Bill Nye comes in with centuries of scientific exploration and facts. He is unwilling to accept any new piece of information unless it can be backed up by the scientific method.
Ken Ham comes in with religion. He is unwilling to accept any piece of new information because he knows he's right, and you're wrong.
It's essentially a debate between two immovable objects. No matter what the other says, no one is going to change their mind, and therefore both sides can claim victory.
As for being a scientist, yes you are correct. A scientist must always be open to any idea, then analyze it. So when Ken Ham says "GodDidIt!" Bill Nye says "prove it" at which point the debate falls apart. Either Ken Ham claims that it's not his job to prove anything or he simply points to the Bible claiming why would it exist if God didn't write it?
The problems with this are:
1: If Ken Ham is making a claim (God exists/God created the universe) then he has to provide the proof - not Bill Nye. Bill Nye claims the Earth formed out a ball of gas and then evolution, blah blah blah....but he has scientific experiments and direct observations of these.
2: The Bible's existence is not proof of God. The secular history of the Bible shows it was written, rewritten, edited, translated, and copied by 1000s of people throughout history. None of which proves their hands were guided by God.
Ham did what is typical of social conservatives. Ok yeah, a creationist did some science, but that does not mean he applies science to creationism. He didn't, they don't and they won't.
Also, like a conservative he didn't answer the ' proof with out a doubt that creationist were wrong' question.
and Yes to your last question.
A lot like the Broncos playing the Seahawks. Nye just didn't deliver plausible credible arguements. Creationists throughout history have in many cases been scientists, may supported by the Catholic church. Even the last pope acknowledged that evolution occurs to God's creations.
Suppose Bill debated a person who believes in witchcraft? If a person claims to be able to cast spells but produces no proof that person's claim to represent some kind of objective reality would be suspect. If the Rev. enlisted science to produce some form of technology that could call God direct and receive a direct answer, now that would be proof. As it is there is and can be no 'proof'.... not that it matters. Religion teaches some truths even if religion isn't by itself 'true'. Read Matthew 25 35-45...that says it all.
Ham is a pathetic heretic who fails to acknowledge the Biblical statements that Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it (or else why would Joshua have needed to command the Sun to stand still rather that Earth to stop its alleged rotation?).
I was watching the Bill Nye Ken Ham Debate and I want to know what did you guys think and if Ken Hams answer that a creationist can be a scientist. Also what did you think of his response to the question if there was proof with out a doubt that creationist were wrong and there is another explanation would he embrace the idea? I thought to be a scientist you must always be open to an idea first and then attempt to prove whether it is right or wrong. Isn't that the whole point of science in the most basic sense
