The Ham-on-Nye puns got to be unbearable yesterday.
The constructive part of the debate was fine, but the rebuttals were ineffective for both parties as Bill Nye never addressed Ham’s central point that observed science and historical science (better termed as theoretical science) are two different things. Nye explicitly stated that “if anyone can show deviations in the fossil record, you’d be a hero,” to which Ham could have won by proving these deviations (which do exist). Instead, he talked about a less convincing incident of 45K year old wood found in 45M year old deep strata. Even a quote about the Cambrian explosion would have put deep holes in Nye’s argument.
It was something that Ham, ironically, addressed in a metaphysical light, and should have focused on evidence disproving evolution. There is SO MUCH evidence, I am surprised Ham didn’t slam Nye with it, and this allowed Nye to look much stronger.
Maybe this writer should debate Nye instead.
I know it used to really bug me, before I became a Christian, when Christians would preach at me and say, “because the Bible says so.” That means nothing to someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible in the first place! A Mormon could say, “because the Book of Mormon says so” or a Muslim could say, “because the Koran says so.”
Just as I feared, they were talking across each other rather than to each other.
I don’t think any minds were changed.
Bill Nye was was not pinned down on his own reliance on faith regarding things that are observable.
I think Ham could have better made the point that this isn’t about whether you believe in old earth, new earth, this is about a concerted effort of atheists pushing their religion on children.
Why can’t there be a compromise: God created the Earth and evolution is part of His Grand Design?
ping...