Ken Ham Vs. Bill Nye Vs. Kab Balah – Part Three B - June 2014

This is a continuation of Ham Vs. Nye Part Three A. In this section, the conclusion of Bill Nye and Ken Ham’s portion of the debate will be concluded with questions from the audience. The final section, C, will consist of an argument between Kab Balah with himself as he answers some of the questions posed by the audience.

Questions From the Audience

In this section, the moderator reads questions from the audience. Although the questions are mostly directed at on debater or another, Bill Nye and Ken Ham each get a couple of minutes on each question. The event moves even more quickly at this point.


The audience asks, “How does creationism account for celestial expansion?”

Ken Ham points out that the Bible says that G_d stretched out the heavens. He admits that he does not know exactly why it was done the way it was done but says that G_d did it for his glory. It is supposed to show how big and great G_d is as the infinite and all-powerful creator god. He mentions his organizations planetarium and throws in a comment about Him become a human to be tortured to death to pay for our sins.

“Wow!” He says, “what a god!”


Nye remarks that the question, “where did we come from?” is what compels scientists. He poses that astronomy, life science, and physics were all created to answer that question. Bill Nye claims that having the answer that G_d did it is satisfying and insinuates that it is a bad thing. Not being satisfied, he thinks, is what causes scientists to be driven.

Nye challenges Ham to tell him how his particular creation theory can predict things that happen in the natural world.


The qusetion posed is, “How did the atoms get there?”

Bill Nye tells us that is the central question; that and “what happened before the Big Bang.” Nobody knows, submits Nye, and that is the point he says. As an example he gives that it was assumed that the expansion of the universe would slow down or at least remain a constant. It turns out that it is accelerating. This is great empirical evidence but it seems like it could actually support Ham's model. It certainly does not seem to debunk it.

He lets us know that someone may one day find the answer to the ultimate questions. He says that is why scientists get in their cars to go to work every day. In other words, his interpretation of Darwinian Evolution does not have an answer. A clever doge to be sure.


Ham lets Nye know that “there's a book out there” that tells us where matter came from. “In the beginning G_d created the heavens and the earth,” he says. He claims that that is the only thing that makes sense.

He talks about information and language systems that produce life which, he postulates, cannot come from matter but only from intelligence. This is, perhaps, a reference to DNA. He mentions that the book of the bible Hebrews talks about how things are made from things unseen. Ken Ham tells us that a creator god bringing things into existence is the, “Only thing that makes logical sense.”


The audience poses the question, “What evidence besides the Bible supports creationism?”

Ken Ham admits that a majority of scientists believe in a an old Earth and Evolution. He poses that the majority is not the judge of truth. As an example, he tells us that a majority of doctors in England used to cut up cadavers and then deliver babies without washing their hands. He also tells us that a majority of doctors also used to think the appendix was a “left-over” from our evolutionary ancestry which could be removed without consequence but that now it is known to be an important part of the immune system.

Ken Ham addresses the “evidence” part of the question which could be seen as a dodge. He talks about how he made “a whole list of predictions.” Ham says that we cannot scientifically ever prove what happened in the past. Specifically he refers to things already mentioned like the notion of “kinds” and “one race” descended from Adam and Eve.

Bill Nye

Nye once again makes the preposterous statement that anybody who makes a discovery that changes their views of the natural world would be embraced by scientists. One might wonder if empirical evidence points should perhaps be taken away from repeating inane comments like this.

Ignaz Semmelweis, who Ham had mentioned, was actually ridiculed by other doctors when he suggested they wash their hands before delivering babies. They were offended he would suggest such a thing. There are many more examples but really Bill Nye should know better. One might speculate that he certainly would know better if he ever did make a discovery of that kind only to be ridiculed and attacked which is so often the case.

Bill Nye erroneously claims that a majority only matters up to a point. The reality of science is that what the majority thinks does not matter at all. He should know that too. Tells us that energy from the sun is “making lifeforms a little more complex.” This is a departure from the view that “cosmic rays” cause the nucleic damage believed to be responsible for the random mutations believed by many Darwinians to be the driving force behind Evolution. Cosmic rays are mostly believed to originate outside the solar system; not the sun.

Bill Nye

The question is, “How did consciousness come from matter?”

“Don't know.”

Says it is a great mystery. Mentions a friend who works in neurology who he claims studies the “nature of consciousness” but does not expand on this comment; instead he says he is reminded about a joke, “I have never seen a dog paralyzed by self-doubt. Actually, I have.” So, what is he referring to? What the heck is he talking about? So dogs can get paralyzed by self-doubt; and?

Nye talks about the things we “celebrate” He mentions three sun dials on the planet mars. “To those who visit here we wish you safe journey and the joy of discovery,” It says. “Joy of discovery is what drives us, Nye says. “We don’t know where it comes from but that joy of discovery is deep within us.” He rambles on about something called “second genesis” where apparently NASA has be researching the possibility life may have started another way than currently believed.

He says that his brand of science represents US tax dollars at work. He tells the audience to embrace science or fall behind economically. It is all very passionate and emotional of a speech which does not add any empirical evidence disputing the literal Bible version of creation but it is excellent oratory.

Ken Ham

Ken Ham reminds us that there is a “Book out there” which documents where man in the image of G_d, had life breathed into him. Though difficult, maybe impossible to prove, it could be considered advantageous that the “Book out there” can answer difficult, seemingly unanswerable questions.

Ham talks about the “mystery” factor to studying science but brings up that Nye, a known Atheist believes it all ends upon the death of the individual. He asks, “What is the point?” Here he touches on a Kantian “proof” of the existence of G_d. Ken Ham remarks that he enjoys discovery and that it is “G_d’s dominion.”

Ken Ham

Ham is asked, “What, if anything, would change your mind?”

Ham's answer is, of course, that he's a Christian. He tells us that G_d has shown him truth through his “Word,” which probably means the Bible, and through Jesus, which probably means Yesua ben Joseph. He admits that he cannot prove his theory but that if the Bible is what it claims to be to “check it out” evidently unaware that the Bible has actually created a lot of Atheists. He reminds that if one comes to G_d with belief in him that he will reveal himself.

Ken Ham then makes a clarifying distinction that, although nobody can or will ever prove to him his Bible based theory is not true, that the models created based off his interpretations are subject to change. He says the fact of the flood, for example, is not subject to change, but that the theories on how it may have happened are. This is what he calls part of scientific discovery.

He then asks Bill Nye the same question and remarks that Nye has once said that, even if he did come to faith, he still would not subscribe to the young earth belief. Why Ham thinks it is so important to believe it despite it not being a requirement to salvation is still not completely clear. Yes, the genealogies could add up in the way he describes but then several other conclusions one could draw from the Bible which would indicate an older earth are ignored.

Bill Nye

Nye gives us a whole list of answers. He wants to see fossils of organisms that swam up to other layers, even though there are some examples he is oblivious to and likely to remain that way. He wants to see evidence the universe is not expanding even though expansion is not necessarily proof the Bible is incorrect. He wants to see that the stars are closer than they appear, because it should take light millions and billions of years to reach the Earth. He wants to see atomic clocks reset themselves, by which, he means he wants to see neutrons be prevented from becoming protons.

Basically, he wants proof that the world is much younger than it actually appears to be. This author is not one who can help him with that. The Earth does appear to be older than six thousand years old. Looks can be deceiving but that is what it looks like.

Bill Nye asks Ham what he can predict about the future using his model. He asks this again despite completely ignoring Ken Ham's earlier challenge to him. Ham asked Nye for an example, just one example, of a technology which has been developed based on a belief in “molecules to man” evolution which he should have gotten a debate demerit for except he got away with it because Bill Nye did not “call him” on it. Nye did not meet the challenge with an example and this author could not think of one either.

Interesting note: genetically engineered monstrosities do not require a belief in Darwinism except, perhaps, in a Malthusian sense.

Bill Nye

Nye is asked, “Outside radio-metric methods, what scientific methods support your view on the age of the Earth?”

He reminds us about the age of the stars, deposition rates, and says radio-metric evidence is very compelling. Nye then goes off on a tangent about a geologist that came up with the use of the term deep time. Then, amazingly, Bill Nye claims radioactivity is why the Earth has been able to retain its heat. It might be interesting to find out exactly where he is getting that information and what, exactly, he thinks radioactivity is. Though Nassim Haramein has attempted to advance an alternative explanation, the most commonly accepted theory on why the Earth is hot inside is that it is leftover energy from the formation of the solar system and, presumably, radiant energy from the sun helps keep the crust from drawing too much heat from the mantel which could result in deep planetary cooling. Radiation can be any energy that can be transmitted in a way that does not require a conductive material as a medium.

He repeats that neutrons do become protons, claims the flood could not have possibly happened (because he has not seen any of the evidence), and points out that Ham did not address the issue of the humanoid skulls.

It is true. Ham did not address the issue of the skulls. This author addressed that issue. Point for Nye.

+1 emp

Ken Ham

Ham tells us that no earth rocks were used to date the Earth at four and a half billion years. He says that an assumption was made that the meteorites were left-overs from the creation of the solar system and insinuating an assumption that the earth and the solar system must have formed at the same time.

Ken Ham then goes off on a short rant about all of the assumptions made in the dubious Darwinian version of evolutionary theory.

He tells the audience, incredibly, that one cannot prove the Earth is young or old. One cannot prove anything without absolute certainty. So then: why should we believe Ham or Nye's theories of origin? For Ham the way he interprets Bible is proof enough, it would seem.


Ham is asked, “Can you reconcile the change in rate of continents drifting today with the rate they would have had to have traveled at the time of creation to get where they are now?”

To summarize, he tells the audience that his Creationists believe in catastrophic plate tectonics, meaning that all the waters were gathered in one place but then G_d screwed that all up with the cataclysmic flood even. Apparently India literally slammed into Asia; must have stung a bit.

Ham directs everybody to his website again. Evidently it explains everything. Wisdom can be found in the strangest of places sometimes so it might be worth looking at despite the dubious young Earth belief.

Bill Nye

Bill Nye remarks that it must have been easier for creationists to explain plate tectonics a century ago.

He then asks, if one where to go into a clock shop and all of the clocks showed different times, would we assume they were all wrong? Well, would that not be the assumption? Evidently, somebody has not been setting the clocks. However, even a broken clock is right a couple times a day.

Nye talks about sea-floor spreading at the Atlantic mid-ocean ridge. He says that the signature of a pole reversal in the seabed can be used to figure out how fast the plates were spreading at that time. He does not explain how he can prove when the pole reversed which would be necessary to determine a speed.

Bill Nye

The question asked is, “One word answer: what is your favorite color?”

“Green.” Claims it is ironic plants are green. Says most of the light from the sun is green. Is it ironic? Or is that why plants do not get to hot and catch fire? He did hear the “one word answer” part of the question, did he not?

Ken Ham

Ham asks if he too can answer with more than one word sense Nye did. The moderator allows it. He then shows what he is wearing, says “observational science” and then “Blue.” Does this prove anything? No. It is a lame attempt at humor. If Nye had only his jokes to live off of, he would probably live in a card-board box; if Ham had to live off of his jokes, he would probably starve to death.

It has been a long debate critique so the author might be getting a bit testy.

Bill Nye

Someone from the audience would like Nye to, “Balance theory of Evolution with the Law of Thermodynamics.”

Nye gives us a lecture on thermodynamics. The audience decays considerably during the speech. Bill Nye reminds us that the Earth is not a closed system and uses the Sun to reconcile entropy to evolution. Is this guy some kind of a sun-worshiper? No. He actually makes a valid point; though life tends to seem anti-entropic, his theory is that the break-down of the system which is the sun is what life systems off of to create more order within themselves. This may not be a fully satisfying answer, especially given the acceleration of the universe explanation, but it merits a point… which will not be counted because that system was thrown out after a hard-drive crash, reinstated, and finally abandoned altogether… Nye won more empirical points, in case the reader is interested.

Nye then tells us that half of the breathable oxygen is made from phytoplankton in the oceans. What, exactly does the plankton use to create this oxygen? He does not tell the audience by it will be told right now: sunlight, water, trace minerals, and carbon-dioxide (CO2). The “evil” stuff that is causing “man-made global warming” is the stuff plants convert into breathable oxygen (O2)

Getting back to the point, Bill Nye starts ranting about how calculations using the Law of Thermodynamics are necessary when figuring out all kinds of important things like how much energy is needed to run a building etcetera. He gets noticeably excited about engineering at this point. It is impressive.

Ken Ham

Ham states that one needs to understand that one can have all the energy one wishes but will never create life. He says that G_d created language system which produces life, by which he probably means DNA but it may be more fundamental than that.

Ken ham also states that before sin there was equilibrium but now things are running down which explains entropy of a running-down universe

He is asked the question, “if there was proof earth was older than he thinks would he still believe in G_d? He repeats his belief that it cannot be done so will not be proven. He says that many dating methods contradict billions of years.

Ham believes in the young age of universe because “G_d said so” in the Bible.

He mentions something about the fossil record and something about death and suffering before sin. The author tried to pay attention but it was getting hot in the room and there was little sleep to be had the night prior.


Bill Nye tells us there are clues all around us but that with Ken Ham’s theory we have to take his word for it, not only that the Bible is to be taken literally, but in the way Ham interprets it. Nye seems put off by the notional that there are those who would take the Bible evidence over evidence anyone can access. Nye asks, “Are you sure that life cannot come from matter? Are you sure we won’t find life on mars?” Bill Nye has apparently been doing his research on Ken Ham’s version of Creationism because he imparts the information that, apparently, Ham and his “followers” do not believe there is any point to looking for life anywhere other than planet Earth.

It is undisclosed which part of the Bible claims there is no life on other planets.

Nye is asked, “What can you predict about the future?” and, “Is there room for G_d in science?“

He reminds us that billions of people around the world who are religious also embrace science, implying that the Ham-style creationists do not embrace science because they do not subscribe to Darwin’s version of evolution. He gets even more insulting by asking, if there is anyone in the audience who hasn't benefited from modern science completely ignoring that a belief in Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with technological development. Disturbingly, Bill Nye seems to think factory farming is necessary to support a large population. This is not entirely accurate and may eventually be our undoing, but moving on…

Bill Nye talks about how science uses a body of knowledge and a process and poses that such a discipline does not connect with Ham’s belief in a spiritual being or a higher power… Or something like that. It is nearing dinner time so there is uncertainty about everything said at this point.

Nye complains that Ham seems to want us to take him at his word.

Bill Nye complains further that the ice layer evidence was not adequately addressed.

Ken Ham

G_d is necessary for science, Ham tells us. Ken Ham jumps on the science “bandwagon” telling us how awesome it is. He tells us that G_d is necessary because one has to assume laws and universality which were all created by G_d. He firmly tells us that invention is different from creation but does not seem to adequately describe the how of it.

Ham is asked if the entire Bible should be taken literally.

He askes what is meant by literally. He states that it should be taken “naturally?” His explanation is that if the part of the Bible is written as history then it should be taken as such where the parts clearly intended as poetry should be taken as poetry.

Ham talks about how G_d inspired man through prophecy and revelation to write his words. He then seems a bit apologetic about some of the content by suggesting that if [we] “take Bible as a whole” there will not be any contradiction. He also suggests that polygamy is actually condemned by the Bible because of some resulting “problems” written about in the text.

Ken Ham rewards the audience with a Bible verse claiming marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

Bill Nye

Nye accuses Ham of picking and choosing which parts he would take literally and which he would interpret symbolically; it does seem rather convenient. Nye claims he is still looking for an answer to whether or not Ham’s model is viable even though we are pretty sure he made up his mind long ago.

Nye is asked, “Ever believed evolution was accomplished through the way of a higher power? Why or why not?”

Bill Nye does not like that the Creationist model can be neither proven nor disproved. He grudgingly mentions agnosticism, which in his mind may be spelled with a capital “A” judging from what seems like thinly veiled contempt for the word. Nye claims that intelligent design is a misunderstanding of the “nature of nature.” He tells us that if one where to find a watch in afield one could determine that it had forethought but tells us that that is not how nature works. Nye tells us that nature adds complexity through natural selection.

Actually, according to current evolutionary theory, random mutation adds diversity while “natural selection” eliminates some of that diversity. Somehow this ends up creating greater complexity over time.

Bill Nye then says that nature is a “bottom up” rather than a “top down view.” This almost sounds like he is likening nature to an employee owned company as opposed to politics which is more like a major corporation whose shareholders enjoy a “top down” view of the mass of employees


Ken Ham wants an example of some new function that was not already possible from information already in genetics. In other words, he is stating that evolution cannot be proven through genetics. He says that no new function that can be added but reminds the audience that there is great variation within a kind.

Someone asks, “What institution besides Church or Creationist theme park uses creation to promote their products?”

Ham says scientists use creation. He says this is aligned with the concept of thinking G_ds thoughts after him. Could this give some clue as to Ken Ham’s thoughts on co-creation perhaps? He says Creationism definitely supports science. He brings up James Clark Maxwell, Issac Newton to support his point.

Ham points out that secularists have borrowed much from Christian thinkers. He tells audience that lots of Creationists are featured in secular publications. Ken Ham is firm in his belief that both secularist and Creationists can participate in science.

Bill Nye

Bill Nye brings up predictability again. He does not seem to grasp that both models discussed have similar problems with predictability. It is easy to assume a correlation in hindsight and predictions, before the fact, based on evolutionary assumptions get thwarted like the Coelacanth mentioned in an earlier section.

Nye asks what will happen to “all those people” who do not believe in Ken Ham’s interpretation of the Bible. He asks whether they were condemned or doomed. Ham already addressed this issue mentioning that belief in a young earth was not a prerequisite to salvation.

Nye attempts to drive the point home that the process of science can make predictions based on theory.

Bill Nye is asked, “Evolution teaches man is growing smarter over time. Explain evidence of high intelligence in the past.”

He admits that there is no evidence that humans are getting smarter, which would be predicted in a scenario where natural selection is less relevant. He talks about the concept of “survival of the fittest.” He suggests that it is the human’s capacity for reason which has made it fittest to dominate the planet. These concepts do not actually prove the viability of the Darwinian Evolution model but it does lend doubt to the Creation models.


Ham points out of that an example given as proof of mainstream evolutionary theory, that of a blind cave fish evolved ability to not see because of its environment. Ham points out that something new that was not already present in the fish was not added but rather the species, or genus if one prefers, lost an ability it used to have.

Ken Ham claims that it is not about survival of the fittest but survival of who survives; plain and simple. He stands firm on the point of view that the supposed proofs of evolution do not demonstrate that any new information is added to the genes.

Ham is asked, “What one thing you base your faith upon more than anything else?”

The audience might have been hoping for something new here but, of course, the Bible is the answer.

Sensing his time on the pulpit is drawing nigh, Ham makes sure the audience knows that Man is sinner who is separate from G_d but can receive the free gift of salvation in from the Gospels. He says that there are plenty of more information including predictions on his website so instructs the audience to check it out.

Ken Ham submits that will reveal himself .


Bill Nye invokes the deity of main-stream science, Carl Sagan, “when you are in love you want to tell the world.” Nye is in love with the information and process he erroneously says “we” call science. He is filled with joy to pursue answers. In unapologetic Atheistic style, Nye admits that people are somehow one of the ways the universe knows itself. It would be intriguing to know what other ways he knows of. He says that, “we have come to be because of the Universe,” assuming it is not actually the other way around. Nye is driven to pursue the question of how the physical universe was able to give rise to consciousness in addition to other questions like, “Are we alone in the universe?”

Nye uses more poetic Rhetoric to describe how awesome science is. He uses colorful phrases like, “Deep within us,” and, “Process of science.” He says that it is the “way we know nature.” Bill Nye finds it all “most compelling.”

Nye then insinuates that if the Creationists “win” it could mean the abandonment of scientific discovery even though Ham made a pretty strong case this isn’t so. He is deeply concerned that we might give up on everything previously learned and stop looking for answers. The fear he sells is that we could be out-competed by other countries economically, if, he seems to insinuate, the Creationists are allowed to “ruin” science.

All and all: some excellent rhetoric even if it does not prove anything.

End of Section B

Part Two B is not concluded. Part Two C will be out soon. Look for even better reading material by searching for “Caprigon” on the left side of the Devtome interface or click “links here.”

science | religion | philosophy

QR Code
QR Code ken_ham_vs._bill_nye_vs._kab_balah_part_three_b_-_june_2014 (generated for current page)