Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (full video of last night's debate)
YouTube ^ | February 4, 2014 | Answers in Genesis

Posted on 02/05/2014 9:40:42 AM PST by EveningStar

Streamed live on Feb 4, 2014
Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era? Leading creation apologist and bestselling Christian author Ken Ham is joined at the Creation Museum by Emmy Award-winning science educator and CEO of the Planetary Society Bill Nye.

(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...


TOPICS: Education; Religion; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: billnye; creationism; creationmuseum; crevolist; debate; evolution; kenham; kentucky; yec; youngearth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-172 next last
I set the link to bypass the first thirteen minutes, which consists of a countdown and a cartoon commercial. You're still looking at about 2.5 hours.
1 posted on 02/05/2014 9:40:42 AM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Full video including 13 minute intro
2 posted on 02/05/2014 9:46:42 AM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Intelligent design is irrefutable and Darwinism is unsupportable. That’s not much of a debate.


3 posted on 02/05/2014 9:47:00 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
You mean like this?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

4 posted on 02/05/2014 9:49:40 AM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Creationists are like liberals. They desperately want to hold on to their “beliefs” while reality suggests otherwise.


5 posted on 02/05/2014 9:52:13 AM PST by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sagar
Creationists are like liberals. They desperately want to hold on to their “beliefs” while reality suggests otherwise.

*needs adjusting*

Creationists Darwinists are like liberals. They desperately want to hold on to their “beliefs” while reality suggests otherwise.

Fixed.

As if "science" is somehow above the political, or pure and perfect. Your sentence is not only wrong, but frankly, quite naive........

6 posted on 02/05/2014 10:03:06 AM PST by Lakeshark (Mr Reid, tear down this law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sagar
There are many people a helleva lot smarter than you that reject what you so confidently assert.
7 posted on 02/05/2014 10:03:38 AM PST by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
That’s not much of a debate.

No, not if one party simply refuses to accept the facts. When one side simply says, "I don't accept that," (in this case radiocarbon dating) there isn't much more room for intelligence to play a role. I don't think you can defend "intelligent design" with impenetrable denseness.

8 posted on 02/05/2014 10:04:11 AM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Creationism Is Materialism’s Creation
9 posted on 02/05/2014 10:09:13 AM PST by Carpe Cerevisi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

It was a great debate and Ken Ham stayed on subject as Bill Nye kept trying to change subject and acted like an a** in my opinion!


10 posted on 02/05/2014 10:09:49 AM PST by blueyon (The U. S. Constitution - read it and weep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

I dropped at countdown of 2 minutes of music. Lost my interest right away.


11 posted on 02/05/2014 10:10:26 AM PST by lucky american (The Democrats will follow the big "D"even if it means going over a cliff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

So radiocarbon dating is infallible in your world view?

I tried being a Darwinist, but just didn’t have the faith required to believe that religion.

Pray America is Waking


12 posted on 02/05/2014 10:12:40 AM PST by bray (http://www.braylog.com/id47.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sagar
Creationists are like liberals. They desperately want to hold on to their “beliefs” while reality suggests otherwise.

I agree. They're embarrasing and dangerous to conservatism. This anti-science attitude that is co-opting conservatism is going to cost us a lot of educated suburban voters. Just wait until every guy running with an (R) after his name has to field questions from the media on how old they think the earth is.

13 posted on 02/05/2014 10:17:59 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
No, like this:

Evidence of ID is overwhelming and undeniable, beginning with the purposeful makeup your own body, its DNA and the many intricate parts that work individually and together for a functioning body. Proof of purposeful and intricate design is proof of a Designer.

Darwinism requires transference from one major animal group to another of which there is no evidence.

Like that.

14 posted on 02/05/2014 10:21:38 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

It is young earth creationists that make Christianity look bad in these debates. Nye should have rather debated someone like Hugh Ross.


15 posted on 02/05/2014 10:22:59 AM PST by wolfman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Science is free to operate from a set of assumptions. In fact science cannot happen without them.

There is no harm in a scientist beginning with the assumption that intelligent design is operative and/or implicit wherever order exists. Order, arrangement, and art are hallmarks of intelligence. There is also no harm in a scientist assuming this order to be the result, or evidence, of a higher being, even the One of Whom the biblical texts have testified from the beginning. In fact that makes sense, because it lends credence to, or is not unduly surprised by anomalies such as studies in quantum mechanics are beginning to yield.

Concerning matter as studied at absolute zero, Rob Thompson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, recently said, “It is a wonderland where nothing is certain, where objects behave both as particles and as waves, and where matter can be in two places at once.” Kind of makes “walking on water” or “turning water into wine” a less-than-remarkable possibility. It also undermines the paradigm (fairly recent) of an ancient universe.

If the presence of intelligence is rejected as operative behind the order we see, then it stands to reason the evidence will lead elsewhere, as it does for those who adopt the materialist point of view.

I happen to hold the former point of view, but do appreciate the great amount of legwork others do in unearthing the universe. The antagonism that exists between the two points of view is to be expected, for they cannot both be true in their assumptions and conclusions. Both may be science, but neither is able wholly to divest itself of faith.


16 posted on 02/05/2014 10:24:18 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

So it’s irrefutable that it was designed, but impossible for it to have been designed with the ability to evolve?


17 posted on 02/05/2014 10:24:50 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wolfman

How old was Adam when he was created?


18 posted on 02/05/2014 10:25:07 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

2.5 hours - any clue as to MBs?


19 posted on 02/05/2014 10:25:44 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Evidence of ID is everywhere, beginning with the purposeful makeup your own body, its DNA and all the intricate parts that work individually and together that make up a multi-functioning body. Proof of purposeful and intricate design is proof of a Designer.


20 posted on 02/05/2014 10:26:01 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Proof of purposeful and intricate design is proof of a Designer.

That's going a bit far, insofar as you use the word "proof." Evidence, yes. Proof? No.

21 posted on 02/05/2014 10:26:23 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sagar
. . . reality suggests otherwise.

The Bible "suggests" the heavens and are real, created entities. Does reality suggest otherwise for you?

22 posted on 02/05/2014 10:28:52 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

“This anti-science attitude that is co-opting conservatism is
going to cost us a lot of educated suburban voters.”

News flash: those “educated suburban voters” love abortion, RINOs, and Obama. We’ve already lost them.


23 posted on 02/05/2014 10:30:17 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sagar

Evolutionists ARE liberals.


24 posted on 02/05/2014 10:32:21 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MrB
How old was Adam when he was created?

His substance was as old as created matter at the time. His age at the moment he became a living being would have been zero. His form was likely that of a 33-year-old male. I sense, however, you did not ask this question to be informed, but rather to mock.

25 posted on 02/05/2014 10:39:16 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Evidence is considered proof in a court of law if the evidence for proof is clear and convincing, a preponderance, or leaves no reasonable doubt about a conclusion.

Just as the existence of a car is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a designer of that car, so your body is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Someone designed you.

26 posted on 02/05/2014 10:39:27 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Evidence of ID is overwhelming and undeniable, beginning with the purposeful makeup your own body, its DNA and all the intricate parts that work individually and together that make up a multi-functioning body. Proof of purposeful and intricate design is proof of a Designer.

Darwinism requires transference from one major animal group to another of which there is no evidence.

27 posted on 02/05/2014 10:40:23 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Not to mock, but to inspire a thought.

How old was the earth when it was created?


28 posted on 02/05/2014 10:40:58 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Sigh. So John Boner is right. We have to let the liberals frame and define the arguments. If we can’t trust what the Bible clearly says, and have to allow godless people to adjust it, we have nothing. Everyone just believed what the Bible said until progressives set out to discredit it through “science” falsely so called. You were just fed evolution and billions of years by godless teachers, Hollywood, and media types. You took it without questions.

Perhaps you’re a scientist. Your worldview was given you by Marxist professors. You hated their politics because you were shown alternatives. But you adopted their theology because the alternative is stifled. Maybe you just rejected the alternative because it’s convicting.

Anyway, I’m going to believe the Bible, let God be true, and every man a liar.


29 posted on 02/05/2014 10:43:20 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Darwinism requires transference from one major animal group to another of which there is no evidence.

What's a "major animal group", and who gets to decide what counts as evidence?

30 posted on 02/05/2014 10:45:08 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wolfman

Rom 5:12

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

The god who ordained death as a matter of perfecting his creation is a sorry god. He’s not my God. I want nothing to do with your religion, as it gives no hope of life. Your god loves death. If I were lost, in my sins, with no hope of eternal life, I’d want a god who offered life. If I were the average prideful sinner, so encouraged by modernity’s abhorrence of God’s Word, I’d create my own god as you have.


31 posted on 02/05/2014 10:48:20 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MrB
How old was the earth when it was created?

This presents difficulty insofar as written reports (including science) by those who have gone before us have gaps. I accept the biblical texts as accurate and authoritative on the matter, but since they do not focus on the precise age of the earth, I'm not sure why I, or science, or anyone for that matter, ought to be required to answer with much precision. But there is absolutely no question as far as what the biblical texts say on the face of things regarding origin, purpose, place, and destinations. I rather enjoy the fact that not all the answers are given, but are mostly hidden.

32 posted on 02/05/2014 10:49:30 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

It’s impossible that the God of the Bible used macro, Darwinist evolution.


33 posted on 02/05/2014 10:50:33 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
It’s impossible that the God of the Bible used macro, Darwinist evolution.

Who decided that, on what evidence?

34 posted on 02/05/2014 10:51:52 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Who decided Darwinist evolution was true, on what evidence?

Is there nothing about Darwinism that was and is wrong?

35 posted on 02/05/2014 10:55:44 AM PST by Lakeshark (Mr Reid, tear down this law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The Bible. The only thing I can be sure of. God inspired it so we would know Him. I just read it without letting a bunch of modernist and post-modernist tell me what it says.


36 posted on 02/05/2014 10:56:48 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

How does something come from nothing?

How does life comes from lifelessness?


37 posted on 02/05/2014 11:00:06 AM PST by ealgeone (obama, border)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Carpe Cerevisi

That article is ridiculous. Materialism didn’t tell us that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, the BIBLE did. If anything, materialism is responsible for the idea that we must reduce those passages of the Bible to “poetry” or “allegory”, in order not to run afoul of materialism. That is certainly not the traditional, historical Christian interpretation of the passages.


38 posted on 02/05/2014 11:00:43 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MrB

The Bible doesn’t specifically address that. We can draw from inference that he was in his early to mid 20s.


39 posted on 02/05/2014 11:01:36 AM PST by ealgeone (obama, border)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

evolve or adapt....there is a difference?


40 posted on 02/05/2014 11:02:02 AM PST by ealgeone (obama, border)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

Right, he was created as a mature man, though chronologically he was but microseconds old.


41 posted on 02/05/2014 11:02:57 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: lucky american

You can always use the scroll bar to jump ahead. BTW, I didn’t watch it. Not interested.


42 posted on 02/05/2014 11:03:35 AM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
Who decided Darwinist evolution was true, on what evidence?

As far as I know, nobody can authoritatively say it's true. That's why it's called a "theory". I doubt that your so uninformed as to be unaware of the evidence.

Is there nothing about Darwinism that was and is wrong?

Define "Darwinism". I'm familiar with the theory of evolution. "Darwinism" seems a slippery term that defies formal definition, other than being a general perjorative.

43 posted on 02/05/2014 11:06:54 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

FWIW, I cannot get past the improbability that the incomprehensible DNA molecule assembled itself, absent any guiding intelligence.


44 posted on 02/05/2014 11:09:38 AM PST by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
evolve or adapt....there is a difference?

Somewhere in the taxonomy there is a line that gets crossed that says it's a new species, but what's being labeled doesn't always conform the rules laid out by whoever is making up the labels.

45 posted on 02/05/2014 11:12:46 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Good answer, it clarifies a bit where you are coming from. Perhaps you ought to appear to be as skeptical of those who support the theory as those who try to come from a Biblical perspective.

The reason "Darwinism" has become a pejorative, is that many of the adherents of that viewpoint deserve it. They spin a theory as truth, ignore its problems, and muddy (and have seriously muddied) the scientific world with a sociopolitical nuance that simply never belonged.

46 posted on 02/05/2014 11:13:31 AM PST by Lakeshark (Mr Reid, tear down this law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
The Bible. The only thing I can be sure of.

So you trust whoever wrote and translated that book, without even knowing for sure who they were or what they meant?

47 posted on 02/05/2014 11:15:01 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
evolve or adapt....there is a difference?

Evolution is commonly defined -- by evolutionists -- as genetic change. What that means, is that "evolution" is all around us at all times, and we see it happen on a daily basis. How convenient.

Adaptation actually is pretty easy to see. It consists of genetic change. In a lab, you can have fruitflies with certain wing configurations. Over time, a scientist can experiment and cause adaptation in the fruit flies so that the population has a different wing configuration. That is genetic change. That is adaptation. It is -- if you like -- evolution. Not too many people argue this and try to say "that is impossible", because we see it before our eyes.

Evolution -- the thrust of the theory -- is that all life has a common ancestor. That's a big change in the definition. This is the significant issue, because the Bible does not describe life coming into existence in that way. In the theory of evolution, life in one Kingdom, or one Plylum will (given enough time) change (evolve) into a different Kingdom or Phylum. Which is to say that a mollusk will (over millions of years) evolve into a dog. This is crossing of the classification boundaries and it is required by the Theory of Evolution. But it is pure speculation. No one has ever seen anything like it.

Adapatation is easy.
Evolution requires a leap of faith.

48 posted on 02/05/2014 11:15:49 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Anti-Complacency League! Baby!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
Perhaps you ought to appear to be as skeptical of those who support the theory as those who try to come from a Biblical perspective.

Those who try to come at it from a Biblical perspective never present it as "the theory of Genesis".

49 posted on 02/05/2014 11:17:08 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

The simplest explanation for the difference between adaptation and evolution is the assumption of where the information necessary for the change came from.

A creationist / adaptive interpretation of observable change assumes that the information necessary was already in the critter. Information resulting from intelligence.

The evolutionary assumption is that the information came about as a result of random mutations “held” in place by natural selection. Information resulting from chaos.


50 posted on 02/05/2014 11:19:02 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-172 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson