debateThere were many unanswered questions from last Tuesday evening’s debate between Ken Ham and Billy Nye.  Therefore, in two blog posts I will address three of the most important questions from both men that came unanswered.  Since Ken Ham kicked off the debate at the Creation Museum, I will address his unanswered questions first.

UnansweredQuestionsForWebQuestions for Ken Ham that he could not answer:

  • Can your model predict any scientific discoveries for the future?
  • Can you show me one fossil that is mixed with smaller organisms?
  • What would it take to change your mind?


Can your model predict any scientific discoveries for the future?

albert-einstein-8A scientific model is one that is based upon observations and those models become stronger in its ability to explain past observations, predict future observations, increase in simplicity, and a smallest amount of posed assumptions.

The scientific model of creation helps to explain past observations such as the formation of the fossil record from the natural disaster of the Genesis Flood (99.875% marine and plant organisms in the fossil record, dinosaurs quickly becoming extinct, Cambrian explosion, no transitional forms, etc.).  The model is also supported by mathematics and logic in that intricately designed things here on earth have absolutely no chance of forming from non-life (ie. laws of biogenesis).  Anthropic principles (things created just perfect for life – buffered blood, acceleration of gravity, universal constants, etc.) as well as the information system of life (DNA) is supported by this model.

Bill Nye really hammered at Ken Ham on the ability to predict future observations for discoveries, and yet it is only the creation model that has the ability to do this.  I would have cited the ability to do “paternal blood tests” or “DNA or genome sequencing.”  If one adheres to the Darwinian evolutionary model then one would expect new information to be created through small changes.  Therefore, you could never use the scientific method to predict the results of a paternal blood test or sequence the human genome or develop new drug therapies.  Within the creation model, predictions can be clearly made using the laws of chemistry, laws of life, laws of physics that are finely tuned and ordered within a system going towards greater disorder.  Darwinian evolution states that there is less entropy (disorder) occurring by chance within a system of greater entropy.

When we talk about simplicity and assumptions, the Darwinian evolutionist must make a greater amount of assumptions than the creationist.  This is due to the fact that they do not have an objective source of documentation of the past.  They are taking the present and making assumption after assumption of past events.  The creationist has the Biblical account of creation to look to which lessens the assumptions that they have to make.  This puts the creation model in a class above Darwinian evolution in terms of simplicity and lesser assumptions.

Can you show me one fossil that is mixed with smaller organisms?

I’ll answer Mr. Nye’s question here and give him one – Small Carbonaceous Fossils which are sub-millimetric organic remains of organisms preserved in sedimentary strata.  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?!?

trilobite-fossil_1262_990x742That has nothing to do with proving Darwinian evolution true and creation false.  What Billy is doing is trying to prove that if a quick global flood happened there would be fossils mixed all together.  But what bow tie does not understand is how a fossil forms due to his worldview.

Bill Nye and most people believe that fossils form over long periods of time from something that went extinct and died in sediment layer that formed over long periods of time.  And he would be wrong.  Most fossilized substances are identical to the plants and animals living today.

Fossils do not form over long periods of time – they actually form quickly mostly from natural disasters.  Fossilization occurs when things are buried quickly and deeply before scavengers, bacteria, erosion, or decomposition occurs.

Fossils do not support macro-evolution.  Dr. Gary Parker – PhD in Biology and Paleontology and former evolutionist says “Fossils are a great embarrassment to evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of creation.”

The fossil record starts with an explosion, not with a building of fossils as macro-evolution would state.  What is called the first geological period of the Paleozoic Era is called the Cambrian Explosion.  It is said to have been between 541 to 485 million years ago and this layer of the fossil record is an explosion of all different and basic kinds of animals and sea creatures and vegetation.  It is an abrupt collection of fossils that all happen almost instantaneously and are fully functional in the strata.  And the amazing thing is that there is no proof of common ancestors and no intermediate forms and there is no real proof that this was hundreds of millions of years ago.

I’ll give you four examples of taking fossils and what happens when you come in with a Darwinian evolutionist point of view (instead of the creation model):

Coelacanth (See-lankith) is a fish that was declared extinct for 70 million years.  It was the fish that macro-evolutionist said grew legs and walked out of water onto land.  It was the missing link per se.  Well, in 1938, a fish was caught off the coast of Madagascar.  Can you guess what it was?  A coelacanth.  No legs, no lungs.  Somehow the model called evolution is proved incorrect over and over and over again and yet, scientists cling to it like fabric softener sheets to pants coming out of the drier.  It couldn’t be because they are prideful, could it?!?

What would it take to change your mind?

keep-calm-and-don-t-change-7I was very disappointed that Ken Ham was not ready for this question, although granted, this is a difficult question that the Christian should be ready for.  What would it take to change your mind and have you walk away from the faith of Biblical Christianity?

A few years ago, I was asked this question and was stumped as Ken was.  So I went home and put some good thought into the answer to this question.

My answer is:  You would have to get rid of two things – creation and the Bible.

Creation screams we have a Creator (Romans 1).  A building has a builder, a painting has a painter, and a creation has a Creator.  You would therefore have to get rid of the periodic table (organized elements in reoccurring family groups in order of increasing whole numbers of protons), you would have to get rid of mathematics (there is a mathematical system that is embedded in nature), you would have to get rid of all of the constants (that were not invented but discovered), you would have to get rid of the laws of physics, laws of chemistry, laws of matter, laws of energy, and laws of thermodynamics.  In short, you would have to get rid of all of nature that displays the power, intelligence, and attributes of God.

Secondly, you would have to get rid of the Bible.  The Bible is the most scrutinized book in the world.  It was written by 40 different authors over 1500 years in 3 different languages from different cultures and it has one message throughout the entire text.  You would have to get rid of the 25,000 manuscripts, 5,600 manuscripts that date within one generation of when they were written, you would have to get rid of the 99.9% accuracy of the manuscripts with each other, you would have to get rid of the internal evidence of the Bible such as the reports of the resurrection and apostles and the early church fathers that all died for Biblical truth, and you would have to get rid of the manuscripts dated before Jesus was born with the prophecy that could only be fulfilled in the man Jesus Christ.

So, in short, get rid of all of creation and all of science and then get rid of the Bible, and I would be gladly to turn into an atheist.  I dare you to try…