click here to learn more about being redeemed from sin and set free to serve God in spirit and in truth. click here to learn more about holiness click here to learn more about being changed into the same image click here to learn more about sowing and reaping click here to learn more about the free gift of righteousness. click here to learn more about how faith gives us access to grace and grace does the works. click here to learn more about faith and how it comes. click here to learn more about acknowledging Jesus click here to learn more about how God speaks Who will you listen to?  Click here to learn more. click here to learn more about the pattern of God. click here to learn more about the pattern of God for individuals, marriage, and family. click here to learn more about the pattern of God for the local church click here to learn more about the Church universal
 
SeekFind Logo Menu

Creation Debate: Questions from the Audience

 

Questions from the audience

The first question was about how Creationism accounts for the celestial bodies and the expansion of the Universe.

  • Ken Ham addresses this with the fact that we all observe what appears to be an expansion, and the Bible tells us that God stretched out the Heavens.
  • He said that God made the Heavens for His glory so we would know how great and how big He is.
  • The power and wisdom of God is so great that, the stars were no great thing for God to create.
  • The Bible just says, "and He made the stars also."
  • Ken Ham said that the more that you understand what that means, that God is an infinite, creator God, you stand back in awe, you realize how small we are, yet God created us knowing we would fall into sin and that He would step into history and offer us the free gift of salvation. Note that recent cosmic microwave background data supports Creationist cosmologies but not big bang cosmologies.

"There’s a question that troubles us all from the time that we are absolutely the youngest and first able to think, and that is, ‘Where did we come from?’ Where did I come from? And this question is so compelling that we’ve invented the science of astronomy. We’ve invented life science. We’ve invented physics. We’ve discovered these natural laws, so that we can learn more about our origin and where we came from. To you, when it says, ‘He invented the stars also,’ that’s satisfying. You’re done. Oh! Good! To me, when I look at the night sky, I want to know what’s out there. I’m driven. I want to know if what’s out there is any part of me, and, indeed, it is. The, oh, by the way, I find compelling you are satisfied."

  1. "There’s a question that troubles us all from the time that we are absolutely the youngest and first able to think, and that is, ‘Where did we come from?’ Where did I come from?" Bill Nye spoke enthusiastically about this, yet his worldview filters out any meaningful answers to this question. In Bill Nye's worldview, we are mere bits of matter. When we die, it's over. There can be no real meaning to life. There can be no real purpose. The best we can do is to try to accumulate a lot of pleasure before it's over and, when it's over, there is nothing from our standpoint. According to Bill, we won't remember it and neither will anyone. And, it won't make any difference. Yet, he presents this as something to be enthusiastic about. That is logically inconsistent.
  2. "And this question is so compelling that we’ve invented the science of astronomy. We’ve invented life science. We’ve invented physics. We’ve discovered these natural laws, so that we can learn more about our origin and where we came from." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of selective evidence. Astronomy, life science, and physics were started by young-Earth Creationists, but Bill didn't mention that. Most natural laws were also identified and defined by Creationists. Bill is using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion when he assumes that humanity invented these rather than that God revealed them. And the motivation of most of those scientists was to see the glory of the Creation that God had created. Bill Nye assumes that the origin from which we came s not God. If the origin is Naturalistic (no God) as Bill Nye claims, then it makes no difference what we find out about these things. There is no purpose or meaning to life. There is no way, in a world without God, to justify the concepts of meaning or purpose without being irrational. For an Atheist, the motivation is often an attempt to prove that God doesn't exist. This drives Atheists to use many irrational methods that slow scientific progress. One such method is circular reasoning, assuming Atheism in the form of Naturalism and Materialism and then trying to prove Atheism from that point. Another problem is confirmation bias as in the case of presupposing the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story as the sacred cow and then seeing whatever is observed as a confirmation of the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story even what the observations indicate that the sacred cow is dead.
  3. "To you, when it says, ‘He invented the stars also,’ that’s satisfying. You’re done. Oh! Good!" Bill Nye is using a straw man fallacy. Ken Ham never said that he was satisfied with that. It is reassuring and helpful, and it drives a desire to know God better as He reveals Himself through the Bible and through His Creation.
  4. "To me, when I look at the night sky, I want to know what’s out there. I’m driven. I want to know if what’s out there is any part of me," Bill Nye is appealing to emotion. It is irrational within Bill Nye's fake-reality/worldview to want to know if what's out there is any part of him. What possible difference would it make if he were composed of star dust? Is is a romantic thought, just a stupid emotional thought? The only reason the Creation is exciting to humanity is because the Heavens are declaring the glory of God and the Earth is showing forth His handiwork. We, as part of God's Creation, respond to that in awe and wonder. Bill is using the fallacy of false cause and effect.
  5. "and, indeed, it is" Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of bare assertion or unsupported assertion. There is no evidence from science that shows that we come from the stars, even if various people have used assumptive language and emotive language to make this claim. It is, in fact, an outright lie. By Divine revelation, God tells us that He formed us from the dust of the Earth, That cannot be refuted since its source is God, and there is no higher authority.
  6. "The, oh, by the way, I find compelling you are satisfied." Bill Nye repeats his straw man fallacy, this time using assumptive language. The statement is not just made, but it is assumed to be true in the structure of the sentence. What Bill Nye "finds compelling" is irrelevant, but here he is using his compulsion as proof that Ken Ham is satisfied, something that Ken never said. If we look into Scripture we see reality: "I shall be satisfied when I awake with His likeness."

"And the big thing I want from you, Ken Ham, is can you come up with something that you can predict? Do you have a Creation Model that predicts something that will happen in nature?" Bill Nye is again using the logical fallacy of proof by repetition. Ken Ham game him many examples, and Bill Nye didn't even acknowlege that they had been given let alone refute them, while Bill Nye gave a couple bogus examples that claimed that the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story can predict, when it actually fails to predict. In those rare cases where something predicted by this fanciful story actually does pan out, they are more successfully and completely predicted by what God says about how He created. It becomes hard to give Bill Nye the benefit of the doubt on this, since it seems to be a deliberate attempt to deceive, and, with some of the arguments he gave toward the end of the debate, was Bill Nye desperate enough to use such a tactic?

"How did the atoms that created the big bang get there?"

This is a great mystery! You’ve hit the nail on the head. No. Uh, the, what was before the big bang? This is what drives us. This is what we want to know. Let’s keep looking. Let’s keep searching. When I was young, it was presumed that the Universe was slowing down. Big bang, [simulated bang] ‘cept it’s in outer space, ‘s no air, so [silence and dramatic hand movements to simulate what Bill Nye claims to have happened] like that, and so people presumed that it would slow down, that the Universe, that gravity especially would hold everything together. And maybe it’s going to come back and explode again, and people went out and the mathematical expression is is the Universe flat. It’s a mathematical expression. Will the Universe slow down, slow down asymptotically without ever stopping? Well, in 2004, Saul Perlmutter and his colleagues, went looking to the rate at which the Universe was slowing down. Let’s go out and measure it. We do it with this extraordinary system of telescopes around the world, looking at the night sky, looking for super novae, these are standard brightness that you can infer distances with. And the Universe isn’t slowing down. The Universe is accelerating in its expansion, and do you know why? Nobody knows why. Nobody knows why. And you’ll hear the expression nowadays, dark energy, dark matter, which are mathematical ideas that seem to reacon well with what seems to be the gravitational attraction of clusters of stars, galaxies and their expansion, and isn’t it reasonable that whatever’s out there causing the Universe to expand is here also, and we just haven’t figured out how to detect it. My friends, suppose a science student from the commonwealth of Kentucky pursues a career in science and finds out the answer to that deep question: “Where did we come from?” ‘What was before the big bang?’ To us, this is wonderful and charming and compelling. This is what makes us get up and go to work every day is to try to solve the mysteries of the Universe.

  1. "This is a great mystery! You’ve hit the nail on the head. No. Uh, the, what was before the big bang? This is what drives us. This is what we want to know. Let’s keep looking. Let’s keep searching." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of selling the defect as a benefit, false bravado, appeal to emotion, and declaring victory. He stated his lack of ability to even address this question with great emotion as if the fact that  that he had no clue proved his case. Bill Nye answers as if this is a wonderful answer, and this by a man who has been guilty of implying that unless Ken can answer all Bill's questions to Bill's satisfaction, this proves that Bill is right and Ken is wrong. These are the two sides of an argument from ignorance being used with special pleading. If Bill doesn't know, it proves Bill's story. If Ken doesn't know, it proves Bill's story. No matter what, it proves Bill's story. In reality, neither proves anything, but Creation is proved by revelation. Revelation is proved by knowing Jesus Christ and His moment-my-moment leading. And now he acts like his inability is actually a victory. The concept of anything before the so-called big bang doesn't fit into the fake-reality of big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man. There are no answers in big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man to the difficult questions, but these same questions are easily answered by the Creation Model. Those questions that are answered by the favored story are only answered by stories and assumptions that are intellectually bankrupt. Since God reveals, followers of Christ don't need stories and assumptions. This is also an example of the logical fallacy of limited scope. All of this would not be so bad if Bill Nye had not been so arrogant, claiming that his Atheistic view of science is the only one that works and that the view that actually has answers to the major questions of life must be censored.
  2. "When I was young, it was presumed that the Universe was slowing down. Big bang, [simulated bang] ‘cept it’s in outer space, ‘s no air, so [silence and dramatic hand movements to simulate what Bill Nye claims to have happened] like that, and so people presumed that it would slow down, that the Universe, that gravity especially would hold everything together. And maybe it’s going to come back and explode again, and people went out and the mathematical expression is is the Universe flat. It’s a mathematical expression. Will the Universe slow down, slow down asymptotically without ever stopping? Well, in 2004, Saul Perlmutter and his colleagues, went looking to the rate at which the Universe was slowing down. Let’s go out and measure it. We do it with this extraordinary system of telescopes around the world, looking at the night sky, looking for super novae, these are standard brightness that you can infer distances with. And the Universe isn’t slowing down. The Universe is accelerating in its expansion, and do you know why? Nobody knows why. Nobody knows why. And you’ll hear the expression nowadays, dark energy, dark matter, which are mathematical ideas that seem to recon well with what seems to be the gravitational attraction of clusters of stars, galaxies and their expansion, and isn’t it reasonable that whatever’s out there causing the Universe to expand is here also, and we just haven’t figured out how to detect it. My friends, suppose a science student from the commonwealth of Kentucky pursues a career in science and finds out the answer to that deep question, where did we come from? ‘What was before the big bang?’ To us, this is wonderful and charming and compelling. This is what makes us get up and go to work every day is to try to solve the mysteries of the Universe." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of misleading vividness, giving a very entertaining story to distract from the fact that he is stumped. And Bill Nye is also using the logical fallacy of special pleading, with a very funny quirk. Usually the logical fallacy of special pleading occurs in a situation where both sides of the argument have the same problem, but, in this case, Bill Nye's side has the problem and uses the logical fallacy of projection to try to make it seem as if those who believe God have the same problem as he does. Bill Nye states that it's a wonderful thing that he doesn't know, and he absolutely has no answer to this question other than these dodges. And there are many other unsolvable problems with the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. On the other hand, and here is the special pleading, the rules are very different for anyone who believes what God says about Creation, the age of the Earth, or anything else that Atheists don't like. For them, even when Ken Ham answers Bill Nye's questions, Bill Nye ignores the answer and re-asks the question as if it had never been answered. Then, Bill implies (lies) that Ken Ham's failure to answer the question (which Ken had just answered. but Bill is lying by implying that Ken didn't answer) is proof that the Creation Model is not suitable for science. That is a perfect example of the logical fallacy of special pleading.

Ken Ham: "Bill, I just what to let you know that there actually is a book out there that actually tells us where matter came from, and the very first sentence in that book says, ‘In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.' And really, that’s the only thing that makes sense. It’s the only thing that makes sense of not just why matter is here, where it came from, but why matter, when you look at it, we have information and language systems that build life. Not just matter. And where did that come from? Because matter can never produce information. Matter can never produce a language system. Languages only come from intelligence. Information only comes from information. The Bible tells us that the things we see, like in the Book of Hebrews, are made from things that are unseen. An infinite Creator God Who created the Universe, created matter, the energy, space, mass, time Universe and created the information for life. It’s the only thing that makes logical sense." It seems that this was what the Bible calls a word of wisdom, a word, given by God, for a special situation.

“The overwhelming majority of people in the scientific community have presented valid physical evidence such as carbon dating and fossil to support Evolutionary theory. What evidence besides the literal word of the Bible supports Creation?” The questioner is using a bandwagon fallacy. The word, theory, is a misnomer, since a hypothesis cannot be called a theory when it violates scientific laws as molecules-to-man does. Whatever the "overwhelming majority" believes is not what determines truth. The same valid physical evidence that is used for the molecules-to-man story is also used for Creation, except the Creation Model doesn't require us to explain away laws of science. This is very close to a false implication that the only choice we have is to believe the molecules-to-man story when other better choices are available. However, there is ample room for the logical fallacy of equivocation on the word, evidence. If the evidence is claimed to be valid, then that word, evidence, must be the observations before the interpretations. After the interpretations of the observations, the Atheistic assumptions and stories have been added, so the evidence is corrupted with circular reasoning. The difference is in the way that the evidence is interpreted, whether through the lens of arbitrary assumptions, made-up stories, and logical fallacies in the case of the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story, or the lens of Divine revelation in the case of Creation. Interestingly, the molecules-to-man story ends up with many more inconsistencies that can't be answered than Creationism does--not that this proves anything. The proof of Creation and the Genesis Flood is revelation.

Ken Ham: "Well, first of all, I often hear people talking about the majority. I would agree that the majority of scientists would believe in million of years and the majority would believe in Evolution, but there's a large group out there that certainly don't. But the first thing that I want to say that it's not the majority that's the judge of truth. (Ken is pointing out the logical fallacy of bandwagon) There have been many times in the past when the majority have gotten it wrong. The majority of doctors in England once thought that after you had cut up bodies you could go and deliver babies and they wondered why the death rate was high in hospitals, until they found out about diseases caused by bacteria and so on. The majority once thought that the appendix was a left over organ from our Evolutionary ancestry, so when it's OK, rip it out; when it's diseased, rip it out anyway. But these days we know it's for the immune system, and it's very, very important. It's important to understand that just because the majority believes something doesn't mean that it's true. One of the things I was doing was I was making predictions. There's a whole list of predictions. (Ken is dealing with the weird but common Atheistic twist on the logical fallacy of proof by repetition in which the Atheist keeps claiming that his or her question has not been answered after the question has been answered) I was saying that if the Bible is right and we're the descendants of Adam and Eve, there's one race. If the Bible's right and God made kinds and went through and talked about that. And so really that question comes down to the fact that we're again dealing with the fact that there are aspects about the past that you can't scientifically prove 'cause you weren't there, like with observational science in the present. Bill and I all have the same observational science, because we're here in the present. We can see radioactivity, but when it comes to talking about the past, you're not going to be scientifically able to prove that. That's what we need to admit. But we can be great scientists in the present. The examples I gave you of Dr. Damadian (inventor of the MRI), Dr. Steward Burgess, Dr. Faulkner, and we can be investigating the present. Understanding the past is a whole different matter." The evidence is the same. And all the evidence exists in the present. We can't go back into the past to examine anything. We can't see what the stars looked like from Earth a thousand years ago. So Evolutionists and Creationists look at the same evidence. It is purely how that evidence is interpreted that is different. Evolutionists begin with arbitrary assumptions and stories to interpret it. Creationists begin with Divine revelation rather than assumptions or dogmatically-held stories to interpret it.

"I have to disabuse you of a fundamental idea. If a scientist, if anybody makes a discovery, that changes the way that people view natural law, scientists embrace him or her. This person’s fantastic. Louis Pasteur, you made reference to germs, now if you find something that changes that disagrees with the common thought that’s the greatest thing going in science. We look forward to that change. We challenge you, tell us why the Universe is accelerating. Tell us why these mothers are getting sick. And we found an explanation for it. The idea that the majority has sway in science is true only up to a point. The other thing I just want to point out, what you may have missed in Evolutionary explanations of life is the mechanism by which we add complexity. The Earth is getting energy from the Sun all the time, and that energy is used to make life-forms somewhat more complex."

  1. "If a scientist, if anybody makes a discovery, that changes the way that people view natural law, scientists embrace him or her. This person’s fantastic. Louis Pasteur, you made reference to germs, now if you find something that changes that disagrees with the common thought that’s the greatest thing going in science. We look forward to that change. We challenge you, tell us why the Universe is accelerating. Tell us why these mothers are getting sick. And we found an explanation for it. The idea that the majority has sway in science is true only up to a point." Bill Nye seems to be arguing against any idea that there is a majority in that scientific community that makes it very hard on dissenters. By doing this, Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of conflicting conditions or self-refutation, since he is at once stressing the open-mindedness of the scientific community to any new ideas while stressing the closed-mindedness of the scientific community to the scientific Creation Model, to Flood geology and the models of catastrophism, and to young Earth scientific models, closed-mindedness to the point of not even considering or looking at the evidence. He is saying that it would be wrong to even consider these models or look at the evidence that supports them. It's very common among Atheists and Evolutionists to hear remarks that indictate a very careful attitude to keeping their thoughts purely Atheistic and only accepting Atheistic-leaning sources. Bill uses the logical fallacy of appeal to tradition repeatedly to make his point that discussions that eliminate the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story are off limits. This is normal, because when Secularist (Atheist) scientists look at any concepts that are outside the Atheistic paradigm, they have extreme bias against it. When theologians look at any interpretation of Scripture that is outside of their own paradigm, they also have extreme bias against it. When an article is written that strokes the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story, the article can be absolutely ridiculous and pass peer review. (One of many examples) As a further example of this bias and closed-mindedness, throughout the debate, Bill used ridicule, used deceptive straw man fallacies, and ignored evidence when it was presented. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of the outright lie. If you write a paper showing that God created, that the Flood happened, that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, the spontaneous generation of life is impossible, or that God exists, you can try but you won't be published in any of the mainstream scientific journals (code words for Atheist-controlled journals) and you may lose your job.
  2. "The other thing I just want to point out, what you may have missed in Evolutionary explanations of life is the mechanism by which we add complexity. The Earth is getting energy from the Sun all the time, and that energy is used to make life-forms somewhat more complex." Bill Nye is answering an unasked question. However, it's good that he brings this up. The Sun has no mechanism for making life-forms more complex and Bill's claimed mechanism has never been observed to add complexity to living things, so this is the logical fallacy of the outright lie. In addition, the comment misses the biggest physical problem with the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story: information. There is no mechanism that has ever been shown to add new, innovative universal information (a very specific type of information that is found in the genetic code), to anything anywhere by natural means. Information comes from information. The big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story violates not only the Second Law of Thermodynamics (what Bill Nye was addressing) but also the scientific Laws of Universal Information. If Evolutionists were looking for truth, they would never put forth arguments like this.

"How did consciousness come from matter?"

"Don’t know. This is a great mystery. A dear friend of mine is a neurologist. She studies, uh, the nature of consciousness. Now, I will say, I, uh, used to embrace a joke about dogs. I love dogs, I mean, who doesn’t. This guy remarks. I’ve never seen a dog paralyzed by self doubt. Actually, I have. Furthermore, the thing that we celebrate, there are three sun dials on the planet Mars that bear and inscription to the future; To those who visit here, we wish you safe journey and the joy of discovery. It’s inherently optimistic about the future of humankind that we will one day walk on Mars. But the joy of discovery! That’s what drives us. The joy of finding out what’s going on so we don’t know where consciousness comes from, but we want to find out. Furthermore, I’ll tell you, it’s deep within us? I claim that I have spent time with dogs that have had the joy of discovery. It’s way inside us. We have one ancestor as near as we can figure. And by the way, if you can find what we, in science, call a second Genesis, this is to say, did life start another way on the Earth? There are researchers at the astrobiology institute, researchers supported by NASA, your tax dollars, that are looking for an answer to that very question. Is it possible that life could start another way? Is there some sort of life form akin to science fiction that’s crystal instead of membranous? This would be a fantastic discovery that would change the world. The nature of consciousness is a mystery; I challenge the young people here to investigate that very question. And I remind you tax payers and voters that might be watching, if we do not embrace the process of science, I mean in the main stream, we will fall behind economically. This is a point I can’t say enough." This is again the logical fallacy of limited scope. Bill Nye has no clue, but he sells this inability to answer as if it were a benefit. Again, Bill Nye is guilty of special pleading, since he holds Creation scientist to a very high and rigid standard and Atheistic scientists to no standard at all. Bill Nye is also using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion when he says "We have one ancestor," claiming that molecules changed into humans by natural processes, but he provides no evidence at all. He presupposes abiogenesis, when he says: "Is it possible that life could start another way?". He again uses the logical fallacy of no true Scotsman when he says, "science, I mean in the mainstream". Overall, he is using the logical fallacy of misleading vividness. The phrase, mainstream science, is an appeal to tradition. None of these disprove the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story, but they do indicate that the story is only a story without real evidence. It cannot be demonstrated that it happened. For this reason, the censorship of the Creation Model is irrational. The thing that disproves the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story is revelation.

Ken Ham: "Bill, I do want to say that there is a book out there that does document where consciousness came from. And in that book, the One Who created us said that He made man in His image and He breathed into man and he became a living being. And so the Bible does document that, that is where consciousness came from that God gave it to us. And the other thing, I’m sort of a little, I have a mystery, and that is, you talk about the joy of discovery but you also say that when you die it’s over and that’s the end of you. If when you die it’s over and you don’t even remember you were here, what’s the point of the joy of discovery anyway? I mean, in an ultimate sense? I mean, you won’t ever know you were ever here and no one you knew will know you were ever here ultimately, so what’s the point anyway? I love the joy of discovery because this is God’s Creation and I’m finding more out about that to take dominion for man’s good and for God’s glory."

"What, if anything, would ever change your mind?"

Ken Ham: "The answer to that question is, I’m a Christian and as a Christian, I can’t prove it to you, but God has definitely shown me very clearly through His Word and shown Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ that the Bible is the Word of God. I admit that that’s where I start from. I can challenge people that you can go and test that. You can make predictions based on that. You can check the prophecies in the Bible. You can check the statements in Genesis. You can check that. And I did a little bit of that tonight. And I can’t ultimately prove that to you. All I can do is to say to someone, look, if the Bible really is what it claims to be, if it really is the Word of God—and that’s what it claims—then check it out. And the Bible says, if you come to God, believing that He is, He’ll reveal Himself to you, and you will know. As Christians, we say, we know. And so, as far as the Word of God is concerned, no. No one’s ever going to convince me that the Word of God is not true, but I do want to make a distinction here--and for Bill’s sake. We build models based upon the Bible, and those models are always subject to change. The fact of Noah’s Flood is not subject to change. The model of how the Flood occurred is subject to change, because we observe in the current world and we’re able to come up with many different ways this could have happened or that could have happened. And that’s part of that scientific discovery. That’s part of what it’s all about. So, the bottom line is that, as a Christian, I have a foundation, but, as a Christian, I would ask Bill a question. What would change your mind? I mean you said, even if you came to faith you’d never give up believing in billions of years. I think that I quoted you correctly. You said something like that recently, so that would be my question to Bill." Ken Ham let it out of the bag; he acknowledged Jesus Christ. This is something that many Christians are reluctant to do. God has definitely revealed these things very clearly to Ken, through His Word, and God has also shown Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. God has revealed to Ken Ham that the Bible is the Word of God. This is evidence equivalent to what Bill Nye would have if Bill Nye were to have lived for his fictitious billions of years, witnessed the fictitious big bang, the fictitious forming of stars without God, and the fictitious transformation of molecules into human beings over millions of years. However, Bill Nye has only stories and assumptions--made-up stuff. Ken Ham has revelation, and that is the difference. Both benefit from the same scientific method, but Bill Nye has assumptions and stories while Ken Ham has Divine revelation, a personal audience with the Person of Jesus Christ, Who reveals to Him that the Bible is the Word of God. No one can prove that to you. (No one can prove the Sun or Moon exists to a person who doesn't want to acknowledge them.) But you can check it out for yourself. If you come to Christ, you will find Him. You must come in sincerity and humility, though. God, Who knows the thoughts and intents of the innermost mind, will not be mocked. This is true if the question is referring to the existence of God. If the question is directed toward the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story versus Biblical Creation, there is a way that we could change our mind. Simply show absolute proof that we are misinterpreting Scripture and show absolute proof that the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story actually happened--without using any assumptions, stories, fallacies, or outright lies.

"We would just need one piece of evidence. We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another. We would need evidence that the Universe is not expanding. We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but they’re not. We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just 4,000 years instead of the extraordinary amount. We would need evidence that somehow you can reset atomic clocks and keep neutrons from becoming protons. Bring on any of those things and you would influ’, you would change me immediately. The question I have for you though, fundamentally, and for everybody watching, Ken Ham, what can you prove? What you have done tonight is spent most of the t, all the time, coming up with explanations about the past. What can you really predict, what can you really prove in a conventional scientific, or in a conventional I have an idea that makes a prediction and it comes out the way I see it. This is very troubling to me."

  1. "We would just need one piece of evidence." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of the red herring. History has shown that those who are committed to the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man stories never turn because of a piece of evidence. And we also know, by revelation, that evidence is not what changes hearts. It is the proclamation of the Gospel by the Holy Spirit that changes hearts. Many evidences have come that should have moved these people off of their positions against God and His revelation. How many scientific laws have to be broken by these stories before they will consider that the evidence against the stories is strong enough? The stories are believed because those who believe them prefer them to be true. And God also reveals that those who love darkness more than light are the ones who refuse to come to the light. It is because their deeds are evil. And God also reveals that in the last days there will be those who are willingly ignorant of the Creation, the Flood, and the coming judgment by fire.
  2. "We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of the outright lie by implying a very rigid nature of the geologic column with distinct borders between various species and families of living things. Read the articles below to find out about index fossils in the wrong place. See how this is a huge problem for the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. There are many tricks and fallacies that are used to deal with these problems, but growing problem of "out-of-place" fossils is a serious one for the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. So this requirement has been met,. Yet, Bill Nye is still in denial.
  3. "We would need evidence that the Universe is not expanding." Bill Nye uses a red herring fallacy. Which young Earth cosmology says that the Universe is not expanding? None. An expanding Universe doesn't prove the big-bang story. Nor does it disprove Biblical Creation. But Bill probably meant to say that if someone were to absolutely prove that the big bang had not happened by going back in time--and they would have to take Bill Nye with them--and they watched God creating everything just about 6,000 years ago, that would be scientific evidence that he would except. Bill Nye is moving the goal posts, setting up a fictitious test, a kind of straw man, an impossible goal that must be reached in order for him to change his mind.
  4. "We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but they’re not.Bill Nye again uses a red herring fallacy. Young Earth cosmology is not disproved by distant stars. Nor are billions of years proved by distant stars. This is a straw man argument. What Bill Nye probably meant is that someone would have to take Bill Nye back in time with scientific test equipment that has not yet been developed to see that God used some method to get the sunlight to the Earth, either one of the workable cosmologies that are now on the table or something we have not yet thought of. This, of course, is special pleading for molecules-to-man, big bang, and billions-of-years, since Bill Nye is so closed-minded about his dogmatically-held beliefs in the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story that he wants all other ideas silenced and all research on other ideas stopped. But he requires no such absolute physical evidence for the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. A reasonable man would ask for the same kinds of evidence, without using bare assertions or worldview as proof, for both the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story and for the Creation-Flood account. And a reasonable man would ask for the same kinds of evidence (without using bare assertions or worldview as proof) for Naturalism, Materialism, Uniformitarianism, and any other assumption or story. By the way, the rescuing mechanisms (stories) are numerous for the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man religion.
  5. "We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just 4,000 years instead of the extraordinary amount." Bill Nye is using the fallacy of the outright lie. If his criteria is proving that rock layers could form quickly, not in 4,000 years, but in very short times, this has been proven. Anyone who follows scientific advancements knows this. Yet, Bill Nye is still in denial
  6. "We would need evidence that somehow you can reset atomic clocks and keep neutrons from becoming protons." Bill Nye is again using a red herring fallacy, or, perhaps, a straw man fallacy. No one talked about resetting atomic clocks or keeping neutrons from becoming protons. Bill Nye is supposed to be a science guy, so he must have understood when Ken Ham explained the various assumptions that are made in radio carbon dating to get the extraordinarily old age estimates. Obviously, Bill Nye must know about these arbitrary assumptions, and he knows that different assumptions could be made. So Bill Nye is not willing to change his mind even though he knows that the dating methods are rigged. A rational reason for Bill to change his mind and stop being so dogmatic has been given. Yet, Bill Nye is still in denial.
  7. "Bring on any of those things and you would influ’, you would change me immediately." This is the logical fallacy of the outright lie. Bill has demonstrated that nothing could change his mind. The thing that would change Bill Nye is a real experience with the real Jesus Christ, a softening on his hard-line closed mind to acknowledge Christ. That would require humility. Bill's arrogance would need to go. That would require a brokenness and a desire to be set free from the fleshly prison. That would require wanting to do the will of God and realizing that he is a fallen, sinful person who can't do God's will without the Holy Spirit of God. It may start with a fear of Hell, but it would have to go forward to a desire to do what is right and eschewing what is evil.
  8. The question I have for you though, fundamentally, and for everybody watching, Ken Ham, what can you prove? What you have done tonight is spent most of the t', all the time, coming up with explanations about the past. What can you really predict, what can you really prove in a conventional scientific, or in a conventional I have an idea that makes a prediction and it comes out the way I see it" Bill Nye returns to the logical fallacy of proof by repetition. Watching the debate with several others, the thought went through everyone's mind, why hasn't Ken Ham answered this?" Well, he had answered it several times, and this shows the deceptive power of the logical fallacy of proof by repetition in the hands of someone who has the audacity to keep repeating the same lie congruently, with conviction, and with complete lack of acknowledgement that the lie has been repeatedly answered. The phrase, conventional science, again repeats the logical fallacy of appeal to tradition.
  9. "This is very troubling to me." Bill Nye again applies the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion. No matter how troubled Bill Nye is, it has no effect on realty one way or another.

"Outside of radiometric methods, what scientific evidence supports your view of the age of the Earth?"

"The age of the Earth. Uh, Well, the age of stars. The. Let’s see. Uh. Radiometric evidence is pretty compelling. (Laughing)" Bill Nye uses the logical fallacy of appeal to humor or appeal to ridicule. This is a very effective fallacy if you are totally stumped for an answer.

"Also, the deposition rates. It was, uh, Lyell, uh, uh, a geologist, who realized, he, he, my recollection, he came up with the--first use of the term, deep time. When people realized that the Earth was, had to be much, much older, and a related story, there was a mystery as to how the Earth could be old enough to allow Evolution to have taken place. How could the Earth possibly be 3 billion years old?"

  1. "the deposition rates. It was, uh, Lyell, uh, uh, a geologist, who realized, he, he, my recollection, he came up with the--first use of the term, deep time." Bill Nye uses the logical fallacy of the half-truth. It is true that Lyell had a devastating effect on geology, but Lyell was not a geologist. Lyell was an Atheist lawyer who set out with a clear agenda to "free the science from Moses," as he said. He was a skilled communicator who was able to sell the idea of extreme gradualism, which has worked against scientific inquiry for a century, causing scientists to deny obvious evidence of catastrophism, and geologists now recognize this problem. And Lyell even sold it to many of the politically powerful people in some of the denominations of the Church.
  2. "When people realized that the Earth was, had to be much, much older," The word, "realized," sets up a presupposition. When you see this type of thing, be alert. This kind of sentence structure presumes that everything following the word, realized, is beyond question. Charles Lyell was an excellent lawyer. He knew how to convince people. He convinced many people. He even convinced many people in the Church. People didn't realize that the Earth was much older than what Scripture indicates. Many people were tricked into believing that the Earth was much older. Lyell used tricks, lies, and fallacies to do convince them. We are not dogmatically claiming to know that the Earth is 6,000 years old. We know that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days and we know the number of generations between Adam and Christ. That's about it. Even though a plain reading of Scripture seems to indicate a young Earth; even though there is zero observed evidence and only circular reasoning and speculations that support old Earth stories, we can't even deny the possibility that God could have done something that Scripture doesn't hint at and that has left no scientific evidence. It is possible. It just is not worth the time to think about it.
  3. "and a related story, there was a mystery as to how the Earth could be old enough to allow Evolution to have taken place. How could the Earth possibly be 3 billion years old?" Bill Nye is right to include molecules-to-man, since this is the real motivation for the billions-of-years story. The billions-of-years story is not based on the evidence. The evidence is creatively interpreted to support billions-of-years simply because Evolutionists have said that, even though molecules-to-man is impossible, the impossible must happen if enough time passes. Of course, that statement is also irrational but it is still accepted as fact. There is a symbiotic relationship between billions-of-years and molecules-to-man. That is, it is circular reasoning. This is confirmation bias. When you need evidence to prove something that you dearly want to be true, the human mind is very good as "seeing" evidence to prove just about anything. And note that Bill uses assumptive language to presuppose an old Earth into his sentence. ". . . there was a mystery as to how the Earth could be old enough [for molecules-to-man]. . ." If scientific observations conflict with the fake-reality, don't question the fake-reality. Just label the conflict a mystery to be solved, and start looking for some rationalization to "solve" it. If you can make up a story, no matter how far-fetched, that confirms your bias.

"Lord Kelvin, if the Sun were made of coal and burning, it couldn’t be more than 100,000 or so years old, but radioactivity was discovered. Radioactivity is why the Earth is still as warm as it is. It’s why the Earth has been able to sustain its internal heat all these millennia. And this discovery, and somebody asked this question, without radiometric dating, how would you view the age of the Earth, to me, it’s akin to the expression, well, if things were any other way, things would be different. This is to say, that’s not how the world is. Radiometric dating does exist. Neutrons do become protons. And that’s our level of understanding today. The Universe is accelerating. These are all provable facts. That there was a flood 4,000 years ago is not provable. In fact, the evidence for me at least, as a reasonable man, is overwhelming that it couldn’t possibly have happened. There’s no evidence for it. Furthermore, Ken Ham, you never quite addressed this issue of the skulls. There are many, many steps in what appears to be the Creation, or the coming into being of you and me."

  1. "Lord Kelvin, if the Sun were made of coal and burning, it couldn’t be more than 100,000 or so years old, but radioactivity was discovered. Radioactivity is why the Earth is still as warm as it is. It’s why the Earth has been able to sustain its internal heat all these millennia. And this discovery" Bill Nye uses that logical fallacy of the red herring along with the logical fallacy of misleading vividness. All of this has nothing to do with the question that was asked.
  2. "and somebody asked this question, without radiometric dating, how would you view the age of the Earth, to me, it’s akin to the expression, well, if things were any other way, things would be different. This is to say, that’s not how the world is. Radiometric dating does exist. Neutrons do become protons. And that’s our level of understanding today." There is no logical fallacy of hypothesis contrary to fact embedded into the question as Bill implies here. For this to be a hypothesis contrary to fact, two criteria would need to be met. First, the question would have to ask Bill to hypothesize that radiometric dating was not adequate, and, secondly, radiometric dating would need to be shown to be adequate. Neither of these has been met. Bill also uses either a framing fallacy or the fallacy of arguing a minor point while ignoring the main point. "Radiometric dating does exist." The question is not whether or not radiometric dating methods exist. These methods exist. They cannot be shown to be valid. Is there anything else that Old-Earthers use to convince themselves? There are terrible problems with radiometric dating-- the arbitrary assumptions that are used, the fact that there is absolute evidence that the methods are unreliable, and the cherry-picking of data that is part of the process. So is that all they have? Radiometric dating is a false premise. when used to prove the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-man story. So someone from the audience asked: "Outside of radiometric methods, what scientific evidence supports your view of the age of the Earth?"
  3. "The Universe is accelerating. These are all provable facts." Bill Nye brings in another red herring just for good measure. The acceleration of the expansion of the Universe is not relevant to this question. The history that God gives us has no problem if there is expansion or if there is not expansion. The big-bang story needs acceleration, but also has problems with the supposed expansion that require rescuing mechanisms (additional stories).
  4. "That there was a flood 4,000 years ago is not provable. In fact, the evidence for me at least," Bill Nye is using a common twist on the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance. You'll hear this one a lot. Unless you prove to me that the Flood took place (or that God exists, or that the Bible is the Word of God, or that the Creation happened), the default is to assume that this is not true. All these things, the Flood, the Creation, God, the Bible's authority, are obvious by observation and also by revelation. Extremes of rationalization are required to make up stories and assumptions against the Flood or any of these others. In fact, God tells us, through Scripture, that those who deny the Creation and the Flood are willingly ignorant. On the other hand, it is impossible to prove anything to someone who doesn't want to know it. If someone really didn't want to know that the Sun exists, and that person were to act like those who don't want God, Creation, or the Flood to exist, no one would be able to prove the Sun to them. You could tell them to look in the sky. They would say, "I'm not going to look for a non-existent Sun." You could tell them it's a physical entity, and they could tell you to prove it. Whatever evidence you presented, they could make up another explanation. There is no motivation for denying the Sun, but all human beings have a build-in sin nature that gives us motivation for denying God. Even many Christian radio and TV preachers, and other Christians, deny God's power and Presence. That's why faith must be imparted as a gift.
  5. "as a reasonable man," Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of bare assertion. He has not demonstrated that he is a reasonable man, but yet uses proof by repeated assertion to declare his claim that he is reasonable. This is part of an appeal to faulty appeal to authority fallacy in which he claims to be reasonable and then says we should just trust what he says.
  6. "is overwhelming that it couldn’t possibly have happened. There’s no evidence for it." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of the outright lie. Bill Nye may not have been aware of the fact that every argument that he brought against the Flood had been answered long ago, though it would be hard to believe that Bill would be that uninformed. These arguments were not sound, and that Flood is the only explanation of geology that works in the real world. Every evidence shows that there was a global catastrophic Flood. In addition to the physical evidence, there is that fact that God says that the Flood occurred, and that He brought it as a judgment. Those who know Jesus Christ personally (And anyone can verify this experience if they are willing. Whoever will may come.) have the moment-by-moment leading of the Holy Spirit, Who teaches us that the Bible is God's Word and that it is without error. So we are back to the same comparison of arbitrary assumptions, story-telling, logical fallacies, and outright lies versus Divine revelation. A very dogmatic Atheist would counter and claim that Divine revelation is merely assumption, however, that Atheist would have to just pull that argument out of the air. It would be an unsupported assertion. By the way, the way that Bill states this is a perfect example of the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. "It couldn’t possibly have happened" because "There’s no evidence for it." If there really were no evidence for it (there are mountains of evidence for it.), how would lack of evidence make it impossible? Not only this, but this is another case of special pleading, since there is no evidence that the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story ever actually happened, yet Bill doesn't acknowledge that this story is impossible.
  7. "Furthermore, Ken Ham, you never quite addressed this issue of the skulls." Bill Nye is changing the subject. Variations in human skulls are no problem for Creation, but they are a political problem for molecules-to-man, since they are racist. Bill Nye's argument implies that some people are "less evolved" than others, depending on the shape of their heads. Generally, Evolutionists contend that the more European rounder heads are more evolved. You can find this contention on line today among Evolutionists. Bill's argument is racist and the evidence is against his argument. For example, DNA evidence shows that we are one race with Neanderthals.
  8. "There are many, many steps in what appears to be the Creation, or the coming into being of you and me." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of the red herring. He is also using another logical fallacy of unsupported assertion. If this is supposed to be the conclusion of what Bill Nye said up until this point, then this is the logical fallacy of non sequitur, what he said does not prove this. Bill's statement is also another example of circular reasoning, since he is assuming many, many steps of molecules-to-man and then presenting this assumption as proof of molecules-to-man. Of course, Bill is asserting the assumption as if it were a fact.

Ken Ham: People think that they dated Earth rocks to get the 4.5 billion years. That’s not true. They dated meteorites and assumed the Earth was the same age as meteorites. Ninety percent of all age “clocks” show an age less than billions of years. There are hundreds of such methods, and those who want billions of years cherry pick data.

"Can you reconcile the change in the rate continents are now drifting to the rate they would have had to have traveled 6,000 years ago to reach where we are now." The question contains a glaring error in the form of a presupposition. It's doubtful that the person submitting this question realized that the Creation-Flood model generally presents a single continent that was split apart during the Flood, more like 4,000 years ago. The rapid movement during the Flood is commonly called continental sprint.

Ken Ham: "This again illustrates exactly what I'm talking about in regard to historical science and observational science. We can look at continents today . . . and certainly, we can see movements of plates today. And if you look at those movements, and if you assume that the rate it's moving today, that it's always been that way in the past, you see, that's an assumption. That's the problem when it comes to understanding these things. You can observe movement, but then to assume that it's always been like that in the past, that's historical science. And, in fact, we would believe in catastrophic plate tectonics, as a result of the Flood at the time of the Flood, there was catastrophic breakup of the Earth's surface. And what we're seeing now is a remnant of that movement. And so, we do not deny the movement. We do not deny the plates. What we would deny is that you can use what you can see today as a basis for just extrapolating into the past. It's the same with the Flood. You can say that layers today only get laid down slowly in places, but if there was a global Flood that would have changed all of that. Again, it's this emphasis on historical science and observational science, and I would encourage people to go to our website at Answers in Genesis, because we do have a number of papers. In fact very technical papers. Dr. John Baumgartner is one who has written some very extensive work dealing with this very issue. On the basis of the Bible, of course, we believe that there was one continent to start with because the waters were gathered together into one place. So we do believe that the continent has split up, but particularly, the Flood had a lot to do with that. The problem is actually assumption, as Ken Ham pointed out, versus Divine revelation. The evidence for both views is the same. The interpretation is different. The big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story is based on the same evidence that Creation is based on, but for the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story, this evidence is interpreted through the filter of arbitrary assumptions and made-up stories, while the recent-Creation-and-Flood account is based on Divine revelation from the Holy Spirit flowing through the Bible, and the reason that we know it's valid is because we, who follow Christ, have a relationship with Him in which He leads us and teaches us. One of the things that He teaches us and that we are learning from Him is to allow Him to speak to us through the Scriptures. So it's an ongoing experience of millions of people throughout the world and going way back in time. And by the way, anyone can test this. Yes, anyone can come to Christ in humility, sincerity, brokenness, and respect, and they too will find out that this is true. So this is 100% verifiable. Of course, if anyone is insincere or doesn't really want to submit to God, God won't be mocked, so they will receive nothing from Him.

"It must have been easier for you to explain this a century ago before the existence of tectonic plates was proven. If you go into a clock store and there’s a bunch of clocks, they’re not all going to say exactly the same thing. Do you think that they’re all wrong? The reason that we acknowledge the rate at which continents are drifting apart, one of the reasons, is we see what’s called sea floor spreading in the mid-Atlantic. The Earth’s magnetic field has reversed over the millennia, and, as it does, it leaves a signature in the rocks as the continental plates drift apart, so the, uh, you can measure how fast the continents were spreading. That’s how we do it on the outside. As I said, I lived in Washington state when Mt. St. Helens, uh, exploded. That’s the result of a continental plate going under another continental plate and cracking and this water-laden rock led to a steam explosion, and that’s how we do it on the outside."

  1. "It must have been easier for you to explain this a century ago before the existence of tectonic plates was proven." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of an unsupported assertion twice, once by statement and once by innuendo. Bill Nye implies that tectonic plates are somehow a problem for young Earth Creation. They are not. They are physical evidence of the historical account in the Bible as indicated in the linked articles below. There is some disagreement among scientists regarding tectonic plates, and that isn't a problem. These are simply theories; we are not dealing with scientific laws. Some scientists, a minority, are becoming cautiously skeptical of the entire tectonic plate concept because of new data, so it's not as simplistic and cut and dried as Bill Nye implies; this is the logical fallacy of alleged certainty.
  2. "If you go into a clock store and there’s a bunch of clocks, they’re not all going to say exactly the same thing. Do you think that they’re all wrong?" Bill Nye is using a fallacy of faulty analogy. If such a clock store existed, it would have no reason to exist, because you could never be sure which clock had the right time and none of them would agree but all would be wildly different. It's not that they would necessarily all be wrong, though they might be. It's that you can't tell which one is right and which is wrong. If all the clocks but a very few had close to the same time (showed a young Earth), would you say that the small handful of clocks that gave the time that you preferred were correct and the many others were all wrong. Would you say this if the few gave an answer you preferred (you had a previous commitment to an old Earth)? That would be cherry-picking evidence. Of course, the long-used analogy of calling various processes clocks is not a really good analogy either. Calling these processes, clocks, gives a false impression of precision. These are merely processes that create an effect that can be observed over time. Observing the effect over a short time gives a rate. That rate is the extrapolated over longer periods of time. Extrapolation requires the assumption of a certain starting condition, the assumption that nothing happened to disrupt the process, and several other assumptions. One gives an age of billions of years and another given an age of a few thousand years and another gives an age of about a million years. They are all over the place. The main problem is with the assumptions. To be arbitrary is to be irrational. All assumptions are arbitrary if they are, as in this case, truly assumptions. To treat arbitrary assumptions as facts is irrational. If assumptions are pulled from worldviews/fake-realities, they seem to make sense, but they are still irrational and arbitrary. Divine revelation is not arbitrary. The skeptic may claim that Divine revelation is simply assumption, but the skeptic would be using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion, along with the logical fallacy of projecting his or her own limitations onto other people. The skeptic may say that the human mind is flawed and unable to discern between assumption and revelation, but that is a red herring, since revelation doesn't depend on the human mind but on God Who is guiding the process as long as we continue to be teachable and submissive toward Him rather than leaning on our own understandings. And He has built order into the Scriptural Church to provide discipline as to how revelation is received. He is in the process of restoring the Scriptural order. When God speaks through Scripture, this is our most solid source of Divine revelation. When we add to Scripture or take from Scripture, we are being arbitrary. This is not to say that it is bad to make assumptions. There are times when it helps to say, "Well just for a moment, suppose that . . . " and we try out an idea in our minds. But if we start to think that assumptions are facts and that we can build logical arguments on them to determine truth, we deceive ourselves.
  3. "The reason that we acknowledge the rate at which continents are drifting apart, one of the reasons, is we see what’s called sea floor spreading in the mid-Atlantic. The Earth’s magnetic field has reversed over the millennia, and, as it does, it leaves a signature in the rocks as the continental plates drift apart, so the, uh, you can measure how fast the continents were spreading." Bill Nye is over-stating his case. If you read the articles above in point 1 of  this discussion, you can get a better description of the reason that it is thought that the continents are now drifting apart at a certain rate but that they drifted apart much more quickly during the massive Earth-shifting processes during the Flood, though not all scientists agree. Bill Nye very effectively uses the logical fallacy of misleading vividness, giving fun details that give the impression that he is actually proving the Earth is old, but none of this actually proves any such thing.
  4. "The Earth’s magnetic field has reversed over the millennia, and, as it does, it leaves a signature in the rocks as the continental plates drift apart, so the, uh, you can measure how fast the continents were spreading." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of an unsupported assertion/bare assertion. See how Bill Nye moves smoothly between fact and speculation without even knowing he has done so. This should not be happening in science, but it does happen when a group-held paradigm (in this case, the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man worldview, which has become a group-held fake-reality) overrides what can easily be observed. It hampers logic. it makes for conclusions that defy reason. There is evidence that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed, but the millennia idea is a story based on arbitrary assumptions. Field evidence has now been found that a magnetic polarity transition took place in about two weeks at Steens Mountain in Oregon. The scientists, both Evolutionists, had difficulty accepting what they were observing, but they finally had to admit their observations. Note that Bill's bare assertion that is made using the phrase, "over the millenia" is used to conclude that "you can measure how fast the continents were spreading." That is circular reasoning, saying, "We can measure the magnetic polarity reversals, and we assume that they reversed over long periods of time, and this assumption proves that they reversed over long periods of time."
  5. "That’s how we do it on the outside." Bill Nye is again, by innuendo, maintaining an arrogance of the Atheistic assumptions and stories approach to science as opposed to the Divine revelation approach to science. Of course, Bill Nye doesn't spell this out that way. He uses a genetic fallacy, looking at the source and saying that anyone who is in Christ, who actually knows Jesus Christ and believes what He says through Scripture is not "on the outside", but those scientists who are outside of that experience are the "real" scientists. In the innuendo that Bill is constructing, the insiders, the "real scientists, are the ones that Bill calls, on the outside. This implication is the no true Scotsman fallacy. The real difference is that Bill's "real scientist insiders, the onew he defines as on the outside, are basing their interpretations of the evidence on arbitrary assumptions and the many stories that are built on those assumptions, while those not on the outside, the ones that Bill wants to exclude, are basing their interpretations of the evidence on Divine revelation. So the question is this: does the Almighty God Who loves and cares for His people moment-by-moment and Who loves to have fellowship with them and lead them in paths of light, does He exist? That is the question. It's not about science at all. It's about two religions. One is Atheism. The other is not really a religion but it is a Person, the Person of Jesus Christ. And this is the entire disagreement. Bill Nye is making himself a god, able to reveal knowledge to himself without the benefit of either Divine revelation or observation. He is pitting his own false deity against the deity of the true God.
  6. "As I said, I lived in Washington state when Mt. St. Helens , uh, exploded. That’s the result of a continental plate going under another continental plate and cracking and this water-laden rock led to a steam explosion, and that’s how we do it on the outside." Bill Nye restates his innuendo, and no true Scotsman fallacy, but this statement is wound up with Mt. St. Helens and plate tectonics somehow as if that had any bearing. It is a red herring fallacy.

"How do you balance the theory of Evolution with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?" The word, theory, is a misnomer. The molecules-to-man story is not even a good hypothesis.

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics is fantastic, and I call the words of Eddington who said, “If you have a theory that disagrees with Isaac Newton, that’s a great theory. If you have a theory that disagrees with relativity, wow, you’ve changed the world, that’s great. But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I can offer you no hope.” I can’t help you, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, basically, is where you lose energy to heat. This is why car engines are about 30% efficient; that’s it thermodynamically. That’s why you want the hottest explosion you can get in the coldest outside environment. You have to have a difference between hot and cold, and that difference can be assessed scientifically or mathematically with this word, entropy, this disorder of molecules. Uh. But the fundamental thing that this questioner has missed is the Earth is not a closed system, so there’s energy pouring in here from the Sun, if I may, day and night, ha ha (tossing head back and forth) ‘cause the night it’s pouring in on the other side, so that energy is what drives living things on Earth, especially in our case, plants. By the way, if you’re here in Kentucky, about a third and maybe a half of the oxygen you breath is made in the ocean by phytoplankton, and they get their energy from the Sun, so the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a wonderful thing. It’s allowed us to have everything you see in this room, because our power generation depends on the robust and extremely precise computation of how much energy is in burning fuel, uh, whether it’s nuclear, uh, fuel, or fossil fuel, or some extraordinary fuel to be discovered in the future, uh, the Second Law of Thermodynamics will govern any turbine that makes electricity that we all depend on and allowed all these shapes to exist." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of a red herring in mentioning the external energy source. Again, because Bill is using innuendo rather than answering directly, it is more difficult to analyze his logic. Yet, because his answer has enough of the substance of what Evolutionists use to rationalize a way to get around the fact that the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story conflicts with The Second Law of Thermodynamics, we can fill in the blanks and deduce what he is trying to say. The implication is that, because there is an external energy source, The Second Law of Thermodynamics changes or doesn't operate on Earth. This is just not true. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does operate on Earth. Bill is using the logical fallacy of an outright lieAre we just supposed to take Bill Nye's word that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a problem for the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story? Related to this is the problem with the scientific Laws of Universal Information. We never see universal information added to anything by any natural process, but every supposed step that would be required for molecules-to-man would also require a lot of new, innovative, universal information. There are no known exceptions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which operates in all systems: isolated, closed, and open systems. Look around yourself. What gets more organized by itself? If you paint your house, does it get better every year? Universal information is never added to anything by natural processes. Things that do become more organized, complex, or that gain potential energy, require a program (information) and a mechanism in addition to an energy source--like a blueprint and the workers and machinery on a building site. Even under these conditions, when they do become more organized, complex, or that gain potential energy, they do so at the expense of the total system.

Ken Ham: "You can have all the energy you want, but energy or matter will never produce life. God imposed information, a language system, and that's how we have life. Matter by itself could never produce life no matter what energy you have. Even if you have a dead stick, you can have all the energy in the world on that dead stick and it's going to decay, and it's not going to produce life. Before man sinned, there was digestion, but because of the Fall, now things are running down. God doesn't hold everything together as He did back then, so now we see, in regard to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we see things, in a sense, a bit out of control now compared to what it was originally, which is why we have a running down Universe." In reality, there is no way to know what it was like in the Garden of Eden before sin. We can only speculate, and speculation is not science, knowledge, or truth. We can observe that there are no exceptions to either The Second Law of Thermodynamics or The Laws of Universal Information. Nothing goes to a higher level of order or energy except temporarily, and if there is a temporary rise in order or energy in one part of a system, that comes about by a sharper decrease in energy/order in another part of the system. What it needed for an increase in order locally (but at the expense of the total system) is not just energy. There must be information--a program or plan to build order. There must be a mechanism to build order. This is what we observe when a construction crew comes in and builds a house. There is an increase in order, but it didn't come about by just the energy of the Sun. Universal information is never added to anything by random processes. This is why these are called scientific laws. They simply state what can be easily observed. Not only will energy not help the dead stick. It will help the stick to decompose faster. And not only will a stick not come to life with energy, but living things will not be evolved to higher levels because of the Second Law and the Laws of Universal Information. "God doesn't hold everything together as He did back then" is probably a reference to the reality of the fact that God is the One Who enforces all the laws of nature and the regularity that we see around us. A Secularist may challenge this fact ("By Him [Jesus Christ] all things consist"), claiming that it is an unsupported assertion; however, we know this by revelation. Secularists who are scientists take the secular humanist dogma of Naturalism as if it were fact rather than what it is, an arbitrary assumption and a dogma of the Atheistic religion. Naturalism says that God is not involved. However, Naturalism provides no mechanism for any of what we call the laws of science. God tells us that He is faithful and that Christ is holding everything together providing the regularity that we call the laws of science.

"Hypothetically, if evidence existed that caused you to have to admit that the Earth was older than 10,000 years and Creation did not occur over 6 days, would you still believe in God and the historical Jesus of Nazareth and that Jesus was the son of God."

Ken Ham: "You cannot ever prove, using the scientific method in the present, you can't prove the age of the Earth. You can never prove it's old. So there is no hypothetical because you can't do that. Now, we can certainly use methods in the present, and, making assumptions. I mean, Creationists use methods that change over time. As I said, there's hundreds of physical processes that you can use, but they set limits on the age of the Universe, but you can't ultimately prove the age of the Earth, not using the scientific method. You can't ultimately prove the age of the Universe. Now, you can look at methods, and you can see that there are many methods that contradict billions of years, many methods that seem to support thousands of years, as Dr. Faulkner said in the little video clip I showed, there's nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a young Universe. Now, I've said to you before, and I admit again, that the reason I believe in a young Universe is because of the Bible's account of origins. I believe that God, Who has always been there, the Infinite Creator God, revealed in His Word what He did for us. And when we add up those dates, we get thousands of years, but there's nothing in observational science that contradicts that. But as far as the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe, even when it comes to the fossil record, that's why I even challenge Christians, if you're going to believe in millions of years for the fossil record, you've got a problem with the Bible. And that is the then you have to have death and disease and suffering before sin, so there is not hypothetical . . . you can't prove, scientifically, the age of the Earth or the Universe--bottom line." Ken Ham rightly recognizes the fallacy of this question. The question represents the logical fallacy of hypothesis contrary to fact. It's like asking, hypothetically, how would you feel if you didn't exist? This is a hypothesis contrary to fact. Ken gets more real about the difference between himself and Bill at this point more than ever before. He points out the real problem. It is a comparison between the validity of assumptions versus the validity of Divine revelation--Ken spoke Divine revelation when he said, "the Infinite Creator God, revealed in His Word." When Ken says things gently, we ought to know that there is depth there that is not expressed. God didn't go off somewhere far away after Creation. Nor did He do so after Christ ascended. Some might say, "the Infinite Creator God, reveals in His Bible, to anyone who reads His Bible who is willing to acknowledge Him speaking through His the Bible, and the Creator God has made the Universe in such a way that no one can make up a conflicting rational story (the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story) without committing both the Logical Fallacy of Limited Scope and the Logical Fallacy of Limited Depth. The truth is that God speaks to us in many ways. The Bible is so infused with the Spirit of God that no one can read it or hear it being read or quoted without being in the Presence of God. However, many people do not acknowledge God when He speaks. The Bible says that God speaks through the Bible, through other Christians, through various ways of leading us, through Creation, and through gifts of the Spirit, and through many other ways. The question is never whether God speaks. Did we listen? Did we acknowledge Him and glorify Him for the revelation? Did we add to His words or leave anything out that He said? When we read about the Word in Scripture, this is a translation from an original-language word that literally means Utterance. When it says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, the Greek word, rhema, means utterance--the utterance of God. It is very possible to read the Bible and only listen to the ramblings and reasonings of one's own mind without ever acknowledging that God is speaking to you. An ungodly person might twist what Ken is saying, and say that they have read the Bible six times and God has not revealed anything to them. Of course, Ken did use the word, "revealed," which is the correct description of what is happening. But someone may think that Ken is simply using a euphemism, that he means that God gave us the Bible and then went off someplace else. Rather, the Scripture is so infused with the Holy Spirit that anyone who reads it or hears it read cannot do so without being in the Presence of God. If someone stands in the Presence of God and still continues to resist and still refuses to acknowledge His holy Presence, that person's condemnation is even greater. Keep in mind that Bill Nye is trying to either prove that we can absolutely know that the Creation Model is impossible (that a possible model cannot even be constructed) or else absolutely prove that the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story actually happened (which would eliminate the Creation Model). It is very difficult to prove anything to the extent that no other possibilities should be allowed or investigated and it is impossible to prove something that is not true. We know, by revelation, that the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story is an outright lie. For this reason, no evidence could possibly exist that ever would negate what is written in the Bible. However, we could be misinterpreting what is written. We must be open to the Holy Spirit so that the Spirit can correct us or teach us the Way of God more completely.

"Of course that’s where we disagree. You can prove the age of the Earth with great robustness by observing the Universe around us. And I get the I get the feeling, Mr. Ham, that you want us to take your word for it, this is to say, your interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago as translated into American English is more compelling for you than everything that I can observe in the world around me. This is where you and I are, I think, are not going to see eye to eye. You said, you asserted that life cannot come something that’s not alive. Are you sure? Are you sure enough to say that we should not continue to look for signs of water and life on Mars, that that’s a waste? You’re sure enough to claim that? That is an extraordinary claim that we want to investigate. Once again, what is it you can predict? What can you provide us that can tell us about the future (eye rolling and hand-waving) not just about your vision of the past."

  1. "Of course that’s where we disagree. You can prove the age of the Earth with great robustness by observing the Universe around us." Bill Nye is making an unsubstantiated claim. He gives no reason for this statement. It is simply a logical fallacy of bare assertion. It is an outright lie. Bill Nye is referring to a method that is based on assumptions, not on observation without circular reasoning. All dating methods, except those that are based on Divine revelation, are based on circular reasoning.
  2. "And I get the I get the feeling, Mr. Ham" Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of plain folks. He portrays himself, throughout the debate, as a likeable guy, Bill Nye, the science guy. And works to portray Ken Ham as some sort of aloof leader of a remote, secluded, band of followers. The title, Mr. Ham, is just part of this strategy.
  3. "that you want us to take your word for it, this is to say, your interpretation" Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of a red herring. The Bible is not about Ken Ham's or any human's interpretation. The Holy Spirit is the only One Who can interpret Scripture. It could be possible that Ken doesn't know this, but not likely. Ken Ham insisted that words have meaning. Is Bill Nye denying that words have meaning? If so, what is the point of discussion? In fact, the Holy Spirit also insists that words have meanings. And the Holy Spirit doesn't twist the meanings of words when He reveals the meaning of Scripture to us. Our own natural human minds do twist the meanings of words when they are deceiving us. Post Modernism assumes that words don't really have meaning. So, Post Modernism would interpret Scripture in a way to win arguments, since the Post Modern philosophy assumes there is no truth or error--only winners and losers. The Holy Spirit doesn't work this way. The Holy Spirit has integrity. Post Modernism springs from Atheism. If there is no God, there can be no truth. There can be no right or wrong. There are only winners and losers. In classes on Post Modernism, students are often encouraged to be winners. Since life is said to have no meaning, proximate meaning can be had by winning against others or by getting what gives pleasure to self.
  4. "of a book written thousands of years ago" Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of irrelevant evidence. The age the Bible is of no significance. God speaks through it. That is the only point, and Bill Nye has not addressed that at all. The age of the Bible has no impact on God's ability to speak through it. Ken Ham mentioned this fact, though very lightly. But, this entire debate (not between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, but between anti-Christ and Christ) is about made-up stuff versus Divine revelation. Which is more valid? Bill votes for made-up stuff. Ken votes for revelation.
  5. "as translated into American English" Again, Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of irrelevant evidence. What language the Bible is translated into is of no consequence. We have the original, and we can reference that to any language using free software or online resources.
  6. "is more compelling for you than everything that I can observe in the world around me." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of presumption and the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. He is presupposing the thing that he is trying to prove. The thing that he is trying to prove is that the Earth can be known to be the age that he wants it to be. He wants to prove that he can do this through science, observing the world around himself. He has not demonstrated that he can do that. In fact, he claimed that he needs assumptions to do that, but he rationalizes that his assumptions are the correct assumptions because he said that they come from experiences. Either he is equivocating on the word, assumption, or he is lying. Assumptions are always arbitrary, though they are usually chosen to fit within a certain worldview, a certain fake reality. The fake-reality is the real problems, since fake-realities, especially group-held fake-realities, seem more real than real reality to the people who are held captive by them. Indeed, he cannot prove the age of the Earth. So, he has resorted to circular reasoning and claiming victory without even fighting the battle.
  7. "This is where you and I are, I think, are not going to see eye to eye." Bill Nye is identifying the problem incorrectly. If you fail to identify the problem, you are unlikely to solve it. The problem is clear. Bill Nye is interpreting evidence based on arbitrary assumptions and he thinks that is valid--and he asserts that his assumptions are the correct assumptions. Ken Ham is interpreting evidence based on Divine revelation, God speaking to Ken through the Bible. Bill Nye is using his assumptions as proof that God is not speaking to Ken Ham through the Bible.
  8. "You said, you asserted that life cannot come something that’s not alive. Are you sure? Are you sure enough to say that we should not continue to look for signs of water and life on Mars, that that’s a waste? You’re sure enough to claim that? That is an extraordinary claim that we want to investigate." Bill Nye has really gone over the edge with this one. How would finding water on Mars, or even life for that matter, prove that life came from non-living things by natural processes? It would not. It could be a mechanism for confirmation bias in a community that is eager to deny God, but it would be non sequitur. Bill is using the logical fallacy of Argumentum Ad Lapidem, implying that a statement is absurd without proving it to be absurd. He is actually, trying to wish away a scientific law, the Law of Biogenesis. We never ever observe life coming from non-life. The more we learn, the more impossible spontaneous generation appears to be. And scientists are squandering huge quantities of tax money to try to produce life from non-life and coming up with nothing. Bill is also using the logical fallacy of special pleading in a funny way here. He is being logically inconsistent, that is, he is using the logical fallacy of a self-refuting argument. Throughout the debate, he is saying that he, and all Atheist scientists, are open-minded to the Creation Model. Throughout the debate, Bill is claiming that Creation is not a valid model to investigate scientifically. He is totally closed-minded against it to the point of saying that it is not even possible. Bill is claiming that it should receive no funding nor should it be compared to the molecules-to-man story in the schools. That is about as closed-minded as you could get. Now, Bill is saying that Ken Ham is closed-minded to life on Mars, which is yet another straw man fallacy. If there is life on Mars, we know, by revelation, that God created it. And yet, Bill pretends to be open-minded, proposing silly proofs that would convince him that the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story is false. But Bill's proposed proofs are straw man arguments, irrelevant criteria, or else conditions that have already been met. Bill Nye also phrases this in such a way as to create a black and white fallacy, a false dichotomy. Why would life on Mars in any way indicate spontaneous life. If God created life on Earth, might He not have also created some kind of microorganism on Mars? If such a thing were found, it would prove nothing for Bill Nye's and the Atheists' cause. Billions of tax dollars have been spent trying to create life from non-life, all for the purpose of proving some standing of possibility for the religion of Atheism with it's theologies of big bang, billions of years, spontaneous generation of life, no Flood, and molecules to man. Has anyone proposed a benefit to mankind for all the money spent on this? With all that money, the only thing that they have proved is that life is so complex that it could not possibly self-generate. Such a thing would violate everything we have observed scientifically over the last several hundred years.
  9. "Once again, what is it you can predict? What can you provide us that can tell us about the future (eye rolling and hand-waving) not just about your vision of the past." Bill Nye returns to his logical fallacy of proof by repetition, ignoring all the predictions that Ken Ham had provided. By doing this, some people actually think that Ken Ham didn't address the question. That is the power of the lie when used congruently as Bill Nye did during this debate. And, Bill Nye is also using the tactic of tossing the elephant, that is, asking questions knowing that there is not time to answer extra questions. The entire prediction argument is a logical fallacy of affirming the consequent as it is used in the way that it was used in this debate. There is a way that prediction can be used as a logical argument, inductive rather than deductive. Gitt, for instance, convincingly used the predictions that are in the Bible to show that God exists, God is the God of the Bible, and that Jesus Christ is God. He did this by the overwhelming volume of specific predictions that have been exactly fulfilled in a way that he is able to put a number on the probability such that denial of it constitutes the logical fallacy of slothful induction. This can be seen in the book, Without Excuse, by Werner Gitt, pages 211-219.

"Is there room for God in science?"

"Well, we remind us, there are billions of people around the world who are religious and who accept science and embrace it, and especially all the technology that it brings us. Is there anyone here who doesn’t have a mobile phone that has a camera? Is there anyone here whose family members have not benefited from modern medicine? Is there anyone here who doesn’t use emails? Is there anyone here who doesn’t eat? Because we use information sent from space to plant seeds on our farms. That’s how we’re able to feed 7.1 billion people where we used only be able to barely feed a billion. So, that’s what I see. That’s wh…We have used science as a process. Science for me is two things. It’s the body of knowledge: the atomic number of rubidium, and it’s the process, the means by which we make these discoveries. So, for me, that’s really not that connected to your belief in a spiritual being or in a higher power. If you reconcile those two, scientists, the head of the National Institute of Health, is a devout Christian. There are billions of people in the world who are devoutly religious. They have to be compatible because those same people embrace science. The exception is you, Mr. Ham, and that’s the problem for me. You want us [the entire population of the world other than Ken Ham?] to take your word for what’s written in this ancient text to be more compelling than what we see around us. The evidence for a higher power and spirituality is, for me, separate. I encourage you to take the next minute and address this problem of the fossils, this problem of the ice layers, this problem of the ancient trees, this problem of the Ark, I mean really address it. And so then we could move forward. But right now I see no incompatibility between religions and science."

  1. "Well, we remind us, there are billions of people around the world who are religious and who accept science and embrace it, and especially all the technology that it brings us." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of persuasive definition. He is defining science, as seen in the rest of his answer, in a way that allows him to include made-up stories, arbitrary assumptions, irrational thoughts, and outright lies but screen out any science that disagrees with his presupposition of the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. In this way, he is able to also screen out scientists who don't accept the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. Bill has already spent enormous amounts of energy anchoring the definition of science as being based on the assumptions and stories related to big-bang-billions-of-years-millions-of-years, and here he is approving only those who embrace these traditions. This is the logical fallacy of appeal to tradition.
  2. "Is there anyone here who doesn’t have a mobile phone that has a camera? Is there anyone here whose family members have not benefited from modern medicine? Is there anyone here who doesn’t use emails? Is there anyone here who doesn’t eat? Because we use information sent from space to plant seeds on our farms. That’s how we’re able to feed 7.1 billion people where we used only be able to barely feed a billion. So, that’s what I see." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of misleading vividness. None of this that he is saying has anything to do with answering the question, but supplying it does lend a false sense of credibility to something that actually makes no sense at all.
  3. We have used science as a process. Science, for me, is two things. It’s the body of knowledge: the atomic number of rubidium, and it’s the process, the means by which we make these discoveries." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of persuasive definition twice in this short statement. He does state that this definition is only for himself, but it is clear that he also insists that everyone else accept it. Science is two things to Bill Nye. It is a process. There are a lot of opinions about what the process is, but, for Bill Nye, it includes making up stories, making arbitrary assumptions to make the stories fit with the dogma of the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. And it includes irrational thinking or outright lies if that becomes necessary. Then, Bill uses the same logical fallacy of persuasive definition in dealing with the phrase, "body of knowledge". He also throws out misleading information in giving this definition in a form of the logical fallacy of suppressed evidence. He throws out the example of the atomic number of rubidium. This is his example of the "body of knowledge". No one is discussing the atomic number of rubidium. No one is in any way questioning that. And the atomic number of rubidium can be verified, but the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story cannot be observed or verified. But, Bill Nye includes the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story as part of that scientific "body of knowledge". It is extremely dishonest to use the logical fallacy of faulty analogy by equating the validity of the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story to the validity of atomic number of rubidium. Bill Nye threw out the atomic number of rubidium as a red herring fallacy.
  4. "So, for me, that’s really not that connected to your belief in a spiritual being or in a higher power. If you reconcile those two, scientists, the head of the National Institute of Health, is a devout Christian. There are billions of people in the world who are devoutly religious. They have to be compatible because those same people embrace science. The exception is you, Mr. Ham, and that’s the problem for me." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of ad hominem and unsupported assertion. Bill expresses this argument as a personal conflict between himself and Ken Ham rather than dealing with the evidence in a rational, impersonal, unemotional way. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of hyperbole here. Only Ken Ham, in Bill Nye's statement, believes God when God says that the Bible is His Word and that the Bible is without error.
  5. "You want us to take your word for what’s written in this ancient text to be more compelling than what we see around us." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of a straw man argument. Ken didn't ask Bill to take his word for what God is saying. Bill can buy a Bible and read it. More than that, Bill, or anyone else, can seek God and allow the Holy Spirit to reveal the meaning, to actually speak to him, through the Bible. Bill Nye uses the logical fallacy of bandwagon taken to the extreme degree that Bill has been building throughout the debate. Throughout the debate, Bill Nye has framed his statements to imply that the entire world is pitted against Ken Ham. Here, in this statement, he says it more directly, not in innuendo. Who is "us"? By implication, it is the entire population of the world other than Ken Ham? Later, Bill states his bare assertion even more clearly so there is no question about what he is claiming. It really gets insane. Bill is exaggerating, which is the logical fallacy of hyperbole.
  6. "The evidence for a higher power and spirituality is, for me, separate." Much of the world is willing to believe in a god. Many are willing to believe in the God. The devils believe in the God, and they tremble. Bill Nye takes a definite stand against Jesus Christ in this statement. You can have a god, but not the real Jesus Christ of the Bible. This is to be expected. The Bible predicts this. The Bible predicts that there will be some in the latter days who will deny the Creation and the Flood, and it advises us to stay away from them. They are not to be believed. The Bible predicts that those who follow Christ will be persecuted, and that is what this is about.
  7. "I encourage you to take the next minute and address this problem of the fossils, this problem of the ice layers, this problem of the ancient trees, this problem of the Ark, I mean really address it. And so then we could move forward. But right now I see no incompatibility between religions and science." Bill Nye again returns to the logical fallacy of proof by repetition, returning to his refuted arguments and insisting that they have not been refuted, and we are just supposed to believe him--the logical fallacy of bare assertion or trust me. In addition, Bill Nye has changed the subject from the question at hand and is tossing the elephant, asking questions when he knows there is no time to answer those questions.

Ken Ham: “I actually want to take a minute to address the question. My answer would be that God is necessary for science. . . . Creationists can be great scientists. See, God is necessary, because you have to assume the laws if logic. You have to assume the laws of nature. You have to assume the uniformity of nature. And that was the question I had for you. Where does that come from if the Universe is here by natural processes? Christianity and science, the Bible and science, go hand in hand. We love science. But again, you've got to understand, inventing things, that's very different from talking about our origins. Two very different things.” Why does Ken ask this? "See, God is necessary, because you have to assume the laws if logic. You have to assume the laws of nature. You have to assume the uniformity of nature. And that was the question I had for you. Where does that come from if the Universe is here by natural processes?" Naturalism/Atheism gives no cause for the laws of nature, no reason to expect regularity. Naturalism provides no mechanism that can in any way explain the regularity and the laws of nature. However, God reveals that Jesus Christ is maintaining the laws of nature. He is the One by Whom all things consist. He is orderly. He is faithful in all that He does, and God doesn't hesitate to tells us this through Scripture. God predicts, using Scripture, that this order is what we will find. Naturalism and the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story fails to predict the most basic things of science. The ideas of Naturalism/Atheism and Materialism, which Bill Nye embraces, are self refuting, that is, you would need Divine revelation to support such ideas, but God, and Divine revelation is what these self-refuting theologies are designed to deny. Ken Ham also explained that we can only observe in the present. We cannot go back into the past without a time machine. To make conclusions about the past regarding things we are looking at in the present always involves one of two things, either making stuff up or else receiving Divine revelation.

"Do you believe the entire Bible is to be taken literally? Should people who touch pig skin be stoned? Can men marry multiple women." This question is the logical fallacy of the question-begging loaded question. The question presupposes many things, each of which must be unpacked before it can be answered. The word, "literally", is a loaded word. Ken answered this well. Then, there are the two other questions that introduce false presuppositions, using the fallacy of extension to make the Bible appear to command weird things. The trouble with presuppositions is that they are assumptions, often false, that must be unpacked and exposed before a question can effectively be answered. In this way, presuppositions become a filter that filters out certain parts of reality.

Ken Ham: "When people ask that question, should the Bible be taken literally, I have to know what that person meant by literally. I would say this. If you say, naturally, and that's what you mean by literally, I would say, yes, I take the Bible naturally. What do I mean by that? If it's history, as Genesis is, it's written as historical narrative, I take it as history. If it's poetry, as we find in the Psalms, then you  take it as poetry. It doesn't mean it doesn't teach truth, but it's not a cosmological account in the sense that Genesis is. There's prophecy in the Bible. There's literature in the Bible concerning future events and so on. So if you take it as written, naturally according to the type of literature and you let it speak to you in that way, that's how I take the Bible. It's God's revelation to man. The Bible says that all Scripture is inspired by God, so God used people by His Spirit to write His words. And also, there's a lot of misunderstanding in regard to Scripture, in regard to the Israelites. We have laws in our civil government here that the Government sets. Well there were certain laws for Israel. You know, some people take all that out of context. And then they try to impose it on us today as Christians and say, You should be obeying those laws. It's a misunderstanding of the Old Testament. It's a misunderstanding of the New Testament. And again, it's important to take the Bible as a whole. You can interpret Scripture with Scripture. If it is the Word of God, then there's not going to be any contradictions, which there's not. And, by the way, when men were married to multiple women, there were lots of problems, and the Bible condemns that for what it is and the Bible is very clear. You know the Bible's a real book. There are people who did were not in accord with Scripture and it records this for us. It's a real book. Marriage was one man for one woman. Jesus reiterated that in Matthew 3:19 as I did in my talk. And so those who married multiple women were wrong." God speaks through the Bible. It must be understood spiritually. The way to understand the Bible is to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the meaning to you. Pray and ask God to reveal Himself to you. Everyone who seeks Him in sincerity does find Him, so anyone can verify this. It's not about Ken Ham or any other person other than the Person of Christ. Which is the real point of contention. Bill Nye believes in assumptions. Ken Ham believes in Divine revelation. Both of these belief systems have many other followers. The one that follows assumptions rests on make-believe faith. The one that rests on Divine revelation rests on the faith that is of God, that comes by hearing the utterance of God. This is the great divide in the world today.

"So it sounds to me, just listening to the last two minutes, that there’s certain parts of this document, of the Bible that you embrace literally and other parts you consider poetry. So, it sounds to me, in those last two minutes, that you’re going to take what you like and interpret it literally and other passages you’re going to interpret as poetic or descriptions of human events. All that aside, I’ll just say, scientifically, or as a reasonable man, it doesn’t seem possible that all these things that contradict the literal interpretation of those first few passages, all those things that contradict that, I find unsettling when you want me to embrace the rest of it as literal. Now, as I say, I’m not a theologian, but we started this debate: ‘Is Ken Ham’s Creation Model viable, does it hold water, can it fly, does it describe anything, and I’m still looking for an answer."

  1. "So it sounds to me, just listening to the last two minutes, that there’s certain parts of this document, of the Bible, that you embrace literally and other parts you consider poetry." Bill Nye is using innuendo to cloak a logical fallacy of unsupported assertion that there is something wrong with reading the Bible as it is written. Bill Nye is implying that there is something wrong with looking at what is obviously poetry, with its symbolism, and to realize that it's poetry. And he is implying that there's something wrong with looking at Hebrew classical historical narrative and to realize that this is a written account of something that happened just as it is written. However, in all of this, the Holy Spirit is the One Who interprets Scripture correctly. The correct way for a person to understand Scripture is to be in the Spirit with an attitude of submission and respect, to enter into His Presence and ask Him to reveal what He wants to reveal through Scripture. It is important to acknowledge Him, the Holy Spirit, when He brings something and unfolds it before you. It is also important to acknowledge the Holy Spirit when He brings Scripture to mind (speaking to us through Scripture that was previously heard or read) or when He gives the answers to the puzzles of life (relating His Utterance to the puzzle and solving it). It is important to acknowledge Him in all our ways and not to lean on our own understanding. Even with doctrine, God tells us, through Scripture, that if anyone knows anything (that's all-inclusive), that person doesn't know as they ought to know. We need to hold our doctrine loosely enough that the Holy Spirit can point out our faulty presuppositions and assumptions that are twisting the Scripture when we don't even realize our error.
  2. "So, it sounds to me, in those last two minutes, that you’re going to take what you like and interpret it literally and other passages you’re going to interpret as poetic or descriptions of human events." Bill Nye is making an accusation by using the logical fallacy of bare assertion. It's easy to make accusations like this, but, when the accusations are lies, it's impossible to back them up. This is why Bill gives no validation of his accusations.
  3. "All that aside, I’ll just say, scientifically, or as a reasonable man, it doesn’t seem possible that all these things that contradict the literal interpretation of those first few passages, all those things that contradict that, I find unsettling when you want me to embrace the rest of it as literal." Bill Nye is claiming the high ground, claiming superiority without demonstrating why. This involves the bare assertion that he is a "reasonable man". With the number of logical fallacies that Bill has used and how tightly they are packed, calling himself "reasonable" seems to be a far-fetched hypothesis. When Bill Nye talks about "all these things that contradict" he is referring to his various questions, questions that are worn out old excuses that were used in years past and have all been refuted long ago, which he repeated today as if they had validity when they don't. This constitutes the logical fallacy of proof by repetition. He is saying that he doesn't think it's reasonable that one thing can be true if anyone brings up conflicting comments. This is the logical fallacy of special pleading, since he believes in the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story and there are many "things that contradict" it. One would think that he would then have an open mind to examine the facts supporting both sides of the issue and to examine whether or not he would be able to have a relationship with Christ, to have Christ reveal Himself to him.
  4. "I find unsettling when you want me to embrace the rest of it as literal." Two things: one of which is perhaps the most important thing that Bill Nye said during the debate. Bill is saying that IF he can blow out the history in Genesis, then he can throw out the rest of the Bible. Bill is right, but that is a big IF. If Bill Nye could (and that is an impossible if) disqualify any part of the Bible, there would be no reason to believe any of it. However, he is presupposing that he has been successful in destroying part of the Bible with his fallacies. Think of all the things in the Bible that have been explained away by theologians--not the parts of the Law that have been fulfilled, but the orders, offices, gifts, and ministries of the New Testament Church that are prescribed in Scripture. Think of the times you may have heard, "That was just for the apostolic age." or "That isn't an important Scripture." Think of the theologies that require assumptions, either adding to or taking from Scripture. These are a problem. Scripture is quoted, but the theologies are based on fallacies. Fallacies cannot be used to prove or disprove anything. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion. He may be unsettled, but that has no effect on reality and is not a reason to believe or disbelieve anything.
  5. "Now, as I say, I’m not a theologian, but. . ." This is irrelevant.
  6. ". . . we started this debate: ‘Is Ken Ham’s Creation Model viable, does it hold water, can it fly, does it describe anything, and I’m still looking for an answer." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of misquoting , or, perhaps, poorly framing, by giving the debate a new title. He has repeated this many times during the debate, and it appears to be a planned tactic rather than a slip of tongue. The debate is not about the person of Ken Ham. That would be the ad hominem fallacy. Bill Nye uses the logical fallacy of proof by repetition again when he says, "and I’m still looking for an answer." He is using the logical fallacy of an outright lie by implying that Ken didn't answer him. Ken Ham did answer him. The Creation/Evolution debate is about Divine revelation versus made up stuff. Bill Nye calls the made up stuff, assumptions based on past experiences. As explained earlier, assumptions can be related to past experiences, but assumptions are based on nothing. They are arbitrary. They go beyond experience. They are made up stuff. They are vapor.

"Have you ever believed that Evolution was accomplished through way of a higher power?"

"The idea that there is a higher power that has driven the course of events in the Universe and our own existence is one that you cannot prove or disprove. And this gets into this expression, Agnostic. You can’t know. I’ll grant you that. When it comes to intelligent design, intelligent design has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of nature. This is to say, the old expression is, if you were to find a watch in the field, and you pick it up, you would realize that it was created by someone who was thinking ahead, somebody with an organization chart with somebody at the top and you’d order screws from screw manufacturers, and springs from spring manufacturers, and glass crystals from crystal manufacturers, but that’s not now nature works. This is the fundamental insight in the explanation for living things that’s provided by Evolution. Evolution is a process that adds complexity through natural selection. This is to say, nature has its mediocre designs eaten by its good designs and so, the perception that there’s a designer that created all this is not necessarily true because we have an explanation that is far more compelling and provides predictions, things are repeatable. I’m sure, Mr. Ham here, the facility, you have an organization chart. I imagine you’re at the top and it’s a top-down structure. Nature is not that way. Nature is bottom up. This was the discovery. Things merge up. Whatever makes it keeps going. Whatever doesn’t make it falls away. And this is compelling and wonderful and fills me with joy and is inconsistent with a top-down view."

  1. "The idea that there is a higher power that has driven the course of events in the Universe and our own existence is one that you cannot prove or disprove. And this gets into this expression, Agnostic. You can’t know." What makes Bill Nye think that God cannot be proven or known? Often, people who claim that no one can know about God or spiritual things are guilty of the logical fallacy of inflation of conflict. This is the assumption that incomplete knowledge means that there is nothing that can be known. Of course, such people don't usually apply the same fallacy to science, claiming that we can't know anything scientifically because we don't know everything. That constitutes the logical fallacy of special pleading. Perhaps this is where Bill is coming from, or he may be making an unsupported assertion. In either case, are we just supposed to take Bill Nye's word for it? Bill Nye uses the logical fallacy of the outright lie. We know, by Divine revelation, that every person knows that God exists. They know about Him by the things that He has created. In fact, God specifically is telling us that He has made it so provable that at any point in time, those who don't acknowledge Him are without excuse. So, Bill Nye knows. He has built an elaborate worldview/paradigm to hide this from his consciousness. And it is likely that he is one of those whom God has turned over to their own reprobate minds. At the same time, Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of the universal negative. He is saying that no one can prove or disprove God. In this, he is claiming that God doesn't reveal Himself to the millions of people to whom God does reveal Himself. He is claiming that the millions of people who know God don't know God. That claim could only be substantiated if Bill Nye received it by Divine revelation, but that is exactly the possibility that Bill Nye is denying, so that would be self-refuting. If we were to ask Bill Nye to give an explanation of the scientific method by which he is able to know about the personal spiritual experiences of every person who has ever lived, how would he answer? Does anyone have a way to answer this without being totally irrational? God says they don't, since God says that they know and that they are without excuse. 
  2. "When it comes to intelligent design, intelligent design has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of nature. This is to say, the old expression is, if you were to find a watch in the field, and you pick it up, you would realize that it was created by someone who was thinking ahead, somebody with an organization chart with somebody at the top and you’d order screws from screw manufacturers, and springs from spring manufacturers, and glass crystals from crystal manufacturers, but that’s not now nature works. This is the fundamental insight in the explanation for living things that’s provided by Evolution. Evolution is a process that adds complexity through natural selection." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of a red herring. Bill Nye mentioned "natural selection," the observable way that living things die when they are badly mutated or when their environment has changed beyond their ability to adapt. That is a process of elimination, of death. It is not a process by which complexity is added to anything. Bill talks about how nature works, but then tells a story that is never observed in nature. Bill Nye is also using the logical fallacy of the outright lie. There is nothing in natural selection that adds complexity or information. What he didn't mention is that Evolutionists are now claiming that information is added by duplication, mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection, which are claimed to produce major Evolutionary change if given enough time. However, none of these have the ability to add new information to the genome. In fact, never has it been observed that new information (universal information as defined in the scientific Law of Universal Information) is ever added to anything unless it comes from other information. But, even the smallest supposed step in molecules-to-man would have required a huge quantity of new, innovative information to have been added spontaneously to the genome by some unidentified process. No such process has ever been found. Not only is it impossible to prove that the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story actually took place, but it is impossible to prove that the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story could even possibly have ever happened. Every change we observe is either rearranging existing information, turning existing genes on or off, or a loss of information.
  3. "This is to say, nature has its mediocre designs eaten by its good designs and so, the perception that there’s a designer that created all this is not necessarily true because we have an explanation that is far more compelling" Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of personification. He is personifying nature, giving it the ability to design things by the way that he talks about it. Bill Nye is also using the logical fallacy of personal conviction as proof. The fact that he and his followers (guessing who the we are) find something compelling does not make it true. Bill Nye is arbitrarily deciding that his preferred explanation is far more compelling to him and some undefined group of people. It is compelling because it fits his own worldview/fake reality. God also reveals to us why it is compelling to some people. God says: "They love darkness rather than light." "They don't want to acknowledge God or to serve Him." "Their deeds are evil." Of course, in their own minds, their deeds may not seem, to them, to be evil. Every person's way is right in his or her own eyes, but God reveals that He made us to be joined to Him in a union by which we are workers together with Him and He does His works through us. Anything else is sin. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
  4. "and provides predictions" Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of the outright lie and the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. This has been covered in detail in the introduction to the debate. The predictions Bill Nye provided have turned out to be bogus. Most Evolutionistic predictions turn out to be bogus. Others are simply confirmation bias., requiring ad hoc rescue to shoehorn them into the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man paradigm. There is a lot of story-telling involved when the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man predictions do not pan out, these stories are examples of the logical fallacy of the rescuing device. However, even if some predictions do turn out to be fulfilled, this is only affirming the consequent. It doesn't prove anything. The Creation Model predicts them more completely and accurately. Predictions are not even inductively valid unless a real number of probability can be put on them and all the evidence and possibilities are considered fully and documented fully with peer review from scientists who hold all the various possible positions. And all the predictions must come true. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 
  5. "things are repeatable." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of an unsupported claim. How do you repeat the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story? This story is a huge complex lie. And we know this fact by Divine revelation.
  6. "I’m sure, Mr. Ham here, the facility, you have an organization chart. I imagine you’re at the top and it’s a top-down structure. Nature is not that way. Nature is bottom up." Bill Nye uses the logical fallacy of presumption and the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. He is trying to prove the irrelevancy or non-existence of God. He is using the arbitrary assumption (presumption) of Naturalism, which is another way of thinking about Atheism, to prove Atheism. That is circular.
  7. "This was the discovery. Things merge up. Whatever makes it keeps going. Whatever doesn’t make it falls away." Bill Nye asserts that this is a discovery in a very vague way, but we can assume that he doesn't mean that Adam and Eve discovered that things die. He is thinking that scientists recently found out that things die. We can classify this as a logical fallacy of tautology. Bill has said that things that die, die, and things that live, live. On the other hand, it is possible that Bill Nye is implying that his unsupported assertion that things merge up is the discovery. Of course, this was not really a discovery but rather it was a story of the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man. There is a difference between a story and a discovery. Stories are not discovered. They are made up and then told. In either case, Bill creates an illusion of science when no science has taken place. What has taken place is the telling of a story about nature designing things and about nothing creating everything. The word, "discovery," creates a false impression and is therefore a lie. We could also note that this is the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion and proof by story-telling.
  8. "And this is compelling and wonderful and fills me with joy" Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion
  9. "and is inconsistent with a top-down view." Bill Nye is using the false either-or fallacy. His logic is that either things die or else God is enforcing all the natural laws. The two are not mutually exclusive. What would possibly make Bill think that they are mutually exclusive or inconsistent?

Ken Ham: What Bill Nye needs to do is to show me some new function that arose that was not previously possible from the genetic information that was there, and I would claim and challenge you that there is no such example that you can give. That's why I brought up the example in my presentation of Lenski's experiments in regard to e coli. And there were some that seemed to develop the ability to exist on citrate, but as Dr. Fabich said in looking at his research, he found that that information was already there. It was just a gene that was switched on and off. And so, there is no example because information that's there, the genetic information of different animals, plants, and so on, there's no new function that can be added. Certainly, there is great variation within a kind, and that's what we look at, but you'd have to show brand new function that never previously was possible. There is no such example that you can give anywhere in the world.

"Name one institution, business, or organization other than a Church, amusement park, or the Creation Museum, that is using any aspect of Creationism to produce its product."

"Every scientist out there, Christian or non-Christian, that is involved in inventing things, involved in scientific method, is using Creation. They are because they are borrowing from a Christian worldview. They're using the Laws of Logic. I keep emphasizing that. I want Bill to tell me, in a view of the Universe that came about by natural processes, explain where the Laws of Logic came from. Why should we trust the Laws of Nature? I mean, are they going to be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday? In fact, some to the greatest scientist that ever lived, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday were Creationists. And as one of them said, he was thinking God's thoughts after Him. Modern science really came out of that thinking that we can do experiments today and we can do the same tomorrow. We can trust the Laws of Logic. We can trust the Laws of Nature. And if we don't teach our children directly about this, they're not going to be innovative. And they're not going to be able to come up with inventions to advance in our culture. And so, I think the person was trying to get out that there are also secularists out there doing work, and they don't believe in Creation, and they come up with great inventions. Yes, but my point is that they are borrowing from the Christian worldview to do so. And, as you saw from the video quotes I gave, people like Andrew Fabich and Dr. Faulkner have published in the secular journals. There's lots of Creationists out there who publish. People might not know that they're because the topic doesn't pertain to Creation versus Evolution, but there's lots of them out there. Go to our website. There's a whole list there of scientists who are Creationists who are out there doing great work in this world and helping to advance technology." One other problem that can actually be witnessed is that students who have learned such things as the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story have difficulty with logic because of all the irrational things they have been taught--taught congruently, with a straight face as if they made sense. The logical fallacies that are used to teach the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story are extreme, and when students have to learn this type of thing, and actually believe it, the "learning" process does tremendous damage to their ability to process logical thought. This is a drag on businesses everywhere. This is a drag on science, progress, and productivity.

"There’s a reason that I don’t accept your, the Ken Ham model of Creation, is that it has no predictive quality as you touched on. And something I’ve always found troubling. It sounds as though you believe your worldview, which is: a literal interpretation of most parts of the Bible is correct. Well, what became of all those people who never heard of it, never heard of you? What became of all those people in Asia; what became of all those first nations people in North America? Were they condemned, doomed? I mean, I don’t know how much time you spent talking to (unintelligible) but they’re not sanguine about that, to have you tell them that they are inherently lost, or misguided. It’s very troubling. When you say there are no examples in nature, there are countless examples of how the process of science makes predictions."

  1. "There’s a reason that I don’t accept your, the Ken Ham model of Creation" Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of ad hominem. He is directing the debate against the person rather than using reason. Bill Nye is also using the logical fallacy of misquoting. He is misquoting the debate topic again.
  2. "is that it has no predictive quality as you touched on." Are we just supposed to take Bill Nye's word that there is no predictive quality, since Ken Ham has already given many examples, none of which were acknowledged or refuted by Bill Nye? Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of the outright lie, even claiming that Ken Ham touched on or somehow said that there are no predictions when the opposite is the case. Bill Nye has heard Ken Ham answer his claim of no predictions multiple times. This is also another example of the logical fallacy of proof by repetition.
  3. "And something I’ve always found troubling." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion. We are fully aware by now that Bill Nye is troubled, but his troubled mind has no effect on reality. He must bring evidence.
  4. "It sounds as though you believe your worldview, which is a literal interpretation of most parts of the Bible, is correct." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of tautology. Every person believes his or her own worldview, including Bill Nye. Bill has accused Ken Ham of believing what Ken Ham believes. Of course, Ken would automatically be guilty as charged, wouldn't he be. Everyone has a worldview, a fake-reality that seems, to us, to be more real than real reality. We are all guilty of this. This worldview is filled with a mixture of true things and false things. The Holy Spirit is working with those who follow Christ to free us from this worldview bondage and blindness, but we still have a carnal mind to contend with. Part of salvation is to be set free (redeemed) from bondage to the human mind, which is deceitful and desperately wicked.
  5. "Well, what became of all those people who never heard of it, never heard of you?" Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of ad hominem. The discussion is not about Ken Ham. It is about the Person of Jesus Christ and His Divine revelation as opposed to the fallen human mind and the things that the human mind can make up.
  6. "Well, what became of all those people who never heard . . . What became of all those people in Asia; what became of all those first nations people in North America? Were they condemned, doomed? I mean, I don’t know how much time you spent talking to (unintelligible) but they’re not sanguine about that, to have you tell them that they are inherently lost, or misguided." Bill Nye is asking an irrelevant question as if it were proof that God doesn't reveal through the Bible. He is using the logical fallacy of a meaningless question. A person's opinion about what became of all those people who never heard is not going to change what happens to them one way or another. In fact, God asks us to leave that to Him and trust that He will be just and fair. He does tell us that the situation will be far different for a man like Bill Nye than for someone who has never heard of Jesus nor rejected Jesus. God will be just and fair, and He knows the thoughts and intents of the innermost mind. However, this question reveals that Bill Nye really doesn't have an intellectual problem. He has a spiritual problem. He could just as well ask, "What will happen to me since I reject Christ?"
  7. "It’s very troubling." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion. It is no wonder that God's judgment is troubling to Bill Nye. He needs to be saved and should be very troubled.
  8. "When you say there are no examples in nature, there are countless examples of how the process of science makes predictions." Bill Nye is using the Logical fallacy of giving proof against a different claim. Of course, real science makes predictions. Ken didn't say anything to the contrary. It's a non-issue and a red herring if this is what Bill means. However, Bill Nye is probably answering what Ken Ham said: "What Bill Nye needs to do is to show me some new function that arose that was not previously possible from the genetic information that was there, and I would claim and challenge you that there is no such example that you can give." There are no examples of some new function that arose that was not previously possible from the genetic information that was there. If Bill is claiming that there are examples, then he is lying.

"How can you explain the numerous evidences of man’s high intelligence in the past."

"Hang on. There’s no evidence that humans are getting smarter. Especially if you ever met my old boss, Heh, heh, heh. What happens in Evolution, and it’s a British word that was used in the middle 1800s, it’s survival of the fittest. In this usage it doesn’t mean the most push ups or the highest scores on standardized tests. It means that those that fit in the best. Our intellect, such as it is, has enabled us to dominate the world. I mean, the evidence of humans is everywhere. Uh. James Cameron just made another trip to the bottom of the ocean, the first time since 1960 and when they made the first trip they found a beer can. Humans are everywhere. And so, it is our capacity to reason that has taken us to where we are now. If a germ shows up, as it did, for example, in World War I, where more people were killed by the flu than were killed by the combatants in World War I; that is a troubling and remarkable fact; if the right germ shows up, we’ll be taken out. We’ll be eliminated. Being smarter is not a necessary consequence of Evolution. So far, it seems to be the way things are going because of the remarkable advantage it gives to us. We can control our environment, even change it as we’re doing today, apparently by accident. So, everybody, just take a little while and grasp this fundamental idea. It’s how you fit in with nature around you. So, as the world changed, as it did for the ancient dinosaurs, they were taken out by a worldwide fireball. Apparently caused by an impact. That’s the best theory we have. And we are the result of organisms that lived through that catastrophe. It’s not necessarily smarter. It’s how you fit in with your environment."

  1. "Hang on. There’s no evidence that humans are getting smarter. Especially if you ever met my old boss, Heh, heh, heh. What happens in Evolution" This statement is not consistent with Bill's implication that the people who built the Ark would be necessarily less skilled, less smart, than Bill's recent ancestors, so Bill is refuting himself.
  2. "and it’s a British word that was used in the middle 1800s, survival of the fittest" Bill Nye is using the tautology of survival of the fittest. A more clear term would be the survival of the survivors or the fitness of the fit.
  3. "In this usage it doesn’t mean the most push ups or the highest scores on standardized tests. It means that those that fit in the best. Our intellect, such as it is, has enabled us to dominate the world" We know, by revelation, that this is not true. God has revealed the reason that we are supreme. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion. What makes him think that it is our intellect that enabled this?
  4. "I mean, the evidence of humans is everywhere. Uh. James Cameron just made another trip to the bottom of the ocean, the first time since 1960 and when they made the first trip they found a beer can. Humans are everywhere." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of misleading vividness. This statement has nothing to do with the conclusion that will follow shortly, yet it is being used as proof for it.
  5. "And so" This means, "therefore." It goes before a conclusion, indicating that what has preceded it proves what follows it. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of non sequitur, tying two unrelated thoughts together as if one substantiates the other when it does not.
  6. "it is our capacity to reason that has taken us to where we are now." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion. In short, Bill has said, "the evidence of humans is everywhereTherefore, it is our capacity to reason that has taken us to where we are now. That would be non sequitur. Evidence that people are everywhere does not prove that your intellect has enabled us to dominate. Bill may be using circular reasoning if he really meant his logic to go like this: Our intellect, such as it is, has enabled us to dominate the world. Therefore, it is our capacity to reason that has taken us to where we are now. The conclusion would then be a mere repetition of the premise in different words. And the premise would then be an unsupported assertion.
  7. "If a germ shows up, as it did, for example, in World War I, where more people were killed by the flu than were killed by the combatants in World War I; that is a troubling and remarkable fact" Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of misleading vividness. This is an interesting story, but it doesn't prove anything.
  8. "Being smarter is not a necessary consequence of Evolution." That was not the question. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of giving proof against a different claim. Bill had implied that people in the past were less intelligent. The question asks how, if they were less intelligent, does Bill explain the evidence for high intelligence. His answer is a politician's side-step.
  9. "So far, it seems to be the way things are going because of the remarkable advantage it gives to us." Bill Nye is using the post hoc fallacy.
  10. "We can control our environment, even change it as we’re doing today, apparently by accident." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of misleading vividness.
  11. "So, everybody, just take a little while and grasp this fundamental idea. It’s how you fit in with nature around you. So, as the world changed, as it did for the ancient dinosaurs, they were taken out by a worldwide fireball, apparently caused by an impact." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion. The fireball story is just a story. It ought to be stated as a belief without any proof that this was the cause of the death of the dinosaurs.
  12. "That’s the best theory we have." Bill Nye is using the best-in-field fallacy. Here, Bill gives his proof that this is what happened to the dinosaurs. His proof is that this is the best theory that they have. That is a best-in-field fallacy. It proves nothing. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that the dinosaurs gradually went extinct, largely by being killed by humans.
  13. "And we are the result of organisms that lived through that catastrophe." Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion. With no proof of what killed the dinosaurs and no proof that dinosaurs evolved into anything other than dinosaurs, for Bill to go on with detail like this is the logical fallacy of misleading vividness.

Ken Ham: "I remember, at university, one of my professors was very excited to give us some evidence for Evolution. He said, Look at this. Here's an example. These fish have developed the ability not to see. And he was giving the example of blind cave fish, and he said, See, in this cave, they're evolving because now the ones that are living there, their ancestors had eyes and now these are blind. And I remember talking to my professor and saying, Wait a minute. Now they can't do something that they could do before. They might have an advantage in this sense, in a situation that's dark like that, those that had eyes might have got diseases and died out. Those that had mutations and no eyes are the ones that survived. It's not survival of the fittest. It's survival of those who survive. And it's survival of those that have the information in that circumstance to survive, but you're not getting new information and you're not getting new function. There's no example of that at all, so we need to we need to correctly understand these things." Ken Ham correctly pointed out that the loss of information is a key point. He understated the problem that Evolutionists have, though. There is a scientific law called the Law of Universal Information. It is simply the sum total of all the observations regarding a special kind of information, the kind of information that is in the genome of every living thing. That information never self-generates. It is often lost. Of course, there is a lot of it in every cell, and parts of that information can be switched on or off to adapt to changing environments. The ability to produce offspring with a wide variety of traits is built into the information of every cell. The big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story predicted a simple cell. It predicted junk DNA. The amazingly complex cells look designed. the junk DNA idea is fairly well debunked. The big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story predicted information being added to the DNA constantly. Creation didn't care if information was added or not. The Laws of Universal Information show that this special kind of information has never been observed being added to anything, and never to DNA. Evolutionists have resorted to outright lies to try to cover up this fact of science, and this is one of the problems and one of the ways that the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story hurts science. Students learn to defend a religious doctrine of Atheism rather than to follow the evidence where it leads.

"What is the one thing more than anything else upon which you base your beliefs?"

"Again, to summarize the things I've been saying, there is a book called the Bible. It's a very unique book. It's very different than any other book out there. In fact, I don't know of any other religion that has a book that starts by telling you that there's an infinite God and talks about the origin of the Universe, the origin of matter, and they origin of light, and the origin of darkness, and the origin of day and night, and the origin of the Earth, and the origin of the dry land, and the origin of plants, and the origin of the Sun, Moon, and stars, the origin of sea creatures, the origin of flying creatures, the origin of land creatures, the origin of man, the origin of woman, the origin of death, the origin of sin, the origin of marriage, the origin of different languages, the origin of clothing, the origin of nations. I mean, it's a very, very specific book. And it gives us an account of a global Flood. And history, and the Tower of Babel. And, if that history is true, then what about the rest of the book. That history also says man is a sinner and it says that man is separated from God and it gives us a message that we call the Gospel, the message of salvation that God's Son stepped into history, died on the cross, and was raised from the dead, and offers a free gift of salvation. Because the history is true, that's why the message that's based on the history is true. I actually went through some predictions and listed others and there's a lot more that you can look at, and you can go and test it for yourself. But this book really is true. It is so specific it should explain the world. It should make sense of what we see. The Flood, yeah, the fossils all over the Earth. The Tower of Babel, yeah, we have different people groups, different languages. We have Flood legends similar to the Bible, Creation legends similar to the Bible. There's so much you can look at and prophecy and so on. And most of all, as I said to you, the Bible says that if you come to God believing that He is, He'll reveal Himself to you. You will know. If you search out the truth, you really want God to show you as you search out the silver and gold, He will show you. He will reveal Himself to you." This is very understated. However, Ken Ham kept the best for the last. As he said, it is the most important point. Whoever seeks Christ finds Christ. Every one. Not only those who trust Him and believe Him, but even those who ask in sincerity, humility, persistence, and respect, "Lord, if you are there, I will submit to your will if you show it to me. Teach me your ways. Show me your paths. Instruct me in what is right and true." Anyone who does this finds Jesus. This is verifiable. You don't have to take the word of the text book that is full of errors and bad logic. You don't have to take the word of a professor who makes a lot of thinking errors. You can go to the One  Who makes no errors and Who knows all things, and He will speak to you. He will reveal to you that the Bible is His Word and that it is without error. He will reveal that you must come to Him to understand the Bible, and then He will speak to you through the Bible. He will speak to you though Christians and Christian websites. It will become obvious that nothing creates itself. God will impress it on your understanding and you will know that God created everything you see around you. You will realize how foolish it is to think that everything just created itself from nothing. God will reveal to you that you need Him, that you were created to work in concert with Him, that your mind cannot possibly function correctly without the Anointing of the Holy Ghost. He will reveal to you that the human mind is corrupt. It is deceitful and desperately wicked and not to be trusted, not for interpreting the Creation, not for interpreting Scripture. God will reveal to you that without Divine revelation you can't know anything correctly. You will understand that the Bible has been tested for thousands of years by skeptics and they have not found a single error. Skeptics have come up with stories and assumptions and irrational thinking and outright lies--if you are foolish enough to believe those, then it will seem as if the Bible has errors or inconsistencies. However, once you know Jesus, you will become skeptical about the skeptic's claims. You will check out the claims and find out that they are based on ignorance and made-up stuff.

"As my old professor, Carl Sagan said, 'When you’re in love, you want to tell the world.' And I base my belief on the information and the process that we call science. It fills me with joy to make discoveries every day of things I had never seen before. It fills me with joy to know that we can pursue these answers. It is a wonderful and astonishing thing to me, that we are, you and I, at least one of the ways that the Universe knows itself. You and I are a product of the Universe. It’s astonishing! I see your faces. We have come to be because of the Universe’ existence. And we are driven to pursue that and to find out where we came from. And the second question we all want to know, are we alone? Are we alone in the Universe? And these questions are deep within us. And they drive us, so the process of science! The way we know nature is the most compelling thing to me. And I just want to close by reminding everybody what’s at stake here. If we abandon all that we’ve learned, our ancestors, what they’ve learned about nature and our place in it, if we abandon the process by which we know it, if we eschew everything that people have learned before us, if we stop driving forward, stop looking for the next answer to the next question, we in the United States will be out-competed by other countries, other economies. Now, that would be OK, I guess, but I was born here. I’m a patriot. And so we have to embrace science education. To the voters and tax payers that are watching, please keep that in mind. We have to keep science education in science classes."

  1. "As my old professor, Carl Sagan said, 'When you’re in love, you want to tell the world.' It fills me with joy to make discoveries every day of things I had never seen before. It fills me with joy to know that we can pursue these answers. It is a wonderful and astonishing thing to me, that" Bill Nye is again using the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion.
  2. "And I base my belief on the information and the process that we call science" Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of persuasive definition. Bill has made it clear that the information to which he is referring includes the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story and all the arbitrary assumptions, logically fallacious reasoning, outright lies, and ad hoc hypothesis on which this story is based. The process that we call science, if we define science as observation and pure logic with no arbitrary assumptions, gives no evidence at all for the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story or against God's historical account of Creation and the Flood. However, Bill Nye defines the method of science as allowing the use of arbitrary assumptions that support the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. So this is purely circular reasoning. Bill Nye believes in the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story because of the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. That is circular reasoning. The information, in Bill Nye's mind, includes dogmatic belief in the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. If that is Bill's definition of science, then it is irrational, circular, to use Bill's "science" to prove the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story since they are one and the same thing. Defining science in this way is also a subtle but over-bearing appeal to tradition.
  3. "It fills me with joy to make discoveries every day of things I had never seen before. It fills me with joy to know that we can pursue these answers." This is a logical fallacy of appeal to emotion with no basis. If it were true that there is no God, or that God cannot be known as Bill Nye asserts, why joy? The whole purpose of life for Bill Nye would be to survive and to find pleasure. That's it. No meaning. No reason for joy other than pleasure and surviving. The reason for this appeal to emotion is that Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion to try to bring the audience into his own political agenda. This emotion is the proof that he offers for his next statement, a statement which is patently false.
  4. "It is a wonderful and astonishing thing to me, that we are, you and I, at least one of the ways that the Universe knows itself." Bill is making anunsupported assertion. And why is Bill personifying the Universe in this way? Inanimate things do not know themselves or anything else, not even big things, in a Naturalistic worldview. Or, is Bill now professing an all-is-god religion that he is calling everyone to follow?
  5. "You and I are a product of the Universe." This is the punch line that Bill has been building toward. Look at the last three sentences. Structure them as a three statement logical argument? Is it cogent? Is it sound reasoning? Are we just supposed to take Bill Nye's word for this final claim, this conclusion? Let's simplify Bill's logic for analysis: Bill filled with joy to make discoveries and find answers. You and Bill are one of the says that the Universe knows itself. Therefore, you and Bill are a product of the Universe. Bill is using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion or else, this is non sequitur. He is assuming what he is trying to prove, which is the definition of circular reasoning.
  6. "It’s astonishing!" Bill is using the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion as further evidence for the conclusion he just made.
  7. "I see your faces." Bill is using the logical fallacy of irrelevance as even further evidence for his conclusion.
  8. "We have come to be because of the Universe’ existence." Bill is using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion. So, nothing created everything, and then everything created us. Some evidence would be required for this to be rational.
  9. "And we are driven to pursue that and to find out where we came from." Bill is using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion. If his worldview were correct, what would the mechanism be that would cause us to be driven, and what are the steps of logic and science by which we can all prove this assertion to ourselves? This is a religious claim. Without God, there is no reason to desire to know anything about any of this. Could it be that Bill is driven to find some explanation other than God because He doesn't want to hold God in His knowledge? That would make more sense.
  10. "And the second question we all want to know, are we alone? Are we alone in the Universe?" Bill is using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion and also the bandwagon fallacy. Bill Nye presupposes that everyone wants to know this. He assumes some form of revelation, or can he give the steps of logic and science that lead him to that conclusion? This is the type of thinking--this entire answer--that highlights the problem that students who are taught the molecules-to-man story end up having. They use the words, "science" and "logic," but they have no ability to apply them to life in a meaningful way. They accept ideas that are off the wall and don't have any ability to filter between reality and fantasy. Adding to this problem are those who are following Christ but never acknowledge that they actually know Him, and that this is how they know He exists and that this is how they know the Bible is His Word without error. He reveals it. Since they don't acknowledge Him, they end up using irrational arguments to defend their faith. And they often end up realizing that they are being irrational and so turn from their faith. How many Atheists were going to a Church at one time, but they can tell you that they never heard the Voice of Jesus. They were never led by Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "My sheep hear My Voice." Jesus said, "Whoever is on the side of truth listens to Me."
  11.  "And these questions are deep within us. And they drive us" Bill is using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion. Bill Nye can talk for himself, but he can't speak for the rest of us. If these questions are within him, driving him, he has not provided a cause for this driven nature. That is the logical fallacy of limited depth.
  12. "so the process of science, the way we know nature is the most compelling thing to me." Bill Nye defines science as observations filtered through arbitrary assumptions that are based on a group-held fake-reality, and that fake-reality is based on totally arbitrary assumptions, lies, and stories. This is not a possible way anyone can know nature or know anything at all for that matter. 
  13. And I just want to close by reminding everybody what’s at stake here. If we abandon all that we’ve learned, our ancestors, what they’ve learned about nature and our place in it, if we abandon the process by which we know it, if we eschew everything that people have learned before us, if we stop driving forward, stop looking for the next answer to the next question" Bill is using the logical fallacy of inconsistent thinking. His statement is self-refuting. Bill Nye wants to find the "next answer." However, when someone comes with a real answer that conflicts with what he already has in mind, he wants to stop that answer from having a hearing. He is willing to go to any lengths of fallacy to shout it down. Bill Nye is using innuendo to imply that if you believe what the true God is saying then you eschew science. This is a statement contrary to fact. In fact, as Ken Ham stated, those who don't believe what the true God is saying must assume order without providing any mechanism for order. They don't want to believe that God is the One Who enforces all the laws of nature, so they are forced to start their science with arbitrary assumptions. Bill's comment hides the real debate, which centers on whether his blind faith in arbitrary assumptions and made-up stories is the best way to interpret the observations or whether Divine revelation is the best way to interpret the observations.
  14. "we in the United States will be out-competed by other countries, other economies. Now, that would be OK, I guess, but I was born here. I’m a patriot. And so we have to embrace science education." Bill is using the logical fallacy of appeal to consequence. Bill's reference to science education is loaded with the presupposition of censorship of the Creation Model and unquestioning acceptance of the arbitrary assumptions and made-up stories of the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. In fact, there is no evidence that a lack of censorship of the Creation Model would adversely impact the competitive position of the United States. And this is plenty of evidence that the exact opposite is true, so this is also the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion.
  15. "To the voters and tax payers that are watching, please keep that in mind. We have to keep "science" education in science classes." Bill is using the logical fallacy of politicking and his goal is the tactic of message control. He has already defined science as following the dogma of  Atheism/Agnosticism, so this is a fallacy of persuasive definition. Because of this definition, Bill's reference to science is a loaded term and an appeal to tradition.


Author/Compiler
Last updated: Aug, 2014
 
 




Bread Crumbs

 
Home     >   Meaning     >   Christian Witness     >   Answers for Witness     >   Stories Versus Revelation     >   Creation, Flood, Etc.     >   Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins?     >   Creation Debate: Questions from the Audience

Main

Foundations

Home

Meaning

Bible

Dictionary

History

Toons & Vids

Quotations

Similar

Creation Debate Issue #1: Assumptions Versus Divine Revelation

Creation Debate Issue #2: Historical Science/Observational Science versus Just Science

Creation Debate Issue #3: The Topic of the Debate

Creation Debate Issue #4: Predictability

Creation Debate Issue #5: Personality and Other Irrelevance

Creation Debate: Each Man's Purpose in Debating

Creation Debate: Opening Statements

Creation Debate: Presentations

Creation Debate: Rebuttals

Creation Debate Counter Rebuttals

Creation Debate: Questions from the Audience


Recent

Home

Answer to Critic

Appeal to Possibility

Circular Reasoning

Argument to the Future

Insignificant Cause

Word Magic

Love Between a Man and Woman

Author/Compiler

Colossians 2

Righteousness & Holiness

Don't Compromise

Sin

Proof by Atheism

Scriptures About Marriage

Genuine Authority

The Reason for Rejecting Truth

Witness on the Internet

Flaky Human Reasoning

How Do You Know?



Featured


The Real Purpose of the Church

The Real Purpose of Life

From Glory to Glory

REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT

REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT

How to be Led by God

How to Witness

Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality

Holiness & Mind/Soul

Redemption: Free From Sin

Real Reality

Stories Versus Revelation

Understanding Logic

Logical Fallacies

Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?

How Can We Know Anything?

God's Word

God's Process

God's Pattern

Mind Designed to Relate to God

Answers for the Confused

Fossil Record Says: "Creation"

Avoid These Pitfalls

Public School's Religion

Twisting Science

Evolutionism

Public School Failures

Twisting History


How can we know anything about anything? That's the real question

more info: mouseover or click

The complexity of Gods Way understood in a single diagram
Obey your flesh and descend into darkness