KEN HAM vs BILL NYE DEBATE ANALYSIS

Watch this short video debunking Bill Nye's FALSES Claims. 

What caught our attention more than anything else was Bill Nye’s list of challenges for his opponent. He went through a long list of arguments that supposedly pose problems for creationists. However, if Nye had been more acquainted with creationist literature, he would have known that we have long had explanations for each of these. http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate

• He said that in Kentucky, the Creation Museum stands on many layers of limestone with coral fossils. He claimed there would not be enough time in a creationist timeframe for these creatures to grow, die, and then be fossilized. However, creationist marine biologist Dr Robert Carter has addressed the existence of fossil corals.
• The next argument was that there are ice cores with 680,000 layers, each formed in a summer/winter cycle. Again, he claimed that this disproves a creationist timeframe. However, creationists have also answered this, see Greenland ice cores: implicit evidence for catastrophic deposition.
• He also claimed that there are trees older than a biblical timeframe allows for. However, dendrochronology is not an exact science; see plant biologist Dr Don Batten’s article on dendrochronology. Nye specifically mentioned bristlecone pines, but there is evidence that they may have more than one growth ring per year as argued at Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines.
• His next challenge related to geology. He asked, if the Grand Canyon was the result of a catastrophic global flood, why are there not grand canyons everywhere? But as flood geologists have demonstrated, the Flood would have involved a number of different mechanisms at various stages as the waters drained off the continents. In fact, many erosional features are best explained by a global flood. There is a vast body of creation information in this area; we would send interested readers to our Geology Q&A page.
• Nye asked a number of times, why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers. But to the surprise of many, ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in 'dinosaur-era' layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. See The so-called 'Age of Dinosaurs' and Evolution exams and fossil fallacies.

• Nye tried to rebut the idea that there is one human race by showing a graphic of all the different types of hominid skulls that have been discovered to argue that there was a progression in human evolution. However, we know that there is a huge amount of variability in the human race, and many of the skulls in Nye’s graphic were undoubtedly within that range. For more information about how creationists interpret this evidence, see our Anthropology Q&A.
• Nye noted that there are no kangaroo fossils showing a migratory path from the Middle East to Australia. However, absent catastrophic, rapid burial, fossilization of a land creature would be a rare event; thus, lions roamed what is now Israel in historical times, but no lion fossils have ever been found there. In addition, marsupial fossils are actually a huge problem for evolutionists, because their fossils are not in Australia, but in Europe and South America. See Biogeography.
• Nye claims that the biblical account of the Ark imposes ridiculous demands on natural selection to produce the variety of species we see today. He says that to get from the 14,000 animals on the ark to the millions of species we have today, there would have to be 11 new species formed every day for the past 4,000 years. However, there is a huge error in this calculation. The animals which went on the ark only represent land vertebrates, and do not include insects, marine creatures, or microscopic life. And we know that when we exclude these creatures (and also when we realize that some animals are categorized as different species based on only superficial differences), it becomes far more feasible.
• The Ark was claimed to be too big to be made from wood, yet too small to fit all the animals required. However creationists have answered these challenges, see Noah’s Ark Questions and Answers.
• Nye claims that evolutionists made the prediction that there would be an intermediate species between fish and tetrapods, and thatTiktaalik fills this gap. However, footprints from a tetrapod were found in a layer dated millions of years older than Tiktaalik, so the intermediary cannot be younger than what it gives rise to. See Is the famous fish-fossil finished?
• Nye claims that sexual reproduction arose because it granted superior immunity to disease. However, an explanation of how something is beneficial is not the same as explaining how it came to be in the first place, and this is a common fallacy brought up by evolutionists. It doesn’t matter how beneficial something is, you still need a mechanism to explain how it came to be in the first place, and that is a huge problem for evolution. See Episode 5: Why Sex?
• Nye seemed to misunderstand a key creationist argument when he claimed on multiple occasions (even after Ham corrected him), that creationists think that natural laws were different in the past. However, biblical creationists actually think that natural laws are constant, describing how the God of order upholds His creation (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33). Yet, this same God has added to nature at special times as revealed in Scripture, contrary to uniformitarian dogma. The biblical god is not capricious like the pagan gods. Actually, it's Nye who can't derive the constancy of natural laws from his atheistic faith. See also Miracles and science.
• Nye celebrates the discovery of the cosmic background radiation which he believes to be a successful prediction for the Big Bang and billions of years of history. However, cosmic microwave background radiation is actually a huge problem for the Big Bang model; seeRecent Cosmic Microwave Background data supports creationist cosmologies. There has been years of work in creation cosmology; for more information see Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers.
• Nye appeals to radiometric dating, specifically rubidium/strontium, as evidence supporting billions of years. However, different dating methods give different dates for the same rocks, and some dating methods cap the age of the earth at thousands of years, so scientists must pick whichever dating method agrees with their presupposition. Ham gave a slide with a list of such methods; a similar list appears at Age of the earth.
• Nye appealed to distant starlight, but see How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years?

http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate

How can you fit all of the Species on the ARK?

• Nye claims that the biblical account of the Ark imposes ridiculous demands on natural selection to produce the variety of species we see today. He says that to get from the 14,000 animals on the ark to the millions of species we have today, there would have to be 11 new species formed every day for the past 4,000 years. However, there is a huge error in this calculation. The animals which went on the ark only represent land vertebrates, and do not include insects, marine creatures, or microscopic life. And we know that when we exclude these creatures (and also when we realize that some animals are categorized as different species based on only superficial differences), it becomes far more feasible.
• The Ark was claimed to be too big to be made from wood, yet too small to fit all the animals required. However creationists have answered these challenges, see Noah’s Ark Questions and Answers.
• Also read this article from ICR. 

http://www.youroriginsmatter.com/conversations/view/creationdebate-all-species-on-noahs-ark/214

---

DEBATE SUMMARY
Tonight we watched two very knowledgeable men go toe to toe with what they believe to be true. The difference is that Ken Ham was able to demonstrate the solid foundation of his worldview, the Biblical worldview. Bill Nye was unable to do that and in his talking points, proved Ken right many times. Bill's foundation is based on man's opinion. Ken consistently showed how the creation model gave successful predictions. Bill consistently ignored that and kept asking for predictions! If there was anything Bill was consistent at, it was dodging and ignoring Ken's points and using logical fallacies. Ken asked Bill for the foundation for logic and reason. Bill never gave an answer. Bill said "he didn't know" to some very important questions. And of course, Ken showed in God's Word where the answer was. Ken from the start, gave the difference between observational and historical science. He showed that creationists embrace science and even invent new things. Later, Bill flip flopped and went back to bashing creationists, claiming we shouldn't be using phones, airplanes etc., when Ken had already addressed this by explaining we embrace science. Science that is observable. Operational science .Ken showed that we have the same evidence and view the evidence based on a worldview, and Bill didn't get it and tried to attack again with evidence. Bill ignored Ken on this point as well. Ken Ham won this debate hands down and did a great job. I am very proud and thankful for this man of God. If you missed it, go to debatelive.org and view debate there.

Read this article from Answers in Genesis debunking all of Bill Nye's False Claims 
HTTP://DEBATELIVE.ORG/

Read this article from Apologetics Press debunking all of Bill Nye's False Claims  http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4801