Bill Nye had evidence and a valid explanation for every question. Bill was also more thorough while Ken Ham appeared to dodge some areas. For example, when Ken Ham was using a 2014 University of California study about his "evolutionary tree" to help explain the Noah's Ark story. But, he conveniently ignores the time scale to the left of the paper. Ken Ham attempted to use the study's evolutionary tree to confirm his theory of different "kinds" of animals and common ancestry. There is an obvious problem with that. Noah's flood supposedly happened 4,300 years ago. If Ken Ham wanted to use the study's findings to confirm that the flood would've had to happen 398.3 thousand years ago! Homo-sapiens didn't even exist back then in Evolutionist or Creationist theories and contradicts the Creationist idea of a young Earth.
Bill Nye also had math behind him while Ken Ham had little to no math to back him up. It is a simple fact that you cannot dispute proven math. Any reasonable person cannot feel comfortable with Ken Ham's explanations because there was hardly any "explaining" happening on his end. I remember reading an article that states that the general belief in Creationism correlates with lower education and I can see why.
The professors and researchers that Ken Ham used to help his credibility didn't actually do that much if you do your research. As Bill Nye said, the Creationist scientist is very much a minority is the scientific community and are not mainstream. On top of that, if you do your research, you will find that those scientists that Ken Ham used are all highly discredited in their fields and they do not publish there papers in respected peer-reviewed journals. No reputable scientific community would allow Creationist "research" into their journals because it is not credible. Creationist scientists are largely discredited.
Ham put on his snooty face, every time Nye attacked the beyond idiotic, Kentucky Education System: Rightly pointing out that their education system is bringing shame on the US and limiting the employment potential of students within it, because of the infiltration of Creationism.
Nye's evidence, even simplistic evidence, such as tree rings destroyed Ham's concepts entirely. Ham presented no real evidence, only straw men, deluded ex-scientists and naive concepts for his support. Continually asserting the entirely non-scientific, anti-rational Bible as evidence, which is offensive to the average human's intelligence.
That dolts (camel and goat herders) from 4000 years ago could know more about science than scientists. Certainly that a family 7 could build a bigger and more stable boat than professional boat builders.
Nye's approach was great and the US really should be ashamed of the Kentucky Education System, it is time they were wiped and replaced by a National Education system with the National Curriculum enforced in all schools, public and private.
I might sound a little biased ... But I don't see how its possible for a creationist to win a debate vs science/evolution. In one hand you have a side that makes conclusions based on evidence or theories , in the other hand you have a side that makes conclusions based on a 3000 year old book made by men that thought starts were gateways to heaven.
Although we Christians believe in the Bible, you cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible to those who do not believe the Bible. Atheists do not believe every word of the Bible, so therefore they would not consider the Bible a valid source of information. This is a problem with many Christians, what we consider to be fact may not be considered fact by others.
This was in Ken Ham's home field, a known public debator and a focused education on the topics at hand, against a completely unskilled debator who isn't even an expert on the topics discussed.
But the evidence and science will always stand unshaken against baseless statements and fantastic tales of our ancestors.
Watching this was an a reminder of the exercise in futility these debates are. You can never logic someone out of a hole they wished themselves into.
Unfortunately, by Nye even showing up to the debate, it was a strike against science by lending any legitimacy to the curious story of Creationism.
Alone that Ham's biggest and most used argument was "There is a book,...." is a testament to how one-dimensional his arguments were. He also deflected so often and didn't answer a lot of question head on or just talked about something entirely different, that for me is not a real debate on his part. He often contradicted himself and he calls it logical. What I find absolutely fascinating but concerning is that he and a lot of creationists, I've gotten to know, often sound logical at first, but you just need to rethink or think a little longer about the things said and then get how ridiculous it is. What I didn't like on both sides is the trying to scare people though I think Ham is worse in that case. Nye tries to scare, though with validation, with a throw-back for the country, but Ham tries to scare Christians who believe in Evolution with damnation. There are undertones in what he says that if you don't believe in what he says about the Creation as a Christian, that you can't go to heaven. That's what I truly hate about Christian fundamentalists, they say, they have the absolute truth without any evidence other than the Bible and try to scare you with damnation if you don't believe in that. That's not an argument ( because that was his answer to Nye stating that the majority of Christians not believing in Creation either), that's trying to terrorize you into believe in what they believe. That's horrible and I don't want to identify with anybody who tries to scare and manipulate me into following him. I don't say that all Christians are like that, I found communities that are supportive and kind and tolerant, but I found these tactics with a lot of Christian fundamentalists who all were creationists.
So as I said Nye also tried to scare the people but mostly he arguments with facts and he answered questions head on and his passion for science is really beautiful and inspiring
I have these same sorts of conversations with Pilates and Yoga practitioners and participants. They will NOT listen to or look at any facts. They LOVE to pretend that what they are doing is good for their bodies and will NOT see that, both, yoga and Pilates and the science-equivalent of creationism.
The complete basis of Ken's argument was that we weren't there. This established a completely vulnerable spot in which Bill Nye can easily attack with logic and a variety of proofs, which he did not only clearly but effectively. Overall, I would say I was more convinced by Bill Nye. Let's go Bill Nye the science guy!
Although I think Bill Nye could have done a better job and stayed away from the religious discussion better, he definitely presented a stronger case. Although both speakers were well-prepared and professional, Bill Nye presented several very striking and verifiable pieces of evidence to support his position, and Ken didn't have a good refutation for these.
Creationism is a Viable Base for Scientific Study. Both debaters made interesting points which were not able to be fully discussed to conclusion due to the complexity of the subject matter. This left me wanting to know more for myself, because believing one or the other on those points without further study would be based on bias alone. However, I believe that Ken Hamm made the case, through explanation of some of the simple comparisons between the evolutionary and creation theories of origination and through clear examples of accredited scientists of past and present generations who were successful in their scientific pursuits while holding creationist beliefs, that creationism is a viable base for scientific study and should therefore be allowed a place among other scientific theories within the classroom. Furthermore, youngsters and teachers with this belief, no matter the tradition of their faith and religion should not be discouraged or discriminated against in their honest scientific pursuit along these lines.
As a kid i loved watching Bill Nye the Science Guy he made science entertaining and energetic. Personally I had not heard of Ken ham prior to this viral debate on Youtube. From a neutral perspective they both seemed to present their opening remarks and arguments as best they could. I think the debate though is sort of silly because if their are Creationist such as the Scientific creationist who created the MRI, just from that much alone i would say creationist have given some useful additions to the medical and scientific community. I think the push back from most scientist is that they just do not want religion in science. I will add bow ties just make me want to punch the guy wearing it, bow ties should remain Synonymous with clowns for the most part. I understand Nye's brand is to wear a bow tie though. I have a niece who is in a current events class in High school and they teach things about every other religion but avoid Christianity. To me that seems a little curious considering separation of church and state doctrines. Christians have been persecuted since the beginning of it's creation. I suppose that would leave one to believe as long as it is anything but Christianity its OK to talk about. That is some Fahrenheit 451 concepts in my opinion. One more Plank in the eye from Bill Nye has not marred or damaged its Billions who support it world wide. Kudos to both parties thus far though i cannot wait to watch the rest when i get time!