Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD

  • Thread starter Thread starter 777ShesinHisHands777
  • Start date Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jhana said:
This first point is not contrary to what I was saying, at all. Re-read.
Click to expand...

You said Christians only try to convert others to "get their little slice of heaven." That is not biblical at all. No one gets any "slice of heaven" by converting others.

Jhana said:
I'm not getting mad about anything. I'm matter-of-factly pointing out a glaring assumption.
Click to expand...

Yet you won't actually correct that assumption. If someone mistakenly thought I was a muslim, I'd correct them and tell them I'm a Christian. I wouldn't just sit there and keep repeating "I'm not a muslim." But you aren't doing that, and you refuse to do that so you can continue ridiculing anyone who doesn't know what your hidden beliefs are. It's really trollish behavior.
 
If you only had two of each kind how do you explain the countless variations of kinds today? We know they didn't all come about in the last few thousand years...

ken says you only needed two dogs two dinosaur kinds etc.

if he had two of every kind he still wouldn't have enough room. Some of the largest dinosaurs were 50-60 meters long! We have found some new species of crocs that were over 40 feet! Turtles weighing nearly what a car weighs and much more. Surely this wood boat couldn't hold all of them, many animals need such a different environment that many wouldn't survive on this boat ride.
 
It was a ...really ...big ...boat which had a capacity of a train with over 500 railroad containers.
Have you ever seen a really long train and counted its cars as it went by?
I remember a train once that stretched into the distance to where I couldn't see where it ended. I decided to count the cars as it went by and it was just barely over 100 cars and took several minutes.

For comparison sake the longest train recorded was in Australia having 682 cars and was 7.353 km long.
If we cross multiply proportionately, the capacity of Noah's Ark likened to a train with 522 cars would be 5.627 km long.
Or 3.5 miles...Have you ever walked 3.5 miles in a straight line?
If so you'd know it would take you about an hour at the average human walking speed.
Combine all that into a ship.

In 1993, research was carried out by naval architects and structural engineers at the world class KRISO ship research facility in Korea, testing the proportions described in Genesis - 300 x 50 x 30 cubits. They concluded that the proportions were near optimal and that the scale was feasible in waves up to 30m.


Also notice that while we use to, we now don't have Dinosaurs or 40 foot long Crocs anymore...perhaps the big scary animals got left behind during the flood.
Consider the Oxygen content of the atmosphere also must have changed since the water in the firmament fell to earth. A higher content of Oxygen in the atmosphere plays a role in animal growth size. Before the flood this concentration may have been as high as 40% compared to our 20% now.
In order for fossils to be encased in sedimentary rock there's got to be a lot of sediment falling on top of them like snow in a blizzard.
Then again Perhaps some of the animals got eaten for food when God gave the go ahead to eat all animals.

Genesis 9
1Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands.
3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

We still have turtles which get up to 2000 pounds though.

There's many factors to be taken into consideration. All of these factors must be utilized in order to arrive at an accurate conclusion.
But we do know if God created the animals he also knew what he was doing when he designed the Ark.



arc2.jpg
 
Last edited:
That's an incredible amount of animals. I wouldn't envy anyone who has to feed them daily, shovel out their waste daily and treat them all for any illness.

And I complain about MY job lol
 
Yeah it's impossible. Just because the ship "has room" does not mean it does. For example I would bet those numbers take every square foot available. The ship wouldn't be able to float, the ark has been proven impossible several times and everyday we find new species (that died out millions of years ago) stop pretending.
 
Historicist said:
A close reading of Genesis 4 reveals about six references to pre-Adamic man.
Click to expand...
Were Cain and Abel born before or after the fall? In or out of the Garden?
It seems likely they were born after the fall, based on the fact that there is farming going on.
If that is the case, it is reasonable to infer that Adam and Eve had children before them.
1- God instructed them to get busy in Gen. 1:28. Why wouldn't they have?
2- In Gen. 3:16, Eve's conception is multiplied. This implies previous children.
3- Genesis 4 clearly indicates other people existed,
but doesn't imply they weren't Adam and Eve's children.
4- No implication that Cain found his wife in the land of Nod, or that there were any other people there. It is not called the "City of Nod", nor the "Village of Nod", just the land of Nod, which means vagabond or wanderer. Not likely his wife was just out-a-wanderin' the world and he accidently found her.

All that being said, there is no confusion in I Corinthians 15:45:
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
 
In response to MEGAMAN
____________________________


You said Christians only try to convert others to "get their little slice of heaven." That is not biblical at all. No one gets any "slice of heaven" by converting others.

Correction, I hinted that the motive for many christian people's good deeds of many kinds, and the motive for many christians' denial of urges aren't genuine things that are borne in valuing others and wanting to help, they are often borne from something that's ultimately 'for me' - to get a slice of heaven pie after they die.

This is evidenced in a question I've been asked lots of times (me, who people consider an atheist), and that question is 'Jhana, if you don't believe in God then what's the point of doing or not doing anything?'

In otherwords, they are basically telling me, 'If I ever thought there was no heaven or hell or God, I'd just do whatever I like cause nothing matters at all'

And even though I never said there was no God, I disagree with this mindset intensely. Regardless of whatever I believed about the afterlife, I would STILL have a moral compass and I would STILL find untold value in other's lives and in doing decent things.



Yet you won't actually correct that assumption. If someone mistakenly thought I was a muslim, I'd correct them and tell them I'm a Christian. I wouldn't just sit there and keep repeating "I'm not a muslim." But you aren't doing that, and you refuse to do that so you can continue ridiculing anyone who doesn't know what your hidden beliefs are. It's really trollish behavior.

It may be trollish to you to hear someone who won't agree to be placed in one of your labels used to separate me from you, or from whoever else, and someone who doesn't like to place people in little boxes or classes of human based on those labels and stereotypes, but it's you who requires a label for my forehead in the first place, not me. What do I need a title for? So people can equate me with everything that falls under it? I'm neither muslim nor atheist nor christian nor buddhist nor zenmaster. My mind is unique, and your mind is unique. You think and feel and see differently to every other person on Earth in many ways, and so do I. You aren't a 'christian' any-more than the man down the street who attends a rival church and who has extremely different beliefs is a christian. Putting you together is like putting chalk and cheese together and calling them both a steak dinner.

So I refuse to be labeled, because a label precedes a person. A label is just a social fabrication . It doesn't show reality.
 
Last edited:
Really it makes Americans look extremely dumb. If your going to be dumb you better be tough, a bunch of fat dummies is not toughness. This country will never be what it was when those brave men stormed the beaches of Normandy, without them nobody would be allowed to be christian or practice Judaism anyhow.
 
Nephi said:
Really it makes Americans look extremely dumb.
Click to expand...
Based on your username, I confidently assume you're Mormon.
You're whole religion is based on provable fraud (start a thread, I'll go there).
How dumb does that make you and your fellow Mormons look?
 
I'm not a mormon, I just got done reading it though, had a lot of good laughs. Same with any religious book really. The book of mormon has a lot of action in it though and a lot less rape.
 
Huckleberry said:
Based on your username, I confidently assume you're Mormon.
You're whole religion is based on provable fraud (start a thread, I'll go there).
How dumb does that make you and your fellow Mormons look?
Click to expand...

Based on his join date, it's obvious he's one of the trolls that was just recently banned. Probably TR.
 
Jhana said:
It may be trollish to you to hear someone who won't agree to be placed in one of your labels used to separate me from you, or from whoever else, and someone who doesn't like to place people in little boxes or classes of human based on those labels and stereotypes, but it's you who requires a label for my forehead in the first place, not me. What do I need a title for? So people can equate me with everything that falls under it? I'm neither muslim nor atheist nor christian nor buddhist nor zenmaster. My mind is unique, and your mind is unique. You think and feel and see differently to every other person on Earth in many ways, and so do I. You aren't a 'christian' any-more than the man down the street who attends a rival church and who has extremely different beliefs is a christian. Putting you together is like putting chalk and cheese together and calling them both a steak dinner.

So I refuse to be labeled, because a label precedes a person. A label is just a social fabrication . It doesn't show reality.
Click to expand...

You can keep trying to turn it around on me, but you're the one getting in a tizzy everytime someone classifies you as an atheist, then you whine at them, "I never said God doesn't exist." It's a really typical troll tactic.
 
megaman125 said:
You can keep trying to turn it around on me, but you're the one getting in a tizzy everytime someone classifies you as an atheist, then you whine at them, "I never said God doesn't exist." It's a really typical troll tactic.
Click to expand...

Tizzy? I'm fairly calm, in reality. I just don't think you're used to hearing what I've said, or at least, you take quite an aversion to it and so it offends you. You want me to talk by and classify myself by your rules and I refuse, and you don't like it. Remember it was you who took the argument to me, personally. I only wanted to continue talking about the old earth and young earth theories - the topic of the thread. Then we got into personal talk.

Maybe we should do that instead of this.
 
Last edited:
Jhana said:
Tizzy? I'm fairly calm, in reality. I just don't think you're used to hearing what I've said, or at least, you take quite an aversion to it and so it offends you. You want me to talk by and classify myself by your rules and I refuse, and you don't like it. Remember it was you who took the argument to me, personally. I only wanted to continue talking about the old earth and young earth theories - the topic of the thread. Then we got into personal talk.

Maybe we should do that instead of this.
Click to expand...

I've been waiting for you to tell me your views on God, or whatever god or gods you believe in. But you're too busy whining about how you never said God doesn't exist. So go ahead, post your views on God. I've been waiting many pages now.

And I am very familiar with your type of behavior. I run into it all the time. There's always about 10% of the people that will pull all the typical atheist taglines, then scream and cry if you call them atheists. They respond with the standard "I never said God didn't exist," but refuse to explain anything further. Their only goal is to waste other people's time, and I'm guilty of allowing you to do that for far too long now. If you want to continue the conversation, you know what you have to do, you've known about it for the past 5+ pages.
 
megaman125 said:
I've been waiting for you to tell me your views on God, or whatever god or gods you believe in. But you're too busy whining about how you never said God doesn't exist. So go ahead, post your views on God. I've been waiting many pages now.

And I am very familiar with your type of behavior. I run into it all the time. There's always about 10% of the people that will pull all the typical atheist taglines, then scream and cry if you call them atheists. They respond with the standard "I never said God didn't exist," but refuse to explain anything further. Their only goal is to waste other people's time, and I'm guilty of allowing you to do that for far too long now. If you want to continue the conversation, you know what you have to do, you've known about it for the past 5+ pages.
Click to expand...

Wasted time? It's Saturday and we're sat on a forum. You've got 1,224 posts to your name and for the last three days you've been on for several hours at a time. I'd say there's plenty of time for the both of us. I just don't think I have to succumb to your wishes and talk in your manner or think like you think, Megaman.

None of this has anything to do with the topic anyway.

You consider something by its labels far, far too much. You keep putting me in a generalization. You say to me '10% of people act like 'atheists' (label #1), then scream and cry (generalization) if you call them atheists. Respond with the standard (what standard? Which two people are exactly alike?), 'I never said God didn't exist' (an assumption you made and I refuted), but refuse to explain anything further (why should I explain myself to you, that you can stick me in a box and put me outside your view of a worthy person and an unworthy one?). Their goal is to waste people's time (that isn't my goal at all, in fact my goal is to talk about the topic at hand), and I'm guilty of allowing you to do that for far too long (then stop making things personal, get back to the actual topic of the thread, or disengage, if you so desire for us to waste no more time). If you want to continue the conversation you know what you have to do (which conversation? The one about the topic, or this personal thing you like to do? I've no interest in the latter, really, to be quite honest).

can we get back to the topic now?
 
An atheist is just someone who does not believe in a god. If you look at the bible it provides no proof but it convinces people with unrelated information into thinking something completely different than the topic is true. It makes no sense to think a religious book is true when it provides no proof. If you read the bible especially the NT, Romans etc you will find plenty of nice sounding statements about faith and what not but faith does not make something real, it does not do anything other than create a unsubstantiated belief. How is this a good thing?

If you look at it from a logical perspective you will hopefully understand.

ken had nothing logical or any demonstrable proof for the model he purposed. Yet people believe it because they believe in Jesus. The flood and Jesus are unrelated, as Jesus never saw the flood, in fact nobody saw the flood because it never happened! If he had proof for the flood he wouldn't need to hold a debate to try and prove how his ideas sound good. Ken only hurt his own cause with this science debate. You pee in your pants you only stay warm for so long and that land of the lost Museum is going broke.
 
Nephi said:
An atheist is just someone who does not believe in a god. If you look at the bible it provides no proof but it convinces people with unrelated information into thinking something completely different than the topic is true. It makes no sense to think a religious book is true when it provides no proof. If you read the bible especially the NT, Romans etc you will find plenty of nice sounding statements about faith and what not but faith does not make something real, it does not do anything other than create a unsubstantiated belief. How is this a good thing?

If you look at it from a logical perspective you will hopefully understand.

ken had nothing logical or any demonstrable proof for the model he purposed. Yet people believe it because they believe in Jesus. The flood and Jesus are unrelated, as Jesus never saw the flood, in fact nobody saw the flood because it never happened! If he had proof for the flood he wouldn't need to hold a debate to try and prove how his ideas sound good. Ken only hurt his own cause with this science debate. You pee in your pants you only stay warm for so long and that land of the lost Museum is going broke.
Click to expand...

You keep claiming stuff is impossible and you KNOW that it never happened. Yet I see no reason to accept your word over the Bible. Your word is nothing more than your own unsubstantiated belief. You believe the flood never happened and there is no God, and I believe the opposite. Your view is just as much belief based as any other view.
 
Nye's challenge to Ham was especially relevant: can his Bible-derived YEC model make accurate predictions?

For a model (or theory) to be good, it typically satisfies a number of criteria. It should have explanatory scope and explanatory power, rely on as few un-evidenced assumptions as possible and be testable (thus falsifiable), amongst others. The last point is particularly important as theories are tested by evaluating the accuracy of derived predictions. It is one thing for a model to explain a large amount of existing facts (scope) to a high degree of probability (power), but is it another for that model to satisfy the inherent error-checking mechanism of testing predictions. If there is no testable prediction one can make with a theory, and therefore no way to falsify it, it is not considered a good theory.
 
John_Odendaal said:
Nye's challenge to Ham was especially relevant: can his Bible-derived YEC model make accurate predictions?

For a model (or theory) to be good, it typically satisfies a number of criteria. It should have explanatory scope and explanatory power, rely on as few un-evidenced assumptions as possible and be testable (thus falsifiable), amongst others. The last point is particularly important as theories are tested by evaluating the accuracy of derived predictions. It is one thing for a model to explain a large amount of existing facts (scope) to a high degree of probability (power), but is it another for that model to satisfy the inherent error-checking mechanism of testing predictions. If there is no testable prediction one can make with a theory, and therefore no way to falsify it, it is not considered a good theory.
Click to expand...

Like if I say 'we can measure the age of a star by determining its distance from Earth in lightyears, using proven geometric theory'

Then I go on to say 'this means that we can also predict the rate at which stars move away from us', and a year later I measure the star once the earth has rotated round the sun again, and my prediction is correct.

That would make something a very, very strong theory, yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back