Is Bill Nye More Christian Than Ken Ham?

After the debate with Ken Ham and Bill Nye over creationism, I analyzed how well the debate went. I believe Ken Ham won the debate, fair and square. But after a few days of thought, I’m thinking that Bill Nye may be closer to God than Ken Ham.

I “flowed” the debate on a Google Spreadsheet, meaning I tracked the arguments as they were made (you can view it here). The idea of “flowing” speaks for itself: it’s a note-taking system that keeps track of the arguments. It “flows” the debate.

I’ve judged hundreds of debates over the years. Flowing allows me the ability to separate my own personal biases from the round and declare a “winner.” I only write down what the debaters say, not infer my own opinions on what they say. I save some of that for the “RFD”: the “Reason For Decision” on the ballot. This post gives you less of the RFD and more of my personal belief.

Because, frankly, I don’t know the answer to the creation debate. This may surprise you, especially if you know me and know my love for Jesus Christ. I came to this debate hoping to perhaps find some answers. It was more of a philosophical inquisition for me, and it boiled down to one of the questions asked by the moderator, “What, if anything, would ever change your mind?” (You can view the timeframe at 2:04:00).

  1. Bill Nye’s answer: evidence.
  2. Ken Ham’s answer: nothing. 

Admittedly, their answers were more complex than that, but I still found Ken’s answer more bothersome than Bill’s. When asked if Ken Ham could be wrong, he should have given the answer that Bill Nye gave: Of course. The fact that Ham didn’t say this is, as Nye said several times in the debate, “a most disturbing position.”

Consider this question yourself. “What, if anything, would ever change your mind?” Whether you believe in creation or evolution, what would be your answer? Ken Ham had two minutes to answer, and here is how I flowed it:

“I’m a Christian. I can’t prove it to you, but God has shown me clearly through his word and through his son that it is true. No one will convince me that the word of God is not true. The models of what is written cannot change.”

This is a disturbing position to hold personally and scientifically, and I would also argue that it is disturbing that people like Ham think this is the proper Christian perspective. Perhaps the only perspective. Ken Ham’s answers are disturbing for three principled reasons:

1. Ken Ham’s answer is not honest; Bill Nye’s answer is. 

“I do not doubt the word of God,” Ken Ham says, and in friendlier venues he’d get a resounding “A-MEN!” This is disturbing because — should I admit this? — I doubt all the time. Isn’t this what attracts people to debates like this in the first place?

I seek to reconcile my doubts (which I admit to have) and my faith (which I confess to have). 

But here Ken is confessing to have no doubts. I’m with Nye: this disturbs me. Ken Ham is either being delusional or deceptive. Perhaps a bit of both. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like the company of absolutists. They may interest me for a while, but the absolutism is, nonetheless, quite disturbing.

Why so disturbing? Because it isn’t honest. Philosophically speaking, we all have the Rene Descartés in us that can doubt all but the very conception of the doubt (“I think, therefore, I am”). Doubt is an essential step to seeking the truth, and truth, I’m sure, is what Ken Ham believes he’s seeking. He just doesn’t doubt that which he found, and I’m not convinced that he has the truth.

2. Ken Ham’s answer is not scientific; Bill Nye’s answer is.

So, when in conflict, Ken Ham will not doubt the literal interpretation of the bible. Again, that will get you an “amen” from a friendly audience. Nye is clearly disturbed by this, and from a scientific view (which Ken Ham is trying to include himself), I agree with Nye. This is disturbing.

Here’s why: this is a dogmatic position, and when truth is being sought, dogma frustrates the quest for answers. You have got to admit at least to the possibility of being wrong. If you don’t, there’s the door. Get out of here, you’re not being helpful to the conversation, go away.

If Nye made this point in the debate section — and if Ham likewise displayed the dogmatic stubbornness he displayed in the Q&A — my ballot would have likely gone the other way. Remember, the question of the debate was to answer, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?”

Ken’s answer is, “No one will convince me that the word of God is not true.” This is unacceptable, certainly not convincing. In fact, I’d argue that it is not Christian…

3. Ken Ham’s answer is not Christian; Bill Nye’s answer is.

I suppose there is an argument to be made that Ken was “standing on the word of God” and he should be applauded.

Not so fast.

I don’t believe Ham was “standing on the word of God.” He is standing on what “God has shown me”; in other words, his interpretation of the word of God.

If you’re a creationist and a Ken Ham fan, and you’re upset that I am taking your guy to task, take a moment and press the pause button. You have got to question Ham’s position here. I considered letting this entire blog post go — I know it’ll upset some of my friends — but dog-gone-it, this is a pivotal heresy that is a fundamental problem within Christian circles. People like Ken Ham are claiming they know the mind of God, and those who disagree do not know “true” Christianity.

This fatal flaw came up a few times in the Q&A, not so much the debate. Ham referenced the bible when he made the claim that God will reveal himself to believers, which is a general theme throughout the bible (Eph. 3:3, Amos 3:7, Daniel 2:22, Jeremiah 33:3, etc.). Here’s the flaw: Ken Ham is assuming his revelation is God’s.

And we all are familiar with Ken Ham’s interpretation. The earth was created in six days. That’s what it says. Period. End of story.

If you follow this line of reasoning — that a six-day creation story is the truest interpretation of what it means to be a Christian — take a deep breath and reconsider this. The literal interpretation of the bible is not the end of the story. I’m not necessarily conceding that creation is false, I’m merely admitting that Genesis is just the beginning. There’s more to it than Ken Ham’s interpretation.

Here’s what I won’t do: I won’t claim to have The Answer. I’m not going to say that, just because I prayed to God for answers, that whatever I’ve come up with are God’s answers. To me, that’s using God’s name in my own vain, one of the big no-no’s in the bible. I just can’t pull myself to give the answer that Ken Ham gave.

This whole debate turned on this ironic dime. Could it be that Bill Nye displayed a more genuine and Christian faith than Ken Ham? 

Thank about it. Pray about it. Consider:

  1. Nye doubts, he explores the creation, he seeks out answers to the questions he has in his heart and mind. Bill Nye is the Science Guy.
  2. Ham does not doubt, he explores only to validate that which he already believes to be true, and he limits all that he wonders to “Answers in Genesis.” Ken Ham is the Creation Guy.

Okay, then. Ham may have won on the flow, but I remain in doubt that his worldview is honest, scientific, or even Christian.

Click here to read my actual flowsheet.

Click here to read my actual flowsheet.

Want the best cases, briefs and articles for competition? Become a Monument Member, and get them dropped in your lap every single "Monument Monday." Become a Monument Member!

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

  • Jennifer Torres

    I don’t agree.

  • Doug Tjaden

    I don’t even know what to say, except – this post is very sad. In the interest of maintaining a relationship, I will say no more.

    • M.D Dragon

      As long as you keep your relationship away from my child’s science class, then there’s no problem.

  • judi

    Bill Nye can’t be more Christian then Ken Ham because he denies the deity of Jesus Christ, denies the Resurrection and denies that God’s word is the ultimate authority. He opposes everything in the entire Nicene Creed so how can you claim he’s “more Christian”. Frankly, Ken Ham isn’t my favorite messenger regarding the authority and reliability of God’s word but he acknowledges Jesus Christ as his savior and for a brother in Christ to say he’s less Christian then someone who has denied our Savior is disappointing to say the least.

    • To be fair, I am just asking the question. And I believe it is a good one. You’re right, Ken Ham claims to be a Christian and Bill Nye claims to not, but the fundamentals of how they think carries some weight for me.

      • Rachel Anne Enders

        I think it’s also fair to think “Do Bill Nye or Ken Ham” behave as Jesus Christ would. Is Ken Ham exclusive? I believe so.Unless you fit in his limited mindset, you are secularist and evil. I am a queer Christian – would Ken Ham really treat me as a daughter of God? I doubt it.

        • tn_lizzie2000

          Rachel, why don’t you ask Ken Ham? I think he would, as do I. We’ve each got our favorite sin, I just don’t choose to define myself by mine.

          As for exclusivity, I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing. If I need brain surgery, I want a Doctor with a limited mindset. Mr. Ham has devoted his life to teaching about the Creator, Jesus Christ. Read John 1:1-5 and 1 John 1:1-5. John has a rather limited mindset too. :o)

        • pfrman1

          As the commenter pointed out below, there is a certain amount of exclusivity in Scripture. It’s not about who is better than someone else. We are all sinners undeserving of adoption into the family of God. But along with that adoption is also a calling to live according to what Scripture tells us. No one is perfect at it to be sure. I know I fail at it. But we must never be content to live short of what Scripture commands.

          And to be sure, just because someone disagrees with someone on what is or is not acceptable according to Scripture does not mean that they do notnot consider that person to be one of God’s special creations.

          Here is one such example: http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/34055-the-gay-protest-that-encountered-the-love-of-god

  • Erik Warner

    “this is a pivotal heresy that is a fundamental problem within Christian circles. People like Ken Ham are claiming they know the mind of God”

    I have been saying this for years. Those who claim they “know” what God intended are implicitly claiming they know the mind of God. The ONLY way to know the mind of God is to have capacities equal to, or greater than, God’s. To think one has capacities equal to God’s is blasphemy.

    • Keith L. Bell

      I would be willing to bet anything (if I was a betting man) that if you asked Ken Ham if he perfectly knew the mind of God, he would tell you he didn’t, and that no one does.

    • Freedomlovingdadof7

      We can know God’s mind to the extent that He has revealed it in His word. True knowledge does not imply exhaustive knoweledge. To know something of God’s mind is therefore not blasphemy.

  • Chris, I so appreciate this post. The problem with hot button issues like creation is two-fold. First, issues like these keep people who are not Christians from knowing and loving Jesus. Second, this is not a hill we die on. Belief in a six day creation is not a requirement for spending eternity in heaven with Jesus. Belief that Christ died for our sins and that without him we are separated from God….that is what matters where eternity is concerned. People who insist ‘they know for sure’ stress me out. You don’t know for sure, you think you do…and when you get to heaven, you can ask God and know ‘for sure’. Until then, focus on what really matters…telling people about Christ so they can walk with him in faith and spend eternity with him in heaven.

    • Yep, I share the sentiment. I believe this stance of Ken Ham’s is what turns people away from the Gospel, not toward it. I wrote the article to explain why, pointing out something worth reconsidering.

      • Keith L. Bell

        I respectfully disagree. Nothing turns people away from the gospel more than when the people of God are quick to speak ill or harshly of one another. This is why Jesus said “by this will the world know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another” (John 13:35). One of the most offensive things you can say to a Christian is that he might not be one. Ken Ham doesn’t deserve that and neither do you, or anyone who sincerely believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul was dogmatic at one point in his ministry. God allowed it, then He fixed it. I am not making any excuses for Ham, but I am truly offended that you would infer such a harsh characterization. I believe you are a Christian, and I believe that you will eventually understand how much it hurts to hear you say such a thing.

        • Kristin

          Actually I’m an Atheist, and trust me, he’s right. Ken Ham’s display is what we think of as one of the most annoying things about religion, and actually, we’ve been hearing a lot of religious people hating on this debate because they say Ken Ham does not represent them and is a poor choice to debate their side and just furthers bad stereotypes. We’d at least think of religion as better if it weren’t so dogmatic and absolutist. In fact, we were all surprised by his answers, as we like to believe most religious people aren’t like that.

          All of the Atheist pages and groups I frequent showed the meme of Ken saying “nothing” and Bill saying “evidence” talking about how bad that was on Ken’s behalf and how it made all the difference in the world, all in a “Wow, I can’t believe he just said that” tone. This guy’s article is great, and gives me hope that maybe religious folk aren’t so bad. If anything is going to turn the non-religious “toward the gospel” (not that I would think that is a good thing, but I know you guys do) it’s going to be compromises.

          • I REALLY appreciate this response. Thanks, Kristin.

            • Scot Brandon

              And the bible calls atheists fools, Chris maybe you’re a fool too? (Psalms 14:1, James 4:4)

              • I often find atheists make more sense than Christians, and you are certainly displaying the opposite of sense. You are a prime example of a stiff-necked, angry “Christian” who enjoys a haughty, arrogant back-n-forth of bible verses. Kristin’s post is intelligent and thought-provoking, and you quote Psalms to call her a fool.

                And I bet you’re a Ken Ham fan.

                • pfrman1

                  I respect Ken Ham. I have also been defending his position throughout the comments (most of which you have chosen not to respond to). And that’s fine. But I notice you never theorized about whether I was a Ken Ham fan. Is that because my responses didn’t fit the narrative of the negative aspersions you like to throw out towards Ken Ham? Your infatuation with doing so numerous times in these comments is a little disturbing.

                • Guest

                  Chris writes: “I’m thinking that Bill Nye may be closer to God than Ken Ham.”

                  Bible says atheists are fools Psalms 14:1. Romans 1 says everyone “knows” God exist.

                  Chris writes, “When asked if Ken Ham could be wrong, he should have given the answer that Bill Nye gave: ‘Of course’ ”

                  Bible says we can know things for certain. Luke 1:3-4, John 17:6-8, Acts 2:36, Hebrews 11:1 and 1 John 5:12-13.

                  Ken Ham said “I’m a Christian. I can’t prove it to you, but God has shown me clearly through his word and through his son that it is true. No one will convince me that the word of God is not true. The models of what is written cannot change.”

                  Chris said in response to Ken’s quote: “This is a disturbing position to hold personally and scientifically, and I would also argue that it is disturbing that people like Ham think this is the proper Christian perspective.” Then gives 3 reason why it’s disturbing.

                  1. Ken Hams answer is not honest.
                  2. Ken Hams answer is not scientific
                  3. Ken Hams answer is not Christian

                  Apparently those who are convinced without a shadow of doubt God exist and created things as he said are apparently according to Chris’s perspective dishonest, not scientific, delusional, and unchristian, and you don’t find that disturbing Josh?

                  Chris writes, “I don’t believe Ham was “standing on the word of God.” He is standing on what “God has shown me”; in other words, his interpretation of the word of God.”

                  This sounds a lot like the serpent in the Garden of Eve (Genesis 3) did God really say that? Surely you can’t trust what you think God said? This is where I felt disgusted by Chris apparently he would like others to doubt and deny God’s word like he does.

                  Chris writes, “I know it’ll upset some of my friends — but dog-gone-it, this is a pivotal heresy that is a fundamental problem within Christian circles. People like Ken Ham are claiming they know the mind of God, and those who disagree do not know “true” Christianity.

                  Nice example of hypocrisy after he calls Ken unchristian, delusional and dishonest.

                  Chris writes, “Here’s the flaw: Ken Ham is assuming his revelation is God’s”.

                  Chris is implying that believing God’s word is a flaw. Once again back to the serpent in Genesis 3.

                  Chris says, “ Here’s what I won’t do: I won’t claim to have The Answer. I’m not going to say that, just because I prayed to God for answers, that whatever I’ve come up with are God’s answers. To me, that’s using God’s name in my own vain, one of the big no-no’s in the bible.”

                  Ken is not claiming a new revelation he is trusting the revelation that God provides in the bible.

                • Scot Brandon

                  Chris writes: “I’m thinking that Bill Nye may be closer to God than Ken Ham.”

                  Bible says atheists are fools Psalms 14:1. Romans 1 says everyone “knows” God exist.

                  Chris writes, “When asked if Ken Ham could be wrong, he should have given the answer that Bill Nye gave: ‘Of course’ ”

                  Bible says we can know things for certain. Luke 1:3-4, John 17:6-8, Acts 2:36, Hebrews 11:1 and 1 John 5:12-13.

                  Ken Ham said “I’m a Christian. I can’t prove it to you, but God has shown me clearly through his word and through his son that it is true. No one will convince me that the word of God is not true. The models of what is written cannot change.”

                  Chris said in response to Ken’s quote: “This is a disturbing position to hold personally and scientifically, and I would also argue that it is disturbing that people like Ham think this is the proper Christian perspective.” Then gives 3 reason why it’s disturbing.

                  1. Ken Hams answer is not honest.
                  2. Ken Hams answer is not scientific
                  3. Ken Hams answer is not Christian

                  Apparently those who are convinced without a shadow of doubt God exist and created things as he said are apparently according to Chris’s perspective dishonest, not scientific, delusional, and unchristian?

                  Chris writes, “I don’t believe Ham was “standing on the word of God.” He is standing on what “God has shown me”; in other words, his interpretation of the word of God.”

                  This sounds a lot like the serpent in the Garden of Eve (Genesis 3) did God really say that? Surely you can’t trust what you think God said? This is where I felt disgusted by Chris apparently he would like others to doubt and deny God’s word like he does.

                  Chris writes, “I know it’ll upset some of my friends — but dog-gone-it, this is a pivotal heresy that is a fundamental problem within Christian circles. People like Ken Ham are claiming they know the mind of God, and those who disagree do not know “true” Christianity.

                  Nice example of hypocrisy after he calls Ken unchristian, delusional and dishonest.

                  Chris writes, “Here’s the flaw: Ken Ham is assuming his revelation is God’s”.

                  Chris is implying that believing God’s word is a flaw. Once again back to the serpent in Genesis 3.

                  Chris says, “ Here’s what I won’t do: I won’t claim to have The Answer. I’m not going to say that, just because I prayed to God for answers, that whatever I’ve come up with are God’s answers. To me, that’s using God’s name in my own vain, one of the big no-no’s in the bible.”

                  Ken is not claiming a new revelation he is trusting the revelation that God provides in the bible.

    • Keith L. Bell

      Yes Joy, but that is the problem here… Ken Ham does believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that without him we are separated from God… He even said so in one of his responses. Chris is a debate coach. He seeks to do that to the glory of God. Ken Ham is a creation researcher. He seeks to do that to the glory of God. Neither of these men deserve to have his Christianity called into question in such a harshly critical way. Maybe Ham was dogmatic. But aren’t we all about something? I am saddened because I saw nothing in that debate that makes Ken Ham–a man who remains very vocal about our faith in Christ–worth being so compared to a non-Christian. I love Bill Nye and pray for his soul. But no unbeliever deserves to be considered more of a Christian than an outspoken believer in Jesus Christ. To attack the least likely Believer is to attack a part of Christ’s own body (though I am not directly stating that Chris has attacked Ham). I hope you can sense my heart. God bless.

      • You may have a point, Keith, but when you think of it, this is kind of funny. Justin Bieber professes Christ, and I stuck up for him from an onslaught of Christians who wanted to parade him as a sinful, arrogant, speedster in Florida. I criticize Ken Ham for claiming his interpretation of scripture is (perhaps!) doubtful, and some of the same crowd is telling me to quit being so divisive toward a man who professes Christ.

        https://www.chrisjeub.com/wrecking-biebs/

        • Keith L. Bell

          Your assessment of his interpretation of Scripture is not the issue I take. It is inferring that a professed atheist is more Christian than a Christian. I fully understand that to be true to your calling, you have to be objective. I was also saddened at the attacks on Beiber. If he is a Christian, I definitely do not want to be guilty of kicking a brother when he is down. And I still believe that you would not want to be guilty of such either.

  • Keith L. Bell

    Hello Chris. I would have to say that you and all of us should be very careful about calling a non-Christian more Christian than a man who believes that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Satan loves when we say such things because it relieves him of some of the work of accusing the brethren. Sure, Ken Ham may have been a bit more dogmatic than even I would have liked, but let us never forget that when it is all said and done, there is no “more” or “less” Christian. Either a person believes in the Lord Jesus Christ or they do not. Bill Nye may one day come to faith in Christ, but right now, he does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Ken Ham does. I truly appreciate what you are trying to accomplish with this post, but maybe like Mr. Ham, you might have gone a bit too far also. You will probably get a lot of comments on this post. But in light of eternity, I wonder if it will really have been worth it. I share this with the utmost love for you and all of those who sincerely believe in Jesus Christ. God bless.

  • Andrew

    Dr. Wile has some interesting analysis as well: http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12141

    • You’re right…Dr. Wile did a great job analyzing the debate.

  • CindeeN

    I’d have to see a transcript or something to refresh my memory but it seems to me that Ken Ham didn’t answer the qustion so well and answered a different question instead. It sounded like he said that nothing could change his mind about the truth of the Bible. What was the question exactly? Was is general, “What, if anything, could change your mind?” Or was it more specific, “What, if anything, could change your mind about origins?

    • pfrman1

      Interesting point. Both the question asked and the answer given left it a little ambiguous as to changing his mind about what specifically. I think Ken Ham focused on the Bible and the Gospel message almost to a fault during the debate. So it is within the realm of possibility that he was answering what would change his mind about believing in Christianity and the Bible.

  • Michael Shaw

    Chris, I think you have an acute issue with pride. Most of the believers who have already commented on this post have echoed my thoughts, so I will not repeat their comments. The one thing I will add is that that the proof of creation vs evolution is irrelevant to a relationship with Christ. I appreciate the desire Ken Ham has to understand and explain creation based on scripture and scientific evidence, but that has nothing to do with having faith in Christ. The truth is that Jesus is who He claims to be, and we are called to tell people the good news. His Holy Spirit is who “wins” people over to a relationship with Him. I also think Ken Ham is a little off point too if he is thinking it is necessary to convince people that the Bible is the true word of God in order to lead them to Christ. However – the point remains that this IS his propose. He IS trying to lead people to Christ. It seems to me that you are pridefully trying to extol your “expert knowledge” of debate in order to divide the body of Christ. I give you a stern warning form the Spirit of God – back off of your criticism of a man of God and pray for The Lord to help you with your pride issue. This path you have chosen is sure to destroy relationships and be a cause of many future problems for you. Because of this my wife and I are reevaluating to value of your materials as we homeschool our children and are teaching debate for the purpose of speaking TRUTH in love. You too should reevaluate why you are teaching debate. Is it to win tournaments and provide financial gain? Based on this and other of your blogs I’m beginning to believe that it is.

    • I don’t think you addressed one thing in my article. You should take a debate class.

      • Michael Shaw

        And you should read Romans 12.

        • A very typical Ken Ham response.
          And you still ignored everything I addressed in my article.

          • pfrman1

            I’m confused. Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to be intending to reference Ken Ham as some sort of a pejorative. I hope that’s not the case because it’s really not something we should be doing to fellow Christians (or anyone for that matter). I wouldn’t use your name as a pejorative. I would deal with what you say on its own merits. So I hope I got that wrong. Is it your intent to draw attention to a particular argument Ken Ham makes in relation to Romans 12? If so, what in specific are you referencing?

    • Sleeping Realities

      Because publicly admitting to having doubts and being human is SO prideful.
      Look in the mirror for the pride issue, methinks.

  • Luke Haskins

    Huh, this is an interesting position on the matter. If I may, I would love to make my formal refutation on Ken Ham’s behalf. First and foremost, God has given us evidence for His existance all around us, and Ken had done a good job showing the specific ways that the Bible was historically and scientifically represented by the Bible. If such a piece of evidence came forth, it would have to tear apart scientific fact upon scientific fact demonstrating the opposite. In this way, Ken’s answer is true: No evidence could tear apart as much evidence as there is for the creation story. Archeology alone has given more evidence for the creation account than can be expected. However, there is something inherant about Ken Ham’s answer that demonstrates a historical knowledge as well. I can give you a great many times when science directly and unquestionably contrasted the Bible. Galileo spoke about the truth that the earth is round, as the Bible suggests, when every other scientific authority, including but not limited to the papacy, saw it differently. In short, science will contradict the Bible. But Ken Ham’s position is strong and Christian: The Bible is correct and will triumph over a fallable man’s understanding of the world around him.

    • No, I don’t follow this. Ham made it clear that God revealed “the truth” to him, and he cannot be wrong. I consider such a view to be a huge problem.

      • tn_lizzie2000

        May I please correctly define two terms according to the Websters 1828 dictionary?

        For the word “truth” 13 different meanings are listed. I call to your attention two of them:
        2.) True state of facts or things. The duty of a court of justice is to discover the truth. Witnesses are sworn to declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
        12.) Jesus Christ is called the truth. John 14.

        I will differentiate between the two with an uppercase T for this name of Jesus.

        For the word “god” four different meanings are listed. The first two are:
        1.) The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator,and the sovereign of the universe.
        2.) A false god; a heathen deity; an idol.

        I will differentiate between the two with an uppercase G for this name of Jehovah.

        People who are Christians in both name and practice believe in the Truth and in the Word of God. Both of these are names for Jesus. If Jesus is the Truth, and He is God, then it follows that God is True. John 8:32 says, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” If you know something is true, then you can be certain of it, depend on it, and claim that nothing will make you change your mind about it. If you are a Christian, why is this debatable for you?

        I am not sure the modifier of your pronoun “he.” If you meant God cannot be wrong, you are right. Because God is Holy and Righteous, His nature makes it impossible for Him to be wrong.

        If you meant Ken Ham cannot be wrong, you are right. I ask you, why is it a huge problem for Ken to say that nothing would make him change his mind about the Truth?

        In the book of Job, we see a man faced with multiple evidences that God is not good and cannot be trusted. I am not a Greek scholar, but I have heard there is an ancient word for this: baloney. Job refused to believe baloney, in spite of his circumstances and the words of his friends and his wife. He trusted in his God.

        You said you consider such a view (that Ken Ham made it clear that God revealed “the truth” to him) to be a huge problem. I consider this to be a huge problem. Do you not know? Have you not read 1 Corinthians 2:6-10? I quote verse 10, “these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.”

        Mr. Jeub, please consider any Truth that you may find in John 1:1-5 and 1 John 1:1-5? You can know the Truth, and the Truth can set you free.

        • Do you realize the huge gaping door this kind of thinking leaves open? Deceivers, false prophets, liars can manipulate any kind of truth they want to muster. Ken Ham (or anyone, for that matter) can claim anything he wants and call it a revelation from God. This twists 1 Cor 2:10 as a verse to justify anything, ultimately refusing to ever err, ever be wrong. Such convenient logic is nonsense, which is the point in my article.

          • Josiah O’Brien

            Ken Ham isn’t talking about theology, or intricate details of the Bible. He is saying he will never change his mind that God exists. This comes from a personal relationship with his savior Jesus Christ. This can also be seen in nature and in life, but it is confirmed my hundreds of prophecies in the Bible as well. The greatest form of evidence is the relationship. Can we get some things wrong? May we doubt at times? Sure, but you’ll always know that you know he is there, because you’ve been in relationship with Him. He’s a living God with a living word, that cuts through all of the doubts and cloudy knowledge of this life. If you truly know God, you do not doubt His existence, like you wouldn’t doubt the existence of your mother.

          • donawyo

            You are correct, Chris. This was the thing that drove me crazy before I became a Christian. People would tell me that I just had to believe. They would say you have to have faith and tell me that God’s word was true because it said it was. One day, as I watched TV with my daughter, I realized that the animated movie called “Spirit” said that it was true–but it’s not. “Surf’s Up” is an animated movie with talking, surfing penguins and it said it was true.

            I talked to a woman about Mormonism and she thought it was true. What people need to realize though is that if something is true, there will be evidence to support it. As I talked to the woman I told her what I had learned about there never being one artifact found to prove the battle that Joseph Smith said happened in NY state. There was no DNA evidence found either to prove his assertion of where the “supposed lost tribe of Israel” went. Mormonism is the opposite of Christianity, which has been proven true through many things.

            God gave very specific details in the Bible. Dates, locations, specific details. All of which have been proven to be accurate through History and Archaeology. I love the prophesies especially. Did you know that God told Isaiah to tell the Jews that Cyrus would free them from Babylon and let them returned to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple? God spoke this to Isaiah 200 years before it happened. The Jews weren’t even captives in Babylon yet. And God called Cyrus by name and Cyrus hadn’t even been born yet. Then in the book of Isaiah God tells us that He told them and us what would happen in the future so that we would all know that it was Him and that He was the One true God. He made a believer out of me!!! No one knows the future except God and it happened just like He said it would. What a great and awesome God we serve!!!

            There are also over 300 prophecies about Jesus, that all came true. The probability of just 48 of the 300 prophecies being fulfilled is 10 to the 157 power. Wow!!!! And God made and fulfilled over 300 prophecies just about Jesus. There are many other ones.

            Another proof for me was from the apostles. They were eyewitnesses to seeing Jesus before and after his resurrection and they went from being cowards to dying. 11 of the 12 Apostles were killed for their faith. Some of them because they wouldn’t recant. They were alone, away from the other Apostles, and still wouldn’t break. It’s hard to break and give in when you have friends around to hear you but they were alone, without the other Apostles. They could have recanted and then told their fellow Apostles later about their torture and lied and said that they didn’t recant, and no one would have known the difference. But they didn’t do it and they held fast when they were alone and they were killed for it. They were sure, just like Ken Ham.

            How can a reasonable person not be when they know about the mounds of evidence out there? I know a few more things than what I’ve talked about here and I’m convinced. I know that my feet are firmly planted on rock solid evidence. It doesn’t matter what anyone says, I know that God’s word is true. Since I’ve seen some of the outside evidence, I know God is real, I know I can trust Him and I know then that I can trust His word. Now when the Bible tells me that God is not a liar then I know that I can believe that. Did you know that if anything in His word is proven to be a lie then none of it can be believed? How could it be? God says He’s not a liar, is that true or not? But God is not a liar. He is truth. And we can believe every word, including when He says that He made the world in 6 days. There is no proof that can say otherwise.

            Chris, you have been very patient with everyone, even those who haven’t been very nice to you. You didn’t have to answer all of us but you have. Thank you for sticking in there and thank you for the compliment you gave me in your last response to me. I hope that you will look into the evidences that I’ve provided for you. Josh McDowell is good. A book called, “Surprised by Faith” is great. Bible and Spade is an archaeology magazine that is top notch. Even AIG’s magazine, website, and videos are tremendous. Please look into these things. I think if you do, one day you too will be able to say that you believe without a doubt. I didn’t think it was possible but I’m at that point. Studying about what God has done, any reasonable person would.

      • Scot Brandon

        How can you know anything for certain Chris?

        • I can’t. That’s the point. It is dishonest to say otherwise. And to claim you can just pray to God and whatever you come up with is “revelation” opens the door to craziness.

          • pfrman1

            Moral relativity is based on the theory that there are no moral absolutes. What you seem to be saying is that we can not be absolutely sure of morality. The one thing we can be absolutely sure of according to what you seem to be saying (ironically enough) is that we can’t be absolutely sure about anything.

            While different from moral relativity, it still has the same basic end in that there are moral absolutes but we cannot really know what they are, correct?

            • No, that’s a bait-n-switch. We’re not debating moral relativity; we’re debating whether someone can pray to God and then claim 100% certainty that whatever he comes up with is God’s revelation to him. That’s what Ken Ham said, and that’s what I have a problem with.

              • pfrman1

                No that’s actually not what Ken Ham said. He never said God spoke to him about creation while praying. He defends his position through Scripture; not some private revelation. It is you who are providing the bait and switch. Furthermore, your claim is that no one can ever know anything for sure, isn’t it? How does that not include right and wrong?

                • I think his exchange with Bill Nye speaks for itself.

                  • pfrman1

                    Maybe you think so. But by your own admission, you can’t be sure. (Because you claim you can never be sure about anything) Besides, his exchange with Bill Nye (while disagreeing with him) never belittled or condemned him as you are doing toward Ham.I wonder how you can so strongly condemn him when you can’t even know if you are correct in doing so.

              • Scot Brandon

                But you can’t know anything for certain so you could be wrong about this.

              • Nelson Minica

                I have not yet seen Ken Ham claiming Special Revelation, only General Revelation…

                “God has definitely shown me very clearly, through his word”

                “The Bible is the word of God. I admit that that’s where I start from.”

                “You can check the prophecies in the Bible. You can check the statements in Genesis.”

                “if the Bible really is what it claims to be, if it really is the word of God and that is what it claims, then check it out. Now the Bible says if you come to God believing that he is, he’ll reveal himself to you.”

                “And so as far as the word of God is concerned, no, no one is ever going to convince me that the word of God is not true.”

                • Cooper

                  But God says he will not reveal himself to you . His word states very clearly that” faith is the evidence of things unseen ” faith is your proof of him , if he were to prove himself to his seekers then there would be no need for faith . Also , it really makes sense to you that this higher ineteligence all knowing all powerful God revealed his word to a few Palestinian goat herders and then no one else until the word spread and that what this higher intelligence wants from us is praise , worship and reverence and that he flooded the world to murder millions of men , women , children , and millions of animals cuz man was immoral but then left no evidence of the flood and then also left no evidence of the exodus story’s at all anywhere , not in the Egyptian historical records of those times , there is nothing at the bottom of the Red Sea suggesting it swallowed a whole army and no acheolicical evidence that 160,000 people lived in the desert for 40 years after . the region is incapable of supporting 160000 lives

                  • Nelson Minica

                    “The Bible says that God has revealed Himself to humanity in four
                    different ways. They include (1) Nature (2) Our conscience (3) Jesus
                    Christ (4) The Bible.”
                    https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_293.cfm

                    “if there really was a global Flood, you would expect to find billions of
                    dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth
                    … which is exactly what you do find!” https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/they-cant-allow-it/

                    • Cooper

                      There is nearly 200 years of geological , paleantology and archeological study that contradicts your statement and reference to AIG and a paper by ken ham , who has a bachelors degree in education and applied science with emphasis in biology . …..Ken ham admittedly has no formal training in geology , paleantology or archeology , these 3 subjects would be key to understanding the effects of a flood on geological strata , fossil record in the strata and the artifacts found in the ground. In fact Ken ham has made up a scenario and its effects that would fit his pre concieved belief on what happened . In 2 nights research , I have been able to find no reputable scource to confirm confirm or even lend credit to his ideas on the effects that the event ( Noah’s flood ) would have on geological strata , the effects on the wildlife and in turn on the fossil record . I did extensive Internet research and checked out 3 geology books at my local library .
                      The common christian take an the effects of Noah’s flood is quite the opposite of hams , this is from . THE BIBLE , SEDIMENTS , FOSSILS AND NOAHS FLOOD . (Christian geologists )

                      “Geological Fact: Portions of most of the Earth’s mountain ranges are composed of sedimentary strata or metamorphosed sediments which contain fossils (the evidence of living creatures long since dead and buried). Three examples are the Appalachian mountain range of the eastern United States (one of the older ones), the Alps of Europe and the Himalayas (one of the younger ones). The sedimentary layers that were uplifted to form these great mountain ranges are many thousands of feet thick in places and well above sea level today. In many places, especially in the older Appalachian range, angular unconformities abound, showing where ancient sediments have been tilted and partially eroded, with newer more horizontal sediments being deposited atop the tilted erosion contact surface”
                      “If these mountains existed before Noah’s flood (which the Bible says they did), and these mountains were formed from uplifted sediments containing fossils (go climb a mountain and see them with your own eyes), then the creatures that these fossils came from all died sometime long BEFORE the great flood.Conclusion: When you honestly think through all these considerations, it becomes quite clear that the fossils of the Earth’s sedimentary rock layers have been there a long, long time. Those creatures were dead and buried, and the strata was already present on the planet when we find the Earth void and without form at Genesis chapter 1, verse 2. No other interpretation meets all the criteria of truth. Are we saying that Noah’s global flood did not happen? No! What we are saying is that the Earth’s sedimentary rocks were not made by Noah’s flood and are NOT the evidence of Noah’s flood. The real indirect evidence for Noah’s flood is discussed will be revealed in the next chapter.
                      Now we will look at the Qualified secular opinion on the strata ,fossil record and Noah’s flood.this is a paper from geologist Lenny frank entitled ” Can Noah’s flood account for the geologic and fossil record ”
                      “As we have seen, one of the strongest evidences for evolutionary descent comes from the fossil record, which presents several examples of evolutionary transitions from one class of organisms to another. In addition, the fossil record grades clearly and unmistakably from simple early life forms which appear early in the geological column to larger and more anatomically complex forms which appear later. The sequence of the appearance of various fossil groups–first invertebrates, then simple vertebrates, then jawed fishes, then amphibians, then reptiles, and finally birds and mammals–is exactly what we would expect from evolutionary descent with modification, with the organisms appearing higher in the geological column being the modified descendants of those organisms which appear lower in the column.”
                      The paper goes on to discount and discredit all three of the common ” sorting methods ” used by creationists to explain the order of the fossil record being exactly what is predicted by evolutionary theory .
                      So there is not one qualified scource to confirm any of Ken hams claims , why Do you use so many references to back your claims from AIG ? When reputable christian and secular scientists from each respective field have discredited and condemned the teachings of the site ? why do you not fact check your Scources? Why do you not qualify your scources? You don’t want a carpenter defending you in court and you don’t want a lawyer building your house . If you are going to invest your faith in a geological, paleantology and archeology paper it stands to reason you would want it written by a geologist and a paleantologists and an archeologist even someone who was a minor in geology would be better But Ken ham admittedly has no qualifications in any of those fields and the entire admitted premise of Aig is to search for* ( or invent) scenarios that will confirm what they read in the bible , they use the scientific method for nothing . They just write down ways they think things could have happened to confirm the biblical account with no regard for plausability or even possibility .
                      * The site states the bible is literal truth , no conclusion that does not confirm the bible is acceptable .
                      I really don’t know what else to say to you Nelson , it seems you really , really want to believe in a literal inturpretation of Genesis ,which stole the worldwide flood from the epic of Gilgamesh which borrowed it from ancient Sumarian texts . It looks like you want it so bad that you will ignore the facts , the experts (christian or not ) and the evidence and choose to follow and believe in AiG( and it’s untrained staff) and its outright attack on Geology, paleantology , archeology, biology, astronomy, cosmology, physics and just about every ” ology” and “onomy” including most theology .AS FOR YOUR FIRST POINT , IT IS NOT BACKED BY SCRIPTURE OR LOGIC .
                      The complexity of nature does not reveal a creator to most people , to me reveals the opposite . Nature would be more efficient , the human body would not waste so much energy. The enzyme that dogs have to produce vitamin c , well humans have the same mechanism , the gene is just turned off . Why would God do that ? Why would he make it that we must eat almost daily to survive condemning many early humans to death in winter and before farming ?
                      The scripture used to back this are using circular reasoning . ” I believe God created the universe so the universe is proof that God exists and the fact that he created the universe reveals him to me “….this is not what the scripture says .
                      Our conscience does not tell us that God exits , our conscience tells us that somewhere in our evolution we learned to cook our food , this drasticly reduced the size of our stomachs and the energy required to run the digestive system , this coincides with the increase in the size and energy intake of our brains , the vast amount of connections in our brains is responsible for consciencness , not supernatural quackery.
                      The scripture backing this is circular reasoning again , God must have made the world , so the world is proof of gods existence .
                      JESUS CHRIST REVEALS GOD , there are 16 writings that talk of Jesus , the four gospels , the 6 epistles and then Josephus flavius , Pliny, Tacitus , sutonius and Talmud …..None of these not one was a contemporary writing from the time of Christ . We don’t even know who really wrote the four gospels and a original copy does not exist , we have copies of copies .we have not one work of carpentry , dwelling or artifact and there is no record of Pontias pilot executing a man named Jesus .furthermore all of the writings that do mention jesus are from people who had a direct interest in building a religion , the apostle Paul’s cult ran on for centuries until it was smashed by the church. Jesus was not the only man that was touted as the messiah , there was plenty of demand and supply to boot . …..I would tell you to do some research on it but you won’t find it on AIG so I’d be wasting my time .
                      The scripture does testify of Gods existence and is truly the only thing that does . The scripture clearly states that ” faith is the evidence for things unseen ” and faith is the cornerstone of christianity and referenced all over the bible faith of a mustard seed , faith like a child .
                      It is clear from the bible that it is unbiblical for God to “prove “himself to anyone ,if he did he would defeat the entire premis of faith and his word.

          • pfrman1

            “And to claim you can just pray to God and whatever you come up with is “revelation” opens the door to craziness.” Strawman. Who is claiming that? I’m sure Ken Ham would be one of the first to say that Scripture is our foundation.

            • No straw man here; that is pretty much what Ken Ham said. “God’s word said that if you pray to God, God will reveal himself to you.” That’s an open door to crazy ideas…even heresy.

              I don’t know why you (and others) are trying to defend this position.

              • pfrman1

                Yes. That’s scriptural. He never mentioned theories on creation right there. He was speaking of God revealing Himself to a person if they pray to Him. Do you not believe the Scripture about, ask seek and knock?

                • Not true. He was asked point blank, “What, if anything, would ever change your mind?” Ken’s answer: nothing. Because “I’m a Christian.”

                  You can argue all you want with me, but I do not identify with Ken on this. I don’t suspect I’ll ever get to the point of saying my mind will never change. I see that as stubborn, stiff-necked arrogance, not a heart of openness (the kind that seeks and knocks). That’s not the kind of Christian I am, nor one I seek to be.

                  • pfrman1

                    No that’s not point blank what he said. It’s dishonest to say that it is. You are conflating Ham inviting a nonbeliever to ask God to reveal Himself in someone’s life with what he said about why he believes what he believes. He said his foundation was the Bible. If you want to splice, dice and condense what he said into something he didn’t, that’s your choice, but scripture calls that bearing false witness. It seems rather arrogant for you to harshly condemn Ken Ham when you claim not to even be able to know that he is wrong. Yet that is not stopping you.

                    • Hmm, perhaps you’re right. Ken turned to his opponent and tried to persuade him, rather than sticking to the debate and persuade his audience. This was a tactical error on his part. He should have answered the question honestly (which is my first point) rather than turning it into an object lesson.

                      I do think you’re looking at this a wee too graciously. I’m trying to be as honest as I can (trust me, I knew I’d upset Ken Ham fans, but some things need to be said, and I don’t necessarily get a kick out of this). But I’m not dicing Ken’s words to make it different than he said. Like I said, the Q&A speaks for itself, and I still have a problem with it.

                    • pfrman1

                      No. I disagree. I don’t believe Ken turned to his opponent and tried to convince him. What I was speaking about in my last comment was a generic invite to nonbelievers; not a specific plea to Bill Nye. I don’t see where that happened. Can you give me the minute marker?

                      Also, I see no proof that he didn’t answer the question honestly. He may not have answered the way you would or have or the way you wanted him to. But I see zero proof that his statements were not honestly what he believes. What am I missing?

                      As for Ken Ham’s words, I still don’t see him saying at all what you say he did. You make him sound as if he was abrupt and rude in his response. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. He was very gracious in his response regardless of if you personally agreed with it.

                      You think I am being to gracious. Meanwhile others thought the same about you and your Beiber post. I think you are being too harsh and condemning in this case. Especially after I see you repeatedly use Ken Ham’s name as a pejorative and refuse to address it when challenged. It seems something is drastically out of balance with your attitude toward him.

                      Perhaps your right. Perhaps I am. Or maybe truth lies somewhere in the middle?

                    • As I say in my article, the specific part of the debate is at 2:04:00. I believe I flowed it accurately.

                      What I mean by not answering honestly is that he said he cannot be wrong. I do not believe the person who says he doubts nothing. I just don’t. I believe I explained that in my article.

                      I didn’t think Ken was abrupt or rude. I even gave him the ballot and was quite hard on Nye for being ill prepared. Did you read my flowsheet?

                    • pfrman1

                      I think you misunderstood what minute mark I was asking for. I wasn’t asking for the minute mark of the “What would change your mind” question. As you said, you already provided that. I was asking for the minute mark of where Ken Ham “turned to his opponent and tried to persuade him” (as you claimed). Because that did not happen during the response to this question. So I was asking for the minute mark of where that happened.

                      But I do encourage you to relisten to that part. Because I do believe your flow is inacurrate in the last sentence. Ken said the models are “always” subject to change (not “never” as you recorded).

                      I also disagree with you that a presuppositionalist is not honest about what they believe. Just because you are not one does not mean that the ones that are secretly believe as you. I think it is very unfair for you to think that you can tell someone else what they do or don’t honestly believe. If Ken Ham claims to have no doubt in his mind about the Scriptures being true, how do you presume to say he believes otherwise? You are imposing your thoughts on him as if you think everyone must believe as you and if you have doubts than so must everyone else. That’s simply not the case.

                      P.S. Ken Ham NEVER said he doubts nothing. The ONLY thing he specifically said he would not change his mind about is about the Bible being true.

                    • Nelson Minica

                      That is correct, Ken said the models of what happened during Noah’s flood are always subject to change, but the fact that Noah’s flood happened is not subject to change.

                  • Nelson Minica

                    Funny I thought he started with the word “Nothing” but I listened to it several times and here is what I have for Ken Ham: “Well, 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. 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 is what it claims, then check it out. Now 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 can say we know. And so as far as the word of God is concerned, no, no one is 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 maybe come up with 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 the question “What would change your mind?” You said if you came to faith you would never give up believing in billions of years” I think I quoted you correctly you said something like that recently. That would also be my question to Bill.”

          • Scot Brandon

            So you could be wrong about everything you know and you don’t think that is foolish? Here you are trying to make a point about Bill Nye being more Christian than Ken Ham and yet you can’t know anything for certain.

            Your “open mindedness” might have allowed your brain to fall out of your head.

      • donawyo

        Knowing Ken as I do, only through Answers in Genesis for many years, God revealing the truth to him did not mean God speaking to him but the truth God has given to all of us in the Bible. God is pretty clear in what He says. It’s very easy to stand on His truth and to see the evidence in our world of what you would expect to see if you believe that God’s word is true. That’s not very clear but archaeology, experience, history, etc. bears out what you would find if the Bible is true. The only problem is you can’t read secular stuff to find the truth. Because they don’t want to see it and they don’t want it to be true so they will put something aside and not classify it because it would go against them and go for the Christian side. Such as: (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/bookstore/product.aspx?id=107) The city of Jericho was found through archaeology and accepted to be that city for a long time until a woman came a long, who didn’t believe in God, didn’t believe the Bible was true, and knew it couldn’t be. So because of one evidence against, which wasn’t all that compelling, she decided it wasn’t Jericho, even though there were numerous other evidences that it was. The secular community jumped on that idea since it would prove the Bible was wrong. One con against many pros and that was all it took for them. Now who was more reasonable? The non-believers who went with the one con or the believers who went with the many pros? I wish God made it cut and dried but He doesn’t. Maybe so it’s not all evidence based and there is some faith involved. But once you understand that God is who He says He is in the Bible, and He has done the things He says He has done, then there is NO doubt. Just like Ken.

        • You bring up a very good point about scientists’ attempts to skew the data. In this very question asked of both Ken and Bill, Ken could have challenged Bill on the whole notion of “inclusiveness” in the scientific community. If Bill wants to be so open to correction, then he’d be an advocate for allowing creation to be a part of the discussion.

          But this turns philosophical real fast when you claim there can be NO doubt. Instead of adding to the discussion, such people become the dogmatic grumps in the room. No wonder people like Ken are shunned in scientific communities. If this is the dogmatic position he insists on, I’d want him to go away, too.

          And by the way, do you realize you are one of just a couple creationist on this thread of discussion to NOT attack me for being arrogant, mean, stupid, harmful to God’s kingdom, etc.? I USED to think I was part of the creationist community. I’m starting to think I want nothing of them, but you have restored some hope.

          • pfrman1

            It’s extremely ironic to produce a post insinuating a person is a heretical, lying, non-Christian and then whine about attacks on yourself. Can we say logical disconnect?

          • pfrman1

            As I read through the comments, I noted where one person called you an idiot and possibly a fool. But you responded back by calling him a “stiff-necked, angry “Christian” who enjoys a haughty, arrogant back-n-forth of bible verses”. So I guess you two are sort of even on that account (if not you actually being the more harsh of the two?).

            Aside from that, I saw one person say you have an issue with pride. Meanwhile, you questioned Ken Ham’s depth of Christianity and said he was either a liar or deluded or both and possibly a heretic.

            So again, who is being more harsh? As to the things you listed off for being attacked on, I can’t find those specific accusations made. Can you point them out to me?

            Do you think you might possibly have a teensy bit of a martyr complex right now?

            I believe people shouldn’t attack one another. That’s why I was saddened by your article in the first place.

            But I’m not quite sure why you can say negative things about someone and it is completely in bounds while if someone does the same toward you that it is considered a personal attack that makes you want to have nothing to do with the people involved.

            Can you explain this seemingly double-standard?

  • Melody Ray

    Reading this made me very happy, Bill Nye is the man. The problem is separating Christianity and Science, asthey CAN flow cohessively. Science needs emotion.

    • Zach Davis

      I have to disagree on your comment stating “Science needs emotion.”

      Science, at its purest form, is supposed to be cold and emotionless. The reason for this is to distance yourself emotionally so there’s no possibility of tainting the findings. When you get emotional while performing scientific studies, your views are tainted and you become biased.

  • Rachel Anne Enders

    I agree with Chris. Many people claim to be Christians, yet they do not behave like it. Furthermore, Ken Ham’s belief about creation comes only from Ken Ham’s interpretation. The Catholic Church (thoroughly Christian) teaches that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

    Honestly, when I look at the story of evolution, it seems so much more like the glory of God than a story of 7 literal days. To think that God created an infinite universe, and that He created the rules of physics that govern all existence is just awe-inspiring. The Big Bang is beautiful to me – that God created all of mass in a tiny dense ball. That God was able to come up with the progression of biology that a single celled organism could evolve to form mankind… That’s amazing! I do not agree that Christianity necessitates a belief in Biblical Creationism.

    • tn_lizzie2000

      So how do you reconcile John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1?

  • Scot Brandon

    Chris Jeub, what would convince me that you are not an idiot for calling Bill Nye an atheist, more Christian than Ken Ham? Nothing.

    • Melody Ray

      Maybe eat a hot dog on Saturday, then see what happens.

      • pfrman1

        And that’s supposed to mean…..?

    • My, aren’t you clever.

      • tn_lizzie2000

        My, aren’t you sarcastic. Scott’s logic is more valid than yours.

        Knowledge of the definition of the word atheist (one who believes that there is no deity) surely causes a reasonable judge to question one who crowns an atheist as more Christian than a Christian.

        You keep using that word Christian. I do not think It means what you think it means.

  • Lana

    I would not call Bill more of a Christian when he would not want to be identified that way, but I certainly can agree that God never asked us to be closed minded, and should be open to the text reshaping our views, not us shaping the text.

  • Thomas Bridges

    Chris, let’s first set the record straight. This was ultimately a debate on the existence of God if you understand that certain parts of the Genesis account are required for Christianity.

    Now regarding your points;

    Pt 1. Was Ham’s answer honest? Well if we first assume his belief is held against reason and evidence I suppose we could level that charge. But since the question is one of philosophy and not science (eliminating charge #2) evidence is not relevant. Logic however is.

    So, since the charge of dishonesty is based upon your conclusion that it is not possible that the possibility of Mr. Ham being wrong does not exist, I will provide a possible possibility. (That was fun).

    If Mr. Ham is wrong then God does not exist. If God does not exist it is a possibility that Mr. Ham would not exist. If Mr. Ham did not exist how could he be wrong about God not existing?

    Mr. Ham stated he doesn’t believe he could be wrong. Given the above that possibility does exist.

    Pt 3. Mr. Ham stating that he believes his interpretation of scripture is the correct interpretation is unChristian like? You’ve just accused most of the body of Christ of being unChrist like. BTW, including yourself.

    • Republican

      Most of the body of Christ does not believe in the teaching of ham , his inturpretation of scripture or his lies on his website

  • Sleeping Realities

    Wow, seems like a lot of commenters missed the point. Maybe people wouldn’t have gotten their panties in such a bunch if you’d used the word “Christ-like” instead of “Christian.” (Not a reproach, just a thought.) Many Christians have such specific ideas about what it means to be a Christian, but few will question that there are some non-professing people who behave/believe/process life more like Christ (probably) would than many actual Christians do.
    “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Is this not a cry of doubt and uncertainty? Did Christ ever entreat his disciples to make sure they were absolutely certain of how life works? They were not called to be certain, but to love. Humility and flexibility is part of the game. I Corinthians 8:2 “If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know”

    • pfrman1

      OK, I’m not really sure that I can go there with you. So if someone asked Christ prior to the crucifixion if there was anything that would change his mind about the Father’s faithfulness, what do you envision as being Jesus’ response?

      • Sleeping Realities

        Jesus gave up omniscience to be fully human, in all our weaknesses, right? So I don’t think he knew the answer to the problem of evil, any more than any of us do. I’d envision a response somewhat like his answer to the question about the tower that fell on all the people–he’d skirt the question away from attention on the abstract concept, and place attention onto the heart of the person asking. He’d probably ask a question in response to their question that made the person uncomfortable but challenged them towards transformation. My personal suspicion, but, of course, to borrow words from Ken Ham, “we weren’t there, so we don’t know” what Jesus really did or would do. 🙂

        • pfrman1

          I want to start out by saying it wasn’t me that voted down your comment. While I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusions, I do understand how you could come to them.

          That being said, I can agree that Jesus gave up omniscience while in human form. But I also maintain that He was not flailing around in ignorance to the answer to the problem of evil.

          Jesus was filled with the Spirit and maintained a close relationship with the Father. He had an acute awareness of things that you and I do not. There were a several points in Scripture where it says that Jesus knew someone’s heart or their thoughts. He told a woman, “Your sins are forgiven.” Now that sounds to me like He has an extraordinary power, knowledge and authority. He may have limited His divine attributes but was not completely devoid of them.

          Now perhaps I am wrong, but I can’t think of another passage of scripture aside from the one you referenced where there is any indication of Christ having doubt. Furthermore, I would encourage you not to take a dogmatic position about the passage you referenced. Because I think a very compelling argument can be made that Jesus was not saying those words from a place of doubt but was instead confidently referencing Himself to the Jewish people as the fulfilment of the prophetic passage of psalm 22.

          Read these two webpages and tell me what you think:

          http://www.reasonablefaith.org/do-the-gospels-support-a-muslim-view-of-jesus

          http://thenewholybible.org/secret_hidden_meaning_of_the_words_my_god_my_god.htm

    • Cooper

      ….( I felt he meant that Bill Nye encapsulated what his ( my) stereotype of a christian is , always reaching out to help, glowing passion , always ready to listen , gentel , humble with an open ear ( if not mind) and a all around attraction not promotion attitude who doesn’t force God but is ready when anyone comes seeking. Bill seemed to have these qualities , although not christian. Ken ham seemed to have a desperate aura about him, a matter of fact my belief is it , your all going to hell accept these ideas even though they attack every “Ologie” ( biology, geology) , including theology and the entirty of modern physics . Accept these ideas or die even though they are the very small minority ideas of the entire body of Christ . Infact most christian churches are now accepting and teaching theistic evolution and an old earth Ken ham knows his ideas are absurd , he looked as if he is a man trying to reconcile his faith with his scientific education and intuition

  • Mrs P

    My only thought is :

    “Only in Christianity do we shoot our wounded”. sigh.

    I appreciated your defense of Mother Teresa. I even appreciated your defense of Justin Beiber. But Ken Ham *is* a believer, so I ask, why would you ‘shoot’ your fellow Christian?

    • Sleeping Realities

      Shooting the wounded happens in any group. It’s human nature.
      I agree that Ham is wounded, but he does not acknowledge it, because he claims he already knows the truth, and so is beyond help. Calling on him to pay attention to his closed mind isn’t “shooting,” it’s helping.

      • Republican

        Sounds like natural selection to me

  • You are projecting YOUR doubts on those who do not have those doubts. You believe that if YOU doubt, and find your doubts reasonable, unresolvable and real, then it MUST be the same for everyone else. You’d be wrong.

    People who can make the same statement Ken made – “nothing can change my mind” – can fall into two primary groups: 1) they don’t really understand the statement, they are making it on emotional grounds, and they cannot really defend it; or 2) they know exactly what they
    are saying and mean it.

    I would be in group 2. You want that explained. I would to.

    If you can answer affirmatively the list of questions below based on logic, intelligence, reason, evidence and sound judgment*, then you can state “nothing will ever change my mind… no evidence will ever change my mind because I know that no evidence exists.” I guess more
    accurately, Ken maybe should have said, “my mind will never be changed because I’m fully convinced beyond doubt that no such evidence exists. So to answer affirmatively that ‘such and such evidence’ could change my mind is to admit that such evidence could – no matter how improbable – exist. It does not. So, no, nothing WILL EVER change my mind.”

    *Notice I didn’t say anything about faith. An intelligent, logical, reasonable person can come to the irrefutable conclusion of “yes” to the answers below without placing their faith and belief
    in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I can believe without doubt you are holding a million dollars for me, even see it with my own eyes, but not make the choice of faith to reach out and take it from you believing your offer that it is a gift just for me. Intellectual ascent and faithful response are two
    different animals easily confused by the spiritually blind like Nye.

    Based on intelligent, reasonable, thoughtful logical observation of the evidence, I can answer “yes” to these questions regardless of my response to the Gospel:

    Can we be CERTAIN beyond any reasonable doubt that God exists?

    Can we be CERTAIN beyond any reasonable doubt He has communicated His will to us?

    Can we be CERTAIN beyond any reasonable doubt which specific communication to us is really from Him?

    Can we be CERTAIN beyond any reasonable doubt that His communication has been preserved in the form He meant it?

    Can we be CERTAIN beyond any reasonable doubt that the parts of this communication that address origins are clear and literal?

    If your answer to all those are yes, without reasonable doubt, there is no reason to then declare “but here’s what would change my mind about that”. Ken’s mind won’t be changed because he affirms the above questions beyond any doubt in his mind. So you can either call him dishonest and stupid; or honest and stupid, or honestly and intelligently convicted. He affirms those questions intellectually, He affirms them based on logic. He affirms them based on reason. He affirms them most of all based on clear and irrefutable evidence. As do I and multitudes of Christians who are apparently dishonest, lack understanding of “science”, and are – according to you – “less Christian”. They are “less Christian” because they won’t admit to doubts they MUST HAVE. Why? Because Chris Jeub has doubts.

    Given the affirmation of those questions based on logic, reason and evidence, I can confidently state to you, to scientists, to atheists, to doubting Christians: NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE MY MIND. NOTHING COULD CHANGE MY MIND. No evidence could ever change my mind because such evidence does not exist no matter how many times anyone says “but what if?”. I suppose you could back me into a corner and twist out of me: “HYPOTHETICALLY my mind could be changed by HYPOTHETICAL evidence that irrefutably proves the Bible wrong”. But that’s as close as you would get to me aligning with the “doubts” you are so sure EVERYONE has because YOU have them.

    Your post clearly implies the [choose all that apply: arrogance, ignorance, emotionalism, shallowness, deception, simplemindedness] of anyone who agrees with Ham’s statement, or heaven forbid, actually declare the same thing themselves. I doubt, therefore all
    must doubt. What character attribute would you apply to that conviction? I (Chris) don’t agree, so I (Chris) paint as dishonest or ignorant or less Christian all those who disagree with me (Chris) (on this particular point; I’m not saying you treat EVERY disagreement or issue this way; I’m speaking specifically of Ham’s statement and your response to it in this post).

    You are projecting your own doubts, or lack of education (about those questions above or Ham’s position), or misunderstanding on the rest of us, implying we aren’t scientific, or intellectual, or discerning, or honest, or apparently “as Christian” as an atheist because we won’t admit having the SAME DOUBTS AS YOU or him.

    You are smart. You are a thinker. You are reasonable. You are honest. You are a truth seeker. I’m sure you a great guy. SO IF CHRIS JEUB AS SUCH HAS DOUBTS THEN EVERYONE ELSE – IF THEY ARE BEING HONEST – MUST HAVE THEM TO. And if they won’t admit it, they are either lying, deceived or incapable of thinking deeply enough to discover them. Ace-in-the-hole argument, cannot be refuted because in the end, if I don’t agree with you but I am being HONEST, its simply because I’m not capable intellectually. I hear the same arguments from all sorts of “camps”, Christian and otherwise.

    It’s not good argument or fair argument to impugn the honesty or level of Christianity of others just because you can’t fathom or understand their conviction. It can’t be that Ken is RIGHT because Chris has DOUBTS THAT HE CANNOT RECONCILE. It must be that Ken (and Brent) are dishonest, arrogant or less Christian than Chris and – ahem – Bill Nye. Or that Ken and Brent aren’t deep thinkers. Or that Ken and Brent [insert next insult here]. It can’t possibly, under any circumstances be because their is any possibility they could be right. Lack of intellect, lack of honesty, lack of debate skills, lack of critical thinking skills. Pick your criticism but there’s no way that Ken can be right, or even be wrong YET with honesty, intellect and merit… no way. Not possible. So let’s call him “less Christian” than an atheist so that you can get some feel good kudo’s from your atheist and liberal readers.

    Throughout the comments you keep hitting people for poor debate skills yet your post doesn’t simply say “Ken was wrong, here is why, what do you think?” You have to impugn his honesty, intellect and Christian character so you can appear magnanimous to the world. Who needs enemies when you have other Believers?

    There’s no possible way Ken is right, and your doubts are wrong? What evidence would it take to change your mind? Nothing will change your mind? That’s pretty dishonest and “less Christian” of you. ☺

    C’mon Chris.

    • Republican

      the question was ” what would change your mind ” obviously in reference to the topic of the debate .which was if young earth creationism is a valid science. So if you were to answer the question that way You are stating that no evidence exists to prove that the earth is young or old ,You would very very wrong . So far the evidence is strongly (almost to the point of self evident) supporting evolution and a very old earth . One day evidence will surface proving one or the other , this is not a guess this is obvious , so if you awnser the question that way you would be very wrong.
      DOUBT is an essential and critical tool in the christian walk and also in human life . Without it you become non human , you become a blind will less follower of anything , right or wrong about the faith . As a Christian , doubt helps me to establish myself in a faith that is full of contradictions , hypocracy and outright abuse at the level of biblical teaching.
      Now you say that nothing will ever change your mind , about what you weirdo ? If it’s in reference to anything about the topic of the debate then your an idiot
      If it’s refering to your faith in God then you are commenting on the wrong story with the wrong topic with a strongly worded belief that is not backed up by anything scriptural or logical .
      You are a liar , if nothing ever could change your mind then your have a very rare form of autism that effects memory and judgment ( I’m beginning to think you might )
      If God himself came down here and said to you , your belief system is wrong we need to change your mind on some things , you would do so in a heartbeat , if acheolicical evidence was uncoverd to convincingly show that the bible is just a book and story , if you did not change your mind , your just a whacky christian that the usa has become known for . And for you to say that you know there is no such evidence is like me saying that I know your grandmother had sex swith the mailman and you are not of the bloodline you think. Prove me wrong you mindless drone . God bless

      • Why would you want a reply, proof or continued discussion from a mindless drone, weirdo, whacky idiot suffering from a rare form of autism? Maybe it’s because your method of communication has run off everyone else? If you want to be taken seriously, and have people respectfully engage you in truth seeking, then try a little respect and maturity in your communication. You make one comment that says all anyone needs to know about your knowledge of the evidence of origins: “So far the evidence is strongly (almost to the point of self evident) supporting evolution and a very old earth”. The rest of your verbiage speaks plainly of the depth and/or authenticity of the Christianity you profess.

        • Republican

          I need to stop letting my emotions get the best of me when discussing these matters , mostly it’s just disrespectful and rude, in my defense right after I posted that comment I went back to edit it and just deleted the text replacing it with a shorter more human comment but I guess it did not take . So I offer a sincere apology , my bad I was out of line . ……..I read your comment as it was shown and did not scroll down so I took it out of context , still no excuse for my immaturity and my verbiage as you put. As far as my Christianity , I at one point had a strong walk with the lord , when I was in dicipleship at The dream center and for a while there after . I was baptized in the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in toungues , played in the worship band and did mobile ministry in a van with 6 others all over the country. I was 16 when I went in and 18 when I left and upon release it didn’t take long to see that they had prepared me for nothing in the real world, nothing .I was not allowed to go to highschool or get a job or anything. I was fed y2k world end lies upon lies from one in authority and then lies of infinite riches/millions from christian t shirt idea that turned out to be a paramid scheme. AFTER leaving it took me a while to reconcile the lies and false dreams and start finding some truth. In all that crap though I still remember a unique and distinct connection at times overwhelmingly present. I lost that connection shortly after leaving l.a. Regaind it somewhat , lost it again , turned into a complete atheist then agnostic and have recently thought maybe it would help to re commit and seek him again , I don’t know it couldn’t hurt right? My emotional outbursts stem from the lies I was told, abuse and bigotry I was taught , when I read from ken hams website or listen to his preachings I can’t help but feel angry at the deceit and half truths , the blatant misrepresentation of fact also bothers me , reminds me of the days when are a small broke ministry preyed on the vulrability of a 16 year old homeless me and several friends in order to solicit donations from the followers of gods word . I spent a lot of time in front of a camera re telling a fictional background story prepared by the pastor, these tapes aired on the christian channel to get money, anyway that enough with the details , I’m sure you get it. Anyway I have been struggling to find gods grace again and have been consistently thinking of the one topic , the compatibility of science and faith. I am bothered by an increasingly large divide between the 2 and a small but influential population in the faith community that believe that the 2 subjects are incompatible as long as scientific extrapolation and review deviate from what the bible says no matter the strength of the evidence nor the intellectual and academic competence of those reviewing the evidence and formulating a conclusion. I want to teach an attitude of open mindedness , of acceptance , and of course compatibility . Like francis Collins who lets the science inform his faith and the evolutionary christan or old earth christian movements I know we can co exist and even help eachother if the willingness was there . One problem with Hams “literal inturpretation” ideology is that it is not literal , unless he is reading in Hebrew . He is advocating a literal inturpretation of another’s translated inturpretation . Another is that God had to speak in a language , in terms and a voice that was relevant , understood and informed by the understanding of 2000 years ago , we have a much deeper knowledge and understanding of almost everything now doesn’t it make sence to let this stronger understanding inform our inturpretation of gods word., It is gods word but written down by man with 2000 year old understanding. Example , in Revalations john discribes the end of days battle , in this battle he sees giant flaming arrows flying through the sky,imagine you are john taken on a journey to the end of days by God and you see a ( #) thousands years future world at war , what would a Titan ICBM Or a tomahawk cruise missile look like to you with your 100 ad understanding of the world ? Probably a giant arrow with flames shooting off the back.
          Ken hams teaching children that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together, this is morally unacceptable . His evidence for this is his belief in a young earth , if earth is young then Dino’s and humans did hang. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting the idea and a plethora of evidence to the contrary , that Dino’s died off long before humans ever walked the earth. He also asserts that Noah’s flood killed everything (all fossils) at the same time and that the flood makes the geological layers and fossil record impossible to ” read” . But infact there is no evidence of a worldwide flood , when a flood happens it leaves a tell tale geological maker in the layer of its happening.there is evidence of a localized flood in a large part of the Middle East which to the understanding of 2000 years ago would be ” their whole world” . And the only effect a flood has on the readability of the geo layers and fossil record is a sign that it happend. Nothing to confuse or “miscommunicate” anything……….No scientist woke up and said I’m gonna disprove the biblical age of the earth , in fact they would have no numbers in mind , they would gather the evidence . 1st limestone , there are entire mountian ranges made primarily of limestone . Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed entirely of the tiny sea shells and bones of ancient sea life . ( you can see this with a magnifying glass) now the mountains are inland and dry . So the huge mountian chains formed underwater over a very very long period and then plate tectonics moved them to dry land at a foot a year that is another very long time. Unique rock formations that take very long timespans to form at the present angle , coastal gold deposits at the points of lplates pushing together that cause the earth to fold on itself, the mass of the sun , it’s hydrogen content and its burn rate , petrified remains , huge corral growths , etc etc . Then they radiometric dating of Ancient meteorites rocks and other matter found in the first geo layer and it shows 4.4 billion years . 40 different dating techniques are used in the dating of early earth material and all give very similar results , the same pieces were subjected to several techniques and the results were in agreement . ……..I could go on and on , the evidence is truly overwhelming . We hear scientists say that a lot ” overwhelming ” evidence , they use it literally the evidence literally overwhelms them with the same data over and over again. ………..in closing Ken hams largest offense is his ” observational science “. Vs. ” Historical science ” rhetoric , he teaches that “historical science” is a guess , a belief that we have the tools for observational science but historical is just a wild pig shoot with no rhyme or reason with no way to tell the history of things. This is infact utter nonsense , no crime would ever be solved if this were true , if Ken ham walks into his home bathroom that has the fan on , I slight odor , a damp sink and a running toilet he should be able to extrapolate from the facts with great accuracy what just happend in that bathroom ……scientists extrapolate from the facts what happend and often to a degree of extreme accuracy , Evolution was a 2 or 3 evidence theroy based on factual observation in the late 1800s now it has so much evidence in support of its ideas that arguing against it is quite foolish and ignorant . Either they do not understand the concept or have not reviewed the facts. …………..Ken ham also uses the sun shrinking lie and the lunar orbit decay misrepresentation

          • Republican

            Sorry for my misspellings and grammatical errors , I am on my iPad and forgot to hit spell check.

        • Cooper

          Brenttriggs , I still have no idea wether you accepted my apologies or not , I hope you did , I had hoped to mabey start a conversation and have an open dialogue with you for my educational purposes. Your strength in faith is admirable and my walk is not that strong. ( as you pointed out )
          Here’s where I’m at now ,THIS whole line of thinking is dependant on a literal inturpretation of the bible , that Gods word was passed down , printed and preserved exactly how he wanted it to be this assumes he cared about the exact wording and could control the inturpretation, translation , print process.
          Genesis and it’s main stories are directly borrowed from ” the epic of Gilgamesh ” , a epic tail encompassing the myths of Mesopotamia . The creation of man in a paradise garden , the introduction of evil into a nieve world and a great flood brought on by mans wickedness that floods the whole world, are borrowed from Mesopotamian myths incorporated into Genesis .
          The flood happend in 2348 bc , Moses begins the writing of the word ( Ten Commandments) in 1400 and the Hebrew manuscripts ( Old Testament) are finished in 500 bc , 1848 years of passing word mouth to mouth happend if the flood is real. Why do you think genesis borrows from ” the epic of Gilgamesh ” and if Genesis should be taken LITERALY , should the “epic of Gilgamesh also be taken literally.?
          Should Revalations be taken LITERALY ?

          • Cooper, if you really want to have a conversation, and it appears you do, then contact me via email instead of us trying to discuss via a comment section… brent@brentriggs.com Of course I accept your apology, very gracious; there are answers to all your points. I will absolutely invest the time to discuss with someone who is not just looking for endless argument with no intention being open to change their mind even if the evidence is compelling…

  • Angela M.

    I stopped following your blog after the Mother Theresa posts. I found your attacks and name calling so distasteful, especially how self-righteous you sound in doing so. (These weren’t the first ones I found to be so, just the ones that made me realize there are more fruitful things I could be spending my time reading.) I just came back here as the thought occurred to me “I bet Chris Jeub took the Nye-Ham debate opportunity to slam Ken Ham”. I guess I’m not surprised to find I was right….. just sad. I think the answer is pretty self-evident, but when it comes down to it only God knows how close Ken Ham or Bill Nye are to him. Chris Jeub doesn’t have a clue.

    We will continue to find your speech and debate materials a valuable resource. Beyond that I’m having a hard time even believing what you wrote in “Love in the House” anymore.

    • “Think about it. Pray about it.”
      And this is what you came up with?

  • donawyo

    Hi Chris. I have a video I thought you might be interested in. http://vimeo.com/86578040 (This is done by Sarah and Grace Mally) It’s just a short 4 minutes. Have you heard this information before? This is why the Bible is not like a game of telephone and why we can stand on it like a firm rock beneath our feet, with no doubts. Let me know what you think about it.

  • Nelson Minica

    Hello Mr. Jeub,

    I think maybe you were too busy analyzing the debate that you missed the whole point Ken Ham was trying to get across. 🙂 The point is that Observational Science is observable, repeatable, testable. You cannot do that with the past. When a Secular Humanist looks at a fossil or whatever piece of evidence he interprets it according to Humanist assumptions. Same goes for a Creationist. So does everyone interpreting evidence in the present trying to determine the past.

    No amount of evidence can change a person’s mind if they are not willing to examine their assumptions. I think Ken Ham was telling the truth when he said “And so as far as the word of God is concerned, no, no one is ever going to convince me that the word of God is not true.” because he realizes that is what he bases his assumptions on, that is his starting place. Bill Nye probably did not even realize he was NOT telling the truth when he said “We would just need one piece of evidence.” There is so much evidence that goes against Humanist assumptions. Ken gave one example during the debate, and true to his assumptions Bill Nye rationalized it by saying the rock on top must have slid on top the wood. Everyone rationalizes evidence that does not seem to fit their worldview, Humanist, Creationist, or Whatever-ist (the book Ultimate Proof Of Creation explains this best). Evidence alone is not usually enough unless that evidence makes them question their assumptions. Overall I think the evidence by far agrees with what the Bible plainly teaches, and what Jesus apparently believed since he referenced Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood… To further prove “We would just need one piece of evidence” is not true…

    Bill Nye said “We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another.” The fossil record is by far better evidence for Creation with complex life at the bottom, no transitional forms, and many more points at http://www.icr.org/article/real-nature-fossil-record/ of course Humanists will rationalize the Cambrian explosion, missing links even though they are all missing, and come up with ideas like punctuated equilibrium to maintain their worldview (assumptions).

    Bill Nye said “We would need evidence that the universe is not expanding.” I have no idea why a static or contracting universe would make him believe in the God of the Bible.

    Bill Nye said “We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but they are not.” Creationists do not dispute they are far away. But Humanist assumptions measure the speed of light and assume it took billions of years to travel here. Creationists rationalize there must be another answer like a decaying speed of light or time dilation.

    Bill Nye said “We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just 4,000 years, instead of the extraordinary amount.” Funny with a bag of concrete I can make rocks in a much shorter amount of time than that. Think this is the “one piece of evidence” he is looking for? Somehow I doubt it. 🙂

    Bill Nye said “We would need evidence that somehow you can reset atomic clocks and keep neutrons from becoming protons” This is merely Humanist assumptions again about the amount of mother elements and daughter elements the rock originally had, and they rationalize or ignore the 90% of dating methods (evidence) that contradict billions of years.

    Everything from nothing violates so many laws of nature, yet Humanists assume it happened. Abiogenesis is statistically impossible, yet Humanists assume it happened here or elsewhere. Generating increasingly complex information from randomness plus survival of the fittest doesn’t work either because the fittest is always the less random (this is why mutations are always bad and our genetic load is increasing) yet Humanists assume it happened.

    I would suggest reading my favorite theory so far at http://creationscience.com, it is very scientific and mathematical but easily understood. Dr. Brown has a wonderful explanation for strata, oceanic ridges, trenches, mountains, plateaus, comets, mammoths, and much more…

    I love this quote: “I know a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who, like me, are appalled that Darwin’s explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences.” – http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html

    I would also suggest http://evolutionfacts.com/Handbook%20TOC.htm as a good read for evidence, it is very broad. http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth is also good.

    Disclaimer: a fallible human wrote the above and it may have mistakes, errors, mispelin’s, etc, God bless us all.

    • Nelson Minica

      I am also enjoying reading http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion It’s a scientific paper, I’m not sure what worldview the author holds, but from what I’ve read so far he trashes neo-darwinism… “No junk DNA” is yet another failed evolutionary prediction…

      • Republican

        Nelson my man , this is great reading , the paper is very well written , without jargon , and a pleasure to read.i have spent the last 6 hours studying this paper and 3 others by the author also researching the author. While you are correct that he does not inform himself with Darwin evolution he is most certainly hell bent on opening the world to Quantavolutionary ideas . He places little reliance on the categories that dominate our thinking today whether secular or (overtly) religious; whether involving chance, necessity, design or creation.

        The dominating idea of his overall view is quite “holistic” and “progressive” . The idea disregards everything we know about biology today , I am not at all saying he is wrong just that I do not have the expertise to review his proposals and can’t say that I fully understand the complexity of all of them, one universal conclusion that even his critics agree on is that he is quite brilliant. I will not post the idea cuz he summed it up in the link you posted.

        He views the gross anomalies in our understanding of dna as instructive and that they will in the long run lead to a complete overhaul of genetics . But he is critical of YEC for seeming “fixated upon design, presumably as a result of their severely constraining preoccupation with religion and with the ‘creationism’ or ‘intelligent design’ promulgated by some religious folks.”
        In fact, Talbott himself is uncomfortable with the idea of design and his worldview doesn’t seem to include a God, either. “The word [design] has its legitimate uses,” he writes, but “you will not find me speaking of design.” Why not? The following paragraph gives a few clues.
        cannot be understood as having been designed, machine-like, whether by an engineer-God or a Blind Watchmaker elevated to god-like status. If organisms participate in a higher life, it is a participation that works from within — at a deep level the ancients recognized as that of the logos informing all things. It is a sharing of the springs of life and being, not a mere receptivity to some sort of external mechanical tinkering modeled anthropocentrically on human engineering.”
        So where you got that this mans ideas are something that somehow aligned to yours is beyond me .
        Also EVOLUTION ITSELF MAKES No PREDICTION ON THE EXISTENCE OF JUNK DNA anywhere ever, may I ask where you get your info from ? Evolution explains the existence of junk DNA and the author implied exactly that as the current accepted conclusion.

        I have had the opportunity to discuss , debate and teach many groups and cultures over the years and it’s sad to say that this kind of ” misinturpretation ” mis representation the of data and tunnel vision research that you exhibited in regard to this paper is what we can expect from ThOse in the YEC movement . I think maybe that it is not deliberate but the result of your faith in the truth of YEC model being so strong that their must be evidence supporting it and evidence supporting the failure of the ideas that contradict YEC. So when you see evidence that at first glance might look supporting that you really do not take the time to review it before using it in the debate ( stating the junk DNA is a failed prediction of evolution) consequently losing all credibility .
        Your bias is quite clear and no amount of evidence I show you will convince you of an old earth and evolution because it is obvious that you don’t even review the evidence you provide to support your own ideas .
        I will also not be able to convince you that these ideas and the rest of science are compatible with christian faith , they are with mine and the majority of Christians believers in the world .
        The only people I see the above behavior with are YEC believers. I hypothesis its cuz of the amount of flak they get , (much of it in the form of character assassination and insults)and the sheer volume of data with almost universal support of that data ( outside of their rank) in conflict with YEC that they are desperate for a scientific, non bias and logical argument in support of their ideas , that they are willing to accept almost anything in support and pass it off as fact ……..
        A literal inturpetation of the bible relies entirely on the assumption that it is Gods untainted , perfect and holy word. I would suggest that it is Gods word written by tainted , imperfect and unholy humans who use there knowledge and understanding of the world at the time to inturpret and inform their understanding of his word in order to write it . By now this knowledge and understanding is ancient and outdated . I give an example using john and the book of revelation in another post on this thread .we could use our updated knowledge and understanding to inform our understanding of his word and Maybe even gain valuable knowledge they were limited in understanding back then.

    • Republican

      As a devout Christian and a scientist ( and mostly a human being) a have to say that I am truly disturbed by your comment .the past is observable and testable . There is no such thing as historic lie science , we use the evidence to deduce and extrapolate what happend much like detectives at a murder investigation. The evidence supporting the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the all life on earth is evolved from one single ancestor is truly OVERWHELMING , AS I BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN I WOULD NOT WISH THAT SO BUT IT IS SO , IT DOES NOT SERVE FAITH WELL TO DENY IT .

      • Nelson Minica

        Unless you have a time machine you can only observe in the present and test in the present. Anything about the past you must make assumptions. Yes you can use the scientific method in the present on evidence remaining from the past but that requires making assumptions about the past. For example as I mentioned above in parent-daughter dating methods you must assume the amount of daughter element at the beginning. I look at the evidence as a devout Christian and honest scientist and I find the evidence to overwhelmingly support the God who said He created in six days and His provided records of time since then. Have you read the evidence I provided above and below from Christian and non-Christian scientists, or are you just listening to one side of the argument?

        • Republican

          First Nelson , thank you for engaging in discussion with me . Now reviewing data ( evidence ) from the past does not require assumptions universally , we often try to stay away from any assumption as to not influence the outcome Never do I inturpret anything according to any pre concieved assumption wether from my christian faith or my scientific knowledge , to do so is would be unprofessional , unethical and incompetent I must let the evidence lead me to the conclusion even if my faith does not like the conclusion . You say that the fossil record is more evidence for creationism on the note of Bill Nye stating ” one fossil swimming from one layer to another” first you and Bill Nye are talking about two different subjects , Bill is talking about geological layers and the timeline which they provide , there are no Dino fossils in any layer after 65 million years , no human remains in layers that contain Dino fossils , so the layers show that Dino and man and many other spiecies are separated by vast amounts of time. You are talking the fossil record itself , first the fact the the word fossil is used is a clue to support a very old earth ( petrification is a long long process ) those that say it can be done in as little as 200 years are not backed by any evidence , I.e 200 year old fossils . OK YOUR NEXT POINT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG , YOU SEEM SMART , YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT THERE ARE LITERALY THOUSANDS OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS , PEER REVIEWED , VALIDATED AND TESTED . THOUSANDS .YOU CAN FIND A COMPLETE LIST ON WIKIPEDIA , THESE FINDING HAVE BEEN WELL PUBLISIZED AND FACT CHECKED , YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS . also the paper you reference as ” evidence ” is lacking a fundemental knowledge of the subject it discusses and is very misleading if not outright fabrication , the doc surely knows of the transitional fossils . Second , I will continue to discuss all you links but you have not reviewed any evidence , you have read another persons inturpretation of the evidence , inturpretation that agrees with your already established ideas , and you are referencing without fact checking , also there is no falsification . So in reviewing some papers that already sheared your ideas you found these papers to support your ideas that you knew were on already on these papers and you find these papers to overwhelmingly support YEC and your ideas . How is this honest science ? I am doubting you know what the scientific process is. As for your decaying speed of light hypothesis ( I am impressed if you thought of this) the speed of light in vacuume ( space ) is constant , there are slight effects on it but lights speed will not decay in vacuume, the speed of anything will not decay in vacuume ( I am trying to convey a highly complex subject in laymans terms) so your hypothesis while interesting , lacks credibility. NOW TIME DIALATION , you are speaking my language now brother . Well your kinda right here time dilation does effect star light , the stars that are further away actually appear to slow light emission down not speed it up. Also a jump from 200 billion years to under ten thousand is so unlikely it is absurd , write it down and look at it . 186000 miles per second at that speed it takes 200 billion years to reach earth , we need to take a partical that moves 186000 miles per second and condense its 200 billion year journey at 186,000 miles per second .to less then 10,000 years ( speacial relativity states that 186000 mps is the fastest anything will ever go even light ) . Now ask yourselff is it more likely that the light traveled at its constant vacuume speed and reached earth after traveling an enormous distance or that some unseen force condensed 200 billion years into 10,000! And then left no evidence. No matter what conclusion you just came to you just did some real evidence review. ……..”90 % of dating methods contradict billions of years ” you heard this at a YEC convention I suppose it comes from a statement by ham himself , but look at these dating methods he shows , they are all creationist claims , nothing scientific , nothing research driven , no substinance whatso ever just claims. Please Nelson you really got to start doing your homework , fact checking and reviewing . You seem to lack an understanding of what evidence , data and science is. You also use the word assumption out of context so many times it’s scary. That being said you have skill in projecting your point and a imagination that would suit well if you did your homework you could do some great work .over 40 dating methods were used on the oldest matter we use to extrapolate the age of the earth , they all agreed . I will give you some observational evidence end. Nothing to confuse or “miscommunicate” anything……….No scientist woke up and said I’m gonna disprove the biblical age of the earth , in fact they would have no numbers in mind , they would gather the evidence . 1st limestone , there are entire mountian ranges made primarily of limestone . Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed entirely of the tiny sea shells and bones of ancient sea life . ( you can see this with a magnifying glass) now the mountains are inland and dry . So the huge mountian chains formed underwater over a very very long period and then plate tectonics moved them to dry land at a foot a year that is another very long time. Unique rock formations that take very long timespans to form at the present angle , coastal gold deposits at the points of lplates pushing together that cause the earth to fold on itself, the mass of the sun , it’s hydrogen content and its burn rate , petrified remains , huge corral growths , etc etc . Then they radiometric dating of Ancient meteorites rocks and other matter found in the first geo layer and it shows 4.4 billion years . 40 different dating techniques are used in the dating of early earth material and all give very similar results , the same pieces were subjected to several techniques and the results were in agreement . ……..I could go on and on , the evidence is truly overwhelming . We hear scientists say that a lot ” overwhelming ” evidence , they use it literally the evidence literally overwhelms them with the same data over and over again. As for assuming ..that the starting carbon of these objects is c14/c12. We do not simply assume this .the 70 years of research resulted in a calibration curve along wth other data points to account for differing amounts of carbon in different matter.. Everything from nothing is not an assumption of secularists , scientists or anyone but us christians ( WHAT CREATED GOD ) the Big Bang did no start with nothing it started with an enormous amount of potential energy inside a sphere the size of one atom , milliseconds after the bang a fraction of this energy turned into matter ( e=mc2, this is literally what that equation means ) mostly hydrogen and helium , hydrogen fusion in the belly of stars accounts for every element known .. You use the word assume assume so much look at limestone , look at our DNA and compare it to other spiecies you lack even a elementry understanding of the topics you are debating and are simply relying on the reviews of others to claim you reviewed the evidence . Your arguments have little to no factual data supporting them to summarize what you said in your post given that facts about that post you said ” I believe in a young earth cuz the bible says so and some others have reviewed the evidence with bias and dishonesty ” not to refute all , just the papers you reference .there are some very compelling arguments supporting a young earth . All that being said you have some potential start doing your own homework peace …in closing Ken hams largest offense is his ” observational science “. Vs. ” Historical science ” rhetoric , he teaches that “historical science” is a guess , a belief that we have the tools for observational science but historical is just a wild pig shoot with no rhyme or reason with no way to tell the history of things. This is infact utter nonsense , no crime would ever be solved if this were true , if Ken ham walks into his home bathroom that has the fan on , I slight odor , a damp sink and a running toilet he should be able to extrapolate from the facts with great accuracy what just happend in that bathroom ……scientists extrapolate from the facts what happend and often to a degree of extreme accuracy , Evolution was a 2 or 3 evidence theroy based on factual observation in the late 1800s now it has so much evidence in support of its ideas that arguing against it is quite foolish and ignorant .

          • Nelson Minica

            Wow, that was quite a ramble! But I appreciate your enthusiasm. 🙂 I will attempt to unpack and respond to a few points while ignoring the slights and slurs so hopefully we can find some common ground. Reading some of your other posts I can understand your hostility to Christianity as a religion because of the un-Christlike behavior of those who claimed to be His representative. Once I was leaning to Theistic Evolution thinking “How could all those scientists be wrong” but it was cell complexity that made me realize the impossibility of anything short of God being Creator. So before responding to some of your points let me expand on the first two which are most important to me:

            1) Abiogenesis Is Impossible

            1a) In-depth: “Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible”, http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
            Credentials: Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities. He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics. He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.
            Acknowledgements (Peer Review): I want to thank Bert Thompson, Ph.D., Wayne Frair, Ph.D., and John Woodmorappe, M.A., for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.

            1b) Overview: “Evolution as Mythology, Part 3 (of 5): The Myth of Abiogenesis”, http://www.reasons.org/articles/evolution-as-mythology-part-3-of-5-the-myth-of-abiogenesis
            Credentials: Dr. Hugh Henry, Ph.D. – Dr. Hugh Henry received his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Virginia in 1971, retired after 26 years at Varian Medical Systems, and currently serves as Lecturer in physics at Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights, KY. Daniel J. Dyke, M.Div., M.Th. – Mr. Daniel J. Dyke received his Master of Theology from Princeton Theological Seminary 1981 and currently serves as professor of Old Testament at Cincinnati Christian University in Cincinnati, OH. Dr. Charles Cruze, Ph.D. – Dr. Charles Cruze received his Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Sciences from University of Tennessee Center for Health Sciences in 1977, and currently works in research at Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals.

            2) Order From Random Chaos Is Impossible

            2a) Overview: “Evolution as Mythology, Part 4 (of 5): The Myth of Macroevolution”, http://www.reasons.org/articles/evolution-as-mythology-part-4-of-5-the-myth-of-macroevolution
            Credentials: see 1b above

            2b) Statistics: Even after the first hypothetical cell in the Evolution theory there are multimillion if not multibillion linked chain of events for Macro-evolution of one type of organism.
            2c) Biodiversity: There is a vast amount of organisms each uniquely and marvelously designed living and extinct each with their own unique multimillion chain of events.
            2d) Information: information always comes from or is a subset of a greater source of information, see in-depth article at http://creation.com/laws-of-information-1
            2e) Error checking, correcting: thankfully we were designed so that random mutations are often filtered out or fixed by processes in the cell or hidden by dominant traits via sexual reproduction.
            2f) Irreducible Complexity: there are so many irreducibly complex processes in living things from organs to blood clotting to you name it. The more complex the creation the more awesome the Creator!
            2g) Time: while a single point above might make Macro-evolution impossible, we often hear “time” is claimed to make the impossible possible, but only something approaching Infinite Time would help that claim. We know the concept of Infinite Time won’t help because of things like entropy. Even given Infinite Time it is not likely to generate Mount Rushmore National Memorial because that’s not how erosion works and molecules are the same way they do not arrange themselves. Randomness is related to entropy; it always disorganizes and tears things down. Insert randomness into software and it crashes or misbehaves and hardware fails unless there is error checking/correcting/isolating then it incrementally degrades. Insert randomness into an encrypted file and it becomes worthless. Insert randomness into machines and they break down and often become deadly devices. Insert randomness into art and it turns into static. Insert random mutations into a genome and the organization dies, or is debilitated, diseased, cancerous, sterile, etc.

            3) “no human remains in layers that contain Dino fossils”

            I can understand why someone with Evolutionary/Uniformitarian views might find that a compelling *lack* of evidence, but people with Biblical/Deluge views find processes such as Liquefaction in theories like the Hydroplate theory to be a much more satisfactory explanation. Also for evidence like burrower free continent wide strata, oil (how did all those animals get mass buried together), coal (mass amounts of floating surface vegetation), oceanic ridges/trenches, mountains/plateaus, folded strata, mammoths buried alive, comets/asteroids, the ice age, to briefly name a few points. Have you read the theory below yet?

            In-depth: “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood”, http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/
            Credentials: Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood.

            4) “petrification is a long long process”

            Rapid burial is necessary to prevent decay. Fossilization is fast under the right conditions, in some examples lithification can be “instantaneous and fossilization may even have been the cause of death”. Petrification (with silica) does not require eons. In the right conditions sometimes it never occurs, for example the soft tissue found in dinosaur remains…

            In-depth: https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/soft-tissue-fossilization/
            Overview: https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/experiment-fast-formed-fossils/

            5) “THOUSANDS OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

            I can understand why someone with an Evolutionary worldview would look at that evidence and say “wow these must be transitional fossils!” But someone with a Biblical worldview look at it and say “wow, a bird, an octopus, a fish, a stingray, a dragon, a frog, a worm, a turtle, pretty artwork, a horse, a monkey, an ape, a human, etc, isn’t it amazing all the kinds God created!” So, why aren’t all the different variations of horse/dog/etc breeds being used by Evolutionists as evidence of massive transition? Time-frame too short to fit their worldview? Breeds are a good example of information being selected upon and often lost with no information being added.

            6) “40 dating methods were used on the oldest matter we use to extrapolate the age of the earth , they all agreed”

            By oldest do you mean deepest? You are right I was quoting what Ken Ham said in the debate when he said “90% of dating methods contradict billions of years” and showed a slide. I have read through the list below and find it interesting, though I don’t know if it’s 90%. I’ve heard 86% of statistics are made up. 🙂

            In-depth: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
            Overview: http://creation.com/how-dating-methods-work

            • Cooper

              Ok, I will address each point individually.i like 88% of statistics are made up , I think the quote is 88% of statistics are made up on the spot duo g the argument , I tend to agree with it and your right it is funny.
              1. ” abiogenesis is impossible ”
              abiogenesis is definitely possible, and as a scientist you have to assume this is what happened. First of all, don’t confuse abiogenesis with spontaneous generation – abiogenesis was a gradual process that took millions of years.
              How exactly it happened we will never know – after all, no one was there to see it. What scientists can do is provide a possible explanation. Basically say: “look, I can prove this way was physically possible, and since life had to come about at some point this is most likely how it happened”.
              Of course, this is a whole field in itself. So I can’t explain it here. However, in a nutshell, what happened was most likely this: fatty acids formed abiotically around geysers. We know fatty acids can self-assemble into lipid bilayers completely by themselves, without any information or energy needed. Probably some sort of RNA-like polymer made its way inside the lipid vesicles. this polymer had two properties: it was able to copy itself (acting like an enzyme) and also the ability to store the information necessary for its own synthesis. polymers that are better at replicating would then be favored in a darwinian selection-mechanism, allowing for evolution by natural selection to start. I think the word you are looking for is “improbable” not “impossible”, which is really what DR. Bergmans paper is saying . His whole argument is the ” lack of evidence ” argument . A lack of evidence is not disproof of a theory, scientists formulate a theory based on the data they have and then search for more data to test theory, there is supposed to be gaps in the evidence (data) . The gaps get smaller or bigger everyday..you all never seem to use the word “yet”, we don’t have a lot of evidence to confirm or refute the theory “yet” . For example, The lack of transitional fossils required by the theory of evolution” argument we have thousands of transitional fossils and are finding more every day , we used to have none ,the gap is a lot smaller now but we still have a long way to go to either prove or disprove it . A lot of evidence in many scientific disciplines are consistent with the theory’s predictions ( genetics, biology, paleantology, geography) .Some data is not consistent or fully understood yet , nothing shows it’s impossible .
              2. ” order from random chaos is impossible ”
              This is the “entropy” argument, entropy states that matter goes from order to chaos ( not other way) or chaos to chaos IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. So your point is true for closed systems but the human body and all others that are living systems are open systemsin which both heat, mass, and or work may transfer into or out of. Entropy is lowered by external action being introduced into or out of the system. the putative entropy of a living system would drastically change if the organism were thermodynamically isolated. If an organism was in this type of “isolated” situation, its entropy would increase markedly as the once-living components of the organism decayed to an unrecognizable mass.Creationists need to stop using the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) as evidence against human evolution because it does not apply.
              3. My “no human remains in layers that contain Dino fossils” remark was very general so I will go into detail here.
              In the 13 periods of geological time we have distinct geological strata that contain respective fossils unique to their specific layer and that layer only. So many spiecies are not found in any other layers . So it’s not just humans in Dino layers it’s much much more.
              Layer 1 , Precambrian, we find first skeletal elements , first soft bodies metazoals and first animal traces.
              Layer 2 , Cambrian. First fish appear , first chordates
              Layer 3, Ordovician , sudden diversity of land metazoals
              4. Silurian , the first vascular plants arrive
              5.Devonian , first amphibious life , jawed fishes diversify.
              6.Mississippian ,first reptiles
              7.Pennsylvanian, sole trees , seed furns
              8.Permian , reptiles diversify and we get some major extinctions
              9.Triassic , dinos appear also first mammals
              10.Jurassic, dinos diversify and first birds
              11.Cretaceous , first primates , flowering plants , dinos go extinct.
              12.Tertiary, mammals diversify
              13.Quaternary , first human remains.

              Human remains are not found in any other layer, not once ever. We are recent.these rules of the order of life in the strata are universal all over earth , they do not change .the layers show the same thing everywhere.if humans lived with dinos we would have died with them and so far it is very clear that we did not , I will use the word “yet”, we might find a human fossil with dinos or bird with Cambrian life but I would bet everything on the fact we won’t , cuz so much from other fields points to its improbability.

              3b. Oil , “how did all those animals get mass buried together” .
              I think you have a misconception of what oil is made of , it’s not made of large or even small animals. The animals are tiny zooplankton and algae that settle on the sea floor after death. ( this is also how sedimentary rock is formed, from the shells and bones of these creatures, you can see them with a microscope) the settling accumulates over long periods of time and the shells , bones and coral and sand compress under the pressure of the water above forming sedimentary rock and adding more pressure and now heat to the organic remains beneath , bang hydro carbons ( fossil fuels) . This also explains the near universal finding of oil with sedimentary rock. Shale is sedimentary clay , after all that plate tektonics moves the rock and oil to places on land ( Texas , North Dakota , alaska all rose out of the pacific ridge and slowly moved east ,the whole continent is moving east to the plate subduction zone in the Atlantic) …..so you get it now , oil is not thousands of land animals that were buried in a mass graves on land , it’s just the compressed and heated carbon from sedimentary life that also formed 10 percent of the rock on earth…..this process is very easy to understand and test , you can watch its respective stages. Sedimentation on the ocean floor , sediment turning to rock ( limestone is one that can form quickly enough to watch) and the plate tektonics in both oceans , 2 to 10 centimeters per year depending which plate .
              3c I am well studied in geology and am familiar with your “points” coal (mass amounts of floating surface vegetation), oceanic ridges/trenches, mountains/plateaus, folded strata, mammoths buried alive, comets/asteroids, the ice age.
              COAL is not mass amounts of floating surface vegetation it is a sedimentary rock and fossil fuel , made alot like oil but without the carbon and mineral separation because the sedimentary life was different.
              At various times in the geologic past, the Earth had dense forests in low-lying wetland areas. Due to natural processes like flooding , plate tektonics, earthquakes , these forests were buried underneath soil. As more and more soil deposited over them, they were compressed. The temperature also rose as they sank deeper and deeper. As the process continued the plant matter was protected from rotting and biodegradation by mud and acidic water. This trapped the carbon in immense peat bogs that were eventually deeply buried under sediment and now Under high pressure and high temperature, dead vegetation was slowly converted to coal. As coal contains mainly carbon, this process is called carbonization .
              OCEANIC RIDGES AND TRENCHES
              A trench is the point where one tectonic plate is sub ducting under another and meting back into the planets core .
              A ridge is the core forcing out its melted earth to cool and become new land .
              This is called plate tectonics, the only effects it has on the fossil record is to move it very slowly in the plates direction and to destroy it COMPLETLY when it subdues into the core lava. But in no way does it separate certain fossils from others.
              MOUNTAINS/PLATEAUS. Both are geological formations caused my plates pushing against each other and forcing each other up or by very large sedimentary rock formation . In each case the fossil record and strata are kept in tact just at different angles.
              FOLDED STRATA , this occurs often and is the result of a event causing permanent deformation, geologists and paleantologists know exactly what folds look like and folds did not separate all the fossils.
              MAMMOTHS BURIED ALIVE , yes alive and COMPLETLY intact frozen as if you had just thrown him in a freezer 30,000 years ago.
              COMETS/ASTROIDS. I am a HOBBIEST in the field of impacts , we can tell exactly when an impact occurred on the timeline because it leaves telltale signs in the strata . This is awesome ,check it . the k-pg boundary ( the layer of strata right after creataceous period ) contains tiny glass spheres, everywhere on this planet the kph layer has mass amounts of tiny glass spheres we can pick up and see with our naked eyes. These spheres are caused by a hot liquid cooling while falling through the atmosphere ( melt some wax and throw it in the air as it falls/cools it will form spheres exactly like the kpg spheres) only 2 things contain enough energy to melt rock and throw it high into the atmosphere volcanos and impacts . Their is also an enormous amount of iridium in the thin k-pg layer, iridium is a very rare element on earth but is found in enormous quantities on meteorites.WE CAN PLAINLY INVESTIGATE and see the effects of impacts on geology and strata.
              THE ICE AGE(s)froze and compressed layers , tore into some but we know the signs.
              4. Petrification , Dino soft tissue was found by dr Mary Schweitzer and her team , a small amount of collagen in the inner leg of an adolescent t-Rex. The Dino died 68 million years ago , the iron in the dinos blood released upon death ( as with all animals) generating free radicals that act as a formaldehyde preserving the collegen.they figured this out shortly after finding the tissue .you are correct that their are instances where fossilization can be rapid but according to your beliefs it must always be rapid ,it is always rapid no if about it , it has to be for a young earth to exist.
              THOUSANDS OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS , ” why aren’t evolutionists using them in support of there argument” they are all the time but you need to understand that with the advances in genetics and the study of the Gnome that the fossil record is by comparison very weak evidence , they don’t need to use it when the genetics work is so compelling on its own.. I don’t look at them as trasitional fossils cuz of my world view ,they are trasitional fossils , they are exactly what you creationists ask for all the time , I just gave them to you and you say they are not trasitional but they fit your definition precisely.
              40 DATING METHODS
              NO I DO NOT MEAN DEEPEST BY OLDEST,
              Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.[4] The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old.[5][6][7] Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to those of other stars, it appears that the solar systemcannot be much older than those rocks. Calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the Solar System – are 4.567 billion years old,[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of EarthThe moon, as another extraterrestrial body that has not undergone plate tectonics and that has no atmosphere, provides quite precise age dates from the samples returned from the Apollo missions. Rocks returned from the Moon have been dated at a maximum of around 4.4 and 4.5 billion years old. Martian meteorites that have landed upon Earth have also been dated to around 4.5 billion years old by lead-lead dating. Lunar samples, since they have not been disturbed by weathering, plate tectonics or material moved by organisms, can also provide dating by direct electron microscope examination of cosmic ray tracks. The accumulation of dislocations generated by high energy cosmic ray particle impacts provides another confirmation of the isotopic dates. Cosmic ray dating is only useful on material that has not been melted, since melting erases the crystalline structure of the material, and wipes away the tracks left by the particles.
              Altogether, the concordance of age dates of both the earliest terrestrial lead reservoirs and all other reservoirs within the Solar System found to date are used to support the hypothesis that Earth and the rest of the Solar System formed at around 4.53 to 4.58 billion years ago.

              • Nelson Minica

                When a theory is proven impossible (10^50000 is far past statistically impossible) rational people look for a better theory. Unfortunately most people prefer to preserve their worldview through rationalization (panspermia, invisible comet belts that defy physics btw Dr. Walt Brown has taught college courses in physics, punctuated equilibrium, etc) rather than go through the pain of rebuilding a better one.

                Thank you for your kinds words. May God bless you Mr. Cooper as you seek The Truth.

                • Cooper

                  Nelson , first you again are confusing abiogenesis with evolutionary theory . Evolution presumes life already existed when it gets rolling . Wether God , aliens or abiogenesis Is the origin of that life is irrelevant .
                  Second , are you sure you are a mathematician ? If you were you would understand what random means , shuffle a deck of cards and then note the order . The odds that that deck of cards landed like that is 8.1*10^67 , wildly astronomical odds , but every time you shuffle an order of cards is reached randomly that equals your astronomical odds for disproving a biogenesis , but you can’t disprove the cards being shuffled . …..a random order would be reached every time , exactly .are you getting it . The only way it’s impossible is if the cards order was pre determined , you would never get that order . Abiogenesis was not a ” pre determined order” it is COMPLETLY random just like . Therefor probable . ……….I disprove your” morality of the world depends on the bible ” crap and you still use it , if you need the bible to stay moral then you are an immoral person , I explain the difference in theories , you still combine them , I explain randomness , you still claim impossible , it seems you are incredibly closed minded and unwilling to look at the facts , I read all your references to AIG and others , they site no fact just further propagate their opinions . Nelson , their are christians out their on the front lines of this thing , fighting evil ( hunger, poverty, genocide, violence , rape , ) sowing an example of christs love through self sacrifice and giving of unconditional love preaching the gospel . Then theirs you , insulting athiests for having children ( God gives them free will, but you do not) , insulting modern sciences consences , lying and preaching a world view that matters not to the fundamentals of the gospel . Insulting those that do not follow the bible as immoral ( let he that is without sin cast the first stone) and showing that without the bible you see rape , violence and murder as logical . We can see now that you are a tool of evil , refocusing effort on YEC instead of the gospel , insulting those that you say need christ most instead of providing his example , citing unqualified , un fact checked . Non validated , non falsifiable garbage as science fact . Nelson it’s clear that you have some screws loose and joke is on me ( trying to argue logic with a schizophrenic )

                  • Nelson Minica

                    My apologies if my words have caused any offense.

                    You read all my references? Really? All?

                    Q1: Have you really read all of http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html ? It’s 456 pages in letter sized hardback.

                    Q2: Have you really read all of http://evolutionfacts.com/Handbook%20TOC.htm ? It’s 992 pages in paperback.

                    Organisms are not random, they are the most highly ordered things on the planet, even the simplest Creatures are amazingly complex. Look inside a computer, it is highly ordered, pour in some acid or take a hammer so it and now it’s highly randomized. Evolutionary theory was invented to get away from supernatural intelligence and it is inconsistent to invoke God at the first step or whenever you feel like it to maintain your frog to prince tall tale. Similar to abiogenesis, Macro-evolution by random mutation is also impossible, probably even to a much greater degree but it is more difficult to quantify because overactive imaginations can invent all sorts of rationalizations.

                    Really, morality is logical? Then honest evolutionists should applaud cleansing undesirables like Hitler and Stalin did, lawfully practicing Eugenics on their own people. Completely logical in an evolutionistic set of beliefs where red in tooth and claw equals progress. But your own words speak of an innate knowledge of right and wrong: “for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them”

                    Amazing how so easily and quickly you can label a near stranger you disagree with as “evil”. That’s a major problem with self guided morality. The Evolution myth has ruined millions of people’s faith in Jesus. Why? Simply because if Jesus was wrong about Creation then why should we believe Him to be Who He claimed to be?

                    Funny how one man’s “facts” are another man’s opinions. I’ve seen very little logic from you so far and you still believe in the impossible which is completely illogical, but understandable since everyone dislikes adjusting their view of reality. Once you understand the theory is impossible it’s easier to recognize the spin, hype, wishful thinking, and occasional lies propping it up. Arguments from Authority/Majority are not worth much as they can be wrong, and there are many majorities/authorities on both sides of this issue.

                    Q3: Have you seen http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ ? Lots of credentials on that 22 page list.

                    Q4: Have you seen Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? I remember David Berlinski was in it, credentials below. I remember him first from The Truth Project. His point of view is entertaining if not always the most precise.

                    Credentials: David Berlinski is a senior fellow in the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture… Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques.

                    It is unfortunate you seem to think insults are effective, but they will only push people away… If you could skip the insults we could have a more productive dialog.

            • Cooper

              Hey Nelson I would like to invite you to group on facebook I am a member of . It’s called Unapologetics, we are around 100 christians , atheists, agnostic , young and old earth . We all discuss and debate the topics ou and I have discussed it’s actually really fun and we learn a lot from eachother

              • Nelson Minica

                Thank you for the invitation. I would invite you to follow the Young Earth Christian Creationists Coalition on Facebook. You probably wouldn’t want to join the group since you seem pretty deeply indoctrinated in your beliefs.

                • Cooper

                  i will gladly join the group , it’s not that I’m deeply indoctrinated , it’s that I do a lot of research and argue strongly in favor of scientific ideas in order to inspire your position to do research and strongly back their ideas with good work so I will need to do more good work to refute . This is a great way to learn of science , faith , the bible , theology and eachother . I learn a lot everyday doing research in order to formulate my counter arguments . , I had talked of this recently , , that the 100% reliance and faith that YEC puts in the bible Is a sort of honesty that is admirable . ……I put that much faith in nothing , not even gravity and the speed of light …not calculus or addition and subtraction . It’s admireable , but that 100% blind devotion is also the driving force behind cults and totalitarian regimes , so one should be careful.

      • Guy

        What evidence? Are you talking about the rocks that date the fossils, or the fossils that date the rocks? Lol

        • Republican

          Lol , nice I like that .

  • I had a lengthy discussion about this with an atheist friend on Facebook that helped me clarify my thoughts on the issue. I partially agree with Ken’s answer: I have experienced God first hand. I have asked and received, sought and found, knocked and had the door opened. Nothing at this point would convince me that God did not exist, that his word was false, and that he is not the Creator of all.

    I agree however with the gist of your article: Ken’s specific literal interpretation of a 7-day creation is a scientific hypothesis (weather drawn from origin science or the study of historical texts: AKA the Bible), and thus should be subject to falsification. Considering our rather limited understanding of time and the cosmos it is certainly possible to interpret the Genesis creation account other than from a Young Earth perspective (in fact, many Christians do), so dogmatically adhering to young earth creationism regardless of the evidence is foolish.

    For the record, I agree with Ken’s hypothesis – I’ve taken the time to research the subject and I find the evidence does seem to point to a young earth. However, I’m more than willing to accept that God sparked the universe with a big-bang and caused everything to evolve from a primitive single celled organism if sufficient evidence were to be uncovered to make it the more reasonable conclusion.

    • Republican

      As a Christian and scientist I truly am imbarrassed by people like you . The vast majority of you are simply lying , some are stupid ,most are bias and others are fanatical . When you say you have done the research and came to the conclusion you did is like sYing that you did the math and 2 plus 2 is 5 . I am not exadurating or over simplifing it , it’s that simple .
      You did not do any research. In review of the evidence that we have today it is highly unlikely that any human would come to a conclusion that does not support evolution and a very old earth.
      the evidence in support of the idea that all life evolved from a common. Ancestor is truly overwhelming , it does not serve faith to deny it .
      Stop lying and do some research .
      God bless

      • Guy

        Yea, sure, we believe that you’re a scientist who’s “imbarassed” and not at all “exadurating” . Also it’s not evolution we have a problem with, it’s the biogenesis bullshit and the just-so story telling presented as scientific fact, which you can see demonstrated on the history channel and school text books.

        • Republican

          Wow , I write some insulting and and impatient stuff that immediatly kills my credibility at times I don’t have a PHD if that’s what you mean , I am a teacher . I still take 3 credits a semester at UAA to award me access to the lab but I don’t do cutting edge research or anything mostly lift and drag experiments to better inform my students and genetics research to find a better treatment for addiction but I am little out of my league and require qualified assistance to interpreted the data ..and you are right I did exadurate several points , I think this is my first post here , the day I found this sight after watching a neil Tyson lecture on YouTube Several links later I got here and was very angry at some of Ken hams statements .. His movement anti intellectual and states his website is a place where christians can go to defend their faith. Our faith is not under attack by science . Some things are in contrast with what the bible teaches but no one intended to do that . The evidence just leads to the conclusion , I teach that scienctific discovery and whatever faith one follows are compatible . I stand by my statement that the majority of YEC’s lie about reviwing the evidence and coming to the conclusion that it supports a young earth . I have 4 or 5 posts on here in discussion with a few people and caught one outright lying about it , the evidence he reviewed was not evidence at all.

    • Cooper

      If the earth is only 6000 years old then everything we know about any -Ologie ( geology, biology and all the others ) is wrong , throw it all out . The phisical and chemical laws that govern our universe are all wrong and need rewritten , all modern technology depends on equations abstracted directly from these laws, your phone works , your car , your tv your gps works , so it looks like they are worthless and don’t work. The speed of light is not what we measure it is but billions of times faster , the force of gravity is COMPLETLY misunderstood then , our understanding of time is wrong . all knowledge of geological processes are COMPLETLY wrong , throw out new understanding of DNA , throw out paleatology COMPLETLY it would be so wrong it’s worthless, paleobotany is also gone astronomy is worthless , cosmology is entirely wrong Newton , Einstien , Galileo , hawking and all others are wrong and. Their work is worthless , their I.Q and PHD and incredibly intellectual minds are are nothing worthless , the brightest minds of the past and today christian and secular and their lifetimes dedicated to their work Don’t hold a candle to you and your superior ability to review the evidence in your spare time ……..the problem with YEC belivers is that you cannot use logic and reason to inform these illogical and unreasonable people that try and use logic and reason to prove a illogical and unreasonable thing that is by definition unprovable .
      Scientists start from zero , they say Lets gather all the info we can and see what it tells us how old the earth is .
      YEC scudo scientists say . Let’s gather the info and see what will tell us the earth in 6000 years old , what can we do to this info to make it show 6000 years and let’s change everything ( phisics , chemisty , bio, etc.) in the past and have it gradually change back to show 6000 years .
      Common people what is more plausible
      That the 40 inedependant , dlicated and reviwed dating methods used to date the earths old rocks are all wrong
      Or that kenn hams inturpretation is wrong?
      That the sidimentation rate of 1-2 inches per year is has been pretty much the same and that plate tektonics have been the same creating sedimenty rock over millions of years and moving the now mountians to land over another millions
      Or that Noah’s flood created mass amounts of sea life , killed it then caused immense and majic also earth core, temp. , and atmosphere changes that then compressed mountians of tiny sea life and fossilized it the moved them 1000s of miles onto land and then slowed it all back down.?
      If you want me to elaborate or explain any of this email me at alliedcries@gmail.com

  • Cheryl

    I’ve been mulling this over in my head for over a month, and I agree with you on Bill Nye.

    The beautiful thing about science is that the body of knowledge that encompasses it is a growing, changing thing, a constant learning opportunity and any good scientist acknowledges that.

    I am fairly skeptical where Ken Ham is concerned because I distrust any person who claims that his own personal interpretation is the end all and be all of everything.

  • Cooper

    I agree with your observation, the problem with YEC is that —it squares off with geology, anthropology, paleontology, history, chemistry, astronomy, zoology, biology, and good taste. It directly and boldly contradicts most -onomies and all -ologies, including most theology.
    The scientific community and Christian scientists are critical if it’s Creation science because it does not in any way reflect the scientific methods universal throughout the many science fields .it is by definition a his – science and is classified as a religion for , tax , education, zoning and legal purposes.
    Ken hamms creation museum has drawn criticism from the the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., Paleontological Society, Geological Society of America, Australian Academy of Science, the Royal Society of Canada , the American historical society among many other secular organizations for depicting a wildly fantastic world history that outright attacks every aspect of modern science and early human history with not one ounce of accredited evidence supporting its magical claims like . DINOSAURS INTERACTING With humans and interacting PEACFULLY at that .
    The majority of christian organizations also criticize Ham as willfully ignorant of evidence for an old earth and he deliberitly misleads his audience on matters of science and religion. Two of his most vocal citisizers are SUCCESFULL scientists and christians francis Collins and Hugh Ross .
    He has willfully and knowingly broke the law in his hiring processes for his ark project resulting in public funds being pulled .
    If the earth is only 6000 years old then everything we know about any -Ologie ( geology, biology and all the others ) is wrong , throw it all out . The phisical and chemical laws that govern our universe are all wrong and need rewritten , all modern technology depends on equations abstracted directly from these laws, your phone works , your car , your tv your gps works , so it looks like they are worthless and don’t work. The speed of light is not what we measure it is but billions of times faster , the force of gravity is COMPLETLY misunderstood then , our understanding of time is wrong . all knowledge of geological processes are COMPLETLY wrong , throw out new understanding of DNA , throw out paleatology COMPLETLY it would be so wrong it’s worthless, paleobotany is also gone astronomy is worthless , cosmology is entirely wrong Newton , Einstien , Galileo , hawking and all others are wrong and. Their work is worthless , their I.Q and PHD and incredibly intellectual minds are are nothing worthless , the brightest minds of the past and today christian and secular and their lifetimes dedicated to their work Don’t hold a candle to you and your superior ability to review the evidence in your spare time ……..the problem with YEC belivers is that you cannot use logic and reason to inform these illogical and unreasonable people that try and use logic and reason to prove a illogical and unreasonable thing that is by definition unprovable .
    Scientists start from zero , they say Lets gather all the info we can and see what it tells us how old the earth is .
    YEC scudo scientists say . Let’s gather the info and see what will tell us the earth in 6000 years old , what can we do to this info to make it show 6000 years and let’s change everything ( phisics , chemisty , bio, etc.) in the past and have it gradually change back to show 6000 years .
    Common people what is more plausible
    That the 40 inedependant , dlicated and reviwed dating methods used to date the earths old rocks are all wrong
    Or that kenn hams inturpretation is wrong?
    That the sidimentation rate of 1-2 inches per year is has been pretty much the same and that plate tektonics have been the same creating sedimenty rock over millions of years and moving the now mountians to land over another millions
    Or that Noah’s flood created mass amounts of sea life , killed it then caused immense and majic also earth core, temp. , and atmosphere changes that then compressed mountians of tiny sea life and fossilized it the moved them 1000s of miles onto land and then slowed it all back down.?
    If you want me to elaborate or explain any of this email me at alliedcries@gmail.com

  • Cooper

    I will no longer post on this thread , seems like I hijacked it . I have posted so much solid data on supporting the old earth and evolution ideas . You all stopped responding so I hope I have got you thinking and maybe you will really ” review the evidence” and who it came from to inform you position . Ken Ham is wasting huge resources and time in vein to defend our fath from the truth and to convince the world of 2 biblical accounts that matter not in the telling , accepting and living of the gospal . For what? We need not spend more time and money on their venture , let’s leave that to those who are qualified to do such things . And we can share the message . God bless
    Sorry Chris jaub , I thought your artical was quite interesting and well written. Kind of an abstract observation in the context of the debate . I enjoyed it

  • FlapJills

    I believe in evolution myself. I don’t care what you or anyone else believes, i am not here to argue evolution.
    What i do want to discuss is the fact that you state that you disbelieve that Ken Ham says he never doubts the bible. You call him delusional or in denial or deceptive or whatever. This is wrong on your part. There are christians that have never doubted the words of the bible, not once. i was one of them. for over 50 years i believed the bible, all of it, and i read through it many times. i didn’t doubt god’s word, or god. ever. it was easy to do, too. i just believed it, not by an act of my will, but because i actually really did just believe it, with no effort. i am a very logical person, a scientist, college educated in many different sciences, and nothing i leared in college ever made me even consider doubting the bible, if anything, while mostly neutral there were plenty of times when science reinforced my belief in a creator.
    i am no longer a christian, but that is a discussion for another time. but you should just know that every person who tells you they never doubt god or the bible is not a liar. sometimes they are telling the truth. you can’t judge other people by your experience. you may have doubted, a lot, but not everyone does. so stop reasoning from your position that your experience is the standard for judging everyone elses.