Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate - Wikipedia
This is not the main review of the debate between Ken Ham and Bill concerned the three assumptions that radiometric dating is based on: 1. Ken ham and bill nye debate evolution at the creation negeriku.info relative dating nye pointed out that radiometric dating places the earth's age negeriku.info he . Unfortunately, Bill Nye did not have a satisfactory response to this. Is there one? Yep. Notice from the above video it is apparent that a.
But although there are gaps in the fossil record, it is a very telling fact that not a single fossil has ever been found in the wrong place in the time sequence. Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the world, the fact of evolution would be established beyond any doubt by the evidence from comparing modern creatures with other modern creatures. Today we can add comparative molecular sequences DNA and proteins which are even more convincing, by orders of magnitude.
Whichever molecule you look at, and whichever bone system etc you look at, the pattern of animal resemblances turns out to be the same branching tree given normal, expected margins of error.
Radiometric Dating and the Bill Nye Debate | Maverick Atheism
What could that branching tree be but a pedigree, a family tree, a tree of descent with modification? The pattern of geographical distribution of animals and plants is exactly as it should be, on the assumption that slow, gradual evolution has taken place on slowly drifting plate tectonics continents and islands. Creation scientists have recently completed a major research project known as RATE Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earthin which they discovered evidence indicating that the rate of radioactive decay has not been constant throughout earth history.
Radiometric dating is the basis for the accepted 4. However, his comments indicate he is not aware of much of the evidence scientists have recently discovered that shows his objections are not very strong.
However, this argument is based on outdated geology.
Richard Dawkins’ Tips for Debating Creationists | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos
We know now that thick layers can and do form catastrophically, such as lime mud layers that form during hurricanesrapid deposition during floods, and rapid sedimentation of thin laminae fine layers.
There is other evidence within ancient rock units that indicate rapid deposition, such as well-preserved fossilsfossils that cut through multiple bedsetc. As you can see in the links I included, creationists have thoroughly addressed these issues and explained how they work within the creation model. One rather interesting and silly argument Bill Nye presented concerned the rapid speciation that would have occurred after the Flood.
In this scenario, Nye calculates that 11 new species would have had to form every day since the Flood on average. However, this argument is absurd, because Nye is using the number of species of every living organism on Earth, rather than the number of species of the types of animals that would have been on the Ark probably only land vertebrates. Living organisms such as insects, fish, and plants would not have been passengers on the Ark.
The total number of species of vertebrates described today is only about 58, Thus, the 7, original kinds of animals that came off the Ark would only have to diversify into less than 58, kinds of land vertebrates that are known to exist today.
Richard Dawkins’ Tips for Debating Creationists
Using these correct figures, only about 16 new species on average would need to form every year since the Flood. In addition, there is observational evidence that rapid speciation certainly does occur under the right conditions. Nye brought up a supposed successful prediction of evolution: They looked in this section of rock and found Tiktaalik, a creature that initially appeared to have features of both fish and tetrapods. However, Nye fails to give the full story: Larry Ross Communications estimated that almost 3 million people viewed the event live over the Internet.
I don't believe people should go away saying 'Bill Nye won' or 'Ken Ham won.
Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate
Scientists typically stated that Nye won the debate. And the debate was Nye's to lose and he won.
- Blog Archive
- Navigation menu
Although Schulson agreed with Nye's underlying scientific message, and allowed that Nye "had his moments," he wrote that "it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6, years old. Ham's mannerisms, you could sense a tremendous Spirit about him. He was gracious and the power of God showed through his life. There were multiple times I believed he could have hammered Nye on some of his inconsistencies but in my opinion chose not to.