Bill Nye vs Ken Ham



The blogosphere is abound with stories about Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate. Each story is practically lifted from the other with an overwhelming opinion that Bill lost the moment he agreed. Suddenly I began to see a disturbing trend. It’s herd mentality. Let me explain:



The moment that Bill Nye agreed to debate with Ken Ham, Bill suddenly committed a grievance against science. This is the assumption because you cannot argue or debate with someone whose belief cannot be changed. The problem with this mentality is that it allows ignorance to flourish without hindrance. The second problem is that it is also hypocrisy. Science claims, as did Bill Nye, that if you have the answers or the proof, bring it forward and be embraced. This just isn’t true. Modern day scientists require that all proof be vetted through the Scientific Method and be researched thoroughly through other fields, approved and endorsed by recognized scientists, and perhaps have financial backing. Let me give you an example I am very familiar with.



Example A: The Great Pyramid of Egypt



CURRENT FACTS:

• Considered to be about 5,000 years old. 
• Considered to be the tomb of Pharaoh Khufu. 
• The only inscriptions found were a roughly drawn hieroglyph considered to be a ‘work gang’ symbol found within the echo chambers after Colonel Howard Vyse blew holes in the pyramid looking for treasure.

REALITY IGNORED:

• The hieroglyphs that Vyse found are considered fake for the following reasons: These marks appear only in the 4 relieving chambers opened by Vyse and not in the original relieving chamber opened by Davison in 1765. Vyse's diary for that day described a thorough examination of the relieving rooms but no mention of the hieroglyphics and quarry marks. The marks were mentioned only the next day, when Vyse returned with witnesses. There are problems with the hieroglyphics in that they are a mixture of styles and syntax/usage from differing time periods of Egypt. And finally, in the marks bearing Khufu's name, mistakes were made. Those same mistakes occur in the only two hieroglyphics references that would have been available to Vyse at that time. <- This being the smoking gun!
• Using astronomy, it was determined that the position of the three pyramids are in the formation of Orion’s Belt and that they directly aligned approximately 10.500 years ago.
• No mummy has ever been found in the Great Pyramid.
• No hieroglyphs (other than the dubious one mentioned) exist in or around the Great Pyramid
• All other pharaoh tombs are littered with hieroglyphs, bodies, animals, trinkets, treasure, etc.
• Erosion on surrounding areas associated to the Giza and the Great Pyramid show evidence of continual rainfall that didn’t occur for over 15,000 years ago.

All this evidence proves the pyramid was A) not a tomb by any stretch B) the pyramid is much older than suggested. C) That humans were far more advanced than we have previously thought.

The problem with this type of proof is that it forces scientists to revisit and evaluate the entire human history. This is not just inconvenient, it’s a down right embarrassment and would likely cause a collapse in the funding for current anthropological research projects. Therefore, the scientific community uses every conceivable technicality to disprove those theories so that they do not have to accept them. If you look hard you will find many of these instances. Science doesn't want answers from anyone other than their own collective.

Essentially, if you analyze any scientific “theories” like human evolution, you find this type of math equation: X + Y = 42. That means that we can put ANYTHING we want in X and Y as long as it equals 42. This is the "observed results" part of the scientific theory. So they observe various skulls from various humanoids and know that these appear similar to us “humans.” This again, the observed result. Now we just have to fill in X and Y to equal that observed result. They use various dating methods and sequential scaling to say “we must have evolved from these animals!” Then you have Darwin, and Dawkins finding creative ways to link us to every form of animal due to any similarities they can find. They are using what is called Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. They want to make that connection so badly that they will find any evidence to support it and they do. Does that mean that they cheat? Oh, yes they do! Research the Piltdown Man for a prime example. From 1912 to 1953 we were duped by science. It proves that science WILL lie if needed to keep a theory going. Case in point about our Egyptian example, the observed result is a pyramid with a hollow, rectangular box in the center of a room. Result for X is we will say it is a sarcophagus, because sarcophagi are generally square and hollow. Result for Y is the hieroglyph they 'found' stating who the pyramid might belong to. Wa-la, the Great Pyramid was a tomb built for Khufu so now we can get it's age by inserting what age Khufu ruled. That age fits within our pantheon of human history and we're set! The public buys it because it makes sense and now people will resort to violence to protect that "truth" if you ever challenge it. Much like Christians do when you challenge their faith with logic and reason.



Does this mean you have assurances from Creationists? Certainly NOT! In fact it is just as bad if not worse. You have Ken Ham systematically using the “Bible” as his empirical source of data with which to fashion his origin of man. Let’s attack his source, shall we.



There are over 3000 different versions of the Christian bible. Each have subtle to glaring changes in word choice and complete / incomplete stories. So which version is considered correct? That would have been a useful question to ask Ken Ham. The oldest modern bible is the King James version. The issue with this version of the bible is King James himself. He wanted a very specific version created and killed 3 orders of monks to achieve it. If they refused to rewrite the bible according to his demands, they all were beheaded. Therefore, the King James version of the bible is dubious at best. However, the issue didn’t start there. Let us now discuss Constantine, the Roman ruler. He converted to Christianity only at his death only because he wanted to be absolutely sure his soul was protected. However, he wanted peace amongst the Pagans and Christians. He then asked the council of Jewish Rabbis to make changes to the bible in order to compete with paganism. He removed entire books, changed scenarios, took pagan idols and matched them to the evils listed in the bible (such as Satan), and even reordered time lines all to support the prospect that Jesus was born from a virgin and is therefore a deity. Ever wonder why 18 years of Jesus' life is gone? Because Constantine didn't want you to know that Jesus was just a regular guy who did regular things. That’s actual history that can no longer be refuted. Does the church accept this? Of course not, it would severely alter their religion and damage their reputation forever. So what became of all those removed books? It’s called the Apocrypha. You can easily find these lost books. Some are even included in a few bibles! Now, was that all of them? Not by a long shot. The Dead Sea Scrolls as they are called are a complete and total collection of the bible as it was intended. In fact there were numerous copies of each book. When it was found and discovered what they were and what they represented, the Roman Catholic Church bought all remaining artifacts on the black market. Rev. Charles Potter undertook the study of the scrolls as they were being discovered in the 1940s. He is a firsthand witness, and a Baptist Evangelist (at the time) who was curious about what new insights the scrolls could offer. From the scraps he was allowed to study, he determined several things that are controversial but he is able to back them up with empirical data from various sources that you can find should you want to travel the world. His claim is that Jesus was just a man and that all his “sayings” came from a prevalent religious group whose philosophies came from a book called “The Book of Discipline.” Jesus grew up around these people and took what he thought was right and added a splash of his own. Potter posits that God took notice of Jesus and liked him. When Jesus decided to be baptized by John, God adopted Jesus as his son.  Suddenly, Jesus has powers and can heal the sick, feed people with next to nothing, turn water to wine and so on. This is further backed by other researchers who were concerned that if Jesus was God in the flesh, then he would already know he would be risen should he be killed. Jesus should not have feared death, yet cried and wept at the thought of dying and later exclaimed, “why have you forsaken me!” while being crucified. It makes so much more sense that was always a man of human flesh and not a deity. Does that make his sacrifice any less important? Nope, it doesn’t change a thing, but try telling that to any Catholics, Baptists, or any other Christian order. You'd see what human anger is capable of and how fast it can surface. I know, because I have done it.;) The exception would be the Jews. They don't have any problem with it because they don’t believe Jesus is a messiah. Only that he existed and was a "good man." The Jews still believe their messiah has yet to come.



Let’s also look at the Noah situation that came up in the debate. The authors of the bible didn’t get around too much and neither did their ancestors. What they considered as “the world” was the Middle East. It is not only plausible, but there is evidence of a great flood in that region during the time suggested. It makes sense from that perspective and it would make Noah’s ark more plausible; especially when you consider that he’d only have to carry animals that would have been native to the Middle Eastern region. After all, the sole purpose of the flood was kill the wicked, not destroy the entire planet. Also remember that Noah’s dove came back with an olive branch to signify it found land. This would also suggest that he simply sailed to the next available land mass. As for the suggestion that if a tree is inundated that it dies, is true in many cases…but not completely. Some plants actually can re-grow from their roots. Seeds can float on to shore, etc. After all, if science is correct that all life came from the water, so did plants. Incidentally, there are a plethora of plants that live under water and use photosynthesis to sustain itself. Seaweed much?



Now, the dangerous part of Ken Ham’s Creationism model is that it’s a practice in religious hijacking. It’s a sickening, and a disturbing practice that is becoming more and more popular, especially amongst the religious, conservative right. They are reinventing Jesus as an ultra-conservative who would never give anything away for free, especially health care (Thanks, Obama! ;) ) The other dangerous part is the “why” it cannot be taught in public schools. It is simply because it cannot remove itself from its religious origins. Religion cannot be taught in school, unless it’s a private school that is non-secular. If they could teach Creationism without the concept of religion, without mentioning Jesus, God, the bible or using its quotations, then it has a chance. However, that isn’t going to happen; ever. Ken Ham proved that during the debate. Here is the failing of removing science and replacing it with theology: “Why is the sky blue?” “Because God made it that way.” “How do you know?” “It’s written in the bible.”See that? No explanation required. You never have to ask questions...just obey. Gee, what's that sound like? Read up on cultism.



Let me tell you another flaw in Ken Ham’s theories. It doesn’t stipulate who or what God is. Is God a construct, a being, a force of nature, what/who is it? Never mind that the bible doesn’t say what or who God is…just that he is. Apparently he can talk, he can appear in various forms, he can send messengers (Angels) and he can physically attack, and he can coerce people into doing his bidding. The God from the Old Testament and the New Testament are very different. They act different, they say different things. It’s as though they are two different beings. You get even more variations when you include texts from some of the lost books, like the Book Of Enoch (note that Enoch is attributed as the first author to write in first person.) Enoch describes a more physical version of God and a very different realm of heaven. The angels are better described and even given names and very specific jobs / functions for each. This is precisely why the book was removed. It ruins the mystique of angels and weakens the scope of God.If you want a bit of a chuckle, you can use Ken Ham's Creation model with several other creation stories from other cultures. Take the Sumerian version. The Anunnaki were winged beings who created humans from dirt so that we would go forth and mine for gold. Get this, we were made in their image. We "humans"considered them Gods. You could use that and fit it into Ken Ham's Creation model and it fits. Scary, because at least this story is written in stone and wasn't passed down from hundreds of generations changing the story as it goes.



Finally, if you look at both authorities (Science / Religion), we all have to trust it. We have to trust that what the scientists say and write is true. As Ken Ham is fond of saying “You weren’t there!” So you have to take their word for it. Always remember that scientists are NOT discovering things for free. They expect to be well paid and the people, governments, or businesses that back these discoveries expect a result for their money. Money is so powerful that it can change facts to support desired results. What I am trying to tell you is that both theories are equally wrong for different merits. Be that as it may, the Science version is more important as Bill Nye stated. We need to teach this type of science in order to give the tools we need to keep studies strong and to discover new things. Theology does NOT offer anything like this. You cannot find the tools, algorithms, or concepts for teleportation or light-speed space travel in the bible. Thanks, Ken Ham!!! ;)



Now, before you start blasting me with links to white papers, news media reports, blogs, or even books just consider that EACH of those items is written by humans, who are known to lie and cheat and you have to TRUST the data it represents in order to believe that it is right. Yes, I am implying that Science and Religion are both faith based. Does that mean that all of it is a lie? No, but how many of you who will discuss, debate, or argue with me are willing to go out in the field to see if those theories are right yourselves or just simply sit back in your chair and say, ”they did the work for me so I don’t have to?”