From Conservapedia

An epic debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye occurred on February 4, 2014.[1] Bill Nye's theme was his insistence, despite Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge, that Ken Ham's approach cannot predict anything. Ken Ham's theme was science is limited to what can be observed, and speculations about unobserved events in the distant past are not really science.

Ken Ham gave a fabulous recommendation of the Bible in his answer to the final question:[2]

“ Again, to summarize the things I've been saying, there is a book called the Bible; it's very unique, it's different than any other book out there. In fact I don't know of any other religion that has a book that starts out by telling you that there is an infinite God, and talks about the origin of the universe, the origin of matter and the origin of light and darkness, and the origin of day and night and the origin of the Earth and the origin of dry land and the origin of plants and the origin of the sun, moon and stars, the origin of sea creatures, the origin of land creatures, the origin of man, the origin of women, the origin of death, and sin, the origin of marriage, the origin of different languages, the origin of clothing, the origin of nations; I mean it's a very specific book. And it gives us an account of a global flood in history and the Tower of Babel, and if that history is true, then what about the rest of the book? ”

Here are some lessons learned from the debate:

Ken Ham made good points about the lack of observation in claims by evolutionists. "Observational science" was a good theme for his arguments.

Ken Ham made an excellent point about how of Christianity and knowledge are based on numerous facts in the Book of Genesis.

Ken Ham made a superb point about the horizon problem, and how atheistic theories cannot explain the speed of light and origins.

Ken Ham could have emphasized the Counterexamples to Evolution and Counterexamples to an Old Earth.

Ken Ham won the debate when Bill Nye could not answer the question of where matter came from, and Ken Ham retorted that there is actually a book out there which explains where matter came from.

Ken Ham scored points by explaining that a majority does not determine the truth.

Ken Ham could have done better by explaining the political motivation driving and distorting atheistic theories of science.

Ken Ham paused on a tough question: "what, if anything, would change your mind?" The answer is that the Bible is logic, and the question is like asking what would convince you that 2+2=5? Insanity, perhaps. Or another answer would have been a litany of lack of evidence and counterexamples to evolution.

Ken Ham over-relied on his claim that it is impossible to prove unobserved things in the past, rather than taking advantage of opportunities to present evidence against an Old Earth.

Ken Ham missed an opportunity to explain why the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution, as disorder triumphs over order even if energy is piped into the system.

Ken Ham included superb criticisms of abortion, and support of traditional marriage.

Ken Ham could have pointed out which countries have had the highest level of belief in evolution: atheistic East Germany. Real truth is not something that leads people to ruin.

Ken Ham could have emphasized how some evolutionists have relied on deceit to promote their theory, such as the Piltdown Man and dinosaur-bird hoaxes. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Ken Ham could have explained the complete lack of any transitional forms in the fossil record, and how that absence disproves evolution as some evolutionists themselves have admitted.

Ken Ham thoroughly discredited the propaganda that evolutionists have imposed on public schools.

Ken Ham could have used examples of the implausibility of evolution to higher complexity: if we left a pack of dogs stranded in a forest, would be expect to find a higher level of species in returning a long time later?

Ken Ham could have pointed out how the greatest scientific works, from Isaac Newton to Louis Pasteur, were inspired by literal views of the Bible.

Ken Ham could have taken advantage of Bill Nye's criticism of the Bible, for supposedly not predicting anything, by pointing out that the theory of evolution does not predict anything at all, at least nothing that comes true.

Ken Ham had a terrific closing during which he rattled off an enormous list of things explained by the Bible (see quote above).

Additional points

Bill Nye pretended that scientists would welcome and publicize evidence of creation if it existed, when in fact liberal concealment of the truth is commonplace and the Piltdown Man fraud lasted for decades to prop up evolution.

Bill Nye criticized the lack of availability of a particular academic program in the state of Kentucky, implying that this was the fault of creationists.

Bill Nye implied that atheist predictions about science have been productive, citing the discovery of background radiation in connection with the Big Bang, but ignoring the vast amount of Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge

Bill Nye relied on circular reasoning in citing radiometric dating, ignoring the assumptions that assume what that argument attempts to prove.

Bill Nye talked about astronomy, ignoring counterexamples to an Old Earth and how atheistic theories fail to explain key astronomical evidence.

Bill Nye said that the Bible has been translated many times, implying that it is flawed as a result.

Bill Nye was critical of the Great Flood, not admitting that Jesus expressly confirmed that the Great Flood existed.

Bill Nye focused on numerous ice layers and vast numbers of species.

Bill Nye bizarrely insisted that Noah was not competent and skilled enough to build an ark.

Bill Nye went in style from being cordial at the beginning to being less gracious towards the end.

Bill Nye stated that Ken Ham's approach requires massive changes 4000 years ago, stating that pyramids are older than that.

Bill Nye tried to marginalize the Bible as Ken Ham's theory, rather than the Bible (a word that Nye tended to avoid using).

Bill Nye repeatedly asked: what does creationism predict? Numerous answers are in Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge.

Bill Nye would repeatedly say, "this is a great mystery," when presented with questions he could not answer, such as how did consciousness evolve from matter?

Bill Nye stumbled when asked if there is any evidence other than radiometric dating that supports the theory of an Old Earth. After sputtering, Bill Nye even refers to himself as a "reasonable man."

Bill Nye's citations to evidence emphasized ice layers, trees, fossils, and the Grand Canyon (despite how atheists cannot explain how old the Grand Canyon is, or why the shape of the Colorado River does not match the shape of the Canyon).

Bill Nye insisted that "evolution is a process that adds complexity" - even though that is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which Bill Nye admitted is an absolute truth without contradiction.

Bill Nye claimed that the inputting of energy from the sun can bypass the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but merely inputting energy does not add information or complexity required to create things like the human mind. [3]

Bill Nye's jokes and stories were surprisingly unsuccessful. For example, he seemed unaware that the vast majority of people do not watch the Super Bowl, and his reference to Seattle winning the Super Bowl fell flat.

Bill Nye said that if the Grand Canyon was caused by the Great Flood, then why aren't there other grand canyons around the world? But the same question can be asked about the atheistic theory that the Grand Canyon was carved by a river - if so, then why aren't there other grand canyons carved by rivers?

See also

References