Has @BillNye seen @aigKenHam's Scientific Evidence that #Confirm's The Bible? @AIG @BillNyeSaves #Confirm #Confirmation #Confirming

---

Subscribe FREE to be notified when I add strength to the foundations here.

---

---

Maybe you've heard about the big debate between famous creationist Ken Ham and famous "science-guy" Bill Nye (if not, The Young Turks summarize it for us here).

Their conclusions (Ham's & Nye's ... which TYT and I see from the answer to 'one crucial question' (at about 3:40 in the TYT-video)) is that Ken Ham absolutely will not change his mind–no matter how much evidence-against-The-Bible people find–and Bill Nye will change his mind when he sees evidence of The Bible's truth.

Ken Ham–in the video below–presents a lot (if not all) of the evidence he's found that confirms his belief.—Confirm ... 'That word' is built on an even-deeper source ... something crucial that firms the foundation upon which the our lexicon stands ...

---

The word “Confirm” is built on “Together (or maybe that's just the intensive prefix Con-) + Strong, Steadfast (to Hold Firmly, Support)” (make Certain or Sure, give an Assurance of Truth, Verify).

---

I'm seeing the problem ... Ken Ham is not looking to disprove The Bible, but he's looking to confirm 'what it already knows.' That may be "proof," but it's not scientific because Scientific Proof is found by trying to disprove.

Bill Nye would probably respond (if he hasn't already) by 1) using my explanation above (briefly, that Ham's evidence is 'belief'-evidence and not 'Science'-evidence), and 2) proposing equally-believable explanations for all the "evidence" Ken Ham describes ...

Or maybe I'm looking at it wrong—that's one reason
 Our Father God said "It is not good for the man to be
 alone":  "Because the man'll think he's right until someone else shows

 him why he's not"—Won't you show me
 if I'm right-or-wrong in the comments below?