What would it take to change your mind?

Image Source: American Atheists

I haven't seen the whole debate, but I was watching semi-live at this point. I find it interesting how Mohler and Golden describe Nye's response. (This takes place at 2:03:00 of the debate. One to be fair, Ham is cut off a bit short, he goes on to say that he doubts the models that are created around the Bible. Also, he tries to assert that like his mind, Nye's mind could never change.)

Mohler described it this way.

This is where the debate was most important. Both men were asked if any evidence could ever force them to change their basic understanding. Both men said no. Neither was willing to allow for any dispositive evidence to change their minds. Both operate in basically closed intellectual systems. The main problem is that Ken Ham knows this to be the case, but Bill Nye apparently does not. Ham was consistently bold in citing his confidence in God, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the full authority and divine inspiration of the Bible. He never pulled a punch or hid behind an argument. Nye seems to believe that he is genuinely open to any and all new information, but it is clear that his ultimate intellectual authority is the prevailing scientific consensus. More than once he asserted a virtually unblemished confidence in the ability of modern science to correct itself. He steadfastly refused to admit that any intellectual presuppositions color his own judgment.

Golden describes it this way.

Nye surprisingly said, however: “I would just need one piece of evidence” to have his mind changed. But in reality, Nye is not interested in evidence that will disprove evolutionary ideas. He would like to see a ministry like Answers in Genesis fail in its mission to reach and equip families with the truths of Genesis 1–11.

Now to be fair, Nye talks about evidence that would convince him.  Half of these are not things that "biblical creationists" believe.

• Fossil in a different than predicted layer:  This is a bit of a strawman, because many creationists believe in hydraulic sorting. Tyrannosaurs would all be found in the higher layers, because they would have fled to the higher elevations.  However, this is an insufficient explanation.  One, it maintains that all known members of created "kinds" on multiple continents coincidentally did the same thing.  There should only be a greater statistical chance of finding Tyrannosaurs in the Mesozoic instead of the Permian.  There are some creationist claims about finding fossils in the wrong strata, but for some reason, they never meet the burden of proof.
• Evidence the Universe is not expanding.   I am sure that there are "biblical creationists" that do not think the universe is expanding, but they are so few that I don't know of any.  
• Stars appear far away, but are not.  Creationists gave up the idea that the universe was only 12,000 light years in diameter around the time that Uranus was discovered.  Distant star light is still a problem, but one they are working on.
• Evidence that all the rock layers could form in 4000 years.  I think Nye and I would argue that for a variety of reasons, the evidence presented so far is insufficient that most of the rock layers around the world were deposited in about a year by Noah's flood.