Nye Unto Impossible?

As most of you probably know, evolution cheerleader Bill Nye let fly with an anti-creationist video that got him into trouble with creationists. Ken Ham, Dr. Georgia Purdom and Answers in Genesis issued a debate challenge, followed by an additional challenge.

After his anti-creation videos, propagandist Bill Nye was challenged to a debate from creation scientists, which he ignored. Ian Juby discussed some of Nye's nonsense as well.
Modified from Clker
An update in Ken Ham's October 25,2012 Weblog has additional information:
A number of people have asked Answers in Genesis if we would be open to the possibility of debating the TV personality known as “Bill Nye the Science Guy” (of PBS TV and the Disney Channel)—after Nye’s harsh anti-creationist video went viral on YouTube. 
At last count, over 4.8 million people have watched him make a number of misrepresentations about the creationist position. We posted our own rebuttals to YouTube (“Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children” and “Ken Ham Responds to Bill Nye ‘The Humanist Guy’”). We did publicly challenge Bill Nye to a debate on my blog, but we have also made a formal invitation. 
I wanted to let you know that a few weeks ago, we sent a letter to Mr. Nye in Seattle (and also to his agent in New York City), suggesting that he participate in a creation-evolution debate. You see, we had heard through a nationally known reporter with the secular media that Mr. Nye had agreed in principle to debate with one of our PhD scientists. The reporter told us that Mr. Nye’s had indicated that if his expenses would be covered, he would seriously consider a debate. 
In our letter to Nye, we suggested that the debate theme could be something like, “Which model of origins, creation or evolution, is confirmed by observational science?” (and we have offered him the opportunity to come up with an alternative topic). We also proposed that our debate advocate be Dr. Georgia Purdom of AiG, who holds a doctorate in molecular genetics. And we added that the debate would not necessarily be limited to biological topics, which is Dr. Purdom’s field. We are awaiting Nye’s response.
People are making excuses for Bill Nye similar to those offered by (and for) Richard Dawkins. These are along the lines of refusing to dignify creation science because it is not "real" science. Such remarks are ridiculous even on the surface. A simple reply to offer the excuse-makers is, "If there is no evidence and no science for creationism, then evolutionists can scientifically disprove their views quite handily and shut the rest of us up". Nye probably knows, however, that creationists tend to win the debates.

Earlier, I had stated that Nye's remarks got him into trouble with creationists. However, his remarks are troublesome to scientists as well — or should be, since Nye is a propagandist for evolutionism. He made logical fallacies such as conflation ("bait and switch"), appeal to emotion, false assertions and more. In addition, he claims that evolution is essential to scientific progress, and that creationism is a hindrance to it, but that is the opposite of the truth. Such behavior and lack of knowledge about science itself should be embarrassing to evolutionary scientists.

Ian Juby shows the glaring errors of Bill Nye's remarks in the following video. Then he discusses "junk" DNA and more. But first, I have to mention an error that Mr. Juby made. He mentioned that Apollo 8 landed on the moon. Actually, it was the first manned spacecraft to go around the moon in 1968. The first spacecraft to land on the moon is Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969. Aside from misspeaking on that, Mr. Juby's points are still excellent. To see the video, click on "The End is Nye".