Ham
Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?
Stuart Burgess (inventor, microbiologist)
Define Science: experimental or observational science (the scientific method) --- everyone agrees about this. It has to do with developing technology, unlike human origins

Historical science is based on the Biblical account of origins.

Science has been hijacked to teach secular naturalization on kids.
Romans 5:12, John, John 3:16  -- sin
"The creation/evolution debate is really a conflict between two philosophical worldviews based on two different accounts of origins or historical science beliefs."

"Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific  era"

Bill Nye
Does Ken Ham's creation model hold up? Is it viable?
When you go to a crime scene you get clues about the past. You look at those and understand them and move to make a conviction based on them
If you could find evidence of 1 animal swimming up layers anywhere in the world, you would change the world.
What makes the US a world leader is that we are innovative. If we askew science we will lose that power

Ken Ham
"Creation is the ONLY viable model"
Define science: experimental vs observational
The idea that scientists who believe the earth is only 6000 years old can't do science is wrong.
Creation scientists don't have freedom to speak on the topic.
When mainstream science uses the scientific methods they are borrowing from Creationist science.

They must assume the laws of logic, the laws of nature, and the uniformity of nature.  Without God, you can't account for these.
You don't observe the past directly, we can't observe creation or adam and eve. What you see in the present is different.

"We observe things in the present, and we assume that's what happened in the past"  -- view of modern science. But we can't observe that it happened that way in the past.
There is a difference between what you observe and your interpretation of the past.
If you use observation to determine the age of the Earth, we'll disagree.
It's a battle over philosophical views and interpretation. We believe the Bible is the authority on the evidence's interpretation. It's a difference of starting points
If the Bible account of human origins is true, we should be able to make predictions today that we can test:

evidence of intelligence produced life
evidence confirming after their kind
evidence confirming global flood
evidence confirming 1 race of humans
evidence of the tower of Babel
evidence of a young universe
In the museum are recreations of Darwin's finches. From these finches, Darwin came up with a tree and said "I think"

Creationists agree that these finches came from earlier ancestors --- but they say they are finches. Not some other species.
Kind as in the Bible is the Family in the animal kingdom. Dogs will always be dogs, finches will always be finches. Creation theory says evolution occurs as an orchard, not a single tree.
Dogs are never used as evidence of evolution, but finches are.
Evolution has been hijacked with a bait and switch:

"Evolution is used for observable changes and then used for unobservable changes such as molecules to man"

Creationists agree with the observable changes, but not the unobservable. You can't observe the evolutionary tree.
"The word evolution has been hijacked using a bait and switch to indoctrinate students to accept evolutionary belief as observational science"
The information used for supposed ecoli evolution is not new information, just a switch that was already there being turned on and off.
Observation science confirms the creation account of 1 race, rather than Darwin's account (as taught in a 1914 textbook) of 5 races.
You can observe that the earth is not flat. You can use a satellite and see that it is a sphere. You cannot see the age of the Earth.
Both men have 2 sides to science: "Bill Nye the Observational Science guy and Bill Nye the Historical Science Guy"

Challenge to evolutionists to admit the belief aspect of their worldview
" Creationists should be the ones educating the kids out there, because we're teaching them the right way to think"
Creation: The account based on the Bible, as literal history, as Jesus did

Corruption: Sin and death, so no death before sin. How can you have billions of dead things before man sinned?

Catastrophe: Noah's flood. If the flood occurred you'd expect to find billions of dead things in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth (Which we do).

Confusion: Tower of Able, God gave different languages and people groups

Christ: God's son stepped on earth

Cross: Jesus went to the cross to correct the problem of corruption.

Consummation: The new heaven and new earth
Matt 19: 1 man and 1 woman.  Jesus quoted Genesis as literal history
7 C's : Each of the 1st c's connect directly to the last C's to correct the problem
Romans 10:9. Because of this, people say if you allow creation in school, you allow religion.
The world words things to indoctrinate people to believe that creationists can't be scientists.
Ken Ham's argument: Public school textbooks are using the  same word science for observational and historical science. They arbitrarily define science as naturalism and outlaw the supernatural. They present molecules-to-man evolution as fact. They are imposing the religion of naturalism/atheism on generations of students
Naturalism -- the belief that everything is explained by natural processes. That is a religion.
If you follow naturalism, morals are relative, marriage is whatever you want it to be, euthanasia makes sense, abortion "get rid of spare cats, get rid of spare kids" , we're all animals

If you start from the creationist views, they are all absolutes, because God defined them.
I want children to be taught a right foundation: that they were created by God, he loves them, he died for them, and they are special, made in the image of God.

Bill Nye
Question at hand: Does Ken Ham's creation model hold up? Is it viable?
Kentucky is built on layer upon layer upon layer of limestone. When you look at them there are coral fossils that lived their entire lives.

how could those animals have lived their whole lives and made these layers in so short a time? A flood 4000 years ago isn't enough time to do this.
Antarctica: 680,000 snow-ice layers = 680,000 years. It takes a summer cycle and a winter cycle to make these.

How could it be that this ice formed 4,00 years ago? It would take 170 winter-summer cycles every year for the last 4,000 years for this to occur. Wouldn't someone have noticed that?
There are trees over 6,000 years old. There's one tree that is over 9,500 years ago. They couldn't be there if there was a flood that covered all trees for a full year.
Grand canyon: Layer after layer of ancient rocks. Ïf a flood occurred there would be charring and boiling and bubbling. There isn't enough time for that to settle out in 4,000 years.

Geologists study this and it takes a long, long time for sediment to turn into rock.

How could there not be grand canyons everywhere if a flood happened upon the whole earth. There should be some on every continent.
Fossils: You never see animals found in one layer in a different layer. You should see animals trying to swim up to another layer.

If anyone can find 1 example of it happening anywhere in the world, they would be a hero in science. They would change the whole world and the world of science forever.
Fossil skulls: No skull shown is a gorilla. If there was man and everybody else from the beginning. Where do humans fit on that list? If Ham's model is correct, these other skulls that aren't gorilla and aren't human can't exist, but they are found all over the world.
Kangaroos: How did they get from the flood in the middle east (where the ark stopped) to australia. There would have to be bones somewhere in middle east or asia. There is no land bridge anywhere that has ever been found under the ocean that connect the two continents.
Species: Ham's argument over 7,000 kinds of animals. Reasonable estimate is 16 million species of animals today (likely 50-100million).

Assuming 16 million today came from 7,000 kinds in 4,000 years you would find 11 new species of animals have come into existence every single day.

There's no evidence that this happens
Boulders in Washington sitting on top of the ground:

Overwhelming evidence of an ice dam in a lake that no longer exists.

How could these rocks be on the surface and aerodynamic instead of hydrodynamic
The ark: How could Noah and his family, unskilled, build an ark for 14,008 passengers. It's bigger than the best wooden ship ever built by skilled workers (the Wyoming) that wasn't as good as the Ark

The biggest, best wooden ship built twisted and kept taking water. It eventually sank.
The national zoon in Washington DC. It holds 400 species and takes 163 acres. Is it reasonable that 8 people could house 7,000 animals and feed everything for a whole year.
The key to science is that it must have the ability to predict. We can predict that we can get a ship into orbit and take a picture of washington dc.

we can predict how much space it takes for an elephant to live a healthy life.
When you look at animals science can predict that the gap in species could be filled. They predicted that there was an animal that would contain characteristics of two separate animals and fill the gap between fish and lizards.

They found a dried up marsh and predicted that a creature would be found that bridged the gap within the marsh. As predicted, the found it, right where science predicted it would be. It's the Tiktaalik.
Ham's creation model does not have the capability to make predictions and then show results.
Topminnows can have sex with other animals or with itself.

Question of science: why does anyone have sex? It's a difficult procedure that requires a lot of work and trouble. Bacteria don't bother with it -- they split themselves and are good.

The answer seems to be your enemies. We've found the enemy is germs and parasites. Sex with others allows reproduction to occur without spreading them.

Topminnows that have sex with other fish have fewer germs and parasites than the ones who produce asexually. Those who do some of both are in the middle of the two.
Science wants the ability to predict. The assertion that the natural laws that apply today are different from the natural laws that applied just 4,000 years ago is unsettling.
Why do we accept the big bang?

Edwin Hubble: found that stars are moving apart from each other. Not sure why, but it was definite that they were doing it.

Fred Hoyle: "It's like there was an explosion, a big bang" If things are moving apart now, it's reasonable to say they used to be together

science predicts that a radio echo would occur as a result of a big bang that would go through the whole universe.  Arnold Pinsius and Wilson found this background sound. The COBE spacecraft matches exactly the predictions of astronomers. That's what science wants.
Science says the BB happened 13 some billion years ago.

Rb becomes Sr sporadically.  When lava occurs it "freezes" the the Rb to Sr transition on periodic table. When this falls on dead animals it gives you a good idea of when those fossils were made.

We use a drug based on Rb to test heart problems without cutting a person open
In Kentucky you cannot get any sort of degree in nuclear medicine. This should be a concern for anyone in Kentucky. You can't learn this science in Kentucky. You have to leave to learn it.
Distance to stars. Triangulating distance.

billions of stars are more than 6,000 lightyears (distance light travels in a year) that we can see
The reasonable man: Is it reasonable to have ice older than the earth by a factor of 100
tress older than the flood
rocks older than 6000 years
starlight from stars that would take more than 6000 years to get to earth
a wooden ark built 4000 years ago that is better than the best we can do today?
Ham's model is not viable.
US Constitution states to promote the progress of science an useful arts. Voters and taxpayers need to vote to keep science in schools to keep the US in it's place in the earth

Rebuttal time:

Ken Ham
Age of the earth:

you can't observe the age of the Earth. It comes under historical origin science -- based on the Bible

It's created in 6 days. We use genealogy in the Bible to come up with 6,000 year old earth.

We can observe radioactive decay:
When you talk about the past, there's a problem.
Basalt layer with wood in it. Basalt tested to 45 million years old. Wood dated to 45,000 years old
Lava dome in Mt. St. Helens. Samples of rock there and got a date of .35 million years

amogibole gave .9 billion

Dating methods on the same rock give different dates.
You have to make assumptions of radioactive dating:

1. amounts of parent and dater isotopes at the beginning, when the rock formed, bust be known (the initial conditions)
2. All daughter atoms measured today must only have been derived by in situ radioactive decay of parent atoms (closed system)
3. The radioactive decay rate must have been constant at today's measured rate (a constant decay rate)

This is historical science. You can't know these things because you weren't there to measure them in the past.
Christians that believe in millions of years have a problem.

They are christian, that's the belief in Christ, not a matter of date of the earth.
Death occurred in the garden of eden when god killed a lamb.
If you look at fossils they show death, so if they are older than that death had to occur before sin. They can't be true with Bible account that death and carnivore were an outcome of sin.
The only witness who was there, the only dating record that can be considered reliable is God and the Bible states his views.

Bill Nye
Old rock on top of younger trees can be explained by rock sliding. That's a reasonable explanation for how it happens.
Isn't it amazing that all asteroids show to be about 4.5-4.6 billion years old
Ham takes the Bible, written in English after being translated many times over 3,000 years to be a more reasonable and accurate assessment of the natural world around us than what we can observe. It's unsettling.
Are fish sinners? That they experience death and disease.
In astronomy all you can do is observe the past. So the idea that astronomy (Ham concluded that nothing in astronomy  contradicts a young earth) can only be observed through Ham's idea of historical science, not observation is ridiculous.

Everything we observe is in the past. You can't observe the future and even what we observe in the present is already the past by the time we observe it.
The idea that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural ideas in the present is the heart of the two men's disagreement.

Bill Nye can't see anyway for them to agree if Ham insists that natural laws have changed. It's magical.

Magic is cool, but it's not what we want in science.
Assertion that animals are vegetarians before the Ark is remarkable. Their teeth aren't set up for eating vegetables.

Bill gives evidence of lions teeth, Ham gives evidence of translated verses that have become English.

Ham's views aren't consistent with what could be reasonablly expected by looking at  by anyone's eyes.
Ham's words (as he understands the current translation) is to be more respected than what can be observed with your own eyes.
5 races -- people are much more alike than they are different. Basically that science has proven since that textbook that the assertion made in 1914 was incorrect -- that's what science wants. To find out new things and disprove itself.

Ken Ham
The wood was incased in Basalt, not on top or underneath it.
It isn't Ken Ham's model. It's the model of all creation scientists.
Nye is confusing the terms of species and kinds:

creationists don't say that God created all these species, he created all these kinds.

Species didn't get on the ark. Kinds did. Dogs all go back to one kind of dog.

Prediction, less than 1,000 kids of animals on the ark.
Tree rings and ice layers are talking about the past. We didn't see those layers forming or layers being layed down. We weren't there.

1942 planes landed on ice in greenland. Miles away from the original location 46 years later with 250 feet of ice on top.
Sharp teeth means sharp teeth, not that it's a meat eater.
Creationist believe in post-flood catastrophes as well.
You never met Noah, so you can't say that he was unskilled.
We don't understand how some things in past were done, so we can't say our technology is better.
Speed of light: The horizon problem. Getting light to the whole universe doesn't work in 13 billion years. They created inflation models to make it work.

Bill Nye
The fundamental question of ice:
250 feet doesn't explain ice cycles that take a winter-summer cycle
2000 kinds of animals on the Ark make the 15 million animal problem more extraordinary. That means we need 3.5 times more new animals every single day to make the number of 2000 kinds reach today's count of species.
We're losing species, not gaining due to human interaction
It's not reasonable that 8 people were able to just build the Ark without superpowers
Fundamental disagreement: nature of what you can prove to yourself.

when people make assumptions about radioactivity and laws of nature. They're making assumptions based on previous experience, not out of whole cloth.

Why should we accept your word for it that natural law changed completely 4000 years ago completely with no record of it.

There are pyramids and human populations with cultures older than 4,000 years.
It isn't reasonable that everything changed in an instant 4,000 years ago.
Religious people don't accept Ham's worldview because of their evidence they experience in the world around them.
Nye looks for evidence of the origins of the world we know it based on science. Not historical science, not observational science. Science. Things that each of us can do.
When science finds an idea that doesn't work, they throw it away, science is delighted. If you can find a fossil that swam through layers, science says, "bring it on!"

If you can show that microwave radiation isn't a result of the big bang, science wants you to do that. You would be a hero. Write your paper and get rid of that idea.
The view that Ham's interpretation of the Bible as translated into modern English after many previous translations over thousands of years is more important than what can be seen with your own eyes is an extraordinary claim.
We need scientists, especially engineers for the future. We need innovations for the US to be a world leader.