Ken Ham will, as the saying goes, take Bill Nye to church. The debate has been met with some criticism. The Richard Dawkins Foundation, especially, believes that the event is pointless, and putting creationism on the same podium as evolution helps add credibility to its position. Nevertheless, the much talked about debate will go on.
They must be desperate.
Ken Ham coherently, systematically, and logically explained the difference between true, observational science and historical science. The difference being that observational science is science anyone can do.
It is repeatable, verifiable, and observable. Atheists cleverly abuse the assumptions in an attempt to push their own religious beliefs life without God onto children.
He even had real Ph. Of course, Nye ignored it. Ham came off as cool, mature, intelligent, and funny. All of his jokes landed well, and he had a sense of maturity about him.
You could sense his confidence in the debate, and he handled himself very well. He also followed the debate instructions without going over time or using excessive words.
He even revealed a great slide that shows you just how absurd they get.
He also affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman. Ken Ham respectfully acknowledged that even some atheists have made contributions to science, which was awfully gracious of him.
While Ken Ham did a wonderful job, there are a couple of areas in which I felt he could have been stronger. Second, I felt that Ham should have countered with all of the times the date of the earth has been changed—just in the last two decades alone.
Is Nye sure they have it right this time? Of course, he has this information on his website already, but I would have really like it if some of the skeptics watching could have heard some of these arguments or apologetics of creationism.
Ultimately, Ken Ham did a wonderful job in the debate. He presented the facts well, did well with counterarguments, upheld the authority of the scriptures, and even slid a gospel presentation in a few times.
He did it respectfully, logically, and reasonably. Here are some of the reasons why Bill Nye did so horribly: It was awkward, and the story fell flat. The majority of the audience aside from a couple of people who gently laughedhad strange looks on their faces.
It was a horrible way to start a debate, and it was unrelated to anything discussed. Bill Nye seemed as if he had zero confidence. His entire presentation was awkward. Bill Nye was totally disrespectful in the debate.Evolution can help with that, says Bill Nye.
the theory of evolution in a debate with young-Earth creationist Ken Ham, flight drew a young Bill Nye into . Creation Debate The Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate Was a Nightmare for Science.
In a hyped showdown, “the Science Guy” tried to defend evolution against creationist Ken Ham, and proved how slick.
Bill Nye "The Science Guy," a bow-tied television personality and staunch evolutionist, faced off against Ken Ham, founder of Kentucky's Creation Museum. Nye believes the Earth was created.
Bill Nye the Science Guy wins points from skeptics who worried that he'd lose the evolution debate with creationist Ken Ham. Subscribe to Breaking News emails You have successfully subscribed to.
Creation Museum head Ken Ham, right, speaks during a debate on evolution with TV's 'Science Guy' Bill Nye, at the museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Photograph: AP Last night, we were treated to a. In the debate aired February 4th, between Bill Nye and Ken Ham regarding creationism, I feel it goes without saying that Bill Nye came out on top.