Refuting Ken Ham

• Ham opened his debate with Bill Nye by saying that science was historical and observational. Makes some sense, but he fails to mention that the two fields help each other.He then states that evolution has nothing to do with technology. Assuming technology is the whole point of science! Many other provable scientific truths have nothing to do with technology. They are still science. For example, little technology has come from the Big Bang Theory. He continues by saying historical science is based on the Bible. In reality, historians and paleontologists don't randomly believe whatever scriptures they pick up, though; they try do distinguish between mythology, fiction, and nonfiction. He stated that science textbooks outlaw the supernatural - they do not outlaw the supernatural, they outlaw belief in the supernatural on the basis of a book that it is unknown whether it is mythology or fiction. (Funnily enough, this slide calls naturalism a religion- as Maher said, it's only a religion like abstinence is a sex position). He follows with a slippery slope fallacy: death vs. afterlife.
• Ham's second argument shows creationists that are scientists on the Answers in Genesis team. Do not be persuaded- these represent a small slice of the scientific community, which is 98% evolutionist. He also says something like "Where'd the laws of logic come from?" In reality, logic is an artificial representation of the universe. He repeats the argument "You don't observe the past directly" but fails to mention that there is paleontological AND logical evidence for evolution. He talks about how nonobservational science doesn't show dates, and when he mentions the common method of radiometric dating and light years to find those dates, he forgets that half-life is measurable. (By the way... both radiometric dating and light years have shown times greater than 6,000 years - the period of Biblical creationism). Ham says that creationists and evolutionists use the same evidence - they don't. Creationists use an old book and explain how the evidence available doesn't contradict it, and evolutionists use the evidence and take it where it leads. I don't know of a single athiest biologist who converted because of their study. He again says creationism involves both historical and observational science. What observational science is there in favor of creationism that was not done by creation scientists? Ham elaborates on Comfort's argument for a change of kind by stating that families are kinds. In reality, "families" of animals are artificial. Then he lays out evidence of a "single origin" for dogs. Let me ask Ken: why are dogs so genetically and phisically similar to wolves? Same with any animal. He also repeats the Ray Comfort argument of "I can't observe it," which treats paleontology as unscientific. He attacks evolution as racist, showing early 20th century textbooks, saying there is one race of humanity. He makes a proper case for it, but again, fails to mention that Homo Sapiens has been on the planet for only a few tens of thousands of years and has recently managed to slow survival of the fittest. He CONTINUES afterwards to dispute that measuring time is invalid without talking about lightyears. Yet again, Ken Ham tries to distinguish historical and observational science, and continues the crime of being completely unable to mention how science measures time. He calls secularism a religion(which it is, like not collecting stamps is a hobby). He guilt-trips us with the idea of social Darwinism as many Christains do(nobody's a social Darwinist, they just know the fact that morals aren't objective).
• In Ham's first rebuttal argument during his debate with Nye, he begins by saying that radiometric dating is inaccurate. This assumes that only carbon is used in this dating, but tons of isotopes have been used in reality. He continues to attack radiocarbon dating by stating its assumptions. He argues that the Bible contradicts billions of years(can't dispute that)