Bill Nye Embarrasses Creationist Ken Ham in Epic Debate of Science vs. Creationism (VIDEO)

nyeWhen I first heard this debate was going to happen, I couldn’t wait.  I never thought as a child that somehow “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” who I watched on Saturday mornings, would one day become a leading figure in the political battle of science vs. delusion.

Keep in mind that I am a Christian, so I don’t discount everything in the Bible.  Though I’ve made it clear that I don’t put a whole lot of stock in the Bible as it’s obvious (to me at least) that much of it has been rewritten – and poorly translated – over centuries.

The dawn of the tea party brought about the attempted hijacking of the GOP by radicals, and science that had never really been up for debate previously (besides between people who were borderline insane) because it had always been accepted as scientific fact,  suddenly became a “debatable topic.”

Not because the science changed, but because insane people were suddenly given a voice in mainstream politics thanks to the tea party.

All of a sudden these people began pushing the ridiculous idea that climate change was a “global hoax” perpetrated by over 95% of the world’s scientists and that evolution didn’t belong in the classroom.  And if we were going to teach evolution in the classroom, creationism should be taught along side of it as another “scientific theory.”

Except, there’s just one problem with that.  Creationism isn’t a scientific theory! 

Which is what led to this debate.  Over the last several years, Bill Nye has been quite public with his assertion that it’s insane how certain people want faith-based beliefs to be taught alongside proven science in our schools.

Well, Nye wasted no time in asserting that he would make Mr. Ham look like a fool this entire night.

Going into this night, I had imagined giving specific quotes and a detailed examination of what I had just seen.  However, it didn’t take me long before I realized that wouldn’t be necessary.

Honestly, a quick summation of what I saw is enough to properly convey just how badly Mr. Nye embarrassed Mr. Ham.

There were questions, rebuttals, long presentations and scientific facts (well, from Nye anyway) that would make most of our heads spin.

There was talk of radiometric dating, bedrock layers, tree rings, the expansion of the universe, evolutionary patterns of animals, technological advancements of ships, common sense and all sorts of scientific data which has been proven by some of best and brightest over many years.

Then there was Mr. Ham’s argument.  Which I will summarize:

“Well, there’s a book which tells me…”

No, I’m not kidding.  That was honestly his answer for most questions.  Because the Bible says something, that makes it fact.  Because a book that’s been translated over centuries says something, that proves it to be fact. 

I’m really not lying, that was his answer to most questions.

Oh, that and, “Well, because we can’t see the earth billions of years ago – how do we know?”   Then Mr. Ham’s “proof” being not that he can prove what’s in the Bible in any way – just that it’s in the Bible.

Seriously, that’s what he used as “proof” for most of his argument, “Because the Bible says.”

Bill Nye used facts, logic, science, data, research and common sense while Ken Ham countered these arguments with, “Well, the Bible says…”

I seriously started laughing during parts of this.

But my favorite part came during the question and answer section when someone submitted a question for Mr. Ham asking if he took all parts of the Bible literally (citing a part about touching pig skin or having multiple wives).  That’s when Mr. Ham proved himself to be an absolute hypocrite.

While the whole night he confidently spoke about the earth being 6,000 years old because that’s what the Bible says, or all these specific things in the Bible which should be taken for their literal word, yet during this part he stumbled over what is or isn’t taken from natural parts.

Essentially saying, well – I guess you can’t take every word of the Bible literally because it doesn’t make sense.

Because as most of us know, the Bible is full of passages that give men the right to stone their wives and all sorts of other heinous acts that in a modern society would seem barbaric.

It was quite comical to see Mr. Ham suddenly start to “subjectively” interpret the Bible when it came to some of the more controversial aspects of what’s written inside.

This entire night showcased that Bill Nye (over and over again) proved with science that there’s evidence to support theories and beliefs of the scientific community based on quantitative data collected by some of the best and brightest this world has ever seen.

While Mr. Ham’s answers basically consisted of two things:

  • Well, we didn’t see the world during that time so how do we know?
  • The Bible says…

And that’s about it.  No proof, no evidence – just another guy reading the Bible trying to claim that as “scientific evidence.”

So, in this debate of Science vs. Creationism, science not only won – it wasn’t even close.

Here’s the debate in full so you can laugh along – and probably learn a few things from Mr. Nye along the way.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Neil Parker

    All I have to say is if you truly believe that Bill Nye won this debate, then you are truly delusional. Of course Nye’s one big “ace in the hole” if you want to call it that was the ability to predict. The one thing he seems to have forgot or is just to ignorant to know about is the fact that the Bible is full of prophesies that have in fact come true including one you should all know about and that is the re-gathering of the Jews to create the Nation of Israel. Predicted hundreds of years before it happened. Nye is pompass and blinded by his own egotistical view of himself. Nye also kept referring to the dependability of carbon dating, interesting that in my Chemistry class even the atheist professor admitted it was not reliable???? Go figure!! Of course here is a prediction for you paraphrased from the Bible. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Atheist refuse to accept the fact that is GOD and no matter how much proof you can put in front of them they will not accept it because they can never admit they were wrong. It is truly sad really!!

    • Misty Corrales

      oh Poodlekins…. I’m sorry, but your man lost. And the difference between science and creationism: when presented with contradictory evidence, science can say “hey wow, that’s cool! New info. Learned something. Neat. Let’s see how that applies to other things!” When presented with contradictory evidence, Creationism says: That’s a lie! That evidence is fake.

      • Neil Parker

        Yeah and I bet you believed Obama when he said you could keep your own insurance and all America now knows he lied too!!

      • Pipercat

        Thank you Neil! I have now created a new law of science!! It’s called Pipercat’s law. This law is much like Godwin’s law, but works a slightly different way. When you have no logical argument, you will eventually state something along the lines of blaming Obama.

      • crabjack

        Love it, Pipercat!!

      • Feather

        Pipercat, make a Wiki entry of “Pipercat’s Law,” make an urbandictionary entry, and begin using Pipercat’s law. I will use it as well. I have screencapped your comment as proof of the origin of Pipercat’s Law. Bwahahahahaha!!!! This is excellent.

      • Pipercat

        I’m flattered, but I have to believe someone else has gotten here first.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        yeah babeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

      • ggarcia

        Stay on topic, please. This debate has nothing to do with Obama.

      • Carl

        What does the President have to do with this subject, Neil. Are you obsessed with hate for President Obama???

      • Sunnysmom

        Neil is obsessed with having the last word and being “right”.

      • Double Dukes

        Why are you making this political? Why do you have to take a discussion that has absolutely NOTHING to do with politics and inject this crap into it?

      • Feather

        To be fair, Ken Ham did that already, when he brought up both abortion and gay marriage. I have no idea wtf he was thinking…

      • frumpus

        Neil you are a racist bigoted scumbag

      • Mandy

        This Christian Democrat will kindly remind you not to be a patronizing b*!ch regardless of your sway.

    • Craig McDonald

      Wow. How perfectly your final sentence sums up the attitude of creationists. Of course you must change a couple words. Atheist must be replaced with creationist, and the word no must be inserted between “is” and “god.”. Typical argument of one who has no proof…transpose your own attributes onto the opponent. Pitiful.

    • korhal

      You theists didn’t learn a damn thing, did you?

      • Neil Parker

        Yeah! I learned how ignorant you liberal God hating progressives can truly be, I truly feel bad for you poor souls

      • Sunnysmom

        It makes you feel some sense of superiority to think a judging “God” loves us less than you doesn’t it? No need to feel bad for my progressive soul …regardless of how this party all began, I actually tend to follow what Jesus spoke about so I’m set either way. Peace Neil Parker.

      • Neil Parker

        Actually that would simply make you wrong again. God does not love me anymore than He loves you, and I am definitely not superior. There is but one who is superior and that is God Himself. As for salvation that is for the individual to decide, His love does not change, but it is up to you to accept it or not. If you choose not to then that is your choice, I actually hope you make the right one.

      • Sunnysmom

        I’m good, thanks. lol

      • Wayne Lee

        Let me just say as a former christian that the absolute best case scenario in your belief is still pretty bleak. Sure, it sounds fantastic for you because you get eternity of gold buildings, no tears, etc etc. That is why you are so scared in leaving this fantasy. The idea that your god will send people to an eternity of burning torment based on the choice of belief sucks. Moreover, where would that leave the people who have never heard the gospel you are so proud to talk about? They too are supposedly on their way to hell without even having the opportunity to choose heaven. If innocent people get hell by default I am forced to come to the conclusion that your god is an asshole. That is the best case scenario if you believe the entirety of the bible.

      • Feather

        And yet you use God to act superior.

      • cpartist

        how do you know God is a he?

      • white trash religious teaparty

        GOOGLE “Marilyn lange” and her photos…….
        now THATS GOD!!!

      • white trash religious teaparty

        salvation ( here on earth/life) is truly available to those who seek,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but if anyone “thinks” there is an afterlife that’s the most bovaristic claim of all

      • frumpus

        You are the biggest piece of dog excrement on the planet

      • risingphoenix

        You cannot “hate” that which DOES NOT EXIST. Doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.

      • korhal

        We don’t hate God, we dislike theists shoving him down everyone’s throats like some kind of magic pill. Thanks for proving everyone else right.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        luckily we don’t have souls…………..
        hey!!! when U voodoo idiot lemmings cure an amputee let me know–

      • Mandy

        It is possible for the two to coexist. Like my husband’s trauma center Indian surgeon said, he KNOWS that when he loses a patient a “being” enters the room and two leave. Of course, this has little to do with our version of “religion,” but a man of science nonetheless.

      • korhal

        It sure is. Unfortunately, religious extremists don’t see it that way.

    • Pipercat

      Ham’s underlying argument was fallacious. It was an appeal to ignorance. The biggest fallacy was the notion of observational science. We can’t know what happened in the past because we weren’t there. Pure nonsense.

      • Neil Parker

        Wrong!!!! The past is never 100%! Even today in forensic science cases are being won based on science that are being overturned later when someone happens to find something else compelling. The fact id we cannot say for 100% accuracy what happened in a case that happened five days ago if we were not there. We can be convinced of someone’s guilty by evidence found but as to the exact facts of how it all went down that is an impossibility. So if we can’t prove the exact facts of a case five days ago how the heck do you think they can prove the exact data of “millions of years” ago. It is not a possibility Ham was 100% correct!! Think about this one!!! even when people are there watching an event facts get distorted based on point of view. If I am on the north side of a fight what I see will be different than what you see on the south side as proven many times over by mutli-angle cameras. Now considering what I just proved very easily…… please try to convince me that science can even remotely be exact on a past tense perspective

      • Pipercat

        That wasn’t my assertion. However, you plainly reinforced my argument by… wait for it, appealing to ignorance. Thank you!

      • Neil Parker

        OMG!! Talking ignorant!! My friend the light is on but no one is home! Observational Science is basically all we have and without it there is nothing because trying to prove anything other than the present is futile. Unless it is tangible evidence it is nothing more than theory. There is much more tangibility in the pages of the Bible than in millions of pages of science trying to disprove it. Contrary to Mr. Nye’s attest Radioactive carbon dating is not reliable that has been proven over and over as Dr. Ham pointed out and without it evolution is null and void!

      • Pipercat

        You seem to ignorant of the appeal to ignorance fallacy. This fallacy states that an assertion is true/false because it hasn’t been proven to be true/false. Regardless of the notions of Mr. Ham, everything we observe happened in the past. Here’s a good example: Two astronomers, one amateur and one professional, discovered a comet with a trajectory that would bring it very close to Jupiter. Science predicted it would break up and plunge into Jupiter’s atmosphere in the southern hemisphere. Neat stuff and Shoemaker-Levy 9 is one of the most thrilling things in science in the last couple of decades. What’s cool, it all happened in the past. Just like the light from your monitor and the text appearing on this screen. These faith based notions of science are pure nonsense.

      • Neil Parker

        Your ramblings are nonsense and nothing you just said contradicted my point. So my guess is you are one of those people who just like to argue for arguments sake. Adios Piper!!

      • Pipercat

        <— Touchdown Science!!!!

      • Neil Parker

        It never ceases to amaze me when people gloat victory in the face of obvious defeat. I guess it does something for their pride. Good luck with that Piper and Sunny.

      • Pipercat

        Now what you’re doing is called argumentum ad lapidum. Arguing to the stone. You have no logical or relevant argument so you basically dismiss without proof. I’m sorry you cannot argue in a non-fallacious manner. Perhaps you should spend some to assess your educational level as it appears these concepts fly a mile over your head.

      • Feather

        “It never ceases to amaze me when people gloat victory in the face of obvious defeat”–definition of irony, right there.

      • Sunnysmom

        lmao..hi pot, meet kettle.

      • GETMAD

        Said the person that wrote 32 words for the sake of saying that someone is arguing for arguments sake

      • Brad

        Then with that logic, how can the Bible be correct at all? It is a book written by a third party after the events it describes. By your logic, the authors would have gotten key details wrong.

      • Neil Parker

        Everything about the past is third fourth and beyond party, if you want to look at it like that. Evolution is based on a “Theory” produced by a broken and disturbed man who after the loss of a dearly loved one no longer wanted to except that God existed, who later recanted and said that his theory was utterly ridiculous. That is a fact of history. Then more folks who questioned the ideology of God jumped on a bandwagon that the original author had got off of and ran with it and have been ever since. You people keep bringing up this third party factor, BIG DEAL!! Everything about the past and studying the past is third party at best and again as Ham said utterly not provable. Wake up people!!!

      • carl

        Neil, get help!

      • Feather

        You display a common error of mistaking the layman’s definition of “theory,” which means “hypothesis,” for a scientific theory, which is on par with a law. Unlike what some creationists claim, it is not the same thing as, and cannot “progress to” a scientific law. It is essentially a law, on par with the “theory” of gravity (and yes, gravity is also a scientific theory).

      • Laughing Out Loud

        So funny how desperately you have tried to prove everyone else is wrong. I can imagine how red in the face you are getting.

      • Heather Robertson Barbour

        Not everything is third, fourth and beyond party. There are things called primary sources, and eyewitnesses. Darwin may have put the theory forth first, but the theory of evolution does not depend on him Anyone could have proposed it. And the difference between science and religion is that with science, people can take the theory and run with it – they can make independent discoveries and studies, and add or delete from the theory when more is learned. With religion, the theory is dependent on the source. Nothing can challenge it, add or delete from it, and it cannot advance beyond the original proposal.

      • risingphoenix

        WHAT “logic” ? lol

      • Tan

        English is your second language, correct? Please let it be so, I don’t want to pity you any more than I already do!

        Or are you 7 years old? There’s no other excuse for it, sorry. Atrocious.

    • The stupid is strong with this one.

      Most Biblical prophecies aren’t recognizable until after the fact, which raises the probability that they’re really just cases of people reading something into a Bible verse after the fact.

      • Neil Parker

        I can only say if that is really what you believe??? Well enough said!

      • Feather

        Even your attempt to reply to criticism is nonsensical, and further supports the criticism itself. I find this humorous.

    • Philip Rock

      lol. omg… yeah, they had a bunch of general statements that can be interpreted in hindsight as something that’s actually happened. I can sit here and say “one day the red blood will flow under the hand of the dark eyed man” and in three weeks if a man with brown eyes goes on a killing spree everyone can say “oh my god his prophesy came true!”

      • Neil Parker

        All I can say to you is if you prospective point of view is that narrow, there is nothing can be said that you will even understand minutely much less actually comprehend fully.

      • Dr Derp

        Says the retard preaching his childrens’ story on every single post on the page

    • Lokari

      “Atheist refuse to accept the fact that is GOD and no matter how much proof you can put in front of them they will not accept it”
      Thing is, no one has ever actually put *proof* in front of me. You know, something verifiable, tangible, or observable.

    • ohwow

      Plz never reproduce

    • Double Dukes

      Any prophesy can come true as long as it is vague enough, and that is precisely what the bible is full of, vague predictions that can be made to fit virtually anything.

    • Secular_Humanist

      If you are a parent, you know every child will ask one day “why is the sky blue, where do people come from?” later he will ask “why are we here and where are we going?” Those questions were asked by humans as aerly as they could walk upright. Genesis is an “uneducated” answer to all those questions nothing more, nothing less. Evangelicals, who should care about the new and not the old testament, call this “the truth,” in other cultures 9and religions) it is called mythology.
      Didn’t Adam & Eve eat from the tree of knowledge…?

    • Kevin Kuhn

      What you have described is a text book definition of a self fulfilling prophecy. The “Bible” says it will happen, so a bunch of people who blindly follow it, make it happen. Yawn.

    • >the Bible is full of prophesies that have in fact come true including one you should all know about and that is the re-gathering of the Jews to create the Nation of Israel.

      Which is why all Jews now live in Israel.

      • kathimc63

        Uh, what? All Jews now live in Isreal? Maybe I should tell all the kids at the Hebrew school in my town in NORTH EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA that they, in fact, live in Isreal. And i’m sure Mr. Goldstein’s deli is on Pierce Street and not in down town Jerulsalem. All Jews live in Isreal is as accurate a claim as Creaton.

      • Tan

        Oh dear. Facepalm!

        Edit: face palm on your behalf kathimc63. I guess you don’t do sarcasm in your parts?

    • Simple Reasoning

      Let me make a prediction: A bird will fall from the sky and fall in the open mouth of an alligator and that will signal the end of days. Keep in mind that just as your so called predictions there is no specific date, so my prediction may take thousands of years to happen but I can guarantee that eventually one day a bird will fall from the sky for whatever reason and an alligator will be chilling in its marsh with its mouth open and the bird will fly right in. Does my prediction coming true make everything else I say truth? NO! Your reasoning is flawed.

    • I’m pretty sure you need to stop “hijacking” the word “fact”.

    • white trash religious teaparty

      somewhat akin to stupid Christians believing that a miraculous healing of a cancer happened??
      when U superstitious scumbags CURE/HEAL an amputee let me know

    • Julie Wickstrom

      The debate was between two men. One had facts about our known world. The other had an old 100th (not sure how many versions there have been) version book whose “facts” were based upon his translations and assumptions. Bill Nye stomped Ham easily.

  • Mitch

    If you say your a Christian but don’t believe the Bible is absolutely truth and 100% accurate, you need to rethink your theology. That is ignorance. Even Atheists who have studied scripture translation will agree that the bible is accurately translated from the original texts

    • Inspector Spacetime

      Catholics don’t believe that the bible is the literal word of God. I know there’s no shortage of Protestants claiming that Catholics aren’t really Christian, but it’s hardly a credible position.

      • Austin Brenan

        I’m one of the protestants that don’t claim Catholics aren’t really Christian, I just disagree with certain things. I don’t believe the bible is the literal word of god, but I also don’t believe in indulgences; I don’t believe you have to confess your sins to a priest to be forgiven; I also don’t believe in Purgatory. I’m a Methodist and I guess you could say I’m an independent when it comes to Christianity, as in you don’t NEED to be in a church to get the grace of God as long as you live your life through God and try to listen and use the teachings through your life. I still go to church, but just don’t think Christianity HAS to be organized. I’m rambling on and probably getting way off topic by now but hopefully my point is understood. I just think Christianity is more about the general teachings and morals of the bible and accepting Jesus into your heart as a savior who loves all equally, even his enemies. Anyway, I agree with you. Such claims by certain “Christians” are ignorant I think.

      • Sam Graham

        Then you must believe that a child should be put to death for disrespecting his or her parents.

      • Austin Brenan

        Did you not understand what I said? I said I don’t believe the bible is the literal word of God and that there are things I disagree with. Not once did I say everything in the bible is correct, or that I’m a fundamentalist. What Christian do you know believes their child should be put to death for disrespecting parents? Fewer people believe that than not. I’m stating my belief, trying to prove something to Inspector Spacetime, who’s also a Christian. You don’t see me trying to prove a person’s beliefs are wrong. Don’t come at me with ignorant, blinded ambitions.

      • Sam Graham

        What the fuck are ignorant, blinded ambitions?

      • Inspector Spacetime

        Thanks, I appreciate your raising the point that there are Protestants who don’t dismiss Catholics as Christians.

    • Evan C. Paul

      Scholars, linguists, and historians have long fought over which translations of the Bible are accurate. You can’t really say that THE Bible is accurately translated, because there isn’t a THE Bible.

    • Paul LaBelle

      And christians wonder why people think they are illogical and ignorant. The fact that you say that if I don’t beleive that everyone on the planet is descended from the incestous pairings of Noah’s family and that every animal on the planet is descended and migrated from Noah’s shore fall in Turkey I can’t be christian just proves the point. I guess you also believe that humans were chased around Montana by T Rexes kind of like in Jurrasic Park.

      • guest

        Umm they weren’t being chased by a T Rex they were chased by velociraptors and they were were on an island not in Montana. .The TRex kinda did its own thing. get your facts straight…

      • Paul LaBelle

        don’t you remember, right after the guy on the crapper got chomped by the T Rex it came after Jeff Goldblum as he sat in the back of the jeep and told them to go very fast. And they found real life T Rex in Montana…

      • white trash religious teaparty

        and if U GOOGLE the accurate size of a raptor U will see its not going to attack a human

    • Artie Langston

      That’s utterly ridiculous. There is a great deal of controversy surrounding Biblical translation among scholars.

    • drae

      I am really sick of you and your ilk claiming that to be Christian requires absolute belief in the Bible, let alone absolute belief. It doesn’t.

      To be a Christian one has accepted Christ in their heart. It is just that simple and that profound. Judgement does not apply.

      I suggest you try to broaden your limited understanding of what Jesus said and what Christianity means to millions of people of faith worldwide who choose not to limit our faith to your regressive definition.

      • Matthew Malpeli

        Either the claims made by the Bible are true or they are not. It can be easily demonstrated that many of these claims are fanciful at best and following no logical process at worst. I call Christians like you single malt Christians. You take the most palatable and enticing claim on offer, that belief in Jesus as the son of God and deliverer of salvation will bring you ever lasting bliss, collect the things you agree on, things like do unto others, be charitable, homosexuality is wrong, and ignore (or are ignorant of) the truly ghastly ideas, such as the endorsement of slavery, divorce is evil, and women should stay silent and never be a teacher to men. Biblical literalists maybe bat shit crazy, but at least they’re consistent. People like you are simply self serving hypocrites.

      • Martyn

        Matthew, you’re technically correct, but which kind would you rather hang out with?

      • white trash religious teaparty


    • Liadan

      If it is accurately translated, that still doesn’t mean its truth. I do think its Truth, if you get the difference. but there is as much evidence for belief in other religions as there is in Christianity. Which is why the Constitution protects all religions and none should be pushed down our throats. Incidentally, I’m a devout Christian who thinks Eveolution is fact.

    • imapayne

      God didn’t invent Religion. God created man. Man created religion.

      • CM

        the only thing we can say for sure though is man created religion.

      • risingphoenix

        Man created both god(s) and religion and what you believe and who you believe in ( if you are naive enough to do so ) depends on nothing more than where you were born. Thus different cultures fabricating different gods/goddesses and their own versions of creation, existence, afterlife, etc. There is no ONE god, no “right/only” religion, etc. The only people who believe that nonsense are those without enough common sense and intelligence to explore, research and experience things OUTSIDE of the dogma they’ve been indoctrinated with. Funny thing is…once you’ve actually done that… it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that it’s all nothing more than myths, folklore, fairytales and superstitions.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        and,,,,,,,,,,,,,is ZEUS a bigger “badder” GOD than JEEEESUS?

    • TropicDave173

      Yes, but what original texts? The Aramaic? Greek? Latin? Or the New Testament texts, of which most of them were written long after Jesus’s time on Earth? What of books not included or removed because of conflict with what was considered canon? What of the inconsistencies between the OT and the NT?

    • Heather Robertson Barbour

      There ARE NO original texts. They were lost so long ago. That’s the problem. You’ve got a translation of a translation of a translation of a text that may or may not have existed.

    • frumpus

      There isn’t a single athiest or historian for that matter who agrees that the bible is accurately translated

      • V_ger

        Even Biblical scholars disagree on the various translations.

      • risingphoenix

        Here’s the conundrum. What good is an “accurately translated” MYTH anyways ?? A MYTH is a MYTH is a MYTH is a MYTH. PERIOD. It’s irrelevant because it’s not TRUTH/FACT/REAL.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        so————- my translation of MAD magazine as a child is worthless to me now?? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    • khallacy

      No it’s not. It’s been rewritten so many times with things added or taken out there is no way of telling what the original text said. It’s just a book written by men to control others. When you can prove otherwise let me know.

    • white trash religious teaparty

      100% accurate? (A) where did cains wife come from,,,,,? (B) how did NOAH get all those creatures to not only eat each other but how did NOAH get the ones who live on OTHER CONTINENTS ONTO those other continents???? did the buffalo swim the atlantic?? did the moas and thylacine swim to Australia????
      ” faith” EH??

  • Wellplayed

    Pretty much what I saw is that the creationists are trying to tell the world they exist and that they are human people too and that you should respect they’re “opinion”. That Is really all I saw here, Bill was just spitting facts left and right.

    • Wellplayed

      Oh and he also said at 32 Minutes in that “You don’t observe the past directly. when you think about the creation account, you can’t observe god creating.” That’s right, It was written in a book by a third person point of view. Which in science class was taught that third person accounts are almost always flawed. Play a game of telephone and see what happens. At least if you look at the evolution point of view they use evidence present within our own natural planet. We weren’t there thousands of years ago but were using the clues that the planet left us. Evolution may not be correct but at least its an actual educated guess. Creationism is just using what was written in a book by third hand sources, It was also proven to be third hand sources.

      • acronymous

        You can’t possibly observe the present, as it now is, in places thousands or millions or billions of light years ago. Some of the stars we now “see” are in fact blown to smithereens in a supernova. We see them, but they aren’t there. What we see is how they were before they blew.

      • Nick

        Present isnt always at a distance. You make it sound like we can only observe a ball dropping from thousands of light years distance.

  • Max Power

    I remember having a conversation about this looming debate a couple weeks ago with someone, and they said how excited they were to watch Nye kick the crap out of this nut. My response was that it probably wasn’t going to be as good as the realists were hoping for because no matter how many theories, facts, etc. that Nye would present, Ham would answer every question with “Because Gawd!”, and would then proclaim himself the winner. And here we are.
    “If you could rationalize with religious people, there wouldn’t be any religious people.” ~Dr. Gregory House

    • Nick

      +1 for quoting House.

    • Chocko_Rocko

      Cue Christian martyrdom claims, and… go!

      • white trash religious teaparty

        over the centuries………the slaughtered BY the “Christians”….are THEY also martyrs?
        ….or just secular heathens?

    • Hans Christian Sander

      The internet, the place where religions come to die.

    • The Ragin Pagan

      While I do agree with the side of scientific method in this particular debate, it is possible to rationalize (or even reason) with religion people. It simply weeds out the fanatics and zealots.

    • Cheyne Patrick Barroso

      Well said and well quoted.

  • fairness_rules

    The Bible must be accepted by faith. It is not a science book, it is a faith book. Christianity is also accepted by faith.

    • Max Power

      Which is why this debate was a farce all along. Science is a belief based on facts; faith is belief in the absence of facts. The two thought processes are mutually exclusive and were never going to have a fair debate.

      • Pipercat

        I’m not quite sure of the wording of this, your thesis is sound however. Science draws, then uses, conclusions in the forms of speculation, hypothesis and theory. These are based on measurements, mathematics and the like. Science is based on deductive reasoning; faith on well, faith. Belief really doesn’t enter into science.

      • Serenity Lithae

        I believe Mr. Nye took this chance to try to educate the people who were watching while also getting his point across with actual facts and knowledge and rational thought. Many times he addresses the audience and tries to get people to study and makes careers of science and engineering because it’s what we really need in society today. Very badly, we need these people to save America before ignorance goes too far. You cannot teach opinion as fact.

      • Guest

        America don’t need Satans lies of science and medicine, Gos’s Holy Bible and guns are all we need!

      • Matthew Malpeli

        “The great thing about science is it’s true whether you believe in it or not”
        – Neil deGrasse Tyson

      • SKAN ONE

        Because the bible is a crock of crap and lies used to keep the masses in check

      • acronymous

        No it isn’t. When it comes to history, for instance, there’s parts of the Bible that have proved to be more accurate than anybody expected. A minor functionary in Nebuchadnezer’s court or something, named in the Bible, turns up, with the same name just spelled a bit different, named as having the same job, in a cuneiform clay tablet found recently.

        And then there’s the poetry. Good poetry is good. Good poetry with some wise observations about life? Better still.

      • Ernest Crunkleton

        What about the fact that there was no mass exodus of millions of slaves from Egypt, much less any record of plauges of frogs or the death of the pharaohs son. or no record of David or Solomon or any cannatie kingdom at all?

      • acronymous

        Actually, archeology confirms that there were temple-type structures where the account says Solomon had them built. As to David, the evidence is sketchy but not entirely absent. As to millions of slaves from Egypt? Agreed—the Sinai doesn’t seem to have had that kind of a population living in it for that stretch of time.

        So the takeaway is that some parts of the Bible are better as history than most secular folk expected, and other parts are, at best, unconfirmed. Still others, such as the story of the Flood, cannot be taken literally and reconciled with any part of science, geology, or biology.

      • Nick

        Manhattan exists today and is popular. So amazing spiderman the comic will be a historical document in a thousand years?

    • Misty Corrales

      exactly. it is a sacred text, and that does not mean it has to be historically accurate. It’s supposed to teach something other than facts. — that’s not a bad thing.

      • Artie Langston

        But it has no place being taught in the science classroom.

      • Julie Wickstrom

        It doesn’t. This Ham stuff will only spread ignorance.

      • Carl

        I’ve read it, Misty. It is a bad thing. A very bad thing!!

      • LadyeCatte

        Confucius does a better job of teaching life’s little lessons. And none of his teachings advocate father/daughter sex or the murder of peoples who don’t believe as you do.

      • Matthew Malpeli

        Indeed, it does teach many things, such as how great slavery is. And genocide. And how women should stay silent and obey their husband’s every demand. Good Christian values…

      • acronymous

        The Bible doesn’t say that about marriage. The man is supposed to love his wife, not kick her around. Even if it’s paternalistic, there’s a give and take there. The stories of marriages include a lot of this give and take. These stories are worked examples of just what the precepts mean. (Or, worked examples of how NOT to behave, in some cases.)

      • Feather

        And how gays, non-virgin brides, and people who work on the Sabbath should all be killed.

      • SKAN ONE

        IT”S CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Wellplayed

      PREACH. They don’t know what came before as they stated in this video, But they sure don’t know what comes after either. They have to take it all on faith.

      • Johnathan

        You’re completely avoiding all fact, no evidence, no support.

      • LadyeCatte

        Based on FACTS. Religion is the extrapolation of gibberish from even more vague gibberish.

    • LadyeCatte

      Faith? An interesting euphemism for a silly idea instilled in the heads of children by parents who had the same done to their own impressionable young minds once.
      Christianity is like Santa Claus: Making with the warm fuzzies until someone you trust admits it isn’t real. Keeping “faith” alive for Santa doesn’t make him any more real.. except in the minds of those who refuse to face reality.

    • Robb Thompson

      Go stand in front of an oncoming train. Faith would tell you that if you believe, everything will be OK, if your God decides that it should be so. Science can tell you exactly what will happen, every single time.

      • V_ger

        Right. And then if that person is killed by the train, then apparently that one person didn’t have enough “faith”. LOL

    • Julie Wickstrom

      I accept that religion is faith. The point of faith is that it exists and doesn’t need proof. Science doesn’t disprove faith because faith is what you believe. Faith doesn’t disprove Science because Science is based upon logic and proof. The two are oil and water yet can exist together. You are allowed to accept both.

    • Sean

      exactly correct, it is not a science book, the Bible and any derivative works, such as ‘intelligent design’ or ‘creation theory’ should be kept as far from a science classroom, and children in general, as possible.

  • jd

    Ham never did answer what his favorite color is.trailed off on that ? also. weak….

    • Pipercat

      Black and blue….

    • Misty Corrales

      he did. Blue.

    • Neil Parker

      Actually he did, shows exactly your level of comprehension, even pipercat got that one.

      • Pipercat

        Apparently, you missed the dis…

      • Neil Parker

        Actually I saw it which made it more fun to say what I said. “even” and at least you had “blue” right.

      • Pipercat

        When you look up fallacy, check out pun too…

      • Restita DeJesus

        Wow, did Christ stoop so low as to throw out insults about people’s comprehension or intelligence? That snide comment hints that you think you’re more intelligent. I never knew that was a good Christian’s behavior.

      • kathimc63

        Christ called his disciples stupid a few times. Not in those words, but he did.

  • Artie Langston

    Yes, Mr. Ham. the Bible does offer explanations for difficult questions like the origins of different human languages. So does Aesop and Uncle Remus. That’s why people created myths and folktales. To Nye’s credit, he generally stuck to science and didn’t poke holes in some of the more outlandish self-contradicting parts of Genesis.

  • Elijah

    Science: here is the evidence, what conclusions can we draw?
    Religion: here is the conclusion, what evidence can we find?

    • Pipercat

      .. or evidence we need to fabricate!

      • Elijah

        or misinterpret so it fits with our outdated worldview

      • Linda

        Or don’t even bother to find! Of course they couldn’t find any evidence anyway!

    • white trash religious teaparty

      im stealing this one also—- great stuff!

    • INominate

      I thought it goes “Science: Here’s an idea, what evidence can we find? Ooh new idea, more evidence? Repeat…conclusion/s” and “Religion: Here is the conclusion. Nuff said!”

    • Gn8 R.

      Evolutionnaturalism: There is no godcreator, how can we explain the universe?

      Both sides start with an unprovable assumption that there is or is not a goddeityforce beyond what we can observe and measure.

      If there is no god then where did the matter compromising the big bang come from? and what caused it to expand all of a sudden? even if it was spawned from another universe before ours that just kicks the question into the realm of “Well, we can’t actually prove this but you have to just take our word for it (have faith that we are right)”. which is the same as the religious folks…

      • Praxa

        That’s not how evolutionists and naturalists think at all. Whether God exists or not has no bearing on their research. Like you said, they cannot disprove the concept because it’s impossible to prove a negative. Thus they don’t waste their time debating an obviously unsolvable. unprovable dillemma.

        A true person of science would never ask people to “just take their word for it”. That’s not even considered an option.

      • Nick

        It’s an already defeated point. The lack of evidence isn’t evidence. You think the Christian god set things in motion, Hindus for the Hindu gods, Muslim, etc. It’s either all of them are true or none of them. They all have the same kind of evidence. This is why the I don’t know answer is the right one. It’s the only unbiased one.

  • crabjack

    One thing Bill doesn’t take into account and answer for.


  • Rey

    “Keep in mind that I am a Christian”…. Mr. Clifton stop wasting your time trying to appeal to Christians… There’s not an iota of Christ in you…. you’re making the atheist side of you look bad.

  • Desmond Winters

    This debate was the Superbowl XLVIII of Science Vs Creationism.

    • MurraySovereign

      And Bill Nye is from… Seattle.

      • He even gave the Seahawks a shoutout for good measure.

    • Julie Wickstrom

      He gave a shout out to the northwest but there are some pretty neat things here area geographically. We live on a platform of basalt base and have some really interesting metamorphic and sedentary rock. It’s not surprising he was inspired by that.

      • Karen

        not to be picky, but it lends itself well to a funny:

        rock, in its natural state, is sedentary; sedimentary rock, on the other hand, while also sedentary, is layers of material laid down over (usually) a long period of time and then, as exposed to pressure from subsequent layers of deposition, the lower layers become rock

        the only kind of “rock” that I can think of that isn’t sedentary in its natural state is the molten sort, which isn’t referred to as “rock” but as lava

        thank you, thank you; I’ll be here all week!

  • KCMOfan

    I was raised as an evangelical. I never really believed most of what I was taught. Then I read, “History of God” by Karen Armstrong. It totally opened my eyes about the truth of how the bible has been “interpreted” over the years and why. A must read for anyone who is confused.

    • LadyeCatte

      You went through all that? All I did was listen to the married preacher tell us it what a terrible sin it was to have sex outside of marriage when I knew full well he’d recently knocked up my teenage cousin.
      Talk about getting a revelation right smack between the eyes! It was the moment I became an atheist.

      • Pipercat

        I would suppose this preacher was not very immaculate!

      • Meran

        So the reason that you became athiest wasn’t because of religion, it was because of a person. You’re pretty close minded if you can manage to shut out – at the very least – a learning experience because of the actions of one man. Martin Luther King was persecuted and murdered for what he believed in and the cause he fought for, if he had given up his dream because of the actions of thousands against him and those like him, nothing would have been done. Do you think he stopped to ask himself, “Why the hell would God let people beat us, and kill us, and enslave us?” He might have asked this question, but for the craziest of reasons it did not hinder him and his beliefs. Be an athiest. I’m not really a Christian myself so I have no narrow-minded view of how religion should work. All I know is that our actions and our willingness to believe has been the only thing that has kept our race progressing.

      • kvonm

        i think there’s a distinction though… what ladyecatte described was someone who was a religious authority in her life, someone who she was supposed to trust and respect, demonstrating that even they couldn’t (or wouldn’t) live their life based on the doctrine they were presenting as fact. so yes, it was one person’s actions, but that person held much more weight because of their position in the community.

        it is very hard for the intelligent person to folllow a hypocritical leader who insists “do as i say, not as i do.”

      • Diane Phillipa

        Christians were the biggest cause of my atheisim. They not only destroyed my belife in JC they also caused me to doubt God. If God does exist why does it tolerate Christians and other fantics to exist. Therefore God does not exist becuase no supreme being would allow its message to be used ot such vile twisted ends and be the cuase of so much hatred and death in the world.

    • Diane Phillipa

      Most of us didn’t need any such help. Genesis has no basis of any truth other than being one of many creation type stories. First read confirmed it was nonsense laugh out loud funny in places like Noah’s flood just to name one and that talking snake!

  • TropicDave173

    The comments pre-debate essentially agreed that no minds would be changed. Pretty much spot-on. Nye dragged out facts, Ham relied on “God said so”. No changes in what I can see from the comments.

  • Songbear

    I can’t believe Bill didn’t call Ken Ham out on that “45,000 year-old trees trapped in millions year-old basalt” theory – does Ham really believe any of that data is true? If he does, he’s contradicting the young-earth theory. If he doesn’t, and his point was to prove how flawed the dating methods are, then why bring up a theory containing flawed data to back up your argument? Bill seemed to shy away from that argument, I would have pressed the issue… I’m searching for that study on the Answers in Genesis website (where Ham said it would be available) but I can’t find it. Alas…

    • Regstr

      Well yeah, he was pointing out that the dating methods must be enormously flawed as that situation simply shouldn’t arise, in his opinion. Seems strange to say you shouldn’t prove dating methods are flawed by showing evidence for flawed data…

      Anyway there was little point in addressing it more though if Nye didn’t have the facts in front of him or know about this case — Creationists aren’t known for accurately relating scientific data, and snap conclusions based on second-hand data is more what I’d expect to see from Ham and not Nye. Nye preserved his scientific integrity by not wading into that.

    • Gene

      So Ham was blatantly misrepresenting the data. I’m a bit surprised that Bill Nye didn’t immediately call him on that. Btw, I’m a paleoclimate scientist, so I can explain the details:

      The reason that he claims 45,000 year wood is found in 45 million year basalt is because radiocarbon has a short half life (5730yrs), and so after 45,000 years it is completely decayed (only about 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 or about 0.25% of original C14 is left by 45,000 years, and that is the current limit of our ability to detect) – and at 45 million years it is as completely decayed as it was at 45,000.

      In reality there was 45 million year old wood encased in 45 million year old basalt, surprise, surprise.

    • chris

      Honestly i don’t think Bill was there to debate, he quite simply wanted to share his enthusiasm of science with other people who otherwise might never understand how amazing it is, because that’s the kind of guy Bill Nye is.

  • Knopper

    The bible, specifically Genesis, isnt a science book that details the origin of life. In fact there isnt a science book that can detail and prove the origin of life irrefutably. Heres what Genesis does say about creation “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the
    surface of the deep” I cannot ascribe to the 6000 year age theory from Mr. Ham based on the ambiguity in these first verses. Furthermore, the theory of evolution says (basically) that millions of years ago our ancestors came from creeping things and animals and millions of years from now we will evolve without fingers or toes. What I do know is that the Word says that living things come after “each of its kind” therefore the bible does not make an irresponsible statement.

    • Except that there is no such thing as a “kind.” The bible is a book of mythology and deserves to be treated with no more credibility than Aesop’s fables.

      • risingphoenix

        Exactly… the bible belongs in the FICTION section.

  • Matt

    I’ll admit I was nervous about this, because what Ham wanted was to show that creation could be an alternative to evolution. Well it is an alternative, in the same way the universe being a bogey sneezed out of a giant hamster is an alternative. Just because it’s an alternative doesn’t mean it’s a good one. I’m glad to see that The Science Guy didn’t just beat Ham, he humiliated him.

    • For real

      Dude, how wrong can you get. He did not win or even give good answers unless “I do not know” is an answer. The so called facts he did give are so fake I can not believe people actually think they are real.

      • Matt

        ….. says a science denier.

      • Diane Phillipa

        I don’t know is the right answer if you don’t know. It means the search for answers is on going. One of the startling issues for me during this was that Ken Ham gave a great presentation of what he and other creationists belive but could not offer any actual evidence other than’ its in this book; His whole argument appear to have rested on because we can’t see the past we can’t work out what happend. What a bizzare claim. So is he saying the wind that blows to day as we see it didn’t happen in the past. That at some point there was no gravity on the earth because there is no record that objects fell to the ground because human beings didn’t observe it. So it comes down to the question if a tree falls in a forest and there are no humans beings to hear it did the tree make a noise as if fell. Using his model of historical science the answer would we can’t tell.

  • CM

    This was nothing more than a desperate attempt by Mr. Ham to renew interest in his failing museum. All of the indoctrinated who were inclined to visit have. That is a finite group of people. As for the rest of the world well, we know there’s nothing to see there, It’s just another B-list fantasy land.

    • Linda

      But if you’re in the area when they have free days, you may consider a visit not to buy anything but for the laughs.

      • Julie Wickstrom

        I would see it for laughs.

  • Also, apparently editing out the long countdown to a video is a sin, according to something-or-other in the Bible.

  • Anoni Mus

    o.o I can’t believe he’s actually suggesting that tree rings aren’t proof of how old the Earth is. We’ve seen tree’s grow, and understand how the rings work. To suggest that you can’t reliably tell how old a tree is from counting them is just showing how far he’s reaching.

    • Mo_Hunkulus

      Which is just a few thousand miles short of how far Mr. Ham is reaching when he says “well the bible says that the earth is 6000 years old, becase if you add up all the lifespans…”

      • Julie Wickstrom

        From what I researched, a monk over a thousand years ago decided on this timeline. Also, who says all the lifespans were recorded? I read deuteronomy. It doesn’t seem that specific. So and so begot so and so, ext. It doesn’t give a timeline at all. Why would an all-knowing deity rely on man’s calendar literally? That seems silly. As a kid I going to a protestant church every Sunday I had never heard of such a young earth. I liked dinosaurs and thought the earth had been around billions years. Why are people trying to regressing in knowledge? For Christians, this is not an attack on religion, just a lack of evidence for the man-made assumptions of Mr. Ham.

    • Jim Pinckney

      If God created man (as I believe, He did), would he not have created him with age? If God created trees, do you think he created them as only seeds? or ringless sprouts? It seems to me that anything in creation could have been created with age as man must have been. For me there is no convincing argument in opposition of a young earth for this reason.

      • Jim Pinckney

        by the way, I am not a follower of Mr. Ham, though I do see credibility in many of the things he said. I also know that, as a Christian, he and I are promised persecution for our beliefs. So I expect it will come.

      • ThingsStuffington

        By that logic, it is literally impossible to know anything at all. The world could have been created five minutes ago, alongside all our memories, for all we know.
        But when all the evidence supports something, you cannot argue against it without arguing against logic and reason.

  • Erik Parmeter

    When the “elders” couldn’t answer my questions at 12 years old I never went back.

  • Dutchess

    Hamm’s entire argument in his first 30 min presentation was “look at this smart guy who invented something, he believes this BS so it must be true!!”

    • TheLump

      Classic argument from authority.

  • Kien Tran

    What we should communicate is the different implications of each ideology. With science you are constantly looking for the next question to answer. It’s as if to say there is more out there to discover and you have to be diligent enough to find the truth of it. The Creationist view seems to say “This is the answer, and that’s all. You will suffer damnation to try to prove otherwise”. This in itself is at odds to what Ham wishes to believe that Creationism will help us innovate. It’s hard enough to innovate being a totally free-thinker. It’s even more difficult to be the next Einstein if you’re being told not to look farther than “God did it”.

  • joeb56

    “Keep in mind that I am a Christian, so I don’t discount everything in the Bible. Though I’ve made it clear that I don’t put a whole lot of stock in the Bible as it’s obvious (to me at least) that much of it has been rewritten – and poorly translated – over centuries.”

    I’m confused. Why are you a Christian and only believe portions of the Bible? Isn’t that the proof of Jesus’ existence and teaching? Please explain.

    • Insatiable Booksluts

      You don’t have to believe every word of the Bible literally to be a Christian. Even as an atheist, I can very reasonably see how you could read the Bible, believe in Jesus, but make great allowances for people to have made mistakes in writing, to have had limits of knowledge when writing and to have misinterpreted or even just totally gotten something wrong.

  • Marek Scooter

    I am disappointed that Mr. Ham circles around Mr. Nye with such biblical nonsense and it boggles my mind ( not really) that such stupid people exist. He refutes like a bully, rather than as an “educated” person, and the anxiety in his voice easily displays his discomfort and back pedaling.

  • William Ellis

    As a Christian I believe in the Bible God’s Holy Word. I don’t believe this world was started with The Big Bang Theory. It doesn’t matter want scientists believe I believe in Creationism and stand behind it 100%.

    • khallacy


    • thatguy

      So if god comes to you in a dream asking you to prove your love to him by killing your family you would do so without second guessing him

    • Carl

      There is no evidence at all for creationism – absolutely none. But there is evidence everywhere of evolution. Rigid creationism is a relatively new concept, for centuries Christianity adapted to new revelations about the world. It is only in the last eighty years or so that it has become so rigid.

      Heres a unique concept for you – if you believe in ‘god’, BOTH can be right. First, what if the Big Bang and evolution are simply the tools/methods ‘god’ used to create Earth? Wow, look how easy it was to fit science and religion. Second, the timeframe – god exists outside of our perception of time, what’s to say that a day to him isn’t a million years to us?

      This battle extremist Christians insist on waging against science is stupid and pathetic – and a historically recent event.

    • Stacy

      That’s really sad for you.

    • real_world_truth

      And if I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, does that mean my belief is truth?

  • thatguy

    Im amazed the Mr. Nye didn’t smash him with one word dinosaurs there’s proof of them in science through fossil remains but no word of them in the bible


    Damn Bibles….can we just burn and delete every single one in existence? If we did they would no longer have any argument!

  • Lloyd Revalee

    I believe one thing, and I know its true. We are here, along with all the other wonderful things on this planet called Earth. I don’t have even the slightest idea of how it all came about, I don’t believe anyone else knows how it all came about, I don’t believe anyone will ever know how it all came about, and, I don’t believe we are supposed to know or worry about how it all came about. The human first existed, however we were created, with no restrictions on what we could do with our lives. Survival was the most important thing the first humans had to worry about. Such things as food, water, shelter from the elements, protection from wild beasts, etc. Alll the the rules, regulations, laws that we live by today, are manmade. If we have serious problems with those things, it is our own fault.

    • Feather

      I think it’s sad for you that you have no wish to question or learn about the universe around us. That’s what science DOES. That’s what science is FOR.

  • M. Wright

    This video is 2 hours 45 minutes? Good luck finding that sort of time to waste.

  • Alex T

    I’m speechless… If ever there were a case to be made to keep and actively enforce the separation of church and state, this is it. How dare Ken Ham be so arrogant to presume that the word of god as proof for all of the philosophical and scientific questions we have as beings in existence, is satisfying enough for everyone and should thereby be take as fact. After this I am convinced that Bill Nye is the coolest and most patient dude on Earth. I can’t believe I actually sat through all 2 hours and 45 minutes of that. If it weren’t for Bill Nye I wouldn’t have made it through.

  • Gary Menten

    One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled
    long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no
    longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured
    us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that
    we’ve been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the
    new bamboozles rise.)

    Carl Sagan,
    The Demon Haunted World

    • Pipercat

      I checked out Mr. Ham’s credentials. He earned a degree in applied science. This bothered me for a while. Then it became quite clear, he’s a snake oil salesman.

      • Gary Menten

        Having a bachelor’s degree in science no more makes you a scientist or a skeptic than going to church every Sunday makes you a Christian. I’m a skeptic for sure, but it doesn’t mean I take no interest in theology. My first degree was in history and it’s impossible to put western history into it’s proper context without knowing and understanding aspects of Christian theology.

      • Pipercat

        I guess I should have stuck with snake oil salesman…

      • Gary Menten

        Most bible-thumpers are.

  • DesertSun59

    I was quite pleased for Ham to be doing this publicly. He proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he’s absolutely not a fan of science but rather of Bronze Age tribal Jewish mythology. Ham used the famous circular argument a couple of times, which is ‘The Bible says that it says so, so it’s so.’ Anyone with a high school freshman introduction to logic can see how this is an EPIC fail so great, that nothing else he says can hold any weight whatsoever.

  • DesertSun59

    It’s truly amazing that people in the 21st century can actually come up with arguments to try to ‘prove’ Noah’s Flood and the Tower of Babel. There is ZERO evidence for either and there has never been evidence for either.

    I find it amazing, too, that no one has mentioned that the Tower of Babel was built out of mud bricks and certainly couldn’t have been too high due to that alone. It’s astounding that people can’t think this through in the least. Imagine a tribal Jewish deity terrified of people. Terrified so much that he had to not only destroy this mud brick tower, but ‘confuse’ them was well. Yet this same tribal Jewish deity did absolutely nothing when humans began to create the Space Age. I see zero evidence that our attempts to get to the moon were in any way thwarted. In fact, I see zero evidence that either Voyager probes have been destroyed by said Jewish tribal deity. I see zero evidence that the Horizon probe to Pluto has been destroyed. Yet, the Bible is quite clear that said Jewish tribal deity destroyed this very short mud brick tower because humans were just about to reach into the sky and FIND WHERE YAHWEH LIVED.

    Think that through for a second and ask yourself how Ken Ham has the guts to discuss this with children and adults like the destruction of the Tower of Babel was an actual event.

    • Helen York

      The ziggurats of ancient Babylon were probably the INSPIRATION for the tower of Babel ( Babylon- Babel) There is some actual history in the Bible but it has to be taken for what it is, a collecton of myth and mythified oral tradition. I mention the Bible as a source in my ancient History classes, mostly because many of the students have some familiarity with Bible stories. So finding out that archeologists have found ancient Jericho, for example, is a useful way to open the past.

    • Tony Van Deyl

      Keep this in mind. Some of the stories may not be accurate…some may be misunderstood or mistranslated stories. But just because there is one or two stories that are fake doesn’t make the whole thing fake, just like one or two old scientific theories that ended up being incorrect doesn’t throw the whole science book out the window. I just read something about Stephen Hawking saying black holes really don’t exist….just something to think about.

      • cootabux

        The bible is portrayed as the word of god. If one story is in error, then the validity of the entire book must doubted!

      • acronymous

        Some parts of the Bible are remarkably good history. A minor functionary of the Babylonian Empire was mentioned by name in the Bible. Just in this century, a clay manuscript came to light with his name and job included.
        You can’t dismiss the part that’s presented as history as totally unrelated to what actually happened. Some of what those ancient authors wrote down turns out to be just a straight account of what, who, when, and where.

      • JoeBS

        Hawking didn’t say black holes don’t exist – that was the flashy attention-grabbing, and frankly misrepresentative (read: wrong) headline. Hawking merely said that the event horizon of black holes may not act in the way Einstein predicted. That idea has been around for awhile, actually. Hawking just came up with one of about a million possibilities about how it might alternatively act. Read the story, not just the headline or the summary.

      • Corrector

        This would be a good point, except for one little detail. Not all scientists point to one SINGLE source as being the reason for any scientific principle or theory. By using the bible as their only source, christians readily back themselves into a corner that leaves them with one answer to most or all rational questions…”I have faith in …”. Nuff said

  • Steven Levy

    This whole debate reminds me of a joke….

    A man prays to God …. I want to be a millionaire. After many years of prayer, God finally responds to his request and grants him an audience. The man asks God, “God, is it true that one second to you is like a thousand years to us?” God responds, “Yes that is true”. Is it also true that a penny to you is like a million dollars to us?”… God responds “Yes that is also true”

    The man ponders for a moment and asks “God, may I have a penny?” God responds “Yes, I will give it to you tomorrow”.

    The fact is the Bible was written by Man, not by God. When Moses went to Sanai, God did NOT start out by saying….This is the history of the world. No, he started with the Ten Commandments. I don’t recall anyplace in the Old or New Testament where the history or age of the world is specified. So I guess I am at a loss where anyone can assume that the world is only 6,000 years old. Mr. Hamm is assuming alot! He is not talking facts but assumptions derived from a book written by man. I believe he is full of crap.

  • White True Patriot

    Satan created Jew lies to make people go to Hell.

    • cpartist

      You do realize that Jesus was JEWISH?!

      • White True Patriot

        Jesus wasn’t a Jew you fucking idiot, the was a CHRISTIAN! His name isn’t Jesus Jew it’s JESUS CHRIST!!!

  • Meran

    Bill Nye is such a dick. I thought this was fake, because I though Bill was better than that.

  • PIbber Seventy

    if you get dog breeding confused with evolution, you probably shouldn’t be debating science vs creationism.

  • Guest

    Thand Go and my White Christian politicians for letting me send my children to the Aryan Nation School with communist Jew taxpayers money. The only book they have there is the Holy Bible and what’s in is is all my kids need to know.

  • White True Patriot

    Thank God and my White Christian Republican politicians for letting me send my children to the Aryan Nation School with the communist Jew taxpayers money. The only book they have there is the Holy Bible and what’s in it is all my kids need to know.

    • PIbber Seventy

      nigga you be trollin

  • Kibwe

    science vs creationism?…..that is not what this is about it is evolution vs creationism…..if you watched this you can see clearly what is going on with this onesided artcle. if this person is a real Christian he would easily see into what ken was explaining about what we understand about to day in why this “are the way they are” and “what were we” which is a category of theories neither of which is a fact until proven to be a fact which we just can’t do because we were not there. but if we want to take science as evidence proving why things are the way they are there isn’t an answer to purpose there isn’t an answer to abnormalities and creativity can’t be explained..the creative notion…the concept of creation is extremely important to science.

    • JR

      Your right! The author is a douche.

  • John k

    this is great for pointing out how SOME religions cherry pick their scripture, but does nothing to get at the real unanswered questions: why did the Big Bang happen, and how did life arise? BTW, the history books are full of examples of fundamentalist (and/or corporate) “scientists” suppressing innovation and experimentation too.

  • Vern

    I don’t understand why people hate creationists so much. People think that Christianity is wrong and that Christians are always trying to push their religion onto everyone. But how can you say that? Even though it doesn’t have its own religion, your opinion is what you believe and what you believe is what you think is right. So no matter what other people say to change that opinion, you are never going to think they are right because your opinion is different from their opinion. Also, how can you say the bible is outdated? Science books are changed every couple years, the bible has not changed. The language in which it is written might change, but the context does not. Finally, why do people so vehemently hate Christianity? There are always going to be people on both sides that do the wrong thing, people aren’t perfect. You can’t put a stamp on a religion just because of a couple people that you think are in the wrong.

  • sfsilver

    I’m guessing Allen Clifton is pretty young. The political alliance made between the GOP and the religious right began over 30 years ago and did not emerge fully formed with the advent of the Tea Party. The creationism debate has raged for over 150 years and has been a major aspect of the American culture wars since the 1980’s when Christian fundamentalist, emboldened by their new found place in GOP political strategy began asserting themselves on school boards around the country. Inclusion of creationism in curriculum and suppression of evolution was their top education priority. This is not a recent phenomenon.

  • chris

    I can go on and on, but in short everyone will believe what they will believe and that doesn’t mean we all can’t live with one another without hatred. Easy concept.

  • CJ

    Oh my word Ken Ham is confusing me I’m sure he’s confusing himself. Next time give Bill Nye a more formidable opponent.

    • nghtstr

      Like a turtle? How about that Giant Hamster that sneezed out the Universe; he’d be a better opponent than Ken Ham is. The whole fact of the matter is Science, in its purest of forms, is about understanding patterns in our universe. These patterns are what make the Natural Laws (like the laws of Motion, or the laws of thermodynamics, etc). These have been tested, and proven, many times over. The real problem with Creationism is there is no test for it: it is based on faith. If it cannot be tested, then it does not belong in a scientific discussion.

      And whoa…. Don’t get me started on this whole Observational Science versus Historical Science. *There is no such thing!!* It is just Science: the journey of knowledge and reason.

  • Chris

    what i find quite interesting is how comments are disabled on the creationists YouTube video.. Makes you wonder why they don’t want the debate to continue among the rest of us?

  • Wiccy Shackleton

    The Bible also has contradictions in it. The ten commandments are frequently broken throughout, such as “thou shalt not kill” and the bible prescribing death as an apt punishment for even minor offences, and thou shalt not commit adultery, yet the bible again condones rape as an apt punishment in some cases, none of which where the woman was to blame.

  • hxcmike777

    I’m a Christian and even I will admit that Mr Nye went HAM on Mr Ham. What a babbling bafoon.

  • Randall

    you seriously posted a recording with a 5 minute wait time included?

  • Nick Wride

    What the scientists have failed to do is point out the FACT that long before the seeds of Christianity and Islam were planted in Judaism, long before the Old Testament was written, many, many thousands of years before, Man worshipped gods. They had their own gods, prophets, seers, even saviors. They had their own afterlife beliefs and their own Creation Mythologies. The modern religions of the world are just the latest to come along. The Jesus Mythology is nothing more than stories stolen from earlier, more ancient religions.

  • neosmite

    I’m not sure who I feel worse for, All the true believers claiming a moral victory or all the non-believers high fiving each other. Science’s original intent was to try to understand the word of God, not prove that he doesn’t exist. I’ve never understood why people on both sides of this non-debate are even arguing. On one side there is…. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, etc and so on. On the other we have…. in the beginning, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and expanded explosively, creating everything in an instant…..When I look at these two ideas I see the same thing. All of the irreconcilable differences between the two are really imaginary. The divide actually created by the stubborness of man. The never ending conflict, a monumental waste of effort. Move on folks, nothing to see here!

    • risingphoenix

      “Science’s original intent was to try to understand the word of God, not prove that he doesn’t exist”…

      Where the hell did you ever hear that ? Science exists INDEPENDENT of myths, folklore and fables. God is a creation of PRIMITIVE men who had no answers to explain what goes on in the universe. Science was developed by INTELLIGENT men to use reason, logic and evidence to explain the universe. One is FICTION , the other is FACT, You cannot reconcile FICTION w/FACT. Science and Religion are mutually exclusive.

  • 140seconds

    This is like arguing whether or not robots are stealing a person’s luggage.

  • Flying Cthulhu Monster

    When God created the universe, 13 billion years ago, I’m sure she saw fit to give humans and all the others a way to understand it that wouldn’t explode their little brains. “Keep it simple” she probably said. “Then let them translate it over and over again in a way that works for them”, she no doubt postulated. “I just hope they don’t end up taking it all literally, word for word”, she must have mused.

  • Jaime

    Allen, you call yourself a Christian but you do not believe in creation??? hmmm

    • Feather

      There are PLENTY of Christians who are not young earth creationists, and the fact that you cast doubt on the integrity of their faith because they do not take Genesis literally is, frankly, elitist.

  • Quakes

    Mystery: Who observed the events in the Bible happening? How did that “book” become a reference for every one of Mr. Ham’s answers? We didn’t see the author of the bible – can’t take it, I suppose.

  • Zzaproot

    I understand what the Bible says but what about the real source of all knowledge, my friend The Ghost Who Never Lies.

  • Christopher Mackessy

    For once can we get an intelligent believer in creationism to be part of the debate? One that can actually formulate well thought out responses and questions? I feel whenever something like this happens they just pick the first person off the street that believes in god and pit that person against a scientist with a PHD.

    Let us at least level the playing field by choosing two debaters with similar knowledge, debate level and intellect. The fact that the creationist uses the arguments he does proves this is not the case. There are MANY others that believe in god out there that would be able to hold their ground in any debate and we as viewers would be much better off to see that in place of this ridiculousness.

    • Feather

      The problem is that there are few to no young earth creationists who CAN defend their position better than Ken Ham, because the science is so clearly on the side of evolution.

    • Carol Lynn

      You think KEN HAM was chosen to do this and “picked off the street because he believes in God”!!!!! Ken Ham is the BEST they have. Really. There isn’t anyone better. He has degrees – both earned and honorary. He has debate experience and a very high profile in creationist circles. He founded “Answers in Genesis” which is where all the creationist talking points come from. The creationist arguments really are that bad and that shallow.

  • pookie

    Anyone else notice that irony that they’re both using laptops that show an apple with a bite taken out of it?

    • Nick Wride

      You mean like the FICTIONAL story of Eve, eating an apple after the talking snake told her it was ok?

  • Benet Garcia

    You must have watched a different debate that I watched. Ken Ham did an excellent job defending his proposition. Bill Nye wandered across his subject matter like an actor who only got his script the morning of. (I am not a young earth believer)

    • Nick Wride

      Nye presents fact, backed up by scientific research. Ham presents faith in the unprovable.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        ahhhh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, “unprovable”
        see: faith ( and VOODOO)

  • Doctor Guy

    The Book, the Bible. Everything Ham says is based on Faith only in the Bible. I cannot agree less with him. I respect religious people, but religion should NOT be taught in our public school, ever.

  • Lance Shipman

    There is one fact that no one can deny, and that is NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUTH, and can prove it with certainty. If either the creationist or the evolutionist could, then why can’t either provide us with dates and details of when and how the Earth was created? Then provide us with tangible proof. Neither belief can be proved or disproved with certainty and no one can convince me they can. It really boils down to what you want to believe, and I’m not talking about religion. Nor am I talking about the people who do or do not live by one. That is a totally different debate and should be left out of this one. I’m talking about if you believe in a more supreme being who created this spectacular one of a kind planet, as far as we can prove, that we live on and who reportedly claims to be creating another one for us when this one has been destroyed. I myself believe that man is and will destroy this planet some day. I certainly want to believe in a more supreme being who will save us from our own destruction, take us to a better place, and promises me that death isn’t my end. Why would anyone not want to believe that? I also believe that people who believe either way should not be chastised for it. And if you don’t believe that a more advanced supreme being could have created man, then do you believe that man can grow tissue in a Petri dish?

  • James

    I don’t understand

  • Noah Froio

    just can’t possibly fathom how any rational adult; whether or not they
    believe in a higher power, could possibly think that the earth is only
    6,000 years old. I mean, come the f*ck on people, there is absolutely,
    irrefutable scientific evidence that clearly shows the age of the earth.
    Who were these “scientists” that Ham showed in his videos?

    Were I the
    dean of any of the academic institutes these people work for, I would
    soon have an opening in my staff, as anyone who *ACTUALLY* believes that
    the ENTIRE UNIVERSE was created by some all powerful being, 6,000 years
    ago, solely for Humans to enjoy, is not a real scientist and should be
    stripped of any credentials and tenure.

    This is god damned 2014 people;
    we are not in the dark ages, and that creationist crap just don’t play
    and should be outlawed unconditionally in any form of academia that is
    not of theological nature.

    As Bill noted; there are TREES OLDER THAN
    6,000 ALL OVER THE PLACE!!

    Science Fool; Science, get with it or get out of the way if you have access to shaping the minds and education of our future generations.

    • Grant

      Wow dude, you’re angry and scary. You sound like someone from communist Russia or China. Of course, so do most people here. So hostile and angry that they can’t handle a dissenting argument against their own world view. I’m sure Galileo had anger towards him too when he dared to dispute the “fact” that the earth was flat. Then again, “there is nothing new under the sun”.

  • Jimme

    I’m just gonna say that wasn’t an embarrassment or anything like it at all, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it is totally biased and warped by past misconceptions and/or delusions.

  • CrabRangoon

    Ham’s argument “you weren’t there to see it” could have been easily turned around on him. He wasn’t around to see any Jesus miracles but still believes in it. he didn’t see Jesus rise from the dead either but stakes his whole faith in that concept.

    • Nick Wride

      He couldn’t have seen it, even back then, because it never happened.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        and if it did,,,,,,,,,,,the ROMANS would’ve written it down as that’s one bad ass trick!

  • Karen

    WOW – Bill Nye is one polite and respectful man!! I would have lost my cool with this Moron in less than 20 seconds . . .

    Mr. Nye put up with it for HOURS; AND STILL IS!!

  • Sam

    Science is observable and can be replicated. Unless you can show me a monkey turning into a human. Hmm… Have you ever observed this?
    Therefore, evolution is also a religion.

    • Max Power

      Ah, the “I haven’t seen it, therefore Gawd” defense. I never observed Hitler killing millions of Jews, but I’m not going to call it a religion.

    • Splash

      It is nearly pointless correcting imbeciles such as yourself but I will reluctantly try. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans, monkeys, chimps, gorillas etc. all evolved from a common ancestor. Some of us obviously evolved more than others.

  • Mariela

    Let’s assume that God its almighty and powerful, and he created the earth in 7 days, why then millions and millions of planets are not populated, how come we are the only ones. God couldn’t find another planet to create more people in his “image”.

  • John

    Science is made up of proved facts.
    Religion is made up of man made beliefs.
    I don’t believe in religion, but I do believe in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And that’s just the way I feel about it. There are no concrete facts to prove what I believe in is true. I have nothing to prove that I’m right. I won’t try to tell you what is right or what is wrong, that is up to you. And I think, that if we were to put 100 people in one room and asked one question, you’d get dozens of different answers.
    Just because someone believes different than you doesn’t make them wrong, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that their right.

  • 2l82xlr8

    Sorry..but Hamm proved himself to be unprepared for this debate.

    I still believe in creationism…I sat there and watched Hamm screw up over and over again, like Manning did last sunday…

    Hes a quack. I got that from minute #1.

    I was very impressed with Bill Nye…he carefully chose scientific observations that questioned Creationism, and put them out there for MR. Hamm to explain; He RARELY MENTIONED EVOLUTION… Which to me was brilliant. Its a shame that a better person could have been selected to support Creationism…I for one would have stepped up and take that role. I know more about explaining how the within Bible there is a historical record of many facts, which have been verified by other artifiacts discovered by scientists… even they cannot explain how these truths could have been documented by primative humans…

    No time to create debate now…I tip my hat to Mr. NYE, who brilliantly showed the world that Hamm had no credibility.

    • Splash

      I would genuinely be very interested to hear how you explain how ‘within the bible there is a historical record of facts’ if you would be kind enough to share. And before you start, let’s agree that words written in a book does not constitute evidence otherwise I would be writing this from Hogwarts.

    • Carl

      The bible uses lots of – at the time – current references (akin to today’s pop culture references in media) to tie it in to the world the reader and his audience know. This serves to connect the audience to the story being told and is a technique that is not exclusive to the bible. This is not proof of reality – Harry Potter, Shakespeare, countless soap operas and so many others contain such references – just proof of writing skills. If we apply your reasoning, they are all true as well.

  • Ryan Winch

    Ken Ham’s points are good but he misses the mark. WAY Too much time was spent arguing the flood by Bill Nye. Not enough time was (and there never is) spent on Philosophical discoveries. Ken Ham should have concentrated on proving the existence of A GOD rather than the God of the Bible. Bill Nye should’ve kept to logic rather than stating theories based on the available science. A shame that yet another debate skirts around the real issue. Neither side really proved anything of real consequence. Both camps can still sit comfortably on their sides.

  • NathanH

    Evolutionists will believe any far fetched thing they can think of. They can’t believe in a brilliant and kind creator though. I feel bad for them.

    It’s sad though.. How such open minded people can be so closed minded that they can blind themselves from things they can not yet see.

  • Matt Yarnold

    I’m embarrassed as an Aussie that we produced such a delusional person as Ken Ham. His trotting out of various christian scientists to support him does nothing – these people have not and cannot refute Nye’s arguments. It only proves that some scientists have had their objective mind destroyed by their religion. Nye wins this one hands down – Ham is telling porkies.

  • free Will

    I find ironic that you all just want to point to the parts of the bible that you think you can look holes in. Therefore it can’t be true, but you just accept the fact that the universe was formed by some matter just floating around in space. Where did it come from? Then after that evolution took over and man came along but yet there is no real fossil records to support this. I mean if where is the fossil for the alligator headed duck or did evolution just work right the first time and how come there hasn’t been any evolution in the past 1000 years or so in man? Well I guess we each have our truths. And I am sorry for the guy who had the pastor that nocked up the realitive that is terrible no excuse. However we did all hang the only perfect man to walk the earth.

    • Splash

      Just wow. Did you listen to Bill Nye at all? It is individuals like you who are unable see and absorb reason and scientific evidence and have ZERO clue how evolution works that have held the human race back.

      • Jenny

        I’m stuck on Just Wow. free Wil needs to open some books and not the bible!

  • Creationism is obviously bogus, a hypothesis manufactured to back a belief.
    I’m wondering how Clifton made a connection between creationism and the Tea Party. That seems tenuous.

  • stuff

    i thought everything in this manifestation has been scientifically proven to been created by light. Isn’t that what is poetically written???
    Evolution and creation are one in the same. Who gets tilled back to dust, who remains?

  • jade

    ” the rock was measured to be 4 million years old but the tree is 45000 years old” omg is Ken Ham for real. The rock was always there due, the tree came much later!

  • Bloodeagle

    Man it’s a straight up circle jerk over here.

  • Julie

    I can appreciate the lack of evidence and unfounded logic of the opposing side, but for someone so interested in science the author of this article has a clear lack of rhetorical skills to bolster his own argument.

    What I’m trying to say is:

    Don’t be such a douche.

  • Andrew

    Scientists that claim there is science that is not up for debate are not real scientists.

  • Splash

    I would like to ask Mr Ham this question. If he came home to find his family had been murdered, would he be happy if the police said to him ‘oh well we weren’t actually there to observe it so there is no way we can know what happened.’ I would hazard a guess at the fact that this answer would not suffice him. He would of course demand they collect EVIDENCE to deduce what happened. He makes me ashamed to be Australian.

  • Tree and the rock

    Bill Nye was to kind to Ham, there is one time that Ham brought up about 45000 years tree between a few million year rock, and he didn’t realize that those tree and rock is older than his belief…

  • lilbear68

    Nye picked an easy win with ham, it had to be similar to kicking puppies

  • Matt Sowersbry

    I loved the debate. Ken Ham’s reasoning was infuriating at times, Nye was great as usual, focusing mainly on debunking on the ‘4000 year old earth’ claim.
    It was time for this debate. Being of average intelligence even I can see that religion is a poor tool for explaining reality, but science (for good reason) does not address the core (and quite valid) question that religious philosophy is obsessed with: What happens to the ‘self’ when we die? And if it just disappears, then what does that make us? If all value ceases for me in the end, then does that not make value an illusion?
    See you in Hell, Ham!

  • Blame the Victim

    Never try and teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

  • Dan Mack

    Perhaps a leitmotif that is far more troubling than what’s observed above (Argument From Authority) is that creationists flip the script very aggressively on the rules, holding Creationism and Evolutionary Theory to very different standards.

    The standard argument by literalist Christians (in the face of encroaching science) seems to come down to, “well, if you convolute the story this way and consider that you can’t look everywhere at once and if you just imagine that this is a metaphor, that is a mystery, and the other is literal, then it’s still possible for our story to be true.”

    An example of this is the argument to reconcile the discrepancies between the four Gospels on Peter’s denial of Jesus (2 crowings or 3? Who challenged Peter and where? Etc.). Literalist Christians argue that maybe all the stories happened, and each section of the story was recorded by a different apostle (ignoring, of course, that the story makes no sense at all if the man denying Christ has four of his alleged cohorts following him taking notes). To confront massive doubt, we are asked to accept that a small loophole justifies the story because it can no longer be perfectly dismissed beyond the shadow of doubt.

    Then we have a Ham come in and say, “well…if God changed all the rules and left no evidence of such a change, then all your science would be invalid, wouldn’t it?” Ignoring of course that the whole point of God’s “word” is that he is being straight with us, and not creating massive deceptions in his creation in order to trip us up. Here, then, we are asked to ignore the mountains of proof for evolution based on the remotest possibility, the tiniest doubt that all in scientific observation is actually as it seems.

    If we flipped those criteria, literalist Christianity would be debunked a thousand times over and evolution proven a thousand times more. Instead, we are told that the thing that must be 100% literally true for any of it to be true is only true because of the .001% chance that a loophole happened, while the thing that we’ve said is incomplete and ongoing and which is 99.99% true and provable is in fact dismissible for that .001% of doubt that remains.

    Hypocrisy at its most absolute. Not to mention blasphemous against a truthful and honorable God.

  • r3formed

    “Though I’ve made it clear that I don’t put a whole lot of stock in the Bible as it’s obvious (to me at least) that much of it has been rewritten – and poorly translated – over centuries.”

    Although it’s obvious, as I’ve often been told, I’ve never been able to support this kind of claim with any real evidence. With such a magnificent manuscript tradition I would think it would be easy to demonstrate the obvious…

    Confirmation bias is dangerous and your article reeks of it.

  • jbsocket

    What the debate was over is if Creation is a viable model of origins in a modern scientific age, not about Science vs. Religion or whatever most people are talking about here. To say that commonly believed models of origin are fact is incorrect, they are theory. These are typically “Big Bang,” “Cyclical Universe” etc. The real problem with teaching these models of origin as fact is that to do so, one must look at the present history of mankind (about 6000 years) and extrapolate backwards billions of years. To say that the processes we see in nature currently; have always been as they are now, is ridiculous when extrapolating that far. The alternate model of origins discussed in the debate is intelligently designed creation by a Creator. This is based on the information given in the Bible. This model is intuitive as it makes sense that we have a limited historical account of the world as we know it because it was created recently. Furthermore, the design seen in the world us is hard to deny. Ultimately, it takes faith in either case because no person alive today was present during creation in whatever form it was manifested. Therefore, both models are faith based regardless of how much data you acquire. Bible believers simply have seen an intuitive relevance from the Bible as it correlates to the world around us and have placed their faith in the Bible as a foundation for their data. There is no contradiction here. Non Bible believers have simply denied the Bible and have instead opted for a less intuitive approach looking to the data to try and build models of origin; trying to gather information from the world around us and give meaning to it rather than the other way around as the Bible believers do.
    So, make no mistake, this is not a science vs Christianity debate, it is not a Creation vs evolution debate, it is simply a debate as to the viability of Creation as a model of origins, and when compared to the equivalent amount of faith required in both scenarios, it’s clear that it is equally as viable as any other theory.

  • Jekyl1

    As an avid science fan and atheist, I have to say I was disappointed in Bill Nye’s performance. I thought he came off as a bit scattered and somewhat condescending. Perhaps it’s because there are so many ways to argue (and prove) his point that he was often overwhelmed with which facts to use. But I also thought he missed several opportunities to really hit a home run. He never pressed Ham on the question about citing other sources besides the bible. He never truly pressed him on all of the contradictions in the bible or why Ham is adamant that genesis is literal, but other parts aren’t. Or the inherent ridiculousness of the biblical story: If God loves us all, and created us, and is all knowing, what’s the point of The Fall? If it’s that he’s a vengeful god, well, then he doesn’t love us. If he’s all knowing, then he knew all of this (sin, non-believers, science, etc) would happen and therefore why is he so mad at us and why did he need to sacrifice his own son, blah blah blah. None of it actually makes any sense. And Nye never really hit that point home. He stumbled around it, but never really succinctly nailed it. He never said simply: Science is the search for the truth and when something we thought was true turns out to be untrue, we embrace that as knew knowledge and change our idea of the world because we know have more knowledge. When Ham kept saying, “Well, there IS a book that says…” Nye should have countered with, “You have ONE book. I have thousands that back up what I am saying. You are choosing to believe that your book was written by God, but you have no proof other than that the words in the book say it was written by God.”

  • Diane Win

    LMAO Interesting to note that comments have been disabled on the video you’ve embedded, which links to the answers in genesis youtube channel HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Let me try and ponder this, xtians SAY they want debate YET, they disable the means to, because they know how soundly they get thrashed in open forum.

  • Timothy Schenks

    When Jesus was confronted by Satan in the desert, he didn’t debate with him. He said “The Bible says…”

  • thowedthanka

    “Though I’ve made it clear that I don’t put a whole lot of stock in the Bible as it’s obvious (to me at least) that much of it has been rewritten – and poorly translated – over centuries.”

    What actually changes so much?

  • Penny Hernandez

    What I wonder about is why so many people base their ‘science’ knowledge on a book written (or written down, if you believe the words are divinely inspired) by men who didn’t know where the sun goes at night.