"it is a consequence of evolutionary indoctrination which stifles scientific inquiry. After all, creation has not been taught in public schools for decades. "
Nice try (that's a lie) but creationism does not spur discovery. You cannot encourage thought and discovery with a system which claims to already have all the answers. Nay, these things challenge the myth which, being supposedly revealed by god, is supposed to be beyond question or correction. Furthermore, public schools teach only that for which there is evidence. Until you can produce such evidence -- and "well if you ignore this mountain of established contradictory evidence and scientific theory... and turn your head a little like this... and, er, exercise a bit of faith" is not evidence -- you will not be spreading your mental parasite to the school system.
"Lured? It was Bill Nye who attacked creationists for teaching kids the truth about history"
Which truth, exactly? I'm not even going to bother pointing out the innumerable religions older than your own. I'd just like to know which Christian truth you mean. The freaking Bible, itself can't even decide what its story is. Mere paragraphs in it begins contradicting its own account.
"He used slide after slide covering many different topics"
Yeah, the whole of life's history is somewhat complicated like that.
"to try to intimidate people into believing his worldview"
Two points:
-Demonstrating superior knowledge of the topic being discussed is not an "intimidation tactic".
-THAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF A DEBATE!
"in order to explain the various evidences he brought up with very little detail"
The fact that you failed to understand most of it does not mean it wasn't detailed.
"and when refuted,"
"Nuh uh! Bible!" is not a refutation. Funny how you don't call Kenny-boy on using it like a music player set to "repeat 1", by the way. It's almost like your real issue isn't with the repeating of points but rather with the repeating of sound points that contradict your assertions. Hmm...
"he brought it up again anyway!"
I'm sure he did. Probably said it slower, too. Poor guy was probably hoping that you'd simply misheard him. No one really wants to believe that their fellow man is so intellectually stunted as to be incapable of grasping such simple concepts.
"Perhaps this is so people could not even begin to understand the underlying assumptions inherent in his arguments."
Repeating his points was a devious attempt to obscure his points? ... were you born this stupid or did your parents have to sign you up for special classes to make you the person you are today?
"Although Bill Nye wanted to destroy Ken Ham, Mr. Ham wasn’t out to destroy him."
It's always good to have some concept of your limitations.
"Ken Ham wanted to faithfully respond to the agreed-upon debate question"
He did? Could have fooled me...
"and graciously but firmly challenge Mr. Nye and all those watching"
PFfffttt! Sure. His well-reasoned arguments and adherence to the- I'm sorry, but I can't seem to force my fingers to continue that sentence. It's almost as if they're rebelling. Even my bones and muscles have sapience enough to take offense at the very notion of typing such.
"concerning the nature of the origins debateone of a worldview conflict because of differing starting points for those worldviews"
Translation: Kenny-boy couldn't actually challenge the known facts and evidence and thus tried to shift the topic to philosophy, where he then proceeded to fail anyway.
"Mr. Ham also unashamedly proclaimed the gospel as he wanted to win Mr. Nye and any skeptic watching over to the truth of God’s Word and the saving gospel message. "
He should have kept it to himself. When you've got more egg on your face than a professional egg-headbutter working overtime is not the ideal moment to try to convince someone to switch over to your side. Especially when their whole reason for being there in the first place is to argue against your position.
"Interestingly, Bill Nye still hasn’t addressed this issue of the existence of logic. "
Funny. I was thinking much the same with regard to Ken...
"This was brought up by Ken Ham several times. Logic is a biblical concept and makes no sense in Bill Nye’s religion."
No the fuck it isn't, either, you lying little god-whore! The Bible SPECIFICALLY orders you to give up knowledge and reason and substitute blind faith in their place or face eternal torture! And Bill Nye is an atheist, dumbass -- no religion. And if you call evolution theory a religion I will find you and I will beat you within an inch of your life with a sock full of pennies.
"Bill Nye’s humanistic worldview is materialistic in its outlook."
You mean like logic is, dipshit? Funny, that.
"So immaterial things like logic can’t exist in his religious perspective."
Really? Well spiritualism in immaterial in its outlook. So THE UNIVERSE can't exist in your perspective. You may have noticed that this argument is pants-on-head stupid. There's a reason for that. I'll invite you to draw your own conclusions from this. No doubt I'll then have to correct your dumbfuck conclusions but if you're never pushed you'll never learn. I could go on to explain precisely why you're wrong but something tells me you'll have your hands full trying to puzzle out my previous point.
Oh, and for that last bit I'm now filling the sock. Fair warning.
-----
In conclusion: If you're going to try to defend your idiot idol and poster-boy for planned parenthood then at least take a few minutes to find someone more intelligent than yourself and ask them to help you. Like, say, some scrapings from the bottom of the nearest pond. Or perhaps a bit of spoiled chicken.