ZoNation: Zo’s Take On the Nye-Ham Debate


Zo weighs in on, and takes issue with, the notion that Christians are anti science and technology. Acknowledging God as being responsible for the orchestration of the universe doesn’t void us of the curiosity of how His orchestrations work. And to make such discoveries takes advancement in technology. Technology and innovations help us to better serve one another sometimes too. So being a Bible believer, doesn’t equal a science and technology rejecter.

Thanks for watching my vids! If you like the message in them then You’ll have a BLAST nukin’ the liberal Narrative with my audio book of Christian Conservalicious profundus, written and read by Me! WEAPON OF A.S.S. DESTRUCTION! CLICK HERE OR IMAGE AND CHECK OUT SOME REVIEWS, AND GET YOUR COPY!!!


  • Emmanuel Mateo-Morales

    So Zo, I’m assuming you have heard of the sub-camps of young earth and old-earth creationists within creationism then?

  • I study Astronomy a lot and I do not see how anyone can look up at the universe being made perfect in every way and say that is proof that their is no God. I seems counter logical to me.

  • The next video you should do is on how the left are acting like Marie Antoinette every time they talk about Obamacare. As someone who has no job and been looking for almost a year it sort of makes a guy a little angry.

  • Michael Bowen

    Mr. Rachel it would be nice if you ran for Congress or the Senate ,that would make you the smartest person in ether house .an would get my vote . good common sense and faith are in very short supply every where

  • Gary

    There’s a documentary on Netflix called ‘God of Wonders.’ I advise anyone questioning God to watch it.

  • John Julian

    Yea, man! THANK YOU for this! You definitely rock, musically and apologetically. 🙂
    If you’re ever in Dallas-Ft. Worth, I’ll buy you a HUGE honkin’ steak, dude. Seriously!

  • Sunshine Kid

    More than 2,000 years ago, men, without telescopes or knowledge of the universe, accurately described what scientists have recently proved: The “big bang theory”. How could nomads and sheepherders describe so accurately an event in the very first pages of the Bible unless they were given the information? And the information makes logical sense, if you think about it: Darkness first, an explosion – nothing but light because of all the stellar heat and gases, a cooling and forming of planets and stars that results in dividing day and night – and all that told in the first pages of a book written before books could be published except by HAND or WORD OF MOUTH?

    And scientists debunk the Bible! I think they should rethink their ability to reason.

  • Bryan Lyman

    I grew up watching Bill Nye, he inspired me to become a scientist, he made science exciting, practical. So I can give him credit for that, however, I have been very disappointed in his recent unethical behavior. I say unethical because a real scientist follows the scientific method, which is the method of disproving theories in order to come closer to an understanding of the truth. Even with Ken Ham he said that his ideas were “dangerous” and that you shouldn’t listen to him. That is not science, that is atheism and suppression of ideas. A TRUE scientist would say, “I don’t believe your theory to be true because of [such and such] evidence.” and then refining both theories by eliminating impossibilities. But what Bill is doing is shaming and discrediting someone who he doesn’t agree with. A wise scientist once said, “The true scientific method is to prove yourself wrong, so that you can continually improve; not attempting to prove yourself correct and standing still because you think you already have all the answers.”

    Both Ken and Bill have theories, they would both be incredibly arrogant and wrong to suppose that they are both 100% proof positive correct about their ideas and that they can’t budge on any of those guesses. Bill seems to be stuck on the idea that the foundations of evidence he has based his theories on cannot be false in any way, in other words, he is trying to prove himself right. Ken ham seemed to be saying, “look, I don’t have all the answers, but you don’t either, and other men smarter than you believe in God, so their theories are just as valid as yours.”

    The thing is I believe like you ZO, that the earth cannot be merely 6000 years old, and that death and sin existed before Adam and Eve. So while I liked a lot of Ken Ham’s theories, I don’t agree with him on the “young Earth” theory. I like a lot of Bill Nye’s theories too. But that is all they are: theory, not FACT.

    As far as my own theories go, I believe the earth was created in six days, but I am not sure how long one of God’s “days” is. As is stated in the Bible:
    “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” — Psalms 90:4
    “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” — 2 Peter 3:8

    • We know that “in the beginning” God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1). When exactly was this beginning? I don’t think anybody in this earthly realm knows for sure–not even scientists–but the earth most certainly is NOT 6,000 years old.

      According to the very next verse–Genesis 1:2)–“And the earth was without form and void (empty) and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”.

      There is a gap between verses 1 and 2. We can infer from the text that some time went by where a monumental event took place. Two reasons why:

      1. God is Light. In Him there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5). We know our God is a God of order, so why would Scripture describe God’s creation as desolate and empty, covered in darkness and all underwater? Either this is a contradiction (perish the thought) or there is a misunderstanding somewhere.

      2. The Hebrew word for “was” in Genesis 1:2 is hayah, which means “became”. It is not a static verb and actually denotes becoming, emerging as such, coming into being, etc. So Genesis 1:2 should read “And the earth BECAME without form and void…”

      Basically what happened was, God originally created a perfect, flawless earth that was inhabited by humanoid, Pre-Adamic beings. Some time between verses 1 and two of Genesis, the Satanic rebellion took place. Whatever these things were–some believe them to be the Neanderthals–got swept up in the rebellion and allied themselves with Satan.

      This prompted God to punish them with the first flood (Isaiah 14:12-17, 20), hence which is why up until verse 9 of Genesis, the earth is covered in water. Some also believe that the disembodied spirits of these Pre-Adamic humanoids are the demons that now roam the earth.

      What comes next is the RE-CREATION of earth detailed throughout the rest of Genesis.

      Although I’m personally convinced by all of the above, it’s OK by me if anybody differs on this. It’s not essential to salvation.

      Hopefully, we’ll find out the truth soon enough.

  • Bryan Lyman

    Another thing that atheists try to ignore about the bible and can’t is, prophecy. A single prediction coming true could be dismissed scientifically as chance or coincidence; however, even if you are not a biblical scholar it is easy to see that predictions told to the prophets by God have not only come to pass from the old testament, but from the new testament as well; and not only have some of them come true, every single one of them in their time frame specified has come true. This can not be coincidence.

    I have been told by unbelievers, “You only think that prophecy has come true because you are fitting circumstances into what you interpret to be fulfillment of those events.” To which I simply answer. There is no getting around the prophecies of Isaiah. He is considered even by the jews to be one of the greatest prophets. He prophesied of the birth of Christ 700 years or so before he was even born. Which makes you wonder why the Jews never accepted Jesus as the messiah considering Isaiah (being a great jewish prophet) said it…oh wait, Isaiah prophesied that would happen too. Ignore prophesy at you own peril.

  • Jeff Brodhead

    Yes Alfonzo, we can accept that God created all that is created and we can also leave it at that, if we so choose..

    People, like Bill Nye, will drive themselves into the gates of Hell, in search of knowing ALL there is to know, without knowing the most important thing we can – the only thing which truly matters.

    I used to watch every “science” program on public TV, but then I turned around and found Christ waiting patiently for me. Soon I realized that I don’t need to know everything, as my God has that covered!

    • Jeff Brodhead

      In other words, compared to God, I ain’t all that; not even the “bag of chips”, BUT STILL He paid the price of my sin!

  • Beau

    Jeff B.
    I’d like to clarify one point – When I read your comments it appeared to me like you were saying you didn’t need to seek knowledge anymore because you had found God. At least, that’s the implication I took away from the way it was written. If that’s true or not:

    That said, there are countless Bible verses that state we should seek knowledge, to come to know God better. If God is the creator of this great universe we live in, doesn’t it then follow that we should come to know him through understanding it more?
    As a patron tries to gain insight from the author or artist of a book or a painting, do we not also seek to gain insight of God through the sciences?

    Science is merely a tool through which we try to gain further understanding of the universe and thus God as well.

    My point of clarification is this – we should always seek knowledge, be it spiritual or scientific in nature. To stop seeking knowledge is to remain ignorant and stagnant, which scripture also states is wrong.

    • Bryan Lyman

      I totally agree with you Beau, but Jeff also makes a good point. I have seen some theologians so stuck on exploring deep mysteries that they forget the simple parts of the gospel. I think what I am trying to say is seek to learn things from God and the spirit, do not try and counsel God on how he should do things differently if you were him. I have seen people become atheist simply because they are stuck on an idea that they have no answer for, while every other thing they have learned is thrown out the window because they think God would never be so cruel as to withhold the answer from them so there must be no God. Silly really, but it happens.

    • Jeff Brodhead

      Bryan, You “totally agree” with Beau, but I cannot “totally agree” with Beau, therefore I cannot “totally agree” with you. Sorry.

    • Bryan Lyman

      Sorry, I should have been more specific, I totally agree that we should seek knowledge because God told us to.

    • Jeff Brodhead

      Bryan,

      1) Eve deemed it wise to seek knowledge of God and Adam followed suit. See where that got us… (and I am not promoting ignorance, only that we should be careful of the why. If we seek to know how things work in God’s universe, so that we can make the lives of mankind better, ok. If we seek to follow those who built the tower, not so much.)

      2) Try 1 Corinthians 1:18-31.

      Solomon found misery in knowing too much of the world.

      To know God’s creation does not mean we know God. It only means we know God’s creation. We are God’s creation and when we try to know God by His creation, we only try to define God by our limited understanding.

      If you design a radio and I study every detail of that radio, will I know you? NO!

      If you speak into a microphone, broadcasting to the radio and I listen to you tell me all about yourself, I might come closer to knowing who you are, but that assumes a lot, still.

      If I were a microbe in the soil, next to the radio and I listened for a googleplex of years, I would not truly understand you.

    • Jeff Brodhead

      Beau, I am not driven to understand EVERYTHING. Seeking knowledge is not the same as (rabidly) making knowledge our “god”. People become infinitely full of the theories of everything, but remain damned. Bill Nye told us that he has to know everything. WHY? He is not seeking after God, but to prove there is no God. God will allow him to chase that until he dies.

      But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.[Matthew 6:33, KJV] && [Luke 12:31, KJV]

      For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
      [Mark 8:36, KJV]

      Seeking the knowledge of God… does that mean we must know about quarks and make a count of the galaxies? I don’t think so.

      You wrote:
      ~~~~~
      “Science is merely a tool through which we try to gain further understanding of the universe and thus God as well.”

      “My point of clarification is this – we should always seek knowledge, be it spiritual or scientific in nature. To stop seeking knowledge is to remain ignorant and stagnant, which scripture also states is wrong.”
      ~~~~~

      I disagree:
      1) You seem to need to search outside God’s Word for an understanding of God, but “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”[Heb 11:1, KJV] AND “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” [Romans 10:17, KJV]

      2) From WHERE do you get this “always seek knowledge of a scientific nature”?

      3) What is your definition of “scientific nature”?

      4) I do not need to be a sponge for the theories of man, else become ignorant and stagnant. SPONGES become stagnant and moldy, when all they do is absorb the world around them.

  • David Molinarolo

    The Ancient Alien theory is that Noah’s Ark was actually an Alien DNA bank on a spacecraft, and not a boat with actual living animals.at all. Which makes quite a bit of sense that if God closed the door behind Noah, it could essentially mean that Noah was brought aboard this ship and an automatic door closed behind him.

    Look, I’m a Catholic, and a conservative one at that, but the more I hear about ancient alien theory concerning Biblical events, extraterrestrial explanations make just as much sense as the spiritual ones

    • Bryan Lyman

      I have heard this theory, I don’t agree with it, but I think it is interesting to discuss. Zo brings up a good point, that if god is all powerful, why didn’t he just tell Noah to prepare to be beamed aboard the mother ship and then God could have just beamed all the animals he wanted to survive up to the ship himself. Or why didn’t he just put a water proof shield around everything he wanted to protect and everything else not? That is a deeper subject, but the short answer I believe is that God works through man and the natural laws that he created. He has to abide by his own laws or else he would cease to be God. In short, if you think the ark was a spacecraft, you would have to discount the fact that he floated on the waves, opened the doors occasionally to see if it had stopped raining and released birds to see if they had found dry land; I am not sure I could call all of those events symbolic, and then state everything else written around that was literal. Interesting thoughts though.

  • Pat Brothers

    So an alien closing the door behind Noah makes more sense than God closing the door behind Noah? In the bible God says he closed the door. What alien is saying it did? Where is this found? If aliens did the boat thing, then who did the creation thing? Did the aliens create man? or the heavens and earth? If what you say is true… Then logically God did not tell Noah to build an arc, neither did he build one.. and if this be the case, then there surly was no flood! Therefore your faith and catholosism is a farce! And God is not an automatic door!!!

    • RancidCheese

      The question really is:
      Why can’t God be “an alien”?
      What is the quote?
      “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” — Clarke’s 3rd law. (Arthur C. Clarke)
      The creation of the earth, the creation of man… why do we think “only we have the answers” when it could very well be that “an alien” did all those things…
      Wouldn’t we, as “primitives” (as we have in the past) attribute to God, god, or gods what could be easily explained by “moderns” as “science”?
      Ever watch “the gods must be crazy”?

      So in that view, SCIENCE, who is spending its time looking for ALIENS is really no different than RELIGION, who is spending its time looking for GOD.

      Right?

  • wordthief

    Excellent work, Zo. I have never heard anyone assert that it’s simply possible The Lord helped Noah. It reminds me of the Keith Green song, also somewhat about Noah, “He’ll take care of the rest” – “just keep doing your best and pray that it’s blessed, He’ll take care of the rest”. I don’t necessarily lean toward this theory but it is a distinct possibility.

    If anyone is not familiar with the theological positions supported in Zo’s statements and supportive scriptures, there are many resources for it – my favorite is here:
    http://nogreaterjoy.org/letters/gap-answered/

  • Rebecca

    What always throws me is an atheist gets all confrontational with the “the you have no proof” line. Then quotes scientific findings as proof like God is stupid and didn’t use any science in creation because man discovered science. Ha! Also it would take a good deal more faith to believe it all happened by accident for me to believe that. I think you would have done a better job debating the the fool on the subject. Blessings to you and your family.

  • ByGoneGirl

    The idea that creationism can hold
    science back is entirely unfounded. Earth has been dominated by various
    faiths as long as written history. The US in particular, which he points
    out to be the leader in advancements, has historically had a 90% or
    better Judeo-Christian rooted population. Israel, tho small is also a leader in research as
    well. So faith hasn’t hurt science at all.

    Creationism
    wasn’t taught in any school that I or my kids ever went to, but
    evolution has. That’s fine with me, as a theory, no matter how strong. The theory has only GAINED steam in a religion dominated world, so it clearly isn’t hindered by religion. No matter what they say, it’s still not an absolute and cannot be
    taught as fact. It is a belief without proof validated not by science but the people who support it.

    Presenting something as an absolute fact will do more to harm
    science than anything else could. It dead-ends it. It prevents free
    thinking because people aren’t likely to challenge facts. 1+1, the sun gives heat, we breath oxygen. Anyone still looking into that?

    If it’s a
    theory, people will continue to research which will lead to more
    discoveries. Fact, means “we’re done here” and is by far the greater
    injustice IMO.

    • MrE03

      Never heard of the Dark Ages, huh? And no scientist don’t stop looking or testing. With faith there is no point in looking for answers.

  • Tony Yankalunas

    I’ll give Nye his Big Bang theory as long as he can answer one question. Who lit the fuse?

  • AlwaysRight

    Seculars must be very empty inside.

  • Jonathan Brown

    Crom is my God, he is strong in his mountain. He laughs at your four winds, he laughs from his mountain!

    • Kellymatthew Barnes

      BWA HA#W HAW HAW HAW HAW hAw!

  • Eden Hoffmeister

    I have listened to you for quite a while now but have never felt the need to write until now. I just wanted to say thank you for your delivery. I watched the debate and have seen many critiques that have all been disappointing. Everyone is now an authority on Creationism and has issues with what Mr. Ham debated. It is a great starting point no matter how we all feel about what was said or how in depth it became. I believe you delivered your points without demeaning Mr. Ham when at least he had the courage to stand up for what he believes. Thanks for your point of view, I enjoy it!

  • wlthomas67

    Science is constantly changing because new evidence is found and scientists change what they believe based on the evidence presented. To claim that something is correct because it is “constant” or unchanging is to ignore any evidence that contradicts ones beliefs. Admitting that one does not know, but is searching for an answer is far better than saying “Because god did it.” and for the record I am not an atheist.

  • Antny

    It clearly states sin entered the world through one man, and death came in AFTER sin.—– Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    Also, Jesus believed in a young universe. — Mark 10:5-6 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. — This clearly states humans were created in the beginning of the universe.—- John 5:45-47 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? —-Here Jesus endorses what Moses wrote.—- Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. —-Here Moses clearly wrote that God created the universe in six days. —- Add to this the genealogies, and we have a universe that was created about siz thousand years ago.

    Sorry Zo, but either the bible is wrong, or you are wrong. Seeing as how the bible has a perfect track record, I am going to have to side with the bible. And there is plenty of evidence in the natural world that agrees with this. Choosing to interpret it in a manner that fits a naturalistic world view is a choice, not a fact.

    • Jeremy

      “There is plenty of evidence in the natural world that agrees with this.” Please name a single piece of evidence in the natural world that points to an earth that is 6,000 years old.

    • Keith Wetzel

      The salt content of the oceans are more consistent with a young Earth than old, there have been radiometric test done on rocks samples formed from Mt St Helen’s and other Volcanoes where we know when they happen, that give incorrrect ages ranging from thousands to millions of years old. So if we can’t trust the age it gives form rocks we do know the ages of , how can we trust it to give correct ages fro those we don’t?

    • RancidCheese

      “Young” is a relative, subjective term.
      With an Eternal Being, “young” could be 1,000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years or MILLIONS of years. What is time to God?
      Also, why would we assume that God, in Mark, would be talking about “creation” as a whole instead of “creation” as in “this creation” or the “creation of man” on this earth?
      The Greek word here is
      κτίσις,n {ktis’-is}
      1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc 1a) the act of creating, creation 1b) creation i.e. thing created 1b1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation 1b1a) anything created 1b1b) after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called) 1b1c) the sum or aggregate of things created 1c) institution, ordinance

      It could be interpreted in a much smaller view than what you and others assume.

      In the old testament, the usage of the English word “day” is not the Hebrew word, which is being used more as a “period of time”… so the Earth was actually created in 6 “periods of time”, maybe not what we view as an actual “day”.
      Why do I say this? Because in the creationary periods, the Sun isn’t even created until day 4, but on day 1 God separates the Light from the Darkness and calls the “light” “day” and the “darkness” “night”.
      We know several things about God (and Jesus, His Son), that they are “light” and they dismiss the “darkness” — in simple terms, “Good” and “Evil”.
      We also know that God, himself, did not write Genesis, but that it was written long after the actual creation by Moses.
      Moses and the followers of God understand “day” and “night”, “light” and “dark” and can relate those to “time”. Remember, for the Jews, the new “day”, biblically, starts at sundown, not at sunrise, or at some point in the middle…
      This lends to the understanding that the Hebrew “yom”, or “day”, as used in the creation story, is FIGURATIVE, not Literal (or the first 3 “days” couldn’t have happened as the sun was created on the 4th day)…

      What we understand from this is that it really doesn’t matter HOW LONG it took to create the earth. For God is Eternal and is not encumbered by our reckoning of time. For an ETERNAL being, 24 hours would be “nothing”, literally. So there is no reasonable expectation that the earth was created in “6 days” by our reckoning of time, but by some other measurement… maybe by the “light” and “dark” periods that existed BEFORE the sun was created… or the ones that God might measure HIS time by…
      What does matter is that the earth was created by God. That he created it in 6 steps. And each step is significant. And that he created Man.

      Also of note, both the word used to denote the “creation” of the earth and the “creation” of man actually should be translated as “formed” as they are in Greek.
      God didn’t “make the earth out of nothing” but used pre-existing materials to “form” the earth, like he did with man by forming man out of the earth… and forming woman out of the man.

    • Keith Wetzel

      If you read the text, it goes “evening and then there was morning, the first day” …”evening and then was morning, the second day” and so forth for the six days, how else can you read that as 6 literal 24hr days? Or another way to ask, is at point in Genesis does Day/Yom mean a 24hr day?

  • Feromancer

    Zo, I’m just curious, but what religion are you.
    I belong to what many Christians consider a Heretical Faith…
    I found, however, that you have some similar views to what I do as it pertains to Science and Religion.
    Keep up the good work!

  • ERB

    I do have a problem with science, and technology, no offense ZO I do enjoy your videos, but it has clearly been the biggest down fall of the Christians. TV, PC, cell phones, and other devices have become the instrument of sin, number one porn, our young are spread themselves across the internet in very self destructive compromising photos, showing a total lack of self worth and moral value. The web has replaced the pews.

  • Kellymatthew Barnes

    Doctor Hugh Ross and the RTB ministry would have ripped both sides of the argument to shreds, but the y have a no straw man policy@ Reasons to Believe.

    • Keith Wetzel

      I am sorry to disagree, Ken Ham is reading Genesis correctly and Hugh Ross isn’t, what Dr Ross professes is known as a Compromise. If you read The Genesis creation account it is very clear that it is the beginning, it is 6 literal 24hr days, there is no place to fit in “Millions of Years” which is an idea that Man came up with and not Biblical. I use to believe that “Why couldn’t God used Evolution” or the “Day Age” but after listening to Ken Ham’s talks thru “Answers in Genesis” video series and reading other books and articles on the subject, I came to the realization that the Biblical Based Young Earth Creation worldview is the correct one. You should check out the Answers in Genesis website. Radiometric Age Dating is flawed and based upon a series of assumptions : assumed how much there was originally, assumption that there was no contamination from outside sources, etc. There was a test done on some samples from Mt St Helens, done by reputable labs, that generated results from 300,000 to millions of years. Now if we can get incorrect results from rock we do know the age of, how can we be sure of rocks that we don’t know the age of?

    • Kellymatthew Barnes

      Thank you for responding. Love Kellymatthew

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to get the lastest from Alfonzo Rachel!