• Answers in Genesis youtube video: Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate Ken Ham And Bill Nye
• Archived at: debatelive.org (points to the above location)

• Ken Ham Introduction
  1. 18:35 Stuart Burgess: argument from authority!
  2. 19:43 "all scietists whether creationsist or evolutionists have the same methods." No, creationnists do not do experiments, do not retract errors, ignore data, lie about results, use argument from authority and use inappropriate terminology. For example; 'evolutionists' is not a term used by real scientists. There are BIOLOGISTS. Most of us (biologists) accept evolutionary theory as the only viable explanation for the diversity of life. No other idea comes close and no other idea is so well supported. For example, go to PubMedCentral and search for 'evolution'. At the moment (2014 feb 05) there are 331,825 papers on this topic that are freely available for you to read. The literature is larger than that, PubMed has 364,471 papers on evolution. The point is, there are TONS OF DATA supporting this theory. Don't believe me? Read 1% of the papers!
  3. 20:05 "molecules-to-man evolution has nothing to do with technology" He obviously never heard of SELEX! He is just IGNORANT!
  4. 20:08 We can know about the past just as we can figure out how a murder was comitted based on EVIDENCE. "We weren't there." Is a red herring!
  5. 20:58 religion of naturalism? no, thinking that things occur naturally without imaginary unverified forces (the supernatural) is NOT a dogmatic religion. Religions require belief in a god, naturalism is not about gods. The nasty trick here is to put an idea down by calling it a religion and then to turn around and put forward Ham's religion as if that were not to be put down too!
  6. 22:09 "Creation is the only viable model of historicl science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era" This is completely wrong. Creationism is not validated by observational science at all! See The Age of Our World Made Easy.
  6 major errors in 5 minutes!
• Bill Nye Introduction ... He nailed it. No errors. He pointed out that CSI uses evidence just as science does and so the idea that there is a "historical" science is rediculous and unnecessary.
• Ham 30 minute case He starts by repeating what he said previously. No points for that!
  • 28:42 Raymond Damadian ... Another argument from authority! What does inventing the MRI scanner have to do with knowledge of biology, physics, astronomy and geology? Nothing! "The idea that scientists who believe the earth is 6000 years old cannot do real science is simply wrong." Sure. That doesn't make you right. This is a a red herring argument - there can be delusional scientists who go outside their field of expertise to make unsubstantiated claims.
  • 29:30 Another argument from authority. Danny Faulkner - an astronomer who doesn't understand what a "light year" is? How odd is that? "There is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a recent creation." Except every measurement of the distances to stars that are more than 6,000 light years away! HE GIVES NO EVIDENCE THAT ALL STARS ARE CLOSER THAN 6,000 light years away! It's just assertions without backup evidence. Either he is a liar or delusional or both. Take your pick.
  • 30:17 Another argument from authority. Stuart Burgess complains about people getting criticism for their stupid ideas. Boo hoo hoo. Put out GOOD ideas and we will judge them. Creationism has FAILED AT EVERY TURN. There is no excuse to hide if you are a biologist who thinks evolution did not occur. Go and read The Origin Of Species by Darwin.
  • 35:22 "Question for Bill Nye: Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution?" It is not necessary to believe in evolution to accept it as they way the world works! But if you want a bit of technology, look up SELEX!
  • 36:12 Ken Hamm makes a figure with a left handed DNA - as if he didn't know that DNA is probably always right handed in living organisms on earth!
  • 37:25 Predictions based on the bible
    • "evidence confirming an INTELLIGENCE produced life"
      As a working biologist, I'm not aware of any such evidence. NAME THE EVIDENCE Mr. HAM!!
    • "evidence confirming an AFTER THEIR KIND"
      Living things reproduce. So? "KIND" has never been precisely defined and there is NO MOLECULAR EVIDENCE FOR SUCH DIVISIONS. If he means 'species' - then we know that there have to be sequence variations to get to the next species. There is nothing that stops a species from changing into a different species by mutation and selection.
    • "evidence confirming a GLOBAL FLOOD"
      This has been debunked a billion times, aside from it being blatently a myth.
    • "evidence confirming ONE RACE"
      "of humans because we all go back to Adam and Eve" ... which ignores the evidence of other homo species!
    • "evidence confirming the TOWER OF BABEL"
      WHAT EVIDENCE???? We don't even know that the tower existed!
    How embarrassing. He ignores evidence against his ideas.
  • 39:42 family (KIND) FAILS TO EXPLAIN WHY THE KINDS ARE SIMILAR. Read this spectacular book:
  • Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin.
  • 39:56 KIND implies one only need one "kind" of cat ... so not only does he think that evolution didn't occur but he also favors super rapid evolution immediately after the supposed flood! Tigers became cats?
  • 40:36 Creations' "Orchard". He claims with no evidence at all that "there is limits" to kinds. There is nothing known in biology that would cause this. It is up to him to win a Nobel Prize finding evidence of the limits to "kinds". Good luck!
    It's interesting that they have been pushed back to the point of accepting variation and selection, but they think (with NO evidence at all) that there are limits called "kinds".
  • 40:39 "The dogs, that's never used as an example of evolution, but the finches are." Wait a minute there buster! You just pointed me to this paper: Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs (Genome sequencing highlights the dynamic early history of dogs. Freedman et. al PLoS Genet. 2014 Jan;10(1):e1004016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016. Epub 2014 Jan 16.) as your example of a "KIND". THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE OF THE PAPER IS: " To identify genetic changes underlying dog domestication and reconstruct their early evolutionary history, ..." Ham doesn't even read and understand his own references! Worse, Darwin devoted his first ENTIRE CHAPTER TO THE TOPIC Chapter 1 - Variation Under Domestication where he mentions "dog" 18 times!
  • 45:00 Andrew Fabich ... gives his CV ... Another argument from authority. "I don't deny that it grows on citrate, but it's not any kind of new information." Looks like he is ignorant of this paper: Evolution of Biological Information!
  • 47:00 Darwin and races ... Darwin could be wrong about one thing and right about another! Ham's argument is invalid. Science is self-correcting (as opposed to religion). Darwin's concept of natural selection has survived many tests, including my own. Furthermore he next says that "you have a wrong foundation", meaning that Darwin's idea of natural selection was wrong because he got the race idea wrong. But that's backwards. Darwin first presented the idea of natural selection. That's the foundation. So Darwin's foundation is fine and Ham is being misleading.
  • 48:00 Ham claims that there is a belief aspect to the concept of evolution. NO! Read this: Do you believe in Evolution? I don't "believe" in evolution - I accept it as the best explanation.
  • 48:46 We can observe that earth is not flat but not that it is old? Wait a second! How did you observe that? From a transmission many minutes ago by a satellite. So YOU WERE NOT THERE Mr. Ham! Worse, everything you see and sense is at least some number of milliseconds delayed from the actual event. (See: Consensus Sequence Zen .) ALL OBSERVATION IS ABOUT THE PAST!

    But that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the theory. The theory says that given certain evidence, one can make predictions. The theory stands or falls by that smashing against what's actually in the universe. Geological sedementary layering occurs on the top of previous sediments. Prediction: materials lower down will have more decay of their radioisotopes. Geological science prediction CONFIRMED. Biblical flood hypothesis predicts no such difference at different layers. Flood prediction FAILS.

    It doesn't matter when an event occurs. What matters is whether the theory makes correct predictions.

    This whole idea about "historical" science is bunk.

    
  • 52:40 As if we haven't heard this story ad nausium!
  • 57:28 "If they look at it [the universe] as just random processes ..." This sounds great but it's a sin of omission. Biological evolution has random processes - mutation - but it ALSO has selection which is not random. The universe is a combination of random (unpredictable) processes AND PREDICTABLE LAWS. Ham pretends that the latter don't exist and this is essentially a lie.
• Nye 30 minute case 58:24
  • 58:46 ancient limestones millions of years old BY LAYERING OF CORALS.
  • 59:43 ancient ice layers, 68,000 years old BY COUNTING WINTER-SUMMER LAYERS.
  • 61:26 Tjikko, a tree 9,550 years old BY COUNTING TREE RINGS.
  • 62:15 Grand Canyon sediments don't match a flood; layers take many years to form rock; fossils are in order of sediments
  • 65:00 Fossil skulls: more than 2 "kinds".
  • 65:52 Australian land bridge? How did animals get there in the last 4000 years? No Kangaroo fossiles along the path! No evidence at all for a land bridge!
  • 67:15 There were supposedly 7,000 Ken Ham "kinds" but there are about 16 million species today. We should have been seeing 11 new species every day!

    THE CINCINNATI ENQUIRER Today's New Species

    1. lesser aardvark
    2. red-snouted tapir
    3. naked mole rat
    4. great tufted snipe
    5. Dawkin's macaque

    ...(+ 6 more--every day!)

    But there's no evidence of these species, so the flood prediction is wrong.
  • 68:53 Boulders on top of the ground, dumped there from ancient lake floods.
  • 70:52 Wooden ships as big as the Noah arc would twist in heavy seas, leak and sink.
  • 72:15 Zoos have fewer animals in a bigger area than the arc.
  • 73:54 Science prediction ... gap between fish and land animals. What is predicted? Tiktaalik!!! Again, read Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin.
  • 76:33 Why sex? Bill Nye says that there are lots of bacteria that don't have sex? NO! Bacteria and even viruses DO have sex! Bacteria have little pili and transfer DNA into "females"; viruses recombine their DNA.
    Topminnows that have sex have fewer parasites, as predicted by evolutionary theory.
  • 79:11 "This is something that we in science want, we want the ability to predict."
    The point here is that creationists make NO TESTABLE PREDICTIONS. In fact, they avoid making testible predictions because when they do, they get burned.
  • 79:30 Church sign in Danville, Virginia USA:

    BIG BANG THEORY
    YOU GOT TO BE
    KIDDING ME GOD

    The cosmic microwave background was correctly predicted by the big bang theory. This is one of the great examples in science of a successful prediction from theory.
  • 83:22 Age of earth. Big bang 13.7 billion years ago. Rb becomes Sr in 48.8x10⁹ years. "A neutron becomes a proton and it goes UP the periodic table." Ashfall State Park, Nebraska. He didn't seem to make a point here that I could catch ... I suppose it's that we could date the event using Rb to Sr, and it's older than 4,000 years. He also made the point that Kentucky lacks Nuclear Medical Technology training - their science is falling apart because of people like Ken Ham and this is hurting them.
  • 86:15 The distance to stars ... measured using parallax. But can that distance be far enough to blow away the bible myth? Parallax

    Even so, Hipparcos is only able to measure parallax angles for stars up to about 1,600 light-years away, a little more than one percent of the diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy. The European Space Agency's Gaia mission, launched in December 2013, will be able to measure parallax angles to an accuracy of 10 microarcseconds, thus mapping nearby stars (and potentially planets) up to a distance of tens of thousands of light-years from earth.[9][10]

    So we are already out to 1,600 light-years, and soon will go way beyond that.
    So here's a chance to make a prediction!
    Scientist: stars further than 4,000 light-years will be found.
    Creationist: stars further than 4,000 light-years will NOT be found.
    PLACE YOUR BETS NOW!!!
    I'm putting mine on the side of science.
    Get your Gaia satellite news here
  • 87:06 Adolphe Quetelet: "A reasonable man..."
    • Ice
    • Trees
    • Rocks
    • Starlight
    • Wooden Ark
    "Is Ken Ham's creation model viable?" NO!
    Absolutely not! A reasonable man would not find the creation model viable given all these points.
  • 87:55 US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, part 8:

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    88:16

    "You don't want to raise a generation of science students who don't understand how we know our place in the cosmos, our place in space, who don't understand natural law. We need to innovate to keep the United States where it is in the world."

    
• Ham Rebuttal
  • 89:25 Age of earth ... "You can't observe the age of the earth." DUH!!! That's NOT what scientists are doing! We make observations of various kinds (rocks, fossils, light from stars) and explain the observations by a theory that strongly indicates the age. This is a cop out!
  • 90:00 Adding up geneologies ... except that there are several inconsisent versions of the geneologies - with all kinds of twisted excuses made up to try to explain the discrepancies!
  • 90:30 Radioactive decay. "When you are talking about the past we have a problem." No we don't. There is no reason to think that the fundamental laws of physics changed and MORE OVER NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT. For example, star nucleosynthesis works exactly as we understand it MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO.
  • 90:45 1994 Andrew Snelling. Wood in Basalt flow, 45 Million years old. wood: 44-45,000 years old. "There's a problem." WELL SOLVE IT! DON'T LEAVE US HANGING!!!!
    google: 1994 Andrew Snelling. Wood in Basalt flow I can't evaluate this one since I'm not a geologist. I suspect that the measurement of the wood is probably incorrect for some reason. ONE UNEXPLAINED CASE IS NOT ENOUGH TO COUNTER THE MASS OF CONSISTENT DATA ON DATING!
  • 91:22 Geology I can't evaluate. Anyone up to the task?
• Nye Rebuttal
  • 94:30 "If you fine 45 million year old rock on top of 45 thousand year old trees maybe the rock slid on top." AH, he is THINKING!
  • 95:40 "Are the fish sinners? Have they done something wrong to get diseases?"
  • 95:55 "You can't observe the past. That's what we do in astronomy."
  • 98:05 What if "the bible translated into English serves as a science text, and that he and his followers will interpret that for you?" "It's a troubling and unsettling view."
• Ham Counter Rebuttal
  • 99:37 Ham claims the wood was inside the basalt. This is a testable claim, but fails to address the question as to why just this sample is anomalous whereas many others are not.
  • 99:55 "Natural law hasn't changed." WAIT A MINUTE!!! If Ham believes that, then he is inconsistent about radioactive dating!!
  • 100:15 Nye referred to "Ken Ham's view or Ken Ham's model" and he objected. WAIT A MINUTE!!! Nye said "AND FOLLOWERS"! That's the POINT!
  • 101:00 He claims Nye confuses 'species' with 'kinds'. BUT "KINDS" HAVE NEVER BEEN DEFINED PRECISELY while species have been. Then he gives the example of this breeding with that, and so on, that represents one kind. HE IS IGNORANT OF RING SPECIES!! Further he ignored that ALL THE PLANTS WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BY THE SUPPOSED FLOOD.
  • 102:00 "We didn't see those tree rings actually forming." Really? Oh my. At this point Ken Ham starts losing touch with reality. Who will believe that tree rings do not form every year after all the data that's been collected supporting this? He has an inability to understand how a crime is solved "in the past".
  • 102:05 Ham claims a plane was found 40 years later under 250 feet of ice. That may be so, but WERE THERE YEAR-LIKE LAYERS IN THE ICE? Did the planes fall into a cravasse?
  • 102:30 Sharp teeth on bears, pandas and fruit bats in Australia which are vegetarian.
    • Bears are omnivores and so have both flat and sharp teeth.
    • Pandas are partially evolved away from being carnivores.
    • What about sharp teeth on the Australian fruit bat? "The Fruit Bat has some sharp teeth that allow it to penetrate the skin of the fruits." Nothing one can't find in 2 minutes on the web with a search engine. Did T-Rex have molars? google: t rex teeth ... No!! No!! Finally, the searches found this: Tyrannosaurus rex hunted for live prey. Tooth found in victim's tail shows carnivorous dinosaur did not just feed on carcasses. So the dinosaurs were EATING EACH OTHER. And even Ken Ham showed a picture of a fossil fish eating another!
    Obviously someone who really understands these things could completely debunk Ham's misconceptions.
• Q&A
• 113:54 Nye: "And the big thing I want from you, Mr. Ham, is can you come up with something you can predict? Do you have a creation model that predicts something that will happen in nature?"
• 116:57 Ham: "Information only comes from information." WRONG!
  That a god created things does NOT make sense since that explains NOTHING about how the god came into being. Also, there's no evidence for any gods so his answer is totally not satisfying.
• 120:46 "How did consciousness come from matter?"
  Nye: "Don't know." HONEST.
  Ham: The bible: god. NOT AN ANSWER!

  At this point it's clear that Ham doesn't learn ANYTHING from what Nye says. Nothing. He doesn't get it. He hasn't learned any science. He doesn't not UNDERSTAND even what parallax is even though Nye gave a clear explanation!

• 123:58 "What, if anything, would ever change your mind?"
  Ham: "I'm a christian." The usual bible excuses. He believes the word of god because the word of god says that it was written by god. He is trapped in circular logic. "No one is ever going to convince me that the word of god is not true." RIGID UNABLE TO THINK.
  Nye: "We would need just one piece of evidence." HONEST and ABLE TO CHANGE!
• 129:34 "Age of earth?"
  Ham: He said that the age came from a meteorite, implying that the earth is much younger or that the measure was wrong. But this was disingenious, since the Wikipedia entry on the Age of the Earth "This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples." DISHONEST RESPONSE Mr. Ham!
• 150:18 Ham: asks for a new function that was not possible from the genetic information that was there. Simple answer: nylonase.
• 152:22 Ham: "We can trust the laws of nature." Yet all his flood ideas lead him to DENY laws of nature such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the speed of light and radioactive decay! You can't have it both ways!
• 158:01 "What is the one thing more than anything else upon which you base your belief?"
  Ham: the bible. This fails to explain why one should believe the bible (without getting into circular logic).
  Nye: "I base my beliefs on the information and the process that we call science. It fills me with joy ..."

Related

• Potholer54 nails Ham using Ham's own argument! Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate: Just one point, Ken... (Published on Feb 12, 2014)

Tom Schneider's Home Page