Ham on Nye! This is Genesis Week Episode 24 Season 3 with Ian Juby Aka Wazooloo

We're going to give a play-by-play analysis of the monumental Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate, and that's it! This, is Genesis Week! [music] And a welcome to this episode of Genesis Week, the weekly program of creationary commentary on news, views and events pertaining to the origins controversy, made possible by the supporters of CORE Ottawa, Citizens for origins research and education. Excellence in pirate broadcasting, we set up the studio in my uncle's basement so we could continue to bring you the information that the anticreationists don't want you to see or hear, and giving glory to our creator while doing it. We believe God gave you an intelligently designed brain because he expects you to use it. Remember if you get lost in cyberspace, you can just punch in wazooloo.com, that's me, or genesisweek.com, that's the show, and you can find us. And you can subscribe to our YouTube channel to get extras like CrEvo Rants, and full interviews with our guests. I'm your host, Ian Juby Conservative estimates placed the viewership of the BIll Nye/Ken Ham smackdown at a staggering 5 MILLION viewers - that's enough to make any media outlet drool. I went on a spontaneous tweetfest during the debate and was overwhelmed by viewers asking for me to do a show devoted to post-debate commentary. In all honesty, originally had not planned on any commentary to the debate. Many creationary thinkers were disappointed by Mr. Ham's performance, and I have to agree that Nye won the debate, but he won it by showmanship and not facts. He also won only because Mr. Ham didn't call Mr. Nye on his pathetic excuses for argumentation. Now this is not to be critical of Mr. Ham, because I still remember the first creation evolution debate I did - and I too let the evolutionist get away with a LOT of comments. It's very difficult being on the hot seat, so I'm sympathetic to Dr. Ham and just how extremely difficult it is in that situation. Nevertheless, Bill Nye the Science guy made an awful pile of awful claims that were so blatantly wrong he should be, frankly, embarrassed. Oddly, Nye took every opportunity to warn about anti-intellectualism throughout the debate, while ironically wallowing in extreme anti-intellectualism, as becomes obvious when you actually examine what he said. BUT - his arguments sounded impressive, and so I thought I would use his comments to springboard this show and point out how he won the debate with horrible science, and anti-intellectualism. For example - In his opening arguments, he said >>and on CSI, there is no distinction made between historical science and observational science. These are constructs unique to Mr. Ham. We don't normally have these anywhere in the world except here. Natural laws that applied in the past, apply now. That's why they're natural laws - that's why we embrace them. >>That short 22 second clip is so loaded with falsehoods, subtle false assertions and stunning admission, that it is difficult to know where to begin, and how to address it in a short time! Aside from the very sly, continual reference to "Ken Ham's creation model" which is anything but Ken Ham's creation model, Bill is evidently blissfully ignorant of the facts. The fact is that observational and historical science are two very different things, and this has even been acknowledged by the evolutionists themselves! Ernst Mayr - who can hardly be called a friend of creationists, put it in no uncertain terms: Over and over, Nye kept making random comments and allusions in direct contradiction to what Mayr and other evolutionists have frankly acknowledged - that evolutionary theory is HISTORICAL science, which is not the same as observational science. Evidently Nye was not only blissfully ignorant of the facts, but was also blissfully unaware just how much this error was ingrained into his thinking. This was evident with his continual reference to technology, which was produced by the observational sciences, and equivocating technology and science with evolution. The non-sequitor becomes obvious when you simplify his comments. Basically he was saying "We have cellular phones, computers, and airplanes, therefore evolution is a fact." The two are worlds apart, but it's obvious that Nye either did not understand this, or WOULD NOT understand this. That possibility is disturbing. Furthermore, I was glad that Nye brought up natural laws, even though he continually alluded that somehow creationists claim that natural laws have changed from the past. Not once did Ham, or any other creationist that I know of, ever suggest that natural laws have changed! His assertion was flat-out false. In fact, I would pitch it right back to Mr. Nye: You contend that natural laws were always the same? Excellent - I couldn't agree more. So tell me Mr. Nye, how did the first life arise? That question was asked during the Q&A portion of the debate, and Nye honourably admitted that he did not know. I appreciate that he admitted that, but what was not addressed was the REASON he did not know. The reason he cannot answer the question of the origin of the first life is because we have scientific and natural LAWS, such as the law of biogenesis and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which show that it is IMPOSSIBLE for life to arise from non-living material. Evolution has life arising from non-life, in direct violation of these well established, scientific and natural laws. If it violated natural law, then that means the event was extra-natural. You will be more familiar with the term "SUPERnatural; outside of the natural, extra-natural. So Bill Nye believes in the SUPERnatural, he just doesn't know it. We creationists also believe in the supernatural, we just honestly acknowledge where the limits of science are, and where the lines of the supernatural are drawn. It's interesting to note that the Special Creation model does NOT violate these two natural and scientific laws. Even though the first life was outside of the natural realm, we still have life arising only from life, and INTELLIGENCE directed thermodynamic energy to build the first life. Nye went on to talk about how ice cores have too many years for a young earth, which of course Ken Ham refuted in one sentence, mentioning the "lost squadron" aircraft buried under 250 feet of ice, with HUNDREDS of ice layers on top, all happening in about 50 years. We dealt with this in several Genesis Week episodes. But Nye then went on to trees that were allegedly older than the 6,000 year age of the earth: >>If we go to California, we find enormous stands of bristlecone pines - some of them are over 6,000 years old - 6,800 years old! There's a famous tree in Sweden, "Old Tjikko," is 9,550 years old! How could these trees be there, if there was an enormous flood just 4,000 years ago? >>First of all, the Bristlecone Pine Trees were dated by counting the tree rings - but it's a well established FACT that trees can grow more than one tree ring per season - in fact, in that particular area of California, multiple tree rings per season is not to be explained, but rather to be expected. So by the time you take these multiple rings into account, the age of the tree quickly falls within the 4,500 year time frame. Old Tjikko was not dated by counting its tree rings, but actually it was given that age by Carbon 14 tests performed on its ROOTS! So tell me Mr. Nye, do you accept that Carbon 14 age? If you do, then I presume you also accept the Carbon 14 ages returned on DINOSAUR BONES? Carbon 14 tests on dino bones which invariably return ages of between 5,000 and 50,000 years old? Sometimes returning ages as being thousands of years YOUNGER than old Tjikko. Do you accept those ages as well? Mr. Nye frequently referred to the fossil record, but obviously knows NOTHING about the fossil record, based on his comments: >>We find a sequence of animals in what generally is called the fossil record, this would be when you look at the layers that you find in Kentucky, you look at them carefully, you find a sequence of animals; a succession. >>No you don't! Even Dr. David Raup from the Chicago field museum acknowledged this, saying: In fact there are multiple reasons why Nye's claim is just plain wrong, and his ignorance of the matter became evident in other comments he made: >>We're delighted - that's why I say, if you can find a fossil that's swum between the layers, bring it on! You would change the world! Oh really? How about MILLIONS of fossils that swam between the layers? Nye clearly knows NOTHING of the fossil record. Let's make use of the evolutionary ages, which I do not believe but will use for Bill's sake to make a point: The coelacanth fish first appears in the fossil record 450 million years ago, vanishes from the fossil record 75 million years ago, yet is still alive today, unchanged. So not only did 450 million years of evolution cause the coelacanth to evolve into...the coelacanth, in direct opposition to evolutionary change and perfectly in line with what the Bible says that life will reproduce after its KIND, did the coelacanth swim up through the last 75 million years of rock layers Mr. Nye? Of course not - all it means is that the coelacanth was not preserved in those rock layers when the rocks were formed. From this very simple fact we can make an obvious conclusion: The absence of the fossil does not mean the organism was absent when the rock was made. Therefore, everything Nye said about an alleged fossil sequence is invalidated, because the fossil record is KNOWN to be an incomplete record. You cannot build a succession of fossils when you know for fact that organisms that were there weren't fossilized! Furthermore, Mr. Nye wanted fossils swimming through the layers? He's got it. In the famous Paluxy river bed in Glen Rose, Texas, as well as Georgian Bay, Ontario, and many, many other places around the world, you can find the burrows of clams which have swum up through tens of feet of what was mud, which has now hardened into multiple layers of rock. In the upper layers, you can find the corpses of all of those clams where they died attempting to burrow to freedom after obviously being rapidly buried alive in a massive mud flow at least several tens of feet deep. This doesn't even get into polystrate fossils like trees which are found going up through multiple layers, often by the tens of feet. The evidence is clear: these layers do not represent even TENS of years, let alone thousands, or millions. And these layers certainly do not represent a succession of fossils. This is all common knowledge Mr. Nye - so why hasn't this information changed the world? But Nye then continues with the falsified fossil sequence and talks about TIKTAALIK as if it's evidence for evolution and the power of evolution to predict! >>And people realized that if this, with the age of the rocks there, as computed by traditional scientists, this would be a reasonable place to look for the fossil of an animal that lived there. and indeed, scientists found it! Tiktaalik - this fish/lizard guy. In other words, they made a prediction that this animal would be found, and it was found. So far, Mr. Ham and his worldview, the Ken Ham creation model, does not have this capability. It cannot make predictions. >>Tiktaalik was supposed to be the half-fish/half-tetrapod land walking animal, one of the first fish to grow legs and walk up onto land. Again demonstrating his ignorance of the fossil record, Mr. Nye is evidently unaware of the fossil footprints found in POLAND which were some 20 million years BEFORE Tiktaalik, and the fossil tetrapod footprints found the Tapeats sandstone of Grand Canyon which are allegedly 125 million years BEFORE Tiktaalik, according to the evolutionary timescale! If tiktaalik was evolving legs and feet, then what are the footprints from perfectly formed legs and feet doing in rocks made 125 MILLION YEARS before tiktaalik? Please notice that evolution would predict NOT finding footprints in rocks older than Tiktaalik. So contrary to what Mr. Nye has ignorantly proclaimed, evolution actually FAILED in its predictive power, while the creation model, which can AND DOES make predictions - sees its predictions fulfilled! Predictions like, tetrapods have been around since the beginning of creation, therefore we could expect to find evidence of tetrapods in just about ANY layer of rock! Gee, that's exactly what we see! Speaking of predictions, the creationary worldview most certainly HAS made predictions. Just a couple of weeks back, we interviewed Dr. Russell Humphreys who, using the young earth creation model, successfully predicted the magnetic fields of multiple planets and moons - while evolution FAILED in its predictions of those magnetic fields. Last week we talked about the RATE project, which successfully predicted the outcome of a new rock dating method, predicting that the helium diffusion rate from zircon crystals would match that of a 6,000 year old earth - their prediction was *** on, while the old earth model was wrong by a factor of 100,000! When "Junk DNA" was first heralded by evolutionists as proof of evolution - some even going so far as to call it a fulfilled prediction, creationists predicted that purpose would be found behind this "purposeless, useless" DNA - sure enough, astonishing levels of use and purpose have been found in all of this DNA. The list of predictions that creationary models have made is far too long, I could devote an entire show JUST to that subject. I could also devote an entire show JUST to the FAILURE of evolution to make predictions. I have only given a few examples here. Stick around- we'll be back in a minute! [woman screaming] Oh not again! To the horror of both fans and enemies, Ian Juby is back with more ranting goodness. Okay Jacques, you first! Just when you thought his meds had kicked in, Ian goes off on a tangent about what killed the dinosaurs [truck horn] the origin of life, defining evolution, and yes, even sex! It wasn't enough for an "R" rating, but nowadays, what is? Volume 4 of his ever popular and ever hated CrEvo Rants has eight new short, fast, funny and hard hitting episodes. You can get your copy on the soon to be extinct DVD for 15 bucks plus shipping and handling, or purchase the instant digital download of all eight tracks for just 8 bucks! Or you can buy all four volumes of his world-infamous rants for the price of three! Order your copies today and have a party with like, popcorn and stuff. Visit Ian's bookstore today! Welcome back, we've been giving a response to the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate. Mr. Nye rambled on about the alleged impossibility of Noah's ark: >>Inherent in this world view is that somehow, Noah and his family were able to build a wooden ship that would house 14,000 individuals - there was 7,000 kinds, and there was a boy and girl for each one of those, so there's about 14,000 and 8 people. And these people were unskilled - as far as anybody knows, they had never built a wooden ship before. >>There is subtle evolutionary assumptions, arrogance and ignorance in Mr. Nye's comments. He has the assumption that people in the past were not as smart as we are. Clearly historic people were UNSKILLED, and couldn't build anything like a vast, wooden ship. Okay, so historic people somehow built the great pyramids....and we still don't know how they did that. The Romans built a temple on top of the ruins built by the ancients - ruins that incorporated cut stones weighing about 1,000 TONS each. With all of our modern technology, we have one portable crane in the entire world that could lift those stones - and it takes up acres of space. These people somehow cut and moved these stones - yet they were clearly technologically inferior to us! By the way - we know how they did it, and it was very, very smart. We'll be showing how the ancients did this, in detail, in our upcoming documentary, Mystery of Noah's Flood, due to be released hopefully this summer. The point being, just because WE don't know how to do something doesn't mean the ancients didn't know how! It's an evolutionary assumption that we are progressing through time - evolving from stupid, less-intelligent apes, into the superior, intelligent man. The historical record actually shows the opposite - people used their brains much more effectively in the past. >>People in the early 1900's built an extraordinarily large, wooden ship - the Wyoming. It was a 6 masted schooner, the largest one ever built - it had a motor on it for winching cables and stuff. But this boat had great difficulty - it was not as big as the titanic, but it was a very long ship. It would twist in the sea - it would twist this way, this way, and this way. >>Ultimately the Wyoming sank, so clearly a ship of the size of Noah's ark could not be built out of wood, right? Actually, the Chinese built a fleet of ships called treasure junks in the 1400's which were LARGER than Noah's ark, and yes, they were built out of wood. Again, just because WE don't know how they did it, does not mean it cannot be done! Balking more at the idea of a global flood, Mr. Nye then attempted to refute the historic world wide flood with one simple fact: >>And by the way, if this great flood drained through the Grand Canyon, wouldn't there have been a Grand Canyon on every continent? How can we not have Grand Canyons everywhere, if this water drained away in this extraordinary short amount of time - 4,000 years. >>Well he may be Bill Nye the science guy, but he's definitely not BIll Nye the geography guy, cause he flunked geography! Uh hello Mr. Bill - there IS Grand Canyons on EVERY CONTINENT. In fact the Grand Canyon of Arizona is one of the SMALLER ones! Copper Canyon and Hell's Canyon are both larger canyons just in North America. Greenland has as huge canyon which isn't as deep as Grand, but is actually half again longer. Peru's Rio Maranyon canyon is twice the depth of Grand Canyon, and half again longer! Even Antarctica has its own Grand Cayon, buried under the ice, which is some 3,000 meters or almost 10,000 feet deep, and up to 25 kilometers or 15.5 miles wide! Mr. Nye is quite correct - if there had been a global flood, we would see evidence of it. And of course, we do! After Mr. Ham went into some of the problems and pitfalls which nullify radioactive dating methods, Mr. Nye just flat out went into denial mode, ignored everything Mr. Ham pointed out, and said: >>As far as dating goes, actually the methods are very reliable." >>RELIABLE? As I've brought up sooo many times here with just ONE example of many, the radiodating tests performed on the Uinkaret lava flows of Grand Canyon brought up a miriad of ages from 10,000 to 2.6 BILLION years old - but there's Indian artifacts in the lava flows, so we KNOW the lava is actually only 800 to 1,000 years old. Mr. Ham brought up another example where a lava bed deep underground was found with wood embedded in the lava. Dr. Andrew Snelling had the lava tested using Potassium Argon dating, which gave an age of 45 million years old. Snelling also had the wood carbon 14 dated, which returned an age of 45,000 years old - different by a factor of 1,000! Radiodating is clearly not reliable! Mr. Nye's response to DOCTOR Snelling's research? >>if you find 45 million year old rock on top of 45,000 year old trees, maybe the rock slid on top? Maybe that's it? That seems a much more reasonable explanation than 'that's impossible.' >>Did Nye not even listen? The wood was ENTOMBED WITHIN the rock - the rock didn't slide over it! As for older rocks sliding over top of younger rocks, as we've discussed on previous episodes of Genesis Week, that's a great explanation....if there's evidence for it! In multiple examples I provided of rock layers out of order, evidence of sliding was completely missing. It appears that those rock layers were laid down in that sequence. But Mr. Nye went on to talk about asteroids and radiodating: >>One of the mysteries - interesting things, that people in my business, especially at the planetary society, are interested in, are 'why all the asteroids seem to be so close to the same date?' >>My answer is simple: WHO CARES????? If the dating methods clearly don't work on rocks of which we DO know the age, why would you even bother call upon those dating methods for something like an asteroid, of which we have NO Idea what its age is??? But Mr. Nye also brought up one of the questions that *I* like to ask of evolutionists: >>There are certain fish..the top minnows that have the [chuckling] remarkable ability to have sex with other fish, traditional fish sex, and they can have sex with themselves. Now one of the old questions in life science, everybody, one of the old sort-of, chin strokers, is why does any organism - whether you're an ash tree, a sea jelly, a squid, a marmot - why does anybody have sex? >>Well you see, Bill, there's this book, and it does tell us why we have sex. It says that "In the beginning GOD Created them male and female." But this is such an excellent question Mr. Bill: How do you explain sex within evolution? You can't. You brought up an example of one of the many benefits of sex - hey - NObody is denying the benefits of sex! That has NOTHING to do with how sex came to be! If evolution tries to perform any of the miriads of changes to the miriads of *** reproduction systems on earth, it leads to the extinction of the species! Evolution cannot explain sex, but my Bible can. Mr. Nye I have a sex video on line you should watch, CrEvo rant #13, and explain to me how evolution produced *** reproduction. Well that was fun, but I gotta run cause we're outa time - remember you can send in your comments, questions, hate mail and your grandmother's credit card information to us in a number of ways: Remember those words of warning from our Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ who said "I am the way the truth and the life - no man comes to the father except through me." We'll see you next week. We are a viewer supported program and need your help to stay on the air. Please pray for us, and if you wish to financially support the program, Canadians can make a tax-deductible donation to CORE Ottawa, Kanata North Post Office Box 72075, Ottawa, ON. Canada, K2K 2P4 While we cannot offer tax deductable receipts outside of Canada, donors wishing to financially support the program can do so on line at ianjuby.org/donations.html and thank you for your support. [music]