I have to say, I am disappointed that Bill only alluded to, but didn't directly ask, the one question similar to what Ken actually asked himself at the 2:37:00-ish mark. Ken's question to himself?
If this book is true, and the words in it are true, then what about the rest of the book?The question Bill should have responded with was "What about all the other books that describe creation and similar stories like the Flood?" Otherwise, the debate itself was as I expected: an effort in futility.
Ken declared that nothing could change his mind. Why? According to his methods of experimentation, no evidence could possibly exist that was collected in an acceptable manner that could disprove the word of God. It seems he has explained himself into a corner that requires first-hand accounts to be true, or it's invalid proof.
The problem I inherently have with the "Young Earth Creationists" is that their entire view of creation is based solely on semantics (as Ken displayed for the entire duration of the debate) and that its basis is on one faith-based self-authority - an authority that, itself, asks you to take it on faith, not fact.
The idea that a proposed answer to a question ("How was the earth created?") has to be accepted by text written by an author, who was given the authority to write the words, but who also writes about how he was given the authority, and all of this must be accepted as true, without evidence, but by faith. This idea is the fundamental flaw in the whole model.
As a Christian in my earlier years, I had no problem reconciling Genesis as a book describing Moses saying "Look, God made all the stuff, bam bam bam...it's not important. What is important is your lineage, people of Israel." To me, that was an acceptable reconciliation of the summarized text of the Bible with the reality of the world. This was especially the case when I would have to randomly field questions about other parts of the Bible and whether they were to be taken "literally or figuratively:" if the author didn't go into detail about it, it is not pertinent to the message the author was trying to convey.
However, when someone discredits the mathematics of plate tectonics because no one was there to see how fast they originally moved, then turns around and takes literally an account of creation that bases their beliefs about the natural world on stories told by a person, who also wasn't there, it calls into question how valid Genesis is as a proof.
Well, to solve this issue, it's traditionally believed that all of the teachings found in the Torah were given to Moses by God, some at Mt. Sinai, and some in the tabernacle. Awesome.
So we have the "believed" direct word of God, given to Moses, and assembled into the first 5 books of the Old Testament. The Old Testament was then taken, along with some other writings (but not all of them) and assembled into The Bible by the First Church of Nicaea, and translated hundreds of times over hundreds of years since the printing press, giving foundation to an alternate view of real world science.
How inaccurate could it possibly be as a scientific document?
Ken's model of trusting what is written in one of hundreds of time-altered religious texts, based solely on the proclamation of belief in Jesus Christ as his savior, is not enough evidence to contradict the evidence he himself could acquire simply by performing the tests and understanding the mathematics, chemistry and physics he is trying to disprove using the lineage story of a middle-eastern family, written thousands of years ago, and translated hundreds of times.
Young Earth Creationists are welcome to believe all the nonsense they want, but teach the nonsense to your kids at home - don't try to get the story told by one religious text put into a classroom and subject young minds to the idea that everything can be explained by simply saying "Because God made it that way."
Religion is a faith-based lifestyle choice, not a fact. If it were a fact, it would not be faith, and would therefore not be religion. This sentence was brought to you by science, a derivative of logic.