Evolution vs Creation DEBATE: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creationist Ken Ham

Bill Nye the Science Guy has agreed to debate long time creationist Ken Ham, so he tells CNN in this short interview:



The only thing I don’t like regarding this interview is how Nye continually refers to his opponent as ‘this guy’, never once referring to him by his name, Ken Ham, or even Mr. Ham. Such arrogance and lack of respect on Nye’s part reveals quite a bit about him. But I guess that just goes with the territory of ridding the world of these evil creationists.

That said, if this is televised I’ll try and bring it to you. I’ve listened to Ham speak before and find his thoughts on a young earth and creation quite compelling.

The event happens in one month from now on Feb. 4th.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

424 thoughts on “Evolution vs Creation DEBATE: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creationist Ken Ham

  1. ·
    The theory of evolution is a propaganda-laden farce that
    is fraught with folly and lacks empirical evidence from the fossil record.
    Consider the following lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in the
    fossil record:

    * There is no physical evidence from the fossil record of anteaters with shorter and progressively longer snouts. The theory of evolution would have it that the anteater evolved its long snout gradually over millions of years. So at one point, according to the theory of evolution, there had to be an evolutionary ancestor to the modern anteater with a short snout, let’s say a 1 inch snout for arguments sake. And gradually over the years, there would have been an anteater with a 2 inch snout, an anteater with a 3 inch snout, and so forth up to the modern day anteater with its long snout. So does the fossil record shows such a progression? Nope.

    * Likewise, there is no physical evidence in the fossil record of a sequence of giraffes with shorter and progressively longer necks.

    * There is no sequence in the fossil record showing one species or kind of animal changing into another species or kind of animal. Darwin himself acknowledged that his theory implied that the number of transitional links between all species must be great in number. The excuse for the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record during Darwin’s time was that much of the fossil record was yet to be uncovered. Well, since then we have uncovered quite a bit and no intermediate fossils have turned up in the fossil record.

    * Unless there is some breaking news somewhere, the Missing Link is still missing!

    While the fossil record is missing evidence for evolution, what do evolutionists do when they find evidence in the fossil record that doesn’t fit their theory and supports what the Bible says – Why they cover it up of course

    Consider the subject of giants. The Bible speaks about giants in Genesis 6:4, Numbers 13:33, and Deuteronomy 2:10-11 among other places. And do you know that skeletons of giants have been found in America? They didn’t teach you that in school did they? American Indians are very familiar with giants who lived in North America. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, there were numerous accounts of discoveries of giants in America. Here are some newspaper accounts of some of them:

    http://www.sydhav.no/giants/newspapers.htm

    But what happened to the skeletons?

    There are several accounts of the Smithsonian whisking away giant skeletons. Here is an article from Xpeditions Magazine entitled “Holocaust of Giants The Great Smithsonian Cover-up”:

    http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/magazine/articles/giants/holocaust.html

    Another technique evolutionists use when they come across evidence that doesn’t fit their theory is they come up with laughable explanations. What if I told you that evolutionists believe that soft tissue from a dinosaur bone they dug up is 68 million years old

    That’s right , I kid you not:

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

    If you want to know what supposed 68 million year old soft tissue looks like, how it is flexible and pliable and returns to its original shape when stretched, you can see it at the 9:10 mark of this video from 60 Minutes:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5658449n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

    Isn’t it ironic that evolutionists make fun of the beliefs of Bible believers and yet, here is science making the ludicrous claim that 68 million year old soft tissue is flexible, resilient, and stretchy? One question I have is, when an evolutionist finds a dinosaur bone with soft tissue that is 68 million years old, do they straight away put it into a zip-lock plastic bag in order to prevent spoilage

    Another more important question is this: Why wouldn’t the dating calculations be questioned when someone says soft tissue from a dinosaur bone is 68 million years old

    Here is why: Because a dinosaur bone that is not millions of years old would contradict the millions of years old paradigm of the evolutionary model and evolutionists won’t let that happen to their religion. They’d rather look like fools claiming soft tissue is millions of years old rather than give up their ridiculous theories. So don’t look for science to contradict such an absurd claim.

    Let’s examine how the model of the theory of evolution fits the reality of the fossil record shall we? And let us put aside for now the “Frankenstein type” story of how the first cell came to life by being zapped with electricity—it’s alive!—and just start with the infamous single cell starting point for evolution. The model of evolution would have it that from that from one single cell evolved all the various life forms we see on earth today. So the model of evolution is basically a triangle. It starts at a single point on top and expands downward to a wide base on the bottom producing the various higher life forms we see on the planet today. However, this model of evolution does not fit the raw data of
    the fossil record. In the Cambrian explosion, we see a vast multitude of higher life forms appearing fully formed in the fossil record without any precursor forms like the model of evolution requires. And the number of classifications, called phyla, that existed then is greater than the number of phyla on earth today. So, unlike the model of evolution, which must start with one life form with the number of life forms expanding and expanding, we see in the physical fossil record a multitude and vast spectrum of life forms appearing fully formed in the fossil record without any precursors in the fossil record and then we see the number of phyla actually decreasing, not increasing.

    All in all, the model of the theory of evolution is a poor excuse to explain how the various life forms on the planet today came into being.

    The BOTTOM LINE: If evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution. And yet, our kids today in school are being indoctrinated and brainwashed with this nonsense.

    What the fossil record does support is like begets like, as the Book of Genesis states. So if you want rock solid unchanging truth to stand upon and you want to know how everything came into existence, then seek out the Book of Genesis and the Word of God. But if you want conjecture on where we came from along with fruitless and laughable theories, seek out monkey-men-wannabes who will spin you a laughable yarn, a fanciful tale

  2. it seems to me the atheists and creationists are forgetting some things…i believe the Bible also..you have an
    open mind..read Gerald Schroeder
    Age of the Universe online and his book science of God…actually..the
    hebrew word for create is bara and can mean to transform…YHWH
    transformed eve from adams body…she was created from him…all life is
    of the earth..you are of the earth…but it doesnt mean YHWH didnt make
    you from your parents…people dont think enough..the truth is before
    us..the bible is true…only life is not here by chance..create can mean
    to transform in hebrew…actually even in the english also..YHWH made
    eve from adam…nye dawkins
    gould and morowitz have all said no one knows how life started…its
    improbable..heres shroeders time dilation based on einsteins
    equations…EINSTEIN’S TIME DILATION EQUATION BY VELOCITY…13.7 BILLION
    YEARS HERE ARE 6 DAYS “ABOVE THE UNIVERSE” NEAR THE FARTHEST PHOTONS ;
    T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000
    days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.999999999999999999999999999­­99999%
    velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt
    .000000000000000000000001;5000­­500000000 =
    6/1.19988001199880011998800119­­988e-12; 1/2 a millimeter from the
    farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.
    distance of YHWH
    from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000
    LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x
    46500000000=439,622,855,430,19­­2,000,000,000,000
    meters;439,622,855,430,192,000­­,000,000,000 meters x
    .99999999999999999999999999999­­999=
    439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 meters
    distance;439,622,855,430,192,0­­00,000,000,000 –
    439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference,
    YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photons
    EINSTEIN’S TIME DILATION
    EQUATION BY STRETCHING OF SPACE….space time stretched
    1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light ,
    hence time kicks in), universe was 1000,000,000,000 times smaller when
    matter formed at that heat compared to now… this means time has slowed
    1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9
    billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days
    while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years
    see geralds
    book..the hebrew actually is in harmony with science..they are saying
    the same thing…except the miracle is..its not by chance math says the
    same

    1. We won’t have anything to lose. In fact, in a way, there’s really no way that Nye CAN lose. Knowing Ham, he’ll likely pack his little “museum” full of his hooting and guffawing followers. Even if Ol’ Hambo wins, it’s not like he’ll win over any new converts. On the other hand, there will be plenty of potential there for Nye to possibly change some minds, or at least plant the seeds of scientific doubt. .

      1. Unlike those who have rejected their Creator and embrace a lie instead, fans of Ham, if in the audience, are likely to be respectful. God is the One Who does the prep work on a person’s heart and the transformation work too, so Ham only needs to handle accurately His Word of truth.

        Theory isn’t science and Nye will be grasping at empty straws.

        1. You claim that “theory isn’t science”. Does that apply to all scientific theories, or just the ones that you deem blasphemous?

            1. All scientific theories are, by definition, science. What brought you to the conclusion that I reject the notion of a Creator? It is possible, you know, to be both scientifically literate and religious — even Christian!

      2. You seem to be a really smart person with your witticisms on playing on someone’s name. Could you tell me where the stuff that blew up at the Big Bang came from? I would really like to know from such an astute fellow like you.

        1. Our current understanding of the Big Bang based on observations of the physical universe is that it was a state of rapid exponential expansion from an extremely hot and dense singularity. Nothing “blew up”.
          If you’re asking what initiated this expansion, speculation and hypotheses abound, but we’re really not sure. Our relative ignorance in this area does not constitute evidence for any deity, let alone yours specifically. That would be what is called a “God of the Gaps” argument, a logical fallacy. There are many aspects of the Universe that are a complete mystery to us, but it would be irrational to cast aside all curiosity and claim that the sonoluminesence produced by the mantis shrimp flicking its claws is the spark of God’s fairy dust.

          1. So, “science can’t come up with a solid answer, so we’ll believe in the theory that god did it” is not ok, but “science can’t come up with a solid answer, so we’ll believe in the theory that time+chance did it” is ok?

            1. I’m not entirely certain what you are referring to when you say “the theory that time+chance did it”. Do you care to elaborate? My replying to your comment may even be a mistake, since you dont seem to be discussing anything I’ve claimed to believe in.

              1. Joshua, Tristan could have pounced when you mentioned time. Time is a measurement of events, and it is not a constant. Time can fluctuate, I.e. Expand and contract. It is subject to gravity or the lack thereof.
                The issue is God as Spirit or Creator is outside of the constraints of time, it does not affect him. except when he chose to be in time as Jesus.
                He is the “Ultimate Cause”. What TRUE science does is study the “how” and that only. Science is fascinating and awe inspiring. AND, unlike the assertion that the AAAS makes, Science is big enough to accept all who want to find out the “how”.

              2. Fair enough, rather than going on making assumptions about each other, why don’t you state exactly what it is that you do believe, before i elaborate, since that does not seem to have any resonance with you.

                1. I’d rather continue this discussion on a different forum, such as Facebook. My phone is having troubles with this crummy blog.

            1. An even bigger problem for Tristan is his suppressing the truth that he knows to be true, having exchanged the truth for a lie. Only God can lift the blinders off!

              1. So does this mean I’m an agent of Satan, or a tool of Satan? Do I get a little pitch fork and pointy tail?

            2. The Big Bang theory and the conclusion of a primordial singularity is extrapolated from the observable evidence. The Universe is obviously expanding, and the implicit corollary of this fact is that it was once “smaller” in the past. Asking “why hasn’t another singularity happened?”, betrays a deep misunderstanding of cosmology and the position that you reject.

              1. No it doesn’t. If a singularity can happen once,MIT can happen again, yet it hasn’t. The extrapolation could be wrong. What caused the singularity? It is a hypothesis that cannot be tested, as much of quantum mechanics is.

                1. I think I get the gist of your poorly worded question, “truth”. The universe has not collapsed into another singularity because of the repulsive effect of dark energy, which has in fact lead to an increased acceleration in the expansion of the universe.
                  Of course we could be wrong assuming that the universe was once “smaller” due to the fact that it is currently expanding and becoming “larger”, but I see no reason to reject that conclusion. It seems quite sequitur to me.

                  And of course quantum mechanics is testable. One of the most famous experiments of the 20th century, the double-slit experiment, confirmed the phenomenon of wave-particle duality using basic interference patterns.

                2. The origin of our universe, supposedly happened when a singularity “popped” into existence out of nowhere, why hasn’t another “popped” was my question, not the collapse theory, that you are addressing.

          2. But Tristan, you have a problem, there are twists that occur all the time that confuse cosmologists. We do not hold to the God of the Gaps theory, we hold that God did it and are trying to figure out HOW he did it. There is a BIG difference.
            The Father of Oceanography was piqued because of a verse in the Bible Psalm 8:8. Matthew Maury did not say, “Cool, God did it.” and stop there, he wanted to find out if it was true and how it worked.
            So, the very fact that most of today’s natural sciences were founded by believers in God, should squelch the argument that you have been taught about Creationists. This very topic shows how it is a canard. The fact that an mechanical engineer (Nye) is going to debate an environmental biologist (Ham) shows that creationists do not believe in the God of the Gaps theory.

            1. The “God of the Gaps” is not a theory, not even in the colloquial sense of the word. And Ham is not an environmental biologist. He is first and foremost an evangelist and CEO.

                1. Not necessarily, no. My education is in English studies, but that does not make me a writer. Likewise, obtaining a mere B.Sc. does not automatically make you a scientist, especially when it takes a backseat to your political and religious career.

    2. The evolutionist always loses. That’s why they go after new and young Christians who are excited yet don’t have all of the information yet about creationism.

  3. Some important points…

    *respectfully*

    TIME

    EINSTEIN’S TIME DILATION IN THE UNIVERSE AND RELATIVITY

    “13.7 BILLION” YEARS HERE ARE

    “6 DAYS” NEAR THE FARTHEST PHOTONS ABOVE THE UNIVERSE

    BY VELOCITY…

    T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.999999999999999999999999999¬¬99999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000¬¬500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119¬¬988e-12; 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.

    distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,19¬¬2,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000¬¬,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999¬-999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99¬¬9,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,0¬¬00,000,000,000 – 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99¬¬9,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter closer than the farthest photons

    BY STRETCHING OF SPACE AS THE UNIVERSE EXPANDS

    5.1 days x 1,000,000,000,000 /365=13.9 billion years if one is outside the universe looking in; Time stops at light speed. Before the first matter, everything was light speed. When the first matter was formed, the elements experience time. The universe was a million million times smaller. We know this because matter is formed when temperature is a million million times hotter. Therefore the space in the universe was a million million times more compacted.

    Gerald Schroeder has shown these things in his books. Genesis Big Bang, and Science of God

    I read your article about the Ken Ham and Bill Nye Debate. A great error that many people make is to base their understanding of Genesis one based on the English interpretations. I’ve read the Hebrew and compared it to English. The English severely destroys the Hebrew. The original tenses in Hebrew are imperfect rather than perfect. Ancient Jews said the plants were started day 3-not finished that day. Made is asah and it doesn’t necessarily mean the moon sun and stars were completely made from scratch day 4…to do, fashion, accomplish, make

    (Qal)

    to do, work, make, produce

    to do

    to work

    to deal (with)

    to act, act with effect, effect

    to make

    to make

    to produce

    to prepare

    to make (an offering)

    to attend to, put in order

    to observe, celebrate

    to acquire (property)

    to appoint, ordain, institute

    to bring about

    to use

    to spend, pass

    Create (Asah) -in Hebrew….of transformations

    From Webster’s Dictionary…

    1trans·form verb tran(t)s-ˈfȯrm

    : to change (something) completely and usually in a good way

    Full Definition of TRANSFORM

    transitive verb

    1

    a : to change in composition or structure

    b : to change the outward form or appearance of

    c : to change in character or condition : convert

    2

    : to subject to mathematical transformation

    3

    : to cause (a cell) to undergo genetic transformation

    intransitive verb

    : to become transformed : change

    — trans·form·able adjective

    — trans·for·ma·tive adjective

    See transform defined for English-language learners »

    See transform defined for kids »

    Examples of TRANSFORM

    A little creativity can transform an ordinary meal into a special event.

    The old factory has been transformed into an art gallery.

    YHWH made Eve from Adams rib. Think about this-he took part of Adams body and made it into something similar yet different.

    The idea of making animals from other animals is not anti-Biblical.

    English translates tanniym as whales. Here is what the word means in Hebrew…

    Tanniym-dragon, serpent, sea monster

    dragon or dinosaur

    sea or river monster

    serpent, venomous snake

    As you can see the words resemble amphibians and Reptiles, or possibly dinosaurs. These fit the fossil record.

    Owph-flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds

    fowl, birds

    winged insects

    KJV translated this as birds, but winged insects fits the fossil record.

    The “Hebrew” Genesis can actually be read literally and match the modern scientific record. The English translations did great damage to this chapter.

    Yeshua is the Son of YHWH.

    1. Exodus 20:8-11 (KJV)

      ‘Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.’

  4. the debate will boil down to ken ham’s putdown argument that bill nye’s supposedly science evidence are nothing more than “forensic science”, the kind that is not observable, repeatable or falsifiable as in basic fundamental laws of physics and chemistry but rather are all guesstimation or detective work or storytelling based on one’s own preconceived ideas. evolution is just the modern version (or atheist version) of another creation myth deceptively cloaked in “science” mantle in contrast with the biblical version found in the word of the impossible-to-lie God, our eyewitness to the whole creation shebang.

  5. Because it’s trivial to make both sides of this argument look foolish, this won’t really be a fun thing, I’m afraid.

    Both sides in the debate have a central premise that is nearly untestable.

    The creation ex nihlo side presumes to know how God did it (namely, by “willing” things into existence), and the Evolution side presumes God is unnecessary. Neither side can prove their initial premise.

    (I state that knowing that one exception exists: you can setup an experiment that runs for at least a few thousand years. Then you’ll know whether evolution really results in new forms of life.)

    I say we don’t need to know how God did it. Just accept that He did, and move on. Let the science catch up over the next hundred years or so and maybe we’ll know more.

    1. Actually Bob, if I’m not mistaken… and I’ve studied this, In the beginning G_D spoke the universe into existence. G_D said… “light be”, and it was. The big bang is right, just the origin is wrong. The gent above is right about the English translations, they’re not very good, even the KJV. Hebrew doesn’t translate too well into English, so the translators did the best they could.

  6. The problem for Ken Ham, as I see it, is that if the Earth is more than 10 or 12 thousand years old, then that means his entire platform of a “literal Genesis” falls. It means that young-earth creationism is false. It means that basically everything he has ever taught is wrong. And Ken Ham is on record as saying that if (his interpretation of) Genesis is wrong, then the entire Bible is suspect. Ken Ham is very wrong for teaching people to think this way, but that is what he preaches, and that is the way he makes his money.

    Neither Ken Ham nor any other young-earth creationist has ever been able to explain the correlation between radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods. I’m sure, from the comments here, that most of the readers don’t even understand why that is important or what are the implications of that correlation, but it very solidly proves that the Earth is much, much older than the young-earth interpretation of Scripture can allow. And there is no way around it, short of saying that God created the Earth with fake fossils in the rocks and a number of other deceptions.

    If a young-earth creationist is so desperate to hang onto an interpretation of the Bible that requires God putting fake fossils in rocks — even to the point that familiar creatures like mammoths and saber-tooth cats never really existed — he is going to have a very difficult time convincing anyone that such a God actually exists, or that a God who would trick us like that with his creation wouldn’t be just as likely to be lying to us in His word as well.

    And, of course, if God had made the world “mature,” with all these built-in deceptions of age, that would automatically nullify “young-earth creation science,” because God made it look old but the creation scientists are saying it looks young.

    So this is a no-win situation for Ken Ham and every other young-earth creationist, and Bill Nye or any other halfway science-literate person can easily reduce Ken Ham’s entire worldview to shambles. There simply is not an explanation for the correlation of radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods. Ken Ham knows that, too. *All* the creation scientists who are making up these “evidences for a young world” know it.

    So you can continue to believe that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, and that God made everything in six literal days about 6,000 years ago, but that belief has no bearing on physical reality or our existence within it, and it is therefore useless for spiritual guidance, because people are looking for answers about their existence in *this* reality, not some made-up world that is reinforced by bogus science and bogus apologetics put out by marketing “ministries”.

    1. Every person, including you, knows that there is a God and that this Creator made creation. But you don’t accept His Word as the authority as to how He did it, evidently. Bill Nye’s argument is easily reduced to shambles in light of God’s Word, which reveals how He accomplished it. If your science says something different than God’s Word, it isn’t God’s Word that is wrong, it’s your science. God is not a man that He should lie.
      And what has bearing on physical reality and our existence within it is what God says. Because His Word is truth.
      Since the fall of man, death entered the world. It’s appointed to man once to die and after that the judgment of your Creator. If you were to die tonight (none of us knows if we will be taking our next breath), what would you say to your Creator?

      1. Try not to confuse “God’s Word” and “God’s word” with man’s claims about what God’s word is and how it should be interpreted. That will help you tremendously when it comes to constructing rational arguments.
        Until then…

        1. I’m not confusing it. Genesis 1 and Exodus 20, both part of the inspired Word of God, clearly tell of six literal days of creation. It’s perfectly rational to believe the Creator Who made the universe is mighty enough to accomplish that creation in six literal days.

          You Rick, with even the limited amount of observation of creation available to you and I (a lot under the sea we don’t even know about) witness the complexity, creativity and a degree of the scope of creation and you know it points to God’s attributes of wisdom, order, and power.
          I hope you will visit this website:

          http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

          1. I’ve seen that silly website. It’s just like your argument that Genesis 1 is speaking of literal days — completely circular. If the world is more than 6,000 years old you have one of two choices: either Genesis 1 is not the word of God, or you are reading it wrong. The world is more than 6,000 years old. You have a choice to make.

            1. You are wrong on both choices- Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 are both part of the Word of God and I’m not reading those Scriptures clearly dealing with a literal six days of creation wrong. Soon this earth will be no more.

              You had a choice to make, recognizing God created the heavens and the earth, and it seems you’ve made the wrong choice. You will face Him on judgement day. Why are you suppressing the truth? Repent, turn from your rebellion against God and His Word and embrace Christ as Lord of all.

              1. Who’s supressing the truth? You can’t account for our observations of physical reality, specifically the correlation between radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods. So instead of facing up to that, you threaten me with God’s judgment.

                That doesn’t seem to be a very effective way of arriving at the truth. Are you going to try to send everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible to hell? Really? Are you going to bear false witness against me before God, saying that I don’t believe He created the heavens and the Earth? That I am in rebellion against Him?

                Maybe you ought to rethink that. It seems to me that you are putting yourself to be God, saying that if I disagree with you then I am disagreeing with God Himself.

                1. By what standard do you measure the dating method you hold to is true? Mankind, highly fallible, often changes their mind about what they think they are observing as they frequently learn what they thought was true wasn’t. Could you be wrong about what you think you know in this regard?

                  I’m not bearing false witness against you before God, I said ‘seems’… here are some evidences as to why it ‘seems’ what I said in my post:

                  Under the topic Right Scoop posted, you have questioned the validity of God’s Word to others on the site, you have questioned His account of creation found in Genesis and Exodus 20:8-11, where He explicitly tells of six literal days of creation, and you have said this about a website, put out by my brother in Christ,
                  ‘I’ve seen that silly website. It’s just like your argument that Genesis 1 is speaking of literal days — completely circular’

                  Here’s a resource for you regarding the authority of Scripture:
                  http://www.gty.org/blog/B100713

                  ‘And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered
                  to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he
                  appear the second time without sin unto salvation.’ Hebrews 9:27-28 KJV

                2. “By what standard do you measure the dating method you hold to is true?”

                  Which one? There are many, and they all corroborate.

                3. Here is the key sentence from that article that shows how they deliberately mislead you:

                  “A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates.”

                  The thing is, we KNOW this assumption is false, and we have ways of measuring how much the ratio has changed — simply by calibrating the C-14 dates to tree-ring data over the past 12,000 years *automatically corrects* for this assumption. We now have C-14 calibration data going back 50,000 years, and the “IntCal13” plot is available online. We have data for both atmospheric and marine reservoirs and the changes in the ratio of C-14 to C-12 going back almost to the theoretical limits of radiocarbon dating.

                  Maybe you’ve heard of Lake Suigetsu? Sixty thousand years worth of annual varves stacked up one on top of the other?

                  I don’t think your Answers in Genesis article covers that, does it?

                4. Your sixty thousand years worth of ‘annual varves’ is obviously incorrect. Hope you tune into the debate.

                5. The varves contain tephra layers that match up with the Ar-40/Ar-39 dates from volcanic eruptions. They also match up with ice core data. And 12,000 years worth of tree-ring data. All these matches… yeah, obviously incorrect. Right.

                6. It isn’t “a” dating method, it is *numerous* dating methods that are *in agreement with each other*, even though they work on different processes, and I judge them to be true on the standard that nobody can offer any conceivable explanation for them *not* being true. So far no one here has even attempted it. I don’t blame you. I don’t think it can be done. Therefore, the Earth is much, much older than 6 or 10 or 100 thousand years, and therefore young-earth creationism is false, and therefore Ken Ham would lose the debate.
                  That isn’t that difficult to understand. Your Bible verses don’t have anything to do with it.

                7. Man is fallible and and God is infallible- He created the earth in six literal days & your methods of dating are obviously all seriously flawed.

                8. Then explain the correlation of radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods. So far you haven’t even attempted it, and it is the nail in the coffin of young-earth arguments. But don’t feel singled out, Ken Ham can’t explain it either.
                  Just because God is infallible doesn’t mean your understanding of Scripture is infallible. And since your interpretation of Scripture is unable to account for our observations of the Creation, I am inclined to think there is something very much amiss with the young-earth view.

                9. What you proved is that you are not understanding the problem. If the radiometric techniques are wrong, why do they agree with each other, and why do they agree with non-radometric dating methods? Why are all (95%) the dates wrong by the same degree and in the same direction?
                  If young-earth creationists can’t explain that, then, contrary to what you said above, and whether you realize it or not, yes, you need fake fossils in the rocks.

                10. How can you say that with a strait face, we know that all dating methods produce a wide array of dates, and the date that most conforms to the supposed age is the one chosen. But again, you do not address the fact that new lava samples show to be millions of years old when the testers do not know they are new samples.
                  But you still do not address the fact that there has to be abiogenesis, and there has to be the original creation of energy, both go against scientific laws.
                  I say that it is a matter of nuance in explaining why radio metric dating would be skewed, God would not create a world so full of radiation as to kill the life he created, it is a misapplied understanding as to why there is the amount in a given sample.

                  There is another explanation though, if we were near an event horizon we wold experience a week while those who are further away may experience hundreds of years. The same can be said that the nearer we get to the Big Bang time would seem to have gone slower to our viewpoint here. And who knows, the power of God may have had the same effect.

            2. And you can prove that the world is more than 6000 years old how? New lava has been dated to millions of years, of course “scientists” will say, well you can’t age it with new lava, that is not fair. Why of course it is fair, they are gauging it by how much radioactive elements it has. To bad it proves their measuring devices are not correct, but hay, we are not suppose to mention that.

              1. If you really and truly think that dating recent lava flows at millions of years old somehow “proves” the dating techniques don’t work, you’re missing the whole point about the correlation between the radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods. Sure, anybody can get a wrong date if they misapply the particular technique. But that’s not what you’re saying, is it? You’re saying that since you can get a wrong date, then *all* the dates are wrong. Right? And that’s exactly where the correlations between dating methods prove you wrong.

    2. We do not hold onto fake fossils, we believe it does not take millions of years to fossilize, all it takes is heat and pressure and minerals.
      Also God did not create earth to “look old”, he created it to sustain the life he created, I.e. Seed bearing plants with mature seed or fruit, animals full grown so they could survive. It wasn’t a trick, it was needed for sustaining his creation. The Earth surely could not be radioactive, so it was created with elements that would not be so harmful as to kill off creation.

      It is a scientific law that you cannot get living from non-living, and you cannot get energy or elements from nothing, closed system or no closed system.

    1. Are you really so uninformed about how science works that you think the claims of an orthodontist who can’t tell a rock from a fossil bone should carry more weight than those of trained paleontologists? The Neanderthal genome has been sequenced since Cuozzo was peddling his foolishness. They are not Homo sapiens.

  7. the Worst Enemy Of Evolution , Is Time . Where Are All The Species , Between Ape And Man , Billy Bob ? Havent They Had Enough TIME To Evolve ? How much More TIME Are We Going To Give Them ? . Common Sence and Book Sence , Are Two Differant Things . And Your A Fricken Idiot , Billy Bob On the Knob

  8. The atheists always argue that believing the Bible will keep us behind the rest of the world’s nations and will retard our standard of living. Yet it is the United States and Britain, the epicenter of Christianity, which has dominated the rest of the world and has seen the most scientific advancement. If Bill Nye was really concerned about our nation keeping up and “solving the world’s problems” he would spend more time attacking big government and advocating economic freedom and less time attacking us Bible thumpers. It is Christianity which created an atmosphere where freedom could thrive and without freedom we would still be in the dark ages.

    1. Isaac Newton, Gregor Mandel and other great scientists of the past, who laid the foundation for today’s scientists, were theists who believed God created the universe. Their Christian viewpoint conceived of a rational world that can be studied and understood to the extent possible for us.

      Evolution is just an alternate theory to account for what there is but it’s proofs are not written on stone. Similarities in DNA, Proteins, etc are used to prove it, for example, but creation using common materials by a creator also provides the explanation-take your pick.

  9. Young earth creationism is an embarrassment.

    Evolution and the Bible are NOT mutually exclusive , there is no reason to believe that God made anything in one to 6 days.
    There as no hebrew word for “billion” or even “million , so you should not expect Genesis to speak literally about how long it all took.
    If Genesis actually said “billions” and “millions” , then it would mean the Torah was just made up much later , and thus a fake

    Genesis is obviously symbolism, just like when Jesus refers to heaven as a mustard seed. and that He is the living water.
    Both Nye and and anyone supporting “young earth” creationism are working for the antichrist.

    1. The is also no reason why God who is omnipotent (speaks things into existence) cannot create the world in 6 days and scientist, as described in Romans 1 (without a grasp of biblical understanding, as so many don’t have), have bought into and propagated a huge lie.

      1. The scientist, when they reject the obviousness of the Designer by what they observe in creation, ceases to be a scientist and embraces the religion of a theory devilishly concocted for those who reject the obvious- the Creator.

    2. It’s sad you don’t believe the truth. May God grant that you somehow set aside the brainwashing you received in your indoctriNation at school and read these verses with eyes like those of an open-minded child:

      Here is reason to believe God created in six literal days and rested on the seventh.

      Genesis 1:5 ‘And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.’

      Genesis 1:8 ‘And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.’

      Genesis 1:13-14,16-19 ‘And the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
      divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for
      seasons, and for days, and years:’

      ‘And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.’

      Genesis 1:23 ‘There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.’

      Genesis 1:31 ‘And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.’

      Genesis 2:2 ‘And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
      rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.’

      Exodus 20:8-11
      ‘“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it
      thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
      manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

      For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.’

      The Genesis creation account is not symbolism but a factual report of how it happened.

      Regarding the mustard seed, you are referring to, it is in this parable (Mark 4:30-32), where Christ compared the kingdom of God to a mustard seed and explained the comparison.

      Christ was speaking of Himself in a spiritual sense. But the Genesis account was a report of how creation took place. You are comparing, so to speak, apples with oranges.

      1. Thank you for posting the scripture…because “and the evening and the morning” is purposefully stated…every DAY. Why say it with such clarity at all, and then repeat it for every day, if the 24 hour period indicated is not literal?
        The point has been well made; how can we stake our eternal life on the bible for salvation, and not believe the creation account?

        When we began to look into the literal 6 day creation idea, my husband and I were stunned at how deep the roots of “millions of years” and the ideas of evolution really go in us. And this is just one area of our lives. The effects of the insidious inroads of living in this fallen culture within my being dismay me as I am exposed more and more to His Word and His reality.

        1. Regarding the ideas of evolution being taught in public institutions of brainwashing, have you watched the documentary IndoctriNation?

          Have you heard that Hitler used Darwin’s theory to justify his Aryan nation, anti-semitism and getting rid of those he considered defective? And that Margaret Sanger, famous for her role in Planned Parenthood, was into the evolution concept of eugenics?

          1. Haven’t seen the documentary. Yes, I knew about Hitler. Did not know about Sanger, but not at all surprised.

            1. The documentary is a real eye opener about the history of public school education and what’s being taught in today’s public schools. Hope you can borrow it from your church library or a friend or purchase a used copy or something!

    3. If you don’t believe in the Genesis account, there is no use believing in any of the rest of the Bible. There is nothing symbolic about the Creation. God made everything, and everything on this earth He made after its own kind, hence the reasons there are many KINDS of animals even within their own species, but no evolved creatures. All plants He made mature, with fruit and seeds after their own kind. He created Man, then woman. They were mature. There is no evidence of a billions of years evolving earth, yet there is evidence for earth having been created as the Bibles describes. A formed earth, with everything sustainable to man created. You don’t believe that God has the ability to create a mature earth in 6 literal days? If you believe in Him at all, you know that He is God and can do more than what our minds could ever conceive of.
      Jesus was speaking in a parable. Theres a difference.

      1. “If you don’t believe in the Genesis account, there is no use believing in any of the rest of the Bible.”

        How about if we say it like this: If young-earth creationists are wrong about the age of the Earth, why should we believe them about anything else they have to say about how Scripture should be interpreted?

    4. Then it should not be a problem for you to explain when God speaks to the Israelites, giving them the Ten commandments that He clearly makes plain that He made everything in six days. Love to hear that explanation.

      1. It’s because God does His work in six days and then rests. God’s day of rest is clearly not 24 hours. So there is no reason to think the first six days are 24-hour periods, either. Study your Bible.

        1. As I said both sides offer good arguments regarding the days-there is plenty of stuff on that in the internet from both sides; the main thing is God created distinct life forms and Evolution contradicts that. The majority may believe it, but so did the majority at one time believe in stable unmoving continents contrary to plate tectonics.

          1. Good arguments cannot come to contradictory conclusions. One side has to be wrong. Truth cannot contradict truth. It may be the case that neither side is right; that is, it may be the case that creation vs. evolution is a false dilemma. You said above that the “days” may be ages. If a day is several hundred million years long, and God created something on that day, then why couldn’t He have done it in a way that looks, by all the evidence, like evolution? It’s not like He was pressed for time or anything. We have to explore God’s creation according to what it *is*, not according to what we want it to be, and not according to our preconceived ideas about what Genesis means. We can’t change reality. You can’t change a single hair from black to white; by taking on thought you cannot add one cubit to your stature. Denying reality for the sake of an erroneous interpretation of Scripture is bearing false witness against the Creator and turning the word of God into a lie.

            1. actually I agree with you. God can do anything that does not contradict his nature or what is logical. What I do believe is that scripture comes first before the changing theories of fallible scientists.

              1. The men who make claims about “the word of God” and what it means are just as fallible as the ones who study God’s creation.

                1. Nobody is claiming that people who read the Bible and trust it instead of scientists as not being fallible.
                  We all are, yet the Bible is inerrant Word of God, never changing. Science changes- God’s Word does not.

                2. That doesn’t mean that what you are calling “the Bible” is God-breathed Scripture. And regardless of that, as I said earlier, truth cannot contradict truth. If you are making claims about the creation that are not true, those claims are obviously not “the word of God.”

                3. You’re the one who is in the belief that I and others here are making claims that aren’t true about the creation account.
                  I’m done arguing with you.
                  You might believe you’re the only one here who is enough of a Bible scholar to tell everyone else what’s true, so whatever. I’ll remain ignorant as I continue learning what God has to tell me through reading His Word and learning from my Pastors who teach exclusively from the Bible.

                4. That’s fine, but you’re still not going to be able to explain the correlation between radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods.

                5. Hi Rick.
                  Might I dance for a round?
                  Thank you… so I will.
                  I’ll assume that we can agree that science is ever expanding our knowledge of the way things occur in the world. I believe that’s a good thing. I do know that many scientists have spent years trying to disprove Scripture. Many of them have since become one of we Christians. The only thing I can say about the topic at hand is this… we puny humans do not, and can not understand the mind of G_D. Why He allows many things to happen which we look at dumbfounded, because we see everything through the prism of our humanity. If you have studied His word looking for mistakes, I’m sure you’ll find them… at least in your mind. But until we come face to face with Him, and our minds are opened by Him, to understand the mysteries of the ages, we can never really know, we can only speculate. Whenever I find myself in a debate about the Bible and it’s meanings, I just try and remember Job: When G_D said to him; “Where were you when I laid out the foundation of the world?” That tells me that I haven’t the right to question G_D’s wisdom or His order. I’m sorry to say sir, I believe that you’re majoring on the minors. It matters not if the days are literal or figurative. The only thing that matters to us is these words… “Father, it is finished!”

                6. John,

                  This thread is about the upcoming debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. While it may be true up to a point that it doesn’t really matter whether the days or literal or figurative, it *does* matter — it matters very much — to people like Ken Ham and the people who support his false teaching.

                  Furthermore, when people reject the last sentence of your post because of the ridiculous claims of “creation scientists” and those who are deceived by them, that, too, matters very much.

                  And there is one other point: There are things in the Genesis creation account and the rest of the Bible that we will never understand so long as we are blinding ourselves with the same shallow, one-dimensional story we were told when we were little children. It’s time for our understanding to grow up.

                  Aside from those things, no, it doesn’t really matter.

                7. Rick, I only have three things to interject here.

                  1) If you are going to nitpick on the wording of the Bible, it might behoove you to read the original texts, rather than rely on an interpretation of a supposition of a translation of the original texts. It might be helpful and make a few things a little clearer to you.

                  2) When using radiometric dating techniques (specifically, radiocarbon dating), are you absolutely sure what the oxygen content in the atmosphere was back in the beginning? It may just skew your results a tad, as many scientists are starting to realize today.

                  3) As to the upcoming debate, when you presuppose that one side is “false teachings”, you have already decided your desire for the outcome far before you have listened to either side. What’s the purpose of the debate, then, after all.

                  Remember one thing, when debating on this site about anything. The people here have a desire for knowledge and truth. Open minds in discussions are a wonderful thing. Telling people that just might be pastors that they “need to read the Bible” just shows your narrow minded approach to everything around you – and that is a sad thing.

                8. Is knowing all of this “for sure” going to save anyone? We are saved by faith, through Grace. Can you know it all for sure? The wisdom of man is but foolishness to God. It is all interesting to ponder, but thinking that man knows much of anything about the universe is the epitome of pride. Our vision is very short, and our ability to understand beyond seeing is very limited. Personally, I would rather live life today, rather than pondering things that I will not know until after my body is dead. If you are not a Christian, by faith, through grace, and without works, then why not spend your time seeking knowledge that will never come to fruition for you. It just seems really empty to me. It will fill your time, and give you something to do until you die. Without eternal salvation, it doesn’t really matter what you do. Good luck, my friend.

                9. One of the best refutations of Evolution from the creationist perspective is THE GREATEST HOAX ON EARTH by Jonathan Sarfarti refuting Richard Dawkins’s book on Evolution; it is very detailed. Maybe you have seen it.

                10. Sarfati is a young-earth creationist. I have been seeing his work for years. As a young-earth creationist, Sarfati cannot explain, nor has he ever made any attempt to explain, the correlation between radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods. He knows this problem exists, he knows it is fatal to his arguments, so he simply ignores it. And, unlike biology, this is a subject that is relevant to his area of expertise. If he can’t handle obvious problems in his own field I don’t think I’m going to be paying any attention to him in a field he doesn’t know anything about.

                11. That is one area creationists have a problem dealing with. There are also problems with their idea that the creatures in the fossil record such as dinosaurs co-existed and were destroyed mainly during the flood; as I said there are problems with both the creationist and evolutionist positions but I accept the Genesis record as true.

                12. Like with one exception- you aren’t ignorant when you believe the Bible:

                  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. -1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

        2. Study your Bible.

          And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made

          Genesis 2:3

          For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

          Exodus 20:11

          In both verses, the Hebrew word for day is yom. Which means warm hours, course of a day.

          If the word day is to be used symbolically here, then it doesn’t make sense that God tells us that the Sabbath ‘day’ is to be a ‘day’ of rest for the people.

          Also, if the word ‘day’ is symbolic (if you’re one of those ‘a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day’ folks) then when in “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night: and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years.” the word ‘years’ is redundant and wouldn’t need to be used here.
          There are plenty of ways to interpret the Bible, but it helps to know when things are meant literal or symbolic.
          There is nothing in the Genesis account of creation that proves it was allegorical or symbolic.

          1. I agree that it helps to know when things are meant to be literal or symbolic. That’s the point. You can’t determine whether something is meant to be literal or symbolic by practicing your hermeneutics in a self-referential vacuum. When God gets through creating, *then* He will rest. You can’t interpret Exodus 20:11 the way that you do without contradicting numerous other verses of Scripture.

            I know this because I *have* studied it, and that is why I recommend that you do the same.

            “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God…”

            Go back over the few chapters leading up to that verse, and try again.

            1. I have been studying it, as well as learning from my pastors, as I’m sure others in this thread have also studied a lot longer than I have. However the days mentioned in Hebrews 4 again are not the same Hebrew yom for day.
              neither is the word ‘rest’ the same for the use of the Sabbath. Obviously there are different meanings, rest for a literal day or rest eternally.

                1. I’m not debating whether or not we’re allowed to work or not on the Sabbath and you know it. My points are that there are different root words used for the words ‘day’ and ‘rest’ and many other words used in the Bible. You’re drifting way off the original discussion.

                2. My reference to that verse didn’t have anything to do with whether we’re allowed to work on the Sabbath. Jesus said, “My father works hitherto.” Do you not understand? God’s Sabbath has not yet come.

          2. Great job duckie…..it is amazing at what the Bible says and how people are willing to be a bit “lazy” in their hermeneutics..

        3. So how does that “explanation” actually line up with Exodus 20:11? For it to do so, you will essentially need to state that either God lied, tricked, or bedazzled the Israelites. Those are not very good options are they?

        4. Reading some of your other comments, I have noticed that you want to believe that all the “scientific” dating methods are right.

          Let’s say that you are right for argument sake. What do you do then with the distance of the moon from the earth or even the earth’s magnetic field. If your theory is correct and we all acknowledge that the magnetic field has been weakening over time, then with the “billions and billions of years” (sounds like a fast-food place) your magnetic field would be what? And if the moon and earth or slowly moving away from each other over time, reversing that process back a few billion years and where would they stand then?

          You claim that these methods are different but in reality they are not. They all start with the same postulate, need old, old, old earth. If you want to tell me that these scientists have no agenda, may I please show you exhibit 1 “global warmists”.

          1. Puritan,

            You are mistaken in thinking the Earth’s magnetic field has been steadily weakening since the origin of the Earth. The field fluctuates and reverses. We have paleomagnetic data going back millions of years, allowing us to track the strength and polarity in such natural features as the seafloor basalts.

            You are also mistaken in thinking that the current rate of moon recession has been uniform across time. According to physics, the recession rate now is greater than it has ever been. We can work those equations back through time and the moon will still be comfortably away from us over 2 billion years ago. Moon recession is a very interesting topic but it is entirely too technical to go into in a comments section.

            1. Ah, once again – TRUST man than trust God. You only got over 2 billion years, but I thought we had a 4.8 billion year earth. Not only that you don’t know if I am mistaken or not – neither one of us were there when it was created.

              My whole point is that once a “scientific” theory has holes punched into it, they continue to move on. It is just like your desire on radiological dating, the assumptions made by scientist and make no mistake the information I got regarding the moon and magnetic field were from these same scientist who do not seem to mind to “change” things on a dime to fit their own paradigm. It never fails, once an objection is raised, there is ALWAYS a “reason” given to twist, to remake, to do what can be done in order to save evolution.

              You just continue to make it a big fail. In fact, you are now making the same argument about the moon and magnetic field that is made about C-14. C-14 is uniform because “scientists” say so and the moon movement and magnetic field are just random because NOW “scientists” say so, no evidence, no real proof, just a guy/gal who was never there, never could reproduce it says so. Love that you want it both ways, once you figure out you can’t you will be one step closer to truth.

              To put it simply – “scientists” demand that macro-evolution is true and therefore force everything into this puzzle no matter what. Huh, we need a irregular movement of moon from earth, no problem we will create a theory for that. What, C-14 dating is irregular, no problem we will come up with another theory explaining that all is well and good. What, the magnetic field theory isn’t working right, no problem we will make something up on the fly. Why, so to keep our precious lie, macro-evolution, alive.

              So sad!

    5. I agree at least in the part about the days of Genesis. They don’t have to be literal days but ages; furthermore, some believe that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 represent a gap between the creation of the actual universe 15-20 millions year ago and the preparation of the Earth for Man’s habitation. This would, of course, require an interpretation of the reference to the making of the sun, moon, and stars in the 4th day which some explain as their mere appearance withing the dense atmosphere at that time.

      1. Hi ivan. Yes, what you refer to is the pre-Adamite flood. The gap between Gen. 1.1 and 1.2 This (time period) could very well account for many of the tales of giants and leviathans. Also it may account for the age of the earth. The (time) between 1.1 & 1.2 could’ve been trillions of years. We just do not know.

        1. Hi, some do explain the gap that way; others such as the Jehovah’s winesses and others believe it was a period of millions of years during which he created the universe after which during epochs called days, God prepared the earth for man. I find this to be reasonable. Some believe the fossil record was laid down over millions of years before man was created and that the global flood was a relatively tranquil event that merely drown all land creatures without disturbing those rock layers that much but , of course there are problems with any view so we can’t know with certainty.
          I have been interested in these matters for years.

        2. Please see my response to Mina here:

          http://therightscoop.com/evolution-vs-creation-debate-bill-nye-the-science-guy-to-debate-creationist-ken-ham/#comment-1186972917

          The account of the third day of creation:
          Genesis 1:9-12

          ‘And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.’

          Jesus’ account of a later event, the worldwide flood:
          http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17%3A27&version=KJV

        3. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. I’ve seen estimates that the universe is older, in the range of 14 to 14.5 billion years, but most scientist today believe it is under 14 billion years.

          1. The simple reading of those Scriptures in Genesis and Exodus I posted to Mina with eyes like a child who is learning for the first time about creation offers the actual answer of the six literal days.

            Accepting the creation account as literal, has it changed your view then, regarding there definitely having been six literal days of God’s creating the universe?

        1. By the way, I do accept the Genesis account as literal with a few obviously metaphorical elements such as when God is described as if he has sense organs or physical features.

  10. If I am to be considered to have an open mind, I have to believe that we came from 1 ameba billions of years ago?
    That ameba just “happened” to form from cooling gasses that condensated on a newly formed plant?
    A planet that did not previously exist but rather formed from “dust particles” as they orbited a sun.
    A sun that just decided to erupt into a ball of flaming gas. It just happened to form out of a combustible gas that has burned for BILLIONS of years??????????????
    Yeah I’m the stupid one!

    1. Actually the first life forms were bacterial & viral. Although life appeared fairly early in Earth’s 4.4 billion yr history,(.4 billion yrs) the animal kingdom did not appear for some time. Multicellular life has only existed on this planet for the past 1 billion years. BTW the chemicals needed to promote the growth of life, amino acids, are common in interstellar space in comets and asteroids.

      1. Thats a theory. and not a good one
        In order for the primordial soup theory to work ,it can not come from a single instance of new life. , You have to have life being created over and over, failing over and over until the right combination of DNA was acquired to replicate and maintain the life form.
        The DNA sequence must follow the same design or it will not maintain a replicating life form. This means all our DNA could be similar because DNA only works on earth if it follows a certain pattern.
        It’s just as likely , life on earth was not created from the same single cell in the past , instead from different beginnings of life ,creating similar DNA by necessity .

      2. Where did bacteria and viruses come from? Where did amino acids come from? What led you to the place of suppressing the truth which you know to be true, that you were created by God?

        1. “Where did amino acids come from?”

          First let me state that I do not want to be offensive or deny the existence of God who created our universe via The Big Bang. With that said, it’s important to note most scientist believe in God.

          Thus, scientific study should not be viewed as anti-God or religion. IMO, it’s a way for mere mortals to begin to understand God’s creation. Of course, there are also many scientists who are either atheists or agnostics. But they are the minority.

          The answer to your question can be answered when you examine the building blocks of amino acids. Amino acid’s key elements are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, albiet there are other elements in side-chains of certain amino acids.

          These elements, like all found in the periodic table, where created by the birth and death of stars for some 14 billion years which resulted in stellar explosions called supernovas. Supernovae explosions can cause a number of different objects to form such as White Dwarf stars, pulsars or constellations such Orion or the Crab Nebula.

          Thus, every atom in your body was formed in space. The following article might be of interest:

          Major Building Block of Life Found Seeded Evenly Throughout the Cosmos
          http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/10/major-building-block-of-life-found-spread-evenly-throughout-the-cosmos.html

          1. Where did hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, and those side-chains come from? How were the stars born? Why did they die? All is explained by the existence of God.

            God created the earth and you have confessed this, knowing in your heart it is true. But the all powerful God did not need a big bang to accomplish His handiwork.

            Job 26:7-11 NKJV
            ‘He stretches out the north over empty space;
            He hangs the earth on nothing.
            8 He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
            Yet the clouds are not broken under it.
            9 He covers the face of His throne,
            And spreads His cloud over it.
            10 He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,
            At the boundary of light and darkness.
            11 The pillars of heaven tremble,
            And are astonished at His rebuke.

            1. Jesus is my Lord and Savior. I believe His Father created everything in the universe. But I don’t go to Job or Genesis to learn how God created the universe.

              How would God have explained creation to people who lived before there was a written language and who didn’t understand science?

              Science can and does demonstrate how God’s hand was used in creation.

              1. You said ‘But I don’t go to Job or Genesis to learn how God created the universe.’

                I’m sorry you don’t go to God’s Word, where He’s made available details of how the universe was created- while observation of creation tells everyone there is a Creator and of His invisible attributes, God’s Word is the only reliable source of how He accomplished the creation of the universe.

                You say, ‘ I believe His Father created everything in the universe.’ Do you not believe Christ was involved in creating the universe?

                ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.’ ‘And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…’
                -John 1:1-3, 14a( KJV)

                ‘Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] He might have the preeminence.

                For it pleased [the Father] that in Him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.’
                -Colossians 1:15-20 (KJV)

                ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’

                ‘And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’
                -Genesis 1:1-2, 26 (KJV)

                1. I hate to be a stick in the mud, but, for all concerned, the word Christ is a title, not a name. .ie Christ isn’t Jesus’ last name. He became “The Christ” on His return to His Father.

                2. You are absolutely right that Christ is a title. More on that here:

                  http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/christ.html

                  Regarding when you said Jesus became the Christ, what would you say about this?

                  ‘And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.’ -Matthew 16:16-17 (KJV)

                3. I would say that Jesus blessed all of the 12 with understanding they didn’t posses. Jesus even alluded to it in His reply, Peter’s faith allowed him to understand that Jesus was indeed the one the nation of Israel was waiting for.

                4. Also sir, He couldn’t receive the title “Christ” until “it is finished” happened. That was the whole intent.

                5. Were you saying something because it irritates you for people to call Christ Jesus by His title, Christ?

                  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11 (KJV)

                6. Not at all. Jesus commanded me to love my brothers, not argue. I’ll discuss, debate till the cows come home, but never argue.

              2. Conservator, you might be interested in Dr. Hugh Ross’s ministry Reasons To Believe (reasons.org). He is an astrophysicist from CalTech. He shows how science confirms the Bible and the Bible made scientific predictions as much as 2,000 years ago which science is only recently confirming to be true.

                If you’d like a bit more info you might read “A Matter of Days” or watch Dr Ross share his testimony of faith in Jesus Christ here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1cizM6Zs3Y

                I find that science confirms the Christian faith. Peace

                1. Thanks for sharing and I agree that “science confirms the Christian faith.” And with all of my comments, that was my main point. Science can add clarity and enlightenment for all Christians to understand the strength of their faith.

  11. “Scientifically illiterate”? I’d rather be scientifically illiterate than Biblically ignorant. As I heard someone say “there are no unbelievers after death.” I pray Mr. Nye comes to the light of the Truth.

  12. I would love to show Mr Ham Biblical proof of a pre-Adamic creation from Old and New testament scriptures. It would take the wind out of Mr. Nye’s sails. It will also shock most of my Christian brothers and sisters.

    1. If you are referring to the creation of Satan and the other angels, besides what’s recorded in Genesis 1 that was created in the beginning, prior to Adam, I imagine Mr. Ham likely knows about that.

      1. No, I am saying that I can show you a Biblical pre-Adamic creation. and it lines up with old and new testimate and does not disagree with scripture in any way. If interested, email me at [email protected]. All that is required is an open mind.

        1. Right, and it will be so aligned with Exodus 20:6, Gen. 1 & 2 and even Gen. 6. Seriously, this sounds more like fantasy than reality. As Scripture states, there is nothing new under the sun.

          The idea you would provoke this and not even give a “simple taste” is a bit absurd wouldn’t you agree?

          1. He’s not likely to agree with the bit absurd part though. He probably wants to lure people in to try to dupe them one on one.

            1. Agreed! I thought I would try nonetheless, trying to give him some more figurative rope to hang himself with.

          2. Allow me to help sir. If we look at the wording it reads thusly; ” Gen. 1.1 In the beginning, G_D created the heaven and the earth. This is generally understood as creation as we understand it. But, if true, how do we explain vrs. 1.2? ” And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of G_D moved upon the face of the waters.” Think about it, if the earth was complete in vrs 1.1, then how was it destroyed by vrs 1.2? (void and without form) face of the deep, over the face of the waters. So in vrs. 1.1 G_D created and by vrs. 1.2 G_D’s work was destroyed? by who? … how? … and why?

            KJV Thompson chain reference Bible.

            1. John,

              I want to thank you for your thoughtful response. Your concerns are ones that some have raised. Let’s look at what you have raised and if I may acknowledge that it is often referred to as the “gap theory”.

              Historically, “Two centuries ago in an effort to explain “prehistoric” fossils, Christian leaders introduced the idea that a gap of time is missing between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.” So, you can see that this is a new argument in Christian theology. It sadly assumed that evolution was correct without questioning the assumptions of said “science”.

              Here is what the Hebrew experts state, “… the grammar of Genesis 1:1–3 does not allow for a gap. Notably, the Hebrew word rendered and at the beginning of verse 2 has a very specific meaning in this context. It introduces a parenthetical statement that breaks the sequence of events in verses 1 and 3.

              A Hebrew reader would see this word and understand it to say, “Oh, by the way, before I tell you what happened next in verse 3, let me describe what the earth was like initially.”

              The word and is a translation of the single Hebrew letter waw (ו). Whenever a sentence begins with the waw attached to a noun (as with “the earth” in verse 2), the statement is a
              parenthetical comment. It details the state of affairs at that point, not the next step in the flow of events.

              Moreover, the Hebrew word hâyâh should not be translated “became” because this is not its primary meaning. A translator is not entitled to “expand the semantic field” unless the context requires a secondary meaning.”

              That may be a bit too technical here but it does go to the heart of what you are trying to present. If we are to understand the language properly, there is no issue. In other words, the problem you propose does not exist when we properly exegete and allow the language to speak for itself.

        2. I just mentioned what is the Biblical pre-Adamic creation. If you want to tell me something, you’ll have to lay it out on here. I don’t privately e-mail men I don’t know.

  13. Someone should tell Bill Nye the Actor Guy that bow ties are officially NOT cool anymore. Matt Smith’s time as the Doctor has passed……

  14. How come that people like Nye and his ilk (Dawkins comes to mind) always start with “So you don’t believe in evolution?”
    ‘Belief’ in science? Hm – and these are the same people who tell us that belief is what religious people do, not scientists ….

    1. In the same vein, they also say “you must not believe in science” when evolution is just one theory of science. It is not science itself as a whole.

      There is much science to accept, and some to reject, but it makes their point when you are all-inclusive about ‘science’.

      1. I was taught in school that science, by definition, is based on what one observes and that unproven theory isn’t science.

  15. Not even going to bother watching; Mr. Nye will do what all of his type will do, talk over, change the subject, etc, etc. From Mr. Nye’s public statements so far his mind is as closed as those he accuses.

  16. I suggest everyone read anything from Michael Behe. His work on creationism is unparalleled. His book is Darwin’s Black Box.

    When I discuss this stuff with evolutionists I always come away with one thing. They just don’t want it to be God. So after I produce evidence that I have and they can’t explain it away, I tell them that you don’t have to believe its God but you have to admit something intelligent had a hand in the creation of this earth. Call it aliens and UFO’s. Whatever you like. I believe in micro evolution as everyone does I’m sure but macro evolution is debunked.

    1. That is a great suggestion. You may be interested in Dr Hugh Ross, “A Matter of Days” or his ministry of Reason To Believe (reasons.org). His ministry is made of professional scientists who believe the Bible is 100% true. Years ago Michael Behe was a guest on their radio show.

        1. Hi ryanomaniac,
          I found this YouTube clip that might be helpful. It is Dr Hugh Ross giving his testimony of finding Christ

  17. The Cambrian Explosion is a huge problem for evolutionists. It alone discredits evolution on macro level. All it takes is one part removed from the car and the sucker just won’t start.

    1. And there are other problems, but I’m somewhat leery to comment on this topic because it might insult other’s religious beliefs and I believe and support their right to have and preach those beliefs. With that stated, to comment on this topic I had to write a very lengthy comment which most people don’t like in comment sections.

      But there’s a big difference between intelligent design and creationism as Michael Behe’s postulates. In fact, I would prefer he debated the smug lefty Nye versus Ken Ham.

      “…Unlike William A. Dembski and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species, including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe. In his own words:

      “Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin’s mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small.” Darwin’s Black Box, pp 5–6…”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

      If Ken Ham resorts to claiming that humans lived with dinosaurs, Nye wins the debate:

      “…Ham believes that the Universe was created about 6,000 years ago, and that Noah’s flood occurred about 4,500 years ago in the year 2348 BC.[26] He believes that the animals carried on Noah’s ark produced the biological diversity observed on Earth. Ham also believes that dinosaurs co-existed with modern humans. He supports his view with biblical scripture. Ham accepts that natural selection can give rise to a number of species from an original population.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham#Beliefs

      In the video below, Ham makes the ludicrous argument that DRAGONS were dinosaurs and that’s laughable.

      Evolution vs Creation – It is a Fact that the Dinosaurs Lived With Humans – Young Earth Creation

      1. I hope you will tune in and listen to Ken Ham. Nye will always be on the losing end of any debate when he’s got nothing but lies to argue with for his side.

        1. I’m sorry, but I have no interest in watching either of them debate.

          I agreed with ryanomaniac below that Michael Behe would have been an excellent person to debate Nye, the scientist that has a degree in mechanical engineering.

          Ken Ham’s postulations that the Earth is 10,000 years old, Noah’s Flood occurred 4,500 years ago and that humans coexisted with dinosaurs is laughable.

          Again, I don’t mean to be offensive. But IMO, Ham is using Christianity to make big bucks. He knows there are millions upon millions of Christians who believe the Bible literally – (every word) and his milking them for personal gain.

          1. Ken Ham is serving the body of Christ in an invaluable way, with details from careful study of Scripture and evidence he observes about creation. I’m sorry you have a closed mind to listening to the debate.

            1. I’m sorry you have no interest in understanding God’s great design from a scientific viewpoint. I see you posted scripture in another reply, but you need not bother. I’m Biblically astute; I’ve read and studied the Bible all of my life.

              I hope you understand that I’m not being critical of your religious views regarding Creation. Also, I can ensure you that my mind isn’t close-minded as you write.

              It might surprise you that in the world of physics and cosmology, scientists are researching such topics as proving God existence, whether people have souls and trying to prove spiritual life after death.

              In addition, if I was to explain string theories (the theory of everything) such as the M-theory, you would find believing in God is far easier and more realistic.

              One version of the M-Theory states that the universe has 11 dimensions compared to the 4 dimensions we learned in school – height, width, length and Einstein’s space/time. In addition, there are an infinite number of parallel universes in this theory.

              Your disdain for scientific evidence regarding God’s Creation is sad to me.

              You seem to believe the world of science wants to disprove God existence while in point of fact, the majority of scientists in this field of study just seek to understand how God created the universe with greater insight.

              We might not ever agree on the specifics, but we both believe in God and that Jesus was the ‘Son of God’ and our Lord and Savor. Lastly, you asked me if I believe Jesus is God.

              My response is I believe in the Trinity, but even Jesus placed God above himself:

              Matthew 24:32
              http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-32.htm

              32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that ite is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

              The Day and Hour Unknown

              36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son! but only the Father.

              Praise God and have a good night.

              1. While you said you weren’t interested in watching the debate, I never said I had no interest in understanding God’s great design from a scientific point of view.

                Further, I have no disdain for the scientific evidence of observing God’s creation from our vantage point here on earth, but fully embrace it. And if God’s Word disagrees with someone’s science, it’s not God’s Word that’s wrong, it’s the science.

                You only mentioned the Father creating the universe, but Scripture mentions more than the Father creating the universe. You say you are Biblically astute. Was your only mentioning the Father involved in creation an accidental omission on your part then? Because I asked didn’t you believe that God, the Son was involved in creation?

                Regarding those scientists’ research: God put within everyone the knowledge of God’s existence (Romans 1). It’s very easy to believe what everyone knows, even if they be a tribe with an unwritten language in the remotest part of the earth, they know that there is a God. Whether or not they reject God is of extreme importance. The conscience God placed within each man (Romans 2) proves the existence of the human soul. As to eternal life or endless spiritual death after physical death- the scientists have only to die to discover that is true and death rate currently being one hundred percent, they will certainly observe the answer to that question.

                Finally, you bring up a passage in Matthew where Jesus was speaking while He was on earth and Philippians 2:5b-7 was in effect. There’s nothing in God’s Word saying that the glorified, risen Christ, seated at the right hand of the throne of God does not know when He is to return. He was and is fully God.

                1. First, you most certainly did show disdain for science everytime you resorted to Scripture to counter my science analysis. And then you go on to pose a question – “Because I asked didn’t you believe that God, the Son was involved in creation?”

                  Do you believe I need to be told what’s in the first book of John, Genesis 1 or in Paul’s Letters, such as Romans 1?

                  Let me remind you that Saul of Tarsus (Paul was his Roman name) was a Jew, a Roman citizen who described himself as an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin and a Pharisee (Rom. 11:1, Phil. 3:5) and admits himself that he at first persecuted Christians. Thus, it’s easy to understand why he used similar language as found in Genesis 1.

                  Your pals at Creation.com compare John 1 to Genisis 1:

                  The very first verse of the Bible reads: ‘In the beginning God (plural) created (singular) the heavens and the earth’ (Genesis 1:1). Moses, the author of Genesis under the direction of the Holy Spirit, chose to use the Hebrew plural term elohim for God, 2 rather than the singular el 3 or the singular poetic form eloah. But he does use the singular form of the verb ‘created’!
                  http://creation.com/who-really-is-the-god-of-genesis

                  But they have an important reference; 2 which reads; “The first of some 2,570 times elohim is used of God in this way in the Old Testament. Although it usually refers to the Living God, it is also used occasionally in the Bible to refer to pagan deities (in the plural), as in: ‘You shall have no other gods [elohim] before me’ (Exodus 20:3; cf. Joshua 24:16; Jeremiah 5:7).”

                  I prefer King James Version:

                  Genesis 1
                  King James Version (KJV)
                  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=KJV

                  1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

                  2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

                  3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

                  4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

                  John 1
                  King James Version (KJV)
                  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=KJV

                  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

                  2 The same was in the beginning with God.

                  3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

                  4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

                  I done with this topic. Have a good night.

                2. God is the Author of what you observe in creation. God’s Word is what the Christian should go to as the absolute authority when it comes to science. You actually have no evidence to prove your big bang theory, so you have no science to prove your belief that is how God created the universe. If you feel God’s Word counters your science analysis, one of you has to be wrong, and it isn’t God.

                  You still did not give an answer to my question from before, and from your being ‘done with the topic’, I take it you won’t answer whether or not you believe Christ was involved in creation. I figured you might prefer the King James, which is why I used it when I quoted Scripture after I posed the question.

                3. “God is the Author of what you observe in creation. God’s Word is what the Christian should go to as the absolute authority when it comes to science.”

                  You used God’s Word to support your misguided beliefs. That’s why you stated, “Ken Ham is serving the body of Christ in an invaluable way, with details from careful study of Scripture and evidence he observes about creation.”

                  Furthermore, how can I possible answer a question or discuss anything to someone who believes Ham’s postulations that the Earth is 10,000 years old, Noah’s Flood occurred 4,500 years ago and that humans coexisted with dinosaurs?

                  In addition, you state, “You actually have no evidence to prove your big bang theory, so you have no science to prove your belief that is how God created the universe.”

                  Obviously, you didn’t bother to learn a thing about string theories or specifically, the M-theory which is The Big Bang on steroids that I posted. It’s all the evidence you need when discussing the creation of the universe.

                  We live in parallel universes, thus you will reject anything I post and I see no purpose to continue the discussion. Now I have definitely posted my last comment on this thread. Have a good night.

                4. If God’s Word supports my beliefs, they are not misguided beliefs.

                  What Ham postulates about the earth being six thousand years old, etc. is not the question I asked. You’re dodging the question I asked now by trying to belittle me.

                  You say Jesus is your Saviour and your Lord.
                  If He were you would not be ashamed to confess He was involved in the creation of the universe.

                  Theories are not science. And unprovable theories based on the unobserved are not worthy to be compared with the truth of God’s Word.

                5. If Ham’s postulations is not the question, then what are we discussing? Your not mt Pastor and I’m happy you found YOUR faith; NOT mine. In fact, that was the only reason I posted my first comment on this thread agreeing with ryanomaniac:

                  “…But there’s a big difference between intelligent design and creationism as Michael Behe’s postulates. In fact, I would prefer he debated the smug lefty Nye versus Ken Ham…”

                  I believe in the Trinity, God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as I posted prior and All were part of Creation from a Biblical viewpoint.

                  You’re annoying me. People like you destroy all chances for social conservatives to win any nationally election. Your beliefs are summed up well in your last paragraph of your post:

                  “Theories are not science. And unprovable theories based on the unobserved are not worthy to be compared with the truth of God’s Word.”

                  You’re a scientific dolt. Go on preaching to your flock while the majority of Christendom agrees with me on the universe’s creation.

                6. You just blew this statement of yours out of the water:
                  ‘I hope you understand that I’m not being critical of your religious views regarding Creation.’

                  I was discussing statements you made which I quoted back here:
                  http://therightscoop.com/evolution-vs-creation-debate-bill-nye-the-science-guy-to-debate-creationist-ken-ham/#comment-1187117108

                  You continued that discussion under a different thread on here. The closest I ever saw you come to answering my question was when you said this:

                  ‘The very first verse of the Bible reads: ‘In the beginning God (plural) created (singular) the heavens and the earth’ (Genesis 1:1). Moses, the author of Genesis under the direction of the Holy Spirit, chose to use the Hebrew plural term elohim for God, 2 rather than the singular el 3 or the singular poetic form eloah. But he does use the singular form of the verb ‘created’!’

                  Thank you for taking time with this last post of yours to answer my specific question. I’m glad you know from God’s Word that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were also involved in creation with the Father. Praise God in Three Persons!

                  I may be ignorant about much of science, by I know, by definition, that science and theory are two different things. And I know the Author of science, Who revealed in His Word how He made the universe.

                7. Did God whisper something in your ear about proselytizing? I don’t care what you think or believe about His Word. Now please stop harassing me. I have nothing more to state on this issue.

          2. You may know the Scriptures but throwing around baseless accusations that Ham is “milking Christians” is absurd.and non-Christlike. What makes you think that dinosaurs existed long before man? What evidential facts do you surmise debunks Ken Ham’s and young earth creationists postulations?

            Your rejection of Genesis being historical is what is truly sad. It has been taken historically by God fearing men much longer than not.

            Ken Ham is well equipped to debate Nye and any others who challenge God’s Word on creation.

            1. “What makes you think that dinosaurs existed long before man?”

              Before I answer, I want to apologize to you and everyone I may have offended. Christian faith can not be proven or disproved by science. You have presented a theological argument and I respect it and don’t want to challenge.

              Yet, you’re challenging my Christian faith because I am a person who has degrees in science that IMO affirm Christian beliefs. Now to answer your question:

              It’s archeology, astronomy, biology, cosmology, geology, paleobiology and paleontology which clearly proves that dinosaurs roamed our planet from the Triassic period (230 million years ago) and were the dominant terrestrial species until the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago), when a large asteroid or comet hit the Earth.

              This asteroid or comet impact has left evidence, such as a 110-mile-wide crater carved into Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. It’s named Chicxulub.

              In addition there’s ‘iridium’ that’s found all over the world (on land and in the oceans) dating to 65 million years ago when dinosaurs became extinct. Iridium is a very rare metal on Earth. But it’s found in such meteorite impacts.

              With that said, I have a question for you. Do you believe in Radiocarbon dating or more specifically, the decay of carbon-14? It’s been used to estimate the age of organic materials, such as wood and bone in Biblical archeology. Oftenly, it confirms many truths found in the Bible.

              Anyway I will repeat, I’m sorry if I offended peoples Christian beliefs.

              And lastly, I don’t reject the Bible’s historical accuracy that can be found in the New and Old Testaments. In fact, many Biblical archeology finds were based on the Living Word found in the Bible.

              1. Carbon-14 dating has been proven to be as accurate as the local weatherman in predicting the weather. In other words, even a stopped clocked is right twice a day. It has been proven over and over that there is more inaccuracy with such dating.

                I am not offended at all by your statements. I am a bit surprised by your unwillingness to actually engage in the dilemma you find yourself in. The theological issue raised is really of your own doing. You did it again by your last paragraph that you claim you don’t reject the Bible’s historical accuracy, except you do reject it in regards to Genesis 1 & 2. You insist that what God has spoken there is historically inaccurate.

                There is no way around this but your theology is what governs your understanding of the world. It is why it is paramount that you roll up your sleeves and work through the theological issue I presented to you. Until you do, you will consistently find yourself between a rock and a hard place.

                I do appreciate that you have taken time to learn the means of science. I am not challenging your faith because of what degrees you hold. I am challenging your theology upon which your “scientific views” are based on.

                1. Your not worth my time. I provided the science to refute your delusions about the age of dinosaurs as it pertained to your question. You ignored all of it and went to carbon 14 decay.

                  You can challenge my theology anytime, but it’s meaningless to me. As I wrote in reply to Galatiansch2vs20, “go on preaching to your flock while the majority of Christendom agrees with me on the universe’s creation.”

                  I’m done………….

                2. For a person who claims to be a Christ-follower and a Bible believer, your words and thoughts seem to go the way of the secular humanist. You did not provide any science whatsoever. You provided a “translation” of what secular humanists think may have happen, but the only evidence that you provided was the carbon-14, hence why one would go to it.

                  You claim you love Jesus but the idea that your theology is meaningless is sad for theology is the study of God. Your willingness to submit your theology to secular humanist is a sad testimony and is no wonder you are a confused lot.

                  You have proven why we need Ken Ham at this debate and not “your guy”. If ‘your guy’ debates like you, he will be mopped up by a mechanical engineer.

                  By the way, love to see your evidence that a majority of evangelical, Bible believing Christians are in agreement with you.

                3. What part of I’m done don’t you grasp. Your not my Pastor and I don’t care what you think of my faith. Take your proselytizing, grab your flock and have a happy life. And majority of Christendom does agree with me on the universe’s creation, but you don’t care. It’s YOUR WORD, not God’s.

                4. Ummm, so far, I have to care. It is a part of the job of a Christian to help fellow humans, pointing to the truth. Ignoring it is your own prerogative.

                  Your problem does not lie with me, but with God’s Word as Gal 2 has stated previously. You may want to read Exodus 20:6-11 and ask if your argument can still stand.

                  If your honest with yourself, you will see the need for a realignment. .

  18. It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything. G.K. Chesterton.

    1. What’s ironic is the majority of scientists in Cosmology believe the universe was created basically out of nothing.

      “…The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment…”

      Big Bang Theory – An Overview
      http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

  19. Evolutionists have few tools in their evolutionary toolbox. Nye will have to use these old monkey wrenches and wretches for sure:

    1. “The science is settled.”
    2. “All serious scientists agree.”

    When that gets him nowhere, he’ll have to resort to mere ridicule throughout the rest of the “debate”.

    Other than the aforementioned nothing, he’s got nothin’, also known as duppin’.

    It might be fun to watch though, especially at the end when Nye has to exit stage left carrying his own backside after Ham hands it to him.

  20. Nye is a global warmonger and will undoubtedly run out of talking points, interrupt and if all else fails, call names. Hope we get a brief synopsis. Really brief.

  21. I remember when Nye was part of the cast of Almost Live!, a Seattle late night skit comedy show. He did a bit called “Speed Walker” in which he fought crime while speed walking. Then when my now-adult son was little, we watched Bill Nye the Science Guy. I wanted to encourage my kids in science (son is now majoring in physics, woot!).

    It’s so sad to see Bill Nye the Haughty Guy, the Global Warmist Guy. It’s like he’s come to believe that he is The Science Guy, but he won’t honestly look at the failures of the evolutionary theory.

    Other places to look for information on how evolutionary theory has too many holes to be considered viable include the Discovery Institute. Stephen Meyer has written a new book called, Darwin’s Doubt. http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/ Dr. Jay Wile in his textbooks on Biology and General Science has excellent descriptions of and arguments both for and against both theories (creation and evolution), and finds that creation comes out way better than evolution in terms of matching the physical evidence.

  22. What those people who believe in evolution can’t get around is the question, where did all the ingredients for evolution come from if that is what happened? They didn’t just appear out of thin air, it’s just not logical. Someone had to create them and put them into play. I watched Mr. Ham’s clip and I think he hit the nail on the head. I don’ t think that there is anyone out there who truly doesn’t believe in God, I think these people who claim not to believe in God, deep down know about God, they just don’t want to acknowledge Him.

    1. ‘ I don’ t think that there is anyone out there who truly doesn’t believe
      in God, I think these people who claim not to believe in God, deep down
      know about God, they just don’t want to acknowledge Him.’

      You are in agreement with God then. (Romans chapter 1)

  23. Let this guy explain how we are in the middle of space rotating about 66,000 miles an hour in perfect synchronous movement around the sun, let him explain how the earth is at the perfect distance between here in the sun, a little closer and we would burn to death, a little further and would freeze to death, I could go on and on……..
    Bottom line I hope the guy that will be debating him brings his A game.

  24. In my 46 yrs on this earth, there is one thing that is absolutely consistent. That humans are frequently just plain wrong about just about everything. Throughout history our knowledge of reality is constantly expanding as we realise our foolish assumptions are false.

  25. I know what’s going to happen. Ham will let Nye speak. When Ham makes a point Nye will talk over him and interupt him. It happens every Sunday on almost every talk show. The left is so rigid in their views that they can’t except a different opinion.

    1. Well, if so, Ken wins the “debate” portion of the event. Nye’s boorish behavior will speak for itself.

  26. It’s really quite simple. Science and Creation are in perfect harmony with each other. Science and creation agree that everything evolved from something else before it. The real question is “How did that first thing get there?” Science says maybe a bunch of particles BANGED into each other. Creation says maybe a Being even smarter than a scientist made those particles?

    1. Sorry, but the conflict is deeper than you suppose. Creationists believe that life forms appeared fully developed, not gradually step by step. What you are proposing is theistic evolution. But if you allow for a God to act in creation why have evolution as a part of it at all?

  27. I highly recommend to Christians Dr. Hugh Ross’s book “A Matter of Days.” It does a very good job of reconciling the dozen+ Biblical Creation narratives in a way that we can claim Biblical inerrancy AND the geological and biological scientific record.

    Whereas Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are Young Earth Creationists Dr. Hugh Ross and Reasons To Believe (reasons.org) are Old Earth Creationists. For example the Big Bang in an Old Earth framework confirms the Biblical narratives. More importantly the Bible predicted the Big Bang two millennial prior to the Big Bang theory in a rather remarkable case of prophecy.

    1. A great recommendation. Dr Ross treats science the way it should be; with all the skepticism the scientific method demands. I’ve read his books and really appreciate his theories and research.

      The problem I have with all of this is why do we need to argue with evolutionists? The truth is, even if we presented indisputable evidence of creation, belief in Jesus is going to be idiocy to the rest of the world. Why don’t we focus on loving others as Christ would love them instead of trying to defeat them in to belief in God… I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not very receptive to a person who attacks me and my belief system.

      1. I hear you on that, but unfortunately Christians are not the ones doing the attacking, but are under assault. Christians must handle Genesis very carefully for it lays down themes and truths that the rest of the Bible builds upon ( such as Jesus being the second Adam). Do not fear conflict. Did not Paul urge us to “urgently contend for the faith?” Love and kindness draws people to you and your faith, but the offensive message of the Cross still remains as does the contentious strife between believers and the world system. Love them, yes, but also stand up and argue for your faith like a Courageous Stephen.

          1. I agree with your concerns that debate can be counterproductive to our 1st responsibility of witnessing. If debate is done with a humble spirit and open to the Holy Spirit a debate can be a missionary effort toward the audience. and in rare instances an open-minded opponent.

            Believers are told in Psalm 19:1 “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands,”

            and in 1Peter 3:15
            “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always
            being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason
            for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,”

            Debate for the sake of beating the other is the sin of pride. Debate with a spirit of humility can change the world.

            Afterall The Bible supports the scientific method- 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good,” NASB

      2. Just to address your first why question, the importance in addressing the evolutionists comes in how all of it attacks the foundations of the Bible as truth. I am not saying this as well as Ken Ham, but I do suggest looking on his website for videos of his messages. He says it very well indeed.

        1. I’m well versed on Ken Ham’s work. It’s very compelling, and I’m certainly not throwing out his work. My real issue is with the debate. I believe in a healthy discussion, not a situation where Nye and Ham are going back and forth trying to smack the other down. At this point, no one can definitively prove creation or evolution through science, so all this science needs to be tempered with the message that God wants a relationship with us and has created a way to bridge the gap between us in spite of our sin. I guess that’s what I’m really driving at.

          1. While we weren’t there at the beginning of time here on earth, what would you say about Romans 1:20? What would you say about the use of the pelvic ultrasound in pregnancy and Psalm 139:13-14?

    2. I once was a follower of Ross. However, I couldn’t get around the presence of death prior to a Fall and the absence of a literal Adam and Eve and the Garden in his construct. If you choose to pass Genesis off as myth you are free to do so, but you should at least be aware that you are doing it and in so doing you destroy any credibility of the Bible. Check out resources at Creation Research for answers to Ross’ theory.

      1. Respectfully, I’ve heard Dr Ross and others in his ministry of reasons.org state many times that they do believe in a literal Adam and Eve who lived in the Garden. Perhaps Ross misspoke or maybe you misunderstood?

        But I know I agree with Dr Ross that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. We can confidently base our faith on His Word with no fear. But our confidence is in the originally revealed word. Some translations reflect His Word better than others. So we must all be of a humble spirit when faced with new information and open to His Spirit to assure we rightly divine Scripture.

        Peace

      2. Agreed! There is no way that macro-evolution and Genesis can be merged together. There are many theological landmines that are seemingly impossible to overcome, especially for those who try and still hold to inerrancy.

  28. Great read – Darwin’s Black Box by Michael J. Behe. Most people who believe in evolution have not made any sort of inquiry for themselves. Darwin developed his theory before the complexity of the cell was known; he knew nothing about genetics (Mendel was doing his scientific experiments at the same time; before the electron microscope or the flush toilet were invented.

  29. The importance of Evolution vs Creationism is so miniscule to the importance of good citizenship, good Christians, and the success of America that I’m certainly not waiting with baited breath. That being said, from a logical standpoint, Nye cannot disprove Creationism, and Ham cant disprove Evolution Theory. If neither of them understand the definitions of “allegory”, “evolution”, “know”, & “assume” , then there cant be any sort of resolution – because as far as I “know”, neither “theory” precludes the other’s truth.

    1. I’m sorry but evolution has fallen by its own weight. However, there is have important to this debate, for the ultimate question being answered is, “is God’s word true?”

      If Genesis 1 & 2 are false all of Scripture falls. That is a very big deal.

    2. That’s definitely true. There’s evidence for change in organisms in small ways, and evidence that suggests evolution. That’s a far cry from proving anything, though. The same can be said of some Creationist theories. Truth is, all I need to know is that God loves me, wants a relationship with me, and created a way that he can bridge the gap between us in spite of my sin. Who cares how old the Earth is? In light of my salvation, I’m good.

        1. So you say, but it seems to connect with people. As St. Paul says, the way I believe is going to seem like sloppy thought to the world.

      1. I agree with gajaw999… your thinking is kind of sloppy. There are diverse and individual ways that God reaches us.

        I have heard lots of testimonies from people who came to know the Lord through science and the contradictions that evolution presented when confronted with reason. You do God and his creation a disservice by not even attempting to step outside your own experience. Discovering the wonders of science is just one way to discover Him. God is not just an emotional God… he’s a thinking God. And God created not just an emotional man… but a thinking man as well. I encourage you to see it from that side as well.

        1. I don’t disagree with the science as a way to reach people, but you really can’t prove either definitively at this point- and evolution won’t be- so it can be considered sloppy thought to rely on that. The truth about God’s desire for a relationship with us has allowed me to reach many people for Christ here and in the mission field, so it may be sloppy thought to you, but it seems to be pretty effective. Besides, I’ve never personally shied away from a discussion of science. My Wife is a biochemist, so we love engaging people on the science. It’s never a debate, and always a discussion.

          1. Hey there. If I get the jist of your point correctly, then I am solidly in your camp. However, as I grow in The Lord, I am just stunned to see how He loves us individually in such a way that He will reach us – speak the words we will understand – with His desire for relationship with us in whatever mission field that may be. While you or I might see this as an unnecessary discussion, considering the Father’s dealings with us, we cannot discount it as it could be the bread of life to others in this world.

            1. Absolutely true, and well said. I do love the discussion. I’m just not in to a combative approach. I like the approach that Ham and Kirk Cameron take in their on-the-street work. That way, agree with Ham’s young earth, or believe in an older earth model, the point is still driven home that God created us and a universe to live in.

    3. You’re right that Nye can’t disprove creationism. But Ham can easily disprove the Godless theory of Darwin of evolution. You already are aware there’s a God, having observed complex creation all around you. Hope you will be able to watch.

  30. Nye is the typical atheist who uses empty hyperbole to sell his science fiction (not to be confused with actual science). Atheists think that they can just simply cast ridiculous insults and that is enough to convince thinking people that God is fiction.

    “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.”

  31. By the way, a simple reminder that all children 12 and under are free to enter the creation museum this year. Plan on going ASAP

  32. “It’s not in the national interest, I’m not sure, this is one of the things I’d like to find out.. is if this guy.. really believes this, or is he in it for some other reason. Because it’s so extraordinary. I mean it’s so out of your every day experience and so inconsistent with everything we observe…”

    Reaaaally Bill. Tell me, I guess Global Warming IS in the national interest? Cause it’s not cold enough in January for you? Because a bunch of morons have to get rescued from Antarctica in the SUMMER time when their ship got ice bound?
    Tell me Bill. Have you ever actually looked at Answers in Genesis, the Creation Institute or any of Mr.Ham’s articles? I think if you had, you’d notice that YES he does believe this, and shockingly to narrow minded pin heads such as yourself, so do millions of other people.
    What’s so extraordinary? Are scientists, physists and mathemiticans such as Copernicus, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Keplar, Faraday, Pasteur, Marconi, Kelvin, George Washington Carver, Fleming, von Braun and Maury inconsistent as well? Were they considered unintelligent for believing in the Bible?

    I hope Scoop can put this debate up- because I would love to see Ken Ham wipe the evolutionist floor with Billy Nye.

        1. Yes, thanks AmericanDuckie!

          BTW Bill Nye is a former engineer for Boeing, not even a scientist. Nye designed a hydraulic valve of some sort on the tail section of Boeing 747s.

          I doubt Nye will have any familiarity with any of Ham’s Biblical arguments. I predict Nye will probably be versed only in the 4 most common arguments evolutionists make, which Ham has faced a million times.

          1. Thank you. Until this story, the only thing I knew about Bill Nye is his pbs show which I saw about 3 or 4 times. The experiments he did were so simple, that my son who was in about the 1st grade at the time had already learned them. It doesn’t surprise me he’s not a scientist. This is going to be entertaining.

    1. VERY well said, Duckie! Apparently Nye thinks he’s a real scientist and I can’t wait to see him sucking suds off the floor.

  33. “We have to have a scientifically literate population to solve the world’s problems…”

    And how’s that working for us there Bill? We have loads and loads of “scientifically literate” people… and I tell you… the world’s looking none too good right now.

    What we need there Bill, are a moral and ethical people who understand their place under the guiding hand of God to practice the good science He has given them. Then you will see the world’s problems solved. But when you are simply a gutter Darwinian, like you there Bill, you tend to become your own God. And there are simply too many like you, Bill. The problem ridden world as it is now proves this.

    1. I loved his slip of the tongue where he stated he didn’t want science students to be exposed – er, given the idea that the earth was 10,000 I mean 6,000 years old.
      They don’t want kids exposed to any truths that belie their own humanist beliefs.

      1. To be fair many creationists do roughly date the earth between 10,000 – 6,000 years old. However Ham is a 6,000 year type. BTW, who came up with ideas that 6,000 yrs is young? Sounds old to me

    2. Excellent point. I wonder if the science guy has any qualms with common core mis-educating our children in schools. Since Bill Nye seems to be so interested in literating people don’t think he would start with making sure schools are doing the best job they can?

  34. Bill Neigh….is naught butt a horse’s arse with a deep-seeded need to stay in the news. His debating skills are 9th grade level at best…and that’s being generous…what a putz.

  35. I am sorry that people like this guy who if you look at their faces you can see the emptiness in their lives. One of the greatest minds in history Einstein was a believer of God, and this guy’s opinion is the result of our Liberal colleges in this country. I love this little clip of Einstein when he was a child.
    http://youtu.be/psV-MhgsDdI

  36. I became acquainted with Bill Nye’s show when I was in Seattle – it was very entertaining. However, now that I know what he’s REALLY all about, I can’t stand him. So many people over the years have done this… started out a hero (politically, musically, athletically, etc.) and then they open their mouth and show their arse. It’s almost like infidelity to me – you form a relationship with them (in your mind – and heart I guess) and then you find out what they really are and you have to dump them. Sickens me.
    Whatever the outcome of this debate, God has nothing to prove and has shown His face in the many works of His creation. There is no debate… God made everything, knows everything and frankly, IS everything. No mere human being can say otherwise with any credibility at all. Let them deny their Lord at their own peril. Bill Nye’s intellect is his undoing.

  37. Wasn’t Bill Nye originally a mechanical engineer turned children’s show host and comedian? Where is his expertise in evolution theory and creationism?

    This debate should be very interesting.

    1. Mechanical engineer who worked at Boeing for a time according to the Ken Ham video posted by someone on this thread. I could only recall that he doesn’t have a degree in science. He did do cool kids science experiments on PBS but whether or not they were explained and discussed in a scentifically sound manner, I have no idea.

      1. Yeah, I see from this video clip above that he is already making excuses for losing this (non) debate. I think it was over before it started.

    2. Yes, he worked for Boeing on the 747. I think he redesigned a flutter valve in the tail section hydraulic assembly…if my memory serves

      1. Interesting facts, but not my point. My point was where does he get his expertise in debating ‘evolutionism’ vs ‘creationism’. I think he has none, and he will look like a rube next to an expert on the issue.

  38. Nye performed an epic fail here, I can’t wait to see his bigger epic fail on Feb 4th. Even with the encouragement of the CNN anchor Nye couldn’t bring forth a valid argument. Ken Ham will waste this bow-tied snob. And as far as evolution goes the real scientists of the day did not approve of the theory one bit. Evolution became a vehicle for the atheists, like Nye.

    1. Ham on Nye: “We wouldn’t want him applying his evolutionary theories to building airplanes for Boeing…. Lay out all the parts and watch them evolve into a plane.” Love it!

  39. It’s quite evident that these “science” gurus like Nye, the climate huckster Gore, and Canada’s senile malthusian fraud Suzuki will get their azzes handed to them… like Suzuki discovered when Australia’s ABC audience roundly exposed him for a doddering old fool. The same will happen to Nye on this one. These guys get lazy… very lazy and don’t know their own subject. They seldom if ever debate and expect a soft landing with every fawning audience they encounter. Nye is in for a shock.

    One word of advice to Nye… NYE… get out while the getting is good. You’ll look the fool just like you looked the fool when Piers Morgan had you up against Mark Morano of Climate Depot. You can see the fear ion Nye’s face. Here… enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWT-EWKIR3M

    Oh… and a P.S. a lot of critics complain that Morano was yelling and talking over Nye. Nye was mostly mute, and Morano expected Morgan to try and walk all over him. Morano seldom gets the opportunity to be on American Networks… so he used the opportunity to the fullest. Morano, however gets lots of coverage on SUN News.

  40. Global warming and so many other things begins primarily in the azz, and the guy there is the best evidence

  41. Bill Nye is a global warming lunatic who will never discover the truth and believes every single living thing came from an amoeba in water! Right…and he came from a monkey! Lord bless Mr. Ham, he knows science!

  42. Those who believe in biblical creation 10,000 or 4 billion years ago are regarded as akin to believers in fairy tales although the idea of a single primitive cell developing into fish, birds, reptiles, mammals, humans over time seems like the changing of mice into horses in Cinderella.

  43. I have seen a video of Ken Ham on Creation and Genetics; it was clear and informative. The evidence for evolution is not as compelling as the media thinks. They also confuse people by conflating intelligent design with creationism; they are not the same. It’s similar to speaking of global warming as climate change which can refer both to warming or cooling which we have had for thousands of years even before man came on the scene.

  44. Somebody behind the camera corrected Nye. He kept saying ten thousand years old and suddenly switched to six thousand years old. Nye shouldn’t have agreed to the debate, I don’t think he will be any good without cue cards.

    1. Maybe he’ll be wearing an earbud like the pResident did in the 2012 debates. Nye is an ignoramus. I don’t think he has a degree in any of the sciences. Wasn’t his claim to fame doing cool science experiments for kids on PBS?

    1. This is excellent. One thing some folks are surprised by when they find out I homeschool is that while I do teach Science from the Bible, I have no problems teaching about what evolutionists believe as well, and we do experiments to see which works and which doesn’t.
      That’s the difference and Mr. Ham is right. Humanists would never ‘expose’ kids to thinking for themselves through discovery, only teach them what to think- yet we’re labeled as the narrow minded ones.

      1. Yeah the band of leftist all ride on the same bus, they all play the same music, when their lies are exposed and they have no other “same old songs” to play, then they play their old hit song “name calling” and their race card song.

        Notice how the deception is spread throughout all the world, the world of academia and throughout the world sciences.

      2. Have you used Dr. Jay Wile’s Apologia books? We found he describes both theories well, while showing that creation is the clear choice that fits the evidence.

  45. This guy, Bill Nye, is in for a real treat if he maintains this debate. Ken Ham is an outstanding speaker and knows the Creation/Young Earth position very well. Nye acts like Ken Ham may have a hidden agenda. Ken Ham does have an agenda but it is NOT hidden! Ham’s agenda is for people to become believers in Christ and to help Christians to stop compromising God’s word. It’s that simple and Ham doesn’t hide it. The material that Answers in Genesis puts out is choke full of science. Both evolutionists and creationists agree on science. They (we) only disagree on origins and how we came about, how the universe/earth came about and when. What is the big deal? And I find it is the evolutionists that are so terrified of our children learning the Creationist view. Bill Nye exhibits this fear during this short interview. Why does he fear for the poor children of Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky so much? Why they might actually grow up with some values and a belief in God because of the Creation Museum. It is just hard to get your head around these people sometimes, not the young earth Christians but the extremists evolutionists.

    1. I believe in the bible and am a devout Christian. I see no evidence in the bible to support the earth only being 10,000 years old. They make strange assumptions to support that. They ignore man was created in Genesis 1 yet Noah was put on the earth in Genesis 2. They ignore places in the bible that talk of different species of men. They make the assumption that days in creation were 1,000 years long prophetic days. I do not accept any of these assumptions.

      I believe Genesis 1 days were much much longer. If these were even days at all they may have just been unequal periods of time. In the end I believe the earth probably is billions of years old. It is easy to explain the Grand Canyon much harder to explain the 97% of species which are extinct. Much harder to just dismiss the Big Bang.

      This could be interesting.. I hope that is not the only thing this debate becomes, 10,000 vs God. As that is most unfair.

      1. If you were to base your belief on Scripture, it clearly outlines six literal days of creation and a worldwide flood. I hope you will be able to listen to the debate.

        1. It says God rested on the seventh day. Problem is many other scriptures say God never rest. Gen 2:4 says These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LordGod made the earth and the heavens

          Notice it does not say on the next day. There is no indication of the time between when he created heaven and earth and when he put man on the earth. The way this verse reads sounds much more like this was some event in the past not just yesterday. Now he does indicate the Earth got a fresh start with Adam but that does in no way mean it had never had anything on it before.

          I personally believe that a lot happened before the day He put Adam on the Earth. He just never told us although we do see evidence of this everywhere.

          1. God says He rested and He is not a man that He should lie.

            Psalm 121:3-4 (KJV) says this:
            ‘He will not suffer thy foot to be moved: he that keepeth thee will not slumber. Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.’

            You say ‘many other Scriptures’…can you list one Bible verse where it says God does not rest? Even if you manage to come up with what I couldn’t find, that does not mean He did not rest in the past, on the seventh day after He was done with the creating talked about in Genesis 1. So, not a problem at all.

            Please see Scripture I posted to Mina here:
            http://therightscoop.com/evolution-vs-creation-debate-bill-nye-the-science-guy-to-debate-creationist-ken-ham/#comment-1186972917
            Six literal days marked specifically by mornings and evenings. Genesis 2:4 poses no contradiction to that. For Genesis 2:4, I believe this definition (from Merriam Webster’s online dictionary) of day applies:

            ‘5 a specified time or period : age ‘.

            Genesis 1:1-5 gives no time of billions, millions, thousands, hundreds, decades, years, or weeks separation between these verses:

            In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
            Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

            I see no evidence of anything happening long before Adam was created. I do see evidence of a worldwide flood that happened later, however.

            1. God resting was not my point. But when he healed on the Sabbath he said this. Sorry did not book mark this when someone else pointed it out to me.

              My point was Gen 2:4 talks about generations now to me that is many many years not the next day. Because the bible does not tell us means nothing other than God did not tell us what he did during this period of time. Quite possible God created the Earth in 6 earth days. But Genesis 2 is not at all clear that Adam was put on the earth the day after God rested. Conceding this point makes it far easier to beat an Atheist in a debate. No need to explain the dinosaurs for example. They could have existed in this period of Generations.

              Personally I believe that a lot happened during this time God tells us nothing about. But no I can not prove it because he just says generations or a period of history giving us no idea how long or what happened.

              1. You said, ‘It says God rested on the seventh day. Problem is many other scriptures say God never rest.’

                Luke 14:3-5, where Jesus talks of healing on the Sabbath doesn’t say God did not rest on the seventh day after creating. Adam was created on the sixth day. (Genesis 1:26-31), so you are right that that would have been the day before God rested, not the day after.

                With your concern from Gen. 2, more context is important: First, a person has got to read the first chapter, there being no chapter and verse separations in original languages in the books of the Bible. So, immediately after the reporting of the very specified six days of creation, then comes:

                ‘Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.

                These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

                And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

                And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.’

                One of the definitions in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary of the word generation- and if you would pluralize it by all the things that came into being by God’s hand, tell me if you think it fits the context:
                ‘2 b the process of coming or bringing into being’.

                I hope you will tune in to the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. I believe a lot of lies have been told about what dinosaurs were like by evolutionists. I haven’t studied them in depth of late, but an older sibling and family are well-versed in dinosaurs. One of my nephews in his early twenties now could name them when he was only three.

                And atheists are lying to themselves and others when they say they don’t believe there’s a God. (Romans chapter 1:19-20)

                1. I agree you can interpret it that way but it is a bit of a stretch.

                  Should tune in to see how he handles it. But will anyway as it should be interesting.

                  Oh you should go to the Hebrew proceedings would work better in your argument but Hebrew is far more complicated than just that.the surrounding words really matter in Hebrew I just use the translation know no Hebrew myself but come off as an idiot if someone knows Hebrew. Still better than alternate English definition.
                  http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/8435.html

                  Hebrew/English Old Testament http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/

                2. The definition I gave from Merriam/Webster’s dictionary would seem to go along with this definition from your first link there:

                  ‘1a3) course of history (of creation etc)’
                  but I’d have to look at our own concordance to see if I could confirm that… and it’s late. I don’t know Hebrew either but think it’s in a concordance we have. Still, I don’t have a question about the account of six literal days in Genesis 1, bolstered in Exodus 20. Maybe you could find someone fluent in Hebrew? I imagine Old Testament enthusiast Pastor Doug Bookman, former seminary professor, could tell you the word in Hebrew and what it means in the context.
                  That second link a Christian filter service called Hedgebuilders which we have blocked for ‘Intolerance & Hate’. Guess someone must have reported something on there and they reviewed the site or something.

      2. No evidence? Just add up the years! The bible tells how long Adam lived and so forth. The bible is history from God’s perspective, starting in Genesis. There are no assumptions made here – the text is taken for what it says. I know it is radically different from what man believes (most men). And your statements above regarding Noah being put on the earth in Genesis 2 (??) and 1,000 year prophetic days, what in the world are you getting at with that? The genealogy leading to Noah is in the Bible and it starts with Adam, created on day 6! We all come from Adam/Eve and the earth is a little over 6,000 years old. It is not hard to prove this from the Bible. Proving millions and billions of years from the bible is very hard, unless you just make the Bible say whatever you want and come up with all kinds of theories and nonsense like that.

        1. Gen 1: 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

          So before he rested they were commanded to reproduce the men and all He created.

          2: 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had crested from all his work which God created and made.

          4 ¶These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

          5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

          Yet here vs 4 makes it clear prior to that was in the past. Vs 5 makes it clear man is no longer on the earth and it has no rain. 4 gives no indication how many generations or what happened during them. I do not believe God lies though so I believe he created man when he said in Gen 1:28. So I must believe something happened he is not telling me about. I assume that something took a very long time as generations in heaven must last a very long time.

          I guess you just think Moses got it wrong or something.

          BTW ¶ symbolized the actual start of a new chapter.

          1. I don’t believe Moses got it wrong at all. I believe Ch. 1 to 2:3 is the order of God’s creation per 6 days with a day of rest. Starting with 2:4, Moses details the 6th day of creation more. 2:4 is a heading, which the style is commonly used throughout Genesis, “these are the generations”.

            In this case, the heading is shifting our focus to the creation of man (Adam, whom we all come from) in the Garden of Eden. Verse 5 is talking about the beginning there in the Garden of Eden, how God provided the mist for the plants (v. 6).

            And of course, in the New Testament, Luke 3 has the genealogy for us going from Christ to Adam. No place for millions of years in the Bible if reading it in a straight forward fashion. But I realize Christians disagree on this. I wish we didn’t, but we do. 🙂

            1. “In this case, the heading is shifting our focus to the creation of man”
              Then you just assume this shifting of focus actually shifts back into Genesis prior to the Sabbath and adds to the creation of man thus Adam? Seems like a strange way to tell the story. Well now let us go back a few verses to insert something. Then create Adam put him in the garden and rest the day he gets out.

              I will stick with my opinion.

              Whatever would have happened obviously did not affect the fact that Adam was the first man in the image of God. Not that I am clear as to exactly what that means.

              Seems clear to me that Adam was not the first man period. One of the four beast was for all kinds of men. I doubt many will believe what I am saying here. I personally believe the scientific evidence is strong that other kinds of men existed. Still covered by the bible. Which is the point I was making this keeps the bible true no matter what evidence is ever produced that I could imagine. Even if an alien were to appear I would just assume that alien was a Nephilim as foretold in the bible would happen when the Antichrist would show his power.

  46. Evolution vs. God is a great (30 minute) video by Ray Comfort that could serve as a warm-up to this debate.
    .

    1. Thanks for this video. It was really well done and I love Comfort’s approach on this subject which normally causes immediate defensiveness in those being questioned. I bet all of them went home with at least some doubts in what the “experts” have been teaching them.

  47. What irritates me to no end is how arrogant arses, such a Nye, will sit there and say that the Bible is open to interpretation and manipulation by men…and scientific data isn’t?! Really? Tell that to Al Gore and company, who have used scientists as useful idiots to manipulate more of our tax payer dollars for crony projects that line their pockets! Like journalists, scientists have been more interested in pushing leftist propaganda instead of truly proving their theories. For heaven’s sake…they can’t even decide which is killing us faster…cholesterol or sugar?! It changes depending on who is paying for their research grant. Like everything else leftists touch…science is dead.

  48. Bill Nye, the ‘science’ guy is in for a rude awakening. I was very impressed with the museum up there near Cincinnati. The best part is where they show you how you are being lied to. It’s not dismissing the science involved, but actually observing the science involved and shining a bright light on where they are lying and completely making up results. Evolution is probably the dumbest theory of them all. Even my 7yr old says that if we evolved then were are the half people? Anyway, anyone who has seen Ken Ham (I didn’t even know of him until I visited the museum) or know his work, knows that he doesn’t accept the base carbon dating, etc… that scientists KNOW have problems. And yet, there is zero money in that type of science. It’s like global warming. We don’t have real scientists anymore, but an echo chamber to try and disprove God. It’s hard to believe how much we’ve been lied to. How we have been duped on every level as a country. We should be stringing these people up by the street lights if were to try and equal out their evil over the years. Good luck Mr. Science guy… you’re gonna need more than a pack of mentos and a diet coke to win your argument.

    1. We see the caliber of professors in our colleges. Truth has been expelled. Speaking of Expelled, Ben Stein did an excellent documentary on how liberalism is removing all common sense from academia and media.

  49. My favorite debates of this type have been Hitchens and D’Souza. There are plenty, and they are good. They spend an hour or so debating a small handful of questions.

        1. I have one of his early books. I can’t remember which one. It was from back in the 1990’s.

            1. I would love to see D’Souza and Ravi Zacharias tag team debate two evolutionist. Now that would be an event worthy of popcorn! LOL!

    1. Hugh Ross and Bill Nye probably agree on more things than disagree. It wouldn’t be a very interesting debate. He believes in pre-Adamic and soulless humanoids, death before sin, and an earth older than what seems to be described in the bible.

      1. Respectfully, you are misstating the beliefs of Ross a bit. For example Ross says the Bible is 100% correct about the age of the Earth but there are about a dozen references in the Bible to the age of the Earth, not just Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Ross argues some of OUR interpretations of Biblical passages can be interpretted in ways that fit both the Bible and science.

        But you and I agree about so much regarding the Bible that I don’t want to overstate our differences.

    2. “Ken Ham and his young-earth position is untenable in an age on scientific enlightenment.”

      -You don’t say. LOL!

    3. Isn’t ‘scientific enlightenment’ meant to reveal the ‘truth’? Scientists have been wrong 95% of the time. That’s why science keeps changing. They keep finding out that their ‘revelations’ were wrong and need tweaking.

      ‘Science’ once believed the Earth was the center of the solar system. ‘Science’ once believed the earth was flat. ‘Science’ once believed that the molecule was the smallest entity.

      Science is the act of asking questions to discover the truth. The Truth has always been there. We just need to keep getting smarter to find it. When we have found the whole truth, we will have discovered God.

      1. But science can be right 100% of the time if you make it a religion, demonize everyone who denies or attempts to prove an alternative view. Science, married to a government form like Communism can eliminate anyone who opposes the state and its nonbelievers..

      2. Nuke, I suspect that you don’t care, but you are completely wrong. Your “95%” number is obviously made up.

        It wasn’t “science” that believed that the Earth was the center. It was religion that believed that until proven wrong by science. It wasn’t “science” that believed the earth was flat. That was the common perception before it was proven incorrect by science. Molecular and atomic science is a field where there are always new discoveries to be made. In the world and in the universe there are always an infinite number of new things to discover.

        Science is about learning, not holding on to ignorance. Science has made us what we are. Do you like your electric lights? Do you like having a warm house to live in? Without scientific thinking, we would still be living in cold dark caves, and trying to chase down insects for our next meal.

        1. First of all, you’re right. I don’t care.

          Secondly, it isn’t ‘science’ that says God does not exist. It’s the people that use science as an excuse. Science does not measure in the realm of God.

          Science is just the measure of the latest accepted theory and the continual questioning to get closer to what the truth really is. Every time they find out that what was accepted is wrong, they change it. That’s why I say 95% (it’s a generalization – kind of like weathermen being 96% right, 4% of the time).

          If you wish to label ‘science’ as an entity, remember that it’s the people using science as ‘a consensus’ that God does not exist. It’s not science at all that says that.

          And whether I like my electric lights or my warm house has nothing to do with the discussion of God’s existence. I wasn’t bashing ‘science’. I am a scientist myself and people that claim science and religion are on opposite sides should rethink their ‘theory’.

  50. This debate will be nothing more than theoretical gymnastics. Neither Mr Nye can explain how all the elements responsible for the big bang come to existence nor Mr Ham can explain how God came to being.
    The reality is that humans do not have the capacity to understand the things they can’t see. Anything beyond human understanding is just speculative.

    1. At the very least there is compelling circumstantial evidence to support Creation. I assume you are aware in court that circumstantial evidence can be use to find someone guilty or innocent?

      1. Like…Creation exists?
        Yep. It does seem like someone would have set it in motion. I’m not sure we could really handle the alternative. I know I don’t care for the idea of a totally random, chaotic soup of a universe with no justice, no balance or justification for anything. The simple truth is we are in deep trouble if we ourselves are the final arbiter of those things. People like Nye should carefully think things through.

        1. I can’t remember just who it was that said this in a debate with an evolutionist, but he told him he needed to get his own DNA to start his evolutionary ball. LOL!

        2. It doesn’t matter if you “can’t handle the alternative.” It doesn’t matter if you “don’t care for” reality. You are just one of billions of people alive today. You are relatively insignificant. But yes, we are in deep trouble if we don’t take responsibility for the preservation of our precious natural environment that keeps us alive. In order to do that, it’s important that we stop relying on a magical invisible sky daddy to take care of us. That’s like praying to unicorns for assistance.

    2. I agree, but would change that last sentence just a bit…’Anything beyond human understanding is a matter of faith’. You either believe or not…there really is no empirical way to prove either. Science will probably always be incomplete about our origins, and the Creation story isn’t exactly big on detail. It’s probably for the best, if we think about it.
      Nye is just foolish, I don’t know anything about Ham.

    3. “…nor Mr Ham can explain how God came to being.”

      That’s because there’s a difference between finite and infinite. God, being infinite, has no “beginning;” we, being finite, can’t understand or comprehend that. Not yet, that is.

    4. “The reality is that humans do not have the capacity to understand the things they can’t see.”
      Yes Attilla, exactly. All the thousands of religions of the world were based on stories dreamed up by primitive people who had very little control over their daily lives. They were simply trying to explain things they didn’t understand, and make some rules for civil society.

      Science, on the other hand, is based ONLY on the things we can see. It is based on hard, verifiable evidence.

  51. “We don’t want people in the future…” Let me fill in the blank here…HEARING THE TRUTH!
    Praying for Mr. Ham and his ministry. What an arrogant jerk Mr. Nye is!

  52. http://www.answersingenesis.org
    Here is the site for Mr. Ham On the home page, on the left, you will see the headline “Yes, the Debate with Bill Nye is On” They are selling tickets for the event and their site says to stay tuned for possible “live stream” information.
    We homeschool our son and have used several of the Answers In Genesis books in our curriculum. They are very detailed and offer both sides with an emphasis obviously on Creation.

    1. Thanks joyful. I would love to see this debate. I’m sure the lame stream wouldn’t want to run it unless they are sure Nye doesn’t embarrass himself.
      Congratulations on Home teachin yer son. We home teacheded our five and used Ken Ham’s teaching a lot.

          1. Apparently someone here does not recognize humor themselves! I was messing with toongoon. I even upvoted his initial comment. It was funny! The second sentence in my comment is a dead give-away. More precisely, the second word in the second sentence. Please read in context. toongoon got it.

    2. You can certainly see the difference in character between the two men. In Ken’s letter he shows respect for Mr. Nye, Nye’s arrogance toward Mr. Ham was unnecessary but what would expect from a leftist anyway?

  53. I can’t say I’m familiar with Mr. Ham or his ideas, but I agree with many of the ideas promoted by intelligent design theorists like Stephen Meyer, in his book Darwin’s Doubt. That having been said, creationism as a literal interpretation of the Biblical text seems like an easily defeated position. Hopefully Mr. Ham is indeed scientifically literate because the close-minded, arrogant atheists like Bill Nye need to be taken down a peg or two.

    1. It might SEEM like it is, but it is not easily defeated at all. The only reason why it SEEMS easily defeatable as a position is because we’ve been indoctrinated with super duper long eons of time concepts without the least bit of proof and a long, lying, and dubious history of science not being properly applied.

    2. May I suggest you go to his Answers in Genesis site and explore? There is an amazing amount of material there…and I mean, amazing. Ken is armed and ready. All he needs is our prayers to uphold him!

  54. Nye is a typical liberal.Nothing to see here.Move along.He is more like a high school science teacher rather than an actual scientist.He sure has the arrogance thing down pat.

  55. I have no strong opinion on this topic. However, Nye is a arrogant sham. He is NOT a scientist. He’s a PR man with a spattering of scientific knowledge.

    1. Bill Nye is an “entertainer”. He’s got about as much smarts as Matt Damon! and Ben Affleck.

  56. Ken Ham is not scientifically illiterate. Bill Nye has no respect for opposing thought or alternative ideas and therefore will be at a disadvantage against Mr; Ham, who actually teaches both evolution and creation at his museum.

    You would think that intelligent design would be a viable option for people who proudly proclaim ‘smart power’ as their mantra. But let’s not confuse intelligence for liberal smarts. Heh!

    Edit; Before I get busted over the head, the Creation Museum teaches evolution in a way that exposes its inconsistencies and also does the follow up where science has proven previous beliefs as false which do not make it to textbooks.

    1. Nye, like most of his type, have no respect whatsoever for “opposing thought or alternative ideas”. Young earth creationists, such as myself, absolutely welcome opposing thoughts. Gives us a chance to sharpen our iron. Truth is truth and we have it on our side, so we don’t need to get all huffy and arrogant. But, the wee little ones over there on the other side preach tolerance (which is just code, you know), while they swat at us like so many annoying bugs.

      True science always agrees with the Bible because it was the Word that created the laws of science in the first place. Many of the greatest scientists the world has ever known believed in a Creator God. But we are plainly told that the cross is foolishness to those who don’t (or won’t) believe.

      Evolution (macro type, molecules to man, not speciation) is a fairy tale. And the dumbest one ever invented. The dorkiest cartoons usually make at least some sense. What is it about evolution that makes it believable on any level at all?

      Truth is so simple even a child can know it. My 5 year old grandson has no problem believing in the idea that God created this universe. It’s natural to believe in God, even though many people eventually turn away from that belief. He can’t explain how God did it (can any of us?) but easily accepts it. However, he thinks it’s stupid that an unimaginably dense chunk of rock exploded and made all this. Talk of “quantum flux” or other “science” jargon is even worse than putting lipstick on a pig. If “nature” is all there is, why does it feel so “unnatural” for so many people to believe it?

      In their magical happy land they conjure up a “reality” in which everything that exists got its start as a speck of matter that just happened to exist, then somehow blew up, flinging it’s junk throughout space, which cooled and solidified and transmogrified and coded life and complexified and now we are all gods.

      So… in the beginning there was nothing and it blew up.

      OR…

      In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth…

      And they think children and Christians believe in fairy tales…

      1. I wholeheartedly agree. The contempt they have for God and the Bible seems to make all the more inane in their explanations of things.
        DNA should have put a lot of the evolution trash to bed but, just like AGW, they continue to believe it and are even more arrogant in demanding everybody else believe it too.

  57. I told Bill Nye today he was an ass for saying this and man the Atheist have been blowing up my twitter feed for the past 6 hours lol

    1. Why do atheists have a problem with being called an ass? It’s a donkey, for crying out loud. THEY say we’re practically one base pair away from being being a chimp and 42 cousins to the tapeworm. We are just another animal, right? So… again… what’s their problem?

  58. I’ve listened to Ken Ham speak in person. It will be interesting to see if there’s a science argument he hasn’t successfully refuted. He’s well versed in biblical teaching and his arguments are based on what the bible says, not his interpretations of what the bible says.

    1. I can’t wait to watch it. Just praying for Ken Ham’s protection… this debate draws out a lot of vitriol from people on the internet.

Comments are closed.