felt. This country is chock full of Morons. Forget it. This is like pushing chain. Rocks are smarter than creationists.

          • So you completely refute all of the findings of the scientific community for a book of folklore with no basis in fact in the year 2014? Do we read you correctly?

          • No, you do not read me correctly. The theory of evolution is a very far cry from “all the findings of the scientific community” and if you watched the video of the debate, you saw several professional scientists who do not believe in evolution. What I refute are the unscientific methods that have been used to conclude that evolution is an indisputable fact. True scientists realize that they don’t have all the answers, and that their theories are at best an educated guess, which may be proven wrong by future observation. Evolutionism bears more resemblance to religious dogma than scientific fact. Scientists who assert that evolution is an indisputable fact are being intellectually dishonest, because they are well aware that the “theory of evolution” is contradictory to Scientific Laws, namely the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

          • Bill Nye is an Engineer. Evolution is a scientific fact, not an educated guess. It was an educated guess 150 years ago. They should have had Richard Dawkins on. He is a professor of Biology. I frankly cannot beleive that creationism as related in the old testament is considered by anyone in 2014 to be factual.

          • They believe in a book that has talking animals & plants, wizards, witches, demons, sticks
            turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and
            all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories & reject scientific facts!!! Go figure… Sam Harris said it best & I quote…
            “When I say, “Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen,” I have uttered a quintessential statement of scientific fact. But what if someone doubts this statement? I can appeal to data from chemistry, describing the outcome of simple experiments.But in so doing, I implicitly appeal to the values of empiricism and logic.What if my interlocutor doesn’t share these values? What can I say then? What evidence could prove that we should value evidence? What logic could demonstrate the importance of logic? As it turns out, these are the wrong questions. The right question is, why should we care what such a person thinks in the first place”?

          • Bill Nye is an Engineer. So, you’re saying that makes him infallible? There are probably at least 1/4 of a billion engineers walking around the Planet. Is every opinion they offer the truth? That’s exactly why I say Science has become the new religion, because there are so many people like you who think “A Scientist said it, therefore it is the indisputable truth.” Then you accuse Christians of blind faith. I would rather have blind faith in God than blind faith in Science. Anyway Christianity is not blind faith, because we can see the evidence of God all around us. We will obviously never agree on this subject. The author who wrote the article was right. Your World view determines which side of this debate you will take. But take some time to think about it and I believe you are smart enough to come to the conclusion that every person has faith in something. Could be God, could be Allah, could be yourself, or someone else or Science or the Tooth Fairy. But ultimately whatever you put your faith in is your personal Deity.

          • Are you a Lawyer? Because that’s what lawyers do. They take something you say and completely invert the original intent. Science is not a “Religion” Only religions ask you to believe in something that you cannot observe or feel with any of your senses. That would not be so bad, if it did not use its “Vaporware” as an excuse to kill hundreds of thousands of people over the years in its quest for power. Scientists do not have “Blind Faith”. They have a theory, then they try to disprove the theory. As new methods to test the theory arise, the use them to disprove the theory. That is what they did with DNA in the Gnome project. Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The church of England accepted it 75 years ago, the Pope accepted it 1n 1996, and these were both before the Gnome project, but there are people like you who simply refuse to believe that the world is 4.5 Billion years old, because that is the first domino. For some reason, people like you cannot grasp the fact that the old testament was written by mere mortals trying to make sense of the world around them, interspersed with stories told down through the ages that were embellished as the story jumped along from person to person. These stories were told sitting around a campfire, and are more folklore than fact. Do you actually believe that Jonah spent three days and nights in the belly of a whale?

          • scientists do not BELIEVE in evolution. They ACCEPT it because of the enormous pile of data supporting it. Just like they accept that gravity follows an inverse square law, matter is composed of atoms, germs cause
            disease, and moving electrons constitute electricity. Scientific theories are not a faith. You can test them yourself and falsify them.

        • All great points. Bob did not answer because he is very ‘worldly’ and feels he will be judged if he comes forward . . . and he has a functional IQ of about 74.

        • 1) Creationists love probability. If you are a speaker trying to bamboozle a lay audience, there is no better way than to drop in a back-of-the-envelope calculation. The trouble is that the things they are trying to quantify are inherently unquantifiable. There is no way to calculate the probability of an eye, for example, evolving over the course of millions of years of evolution by natural selection

          2) Nye answered that question in the debate

          5) ALL Biblical prophecy is bullshit, most of the specific predictions made in the pages of the New Testament have shown themselves demonstrably and irrefutably false.

          Now, I have answered 3 questions which was 3 more than Ham answered in the debate! How do you explain the fossil record? Ice caps? It takes thousands of years of below-freezing temperatures to build a 100 foot layer of permafrost. But large areas in the north are permanently frozen to depths of almost one mile! This took many tens of millennia to accomplish? Reversals of the earth’s magnetic pole are recorded in the Atlantic Ocean sea bottom for the past 80 million years.? The rate at which the continents are spreading apart from each other indicates that the Atlantic Ocean is about 200 million years old? If we assumed that all of the minerals which are carried by rivers into the oceans remains trapped in the oceans, then it would take 260 million years for the concentration of sodium to reach its present level. If plankton, fish or other plants adsorb sodium, then it would take much longer. We can conclude that the age of the earth is something greater than a quarter billion years, and is in all probability much longer? Estimates for the length of time for the galaxies to have spread apart to their present spacing are in excess of 10,000 million years? Evolutionary principles applied to geology indicate that about 100 million years ago, the ancient super continent of Pangea was beginning to split apart so that land that would become South America and Africa drifted apart. At first, the drift caused some shallow seas and a few land bridges. Later, the Atlantic Ocean opened up and became gradually wider until it became the ocean that we see today. This theory would have a logical consequence in the evolution of dinosaurs. Before this split in land mass took place, dinosaurs would have evolved into a variety of species which were found throughout Pangea. Since 100 million years ago, when the land bridges disappeared and the seas became too deep to cross, the dinosaurs would have evolved differently in Africa and South America, due to their isolation from each other. This is precisely what has been observed in the fossil record? In the Green River there are varves (millions of annual layers of sediment) laid down over the past 20 million years?During each springtime, tiny, one-celled algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu, Japan. They die and sink to the bottom of the lake. Here, they create a thin, white layer. During the rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle to the bottom. The result are alternating dark and light annual layers — much like the annual growth rings on a tree. Scientists have counted about 45,000 layers; they have been accumulating since about 43,000 BCE. This is far beyond the estimates of 6 to 10 millennia made by many creation scientists.?

          • 1. Probability is mathematical law – just FYI. He (and you) STILL failed to answer.

            2. He didn’t. By his own explanation entropy prohibits the Big Bang, because NO AMOUNT OF HEAT WOULD HAVE BEEN GATHERED TO CAUSE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Another fail.

            3. A key point to answer before you can go on into evolutionary mythos. Another fail.

            4. Yet ANOTHER key point to answer for the same reason as #3 above and – you guessed it, Skippy – another epic fail.

            5. Christ fulfilled a few HUNDRED prophecies concerning aspects about His place of birth, his locale of ministry, His primary mission, His death and HIs resurrection. What are the odds of THAT? Oh yeah, I forgot – according to you math doesn’t count (pun fully intended).

            FAIL, FAIL, FAIL, FAIL, FAIL!

            The reason you failed to even address, much less answer these simple questions is because, Bob, you can’t. Neither can any other evolutionist answer them, because to answer them truthfully would be to acknowledge the impossibility of evolution and to also acknowledge creation (and by default, the Creator).

            You should also know that there is more to come (from the Bible you so ignorantly mock). Unfortunately for you it won’t apply in your case because of the following verse;

            Prov 22:3
            A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, but the simple pass on and are punished.
            My prayers are still with you, before it’s too late.

          • If the second law of thermodynamics is held to be inviolable by the theist, how did the creator god itself manage to avoid increasing entropy? Bible “prophecies” as evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired is a JOKE!.. First of all, if a prediction comes true, this does not necessarily indicate that some supernatural entity was involved. Secondly, how is one to know if a biblical event which supposedly fulfills a prophecy actually occurred, or if it was invented merely to satisfy a prophecy? How could it be known that a prophecy was not inserted after the fact? The authors of most of the books of the Bible and the dates the books were written are sketchy at best, and we recognize that the Bible has gone through numerous hands and been edited many times over the centuries. Forgery in the early Church is well known, at least to scholars.

          • Oh Bob, Bob, Bob.
            1. The second law of thermodynamics IS inviolable – period. I think that’s why they call it a LAW.
            2. God does not abide by entropy He controls it, just as He controls the other ‘laws’ of the universe. You know what I mean? It’s that whole “The servant is not greater than his Master” thing.
            3. Well, ok then – I see your point. I can ‘predict’ the sun will rise tomorrow and ‘POOF’ I’m a prophet. OR, I can ‘predict’ a Man being born several hundred years after my life, the name of the town He would be born in, the name of the DIFFERENT town He would be raised in, what His name would be, what type of person His mother would be, what building structure He would be born in, how He would die, how He would be buried, etc., etc., etc. Somehow I don’t think that’s the same thing.
            4. The above mentioned prophecies were written, recorded and documented thousands of times by millions of people CENTURIES before they transpired, and are still with us (intact, BTW) to allow us a comparison.
            5. There are well over 250 prophetic instances just like those listed above which Christ fulfilled – look them up yourself.
            6. Authorship by man is inconsequential. Authorship by God is quite another consideration.

        • Have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh? The Bible is almost a carbon copy of it. Have you ever looked at the pictures from the Hubble Telescope? Do you think if the people that wrote the bible had access to the scientific information that we have today they would still believe the creation Myth?

          • Thanks, Bob. I Realize this. We are both pushing chain. It is actually scary to think about how deep in denial people in the USA are.

          • Successful religions make it a sin to question the fundamental beliefs on which they are based, so once inside the belief system the exits are sealed off. THAT is the problem.

          • Um, I don’t see much of a comparison – sorry. And I’m pretty sure that a change in scenery would not be enough to distract from a conversation with the Almighty. Why would you ponder the created when you can converse with the Creator?

    • These guys are still getting sucked in by the scumbag liberal homo TROLL, BloBBie!

      When will they understand that they are spending energy on someone who actually supports and BELIEVES everthing his god and master obamao says which is REALLY STUPID and will be deleted and given the BOOT soon?

        • blobbie the sad lonely little scumbag liberal homo TROLL gets upset when it’s spelled out how absolutely painfully STUPID he is in his role as an obamao DRONE!!!

  2. Is Nye really as dumb as he tries to convince people that her is? We assume that he makes these stupid claims to draw attention to himself. He is then paid to argue his stupid position.

    • It is unkind to say Nye is stupid. He is the unwitted product of a concerted effort to remove God from our education system. He was a science teacher who went on to have a wonderful childrens program about science. In all the years I remember watching him with my children, I cannot remember a time when he even brought up evolution. It is unfortunate that he decided to encamp with the enemy of hope.

      • Bachelor of science from Cornell against Ham’s bachelor of science from Queensland University of Technology which ranks within the top 10 Australian Universities and upper 3% world-wide.[3]
        QUT has been ranked as Australia’s best university under 50 years of
        age by the Times Higher Education Top 100, and ranks 26th globally in
        that category.[4]
        The university in its current form was founded 1990, when the then
        Queensland University of Technology, including the Brisbane School of
        Arts which was founded in 1849, merged with the Brisbane College of
        Advanced Education. Ham also has a degree from The University of Queensland which is a member of the Australia’s Group of Eight, and the international research-intensive universities network Universitas 21. UQ is colloquially known as a “sandstone university”
        and is ranked among the top universities in Australia and is named one
        of the world’s top universities in three key rankings – the QS World
        University Rankings, the Academic Ranking of World Universities and the
        Times Higher Education World University Rankings.

        • I’ve watched it. There is NO debate among science between evolution & the thousands of creation myths that people have believed in over the years. Genesis is just one of many creation myths.

          • Bob, if you want to debate go sign up for Debate.org. It is a online debate site. I think it would be kind of fun debating you. So would you like to debate with me on creationism vs evolution on debate.org????

          • I am NOT a scientist so I really don’t see the point but what I do know is that when you weigh the MASSIVE amount of evidence that science brings to the table vs a 2,000 year old book written by bronze age goat herders it’s really no contest as to what is reality.

      • Advice: if you watch the debate, make sure to get some form of Cafenne beforehand the debate was live last night and ended at about 10:00 p.m.

      • Wow Bob! So much hate from such a little finger. What pain and anguish could drive a man to spout such vile epithets? Your comments reveal that you are FAR from an atheist! You are an Anti-theist. You actually believe in God and HATE Him! An true atheist would simply argue that Nye was right and Ham was not, but you actually hate Ham for loving God.

        • You’re wrong. I don’t hate your god anymore then I hate Zeus, Thor, Poseidon, Mithra or a thousand of other gods humans have & still worship. I simply don’t believe in any of them. Nye was obviously right & ANYONE with an open mind or an IQ above plant life could see that.

  3. Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly
    and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the remains of the son of god. Creationists are the laughing stock of humanity. I wouldn’t be surprised if intelligent aliens did not want to visit our planet if they still saw that, among the brilliant progress made in science, there are still idiots who believe in Bronze Age myths!

    • So says the guy with the avatar with a guy flicking people off. That should be the new logo for evolutionists everywhere, when you can’t answer the hard questions, just flick everyone off and tell them they are stupid.

      • IF you can prove ALL science wrong about evolution step up to the plate with your evidence & do it!!! Fame, fortune & a Nobel Prize await ANYONE that can. Unfortunately (for you) you’re going to need more evidence than an ancient book written by anonymous bronze age goat herders.

        • I believe in proved science… I just have a problem with all the theories being taught as fact to my children. I will be the first to admit I have faith, it is people like you who actually think they have no faith in unproven theories brought forth by racist men who spent time watching birds and came up with what they thought were the orgins of life. There are many scientists who have done great work and come up with groundbreaking inventions who didn’t believe in the same origin of life that you do… why your crowd insists that it is your way or the highway is beyond me? Do you really hate religious people that much, next time you need to use a MRI, please refuse it because a creationist invented it.

  4. I am not very well learned in philosophy, but if I may comment, I think that you are being a little relativist when you say that the evidence is not really important and what we should be debating is our worldview… the message I receive is that if I can elaborate a good philosophical apologetic, I could use any evidence to defend absolutely any statement.

    I know that there are some paradoxes in Philosophy, as there are in Mathematics or Logic or other scientias. The greeks had this “Achilles vs the tortoise” math paradox, but that didn’t prevent them from developing other advances in mathematics. They just kept working and giving good results, paying no great mind to this unsolved philosophical paradoxes of the kind of “All metaphysical claims are meaningless” while it is a metaphysical claim itself.

    If this kind of arguments were important, the christian God would be absolutely impossible; since he is omnipotent anyone could ask “is God able to build a rock so heavy that he couldn’t carry?” and boom. But it doesn’t work always like that, where the truth about the real world lies is in the evidence and the experimentation and the results. Imagine how important for humanity and the universe it would be if God came down here and let us test him in labs and perform difficult miracles like creating new stars and such kind of stuff. That is what determines the truth, not just making a great unbeatable argument.

    Philosophy is important and interesting, but I can not imagine how could it contest against the truth of facts, no matter how intricate or elaborate is the apology. The boiling point of a certain compound will always be the same under the same circumstances. No matter how elaborate the apology is, a solid object will sink in a liquid solution if it’s density is higher. No argument will change it. Pretty much the same could be said about the fossil record, the animal genomes, the geologic layers… maybe with some margin of error, but never in the 13,500,000,000 vs 6,000 years old universe.

    I enjoyed a lot your reading, it is always my pleasure to read from intelligent people who have a different opinion.

    • If the universe is less than 10,000 years old, then: all of geology and biology are wrong; the speed of light has been wrongly calculated, so Einsteinian physics is wrong;the distance and speed of other galaxies has been wrongly calculated, meaning
      that all of astronomy and therefore Newtonian physics are also wrong. To debunk the whole of science on the back of a story passed down by some Iron Age goat-herders is just self-delusion! ANYONE that believes that the planet is under 10,000 years old needs their head examined

      • Note: Newton was a creationist who believe in creationism. Same for Einstein. They both believed the earth was 10,000 years old.

      • You are showing your assumptions as if they are fact. If the earth is less than 10,000 years old does NOT mean the speed of light has been miscalculated. It means the assumption that the speed of light is a constant throughout the existence of the universe is false. This possibility has apparently not even occurred to you.

    • I appreciate you responding, Glen. One of the crucial problems with the incompleteness of logic and experience is that it calls into question the reliability of any closed system that rests on logic and observation _as its foundation_. Truth by Revelation doesn’t actually face the same obstacle with paradoxes. We recognize the limitations of logic and observation. Revelation from outside the closed system gives us closure on broken loops (which is what paradoxes are). A version of the Epimenides paradox is actually contained in the New Testament. Paul solves it with a simple assertion: “This testimony is true” (Titus 1:13). Boom. Outside revelation closes the paradox loop. The same goes for the big rock paradox. God comes in and says, “No. I wouldn’t do that.”
      Godël firmly believed that his Incompleteness Theorems did not lead to relativism. Rather, the incompleteness of logic and experience drew him to the conclusion that the truth must be _beyond_ logic and experience. Einstein, a friend of Godël’s, believed the same thing (he said a few times that absolute truth existed in the “out yonder”).
      You are right that scientists can ignore foundations and still work on observational science. But in order to organize and interpret the observational data, scientists need a philosophical framework—something outside the empirical purview of observational science. The lie that is constantly foisted on the public is that this philosophical framework is itself science—fact. That is incorrect. This is one of the worst deceptions of the last few centuries. Thanks again for commenting.

      • I think that those of us who can’t believe in Revelation (because we don’t trust old books or old guys who interpret them haha =P) are doomed to live with the Paradoxes…

        Please say hi to your beautiful family and the atlantean friends!

  5. I did not like Minkoff’s review of the debate. I did not see/hear the debate but I know a lot about science, evolution and Christianity. But maybe I do not posess the true understanding of truth and reality. I thought I did but after reading Minkoff’s review, I’m not so sure. I have come to realize though, that atheism is sort of a religion, just as deism forms the basis for all religions (e.g., Catholic, Methodist, Episcopal, Muslim, etc.). Atheism apparently does not have a lot of those branches. Evolution has lots of evidence but I agree it has not been proven, just as the existence of God has not been proven. But it is fun to keep trying!

    • What harm would come from letting our children think for themselves like you just said? The problem always comes when one side wants the monopoly of what gets taught, heaven forbid we let our kids think for themselves.

      • You cannot teach religion in public schools. Evolution is science & creationism is religion It’s just that simple. AND the two are incompatible

        • in your opinion… religion was integrated into multiple subjects in schools for years, it wasn’t until the crazy atheists pushed their religion of evolution that it was removed. The whole Constitutional argument of separation of church and state is nothing more than an extreme twisting of the original intent which was to prevent a state church like they had in England, nothing more than that. Anyone that can read history can see that, but atheists want a monopoly to push their religion on our kids without any other option.

          • Our Supreme Court has ruled that creationism, ID (or whatever you call it) is NOT science & IS religion AND that religion CANNOT be taught at public schools at tax payers expense. If you don’t like the laws of the land perhaps you should move to some Theocracy where you’ll be happy

          • last time I checked States control the schools… actually the way it was originally set up was that each local school district had control of their curriculum. It still works that way in the all-muslim school districts because liberals won’t challenge them like they do the Christians. The Supreme Court once ruled that slavery was ok too, didn’t mean it was right.

  6. I have spent my life running organizations, designing and building systems and things mechanical and electrical. I can’t look at any living thing without seeing that all its related parts work in harmony. Living things repair themselves, react to external conditions, and change as needed to fit changing situations. Mankind cannot design anything even close. I see intelligent design in every living thing. Call it what you like but there is no way that it can just be some kind of accident that life evolves in the way that it has. The theory of evolution is just an effort to explain the unexplainable.

    • Monarch butterfly is another classic example… evolutionists have no answer for the amazing life cycle of those butterflies where every single climate has to be absolutely perfect or the species no long exists. It is just too perfectly designed for anyone to argue that it was done totally by chance over billions and billions of years.

      • if complexity = design, who designed the most complex being of all, god? And before you say “god doesn’t require a designer”, that’s special pleading. You cannot define god into existence. If god doesn’t require a designer because, well, he just doesn’t, then the universe doesn’t require one because, well, it just doesn’t.”

        • The universe is quite literally “dying”, everything observable is. Once expansion hits the threshold it’s game over. Things that “have always existed” cannot reach an observable end.

      • You dont get it. Natural selection is not “Chance” it is natural selection. The survivors adapted. The extinct did not. The key is, as you say, Billions and Billions of years.

    • Sorry Bob , but you are wrong. Since evolution teaches at one point we were cave men, and the flintstones are the ” modern stone age family ” would that not make Bill Nye think the flintstones are the accuate disciption of history.

      • No, if you’re stupid enough to believe that the planet is ONLY 6,000 years old then you have got to believe that dinosaurs & humans coexisted

        • Bob, I have a question for you??? If you are sure that the Big Bang happened, how can you explain the complexity of every living thing.

        • Here’s something to make you think, Bob;
          I don’t necessarily think the universe is only 6000 years old.
          I believe the Word of God gives a perfect and detailed record of the creation of this present world, which happened about 6000 years ago.
          Interested to hear more?

          • If you did believe the planet was 6,000 years old I would suggest you get your head examined. Look, I understand you’re a Christian & that there is absolutely NOTHING even theoretically possible that would convince you that you’re wrong so really ANY debate on the issue is a waste of time

  7. What a great article, confirming what I have said for years (and what Mr. Ham mentioned more than once). We ALL pull from the same basket of ‘evidence’ but we come to different conclusions due to the life-outlook we possess.
    My. Nye brought up some great questions (which might have been answered a bit more effectively), but was condescending and arrogant many times. His constant referral to ‘out there’ (meaning the ‘real’ scientific world) was a blatant disrespectful rebuttal to any kind of presentation Mr. Ham made.
    If someone is a true scientist he remains open to ALL sides of the question – without a skewed and antagonistic frame of mind.

        • The difference between science and religion is that religion comes with ABSOLUTE statements, that neither can be proved or disproved, and science evolves from relative truths and statements, that can be testified and proven false (which means: science has to develop, in order to replace (partly) untrue theories, and replace them with better ones). Science does not claim it has absolute knowledge on anything. Religion claims it has.
          All scientific theories are in principle disprovable, and in the end all theories will be disproven (at least it can be shown there is a limiiting case in which the theory does not work). Religion can in principle not be disproven. Which does not contribute either to it’s proof. It is also unprovable. if something is neither provable nor disprovable, then it is useless. It can only have value to people who prefer to be ignorant, and don’t want to get into complicated knowledge, and prefer to believe in something that is disprovable. Science is for people that realize that in order to aquire knowledge, some work (sometimes a LOT) has to be done! And even despite you put in a LOT oif work, someone else my disproof all (or part) of your work! That is : you have to try even harder!
          Religion is for people who claim to know EVERYTHING ABSOLUTELY (“God created the world”) without having done any work to get to that opinion, and for which nobody can give any disproof. So it is a very safe position. You don’t have to do WORK for entitling yourself an opinion on matters that seem important, and nobovy can force you to do some work for finding a better opinion, cause there lacks the ability to disproof you.
          What a comfortable position!

          • I really do wish you would share the address of the site you copy this stuff from, as I would pay them a visit – just as you visit sites like this. I would, however, share truth and science, not ramblings, tirades and venom.

          • Can you explain something to me that no Christian has yet? I assume that you reject the thousands of other creation myths as pure nonsense. Why? Why is it that you can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but you cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin your own faith? Why do you believe your chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense?

          • Because Jesus came down to earth and died for our sins. No other religion has a world all about one God who is not answerable to anyone, which chooses to experience some of the pain of this world with us. All other God’s just watch our pain, no worldview fully explains it, but Jesus experienced pain for us. I want a God who is both infinitely great and interested in a real relationship with us. This leads to a worldview based in love, gratefulness, peace, humility, and joy. Sadly, that is not how many Christians are responding to you on this website, and that is shameful. I am so sorry Bob. Be as nasty as you want to us, we should hold to our core beliefs and not treat you that way back.

          • It’s not that I can ‘detect fairy tales.’ It comes from the veracity of God’s Word. You have obviously been the brunt of some bad situations concerning any Biblical knowledge you have. Perhaps you were victimized by someone who twisted it and used it against you. Perhaps you just had bad teaching. But let me tell you I have conducted decades of verification through pursuing manuscript evidence, studying the Greek original (New Testament) a little Hebrew (Old Testament), and Latin translations. The Word of God stands sure, sir. Even, and ESPECIALLY, through the hack job some people do to it in trying to apply it.
            However, it all begins with faith.

          • Yes, very comfortable. Infinitely more comfortable than a fool like you who is hanging by a tiny silken thread over the pit of Hell, pitifully flailing against the God you reject. The very one who is holding onto that thread that keeps you from falling to your eternal doom. What horrible thing happened to you to make you hate God with such a venomous fury?

          • Jaws, you realize that threatening an Atheist with hell is like threatening an adult that Santa won’t bring them Christmas presents. I don’t hate your god anymore then you hate Zeus, Thor, Poseidon, Isis, Horus, Heru, Ausar, Osirus or a thousand other gods.

          • Bob, you realize that the existence of God, and the reality of Heaven and Hell, don’t depend on whether or not you believe. Atheism is akin to walking down a railroad track and seeing a train bearing down on you, but refusing to get out of the way, because you don’t believe in the train.

          • Jaws, your analogy is flawed. Walking down a RR track I can see the train. God (like the non existent) is invisible. But, assuming for a moment that there is a god what makes you so sure you’re worshipping the right one? After all, there are thousands to choose from.

          • My analogy is perfectly correct.
            Romans 1: 18-22 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

            Atheism is not disbelief in God, but the willful and stubborn refusal to see what is right in front of your eyes. God has made his existence plain to each and every one of us. You are therefore without any excuse. Judgement Day is just like that train bearing down on you, but you pretend that you don’t see it coming.

          • Your god has not made his existence plain to each and every one of us. In fact 75% of the world’s population is NON CHRISTIAN!!! Of the 2 billion Christians in the world there are OVER 30,000 different denominations which cannot agree with each other on the details of the Christian message. atheism is simply a lack of belief & BTW. I don’t need to be forgiven.

  8. Three, irrefutable facts are plane to see. Everything we know exist under three categories. Matter, Space, and Time. EVERYTHING!!!
    Science, has just figured that out a mere 100 years ago, or so. Nothing else we know of fits outside of THESE THREE CATEGORIES.
    The First Line of the Bible reads, “In the Beginning, (TIME) GOD created, the Heavens, (SPACE) and the Earth, (MATTER).
    Looks like Bill Nye the Science Guy has some catching up to do.

  9. You really lost me with all the fancy philosophical stuff. All I know is the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, if followed to their logical conclusions tell us that without a doubt the Universe was created by a Supernatural Being who existed before the Universe and outside of it. These are Scientific Laws, which means, to scientists, that they are observable rules governing everything that have never been observed to be broken. Unlike theories (such as evolution) Scientific Laws are generally accepted by all reasonable people to be axiomatic truth. So Bill Nye is not being very “scientific” when he puts the “theory of evolution” above the “Laws of Thermodynamics”

    • See my comment about the scope and sequence of the scientific method. First come the observations, those are followed by the generalizations of those observations into “laws”. Any law can be found to not be true as more observations are made. The “law of conservation of mass” is true for only chemical changes and physical changes and not nuclear changes. The “second law of thermodynamics” causes much confusion by the many ways that it can be expressed. Here are three no engine can operate at 100% efficiency, heat of its natural accord can not move from a cooler body to a warmer, a closed system move toward greater entropy. An air conditioner or a refrigerator on first glance seem to violate this law since heat is moved from the cooler inside to the warmer outside. However, this is possible because work is done on the coolant and the two heat transfer steps are from a warmer region to a cooler. Maxwell’s demon thought experiment showed that the “second law of thermodynamics” is a statistical law.

    • Any attempt to use the second law of thermodynamics to contradict evolution either biological evolution or cosmological evolution shows the author’s ignorance of that law. There is much confusion about the second law of thermodynamics because it can be stated multiple ways. Some of these may seem to disagree without careful study. “No engine can work at 100% efficiency” and a closed system naturally goes to maximum entropy (randomness) are two statements. Maxwell’s demon thought experiment shows that this also a statistical law. One part of a closed system can become more ordered (less random, less entropy) when the rest of the system become more random (higher entropy). Additionally, a system (not closed) can become less random (lower entropy) when work is done on the system. For example, my desk become very cluttered with time (more random, higher entropy) but it becomes less random (lower entropy) when I take the time and energy do to the WORK of organizing my desk. That results in some of those materials being spread around to more distance places. So their randomness (entropy) is increased.

      When applied to any theory like evolution, if part of the system becomes more ordered (less random, less entropy), other parts of the system become less ordered (more random and more entropy).

      • You are the one who doesn’t comprehend the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I’ve had this debate with you once before. Your example about the system of your desk proves my point. If the desk is a closed system, it does not include you. You are a force outside the system, just like God is a force outside the system of the Universe. Neither your desk, nor the Universe are capable of doing any sort of work to organize themselves. You can dance and sing and try to redefine the Law of Increased Entropy any way you like, but every serious and intellectually honest Scientist will tell you that it points to the need for a supernatural Creator.

        • Consider this example.
          The “2nd law of thermodynamics” can be stated that heat of its own accord (without work being done or energy is required) can not move from a cooler subsystem to a warmer. The cooler subsystem has a lower temperature hence a lower entropy and the warmer subsystem has a higher temperature hence a higher entropy. The inside of a refrigerator or freezer is colder than the surrounding room. Heat naturally flows from the warmer surrounding room into the refrigerator. To remove this new heat, that heat must be moved out by the coolant – freon-12, freon-134a, ammonia, etc. When the coolant is compressed, it warms hotter than the surrounding so the coolant looses heat to the surrounding room as it flows through the cooling coils. The coolant is then allowed to expand inside the piping in the body of the refrigerator and cools. Heat then flows from the warmer interior of the refrigerator into the cooler expanded coolant. That warmer coolant is then compressed again and the cycle continues as long as there is a source of energy for the compressor – electricity or propane for a camper refrigerator.

          Heat is being transferred from a cooler subsystem (less entropy) to a warmer subsystem as long as work is being done. There may be “smart” refrigerators but they are not intelligent.

          • And, once again the refrigerator may be a closed system, but the compressor (or at least the energy to operate it) is a force outside the system. Look, both creation theory and the big bang theory (or whatever theory you subscribe to concerning how the Universe came to be without a creator) require that both the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics be broken. The Big bang theory asserts that all the matter in the Universe was once compressed into a very small space (some claim the size of a pin head.) On it’s face that is a ridiculous and physically impossible assertion but let’s suspend disbelief for a moment and assume it to be true. The theory goes that the dense matter suddenly exploded outward and began to rapidly expand. This would violate the 1st law of Thermodynamics, because it assumes the creation of a huge amount of energy from nothing. Then the theory asserts that the expanding matter organized itself into Galaxies, Stars, Solar Systems and Planets. This is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because it assumes that organization came from chaos without any outside force acting on the chaos.

            On the other hand creation theory asserts that the Universe was created from nothing. Also in violation of the 1st law of Thermodynamics, because it assumes the creation of huge amounts of matter and energy from nothing. The difference is that creation theory explains how this violation could be possible, in that it assumes a Supernatural force outside of the Universe was able to violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, because He was the author of the Law, and therefore not bound by it.

            So, which makes more sense? That the matter in the Universe suddenly and randomly violated the Laws of Physics by exploding outward for no apparent reason and organizing itself into a structured system, or that a Supreme Supernatural Being created the whole system and established the Laws of Physics that would govern the behavior of the system from that point forward.

  10. The purpose of science is to provide a systematic approach to the study of any natural topic and attempts to organize that study into a single compressive body of facts (observations both personal and with the aid of tools and equipment), laws (generalizations of patterns and trends in those observations) and theories (hypotheses to explain why those observations and laws occur). Every theory needs to be as simple as possible to explain the observations and laws but it must also provide suggestions for new experiments that have not been done. The theory must predict the results for these new experiments. When these further experiments are preformed, the theory is strengthen by the new observations that agree with the predictions. If the observations do not agree with the theory’s predictions, the theory is disproved and must be replaced by modifying the theory or replacing it. Any theory that is not testable by experiment is of no scientific value.

    Please describe in detail, an experiment that can test the theory of Creation and state the results that Creation predicts for this experiment.

    To state that you “believe in creationism” is not science, It is a religious belief and should be in a study of religion and other beliefs and has no place in true science.

  11. Scientists have lied to maintain their positions in their intellectual communities. Scientists have lied for government ideologies
    (Communist coercion /academic standing), and for money, and yes…power. Actually, it’s difficult to argue with people who have diametric opposition with your beliefs. It actually seems a waste of time. If you have a strong religious belief, and you have studied the reasons for your beliefs…then why argue with anyone who rejects your premise (belief system) out of hand? My own rule of religious discussion, is to live by (in my case) by the words in the Holy Bible. I don’t mind discussing the points made in the Bible with anyone. I simply don’t see a viable outcome to arguing the philosophical or sociological tenets of mankind, with people who don’t respect my religious beliefs.

Leave a Reply