A Section from Bill Nye's Guided Tour with Ken Ham

Bill Nye Tours the Ark Encounter with Ken Ham
Answers in Genesis, 14 March 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPLRhVdNp5M

43:46 Part of the stone age we see is from the pre-Flood world, when it was ending. Bronze and iron were invented, but that doesn't mean all men had it.

If Montezuma grew up in a world of stone tools, where gold and copper was just a decoration, does that mean iron wasn't invented? If so, the Spaniards invented it very quickly.

Part is from the time of Noah after the Flood. It took some time to find ores again, and when copper and bronze begin before iron in archaeology, it's because copper, tin and iron were rediscovered at different times.

Quoting wiki.

"The Bronze Age is a historic period, lasting approximately from 3300 BC to 1200 BC"

That's how long it took between the rediscovery of bronze and the rediscovery of iron.

At least in the parts best searched by archaeologists, and if we go by carbon dates. 2100 years.

Now, what do I calibrate them to?

1200 BC in carbon = 1200 BC in real and Biblical chronology.

3300 BC would be after Genesis 14 in 1935 BC (dated to 3500 BC), it would in fact be 1868 BC, when Abraham was 147 years old, Isaac 47 and married, but as yet childless.

So, between rediscovery of bronze and rediscovery of iron, we just have ... 668 years. Some might consider some of those rediscovering either as sufficiently evil for it to be 666 years ... not sure. But the span sounds more realistic than 2100 years, more than 3 times as long.

44:28 For some, the palaeolithic lasted to near present or even into present. Check tribes in Amazonas.

But where the Palaeolithic was first exchanged for the Neolithic, if you ask me, that was Babel. A k a Göbekli Tepe, in the pre-pottery Neolithic. Yes, Göbekli Tepe near the present city Şanlıurfa is in Mesopotamia, and not in Asia Minor. Turkey has, barring islands, four regions from West to East. First 1) a small part of Europe. Then 2) Asia Minor. Then 3) one part that's divided N / S, with Zagros Mountains in the North and Mesopotamia in the South (the part of Mesopotamia that's historically Assyria), and finally 4) Armenia, with the landing place.

45:35 He couldn't parse the sentence.

"We don't see information coming from matter"
"I see information in the present which is ultimately in the past having come from matter" ...

Well, he doesn't see that ultimate past ...

48:49 "they died at forty years old"

On what evidence ...? I read about 60 skeletons from Anglo-Saxon times. Legal medicine specialists evaluated them to 40, or younger, without looking at gravestones supposing there even were such. Later, a specialists in teeth looked at the calculus, and concluded - no, some of them were at least up to 60.

I have had those 60 skeleta and the first analysis thrown at me as proof of Middle Ages all over Europe, and I have at least 10 times as many from the pre-modern ages, even just Medieval, looking at wiki, where the life expectancy if you survived to having a carreere (with non-nobles) or to having children (with nobles and royalty) was 65 for non-nobles, 56 for royalty and related nobles. As a median. Definitely people living up to 80 or 90 too.

49:12 without sewers

You don't have very healthy cities. How relevant is that for times when most of the people lived in the country-side anyway?

C'mon, Bill Nye is a silly guy ...

I made a comparison for a death toll one quarter year from Laon to what my studies in the Middle Ages gave me.

The lower quartile in Laon was like the median in the Middle Ages. The median in Laon was the higher quartile in the Middle Ages. The higher quartile in Laon was between the higher quartile and the maximum in the Middle Ages. The maxima and minima were comparable.

55:53 I believe there is a process by which the constant decay rate of strontium - rubidium (if that is the direction) can be measured wrong.

A very insignificant sliver of a curve is very unlikely to make one construct the curve correctly.

We don't have the same problem the same way with carbon 14, as carbon dates work (Biblical = archaeological) for the last over three thousand, but not fully four thousand years - but even there, it could be with a longer half life and a rising level, instead of the halflife we accept and the roughly constant level.

For instance, with twice the half life, the rise since Fall of Troy is such the the medium rise from Flood to Fall of Troy becomes 4 times instead of 5 times the present production rate. Meaning, with twice the halflife, three thousand years ago, you had 4 / 5 of the level, and the rise makes up for the longer halflife.

The curves would be different, but not as different as the wiggles on the level we have. Not as different as carbon 14 levels were under the Hallstatt Plateau, for instance.

56:39 "we have a process by which we eliminate that which is wrong"

How quickly? And how much slower than usual can it be with a bias at which Bill Nye is constantly being impolite to Ken Ham?

• interrupting
• saying "we can know for absolutely certain you are 100 % wrong"
• referring to "science" in general when asked specific questions about specific scienceS, as if Ken Ham was a savage from Amazonas to whom sciences and science were new concepts ... which he must master first before going on to specifics ...

I think constant impoliteness is reflective of a very strong bias.

57:49 "we believe it comes from the nature of subatomic particles, based on evidence"

Subatomic particles have never been observed in and of themselves.

Electrons are supposedly what electronic microscopy helps us observe with - meaning that it cannot be one of the items observed.

So, Bill Nye will arguably defend electrons and other subatomic particles based on inferences from observations, but for some reason, he doesn't accept either minds or miracles being proven that way ... when in fact it is only minds that make inferences.

Hongo Tedesco

What? "based on inferences from observations" is so much different than "minds that make inferences". Those observations are *data*. Different minds should reach the same conclusion when presented with the same *data*. On the other hand, if all you're doing is "making stuff up in your mind", that's a whole different ball of wax. Ie, religions. They're all just made up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hongo Tedesco I was not talking about "making stuff up in your mind" and nor was I doing it, other than in the way people believing in subatomic particles are doing that.

The only known thing that can make inferences (other than mathematical equations) are minds.

To Bill Nye, an inference can prove a subatomic particle, but inferenceS don't prove minds. That's inconsistent.

@Hongo Tedesco To be clear on one more point. Subatomic particles are not observed.

Hongo Tedesco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So then I don't really understand what your intent is. Again, we don't have to "see" everything to know it exists. Eg, dark matter/energy. We actually don't even know what it is, but we know it's there. Ditto for subatomic particles. In general, we can do science around things we don't observe, or didn't observe. Like getting an age for the universe, or an age for the Earth. We weren't there to see it all happen, but we know with close to 100% certainty how old the Earth is and how old the Universe is.

And I don't believe Nye is saying anything different from what I'm saying. I watched the whole thing and his science was pretty much on point.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ok, subatomic particles aren't observed, and so?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hongo Tedesco It means, you can't know subatomic particles without inferences from the observations.

Precisely like Scholastics claim to know God, angels and human souls are immaterial.

@Hongo Tedesco "but we know with close to 100% certainty how old the Earth is and how old the Universe is."

You only "know" that because you have, first, falsely concluded in favour or material causes only.

Something which you could have avoided by taking a look at St. Thomas Aquinas or even at C. S. Lewis' Miracles before making a hypothesis on the basis of "no miracles allowed" ...

Hongo Tedesco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ok, comparing subatomic particles to "gods, angels, souls"? Really? Do you realize how incorrect that comparison is? There are theories about subatomic particles, how they come to be, how long they live, etc, etc. And you can conduct experiments proving these theories. I mean, look at all the brouhaha over the Higgs boson. Fantastic experimental discovery after decades of it just being predicted.

Cite one proven instance of an angel?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hongo Tedesco Retrogrades and the movements mislabelled "aberration" and "parallax" - if Geocentrism is true, as it is for instance directly observed.

Plus historical instances, like the angels that liberated St. Peter and other apostles in Acts 5.

Hongo Tedesco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "You only "know" that because you have, first, falsely concluded in favour or material causes only." Well yes, because they explain these things well. Ie, they work.

Sure, we can conjecture that the entire universe was created 5 secs ago by some god, and all our memories are just fake, he put them in there. We can conjecture all sorts of things like this, but what's the point? If you can't find evidence to back your conjecture, I toss it.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Precisely like scholastics claim to know god...". Um, no, just no. Again, for the umpteenth time, subatomic particles are observed via a scientific process. A well vetted one at that, it's objective truth that is being discovered. When somebody says I spoke with an angel (like Muhammad), are you just going to believe them, just like that? Aren't you going to want some evidence that that person actually spoke with an angel? You're comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't work.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hongo Tedesco "Well yes, because they explain these things well. Ie, they work."

No one here is disputing material causation works. What I am disputing is material things being the only causes and the only things.

"observed via a scientific process."

= NOT actually observed, BUT concluded from observations. I refuse to be Humpty Dumpty with you.

"A well vetted one at that,"

Aristotelic philosophy and its Catholic realisation as Scholasticism, on the side of Philosophy (and it has a side of Theology too) is an even better vetted one.

"When somebody says I spoke with an angel (like Muhammad), are you just going to believe them, just like that?"

Muhammed may very well have spoken to an angelic being, but not one sent by God.

When twelve apostles said they were liberated from prison by an angel, I do believe them. See Acts 5 for the occurrence.

"Aren't you going to want some evidence that that person actually spoke with an angel?"

They were out of prison.

"we can conjecture that the entire universe was created 5 secs ago by some god,"

Some point in time, within 168 hours of the first human couple, that was also the case, c. 7222 years ago.

"and all our memories are just fake, he put them in there."

I'm refusing to believe in fake memories, whether it involves denial of the past 7222 years or whether it involves denying the apostles were liberated by angels.

"We can conjecture all sorts of things like this, but what's the point?"

I gave you no argument that logically corresponds to such a conjecture as the universe being created 5 seconds ago (c. 7222 years after that actually happened).

"If you can't find evidence to back your conjecture, I toss it."

I gave all the evidence needed, Geocentric observations, and recorded history.

It's Heliocentrism which corresponds to baseless conjectures (except Atheism gives them a fictitious base). It's Heliocentrism which is saying without any evidence that what we see move is inverse to what is actually moving, both day and year.

Hongo Tedesco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Muhammed may very well have spoken to an angelic being, but not one sent by God." How do you know gabriel wasn't sent by god? Same guy that supposedly told Mary about her, um, pregnancy.

See, all the evidence you gave? It's completely unvetted. Nobody really knows what happened during the time of jesus. A bunch of stuff was written but no separate accounts besides the bible. Do you believe jesus ran across some possessed men, exorcised them, and the demons entered pigs, which then ran off a cliff?

In fact, I just finished the "12 cesars" by Suetonius, written in 121 AD, which chronicles the history of the roman emperors from 50 BC until publication. At the time Judea was a province of Rome, not just "conquered territory". Not a single mention of christians, jesus, or anything magical happening. Nothing. Oh wait, I take that back about "magical". There were many instances such as "a bird with a worm in its mouth flew into the chamber before emperor X was about to make a decision...bad omen". Those guys were totally superstitious.

Bottom line, you have zero valid evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hongo Tedesco "How do you know gabriel wasn't sent by god? Same guy that supposedly told Mary about her, um, pregnancy."

Because that "Jibreel" contradicted the one actually sent by God, as seen by the Resurrection of Jesus.

"See, all the evidence you gave? It's completely unvetted. Nobody really knows what happened during the time of jesus."

OK ... how do you know Julius Caesar existed?

"A bunch of stuff was written but no separate accounts besides the bible."

So? Most events from this time we have no separate accounts except one account, for Jesus at least we have four.

"Do you believe jesus ran across some possessed men, exorcised them, and the demons entered pigs, which then ran off a cliff?"

Obviously, yes. I am a Christian.

In case you intend to showcase "Christians" who don't believe that this happened as written in the Gospels, I don't consider such people as Christians.

"In fact, I just finished the "12 cesars" by Suetonius, written in 121 AD, which chronicles the history of the roman emperors from 50 BC until publication."

Showcasing Sueton for Julius Caesar existing is like showcasing a third century Church Father for Jesus existing. 50 BC - 121 AD = 171 years. 33 AD + 171 years = 204 AD.

"At the time Judea was a province of Rome, not just "conquered territory"."

Part of the time, yes.

"Not a single mention of christians, jesus, or anything magical happening."

By the time of Sueton, Christians and Jews were wildly disagreeing on what had happened 90 years later. Pilate's witness exists, but has been stamped as apocryphal. In fact, even if Sueton had access to it, and believed it was by him, he would have discarded it as "style enough" evidence, since Pilate was a protégé of Seianus, who fell out of grace with Tiberius. As for Velleius Paterculus, his Roman History stops in AD 30 or 31. Too early for the Resurrection.

"Nothing. Oh wait, I take that back about "magical". There were many instances such as "a bird with a worm in its mouth flew into the chamber before emperor X was about to make a decision...bad omen". Those guys were totally superstitious."

In Tacitus, at the time when Nero killed his mother, a woman gave birth to a snake. I'll not say she was pregnant with the snake, but God allowed a demon to snatch the baby away and put a snake in its place, so as to give the Romans an omen about how Nero had acted like a snake to his mother. It's in book VI of Annals in case you like to check.

"Bottom line, you have zero valid evidence."

You have zero credibility in your assessing of validity.

Hongo Tedesco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Because that "Jibreel" contradicted the one actually sent by God, as seen by the Resurrection of Jesus."

All you're doing is saying "I believe nonsense X, but not nonsense Y". You have zero evidence that say, Mary was visited by Gabriel. In fact, it's rather suspicious that we have nothing about jesus life after birth (until his preaching). If the birth was such an auspicious occasion, why nothing? It's because the whole virgin birth story was made up.

"By the time of Sueton, Christians and Jews were wildly disagreeing on what had happened 90 years later."

Ok, but a), there was no discussion of this whatsoever, and b) he studied the chronicles that had been written by others over the years, including contemporaries at the time of the execution. Surely if something "interesting" had been found, he would've written about it. But nothing.

"In Tacitus, at the time when Nero killed his mother, a woman gave birth to a snake. I'll not say she was pregnant with the snake, but God allowed a demon to snatch the baby away and put a snake in its place, so as to give the Romans an omen about how Nero had acted like a snake to his mother"

And you actually believe this? Come on, you know this is just a story. [...], you just keep saying these things w/o evidence. You make the same mistake all apologists do, you presuppose the truth, and then you go into contortions to try and "prove" it. But let's face it, given the scarcity of evidence, it's just not possible to prove the outlandish assertions of christian mythology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hongo Tedesco "All you're doing is saying "I believe nonsense X, but not nonsense Y". You have zero evidence that say, Mary was visited by Gabriel. In fact, it's rather suspicious that we have nothing about jesus life after birth (until his preaching). If the birth was such an auspicious occasion, why nothing? It's because the whole virgin birth story was made up."

First
The Gospels are within decades from the events, the Coran several centuries away.

Then.
No. It's because of a convention of describing people's lives from the entry into the actual business they are doing. No biographies like today.

Matthew has word count 18,346 words according to a quick seearch, not sure if it is Greek or English. A pretty short modern autobiography covering just "up to" is 76,000 words - Surprised by Joy. Or Humphrey Carpenter's of Tolkien, estimated word count 86,112 words. Didn't exist. Matthew is just 21.3 % the length. Nothing to waste on padding with lots of insignificant, but endearing and interesting detail. Nothing to waste on building credibility that way, that modern biographers do. You should know it from lives of the 12 Caesars. 116 000 words in Penguin Classics, take away the introductions and text critical apparatus and notes, that's a bit like Tolkien's biography by Carpenter. Then divide that by 12.

"Ok, but a), there was no discussion of this whatsoever,"

What would have been the most tactical thing to do?

"and b) he studied the chronicles that had been written by others over the years, including contemporaries at the time of the execution."

Closest contemporary would have been Velleius Paterculus, who finished in AD 30.

"Surely if something "interesting" had been found, he would've written about it. But nothing."

Why supposed that in a totalitarian and anti-Christian environment?

Why suppose he would have understood it, if the reference in Claudius' life is garbled?

"One passage in the biography of the Emperor Claudius Divus Claudius 25, refers to agitations in the Roman Jewish community and the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius during his reign (AD 41 to AD 54), which may be the expulsion mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2). In this context "Chresto" is mentioned. Some scholars see this as a likely reference to Jesus, while others see it as referring to an otherwise unknown person living in Rome."

Or if he showed bias against Christians, see life of Nero?

"During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians,[14] a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city."

So, now for you.

"And you actually believe this? Come on, you know this is just a story."

I actually do not.

"[...], you just keep saying these things w/o evidence."

Tacitus had access to eyewitness evidence or purported such.

"You make the same mistake all apologists do, you presuppose the truth, and then you go into contortions to try and "prove" it."

Explaining and proving are two opposite intellectual operations.

"I know the boss is in, because his hat is on the table" (proof)
"That hat is on the table, because the boss arrived" (explanation)

So, I didn't try to prove it, as we agree the evidence is Tacitus, I was explaining, given what I foresaw about your probable objections.

"But let's face it, given the scarcity of evidence, it's just not possible to prove the outlandish assertions of christian mythology."

I do not know why scarcity should affect anything. You have just as scarce or rather scarcer evidence of Caesar conquering Gaul.

Hongo Tedesco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "The Gospels are within decades from the events, the Coran several centuries away."

What does that have to do with anything? The appearance of Gabriel to Muhammad is described in the Koran, and it was written pretty much right after Muhammad died. And 20 years later, when many versions were starting to pop up, one guy said "ok, this is going to be the definitive version", and it's been like that since. Much better pedigree than the gospels.

The gospels are several decades away, nobody knows who wrote them, and scholars agree that none were eyewitnesses. Then you have the 3 synoptic gospels that are all related. Nobody knows if there was a predecessor from which the 3 descend, or if one was written, and the other 2 descended from that. Plenty of room for invention, change, etc.

And I have no idea why you're going on re: word count.

And re: scarcity, you miss a very important point. Caesar conquering Gaul is something that happens. X conquering Y has happened throughout history. But, we don't have resurrections every day, nor virgin births. So for extraordinary claims like this, you need something better than the gospels.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hongo Tedesco "What does that have to do with anything? The appearance of Gabriel to Muhammad is described in the Koran, and it was written pretty much right after Muhammad died."

Not really. It was redacted orally, Sura by Sura, each Sura even Aya by Aya, while he lived and a certain Abu Bakr and a certain Uthman started and completed the process of canonisation.

"Much better pedigree than the gospels."

For the text as such, pretty equal.

"The gospels are several decades away, nobody knows who wrote them, and scholars agree that none were eyewitnesses."

Anti-Christian and Pseudo-Christian scholars agree on that.

"Then you have the 3 synoptic gospels that are all related. Nobody knows if there was a predecessor from which the 3 descend, or if one was written, and the other 2 descended from that. Plenty of room for invention, change, etc."

Matthew wrote first.
Luke investigated among scraps and items already written - not singling out Matthew's Gospel - and made his own.
Mark took notes as St. Peter read Matthew and Luke side by side, marvelling at their coherence and adding a few remarks of his own.
John (either son of Zebedee, one of the twelve, or a Cohen, a lesser disciple, still the beloved disciple) wrote last.

We have about as good evidence for this sequence as we have for the procedure around the Qoran. The great difference is, the Qoran is itself the preaching of their Mohammed, and separate from lives of Mohammed. The Gospels are not limited to the words of Jesus, and they are precisely biographies of Him. That's why they were written after His death and Resurrection.

Now, one more point. Or even two.

The appearance of Jibreel is not confirmed as sent by God, by Mohammed making any miracles. The appearance of Gabriel is confirmed as sent by God by all the miracles Christ wrought after this happened.

For historic knowledge of Jesus, Gospellers were lots better placed than the human author of Sura 5/

"And I have no idea why you're going on re: word count."

Because, modern biographies being wordier, they have more room for filler material. Modern biographies being about people who settle down and enjoy life for decades, that means childhoods are more interesting (as CSL remarked in his own autobiography). The Gospels had less room for filler material and are about a person who grows more dramatic as He grows up, not less.

"And re: scarcity, you miss a very important point. Caesar conquering Gaul is something that happens. X conquering Y has happened throughout history."

The specific conquest of Gaul (North of Provincia Narbonensis) by Caesar is not something that happens throughout history. It's a unique event.

"But, we don't have resurrections every day, nor virgin births."

So, they are unique events.

"So for extraordinary claims like this, you need something better than the gospels."

For unique events of the past, I need evidence like the one usually provided for unique events of the past. And for unique events 2000 years ago, that means scarce.

1:01:59 Bill Nye finds the resemblance of an "Amish workshop where people eschew modern technology" troubling?

Seriously.

The differences between 17th or 18th C. technology which is what the Amish use, and modern technology is not huge when it comes to basic useful things, and the differences are partly in favour of the Amish. Eschew the tractor = more people work at growing same amount of wheat (or maize or potatoes or ...) = less unemployment.

The thing I might miss, technologically, if I went to the Amish, would be the internet. Other aspects of culture and of the Catholic faith too, but technologically, that's about it.

1:02:40 "think of all the things you could do, all the help you could provide"

I think Judas Ischariot said the same thing about spending luxuries on God in the Flesh.

I thought I didn't like Bill Nye before, but in certain ways, he's becoming creepier and less likeable by the minute, as I watch this!

1:05:13 Bill Nye doesn't pretend to be a Christian. His "fun fact" which is not in the least proven at least openly admits there is a contradiction between what he considers "science says" and what Christ said in Mark 10:6.

Hongo Tedesco

Just to be clear, Bill is trying to explain the science that we know. It doesn't matter what the bible says, or anybody else says, or any other religious book says. What matters is the evidence, and what science has discovered.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Hongo Tedesco I dispute that being "science that we know" - I also dispute Biblical (or other) history not mattering for knowledge about the past.

Just to be clear, my point was directed at "Christians" who pretend what you call "die Wissenschaft" .... supposing you really are a Tedesco ... is hard knowledge.

David that other guy

@Hongo Tedesco The evidence that we know of is...