Nye vs Ham: The Epic Debate of Our Time

    You've probably heard about the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. They were debating the following resolution: Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?

    There will probably be a lot of people who say that Mr Ham won, and a lot of people saying that Mr Nye won. But really, who did win? If you didn't watch it, I'll break it down for you.

    Mr Ham's first case showed us the difference between observational science and historical science, and that we all have the same facts but our interpretation of the facts was different. He continued to say that with Evolution, we can have no laws of logic, we can have no morality, and we can have no laws of physics. He then outlined the most basic problems with the evidence for Evolution, such as the problems with dating methods and the fact that no organism has ever become more complex. And finally, he said that Creationists can be scientists, thus already winning the debate. "Viable" literally means "capable of working successfully." Since he showed that yes, indeed, without Creationism we wouldn't have the MRI (at least not as early as we did) and showed that Creationism and science don't even come into conflict. Well, he won that one already.

    However, he and Mr Nye were debating on two different terms. Mr Nye basically said (to sum it up in a sentence) that if we have Creationists running around in science, we won't advance. Ham had already established (and this, by the way, was a dropped argument) that Creationists can be scientists, and therefore, his whole point about "we will be overtaken by Japan and China if we allow Creationism to run free" was invalid. And he literally replied "I don't know" to the questions "Where did the molecules for the big bang come from?" and "how did our consciousness evolve?" He basically said the same thing that Darwin did. "Well, we don't even know the most basic things about our own religion, but some day someone will find out!"

    I have a question for Mr Nye: what if they don't? What if no one ever finds any good evidence, like the missing link? There are so many basic, fundamental flaws with your religion that no amount of specifics can help.

    And this is why Mr Ham won. He had a groundwork. In fact, he even pointed out that the Evolutionary worldview can have no groundwork. And Mr Nye dropped this point. Completely. Didn't even acknowledge it.

    Is this the only reason? No. I'll put down the dropped arguments by both sides so you can see the ridiculousness:

    Arguments that Mr Nye won (because Mr Ham dropped them):

1. The layers in which we find fossils are even, and no animals are in a layer that they aren't supposed to, thus proving that they evolved
2. Kangaroos could not have traveled from Asia to Australia without any fossil records.
3. The skulls that are intermediate, indicating a missing link
4. Scientists predicted the background noise as a result of the big bang
5. Billions of stars are many light years away, proves old earth

    And the arguments that Mr Ham won:

1. No logic without God
2. There is a difference between historical and observational science
3. Evolution led to racism, but Creationism showed that we all had the same origins
4. No technology required Evolution to build
5. There can be no morality in the Evolutionary worldview
6. There are no examples of any organism gaining more information in its genetic code
7. Dating methods have problems, and even then, 90% of them contradict a billions of years theory
8. Bible is infallible (to which Mr Nye responded "so we're supposed to believe your interpretation of the Bible?" Yes, Mr Nye, you are. He is an expert, and even then, his interpretation of the Bible is not founded on nothing. There is overwhelming evidence in favor of the Bible)
9. No life has ever come from non-life
10. No organism has ever become more complex by itself

    Okay, reading those lists, who won? Oh, and let me refute each thing he said in order (what Mr Nye said; you can't refute any of the main points Mr Ham made):

1. Cambrian explosion.
2. AIG has an answer for that on their website. Floating log mats (alive, not dead)
3. The AIG website has a lot of articles about skulls. They explain them pretty well. Look 'em up.
4. Science predicted the background noise? And that did what do exactly? Make some thermonuclear awesome bomb? No. It just predicted that there would be a background noise. And even so, there's a problem with this "prediction," and it only created another problem for the Big Bang model.
5. AIG has an excellent video on this. Watch it, even if you are a young-earth Creationist.

    So, we can really see that what Mr Nye said has no ground. To the most basic questions, he had no idea, and Mr Ham had an answer. And Mr Ham was forced to debate like Mr Nye (specifics) instead of how Mr Ham prefers to debate (groundwork), and still successfully defended the resolution. And when Mr Nye went over to Mr Ham's way of debating, he completely lost. He was crushed, because you can't have any groundwork for Evolution. There is none.

    So, in reality, although Mr Nye did make some points that weren't addressed, the points that Mr Ham didn't address were much less significant than the points that Mr Nye didn't address. Because the points that Mr Nye made can be refuted. And sure, maybe I forgot some, but he put the nail in his coffin by saying that he wanted to be patriotic. Sorry, Mr Nye, but Mr Ham showed the importance of Creationism, and that it too can do great things, and that if we don't teach it in schools (although he only mentioned it once) then we will not be exercising the freedom of speech that is guaranteed to us as a result of the constitution (he didn't mention this last part, but it was implied). So, Mr Nye lost in all three areas: fundamentals, facts and the resolution (he came the closest on the facts, but even his facts were refuted).

    Thank you for your time.