Ken Ham Is Wrong

1031 Words3 Pages

Thirteen point seven billion years ago the universe went from a small and dense state, to an exponentially large state. Big things do come in small packages. However this is not the only story of the creation of the universe and it’s inhabitants. On November fourth two thousand and fifteen two scientists went head to head to prove which creation story would be a “viable model for today's modern science,” creation or evolution. Defending the side of evolution was none other that an old friend from our childhood, Bill Nye, also known as Bill Nye the Science Guy. No doubt wonderful memories are flooding into your brain right now. Defending the side of creation is a man named Ken Ham, also known as the man you have probably never heard of before. …show more content…

Although arguing that schools force children to see science through an evolutionary perspective does make us question the morals of the subject, it does not however construct an argument against evolution. Ken Ham spent more time distinguishing what creationism and evolutionism are, instead of giving specific facts to prove or disprove either side. For Ken Ham to say Bill Nye is wrong because observation science does not allow us to observe the past, “because we were not there,” then he has also thrown a wrench into his own argument. How can Ken Ham believe in God based on a past he has not observed? Ken Ham could have mentioned how the Bible is one of the most historically accurate documents in the world according to Institution for Creation Research, The Trumpet.com, and Rick Warren, but he never does. Ken Ham never mentions how many other cultures have their own version of a flood story, giving evidence to a truth behind the stories.. Instead Ken Ham focuses on the “secularists highjacking the word …show more content…

When Bill Nye spoke about the boulders in Washington, he explained how long ago there was an ice dam that would form in today’s Montana. Bill says that if there was a world wide flood you would think the rocks would have sunk to the bottom and not moved, however these massive boulders are on the surface in washington. He then persist to ask “how could the boulders be there, if the earth is four-thousand years old, how could they be there if just one flood caused that.?” Bill Nye makes a statement, and then asks a question but never answers the question. He does not show us how the boulders got there. He makes his statement unclear. Following this argument, Bill Nye tells a story about people in the 1900s who built a large ship called the Wyoming. A six masted schooner made out of wood, that was the largest boat built at the time. However this boat was so big the frame would bend and break, leaving holes in the ship. The ship itself was sailed by a crew of fourteen, that eventually died from the ship sinking. Bill Nye argues that Eight people could not have built and sailed a ship with no experience, unlike the people who built and sailed the Wyoming. He continues to ask if “this is reasonable, is that possible?” He never answers that question. He never mentions that the Ark was meant to float, and that the Ark did not have an masts on it.

Open Document