46. Bill Nye, the “Science Guy” debates Ken Ham, the Biblical Creationist: My analysis

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at AmazonThe URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The page begins below.

My take on the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate:

On February 4, 2014, Bill Nye, the “science guy” and a strong evolution proponent, debated with Ken Ham, a fervent Biblical creationist and the founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. This was a debate between a scientific theory (evolution) and a religion (Christianity). Pitting science in a debate against a religious belief system held by 20% of the world’s population isn’t a debate. It’s a complete smokescreen done to cover evolution’s Noah’s Ark-like fables. This debate did nothing but support evolution, and humble religious creationism. Ken Ham’s point was that “we have all sinned, and Jesus came to save us, and Noah built an immensely long wooden boat, and collected all of the animals in the world on that boat, and…” I have no problem with people who want to support their beliefs and the tenets of their religion. Peaceful religions do have a good place in human society.  I know a lot of people who have had their lives straightened out through their belief in Christianity, and the support they get from fellow believers. I have yet to see an atheist group, or group of evolution believers forming soup kitchen, or fighting alcoholism and drug addiction, or supporting families in trouble, or building and supporting hospitals.  But pitting religious belief against scientific theories is and was a complete waste of time, and completely boring. I was amazed that the crowd stayed for the whole show. There was little humor in the debate. Ham was serious the entire time. Nye tried several times to warm up to the audience by doing a stand-up shtick, (his story about how he began wearing bowties, etc.) but his attempts fell like a tree in a forest with no conscious observers.

Noahs_Arkreally couldn’t watch the entire battle due to severe boredom, so I came back and watched segments. The same basic premise was repeated over and over. It was Ken Ham’s religious belief system, versus Bill Nye’s science. Nye was the obvious and overwhelming winner. He couldn’t lose. He used scientific fact and observation. Ham used religious belief and the Bible, which isn’t at all meant to be scientific.  If the Bible discussed the origination and formation of DNA, the Krebs cycle, visual systems, the speed of light… it would have incredible and astounding respectability as a scientific journal.  It’s purely a religious book, and meant to be nothing more. Most of Nye’s strategy, in the parts I watched, were made up of proving Noah and his family could not have built such an immense ark, could not have collected all of the land animals in the world, supposedly 14,000 of them, and placed them on that ark, there could not have been a worldwide flood that formed the Grand Canyon…  (I always wondered why a 450 foot long “boat” isn’t a “ship”, instead of an “ark”.) When I was a kid watching this scenario in my religious classes. I wondered, if Noah could build such a large boat out of wood, there must have been thousands of other smaller boats owned by thousands of other people. Why didn’t they use their boats to survive the flood? Christianity, or any religion for that matter, should not be pitted against science. Just imagine a debate between Biblical astronomy and the theory of relativity. Wouldn’t that be fun? Religion versus religion would make a more interesting debate for the religious. Let Ham debate an Islamic mullah, or Buddhist monk. Actually that would be uninteresting, since it would be and argument between belief systems, which really cannot be debated. Science should be pitted against science.

The real question that should be debated is, “Is evolution a valid theory”. If this were the subject of the debate, and Bill Nye had to defend his belief in evolution against someone debating that evolution couldn’t be the source of all of living nature and its biological systems, Bill Nye would have been slaughtered. He would have looked like Ken Ham did in this debate.  But in this debate, Bill Nye won hands down. Congratulations Bill.

Oh, you want to know why Bill would get clobbered in a debate on the validity of the Theory of Evolution? Well, if I were debating him, these would be a sample of the questions I might ask:

(1) Describe the stepwise formation of the Krebs cycle via randomly selected mutations. The Krebs cycle is, of course, a cyclic  chain of biochemical reactions that converts nutrients into usable energy. It operates in all animal cells. It’s a cyclic chain  much like a bicycle chain. Could a bicycle chain be assembled in steps, one link at a time, and exist with uses for each step for a bike rider? What brought about the notion of a biochemical cycle in the first place?

(2) Detail the evolution of human intelligence and consciousness.

(3) Describe how evolution formed protein synthesis. Use DNA, RNA, tRNA, ribosomes, and the major enzymes in your description, and detail in what order each entity appeared.

(4) Describe the formation of visual systems, and give the order of appearance of the eyeball, optic nerve, visual cortex, and biochemical code that transmits signals from the eye to the visual cortex.

(5) If man came from apes, why are there still apes today? Evo-illusionists hide an ignored caveat to this question: Why are there 625 primate (ape) species in existence today, and only one single human species? Is this good evidence for the randomness that evolution is based on? Why are there no intermediates between man and ape in existence today? Did all hominids become extinct except one, while 625 apes thrived? Did only hominids evolve into newer versions, in a single lineage, while apes kept the old versions along with the new to form 625  modern apes from a multitude of lineages?

(6) Detail what the following astounding evolution discoveries have in common:

1. Piltdown man

2. Java man

3. Nebraska man

4. Peking man

5. Lucy*

6. Haeckel’s embryos

7.Orce man

8. Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis

9. Tiktaalik**

7. Describe steps that were used by evolution to form a simple blood vessel. What steps were necessary to go from no “tube” to a closed tube. Describe the evolution of the blood that fills blood vessels, including the method of origin and precursors of WBC’s, RBC’s, platelets, and antibodies.

8. Detail the evolution of arboreal branch bird nests, from the first twig to a full nest system.

9. Clarify how and why only left handed amino acid molecules and right handed ribose sugar molecules are utilized in cell biochemistry when both synthesize in equal parts right and left handed.

10. Describe the stepwise evolution of sexual reproduction. Clarify events that lead to the slow formation of sperm/egg fertilization. How did the male sexual apparatus evolve to fit the female sexual apparatus?

Gee Bill,  I have more questions. Are you OK? Thank you for the debate Bill. Here is a napkin, so you can dry your tears and drools.

BYE

Answers to 1-4: There are no possible answers.

Answer to 6: All are frauds

*Richard Leakey said that Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of paris” and that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to. (The Weekend Australian, May 7-8, 1983, Magazine section, p. 3)

Lucy’s hip looked like the hip of a chimpanzee, and couldn’t support bipedal locomotion. Never fear, evo-illusionist Dr. Owen Lovejoy took a Dremel tool and reshaped the the hip to make it look like a human hip, one that could support upright walking. (Nova on PBS, episode 1, 1994, “In Search of Human Origins”)

**Claimed to be the earliest quadruped (four legged) fossil ever discovered, when only the front half was found, a fact ignored on all documentaries on the subject that I have found.

Answer 7-10: There are no possible answers.

 

1 Comment

  1. Kevin Franck said,

    I’m curious here. I’m neither and Evolutionist nor Creationist as I find both positions are politically and ideologically driven. I have a fascination about the account of the Flood account from a mechanisms point of view. One of the major problems with YEC viewpoint is very well illustrated in that animation of the Ark. If YECs who are generally very literal in their take on the Bible, would actually read the Ark blueprint instructions as given to Noah by God, they add up to a perfect simple but effective rectangular box. This need to make the Ark look conventionally ship like as if it needs design to sail somewhere detracts from it’s true purpose to simply float and save the creatures and people on board.

    One other curiosity for me is Tiktaalik. Especially in the case of where they have been discovered on Ellesmere Island near northern Greenland in the Canadian Archipelago. A couple of decades ago they have found real mummified wood (not fossilized) which still burns from Redwood, Larch, Pine etc plus a whole host of cones and leaves revealed from the melting of the Glaciers and permafrost which perfectly preserved these. Also found however were an entire Beaver Dam with wooden branches and logs with the chew marks still perfectly preserved. Behind the Dam were also found the fossil of one beaver itself and what was described as a crocodile-like creature. Question is, could Tiktaalik have existed at the same time as beavers ? Personally I don’t know, but the possibility is intriguing

    The Genesis account of a flood is intriguing for me as I am fascinated by the ancient hydrological cycle described in Genesis which is nothing like we experience today. Most of the isotope studies seem to bear out that the origin of the water which hydrated these redwoods came from a strictly terrestrial source and not from storms off oceans. To read the confussion from the paleobontanists and geologists on this and desperately trying to come to grips by means of their own story of moist air moving over land from the Gulf of Mexico to the arctic is at sad if not at least entertaining. This possible spring origined water cycle has had me fascinated for years and has led me to research the plant mechanism which would have facillitated water movement uphill to higher elevation plants. This in turn has led to personal successes in restoring habits by means of viewing as system as something engineered as opposed to “Dice Theory”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: