Question for both men; What would it take for you to put your hands up and admit , albeit in shock, that the other guy was right? Bill Nye said if you found even one set of Kangeroo remains between the middle east and Australia then it would prove the Ark did end in the middle east and kangeroos etc moved down to australia directly from it. Ken Ham's rigid thinking is that god is real and theres nothing that could persuade him otherwise. What is the point then in him debating? if his mind is already made up and will not change?
Ken, this was so disappointing. Bill Nye was speaking science, you were mostly appealing to scriptures. I think you were at the wrong event that evening. You can bring in scripture as a bridge after you speak about science.
Oh yeah, sure I will, I bet you took a really balanced approach as to what should remain and what should be cut(!) Unlike the gentleman you were debating, I'm perfectly prepared to say that your arguments were PATHETIC. I am in awe of his restraint, though even he couldn't prevent his feelings from being evident in his expression. You cite scientists and their evidence only when they agree with your view and disregard the vast majority with better evidence that don't while being completely open that there is no evidence that could possibly convince you that your beliefs aren't factual. The most valid point in your entire presentation was at 3:19 (the Dawkins foundation statement) and even that I can't agree with because at least there are 10 million people who were able to see the difference between a reasoned argument and pure ignorance as a result of this 'debate'. For that, I thank you.
@@bizarrefruit9133 Bill Nye tried to avoid Ken Ham's theses and talked of sciences that have nothing to do with the question of God and creation. A God-believing scientist can plan a car or space ship just as well as an atheist scientist.
@@wendigo53 doesn't the bible say he knows everything lol and according to this people that's his word... so like I guess he is claiming to know everything even if he doesn't exist to claim it.
Bill Nye discounts all the scientific evidence Ham presented, he does this and it results in a unfair argument where one side’s evidence is accepted and the other’s isn’t.
@@wendigo53 I mean, if God is as powerful as the Bible says, he can be blamed for pretty much everything that happens. All is within his control, therefore he bears the end blame for all things that happen, good or bad.
Science-Denial always resembles previous Branches of itself. I dunno, maybe worth a thought before supporing something: maybe its GLOBALLY FROWNED UPON for a reason?
@@gustavocruz2321 Because by creating a false answer to the question you end the debate altogether, shutting down the ones who still want to know the facts. It's a defensive mechanism to maintain stupidity.
Regardless of who's side you're on, you have to admit this was a much more civil, respectful, and productive debate than anything we've seen on the political stage lately.
It’s super refreshing, honestly. But I do think it has less to do with the political climate back then and more to do with the fact that both of these men are extraordinarily respectful and well meaning individuals who’ve managed to stay out of major controversies. I applaud and respect both of them.
When one side admits nothing will change their mind while the other side only needs evidence, it's obvious who's being intellectually honest and who isn't. This was awesome.
The problem is that people like Bill are ideologues of the cult of Secular Humanism, and while they pretend that they'll always follow the evidence, they ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They function on faith that processes happened in nature to create what exists now, even though those processes are starkly contradicted by the universal laws of nature, which makes them objective impossibilities. For example, Variation within kinds of animals is the result of genetic variability already programmed into the DNA of species, caused to manifest by the removal of more dominant genetic traits through breeding. As such this variation is in full accordance with the law of Entropy, but is the opposite process from the one that the Secular Humanists claim created all of the kinds of anmials on Earth. The spontaneous emergence of new genetic code that turn one kind of animal into another doesn't happen, as it would violate the law of Entropy. Such change has never been observed anywhere on Earth. Yet Secular Humanists claim that Macro-evolution is "proven" even though it's actually utterly without evidence. In truth, the Secular Humanists conflate their hypotheses and conjecture with the actual facts, which is why people think there's actual evidence for Macro-Evolution, even though there isn't.
@@globalcoupledances Mutations are the deterioration of DNA, errors in the replication of genetic code. They don't create new body parts, and they're universally neutral or detrimental to the survival of a species. There's a reason in modern biology mutations are called "genetic disorders".
@lennardchurch8483 - Creationist dogma is that healthy genome doesn't survive, only bad mutations survive. According to creationists antibiotics are not necessary because the bacteria in your body underwent so many mutations that they become extinct.
@@lennardchurch8483 are you serious with this comment? No mutations are good? That's just dumb, have you never heard about viruses? Or bacteria? Or farm animals? Or cash crops? Or literally any creature? We observe positive mutations constantly and you're just pretending we don't? Also, abiogenesis wasn't just 'poof' now there's DNA from nothing, all the chemicals were already there they just came together in a spontaneous way (you know, the way thermodynamic processes tend to happen)
Every few years I have to come back and rewatch this masterpiece. I only hope that everyone watching learns to think critically and question the motives and intentions behind the things they are taught.
Our leaders are paid to confuse and frustrate Americans, it's on purpose. Nye is paid to deliver lies in a calm manner for those who take in info in this manner. The politicians and Nye are liars and are paid by the same group of people....these very people killed 40 million Christians in the early 1900's and will not let the event be taught in American schools...same people.
@@tinobemellow scientists gatekeep to protect their careers just like politicians. scientists are human beings with beliefs and views. Read Sheldrake he talks about how people who teach the passive voice in science are actually mediocre scientists. Sheldrake is branded a pseudo scientist because he rejects naturalistic dogma and wants to set science free.
your way of saying adults shouldn't all be expected to act like adults is incredibly telling. No matter the occupation, we know how to be adults. People like you excusing their behavior is only beneficial to them so thanks a lot for holding us back by basically saying if you're a politician we can forget how we were raised.
That's what debate is. If you think the presidential debates are actual debates, they aren't. They have become a mud-slinging event made to stir up controversy. Because controversy sells and most people watching have no idea what a debate is.
@@rossandtami0812 The fact that you got nothing out of what Ken Ham was saying doesn't mean there was nothing there. Your contempt for what Ken Ham was saying and christianity in general will lead you to one of 2 ends. Either Ken is wrong and there's no harm no foul, or Nye is wrong and you're eternally damned! I would think that choice would at least make you curious of the other option.
@@feetyeet8538 The Bible isn’t an accurate source of information when it comes to science. Actually, the fact that religious people claim it has all the answers further proves it’s lack of credibility
@@Phoenix_1776 Let’s get this straight man. The Bible is about history, and there’s a reason why history and science aren’t the same thing. Can you use the scientific method to figure out that George Washington was the 1st president of the US? NO you know why? Because we can’t go back in time and observe his inauguration and talk to him and study his presidency. So according to “Science ” you can’t prove that he was the first president of US. But we obviously know that he was, so how do we know this? We know this because there were eyewitnesses that watched his inauguration and his presidency and those eyewitnesses wrote down those historical events so that now in the present we are able to read those historical documents and have proof that he actually was the first president. This is why it is important to understand the difference between science and history. Because of this the only way that you would have proof that the historical events of the Bible are true is if they’re were eyewitnesses that wrote down what they saw because as I’ve previously established (YOU CANT USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ON HISTORY) And what do we have when we look at the Bible, exactly that. “THE BIBLE IS A RELIABLE COLLECTION OF HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS WRITTEN DOWN BY EYEWITNESSES DURING THE LIFETIME OF OTHER EYEWITNESSES. THEY REPORT TO US SUPERNATURAL EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE IN FULFILLMENT OF SPECIFIC PROPHECIES AND CLAIM THAT THEIR WRITINGS ARE DIVINE RATHER THAN HUMAN IN ORIGIN.” This is why the Bible is true.
I was in 6th grade going to a private Christian school and we had to go to our science teachers house as part of a field trip to watch this debate outside of school hours. I remember them teaching us how Ken had just schooled bill nye and I believed it. Here I am rewatching for the first time since and oh my god. Only a 6th grade version of me could believe anything Ken said. The ark alone is as far fetched as any Greek mythological story Christian’s claim to be nonsensical myths. Glad I came back to watch
If it was a political debate I wouldn’t have watched but 10 minutes of it,holding your ground and be respectful to one another is what civilized people do.Great debate.
@@littlehollow He might has well have. His viewpoint is based around the ignorance of time and scientific based measurements and plain, outright, measurable evidence.
@@sqlevolicious The truth is that neither one of them has unequivable evidence to prove his view. The bone structures which were found in remote places during the last century were later found NOT to be of humanoid structure. Those who were proponents of human evolution were quick to label these pieces by human names. The skull which was labeled " Lucy" was later found to be of the Scientific name: Australopithecus afarensis or "southern ape." Every bone sample found in the last century and given a human name, was later discovered to be of animal origin. Most of these same species were later found to be in the more remote regions, decades later. It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creationism. I found it more "dark ages", "cruel", and " repulsive" to know that some of the older evolutionists used their theory of evolution to advocate that "blacks were more primitive and less intelligent than whites." I also admit that the cruel torture and deaths done by the Inquisitions and other rejigious groups were due to the human ego to control others, instead of out of religious piety and charity.
Greatly enjoyed this debate because of how respectful the two were. For the most part, they kept the discussion on the topic at hand instead of letting it progress to an argument about the other person. Respect to both.
@@wk8000 If that's what you saw, that's what you saw. I personally saw a man who tried to, at least take seriously, a person making incredible claims, with very little information to demonstrate why such claims should be taken seriously.
@W K and what you believe in...isnt magic? You literally believe in a big invisible man who created everything out of nothingness. Your communion is a symbol of drinking blood, your prayers are nothing but a religious form of manifestation and spellcasting, and you blind yourself to the very obvious truths of our time. Science is observable, science is retestable, and science is reliable.
Telling me, maybe we should send presidential candidates to the Creation Museum to take a class on how to have a mature grown-up conversation\debate while keeping your dignity.
@@213mug how about we don't send people to the Creation Indoctrination Center and instead tear it down to the ground and replace it with something that has actual value to society?
What Mr. Nye speaks of happened to the Muslim faith in parts of the world ... they were a center of learning until conservative Muslims decided some things couldn't be discussed,,,
I completely agree with you. If Christians were to go down Ken Ham’s route, we would end up in a similar situation to today’s fundamentalist Muslims. Some of the world’s greatest scientists were profoundly Christian, but capable of accepting empirical evidence.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali Muslim who became atheist for over 30 years, recently became a Christian. And she mentioned even when she used to bash Christians, they would send her letters that they were praying for her rather than bashing or insulting her, whereas the letters she received from Muslims were insults along with death threats. She said as an atheist, the crucial mistake she made was thinking the God of Islam was the same God of the Christians. She said they are two completely different beings. Islam (when followed in it's truest sense leads to terrorism), Christians who follow their faith to the tooth, become monks and work manual labor intensive jobs along with praying for the peace of the world.
@@eliasjakemoran02 One example. In minute 1:25:42 Ken Ham states “the laws of nature haven’t changed” Later in minute 1:32:18 Bill Nye says again that Ken Ham believes laws of nature have changed.
Why? Ken Ham gave tangible examples of bears and bats with large, sharp, fangs and teeth seemingly implying a carnivore - and yet they eat plants. How is that funny?
@@lukeedison1632 They are not tangible examples because Ken Ham is trying to change the order of the natural world to fit into his narrative - the bible. It just does not work because he has no evidence - his evidence is "because the bible says so". There never were herbivore lions. Lions are apex predators and members of the cat family, which are obligate carnivores. This means that their bodies are adapted to digesting and deriving nutrients from meat, and they have not evolved the specialized digestive systems necessary for breaking down plant matter. Each species that you mention has evolved in a particular way and hence they have a particular diet. Because of their diet, they will have a set of teeth that assist with their diet. For example, Pandas do have sharp"ish" incisors and flat wide molars and are predominantly herbivores. The reason they have sharp incisors is to help break through the hard outer part of the bamboo. Their teeth and jaw have evolved for them to be able to eat that diet. Same with the bats. BTW, most bats eat insects and small rodents/ animals. The three species that eat fruit have flatter teeth. So no, Mr Ham has absolutely no evidence to change his belief into the fact that lions were ever herbivores!
@@lukeedison1632 Bears aren’t only carnivores though it’s evident in the structure of their teeth specifically their molars. Lions however have teeth more suited for biting into prey and their molars are pointed
Yes, LOL. And even if he was there...forensic evidence is regarded as more certain than eyewitness testimony. Given the way our brains work and the inherent perceiving biases we all have, eyewitness testimony is rather weak.
It is also a matter of psychology that one starts to believe what he considers to be a fact because it is taught so widely, when it is not fact, it is theory (such as the theory of evolution, or the big bang theory). I've never heard of the evolution fact or the big bang fact. So, just because we are taught these theories in school does not justify them as being fact as they are made out to be.
@@RockyProductions360 i’m pretty sure most people know what a theory is. I don’t think anyone is out here claiming to know how the world started as a 100% fact, that’s just not knowledge we have yet, but there are people still trying to figure it out. But same with religion. I have never heard being religious taught as a fact, it’s always said you need to “believe.” it is a theory as well, and not a scientifically backed theory either.
Just because someone came up with an idea that turned out to be a life changing invention, does not mean that whatever else that person claims, automatically becomes a truth.
He was just saying, that scientists who believe in Biblical creationism can still be scientists, they don't have to be atheists and their work isn't less credible than the atheists work.
@@cristianbenites4521 "that also ecplains" God created us, we didn't create God. Schools, universities, hospitals, laws all came from Christian backgrounds. Without Christians mankind would still be contemplating his navel.
Thanks for holding this debate forum. America would be much better informed of our political candidates would hold debates with similar guidelines for give and take and question and answer periods instead of biased media moderators skewing the discussion or topic at hand.
It’s alarming that we have candidates from a particular side of the aisle that run away from debates. They’re afraid of allowing voters to get a good look at what they stand for.
Do you think this debate was (a) a contest to see who had the "better" arguments, (b) a joint search for true understanding, or (c) two people talking passed each other who will never reach a common understanding? (Hint, only one of these options is consistent with rational debate and critical thinking.)
The point s that Americans are not informed, but instead believe in ridiculous lies or are left so confused and frustrated that they just give up in frustration. Nye falls along the lines of the 'smooth liar'...he is no better than any politician who's role it is to leave you in confusion and frustration.
Something I love about Nye debate, his debate wasn't even to argue with ken. It was to remind the audience that science isn't big scary false stuff, but is what is keeping us going better tomorrow. He wants people to help evolve us forward technology. To learn more to question more
@@ThyBountyHunter I'm horrible at texting honestly so if you pint a mistake out im quick to say I'm sorry about my mistake! Thank for pointing it out! :)
@@si-fianimegirl6940 You have to put logic in quotes when talking about creationist "logic". Because that stuff is straight up silly. To the point where, if you leave them alone, even a kid can figure out that it's all kind of bulls__t and makes no sense.
We can't know because we were not there. This is absolutely true but just because we were not there to observe is no reason why we cannot develop hypothesis to develop theory. Everything cannot be proven by observational science. We could not see viruses before the electron microscopes but believed something was there . Nothing wrong with theory when that is all we have. That does requires faith but not blind faith.
He’s right though. Completely. All data gathered is based off of user analysis, and each person analyzes data differently based on their personality. Speculation is subjective and based in belief, not on the past.
@@jaybailleaux630 Probably, because those 10 different people will be giving their perspective, but at the end of the day they will still say there was a car crash.
I think it's because some people (on both sides) just want to argue and be "right" and there's no civility. They aren't really interested in intellectual conversation and debate. Most of us that will sit through a 2 hour video know how to be respectful to people we disagree with.
I am so thankful that I am a Christian who knows the truth about the Bible and God. In the Bible God tells us that he created the Earth in 6 days on the 7th he rested . God did not talk about science or the Big Bang theory. So until God comes down to earth and tells me then what he said was wrong about creating the earth, I'm going to believe him and not believe what the scientists tell me.
@@berthascott4268 Rather odd to completely disregard the years of work that scientists, geologists, zoologists, archeologists, and paleontologists Put in to tell us the facts of the world we live in For some ancient text that has been debunked numerous times
@YourLocalEldritchHorror The Bible has been consistently reliable. Only getting 1 major update ;) Science has pivoted many times. That's why I don't drink mercury.
Look into some of the replies. Lots of insulting intelligence, condescending language, and patronizing opinions revolving around faith on both sides as presented in this debate. People are people.
Both men and the moderator put forth a respectful debate on a subject that is a bit concerning is even up for debate. "We can't use reason to persuade a person of a new position who did not use reason to establish their current position."
@@thepotatoofheavenignorant people dont change. Theres a difference between misunderstanding and completely ignoring information and only wanting to be right.
Glad you came to your senses bro 🙏🏽 Was also a believer cause my family taught me to do so. As soon as I learned more science nothing I was tought made sense
@@Rektenon6The science can be reconciled with the Bible, Ham just has a limited view of Genesis which doesn’t allow for it. It’s too bad that people think that Christianity is Ham’s view, when it’s not. His interpretation of the Bible is just wrong. You can indeed hold to both at the same time.
@@miniclan68 no its as simple as it being transparent because they’re providing their viewers with both sides of the argument so people can decide on their own. Both schools of thought are equally valid as neither can be categorically proven without reasonable doubt, one due to unobservable timescales and one due to the need for an intelligent creator
I'm surprised Bill mentioned the basalt sliding over the wood, instead of pointing out the different dating methods used. Ken mentioned that the rock was dated using potassium-argon dating (which is accurate from 4.3 billion years to 100k years in the past), while the wood was dated using radio carbon dating (dates ranging from approximately 50k years to 500 years in the past). This means the wood could easily have been as old as the basalt layer, but the dating method used was the wrong method for the necessary age range.
Well, if the wood still contained C-14, that would be proof it's younger than 50.000 years, as carbon dating simply doesn't work if it no longer had that carbon.
I’m not sure which came first, this debate or the tour of “The Ark” but Nye brought up different dating methods and every time Ham would dismiss it with false science or deflecting back onto how the the Bible was fact
since basalt is an igneous rock, the wood would have burned comletely. The whole thing does not make any sense to me. I think he just pulled it out of his...
Too many people are swayed by the feeling that one candidate is stronger or more correct because they were louder, more aggressive or more dominant in a debate. (Not that most people haven't made up their mind by the time of the debate)
I hate to say it, but saying "this guy did a really important thing in science and he also loves God so... this is totally a plausible model!" He is using people who have made strides in science as the model of what should be fact. That's not correlation. That's not evidence that Creationism is plausible.
Why would you hate to say it? I think you're trying to use rhetoric but, by all means, proudly assert it. Religion, unlike in any other field of discourse, has been given a pass for thousands of years despite putting forth bad ideas and fairy tales. It's time for that to stop.
They do. Behind the scenes. It's kinda like the car salesman. At home, he may be a great dad, a good neighbor and even a godly man. At work, he does what he has to do to keep his job.
Too many people are swayed by the feeling that one candidate is stronger or more correct because they were louder, more aggressive or more dominant in a debate. (Not that most people haven't made up their mind by the time of the debate)
@Zero-0-Cypher it’s not really hard to understand Ken’s argument. He says there are two types of science, “observational” and “historical”. Observational is what you observe in the present. We can see the Eiffel Tower. We know it is 1,083 because we can measure it and we can measure it because we can see it and touch it. Gustave Eiffel built the tower between 1887 and 1889. But, how do we know that? We weren’t alive in 1887. We weren’t there to see him build the tower, so how do we know if Gustave Eiffel was a real person and if he build the tower of Eiffel? Well, his grave is one thing that tells us he was an actual person. Why? Because we can observe (see and touch) his grave stone. And also there are books (historical science) that tell us about him and tell us he built the Eiffel Tower. That is the difference between Observation and Historical science and that is what Ken Ham is saying.
You can believe the Bible because the death burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ has been historically proven. Not even Academia argues whehter Jesus was fake because there is proof. What it comes down to is do you believe what Jesus Christ said about Himself being the Son of God and the Savior of the world from their sins. That He alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that only through Him can you everlasting life if you believe in Him
Honestly. Honestly. I disagree with almost everything they stand for, but GOOD FOR ANSWERS IN GENESIS for leaving the comments open and entirely unmolested. Say what you will about the organization, but at least they seem to support free speech, even when the vast majority of comments oppose them.
Only problem is, you can’t change the definition of evolution and most science- based definitions, they are the definitions of what they are. Science finds answers with evidence they have, and religion tries to work themselves into what they cherry pick from them
I wasn't there when ancient romans built great roadways, but I can tell you through observation of many, many pieces of evidence how they did it. Whether or not you were present for something does not change whether or not you can determine how and if it happened. If Ham wants to keep leaning on that argument then he will never be able to claim religion as a matter of fact because he was not there for any of the story of the bible or before it.
Do you know that Tiberius was the emperor of Rome during the time when Jesus was crucified? How do you know? Because of writings and other evidences that date to near the time of his Reign that confirm this. Did you also know that there are four times the number of writings about Jesus outside of the Bible that talk about the miracle of his resurrection. 500 eyewitnesses testified to the fact that he did resurrect. If Jesus resurrected from the dead, then he was God and every single word of the Bible is true.
@@billie-jeanmede2984this is false. There are only two non-biblical and non-interested (I.e. non Christian) sources that even mention Jesus’ existence - much less his resurrection: Josephus and Tacitus. And the Josephus reference is considered by a significant number of scholars to be a forgery. The 500 witnesses comes from Paul in the Bible. It is not independent evidence.
@@billie-jeanmede2984The bible describes a flat earth in the Old Testament. The gospels disagree on the day that Jesus was crucified (look closely at the Gospel of John compared to the others) and (other than virgin birth and location) all details of his birth. How can every single word of the Bible be true?
I'd love to see a debate between scientists, especially the creation scientists. Because as objective and open as I tried to be watching this, there was virtually nothing Mr. Ham said that was even remotely compelling.
"especially the creation scientists" and "there was virtually nothing Mr. Ham said that was even remotely compelling." Ham believes we got CREATION by supernatural means and Nye by natural means. To your tiny brain though, Ham is wrong. So show that or admit you don't think much. Certainly you're aware of creationist don't believe in a natural creation. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@noahc2078 Um...my fault for what? Not being impressed with terrible arguments? Clearly there ARE creation scientists, I'd love to see a debate with them.
@@dogsandyoga1743 Bill Nye isn't even a scientist, and his arguments were pretty much a really long version of what's called the question begging epithet, where he basically gave is evidence immediately acted like it was indisputable, whereas Ken started by leveling the playing field with the assertion that creationists and evolutionists see the SAME evidence in different lights. Bill Nye basically excused it all. Ken's arguments were far more compelling.
He did this to show that the idea that you can't be a great scientist while also believing in God and or that the earth is 6000 years old is not the case.
I already commented but, wouldn't it be awesome if political debates could be respectful and decent human beings like these two to one another and to opposing views? would be a lot less problems and polarization if people respected each other and weren't threatened by each other and could argue with a live and let live mentality still.
It's very difficult to take someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old very seriously. The notion is on the same level as a flat earth in terms of ridiculousness.
@@Martijnvw83 Just like you guys believe in evolution, and we came from a big bang, then tadpole in a soup of water to a creature in water to crawl out to mammals to monkeys to humans....lmao
@@cajohnson130 Of course, the whole point Ken Ham is trying to make is that each side is a belief and challenges you to think about which side you want to pick. Each side is as valid as the other, but the implications of each world view is vastly different. That is exactly the message Ken wants to get accross to everyone, the belief you hold about these topics is the most important thing in life. Choose wisely.
@@dakloos316 look I understand what your saying but I disagree. Reality is not something you can choose. We share a reality and either your beliefs try to match that reality or it doesn't. Ken Ham is not interested I truth. His main goal is making the literal Bible narrative fit no matter what. He also says he would never change his mind where as science changes with new evidence. That's its strength. Creationism needs the results to match the scripture at all costs. You should follow the evidence no matter the result, not ad hoc explain it away or start with your conclusion and work backwards. Science is not worried about a narrative to disprove the Bible. If the data shows a young earth, that's what the finding would show. It simply is not compatible with a 6k year old earth. All results in all fields show this to be the case.
How do you guys explain what was before the Big Bang? Nye: That's a great mystery we're constantly trying to discover. Now, nobody knows for sure, but soon we may discover it. Never stop searching. Ham: Well, there's a book out there that explains everything. How do you guys explain the existence of soul and unique essence in us people? Nye: That's a great mystery we're constantly trying to discover. Now, nobody knows for sure, but soon we may discover it. Never stop searching. Ham: Well, there's a book out there that explains everything. What is one thing more than anything else upon which you base your belief? Nye: I base my belief on information and the process that we call science. It fills me with joy to make discoveries everyday. Ham: Well, there's a book out there that explains everything. Mr. Ham, just one question. Have you ever read anything else in your life? Ham: Why should I if there's a book out there that I very much like?
@@Idekreallythe bible claims the bible is truthful. If I said "I made the universe" would that be better than saying "I don't know" because I'm claiming to be truthful?
@@happyhappy85 It's more in the misrepresentation of how and what Science can answer in regards to those questions. Science is not faith based and should not be held to the same standard as faith. People believe in Science because it is testable and is evidence based. There is nothing wrong with faith but it is not testable nor are the arguments presented in the initial post answered in the bible in a level science requires. A soul is not a scientific term but a religious one. Science is still exploring the Big Bang but everything that contributes to Science validates observations more than creationist claims. Evidence to support creationism can't come from the Bible it must come from things that can be tested and observed. Saying we don't know what made the universe is better than extrapolating to an intelligent creator must have been responsible.
"Nye: I base my belief on information and the process that we call science." That should be worrisome ... Naturalist scientists boast how their science corrects itself all the time. Why? Because it makes mistakes all the time! Still Nye says that he has his belief on it. So, Nye believes in mistaken beliefs.😀
@@jounisuninenI think we might be skewing Nye’s words very incorrectly. The problem isn’t that “science” makes mistakes. I believe science gives room for people to make mistakes in such a way that they can be open to correct answers or finding better ways to do better things. The Bible - or at least Ken Ham’s interpretation, far as I’m aware - doesn’t allow for any mistakes. So when skeptics or studiers find contradicting messages, translations out of line, archaeological evidence pointing to a different conclusion than what the Bible holds; I believe Christians are either forced to “push the envelope” and come up with a cherry-picked explanation for how the Bible fits this scheme like a one-size-suits-all trick pony, or reconsider their initial standing. In other words, blind “faith” or critical thought and open to wrongness, open to being corrected, open to discovery.
Unfortunately, the real world isn’t always what you want it to be. Just because something sounds more satisfying doesn’t make it more credible. That’s ignorance and it doesn’t get us anywhere.
That goes either way. Religious folks would be devastated if there was no god because they believed they would be rewarded for their devotion. Atheists would be devastated if there was a god because that means their actions would be judged. Both sides have a view they like more because it suits their personality or desires.
Complete opposite sides, subjects hot topics at work, yet both give their respective views in a calm, professional, productive manner without resulting to low blows. Leaders, it can be done.
I was a Christian until I read the Bible, and said hang on, read it again, and again, and again, wrote down my questions and went to my elder and got the classic: God works in mysterious ways
@@MayLNg I know, because the evidence for a Christian god is zero, it doesn’t exist at all, the whole thing is stolen from every other religion. The holy bible can’t even keep its story straight before the next page says a different thing.
@@MayLNgactually God is a perfectly normal and rational conclusion with sufficient evidence. Your house is 100 percent evidence of a builder. Your phone is 100 percent evidence of a designer. The irrational view actually, is no creator of any sort.
@@PoppinPsinceAD33 You are employing false and deceptive logic. You do not have a single evidence for any "creation" or for any "creator". Can you list one (evidence) and how would we test that "evidence" to show creation or your god?.
Honestly, as a Physicist, engineer, and Christian, there were quite a few things that bothered me in both sides. But it was a very interesting conversation.
@@teknoaija1762 yep he looked so bad in this debate. Did you see when they went through the Ark Encounter together? Here’s a spoiler the only thing Ken is worried about is how nice they did building it and Bill Nye was concerned with all the fake science and lies that building is full of.
I agree with everyone else when it comes to how respectful they were to each other. And kudos to most people that commented. For the most part we're being respectful to each other. We need this in the United States. For the people that like debate, for the people that like to see both sides of a story, for the people that are being respectful to each other! Vote! Please vote! No matter your party affiliation. We need critical thinkers to vote.
Great words Nick. Respect and curiosity. I'll put my"Faith" in that. We must participate to have a real place in this world. Does anyone remember - Oh people look around. The signs are everywhere. You've left it to somebody other than you, to be the one to care---
hey man peace and love to you and everyone else. I actually disagree though, because whoever gets voted in, ALWAYS messes up and pursues selfish agendas. If people in society get f**ked over its the voters who are to blame for voting them in. Im Irish but it seems to me that USA politics is either democrat or republican, well off money-wise so its almost a no lose endeavor. America needs freshend up politically and I think someone who takes values of both sides need represented as a 'middle' party, i need a better word but you know what i mean, anyway just a thought :)
Ken Ham's principal argument seemed to be that we can't rely on the laws of nature being the same in the past as they are today, thereby at a stroke rendering things like radiometric dating or continental drift inadmissible as evidence of an old earth. Yet he repeatedly (e.g. at 2:18:01) tries to claim that the continuity of the laws of nature over time is the work of God. So which is it? Laws that apply for all time everywhere (which they have to in order to explain much of what we observe in the universe) or laws that changed rapidly some 4-6000 years ago for no apparent reason other than to enable a young earth creationist's brain not to explode?
Yes it becomes more and more relevant. I must admit only 18 months ago or so my perspective was completely different than it is now. I love you Jezus! 🙏💟
@@andrewsimms4904 not really, dont know what you are trying to hint at with 'progress'. please your serial produced argument in further detail to have an actual discussion, as we are not in the circlejerk you seem familiar to be in.
I love the ice layer thing. If you go to Cleveland Ohio in the winter or anywhere else for that matter where snow falls, you will see that if you dig in an area untouched by anyone for about 1 month that there are about 15 to 20 layers, all separated by a thin layer of dirt and other particles carried by the wind that coats the top of the snow in between snowfalls. Each being crushed by the weight of the previous snowfall.
That's exactly what I was thinking. It reminded me of a recent 'discovery' of walking rocks in the Arizona desert, that actually turned out to be rocks getting scooted every winter on thin sheets of ice that melted quickly. If someone unaware of the time the ice was there assumed that each 'walk' of a rock (there were wavy patterns in it) was a year and not a single night, the 'date' of the rocks walking or whatever would be off astronomically. We don't know anything until we can actually observe it. The tree rings, too, made me wonder if there aren't extra rings from years that had hard refreezes, making it look like multiple years when cut.
You are simplifying what layers means. It is not how many times it snows providing layers but rather yearly totals. Bill explains this to Ken on his ark tour.
When ken ham said theres nothing that could change his mind, it had most theist rethink and evaluate creationism. So many left their religion to become critical thinkers because of this debate...
@@Jay-ft3xh if you’re a naturalist/materialist at all, you don’t have a place to speak philosophically. Your worldview runs into so many philosophical absurdities it’s baffling.
Mannnn the memories.. I remember being shown this debate by my science teacher who was a substitute the whole spring semester (freshmen Fairfield HS 2015).. the substitute is Chinese and I think he moved to China later at some point but… he was an incredible teacher. Always showed us films lolol. Great times! ❤❤
Im an engineer and my mother was once a Catholic nun for over a decade. I’m 37 and I still have to remind myself to think critically about big and small things. Many people on both sides, christianity or evolution, seem to still fall for many myths, myself included. Traveling helped open my mind to things I originally felt was normal for everyone. Some things are mostly constant, like morals and good deeds. Other things vary quite a bit from culture to culture. Income also influences a lot of habits and decisions.
@@sltmdrtmtc Yes, Ken Ham is a scientist trying to explain basic science, and Bill Nye is a lying religious fanatic. Your reply is ridiculously arbitrary! For one, Bill Nye is not a scientist, he's an engineer, whereas Ken Ham has a bachelor's degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology). Define "religious fanatic". Better yet, define "religion", because "evolutionism", having to do with the origin of the world and humanity's ultimate authority (albeit ourselves), is in fact a religion.
@@noahc2078 Engineering IS an applied science, genius. Your own definitions contradict each other 😂😂 By all metrics, creationism is a braindead way to interpret our world. Cope with it.
@@_all_around_us What I mean to say is engineering is not a branch of BIOLOGY, which is primarily the center of the creation/evolution debate. By all metrics, evolution is a braindead way to interpret our world, cope with it. SEE, you're not the ONLY one who can be snide and demeaning while also proving NOTHING AT ALL, so try something else why dontcha.
When you say that all these scientists agree with your view..."By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. " also ... Ken Ham " Nothing will change my mind , I am a Christian." Bill Nye " Please ..change my mind. Present evidence that will change what we in the scientific community believe and we will embrace it"
That's actually scary, Ken Ham basically says you can't trust him, convincing other religious fanatics like him that haven't understood or looked at the science that it's actually just his word against Bill's.
You're wrong about Ken, he knows a lot of science, but decided to use the word of God instead of his vast knowledge of science to expose Bill Nye as a hater of God. That's why Bill kept looking angry and saying are we going to believe an old book translated to English over and over through the years. Bill kept saying he isn't a theologian, he has never studied the Bible and it shows. The Bible is the most interesting and knowledgeable book on earth..
@@lorrikammien3719 ....yikes. No, Ken Ham knows quite literally nothing about the natural world. He denies evolution while constantly straw manning it because he, like many other extreme theists, doesn't understand it at all, or even attempt to. He's satisfied with his blind belief in something that goes against everything we've learnt as a species. I hope you're not the same although I wouldn't bet on it. The bible is in no way knowledgeable about anything scientific or moral. its an archaic attempt to explain our world written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night. Back to your point though Bill doesn't hate God, just like I don't. You don't hate something you don't think exists. Bill is reaching into the depths of the religious extreme in a valiant attempt to educate those who might listen to someone as delusional as Ken Ham. He understands someone like Ken is long gone to his beliefs and reason will get him nowhere, he is just trying to reach the audience in helping them forget their dogma and use their brain. Let's hope any of this hits the mark and doesnt fly by like Nye's words to Ham
@@profcalculus474 the Bible doesn't contradict itself, it only has people misinterpreting it. We will all stand before the Lord as sinners, I wouldn't want to be the one standing there telling the Lord that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Only the fool says in his heart there is no God.
Ummm… am I alone in thinking that this way of thinking is ludicrous. Ken Hamms arguments can be used right back at him. He didn’t observe the Bible being written OR translated. He didn’t observe god giving humanity his “word”.
And exactly what can you prove? The only thing evolution has to "prove" itself, is carbon dating. Ken Hams point was, the only way to verify carbon dating is true, is for someone to have been there during the time you assume the date was. If you weren't there 65 million years ago, how can you verify beyond any doubt that carbon dating is accurate for that length of time.
@@marktritt8381 You cannot "prove" with a 100% certainty that the sun will not just vanish tomorrow, even though common sense says that it won't because "it hasn't happened since forever", and our understanding of the life-cycle of stars and classical mechanics "prove" that neither the sun is close to its death nor, even if it were, would just poof away like in a cartoon. Maybe because the supernatural is real and objects can just ascend to the spirit realm at any given time, or maybe there's an unknown quantum field that just happened to decay tomorrow in that precise spot and it deleted the sun. This same logic applies to literally everything else in the world, for everything we know, that we understand, that we claim, that we have studied, there's never a 100% chance. So what do you do? Burden of proof, will secret quantum field eat the sun tomorrow, or will the sun remain there as we "know" it does; neither are a 100%, but one is magnitudes above the other in evidence to combat its burden. In the case of tests such as the Zircon U-Pb, yes, there's a non-zero possibility that lead just randomly got inside the zircon crystal in big amounts and thus we measured a billion years on a zircon crystal wandering around the past century, but again, burden of proof, did the lead atoms tunneled into the crystal (every single time) to perfectly align with billions of years of decay, or, you know, it was actual decay.
The Bible's account of morality is something that stands for itself. Rather than believing in something that other people say, which you can or cannot prove to yourself. Morality is something that you can prove to yourself in your daily life, about what is true or not.
Ah yes. Morality in the bible. Slavery isn't outlawed or condemned, women are ordered to marry their rapists, and kill your kid if the voices in your head (God) tell you too. I love how moral the Bible is and that is why I didn't fall away years ago and continue to practice the above in my everyday life /s
You are right in that a negative cannot be proven: however, you yourself are the evidence. You are not only part of the cosmos, but you are also are aware of its existence. Rocks, stars, and other nonliving components of the cosmos do not have this capability.. Is there evidence to the contrary.? I see your point though and it does seem likely that other beings are aware of the cosmos.
It was clearly a one-sided debate. Only one of them keeps saying "look at these other people that are smart that think how I do. That must mean I'm right."
These are how he is citing sources. He is letting his sources actually be heard 1st hand instead of reading them in a book. He doesn’t need these men to know he is right, he is his own scientist, but citing sources is usually what comes next for proof, right? If he hadn’t, there would be complaints that “he never cited his sources”. Some people will complain either way, I guess.
@@kellyanne7225 Its the fact that he only used a biased source of info. Scientists that are also creationists. So anything they say is super biased. Plus, most of them say what they do and then all of a sudden make bland statements like “and thats why god is the only way” “it is the only way” 🤦🏻♂️
@@kellyanne7225 His argument was very illogical in some areas. I was actually really hoping for a good argument on this side but I was sorely dissapointed.
@@kevinvue8159 the whole point Ken was stating was it's a false premise to claim a creationist is somehow anti-science. He provided many modern sources of renowned scientists who ALSO believe in the Bible word for word. Bill Nye then provided to ignore that and claim Ken was somehow rewriting the laws of physics and nature because he presumes that radiometric dating in infallible and therefore the premise of creation according to the Bible must be absurd. He makes constant presumptions and also uses emotional manipulation such as comedy to create a bias for him in the audience. Ken only stated facts, logic, and his own sources
A person that doesen't understand the basics of how the human mind or how the world works simply will never understand the genius that is Bill Nye. My own brother is so thick-headed that he would rather swallow the "easy" and "simple" ignorant idea rather than anything 'too complicated' to understand. He would rather believe all scientists are liars or any conspiracy theory rather than actually think for one second that he's been fed complete lies by insane people who have no idea where they are standing in the world, its honestly tragic.
@SummerRing-of2sp Are you serious? Was that a serious question? Science doesn't "come" from anywhere, Science IS everything, its solely based on evidence and facts.. Like what water is, and gravity and medicine and nature and biology etc etc, science just IS, its not made. Like 1+1=2 will never be 3. You need to watch more Bill Nye or Christopher Hitchens or maybe...Read a book or go to school again. Can't believe you asked that
Watching this 9 years since the live debate, I found this extremely compelling and thought provoking. Although I do have to note that Ham's beliefs seem to originate from his faith and it was obvious that nothing could change his mind. Is having such a fixed mindset and rooting your entire worldview on something that is not and cannot be proven and have insufficient evidence for really a good thing? He constantly used the Bible as "evidence", basically using God to prove God. I would also like to point out that the Bible would usually be considered to be false and inaccurate by the non-believer which was who he was arguing.
So you agree that the Bible is God breathed? Otherwise Ken Ham is just using a historical account, barely different than any other first hand accounts.
I think it's fine for him to lean on his faith and belief in the Bible, but he needs more than just that. Jesus didn't use the Bible when he reached out to non-believers. If you're going to debate, then you require more than something people will choose to ignore.
"...rooting your entire worldview on something that is not and cannot be proven ..." Like atheists rooting their entire worldview on abiogenesis and evolution while abiogenesis would be against the laws of physics, and empirical tests have proved that "evolution" is just intraspecific adaptive variation which never leads to a new taxonomic genus or family.
I'm a believer but the performance of Dr Nye seemed more informed than Mr Ham. Mr Ham quoting the Bible with a scientist exhibits a lack of formal logic (begging the questions) trying to prove the Bible and young earth by just ASSUMING the Bible and young earth. I was expecting strong arguments against Old age universe but all I got was: "oh we weren't there so all the scientists just have to trust my interpretation of the Bible because of this verse" Debates like these help to promote the view that believers are unreasonable people
That argument is also, at best, a stalemate, and at worst, self-defeating. There's this simple fact that you cannot prove with a 100% certainty that the sun will not just vanish tomorrow, we understand laws of physics yes, but we have no way to say for sure that a secret quantum field will not just decay right on the sun and delete it. This however does not mean that all possibilities are equally acceptable, the burden of proof is on the claim, and what is my evidence for secret quantum field that swallows the sun? Zero, zero now has to fight against the overwhelming evidence of the Standard Model, the observed life-cycle of stars, and pure and simple status-quo, it seems obvious what team to root for.
Lol what arguments are you expecting from someone who accepts myths as facts because a BOOK says so . There is zero logic in religion or creationism it’s only belief .
I know Im late to the party but most bears are omnivorous, not vegetarian. There is a massive difference. Sure the black bear is more into veggies than meat but they are definitely down for a steak my guy.
@@theviolater9231 tbf that's almost definitely just because of where they live. You can actually track polar bear eating habits based on how far away from their natural habitat they are but that's mostly true for all living things.
@@HouseOfFaust of course it’s because of where they live but they’ve been living there such a long time you can clearly see that they have evolved to live in the Arctic and be predators there they have white fur to camouflage and have the size and strength to pull seals out from the water
If a carnivore eats a herbivore it consumes the nutrients the herbivore got from the plants when it ate. polar bears eat caribou in summer months so they still get the nutrients from plants that they need to be alive and if you let your house cat outside what does it do first it eats a little bit of grass maybe a paw's worth then it goes and hunts something. If you fed a cat raw meat and only raw meat, it would die young of malnutrition cat food has small amounts of grain and vegetables mixed in though is mostly meat
@@thatguy2521 No it isn't. They do research , present it for peer review and then once it has been scrutinised by other scientists who are looking for errors, have it published to be further scrutinised by anyone who wants to read it.
@@Factchekka tell me something how would science prove God to be false if it doesn’t research supernatural phenomena God in reality does not fit with science because of the nature of science, in its current state it could never prove or disprove God because God is not bound by natural laws that are understandable to humans since science is as limited as human knowledge is and God cannot be fully understood science could never understand God. Your assumption that science knows everything is an ignorant standpoint seeing as science can and has been wrong about things in the past even when peer reviewed by other scientists.
@@FactchekkaUh yeah, it's reviewed by peers in the same field, under the same professor, and deviating from the mainstream is very risky, so many "peers" won't even review works that affirm creation.
@@noahc2078 That's because no serious scientist can look at the Bible creation story without finding endless errors and contradictions. It makes no sense to a logical person.
@@Arez455 Scripture makes the claim, but never provides any evidence. Its so bad that even when biblical scholars look for evidence the bible gets debunked further. Archeologists and most biblical scholars came to the conclusion that Moses is now a legendary figure. Lol.
@@ereyes6718 not true there’s archaeologists and biblical scholars who already found evidence of many things that occurred in the Bible like Noah’s ark, the flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah etc.
1:17:00 yes - there’s a problem. Your “geologist” sent wood to C14 dating and got approximately the max age that C14 dating can be used for. That’s like me getting on the kitchen scale and concluding that my mass is only 5 kg because the scale maxes out at 5 kg 😂
And the St Helens lava is sort of the opposite I believe. Here you’re asking how old something very new is with a method designed for something much older. That’s like me using my bathroom scale to weigh of ingredients to make 0.5 kg of cake.
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 Several independent methods all based on the laws of nature points towards an earth that is roughly 4.5 billion years old I’m inclined to believe that. Plus that a lot of laws of nature should be broken in order to make it only 6000 years old. Only one book claims that it’s 6000 years old and it was written when people also strongly believed the earth was flat.
Facts. If your evidence is a outdated book that was written in a time where they had no concept of time, space, medicine or any type of science, you may be on the wrong side.
Can we assume you have not read the Bible. It is ahead of its time. Teaches us science, medicine, biology, weather and climate time, space, astronomy, The meridian of the earth, the ice age, angels, demons, heaven, hell, good, evil and more. It is a book written by supernatural influence and tells us of what WILL happen if we continue in a world that rejects our creator GOD JESUS. You should read it sometime. Lots to learn.
It isn't poorly translated, the new testament has more manuscripts than any document from antiquity, and many of them date back to the first century. Also, it wasn't retranslated over and over. It was directly translated from the origional language to many languages. Not Greek to French to German to English, but Greek to English. And Greek to German. And Greek to French
there's nothing wrong with the translation of the bible throughout the years and it's never been rewritten or changed throughout a translation you're completely speculating off your own assumptions. the dead sea scrolls confirm they are they exact same texts we read today , these are the oldest manuscripts found and they're written in picto hebrew, the first written alphabet on earth. find out the facts before you choose a side. sometimes it's best not to judge a book by the cover
I attended Holy Cross Lutheran Church and School in Madison, Wisconsin for 7 years and when I went to public school for 1 year I gained so much more knowledge about the real world in that one year than what I did in the whole 7 years growing up as a Holy Cross crusader having just religion shoved down my throat along with a bar of soap if I spoke out against or questioned anything or said anything contrary to the teachings of that church.
I would really like to see this debate with an audience poll. Ask all where they stand: young earth, old earth, or undecided. Then ask the same poll at the end. I've seen in other debates and the results are eye opening. The secular argument usual comes out as the more convincing argument.
because it feeds people what the whole point of "arguing" is about in the first place. to be right. and fundamentally, the secular argument says "we are" and creationism says "he is" but neither one of these opinions proves the truth. the truth stands alone, regardless of human opinion. So the fact is, a lot of people SEEKING to find something apart from God, made something up and convinced people of it by brainwashing them all that standing up for the truth is morally offensive. Thats why culture has degraded into so much immorality - because they are denying God, the source of goodness, to begin with. It's not important for Ken Ham to "win" this debate. Whats important is that He spoke the truth. And God bless anyone who hears and believes.
Ok. Note that Bill Nye's argument was not implicitly secular: most Christians support it, and do NOT support that every word of the bible is literally true.
Of course because the secular argument lets you continue to live in your sin, it’s the easy road. The gospel message however is one or dying to self and being reborn as a new creation in Christ. Believing in the bible must be hard for those who have spent a lifetime in a education system that has done everything possible to make you believe in anything but the word of God. The bible says we must be born again. To miss is to miss for eternity and be separated from Christ for eternity.
@@YIDARMY08 Again, Bill Nye's argument was not implicitly secular: most Christians support it, and do NOT support that every word of the bible is literally true.
Watch a trimmed-down and fully edited version of this debate here: ruclips.net/video/vNDquZB_yHI/видео.html
I always like to ponder that maybe Mars was a planet for the angels before God stripped it from them 🤔
Question for both men; What would it take for you to put your hands up and admit , albeit in shock, that the other guy was right?
Bill Nye said if you found even one set of Kangeroo remains between the middle east and Australia then it would
prove the Ark did end in the middle east and kangeroos etc moved down to australia directly from it.
Ken Ham's rigid thinking is that god is real and theres nothing that could persuade him otherwise. What is the point then in him debating? if his mind is already made up and will not change?
Ken, this was so disappointing. Bill Nye was speaking science, you were mostly appealing to scriptures. I think you were at the wrong event that evening. You can bring in scripture as a bridge after you speak about science.
Oh yeah, sure I will, I bet you took a really balanced approach as to what should remain and what should be cut(!)
Unlike the gentleman you were debating, I'm perfectly prepared to say that your arguments were PATHETIC. I am in awe of his restraint, though even he couldn't prevent his feelings from being evident in his expression.
You cite scientists and their evidence only when they agree with your view and disregard the vast majority with better evidence that don't while being completely open that there is no evidence that could possibly convince you that your beliefs aren't factual.
The most valid point in your entire presentation was at 3:19 (the Dawkins foundation statement) and even that I can't agree with because at least there are 10 million people who were able to see the difference between a reasoned argument and pure ignorance as a result of this 'debate'.
For that, I thank you.
@@bizarrefruit9133 Bill Nye tried to avoid Ken Ham's theses and talked of sciences that have nothing to do with the question of God and creation. A God-believing scientist can plan a car or space ship just as well as an atheist scientist.
I always trust the guy who admits to not knowing everything versus the guy who claims to know everything.
@@tadow_od Absolutely not.
@@wendigo53 doesn't the bible say he knows everything lol and according to this people that's his word... so like I guess he is claiming to know everything even if he doesn't exist to claim it.
Bill Nye discounts all the scientific evidence Ham presented, he does this and it results in a unfair argument where one side’s evidence is accepted and the other’s isn’t.
@@andreistoriei2050Yeah, that’s what being an omniscient being means
@@wendigo53 I mean, if God is as powerful as the Bible says, he can be blamed for pretty much everything that happens. All is within his control, therefore he bears the end blame for all things that happen, good or bad.
"It is better to have a question that can't be answered than an answer that can't be questioned."--Carl Sagan
Science-Denial always resembles previous Branches of itself.
I dunno, maybe worth a thought before supporing something: maybe its GLOBALLY FROWNED UPON for a reason?
...like anthropogenic global warming you mean?
@@BwanaFinklestein Like large-scale election fraud
Why? And better to whom? 🤔
@@gustavocruz2321 Because by creating a false answer to the question you end the debate altogether, shutting down the ones who still want to know the facts. It's a defensive mechanism to maintain stupidity.
Bill Nye the science Guy versus Ken Ham the Bible man
Lol, Finally something we can all agree on
No bill nye the leftist guy.
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 And? He's still correct about everything he says here. His political opinions are irrelevant to this
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 I’m just being funny. I agree with Jesus on creation. (Even if Ken Ham is right or wrong)
@@sweetlifealley lol you believe in a magic man. Do you also belief Gandalf is real?
"We weren't there, we didn't see these tree rings forming." I don't know whether to cry or laugh.
It basically contradicts kens entire argument.
you alght?
Exactly 😂.
What if the bible was written just 40 years ago? We didn't see the bible forming?
@@SumriseHD Brilliant. 🤣
Regardless of who's side you're on, you have to admit this was a much more civil, respectful, and productive debate than anything we've seen on the political stage lately.
It’s super refreshing, honestly.
But I do think it has less to do with the political climate back then and more to do with the fact that both of these men are extraordinarily respectful and well meaning individuals who’ve managed to stay out of major controversies. I applaud and respect both of them.
side you are on?
Respectful in tone is not the same as respectful in concept. Ham is a liar. Just check his graph about wolves. Its upside down.
Agreed on that, people have to start treating people like people
Yeah no if you are on the creationist die who believes the universe is no more than 6000 years old you are wrong
When one side admits nothing will change their mind while the other side only needs evidence, it's obvious who's being intellectually honest and who isn't. This was awesome.
The problem is that people like Bill are ideologues of the cult of Secular Humanism, and while they pretend that they'll always follow the evidence, they ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They function on faith that processes happened in nature to create what exists now, even though those processes are starkly contradicted by the universal laws of nature, which makes them objective impossibilities.
For example, Variation within kinds of animals is the result of genetic variability already programmed into the DNA of species, caused to manifest by the removal of more dominant genetic traits through breeding. As such this variation is in full accordance with the law of Entropy, but is the opposite process from the one that the Secular Humanists claim created all of the kinds of anmials on Earth. The spontaneous emergence of new genetic code that turn one kind of animal into another doesn't happen, as it would violate the law of Entropy. Such change has never been observed anywhere on Earth. Yet Secular Humanists claim that Macro-evolution is "proven" even though it's actually utterly without evidence. In truth, the Secular Humanists conflate their hypotheses and conjecture with the actual facts, which is why people think there's actual evidence for Macro-Evolution, even though there isn't.
@lennardchurch8483 - 1/64 of all mutations creates new genetic code
@@globalcoupledances Mutations are the deterioration of DNA, errors in the replication of genetic code. They don't create new body parts, and they're universally neutral or detrimental to the survival of a species. There's a reason in modern biology mutations are called "genetic disorders".
@lennardchurch8483 - Creationist dogma is that healthy genome doesn't survive, only bad mutations survive. According to creationists antibiotics are not necessary because the bacteria in your body underwent so many mutations that they become extinct.
@@lennardchurch8483 are you serious with this comment? No mutations are good? That's just dumb, have you never heard about viruses? Or bacteria? Or farm animals? Or cash crops? Or literally any creature? We observe positive mutations constantly and you're just pretending we don't?
Also, abiogenesis wasn't just 'poof' now there's DNA from nothing, all the chemicals were already there they just came together in a spontaneous way (you know, the way thermodynamic processes tend to happen)
Every few years I have to come back and rewatch this masterpiece. I only hope that everyone watching learns to think critically and question the motives and intentions behind the things they are taught.
"Masterpiece" is a pretty strong word for it in my opinion. But I agree with the rest of your comment.
That's kinda the point that science teaches you.
I did and now I’m an atheist
Which goes for both sides
Yeah I fully agree, question everything your church has told you!
I have the greatest respect for a man that says I don’t know, and still has a better argument
This is the kind of maturity we should be able to expect from our leaders. We need to raise the bar
Our leaders are paid to confuse and frustrate Americans, it's on purpose. Nye is paid to deliver lies in a calm manner for those who take in info in this manner. The politicians and Nye are liars and are paid by the same group of people....these very people killed 40 million Christians in the early 1900's and will not let the event be taught in American schools...same people.
Scientists are different than politicians. They are trained to learn and teach, not to govern and bicker over petty issues to maintain personal power.
@@tinobemellow scientists gatekeep to protect their careers just like politicians. scientists are human beings with beliefs and views. Read Sheldrake he talks about how people who teach the passive voice in science are actually mediocre scientists. Sheldrake is branded a pseudo scientist because he rejects naturalistic dogma and wants to set science free.
your way of saying adults shouldn't all be expected to act like adults is incredibly telling. No matter the occupation, we know how to be adults. People like you excusing their behavior is only beneficial to them so thanks a lot for holding us back by basically saying if you're a politician we can forget how we were raised.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to have Trump behave similar to these gentlemen
These men are so respectful to each other and their views. I wish we had more of these debates regarding any topic in today’s soundbite ridden culture
Mr. Nye did a fairly decent job not letting his utter contempt for Mr. Ham show, but if you look into his eyes you can see it.
Im so mind blown with all that talent and genius all in one room.
@@WasBlind_NowISee I am assuming you mean Nye's genius vs. Ham.
That's what debate is. If you think the presidential debates are actual debates, they aren't. They have become a mud-slinging event made to stir up controversy. Because controversy sells and most people watching have no idea what a debate is.
@@rossandtami0812 The fact that you got nothing out of what Ken Ham was saying doesn't mean there was nothing there. Your contempt for what Ken Ham was saying and christianity in general will lead you to one of 2 ends. Either Ken is wrong and there's no harm no foul, or Nye is wrong and you're eternally damned! I would think that choice would at least make you curious of the other option.
Brings to mind..."It is really hard to win an argument against an intelligent person but impossible against a ignorant one"
Fr, people like Ken Ham never acknowledge when they are beat
@@Phoenix_1776 bruh, he was able to answer all the questions that bill nye couldn’t by using the Bible and logic. He didn’t lose
@@feetyeet8538 "bible and logic"
you can't put those words next to each other, no way.
@@feetyeet8538 The Bible isn’t an accurate source of information when it comes to science. Actually, the fact that religious people claim it has all the answers further proves it’s lack of credibility
@@Phoenix_1776 Let’s get this straight man. The Bible is about history, and there’s a reason why history and science aren’t the same thing. Can you use the scientific method to figure out that George Washington was the 1st president of the US? NO you know why? Because we can’t go back in time and observe his inauguration and talk to him and study his presidency. So according to “Science ” you can’t prove that he was the first president of US. But we obviously know that he was, so how do we know this? We know this because there were eyewitnesses that watched his inauguration and his presidency and those eyewitnesses wrote down those historical events so that now in the present we are able to read those historical documents and have proof that he actually was the first president. This is why it is important to understand the difference between science and history. Because of this the only way that you would have proof that the historical events of the Bible are true is if they’re were eyewitnesses that wrote down what they saw because as I’ve previously established (YOU CANT USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ON HISTORY) And what do we have when we look at the Bible, exactly that. “THE BIBLE IS A RELIABLE COLLECTION OF HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS WRITTEN DOWN BY EYEWITNESSES DURING THE LIFETIME OF OTHER EYEWITNESSES. THEY REPORT TO US SUPERNATURAL EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE IN FULFILLMENT OF SPECIFIC PROPHECIES AND CLAIM THAT THEIR WRITINGS ARE DIVINE RATHER THAN HUMAN IN ORIGIN.” This is why the Bible is true.
I was 9 when this debate happened and I remember watching this live. Wow, time passes by fast.
Wow, how does it feel to grow up? Time flies by.
I was in 6th grade going to a private Christian school and we had to go to our science teachers house as part of a field trip to watch this debate outside of school hours. I remember them teaching us how Ken had just schooled bill nye and I believed it. Here I am rewatching for the first time since and oh my god. Only a 6th grade version of me could believe anything Ken said. The ark alone is as far fetched as any Greek mythological story Christian’s claim to be nonsensical myths. Glad I came back to watch
I was still in kindergarten when it happened lol
If it was a political debate I wouldn’t have watched but 10 minutes of it,holding your ground and be respectful to one another is what civilized people do.Great debate.
wut. Ken isn't civilized, he's proposing everyone live in the dark ages.
@@sqlevolicious he didn't convey anything like that at all lol, what are you on
@@littlehollow He might has well have. His viewpoint is based around the ignorance of time and scientific based measurements and plain, outright, measurable evidence.
@@sqlevolicious The truth is that neither one of them has unequivable evidence to prove his view. The bone structures which were found in remote places during the last century were later found NOT to be of humanoid structure. Those who were proponents of human evolution were quick to label these pieces by human names. The skull which was labeled " Lucy" was later found to be of the Scientific name: Australopithecus afarensis or "southern ape." Every bone sample found in the last century and given a human name, was later discovered to be of animal origin. Most of these same species were later found to be in the more remote regions, decades later.
It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creationism.
I found it more "dark ages", "cruel", and " repulsive" to know that some of the older evolutionists used their theory of evolution to advocate that "blacks were more primitive and less intelligent than whites."
I also admit that the cruel torture and deaths done by the Inquisitions and other rejigious groups were due to the human ego to control others, instead of out of religious piety and charity.
Ken Ham has true history within the word of God to back him up 👆 nye has not a leg to stand on with the theory of evolution that cannot be proven
Greatly enjoyed this debate because of how respectful the two were. For the most part, they kept the discussion on the topic at hand instead of letting it progress to an argument about the other person. Respect to both.
@@wk8000 Well Christians believe in magic too. They call them miracles.
@@wk8000 if it's so easy to say God always existed why can't the universe have aways existed?
@@wk8000 If that's what you saw, that's what you saw. I personally saw a man who tried to, at least take seriously, a person making incredible claims, with very little information to demonstrate why such claims should be taken seriously.
@W K and what you believe in...isnt magic? You literally believe in a big invisible man who created everything out of nothingness. Your communion is a symbol of drinking blood, your prayers are nothing but a religious form of manifestation and spellcasting, and you blind yourself to the very obvious truths of our time. Science is observable, science is retestable, and science is reliable.
@@sltmdrtmtcWhy?
This makes the presidential debate look like an argument between two kindergardeners.
Telling me, maybe we should send presidential candidates to the Creation Museum to take a class on how to have a mature grown-up conversation\debate while keeping your dignity.
@@213mug how about we don't send people to the Creation Indoctrination Center and instead tear it down to the ground and replace it with something that has actual value to society?
Two very jeriatric kindergartners
the candidates make it look lke that.
Argument between kindergardeners is way more coherent than the presidential debate.
They have to bring these live debates back!! They should do a round 2 in 2024
definitely need to see more
What Mr. Nye speaks of happened to the Muslim faith in parts of the world ... they were a center of learning until conservative Muslims decided some things couldn't be discussed,,,
Yes of it wasnt for ken ham, you would still have a kaliphate
I completely agree with you. If Christians were to go down Ken Ham’s route, we would end up in a similar situation to today’s fundamentalist Muslims. Some of the world’s greatest scientists were profoundly Christian, but capable of accepting empirical evidence.
That is the fruit of Islam though. It always leads to extremism.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali Muslim who became atheist for over 30 years, recently became a Christian. And she mentioned even when she used to bash Christians, they would send her letters that they were praying for her rather than bashing or insulting her, whereas the letters she received from Muslims were insults along with death threats.
She said as an atheist, the crucial mistake she made was thinking the God of Islam was the same God of the Christians. She said they are two completely different beings.
Islam (when followed in it's truest sense leads to terrorism), Christians who follow their faith to the tooth, become monks and work manual labor intensive jobs along with praying for the peace of the world.
The frustrating thing about these discussions is that the participants hardly answer each others questions. Thats something I would like to see
Bill answered his questions though
Nye pretty much answered all his questions, Ham went with the typical Bible is truth rebuttle creationists always have.
@@eliasjakemoran02 He also ignores the responses by Ken and keeps asking
@@mrpadillaofficial Yeah, because Ken avoids some questions or gives piss poor answers
@@eliasjakemoran02 One example. In minute 1:25:42 Ken Ham states “the laws of nature haven’t changed”
Later in minute 1:32:18 Bill Nye says again that Ken Ham believes laws of nature have changed.
Bill Nye is really trying to control himself from bursting into laughter when he is talking about Ham's vegetarian lion
Why? Ken Ham gave tangible examples of bears and bats with large, sharp, fangs and teeth seemingly implying a carnivore - and yet they eat plants. How is that funny?
@@lukeedison1632 They are not tangible examples because Ken Ham is trying to change the order of the natural world to fit into his narrative - the bible. It just does not work because he has no evidence - his evidence is "because the bible says so". There never were herbivore lions. Lions are apex predators and members of the cat family, which are obligate carnivores. This means that their bodies are adapted to digesting and deriving nutrients from meat, and they have not evolved the specialized digestive systems necessary for breaking down plant matter.
Each species that you mention has evolved in a particular way and hence they have a particular diet. Because of their diet, they will have a set of teeth that assist with their diet. For example, Pandas do have sharp"ish" incisors and flat wide molars and are predominantly herbivores. The reason they have sharp incisors is to help break through the hard outer part of the bamboo. Their teeth and jaw have evolved for them to be able to eat that diet. Same with the bats. BTW, most bats eat insects and small rodents/ animals. The three species that eat fruit have flatter teeth.
So no, Mr Ham has absolutely no evidence to change his belief into the fact that lions were ever herbivores!
@@lukeedison1632 Bears are omnivores and they have the proper teeth. Lions not so much!
@@lukeedison1632 Bears aren’t only carnivores though it’s evident in the structure of their teeth specifically their molars. Lions however have teeth more suited for biting into prey and their molars are pointed
@@zachrowe6271 Nvm I searched it up and they don’t even contain molars for digesting plant material
Ken Ham's entire argument feels equivalent to "judge you wasn't even there"
Yes, LOL. And even if he was there...forensic evidence is regarded as more certain than eyewitness testimony. Given the way our brains work and the inherent perceiving biases we all have, eyewitness testimony is rather weak.
Lol
🤣
And a whole lot of "these other people who are very smart and established in their own fields believe what i do"
Same applies for Bill Nye, you clearly just have a bias towards what you believe.
As a matter of psychology, it is possible to be so entrenched in a belief, to the point where facts don't matter....
That's Ken!
So u deceive your own self in the name of psychology
That can apply to bill, Ken or literally everyone in the world so that just means nothing
It is also a matter of psychology that one starts to believe what he considers to be a fact because it is taught so widely, when it is not fact, it is theory (such as the theory of evolution, or the big bang theory). I've never heard of the evolution fact or the big bang fact. So, just because we are taught these theories in school does not justify them as being fact as they are made out to be.
@@RockyProductions360 i’m pretty sure most people know what a theory is. I don’t think anyone is out here claiming to know how the world started as a 100% fact, that’s just not knowledge we have yet, but there are people still trying to figure it out.
But same with religion. I have never heard being religious taught as a fact, it’s always said you need to “believe.” it is a theory as well, and not a scientifically backed theory either.
Just because someone came up with an idea that turned out to be a life changing invention, does not mean that whatever else that person claims, automatically becomes a truth.
That also applies to people who claimed to see/hear God and invented a spiritual explanation to the world. You shouldn't rely on them either!!
He was just saying, that scientists who believe in Biblical creationism can still be scientists, they don't have to be atheists and their work isn't less credible than the atheists work.
@@quantom1827 When the claims that the bible makes aren't scientific, the notion of a biblical creationist scientist is an oxymoron.
@@cristianbenites4521
"that also ecplains"
God created us, we didn't create God. Schools, universities, hospitals, laws all came from Christian backgrounds. Without Christians mankind would still be contemplating his navel.
@@Antiorganizer
Which claims does the Bible make that aren't scientific?
Thanks for holding this debate forum. America would be much better informed of our political candidates would hold debates with similar guidelines for give and take and question and answer periods instead of biased media moderators skewing the discussion or topic at hand.
It’s alarming that we have candidates from a particular side of the aisle that run away from debates. They’re afraid of allowing voters to get a good look at what they stand for.
Do you think this debate was (a) a contest to see who had the "better" arguments, (b) a joint search for true understanding, or (c) two people talking passed each other who will never reach a common understanding? (Hint, only one of these options is consistent with rational debate and critical thinking.)
@@PeerAdder this was a debate between two people, one claiming they are right cause they are, other providing the evidence for their arguments.
@@PeerAdder Peer, I appreciate open dialogue on a subject in question verses labeling and hyperbole that does not advance my understanding.
The point s that Americans are not informed, but instead believe in ridiculous lies or are left so confused and frustrated that they just give up in frustration. Nye falls along the lines of the 'smooth liar'...he is no better than any politician who's role it is to leave you in confusion and frustration.
Something I love about Nye debate, his debate wasn't even to argue with ken. It was to remind the audience that science isn't big scary false stuff, but is what is keeping us going better tomorrow. He wants people to help evolve us forward technology. To learn more to question more
@@ThyBountyHunter I meant isn't big scary stuff as a lot of creationists do believe because it rebukes their logic
@@ThyBountyHunter I'm horrible at texting honestly so if you pint a mistake out im quick to say I'm sorry about my mistake! Thank for pointing it out! :)
@@si-fianimegirl6940it doesn’t rebuke anything in fact it confirms a creator
@@RicardoCray well there's no way of confirming or denying that. However the evidence we have does disprove creationism
@@si-fianimegirl6940 You have to put logic in quotes when talking about creationist "logic".
Because that stuff is straight up silly. To the point where, if you leave them alone, even a kid can figure out that it's all kind of bulls__t and makes no sense.
Ken Ham's whole point 'We can't know because we weren't there'
We can't know because we were not there. This is absolutely true but just because we were not there to observe is no reason why we cannot develop hypothesis to develop theory. Everything cannot be proven by observational science. We could not see viruses before the electron microscopes but believed something was there . Nothing wrong with theory when that is all we have.
That does requires faith but not blind faith.
@@jaybailleaux630 yes you're right faith is okay but blind faith is not
He’s right though. Completely. All data gathered is based off of user analysis, and each person analyzes data differently based on their personality. Speculation is subjective and based in belief, not on the past.
@@JakeBradyNJ If ten different people witness the same car wreck, there would a good chance you would get ten different stories about it.
@@jaybailleaux630 Probably, because those 10 different people will be giving their perspective, but at the end of the day they will still say there was a car crash.
It really is remarkable how civil and positive the large majority of comments are on this video
I think it's because some people (on both sides) just want to argue and be "right" and there's no civility. They aren't really interested in intellectual conversation and debate. Most of us that will sit through a 2 hour video know how to be respectful to people we disagree with.
I am so thankful that I am a Christian who knows the truth about the Bible and God. In the Bible God tells us that he created the Earth in 6 days on the 7th he rested . God did not talk about science or the Big Bang theory. So until God comes down to earth and tells me then what he said was wrong about creating the earth, I'm going to believe him and not believe what the scientists tell me.
@@berthascott4268
Rather odd to completely disregard the years of work that scientists, geologists, zoologists, archeologists, and paleontologists
Put in to tell us the facts of the world we live in
For some ancient text that has been debunked numerous times
@YourLocalEldritchHorror The Bible has been consistently reliable. Only getting 1 major update ;)
Science has pivoted many times.
That's why I don't drink mercury.
Look into some of the replies. Lots of insulting intelligence, condescending language, and patronizing opinions revolving around faith on both sides as presented in this debate.
People are people.
Both men and the moderator put forth a respectful debate on a subject that is a bit concerning is even up for debate. "We can't use reason to persuade a person of a new position who did not use reason to establish their current position."
when they say of a new position do they mean they cant change their view to a new position or someone who was in an old one and is now in a new one?
@@thepotatoofheavenignorant people dont change. Theres a difference between misunderstanding and completely ignoring information and only wanting to be right.
I remember watching this 10 years ago as a Christian, and here I am watching it now as an atheist.
No such thing as a former Christian. A true Christian perseveres
I'm sorry to hear that, friend. Just remember that you can't change your mind once you meet God.
Glad you came to your senses bro 🙏🏽 Was also a believer cause my family taught me to do so. As soon as I learned more science nothing I was tought made sense
I went on a mission to see if the Bible could possibly be true. I made a playlist of my findings.
@@Rektenon6The science can be reconciled with the Bible, Ham just has a limited view of Genesis which doesn’t allow for it. It’s too bad that people think that Christianity is Ham’s view, when it’s not. His interpretation of the Bible is just wrong. You can indeed hold to both at the same time.
The fact that Answers in Genesis posted this is incredible. Thank you for your transparency
What?
@@Lionfellowhe means that Ken lost so posting this must’ve been tough
@@miniclan68 yeah that does seem like what they meant lol- no idea why it would be "transparent" otherwise.
@@miniclan68 no its as simple as it being transparent because they’re providing their viewers with both sides of the argument so people can decide on their own. Both schools of thought are equally valid as neither can be categorically proven without reasonable doubt, one due to unobservable timescales and one due to the need for an intelligent creator
@@jm-tKoA26 wow. Your post was a litany of logical fallacies.
I'm surprised Bill mentioned the basalt sliding over the wood, instead of pointing out the different dating methods used. Ken mentioned that the rock was dated using potassium-argon dating (which is accurate from 4.3 billion years to 100k years in the past), while the wood was dated using radio carbon dating (dates ranging from approximately 50k years to 500 years in the past). This means the wood could easily have been as old as the basalt layer, but the dating method used was the wrong method for the necessary age range.
Well, if the wood still contained C-14, that would be proof it's younger than 50.000 years, as carbon dating simply doesn't work if it no longer had that carbon.
I’m not sure which came first, this debate or the tour of “The Ark” but Nye brought up different dating methods and every time Ham would dismiss it with false science or deflecting back onto how the the Bible was fact
@@blnkdan Please list the false science you are claiming Ken Ham was bringing up.
@@ManofManySorrowseverything he said about anything having to do with science
since basalt is an igneous rock, the wood would have burned comletely. The whole thing does not make any sense to me. I think he just pulled it out of his...
Why can’t people debate like this anymore? Both so well spoken, well done great listen
Should of been done over covid.
Too many people are swayed by the feeling that one candidate is stronger or more correct because they were louder, more aggressive or more dominant in a debate. (Not that most people haven't made up their mind by the time of the debate)
Truly what it’s all about. The respect and professionalism was far out! Nice debate
people debate like this daily across the world... just not posted on youtube
we used to have debates like this before the 21st century
now it's "annoy them" strategies
I hate to say it, but saying "this guy did a really important thing in science and he also loves God so... this is totally a plausible model!" He is using people who have made strides in science as the model of what should be fact. That's not correlation. That's not evidence that Creationism is plausible.
right? like regardless of how they think physics and materials came to be, either can figure out how to engineer it so its irrelevant ethos
Why would you hate to say it? I think you're trying to use rhetoric but, by all means, proudly assert it. Religion, unlike in any other field of discourse, has been given a pass for thousands of years despite putting forth bad ideas and fairy tales. It's time for that to stop.
He's illustrating that the man has credibility. He never insinuated what you're saying, atheists favorite dance is the twist.
@@Marco855-z7x “the twist” is called critical thinking
Now, if we we can only get our politicians to debate in this civil manner. 😊
They do. Behind the scenes. It's kinda like the car salesman. At home, he may be a great dad, a good neighbor and even a godly man. At work, he does what he has to do to keep his job.
Too many people are swayed by the feeling that one candidate is stronger or more correct because they were louder, more aggressive or more dominant in a debate. (Not that most people haven't made up their mind by the time of the debate)
@@jeffanderson1708 too many people are swayed because they see a 5 second clip on tiktok and then they fully support that one person
@@3547cdr5 adorable.
Idk I like when sleepy joe gets his talking points from his ear piece
They always say "you weren't there,you didn't see it"...then how can they believe the bible...
Well because God was there and told us to write down what happened
@Zero-0-Cypher it’s not really hard to understand Ken’s argument. He says there are two types of science, “observational” and “historical”. Observational is what you observe in the present. We can see the Eiffel Tower. We know it is 1,083 because we can measure it and we can measure it because we can see it and touch it. Gustave Eiffel built the tower between 1887 and 1889. But, how do we know that? We weren’t alive in 1887. We weren’t there to see him build the tower, so how do we know if Gustave Eiffel was a real person and if he build the tower of Eiffel? Well, his grave is one thing that tells us he was an actual person. Why? Because we can observe (see and touch) his grave stone. And also there are books (historical science) that tell us about him and tell us he built the Eiffel Tower. That is the difference between Observation and Historical science and that is what Ken Ham is saying.
You can believe the Bible because the death burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ has been historically proven. Not even Academia argues whehter Jesus was fake because there is proof. What it comes down to is do you believe what Jesus Christ said about Himself being the Son of God and the Savior of the world from their sins. That He alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that only through Him can you everlasting life if you believe in Him
@@michaelsears6702 And you are so confused that it's not a misunderstandig of the argument.
Is that his argument still doesn't make sense.
@@gabrielgamez2033 There is zero evidence of Jesus resurrection.
The bible is full of historical inaccuracies...
Kudos to Answers In Genesis for not disabling comments. I may not agree with your beliefs, but at least you allowed open dialog.
Nye is really good at bringing up good arguments while sounding very casual
No, he does not
@@purelyrandom1230yes he does, give one example where he does not make a valid point.
@@purelyrandom1230yes, he does. I’m a major Christian, but he still manages to bring up great arguments
Honestly. Honestly. I disagree with almost everything they stand for, but GOOD FOR ANSWERS IN GENESIS for leaving the comments open and entirely unmolested.
Say what you will about the organization, but at least they seem to support free speech, even when the vast majority of comments oppose them.
He's a businessman out to make money off the gullible American evangelical population. Any comments gets him more traffic and more money.
Then you find out that Ken ham has comments off on his videos with Bill on his channel.
I wish Ken Ham would answer the questions instead of going behind a broad blanket statement or side-stepping the question altogether.
It's because he can't answer them
I found just the opposite. Nye skirted 90% of the questions. I learned a lot about his family
This debate will age like fine wine 🍷
Oh it has.
Why tho did God appears in the sky
@@axel-fh1ru 10/10 grammar
@@CobbleBompster English is my second language 💅
@@axel-fh1ru why did you put the 💅 emoji? 💀
“Is creation a viable model of origins in modern scientific era?”
“If we change the definitions of science and evolution, yes.” -Ken Ham
Only problem is, you can’t change the definition of evolution and most science- based definitions, they are the definitions of what they are. Science finds answers with evidence they have, and religion tries to work themselves into what they cherry pick from them
This video should be taught in all schools. This is what science is and what an open mind looks like.
This is a debate, not science. And Bill is NOT a freaking Scientist. He only has a degree in engineering. Even NASA didn't want to hire him .
You're right. Ham did a great job against Bill Nye the buttstuff guy
@@MrJack556how open minded of you
@@tbzwinch860 if open minded means believing men can be woman and that there are 80 genders then nah I'm good
@@MrJack556trans people living in your head rent free
I wasn't there when ancient romans built great roadways, but I can tell you through observation of many, many pieces of evidence how they did it. Whether or not you were present for something does not change whether or not you can determine how and if it happened. If Ham wants to keep leaning on that argument then he will never be able to claim religion as a matter of fact because he was not there for any of the story of the bible or before it.
Oh? Then how did they build the pyramids? Your entire argument just became null. Get rekt kiddo.
@@user-knhgvg454gOK then, how did God make Adam? At least history gives us probale methods used at the time. Ham is just ridiculous.
Do you know that Tiberius was the emperor of Rome during the time when Jesus was crucified? How do you know? Because of writings and other evidences that date to near the time of his Reign that confirm this. Did you also know that there are four times the number of writings about Jesus outside of the Bible that talk about the miracle of his resurrection. 500 eyewitnesses testified to the fact that he did resurrect. If Jesus resurrected from the dead, then he was God and every single word of the Bible is true.
@@billie-jeanmede2984this is false. There are only two non-biblical and non-interested (I.e. non Christian) sources that even mention Jesus’ existence - much less his resurrection: Josephus and Tacitus. And the Josephus reference is considered by a significant number of scholars to be a forgery.
The 500 witnesses comes from Paul in the Bible. It is not independent evidence.
@@billie-jeanmede2984The bible describes a flat earth in the Old Testament. The gospels disagree on the day that Jesus was crucified (look closely at the Gospel of John compared to the others) and (other than virgin birth and location) all details of his birth.
How can every single word of the Bible be true?
I'd love to see a debate between scientists, especially the creation scientists. Because as objective and open as I tried to be watching this, there was virtually nothing Mr. Ham said that was even remotely compelling.
"especially the creation scientists" and "there was virtually nothing Mr. Ham said that was even remotely compelling."
Ham believes we got CREATION by supernatural means and Nye by natural means. To your tiny brain though, Ham is wrong. So show that or admit you don't think much. Certainly you're aware of creationist don't believe in a natural creation.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
That's YOUR fault.
@@noahc2078 Um...my fault for what? Not being impressed with terrible arguments?
Clearly there ARE creation scientists, I'd love to see a debate with them.
@@dogsandyoga1743 Bill Nye isn't even a scientist, and his arguments were pretty much a really long version of what's called the question begging epithet, where he basically gave is evidence immediately acted like it was indisputable, whereas Ken started by leveling the playing field with the assertion that creationists and evolutionists see the SAME evidence in different lights. Bill Nye basically excused it all. Ken's arguments were far more compelling.
That’s perfectly fine
I love how much of a teacher bill is. Before stating his opinion he explained/ gave a mini lesson on the theory of thermo dynamics
Ken Ham:
"Here is a smart person who agrees with me"
- appeal to authority, appeal to authority, appeal to authority.
Yes but to be fair, left-wing democrats do this 24-7 in the public school system, so can you really blame him for repeating what they do?
He did this to show that the idea that you can't be a great scientist while also believing in God and or that the earth is 6000 years old is not the case.
Question authority
I already commented but, wouldn't it be awesome if political debates could be respectful and decent human beings like these two to one another and to opposing views? would be a lot less problems and polarization if people respected each other and weren't threatened by each other and could argue with a live and let live mentality still.
True that!
It's very difficult to take someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old very seriously. The notion is on the same level as a flat earth in terms of ridiculousness.
@@Martijnvw83 It's hard to take anyone serious that believes the world is billions of years old....
@@Martijnvw83 Just like you guys believe in evolution, and we came from a big bang, then tadpole in a soup of water to a creature in water to crawl out to mammals to monkeys to humans....lmao
@@eriknorman7409 that's what the evidence suggests. Sorry your world view doesn't align with the facts, but that's just the way it is.
“Beliefs about the past” are not necessarily the same as factual history.
Exactly
Same apply to the Bible?
@@cajohnson130 Of course, the whole point Ken Ham is trying to make is that each side is a belief and challenges you to think about which side you want to pick. Each side is as valid as the other, but the implications of each world view is vastly different. That is exactly the message Ken wants to get accross to everyone, the belief you hold about these topics is the most important thing in life. Choose wisely.
@@dakloos316 look I understand what your saying but I disagree. Reality is not something you can choose. We share a reality and either your beliefs try to match that reality or it doesn't. Ken Ham is not interested I truth. His main goal is making the literal Bible narrative fit no matter what. He also says he would never change his mind where as science changes with new evidence. That's its strength. Creationism needs the results to match the scripture at all costs. You should follow the evidence no matter the result, not ad hoc explain it away or start with your conclusion and work backwards. Science is not worried about a narrative to disprove the Bible. If the data shows a young earth, that's what the finding would show. It simply is not compatible with a 6k year old earth. All results in all fields show this to be the case.
I'm praying for Bill 🙏🙏🙏❤
Why? If there is a Supreme Creator who loves us why the need to pray? Your God should love him unconditionally.
I watched this years ago. It was so good I am back for more.
I just remembered that I watched this livestream as it was live in class, in high school.
I did too. All the teachers were mad at Bill hahahahaha losers :)
Dinosaurs were killed because of a catastrophic flood and the fossil record and the earth's geology proves this.
You must've been home schooled.
The debate should have been over the moment Ham admits that no evidence would ever convince him that he's wrong.
I didn't hear him say that.
@@AnthonyClay-y6hIt starts at 1:48:00
@@AnthonyClay-y6hspecifically 1:51:06
@@AnthonyClay-y6h He said he was going to trust God's "word" no matter what. That would include contradictory evidence.
That’s not how a debate works. No debate would last longer then 5 minutes.
Im happy they didn’t disable the comments.
How do you guys explain what was before the Big Bang?
Nye: That's a great mystery we're constantly trying to discover. Now, nobody knows for sure, but soon we may discover it. Never stop searching.
Ham: Well, there's a book out there that explains everything.
How do you guys explain the existence of soul and unique essence in us people?
Nye: That's a great mystery we're constantly trying to discover. Now, nobody knows for sure, but soon we may discover it. Never stop searching.
Ham: Well, there's a book out there that explains everything.
What is one thing more than anything else upon which you base your belief?
Nye: I base my belief on information and the process that we call science. It fills me with joy to make discoveries everyday.
Ham: Well, there's a book out there that explains everything.
Mr. Ham, just one question. Have you ever read anything else in your life?
Ham: Why should I if there's a book out there that I very much like?
Funny how in your comment Nye can’t prove anything yet the Bible is claimed to be truthful. You just reject it because it sounds edgy 😂
@@Idekreallythe bible claims the bible is truthful.
If I said "I made the universe" would that be better than saying "I don't know" because I'm claiming to be truthful?
@@happyhappy85 It's more in the misrepresentation of how and what Science can answer in regards to those questions. Science is not faith based and should not be held to the same standard as faith. People believe in Science because it is testable and is evidence based. There is nothing wrong with faith but it is not testable nor are the arguments presented in the initial post answered in the bible in a level science requires. A soul is not a scientific term but a religious one. Science is still exploring the Big Bang but everything that contributes to Science validates observations more than creationist claims. Evidence to support creationism can't come from the Bible it must come from things that can be tested and observed. Saying we don't know what made the universe is better than extrapolating to an intelligent creator must have been responsible.
"Nye: I base my belief on information and the process that we call science." That should be worrisome ...
Naturalist scientists boast how their science corrects itself all the time. Why? Because it makes mistakes all the time! Still Nye says that he has his belief on it. So, Nye believes in mistaken beliefs.😀
@@jounisuninenI think we might be skewing Nye’s words very incorrectly. The problem isn’t that “science” makes mistakes. I believe science gives room for people to make mistakes in such a way that they can be open to correct answers or finding better ways to do better things.
The Bible - or at least Ken Ham’s interpretation, far as I’m aware - doesn’t allow for any mistakes. So when skeptics or studiers find contradicting messages, translations out of line, archaeological evidence pointing to a different conclusion than what the Bible holds; I believe Christians are either forced to “push the envelope” and come up with a cherry-picked explanation for how the Bible fits this scheme like a one-size-suits-all trick pony, or reconsider their initial standing.
In other words, blind “faith” or critical thought and open to wrongness, open to being corrected, open to discovery.
The Debate is so interesting that you can not pause halfway. Great debate.
This wasn't a debate, it was an adult trying to teach a child basic science.
@@sqlevolicious lol no one considers Bill Nye as someone who knows science
@@HS-zk5nn he has more credibility than Ken Ham
@@thomasclark7254 I am sure you see it that way when one has a science degree and the other doesnt
I just paused halfway in
Unfortunately, the real world isn’t always what you want it to be. Just because something sounds more satisfying doesn’t make it more credible. That’s ignorance and it doesn’t get us anywhere.
That goes either way. Religious folks would be devastated if there was no god because they believed they would be rewarded for their devotion. Atheists would be devastated if there was a god because that means their actions would be judged. Both sides have a view they like more because it suits their personality or desires.
Ten years have passed and this is my first time watching this ever.
Here with you brother, cant believe i lived this long without seeing this live demonstration of Nyes impeccable patience 😂
King James Bible is a miss-translated Elohim is plural and so is Adam
I just love that bill nye looks like Abraham Lincoln
Untrue.
@@davidandthatotherguy1369they’re right
Complete opposite sides, subjects hot topics at work, yet both give their respective views in a calm, professional, productive manner without resulting to low blows.
Leaders, it can be done.
I was a Christian until I read the Bible, and said hang on, read it again, and again, and again, wrote down my questions and went to my elder and got the classic:
God works in mysterious ways
It is called "mysterious" because nobody can provide any evidence for a god.
@@MayLNg I know, because the evidence for a Christian god is zero, it doesn’t exist at all, the whole thing is stolen from every other religion.
The holy bible can’t even keep its story straight before the next page says a different thing.
@@MayLNgactually God is a perfectly normal and rational conclusion with sufficient evidence. Your house is 100 percent evidence of a builder. Your phone is 100 percent evidence of a designer. The irrational view actually, is no creator of any sort.
@@PoppinPsinceAD33
You are employing false and deceptive logic. You do not have a single evidence for any "creation" or for any "creator". Can you list one (evidence) and how would we test that "evidence" to show creation or your god?.
@@MayLNg deceptive logic? I’m using rational logic. Please tell me that your house had designers and builders
Honestly, as a Physicist, engineer, and Christian, there were quite a few things that bothered me in both sides. But it was a very interesting conversation.
Best debate ever, watched all of it, I think I watched it two times before
Me too and Ken Ham is just as ridiculous and comical in his stupidity every time.
@@teknoaija1762 yep he looked so bad in this debate. Did you see when they went through the Ark Encounter together? Here’s a spoiler the only thing Ken is worried about is how nice they did building it and Bill Nye was concerned with all the fake science and lies that building is full of.
@@teknoaija1762 wow your just lovely to talk to I bet
@@joelcarter2535😂💯
@@adoniplaitis4765 😄
I agree with everyone else when it comes to how respectful they were to each other. And kudos to most people that commented. For the most part we're being respectful to each other. We need this in the United States. For the people that like debate, for the people that like to see both sides of a story, for the people that are being respectful to each other! Vote! Please vote! No matter your party affiliation. We need critical thinkers to vote.
Great words Nick. Respect and curiosity. I'll put my"Faith" in that. We must participate to have a real place in this world. Does anyone remember - Oh people look around. The signs are everywhere.
You've left it to somebody other than you, to be the one to care---
hey man peace and love to you and everyone else. I actually disagree though, because whoever gets voted in, ALWAYS messes up and pursues selfish agendas. If people in society get f**ked over its the voters who are to blame for voting them in. Im Irish but it seems to me that USA politics is either democrat or republican, well off money-wise so its almost a no lose endeavor. America needs freshend up politically and I think someone who takes values of both sides need represented as a 'middle' party, i need a better word but you know what i mean, anyway just a thought :)
"The battle is really about authority". Yes, indeed, it is.
One shows his authority with humility and the other through arrogance.
I'm taking an AiG class rn and this debate wrecked my opinion of them
Ken Ham's principal argument seemed to be that we can't rely on the laws of nature being the same in the past as they are today, thereby at a stroke rendering things like radiometric dating or continental drift inadmissible as evidence of an old earth. Yet he repeatedly (e.g. at 2:18:01) tries to claim that the continuity of the laws of nature over time is the work of God. So which is it? Laws that apply for all time everywhere (which they have to in order to explain much of what we observe in the universe) or laws that changed rapidly some 4-6000 years ago for no apparent reason other than to enable a young earth creationist's brain not to explode?
Not the laws. The conditions, this is a distinct difference and not acknowledging it is the same as using a straw-man argument.
One thing we can all agree on. Bill is not satisfied!
Neither are the entire Academic world.
This is an interesting debate to watch today and I’m sure will be even more interesting to watch 5 years from now and further
I watch it every few years. One of the greatest debates I've ever heard
Yes it becomes more and more relevant. I must admit only 18 months ago or so my perspective was completely different than it is now. I love you Jezus! 🙏💟
I’m in the same boat, the 9 years of ‘progress’ since this debate really undermine one of these arguments.
@@andrewsimms4904just curious which one do u say it undermines?
@@andrewsimms4904 not really, dont know what you are trying to hint at with 'progress'. please your serial produced argument in further detail to have an actual discussion, as we are not in the circlejerk you seem familiar to be in.
Great debate! Thoroughly enjoyed the discussion, youre both highly intelligent gentlemen, respect to you both.
I love the ice layer thing. If you go to Cleveland Ohio in the winter or anywhere else for that matter where snow falls, you will see that if you dig in an area untouched by anyone for about 1 month that there are about 15 to 20 layers, all separated by a thin layer of dirt and other particles carried by the wind that coats the top of the snow in between snowfalls. Each being crushed by the weight of the previous snowfall.
How long do it take those layers to form?
That's exactly what I was thinking. It reminded me of a recent 'discovery' of walking rocks in the Arizona desert, that actually turned out to be rocks getting scooted every winter on thin sheets of ice that melted quickly. If someone unaware of the time the ice was there assumed that each 'walk' of a rock (there were wavy patterns in it) was a year and not a single night, the 'date' of the rocks walking or whatever would be off astronomically. We don't know anything until we can actually observe it. The tree rings, too, made me wonder if there aren't extra rings from years that had hard refreezes, making it look like multiple years when cut.
You are simplifying what layers means. It is not how many times it snows providing layers but rather yearly totals. Bill explains this to Ken on his ark tour.
@@catherinerosner970 So are you saying that simple answers are not truth, and that only complicated one's are?
@@catherinerosner970 It is ASSUMED yearly totals. Once again, there is assumptions that it is based on, not observations.
This was a very useful source for my debate paper, thank you!
Maybe you should read the Lincoln/Douglas debate. Nye/Ham was a show, like pro wrestling with Nye as the Heel.
Nothing was debated. Nye stated facts and ham lied, as always.
@@Johnsmith-hp6tw Nein, they both had compelling arguments.
@@BANSHIE_R6S "arguments" are irrelevant. Facts matter. Evolution is a fact. No debate exists.
@@Johnsmith-hp6tw Nye stated hypothesis, not facts. Facts are proven, nothing about evolution has been proven...
Thoroughly enjoyed this debate. Another really good one (for those interested) is Peter Atkins vs John Lennox. 😊
Thank you for commenting politely, thanks for the tip. God Bless you.
When ken ham said theres nothing that could change his mind, it had most theist rethink and evaluate creationism. So many left their religion to become critical thinkers because of this debate...
If you take out the purpose of this debate you’ll find that you have two grown men arguing for 2 and a half hours about the age of a rock.
To be fair, it’s a particularly big rock
@@thedp17 compared to what? It's a grain of sand to the universe
if you take out the purpose of my house you will find four walls and a roof
@@lisaac9477 true, they are actually arguing over the age of a grain of sand
@@violetyeah9095 and a door
This turned out to be one of the most historic debates ever recorded😂
For humor, yes. Most humans have transgressed such bigoted doctrines.
Most won't get it
@@Jay-ft3xh if you’re a naturalist/materialist at all, you don’t have a place to speak philosophically. Your worldview runs into so many philosophical absurdities it’s baffling.
Recommend checking out the debate of Hitchens and Stephen Fry at the Vatican. "Is the Catholic Church a Force For Good"
@@jamespitts10 Such as?
Mannnn the memories.. I remember being shown this debate by my science teacher who was a substitute the whole spring semester (freshmen Fairfield HS 2015).. the substitute is Chinese and I think he moved to China later at some point but… he was an incredible teacher. Always showed us films lolol. Great times! ❤❤
Chinese spy causing dissent in the status quo
What a brave and brilliant teacher to use a different culture to debate within that culture.
Fairfield CT?
What’s ironic is that my Sunday school teacher showed this to us as well. Crazy how we can single out the things we like to hear.
Im an engineer and my mother was once a Catholic nun for over a decade. I’m 37 and I still have to remind myself to think critically about big and small things.
Many people on both sides, christianity or evolution, seem to still fall for many myths, myself included. Traveling helped open my mind to things I originally felt was normal for everyone. Some things are mostly constant, like morals and good deeds. Other things vary quite a bit from culture to culture. Income also influences a lot of habits and decisions.
Such a great debate. Everyone should watch this
Ken got smoked. All feelings and little factual information
@@sltmdrtmtc Yes, Ken Ham is a scientist trying to explain basic science, and Bill Nye is a lying religious fanatic.
Your reply is ridiculously arbitrary! For one, Bill Nye is not a scientist, he's an engineer, whereas Ken Ham has a bachelor's degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology). Define "religious fanatic". Better yet, define "religion", because "evolutionism", having to do with the origin of the world and humanity's ultimate authority (albeit ourselves), is in fact a religion.
@@scottsage3024 You just described your reply.
@@noahc2078 Engineering IS an applied science, genius. Your own definitions contradict each other 😂😂 By all metrics, creationism is a braindead way to interpret our world. Cope with it.
@@_all_around_us What I mean to say is engineering is not a branch of BIOLOGY, which is primarily the center of the creation/evolution debate. By all metrics, evolution is a braindead way to interpret our world, cope with it. SEE, you're not the ONLY one who can be snide and demeaning while also proving NOTHING AT ALL, so try something else why dontcha.
When you say that all these scientists agree with your view..."By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. " also ... Ken Ham " Nothing will change my mind , I am a Christian." Bill Nye " Please ..change my mind. Present evidence that will change what we in the scientific community believe and we will embrace it"
That's actually scary, Ken Ham basically says you can't trust him, convincing other religious fanatics like him that haven't understood or looked at the science that it's actually just his word against Bill's.
You're wrong about Ken, he knows a lot of science, but decided to use the word of God instead of his vast knowledge of science to expose Bill Nye as a hater of God. That's why Bill kept looking angry and saying are we going to believe an old book translated to English over and over through the years. Bill kept saying he isn't a theologian, he has never studied the Bible and it shows. The Bible is the most interesting and knowledgeable book on earth..
@@lorrikammien3719 ....yikes. No, Ken Ham knows quite literally nothing about the natural world. He denies evolution while constantly straw manning it because he, like many other extreme theists, doesn't understand it at all, or even attempt to. He's satisfied with his blind belief in something that goes against everything we've learnt as a species. I hope you're not the same although I wouldn't bet on it. The bible is in no way knowledgeable about anything scientific or moral. its an archaic attempt to explain our world written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night. Back to your point though Bill doesn't hate God, just like I don't. You don't hate something you don't think exists. Bill is reaching into the depths of the religious extreme in a valiant attempt to educate those who might listen to someone as delusional as Ken Ham. He understands someone like Ken is long gone to his beliefs and reason will get him nowhere, he is just trying to reach the audience in helping them forget their dogma and use their brain. Let's hope any of this hits the mark and doesnt fly by like Nye's words to Ham
@@lorrikammien3719 Exactly!
@@lorrikammien3719 Why should we believe that the Bible is true, especially when it contradicts itself countless times?
@@profcalculus474 the Bible doesn't contradict itself, it only has people misinterpreting it. We will all stand before the Lord as sinners, I wouldn't want to be the one standing there telling the Lord that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Only the fool says in his heart there is no God.
Ummm… am I alone in thinking that this way of thinking is ludicrous. Ken Hamms arguments can be used right back at him. He didn’t observe the Bible being written OR translated. He didn’t observe god giving humanity his “word”.
That's because he hasn't got any arguments except a book written by several people who didn't understand what we now can prove
And exactly what can you prove? The only thing evolution has to "prove" itself, is carbon dating. Ken Hams point was, the only way to verify carbon dating is true, is for someone to have been there during the time you assume the date was. If you weren't there 65 million years ago, how can you verify beyond any doubt that carbon dating is accurate for that length of time.
Yes, you are alone as always.
@@marktritt8381 You cannot "prove" with a 100% certainty that the sun will not just vanish tomorrow, even though common sense says that it won't because "it hasn't happened since forever", and our understanding of the life-cycle of stars and classical mechanics "prove" that neither the sun is close to its death nor, even if it were, would just poof away like in a cartoon.
Maybe because the supernatural is real and objects can just ascend to the spirit realm at any given time, or maybe there's an unknown quantum field that just happened to decay tomorrow in that precise spot and it deleted the sun.
This same logic applies to literally everything else in the world, for everything we know, that we understand, that we claim, that we have studied, there's never a 100% chance.
So what do you do? Burden of proof, will secret quantum field eat the sun tomorrow, or will the sun remain there as we "know" it does; neither are a 100%, but one is magnitudes above the other in evidence to combat its burden.
In the case of tests such as the Zircon U-Pb, yes, there's a non-zero possibility that lead just randomly got inside the zircon crystal in big amounts and thus we measured a billion years on a zircon crystal wandering around the past century, but again, burden of proof, did the lead atoms tunneled into the crystal (every single time) to perfectly align with billions of years of decay, or, you know, it was actual decay.
The Bible's account of morality is something that stands for itself.
Rather than believing in something that other people say, which you can or cannot prove to yourself.
Morality is something that you can prove to yourself in your daily life, about what is true or not.
Ah yes. Morality in the bible. Slavery isn't outlawed or condemned, women are ordered to marry their rapists, and kill your kid if the voices in your head (God) tell you too. I love how moral the Bible is and that is why I didn't fall away years ago and continue to practice the above in my everyday life /s
@@cassie2025 yeah was blue skie arguing for or against the Bible lol
1:14:09 ironically, man's place in the cosmos is so infinitessimally insignificant in Bill's world, but centrally significant in Ken's world.
That's the egotism of religion.
Wrong. Without humans the cosmos would not even know that it exists.
@@KeithWaggoner-kb6ue There’s no evidence for that
You are right in that a negative cannot be proven: however, you yourself are the evidence. You are not only part of the cosmos, but you are also are aware of its existence. Rocks, stars, and other nonliving components of the cosmos do not have this capability.. Is there evidence to the contrary.? I see your point though and it does seem likely that other beings are aware of the cosmos.
So what if man is insignificant in "bills world"? You don't need god to tell you you're significant, and I'm religious
It was clearly a one-sided debate. Only one of them keeps saying "look at these other people that are smart that think how I do. That must mean I'm right."
yep I found it so wierd how no one told him these aren't valid points
These are how he is citing sources. He is letting his sources actually be heard 1st hand instead of reading them in a book.
He doesn’t need these men to know he is right, he is his own scientist, but citing sources is usually what comes next for proof, right?
If he hadn’t, there would be complaints that “he never cited his sources”. Some people will complain either way, I guess.
@@kellyanne7225 Its the fact that he only used a biased source of info. Scientists that are also creationists. So anything they say is super biased. Plus, most of them say what they do and then all of a sudden make bland statements like “and thats why god is the only way” “it is the only way” 🤦🏻♂️
@@kellyanne7225 His argument was very illogical in some areas. I was actually really hoping for a good argument on this side but I was sorely dissapointed.
@@kevinvue8159 the whole point Ken was stating was it's a false premise to claim a creationist is somehow anti-science. He provided many modern sources of renowned scientists who ALSO believe in the Bible word for word.
Bill Nye then provided to ignore that and claim Ken was somehow rewriting the laws of physics and nature because he presumes that radiometric dating in infallible and therefore the premise of creation according to the Bible must be absurd.
He makes constant presumptions and also uses emotional manipulation such as comedy to create a bias for him in the audience. Ken only stated facts, logic, and his own sources
I can't decide if Ham on Nye is better with or without pickles.
You win
*groan*...fine, take my like
A person that doesen't understand the basics of how the human mind or how the world works simply will never understand the genius that is Bill Nye. My own brother is so thick-headed that he would rather swallow the "easy" and "simple" ignorant idea rather than anything 'too complicated' to understand. He would rather believe all scientists are liars or any conspiracy theory rather than actually think for one second that he's been fed complete lies by insane people who have no idea where they are standing in the world, its honestly tragic.
Makes me so depressed to see people like him all around and spreading it too
Where does science come from? No one is saying that scientists are liars but rather differing conclusions.
@SummerRing-of2sp Are you serious? Was that a serious question?
Science doesn't "come" from anywhere, Science IS everything, its solely based on evidence and facts..
Like what water is, and gravity and medicine and nature and biology etc etc, science just IS, its not made. Like 1+1=2 will never be 3. You need to watch more Bill Nye or Christopher Hitchens or maybe...Read a book or go to school again.
Can't believe you asked that
I would like to meet your brother. Me and him would probably be great friends :)
@@michaelsears6702 Knowing my brother, I'm sure he wouldn't want to😅
Watching this 9 years since the live debate, I found this extremely compelling and thought provoking.
Although I do have to note that Ham's beliefs seem to originate from his faith and it was obvious that nothing could change his mind. Is having such a fixed mindset and rooting your entire worldview on something that is not and cannot be proven and have insufficient evidence for really a good thing?
He constantly used the Bible as "evidence", basically using God to prove God. I would also like to point out that the Bible would usually be considered to be false and inaccurate by the non-believer which was who he was arguing.
So you agree that the Bible is God breathed? Otherwise Ken Ham is just using a historical account, barely different than any other first hand accounts.
@@SandersClan Ken Ham is clueless about actual history; he is an expert liar only.
The bible is entirely true so ham should have leaned on that more.
I think it's fine for him to lean on his faith and belief in the Bible, but he needs more than just that. Jesus didn't use the Bible when he reached out to non-believers. If you're going to debate, then you require more than something people will choose to ignore.
"...rooting your entire worldview on something that is not and cannot be proven ..." Like atheists rooting their entire worldview on abiogenesis and evolution while abiogenesis would be against the laws of physics, and empirical tests have proved that "evolution" is just intraspecific adaptive variation which never leads to a new taxonomic genus or family.
“You weren’t there”
Bet
*hops on the time machine*
avengers: endgame
That is hilarious
ken ham unironically claiming that the universe was created this instant
I'm a believer but the performance of Dr Nye seemed more informed than Mr Ham. Mr Ham quoting the Bible with a scientist exhibits a lack of formal logic (begging the questions) trying to prove the Bible and young earth by just ASSUMING the Bible and young earth. I was expecting strong arguments against Old age universe but all I got was: "oh we weren't there so all the scientists just have to trust my interpretation of the Bible because of this verse"
Debates like these help to promote the view that believers are unreasonable people
That argument is also, at best, a stalemate, and at worst, self-defeating.
There's this simple fact that you cannot prove with a 100% certainty that the sun will not just vanish tomorrow, we understand laws of physics yes, but we have no way to say for sure that a secret quantum field will not just decay right on the sun and delete it.
This however does not mean that all possibilities are equally acceptable, the burden of proof is on the claim, and what is my evidence for secret quantum field that swallows the sun? Zero, zero now has to fight against the overwhelming evidence of the Standard Model, the observed life-cycle of stars, and pure and simple status-quo, it seems obvious what team to root for.
Lol what arguments are you expecting from someone who accepts myths as facts because a BOOK says so . There is zero logic in religion or creationism it’s only belief .
I know Im late to the party but most bears are omnivorous, not vegetarian. There is a massive difference. Sure the black bear is more into veggies than meat but they are definitely down for a steak my guy.
Polars bears most of the time are straight up Carnivores
@@theviolater9231 tbf that's almost definitely just because of where they live. You can actually track polar bear eating habits based on how far away from their natural habitat they are but that's mostly true for all living things.
@@HouseOfFaust of course it’s because of where they live but they’ve been living there such a long time you can clearly see that they have evolved to live in the Arctic and be predators there they have white fur to camouflage and have the size and strength to pull seals out from the water
It's like the people on tiktoc starving their "vegan" cats.
If a carnivore eats a herbivore it consumes the nutrients the herbivore got from the plants when it ate. polar bears eat caribou in summer months so they still get the nutrients from plants that they need to be alive and if you let your house cat outside what does it do first it eats a little bit of grass maybe a paw's worth then it goes and hunts something. If you fed a cat raw meat and only raw meat, it would die young of malnutrition cat food has small amounts of grain and vegetables mixed in though is mostly meat
You cannot debate with a person that can only reply with "because the book says so" and has no other prove..
That’s what scientists do
@@thatguy2521 No it isn't. They do research , present it for peer review and then once it has been scrutinised by other scientists who are looking for errors, have it published to be further scrutinised by anyone who wants to read it.
@@Factchekka tell me something how would science prove God to be false if it doesn’t research supernatural phenomena God in reality does not fit with science because of the nature of science, in its current state it could never prove or disprove God because God is not bound by natural laws that are understandable to humans since science is as limited as human knowledge is and God cannot be fully understood science could never understand God. Your assumption that science knows everything is an ignorant standpoint seeing as science can and has been wrong about things in the past even when peer reviewed by other scientists.
@@FactchekkaUh yeah, it's reviewed by peers in the same field, under the same professor, and deviating from the mainstream is very risky, so many "peers" won't even review works that affirm creation.
@@noahc2078 That's because no serious scientist can look at the Bible creation story without finding endless errors and contradictions. It makes no sense to a logical person.
Ken’s whole argument is pics or it didn’t happen
lol literally the athiests arguments towards scripture.....
@@Arez455 no, the atheist argument is evidence or it didn’t happen
@@bgmuse373 the atheists really don’t have evidence either
@@Arez455 Scripture makes the claim, but never provides any evidence. Its so bad that even when biblical scholars look for evidence the bible gets debunked further.
Archeologists and most biblical scholars came to the conclusion that Moses is now a legendary figure. Lol.
@@ereyes6718 not true there’s archaeologists and biblical scholars who already found evidence of many things that occurred in the Bible like Noah’s ark, the flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah etc.
Did Ken Ham observe Noah’s ark being built or really anything that supposedly “happened” in the book of Genesis?
1:17:00 yes - there’s a problem. Your “geologist” sent wood to C14 dating and got approximately the max age that C14 dating can be used for. That’s like me getting on the kitchen scale and concluding that my mass is only 5 kg because the scale maxes out at 5 kg 😂
And the St Helens lava is sort of the opposite I believe. Here you’re asking how old something very new is with a method designed for something much older. That’s like me using my bathroom scale to weigh of ingredients to make 0.5 kg of cake.
How do you know that the grand canyon is millions of years old?
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 because I read more than one book
@@ninecowsh9228 I read more than one book to.
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 Several independent methods all based on the laws of nature points towards an earth that is roughly 4.5 billion years old I’m inclined to believe that. Plus that a lot of laws of nature should be broken in order to make it only 6000 years old. Only one book claims that it’s 6000 years old and it was written when people also strongly believed the earth was flat.
It's just strange to me that one side has evidence, while the other has an old book that has been poorly translated and retranslated multiple times. 👀
Facts. If your evidence is a outdated book that was written in a time where they had no concept of time, space, medicine or any type of science, you may be on the wrong side.
Can we assume you have not read the Bible. It is ahead of its time. Teaches us science, medicine, biology, weather and climate time, space, astronomy,
The meridian of the earth, the ice age, angels, demons, heaven, hell, good, evil and more. It is a book written by supernatural influence and tells us of what WILL happen if we continue in a world that rejects our creator GOD JESUS. You should read it sometime. Lots to learn.
It isn't poorly translated, the new testament has more manuscripts than any document from antiquity, and many of them date back to the first century. Also, it wasn't retranslated over and over. It was directly translated from the origional language to many languages. Not Greek to French to German to English, but Greek to English. And Greek to German. And Greek to French
there's nothing wrong with the translation of the bible throughout the years and it's never been rewritten or changed throughout a translation you're completely speculating off your own assumptions. the dead sea scrolls confirm they are they exact same texts we read today , these are the oldest manuscripts found and they're written in picto hebrew, the first written alphabet on earth. find out the facts before you choose a side. sometimes it's best not to judge a book by the cover
@@shivli6088 delusional af 🙄
Interesting debate, well done.
I attended Holy Cross Lutheran Church and School in Madison, Wisconsin for 7 years and when I went to public school for 1 year I gained so much more knowledge about the real world in that one year than what I did in the whole 7 years growing up as a Holy Cross crusader having just religion shoved down my throat along with a bar of soap if I spoke out against or questioned anything or said anything contrary to the teachings of that church.
This is how gentlemen debate.
I would really like to see this debate with an audience poll. Ask all where they stand: young earth, old earth, or undecided. Then ask the same poll at the end. I've seen in other debates and the results are eye opening. The secular argument usual comes out as the more convincing argument.
because it feeds people what the whole point of "arguing" is about in the first place. to be right. and fundamentally, the secular argument says "we are" and creationism says "he is" but neither one of these opinions proves the truth. the truth stands alone, regardless of human opinion. So the fact is, a lot of people SEEKING to find something apart from God, made something up and convinced people of it by brainwashing them all that standing up for the truth is morally offensive. Thats why culture has degraded into so much immorality - because they are denying God, the source of goodness, to begin with. It's not important for Ken Ham to "win" this debate. Whats important is that He spoke the truth. And God bless anyone who hears and believes.
Ok. Note that Bill Nye's argument was not implicitly secular: most Christians support it, and do NOT support that every word of the bible is literally true.
The more I watch of these the more and more I am deeply convinced of the strong literal biblical viewpoint.
Of course because the secular argument lets you continue to live in your sin, it’s the easy road. The gospel message however is one or dying to self and being reborn as a new creation in Christ. Believing in the bible must be hard for those who have spent a lifetime in a education system that has done everything possible to make you believe in anything but the word of God. The bible says we must be born again. To miss is to miss for eternity and be separated from Christ for eternity.
@@YIDARMY08 Again, Bill Nye's argument was not implicitly secular: most Christians support it, and do NOT support that every word of the bible is literally true.
From afar, Bill Nye looks like Abraham Lincoln without a beard
I think Ken's got more of that Abraham Lincoln look. He just needs a top hat 🎩
The guy who said Ken Ham looks like Abe.. get glasses.
The guy who said “the guy who said Ken Ham looks like Abe… get glasses…” no you get glasses.
@@atrociousalien The guy who said "the guy who said the guy who said Ken Ham looks like Abe get glasses no you get glasses" no you get glasses.
I think they both are Abe. Bearded Abe and non-bearded Abe lol