Skip to comments.The Creationists Have Already Won Tonight's Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham Debate
Posted on 02/04/2014 2:11:25 PM PST by Zeneta
Bill Nye, The Science Guy, will debate Ken Ham, The Creationist Guy, tonight at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. They will debate a question from the 1920's: "Is creation a viable model of origins in todays modern scientific era?" Yes or no? This is a bad idea for everyone but the creationists.
Whatever his intention, Nye is sitting down as a representative of "evolution" against Ham, implying that there are two equal sides to a debate that has already been settled scientifically. By simply agreeing to participate, Nye is simultaneously elevating the proponents of Biblical creationism, while marginalizing his own position.
Ham is a young-Earth creationist. That means he believes the world is only seven thousand years old or so, because if you look at the Bible in the most literal way possible, that's the timeline. God literally created the world in seven, 24-hour days, and so on from there. In a post on CNN promoting the debate (CNN will moderate the event), Ham lamented that "Several hundred well-attended debates [on creationism vs. evolution] were held in the 1970s and 1980s, but they have largely dried up in recent decades." There is a reason those debates have dried up: Ham and his ilk have no factual ground to stand on.
(Excerpt) Read more at thewire.com ...
Starts at 7pm.
“implying that there are two equal sides to a debate that has already been settled scientifically.”
Hmmmm. Where have I heard that before?
You don’t have to even watch. Just read “The Edge of Evolution.”. Mathematically, macro evolution is not possible. Micro evolution within distinct species, yes. The Theory of Evolution rests on one word, and one word only: Randomness. It is the major flaw.
It can hardly be called a debate. Intelligent design is irrefutable and Darwinism is unsupportable.
Sure seems familiar. If you can't win on the issues, try bluster.
Stated very well and less than 50 words. Excellent!
...and yet Darwinism is doctrinally taught in government schools as fact and the intelligent design proof of creationism is basically banned. Time for a change.
The CREATIONIST will win this debate!
Ken Ham is not defending intelligent design, Ken Ham is a Biblical Creationist
Intelligent design leaves out the definiteness of God
Ham is quite definite on the need of a Creator God and the results of Sin on the world and the need of a saviour.
For those that are interested in a few primers to the debate I would recommend these videos.
No Science, No Logic and No Morality: Atheism.
How to Evangelize to a Secular Culture by Ken Ham
Presuppositional Apologetics | Dr. Jason Lisle
Heck modern civilization is older than that! The Sumerian civilization is over 8,000 years old.
No where in the bible does it say the earth is only seven thousand years old! The bible was not written as a science textbook! and so and so begot so and so DOES NOT HAVE TO BE LITTERAL ! example, I am a descendant of John Adams, so one “could” say... John Adams begot Texasfreeper2009, and be technically correct but have missed several hundred years in between.
Actually, you cant prove any of what you just said
it is all conjecture, based on an opinion
No, it really is
You cannot prove that mankind was alive on earth with any factual evidence past 6000 years
all you have is theory
How do you figure? Intelligent design points to God as the Creator as nothing else does. It is the definitive proof of a Creator God. The only difference is you don't need to quote scripture to show the millions of examples of intelligent design in the makeup of a person's body alone. Acceptance of intelligent design only requires common sense and a non-denial of the obvious as the Bible says in Romans 1:20.
Perhaps the Lord is not amused... there is an ICE STORM developing in that area right now. They may ALL be spending the night together in that building!
1. Abiogenesis is laughably impossible, but evolution must be true!
2. Evolution from one fish to reptile, etc., has zero evidence, but evolution must be true!
And they claim theirs is not a religious faith????
How anyone can watch this and still assert that Life spontaneously began from the “Primordial Soup” is not dealing with reality. (Yes, I realize that Drew Berry is an “Evolutionist”)
Start at the 2:55 point.
Drew Berry: Animations of unseeable biology
Evolution seems to occur in the lines they draw between known fossils.
So much for the scientific method.
It’s all inferred.
I love watching Phillip E. Johnson on this subject.
Sadly, he passed away.
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy - Phillip E. Johnson
Same as what you just said. Sit down.
when ID started, I thought it would be a sound approach, but I saw 6 plenury sessions at yale University when they had a seminar there in the 90’s
It was fantastic, but one thing missing: The Mention of the Bible and God as creator
It was totally absent
I havent read every person’s book on things, but I did hear 8 people speak, and not one sounded like a Biblcal Creationist in the first and foremost mentioning of a Creator God and the fall of man and sin
ID was just a nice talk
and I have yet to see a major ID proponent speak of a Biblical approach to their science
I’m with you on this.
The ID movement has seem to take an approach that they think would allow them a foot in the door.
THIS is when we(and Mankind) “Won”:
King James Version (KJV)
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Each side in something like this always thinks they won. Debates like this are silly.
I tend to agree.
Many debates are structured on a format that both parties simply state their position and the viewers are left to decide who won.
Rarely is there a moment in which a counter party is forced to publically acquiesce.
I’m not sure about tonight’s debate format.
Ken Ham certainly knows this.
There were a lot of debates on this topic many years ago that allowed for direct questions.
As an example of how debates can be more productive.
divergent thoughts and skepticism not allowed. The new standards of “science.”
Romans 1:20 is a good start. Remember ID is for the unbeliever as proof of the existence of a Creator God “so they are without excuse”.
“Ham is a young-Earth creationist. That means he believes the world is only seven thousand years old or so, because if you look at the Bible in the most literal way possible, that’s the timeline. God literally created the world in seven, 24-hour days, and so on from there.”
The science of evolution may have its faults, errors and weaknesses, but even without the science of evolution the scientific view of the age of the earth as more than just a few thousand years is more defensible, more defensible than a young earth.
There was even a post here on FreeRep by a scientist with knowledge of phsyics and a lot of its math who explored the “six days” of creation from an orthodox science view. It was so detailed I cannot do justice to it in this space. But, in the final analysis he was saying that if you take the “day” to mean not “one earth day” but a “G-d day” from a perspective beginning at the point science refers to as the “big bang”, and understanding what Eisteins theories say about time, and the “traveling at the speed of light” altering of the perspective of time, to those travelling or looking back over great distances, which is NOT the same as from a point of refersence at the beginning of it all that never changed, he found he could mathematically break down the time since the big bang to the early earth era into six distinct periods that are represented by different “earth years” each, but from G-d’s perspective - from that point in creation just preceding the big bang - would be each just one of six “G-d days”. That is a VERY rough idea of what he produced.
The problem with the “young earth” theory is not its objections to evolution, but its lack of ability to refute the much older earth-theories in science that do not need evolution to substantiate them.
I have no problem with the “days” in the Bible, regarding creation, NOT referring to “earth days” in the litteral since. It is enough for me that I don’t have to understand HOW G-d created the universe, whether in any number of litteral days or any number of virtual days, it will always be beyond the undersstanding of humans to fully comprehend. I can take THAT on faith, without an “old earth” shattering my faith in G-d.
I have study many arguments between old earth an young.
One thought that seems to have taken hold is “ Just because it happened a long time ago, doesn’t mean it took a long time to happen”.
can you post that discussion ... i would be interested in seeing his math
read Genesis again then, if the days are time periods, read genesis and tell me how long plants lived before the sun was made on day 4
Why would it be a problem? God is a God of Life, I'm sure He can sustain his work apart from a sun.
I knew this was a fool’s errand, Ken Ham. This food debate has successfully damaged the cause of Christ.
Ken Ham’s foolish insistence on a young Earth is EXACTLY why this debate has damaged the cause of Christ in America.
Amen to your #33. The young-earth theory is broken, and cannot be fixed.
I’ll find it, if I browse far back (months) in my pings. I’ll try.
I’ll try to find the post I was referring to that started with the paper on the “6 days” written by the scientist. There will be a link somewhere back (months) in my pings, because I commented on it then. I’ll try to find it.
As we observe God’s creation with ever greater precision, we can see that he is very fond of randomness, physical law, and evolution.
The name of the book & author you’re thinking of is:
The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom by Gerald L. Schroeder.
I read the book over Christmas break. The author is a theistic evolutionist. He believes that God guided evolution. He presents some interesting math & interpretations based on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
However, squeezing billions of years into the 1st chapter of Genesis introduces major conflicts theologically. In particular with Adam & Eve’s sin. There was no recorded death until they sinned when God provided a garment of skin (Gen 3:21). Theistic evolution says that there’s millions of years of death leading up to Adam & Eve arrival.
I’ve got lots of other issues but I don’t have the time to lay it all out. Oh well...
“There was no recorded death”
are you referring to death of non-human animal life???
are you saying no animal like died on earth until after Adam sinned??
I have nothing against the young-earth stance -- but Mr. Ham missed a stellar opportunity with the question "what would convince you that you're wrong?"
He shouldn't have resorted to attacking the reliability of dating methods, he should have said: "If there were a way to prove that Jesus did not die and raise from the dead three days later, then everything I believe is garbage -- on the first day it says 'And there was evening and there was morning, the first day' -- but there was no sun nor Earth [dry land] to reference the sun that didn't exist... so even 6000 years isn't the lynchpin of my faith."
It would have been an honest reply that would put Christ in importance above the particular model he holds.
The biggest problem with Theistic evolution [as you describe] in a theological sense is that it renders null and void the special creation of man. If man evolved, then either the not-man he came from would have to have been in God's image [which recursively raises this problem] or man himself does not bear God's image; now, given that all the other creatures of the Earth are not made in God's image [it is only possible to murder man, due to being made in God's image, via the Noahic covenant] it stands to reason that any form of evolution applied to mankind denies that man carries God's image.
That is a pretty amazingly unqualified statement seeing that there is no way to know if it is true. Did Christ Himself tell you that Ken Ham's position is hurting His cause?
The age of the earth is not what wins souls for Christ it is the Fruits of the Spirit. Nameley love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
I personally don't know anyone who has come to Christ because of Old or Young earth arguments. It has more likely been a lack of being Christ Like that has "Hurt" the Chuch.
In the end I think it is the Holy Spirit that changes a person's heart not a debate.
Thank God that the Holy Spirit is alive and well and working great work still.
I personally don't know anyone who has come to Christ because of Old or Young earth arguments. It has more likely been a lack of being Christ Like that has "Hurt" the Church.
John 13:35 —
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.
James 2:15-16 —
If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?
(Pretty much all of First John.)
The age of the earth is not what wins souls for Christ it is the Fruits of the Spirit. Namely love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Yes. Yes and amen.
Amen to that!
I know for myself it was the Christ like nature of my friends that led me to Christ and I hope that others can say the same about me.
Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,