Ken Ham's 5 minute Rebuttal
Ken opens up with a light joke on how if he were to try to answer Bill's comments, he'd be going on for millions of years. All the stuff Bill brought could not be answered in five minutes or any reasonable time in a debate. Even my responses do not provide the answers justice because if I went through all my sources and explained every detail, you'd be reading for millions of years.
Ken first addresses the claim of even being able to date the age of the earth scientifically and puts it under historical science. Again, for historical science to work, you need 1). A starting point. 2). a historical account. and 3). An ending point. All of Bill's evidences do not contain a starting point or a historical account, so one MUST be assumed. Ken then addresses how the creation account is also historical science, but then Ken proceeds to explain how he has an historical account to go by. So with an ending point and a historical account, one can make a fairly good estimation of what the starting point looked like. But the key question here is: is the Bible an authority to use such an account. Ken admits he believes it is and it should be understood that if the Bible is false, so is all the models that come from it.
Ken next addresses radiometric dating. He does not deny radioactive decay. Just that we can calculate the age of the earth due to key unknowns: original amounts, leeching, and the decay rate. He provides a counter-example where wood dating at 45,000 years old was embedded in basalt dated 45 million years. This inconsistency shows that the rocks were not laid over millions of years. He then points out how Mt. St. Helens lava dates between 0.35 and 2.8 million years. The lava was as per the K-Ar requirement of age 0 due to it being molten, only 30 years old or less. This is a problem for radiometric dating methods. All the assumptions prove you cannot absolutely age date the earth scientifically.
Ken addressed the charge of millions of Christians who don't believe YEC. He clearly states it is not a salvation issue, because that is only based on faith in Christ, but it is inconsistent to have any form of death preceding sin. Ken addresses how all animals were vegetarian pre-Flood and how thorns and thistles showed up post-sin. I'm not sure I would have brought this up, but he does make a valid point that every Old Earth model has death before sin.
Ken next addresses how there are hundreds of dating methods and about 90% of them show a younger that billions of years old earth. He then addresses how there is only one infallible dating method and that is having a historic witness who was there and knows everything and told us. And as his cited scientists have said, there is nothing in observational science that contradicts what the Bible has clearly stated. And this is true. I'll pick just one. The earth's magnetic field. If the same dating principles used for ice cores and radiometric dating are used on the earth's magnetic field, at around 20,000 years ago the magnetic force would actually overcome the Strong and Weak force and rip atoms apart. Can't have a billions of years old earth if it can't hold together at 20k years ago.
Bill Nye's 5 minute Rebuttal
Bill starts by addressing how wood on top of rock could easily indicate two different event. He doesn't see that the wood was embedded in the basalt.
Bill then claims that all radiometric dating methods are very accurate and then explains why all asteroids all seem to have the same date. With asteroids, you really have to assume everything, especially initial composition, leeching, and decay rates. No scientist I know of has tested the decay rates of these isotopes in the vacuum of space. I do wonder why they all seem to have the same date and all lining up precisely with the age of the earth. Are they following the evidence or standing on a presuppositional theory?
Bill then attacks the Bible itself as being a book translated countless times into English. He clearly has no idea how the Bible has been preserved. The Dead Sea scrolls show it hasn't changed in 2000 years or more. He did not take the time to learn how the Bible has been carried on through the generations, let alone consider the men who gave their lives to get it translated into English. He then claims how it is not reasonable to depend on that instead of what science can observe. Problem. Bill brought up nothing that can be observed. Ken did. And the two line up. Bill then asks if fish were sinners. The answer is no. But man sinned and because he had authority over the Creation, all creation was affected by the sin. Bill needs to do some more research, and that's way too much to put in this post.
You can't observe the past? Bill addresses how light proves we observe the past. Because what we see is actually an event that happens before the light gets to our eyes. This argument doesn't work the way Bill wants it to. He fails to understand the one-way speed of light is undetectable. He uses to this to argue that to separate the natural laws of the past from the present is the heart of the disagreement. The problem Bill has is that this is not what YEC is saying at all. Because we don't know everything that happened in the past without a historic document showing what happened, we cannot assume that what happened today is as it has happened for all of history.
Bill then addresses vegetarian animals. He says lions don't have teeth for broccoli. I use my incisors to eat broccoli. And Bill should visit the zoos. Lions actually tend to be pretty healthy under a vegetarian diet.
He then says Ken believes the Bible is a science text and this is unsettling. Ken didn't use the Bible as a science text. He used is as a historical text from which you can apply the scientific method to test if it is possible. Bill then talks about the five human races and says the prediction Ken mentioned of Caucasians being superior is false. He failed to see that this was an Evolutionary prediction, not a Biblical one. The Biblical one matches the records.
Ken's 5 Minute Counter-Rebuttal
Next Ken answers back. He clarified the wood in the basalt. And confirms natural law hasn't changed, and neither has logic, uniformity of nature, which only makes sense from a Biblical worldview and explains why we can do science. Ken also addresses how Bill kept addressing it as "Ken's Model" when it is actually the Biblical Model held by many different people outside AiG.
Ken addresses "species" vs "kinds" due to Bill's strawman account of the Flood. Bill's numbers only include the land animals pre-Flood but includes everything post-Flood. That simply doesn't work. There may be less than 1,000 kinds that went onto the Ark.
Ken brings up the WWII planes in Greenland and teeth. Many animals have sharp teeth and are primarily vegetarian so teeth do not determine diet. This is true. Only watching an animal eat it, examining an animal's stomach, and examining an animal's droppings can determine its diet. Ken brings up the boulders in Mizzula Lake in Washington. He says the Flood likely didn't cause it but there have been catastrophes since. I believe the Ice Age would explain those boulders. He addresses Noah's skill. How skilled was Noah? We didn't meet him. He was 500 years old when he started. How much have we learned today in the last 500 years? We cannot assume he was ignorant. How were the pyramids built? We cannot replicate them today and have them last 3000 years. Ken's Ark Encounter replica would have three interlocking planks that would prevent the twisting based on Chinese research. Ken wraps up his counter-rebuttal by bringing up the Horizon problem. Big Bang can't account for all the Background Radiation. It's a problem for everyone. Ken then points to his website for answers.
Ken did a great job at addressing some major points blow by blow but no way he could have addressed all of them. He lacked a "left hook" a final punch that would knock it out of the park, but there were too many issues to deal with to decide which would be a good one to use.
Bill Nye's 5 Minute Counter Rebuttal
Bill was unimpressed and Ken didn't address the 'fundamental' issues like how Ice Cores prove the earth is old, how the animal population is unaccounted for based on Noah's Flood. No, Ken could not have addressed everything, but he did demonstrate how Ice Cores would not be annual layers due to the finding of the WWII planes. Ken could have been a little more clear on that but time was short. Ken also could have addresses the flaw in Bill's math, but making it clear that only the land dwelling animals were on the Ark, not every species on the planet. Ken hinted at that, but didn't have the time to address it in full. Bill is unsatisfied because he hurled elephants, addressing too much stuff for Ken to be able to address in his short rebuttal times and because he didn't do his own research to find out what the answers that Ken would have for his complaints in more detail. It's all there on the AiG website.
Bill complains about Noah's skill because his family's ancestors spent their whole lives building ships. How long was that? 30, 40, 50 years? Noah was already 500 years old at the time and he spent 100 years doing it. Plenty of time to make sure he was doing it right. He thinks Noah has superpowers. Well, he had supernatural wisdom on what to do, instructions and blueprints from God.
Bill then disagrees on the nature of what can be proved to yourself. He should know science NEVER deals with proofs, just the most 'reasonable' (pun intended) explanation of what is seen and observed. He claims the assumptions are based on previous experience. Yes, the laws don't change but he misses the point that he does not have record that no changes in the environment and the conditions on which the tests were done did not change. We have a record of major changes: Noah's Flood. He claims that Ken claims that natural law changed, when five minutes earlier, Ken said they don't change. He just said the conditions have changed via catastrophe.
He claims the pyramids are older than the Flood. Really? Dated by whom. Historical record? Cultures older than the Flood. Really? Egypt? Those calendars conflict with every other culture around them unless they consider overlapping rulers, which lines up right up with the Biblical account? China? Their calendars start when they estimated the earth began, so there is an offset. All of world history traces back to one location and one time period 4300-4400 years ago, with the Tower of Babel dispersion and Noah's Flood. Bill Nye could learn some from Bodie Hodge's book: The Tower of Babel and the historical research of the world's major population groups. The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 is considered one of the greatest and most important historical documents on world history by many historians.
He again brings up the non-YEC religious people. Again, Fallacy of Appeal to Majority. It does not matter that they think. What matters is the truth? Bill then says how the creation model is based on the Old Testament, defends himself by saying he is not a theologian, yet when you bring in the New Testament that is out of whack. Bill should read the books of Romans and Hebrews. Bill wants a model based on pure science where you can outguess the forensic crews on CSI. It's not going to happen because science cannot address origins issues. Only a worldview can address origins issues.
Bill claims that when science finds an idea that is untenable and doesn't work, they toss it out. Excellent in theory and that is how science SHOULD work. But it doesn't work that way. The way it actually works is that the prevailing theory is held and any evidence against it is either ignored, silences, or even modified so that the prevailing theory can be held. Thomas Khun noticed this back in 1970. It hasn't changed 44 years later.
He concludes that we need scientists, especially engineers, to help keep America at the top and that needs science education. I completely agree. And that is another reason Ken Ham does what he does. To teach the real science that considers all the facts. To teach what science can do and to understand when science has reached its limit. Bill Nye does not get where science stops. YEC does not hinder innovation. It encourages it. But science is a method, it cannot be a worldview methodology. Bill does not understand this or want to.
Bill Nye's best defense is repeating claims that have already long been refuted and continuing to attack a strawman of what Ken Ham actually believes. And he did Ken Ham a lot of favors by not bringing anything new to the plate or addressing any of the already well established documents that long ago addressed his arguments.
Okay, that is the rebuttals. Next post will be on the Q/A section. That may be a long one. I counted 14 questions but I am re-watching the debate as I type this up and I am missing stuff on my notes from the debate. And that will wrap it up on this series.
Thank you. Great work.
ReplyDelete