Ken Ham .vs. Bill Nye (woman, agnostic, believers, scriptures)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I watched it and it still comes down to the fact that one can't by their own reason or strength come to believe in God.
Repeatedly Bill Nye showed his distain \ mockery towards the Bible (as many do here) concerning the accuracy of it, the authorship of Bible along with out of hand discrediting of anybody who dares to associate themselves with the Bible. Nye in so many words insulted anybody from Kentucky (and any Christian) by inferring that if you believe the Bible, then you're risking the future of the US as being a leader in the world in several ways.
For even a moderately devout religious believer to both listen, and ponder, atheistic claims, the believer first must put aside this kind of intoxication that comes from religious belief. If a believer has his religious guard up and is thinking in a "religious manner", the believer will not hear the atheistic concepts but rather see a "lost sheep" perhaps, or a wayward soul in need of god. Or it might be something like; My god tells me differently and he is a lot more meaningful than some atheist.
Also; it is very difficult to address in a rational, scientific manner factual errors found in religious beliefs without coming off as at least somewhat pompous. It has to do with the dynamic of the assertions. It does not help that religious individuals are listening to parts of their most personal belief system invalidated.
For example, "how if Kangaroos got off the Ark in the middle east, why are they only in Australia, and not even a fossil of one anywhere else?"
Back in Noah's day it is my understanding there was just one continent we call Pangea. After the flood, after the animals got off the ark, they went back to their preferred location, then the continent split up.
Fossilization is a rare or relatively rare event and requires certain conditions to occur. Here are a couple of non-Christian sites regarding fossilization.
However, Genesis 6:20 says - Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.
God brought the animals to Noah.
Why are Kangaroos found only in Australia? Because Australia is geologically isolated from the rest of the world. So how did they get to Australia from the Ark? In the same way that they were brought to the ark. By means of God. A person who can think only in naturalistic terms, who does not believe in God, or does not believe in the supernatural or in miracles will not understand or accept this however.
The debate addressed the issue of the age of the earth. I am not, and never have been a young earth creationist. The Bible does not teach that the earth is only a few thousand years old. While the events in Genesis 1:2b and following took place in six literal 24 hour days, these events do not speak of the original creation of the heavens and the earth which is mentioned in Genesis 1:1.
I hold to the ruin-restoration gap view. These two sites address that. Since the first site may be a King James only site, I will state that I am not a King James only advocate. I simply post it because it concerns the ruin-restoration view of which I am speaking. One need not be a King James only advocate to accept the ruin-restoration gap view.
Amen! There is enough evidence that the earth is of old. Lately I saw a picture of a riverbed that was made deep into the rock by the water. If a young earth creationist want to tell me that that was done in 6000-10000 years I can only shake my head. And I can understand that scientists and students have problems with the view of a young earth. I believe the Gap Theory gives a good answer what really happened in creation. Day one does not say that God created the earth. It was in the beginning and time is not given. Gen 1:2 is caused by a catastrophe of God`s judgement about the creation in Gen 1:1. The re-creation begins in Gen1:3.
The argument that Adam caused the death and that there was no death before is not true. "Lucifer" sinned and caused death, separation from God. When Adam sinned, death entered the world God had created. The darkness in Gen 1:2, which is still today present in the second Heaven (Eph 6) existed already. God called only the light good, which He divided from the darkness. If the darkness would be the absence from light, the light that God spoke into being would swallow it up. This was spiritual light and spiritual darkness. When Paul says you are of the day and not of the night he refers to Gen 1:3-5. After the Millennium God will create a new earth and Heaven. He will surly use the old material as He has done in Gen 1:3 and following.
02-06-2014, 01:57 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Well. I got to say I was somewhat bored with the debate but Nye came off better prepared than I thought. These types of debates are always frustrating since there is not enough time to answer all the points each side makes. With that said here are my thoughts on why Nye won and it has to do with the general framework of Ham's position.
Ham constantly kept bringing-up a strawman - that YECs can be Phd scientists. Ham acted like this was somehow evidence for creation science. No one was arguing, certainly not Nye, that there are not scientists that are/can be YECs.
Creation Science is about science that demonstrates through the scientific method using evidence to show that God created the world and all life and in this particular case - 6-10,000 years ago. Ham did not have anything to back this up - period. Nye kept pointing out one thing in regard to this and that was predictions. Christians that do science is not the same thing as Creation Science.
And before any one suggests that 'creation' in creation science just means studying the natural world I would point out that this just makes his point moot - since both unbelievers and believers can/are doing creation science under that definition. No that is not what is meant. It means Science that reflects, by the SM and evidence, the truth that there was a Creator of the earth or life and particularly in this debate, 6-10,000 years ago.
Ham also was just engaging in an appeal to authority. This leads to his other major SNAFU - that it's all up to the interpretation of data ('observational science') that gets you to the past story ('historical science'). This is a false dichotomy since both are intertwined in the scientific method which is based upon the uniformity of nature.
But the greater problem with this is:
1) This is the main reason he brought-up all those creation scientists - so that he can say these scientists interpret the data differently and hold to YECism. As if this is some type of evidence for the YEC model. NOT!
2) The foundation of this interpretation is not the SM, when it contradicts his YECism, but the Bible (particularly Genesis Ch.1-11). And Nye constantly pointed this out. Ham loves science, he even says so, yet when science says that we evolved or that the earth is 4.5 billion years old he then runs away from 'science' and let's the Bible interpret the data and tell the back story - which just happens to be Christian YECism.
Nye kept on saying how can you jettison the SM (while saying you love the SM), in interpreting data, for a book written by ignorant people thousands of years ago that has been translated into American English and use it as a basis for your data interpretation. It is Amazing! That's certainly not Creation Science and as such does not lead to a viable Creation Model.
3) And the Clincher is this: Ham even said that the 'historical science' can not be proven - and what he meant was in a scientific manner not a logical or mathematical manner (which by the way is what we usually mean by proof - science never proves anything). So if the data that gets interpreted, by the SM or the Bible, to create the back story ('historical science'), cannot be proven (demonstrated) then neither can the Creation Model be one of Science.
Ham's Creation Model is not one of Science but one of Biblical Primacy in interpreting the data when non-YEC scientists interpret that data in a way that he don't like because it does not jive with his ancient Book.
MAJOR FREAKING FAIL.
Of course the facts surrounding that book as being anything other than holy divine and inerrant is another debate - that I am sure Ham would also lose.
Last edited by 2K5Gx2km; 02-06-2014 at 03:07 PM..
02-06-2014, 02:47 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The debate addressed the issue of the age of the earth. I am not, and never have been a young earth creationist. The Bible does not teach that the earth is only a few thousand years old. While the events in Genesis 1:2b and following took place in six literal 24 hour days, these events do not speak of the original creation of the heavens and the earth which is mentioned in Genesis 1:1.
The idea that the earth 'became' something in 2:1a is not possible given Hebrew grammar. Genesis 1:1 was not a creative act as can be seen by the context and the grammar. Genesis 2:1 'Thus the heavens and the earth and all the host of them were finished.' The creative acts began in verse 3, on day 1, 'let there be light' and were finished on day 6.
We can paraphrase as:
When God said let there be light, the earth was without form and empty, darkness was upon the surface of the waters, and the wind of God was moving over the surface of the waters. God called the light day....
Heb. 11:3 - By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
I don't know why we keep getting in these discussions as though we have first hand knowledge of what took place. No one has seen the earth be created. No one has seen anything evolve into another species. Those are the facts. Anything else, regardless of the viewpoint, is taken by faith (either in the Bible, or someone else's theory).
The idea that the earth 'became' something in 2:1a is not possible given Hebrew grammar. Genesis 1:1 was not a creative act as can be seen by the context and the grammar. Genesis 2:1 'Thus the heavens and the earth and all the host of them were finished.' The creative acts began in verse 3, on day 1, 'let there be light' and were finished on day 6.
We can paraphrase as:
When God said let there be light, the earth was without form and empty, darkness was upon the surface of the waters, and the wind of God was moving over the surface of the waters. God called the light day....
Actually, theologians have taken both sides of the issue with concern to the grammar. For example, Arthur C. Custance believed that the grammar did allow for the earth becoming ruined.
'Custance was born in England. He received his early education there and moved to Canada at age 19. He attended the University of Toronto where he obtained an M.A. in Hebrew and Greek. He also became a Christian during this time.
He went on to earn a Ph.D. in Biblical archaeology and anthropology. Between 1957 and 1972 he wrote the ten volume "Doorway Papers" that attempt to bridge the gap between a scientific and a Christian worldview.
In his scientific career, Custance "developed and designed respirator mask, mask-sizing meter, anthropometric facial contour measuring device. and the Custance Sudorimeter for accurate measurement of levels of heat stress". (see Arthur C. Custance - Perspectives on Science and Scripture)
He also wrote Without Form and Void, a scholarly and in-depth treatment of the Gap Theory of Creationism. An expert on the most ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek versions of the bible, he concluded that the opening lines of the English version of Genesis should be translated as "In a former state God perfected the heavens and the earth; but the earth had become a devastated ruin."[2]' [Bolding mine]
2. ^ = Doorway Papers by Arthur C. Custance, Part III: Between the Lines: An Analysis of Genesis 1:1-2 Time and Eternity (Vol.6) - Pt.III, CH.2 = Doorway Papers by Arthur C. Custance, Part III: Between the Lines: An Analysis of Genesis 1:1-2. Missing or empty |title= (help)
Grammar aside, When God created the earth the angelic rebellion had not yet taken place. Satan's rebellion and his subsequent convincing of one third of the angels to join him took place after the earth was created, but before man was created. And that did not happen in just a few days. Just as Adam's sin had repercussions to the earth, so did the angelic rebellion on the original creation.
Well, the topic is the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, not the gap view, and we are not going to agree anyway, so I am not going to get into a discussion on the matter. I am simply stating that I hold to the gap view.
02-06-2014, 05:05 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Actually, theologians have taken both sides of the issue with concern to the grammar. For example, Arthur C. Custance believed that the grammar did allow for the earth becoming ruined.
'Custance was born in England. He received his early education there and moved to Canada at age 19. He attended the University of Toronto where he obtained an M.A. in Hebrew and Greek. He also became a Christian during this time.
He went on to earn a Ph.D. in Biblical archaeology and anthropology. Between 1957 and 1972 he wrote the ten volume "Doorway Papers" that attempt to bridge the gap between a scientific and a Christian worldview.
In his scientific career, Custance "developed and designed respirator mask, mask-sizing meter, anthropometric facial contour measuring device. and the Custance Sudorimeter for accurate measurement of levels of heat stress". (see Arthur C. Custance - Perspectives on Science and Scripture)
He also wrote Without Form and Void, a scholarly and in-depth treatment of the Gap Theory of Creationism. An expert on the most ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek versions of the bible, he concluded that the opening lines of the English version of Genesis should be translated as "In a former state God perfected the heavens and the earth; but the earth had become a devastated ruin."[2]' [Bolding mine]
2. ^ = Doorway Papers by Arthur C. Custance, Part III: Between the Lines: An Analysis of Genesis 1:1-2 Time and Eternity (Vol.6) - Pt.III, CH.2 = Doorway Papers by Arthur C. Custance, Part III: Between the Lines: An Analysis of Genesis 1:1-2. Missing or empty |title= (help)
Arthur Custance is wrong! This was dealt with at length in the Genesis 1:1-3 thread.
Quote:
Grammar aside, When God created the earth the angelic rebellion had not yet taken place.
There is no angelic rebellion in Genesis 1:1-3. But as you say 'grammar aside...' just ignore it and add concepts that were later developed and read them back into Genesis 1:1-3.
Quote:
Well, the topic is the debate, not the gap view, and we are not going to agree anyway, so I am not going to get into a discussion on the matter. I am simply stating that I hold to the gap view.
Right! Which is why I posted the other threads and why I simply stated that the gap view does not hold water - grammatically, contextually, and historically.
Heb. 11:3 - By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
I don't know why we keep getting in these discussions as though we have first hand knowledge of what took place. No one has seen the earth be created. No one has seen anything evolve into another species. Those are the facts. Anything else, regardless of the viewpoint, is taken by faith (either in the Bible, or someone else's theory).
I normally do not discuss evolution as though it is not scientific fact. I think it is below me to enter into such discussions, which given my rather sunken self-appraisal, is going some. Anyway, there is faith and there is faith. If there is a decaying stump in the forest, can we assume that a living tree once grew there? If no one saw the tree, how would we surmise such a thing? Well, the answer is evidence. Evolution has evidence supporting it. Is faith still involved? Is there faith that was a tree where now there is a stump? I don't know; maybe, but it seems pretty certain to me.
As for the work of a god; imagine there is no stump, no tree, just bare ground, but there is a book that claims that not just a tree once grew there, but a magic tree. There is no evidence to support such a thing, just tales from an old book and a lot of people insisting the book is true. I would have to say that it would take faith to believe there once was such a tree growing from that barren spot. Anyway, point is; if you want to use the concept of faith in its widest possible connotation, then both scenarios would probably require faith, but the amount of faith required would be radically different for the two.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
