Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official)
Video Statistics and Information
No captions available for this video.
Channel: Answers in Genesis
Views: 7,433,546
Rating: 4.3950195 out of 5
Keywords: Ark Encounter, Bill Nye, bill nye the science guy, Ken Ham, debate, Noah's Ark, climate change, bill nye ken ham, bill nye ken ham debate, bill nye ken ham ark, bill nye ken ham noah's ark, ken ham bill nye, ken ham bill nye debate, ken ham bill nye ark encounter, evolutionist vs creationist, evolutionist vs creationist debate, evolution vs creationism, evolution debate, creationism debate, creationism vs evolution, creationism vs evolution debate, the science guy, evolution
Id: z6kgvhG3AkI
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 165min 33sec (9933 seconds)
Published: Tue Feb 04 2014
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs: " We narrow the plausible range for the date of initial dog domestication to an interval spanning 11–16 thousand years ago, predating the rise of agriculture." from the journal that Ken Ham cited, This was in the abstract i feel like he didn't bother to read the journal.
"What if anything would ever change your mind?"
I want to kiss the person who asked that question
So Ken Ham gives a clear example of survival of the fittest (blind cave fish) as evidence against survival of the fittest. ಠ_ಠ
EDIT: grammar
Can we just appreciate the good job the moderator has done? He has kept things moving well and has acted very professionally. How he's moved things along is something that has made me continue to watch.
"Extraordinary claim" is Bill's polite way of saying "total and complete bullshit"
"Traditional fish sex"
Quote of the debate.
"It's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of those that survive."
-Ken Ham
Ham's point: "We didn't see it, so how do you know it's true". Doesn't that just completely refute his own point, as he was never there. He's just reading it from a book. What makes that book any more of an elevated source than fossil record?
Is Ham disproving the Bible in his first rebuttal? "Fossils show evidence of tumors, but God didn't create animals with tumors back then." Is this meant to disprove the fossil record?