.

I just did a StartPage search for "evolution science debate" and found the first 60 hits (6 pages) are all websites with coverage of this debate that occurred yesterday.  So this is pretty hot stuff!



The debate happened yesterday evening and today the YouTube video that records it for all to see has had 729,584 views.  Here it is:


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/z6kgvhG3AkI[/youtube]

Fast forward to 12:40 to skip the holding pattern.

Ken Ham's 5 minute Opening Statement begins at minute 17:00

For 5 minutes Ham talks on topic, using visual aids including a 5-second video clip of Bill Nye.

Bill Nye, on the other hand, spends the first minute and 50 seconds talking about his bow tie, and how he learned to tie one. He uses no visual aids.

Mr. Ham focused for 5 minutes on how the word "science" has been co-opted by naturalists to make it mean an adherence to naturalism with the exclusion of God's revelation, when it has always meant the study of knowledge, which includes God's revelation.  Embedded in this principle is the modern atheists' false premise that we cannot know anything when its only source is God revealing it to us.

Mr. Nye takes 4-1/2 minutes to warm up to his key message, which is essentially his statement that science means adherence to naturalism, just as Ham had warned! Of course, Nye doesn't use those words, rather, he asks a question:  "Is Ken Ham's creation model viable?"  And he gives his answer:  "I say, NO, it is absolutely NOT viable.  So stay with us over the next period and you can compare my evidence to his.  Thank you very much."  He utters the word "much" at exactly the 5-minute mark.


[It's noteworthy that Nye lives in a culture that is essentially the product of Christian civilization, but he (like so many others today) denies the truths of Christianity. His manner and approach are offensive to pious ears, but he delivers his offense in a mild-mannered way, which makes it more endurable.  We should recognize we are fortunate not to have to contend with the openly insulting tone of British biologist Richard Dawkins with his 756,000 Twitter followers.]


.