Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD

[ProphetExcalibur]

Great! There's always a Jackass in the Christian world who ends up having a debate over evolution, while trying to argue a 6000 year old Creation; that gets highly publicized!? WOW! 2 steps forward and 10 steps back. The Church is fighting on a hundred fronts, and Wham! A kick to the groin from within!
Just my thoughts

 

[Huckleberry]

Plants died when Adam & Eve ate.

Chapter and verse, please.

Nowhere in Scripture is vegetation documented as dying or capable of death.
It can only "wither".
Inference: vegetation is not "alive". Has no soul.
It's a complex, self-regenerating source of food and oxygen,
but it cannot experience "death". It is no more alive than fire.

 

[Historicist]

I bet Nye wanted the public to see Ham as a buffoon with his 6 day creation to discredit him and creationism.

danschance, you are correct on this. The enemy is using Ken Ham and his young earth creation model as a type of controlled opposition. The anti-creation/anti-Genesis establishment knows that a Ken Ham type focus only will result in more young people who dismiss the Bible entirely. Christians have a tendency to be naïve, they do not always suspect that someone is doing something with an ulterior motive. Please read post (mine) 238.

 

[Historicist]

Great! There's always a Jackass in the Christian world who ends up having a debate over evolution, while trying to argue a 6000 year old Creation; that gets highly publicized!? WOW! 2 steps forward and 10 steps back. The Church is fighting on a hundred fronts, and Wham! A kick to the groin from within!
Just my thoughts

You are correct, very correct, please read my post #238 and 243.

 

[Huckleberry]

danschance, you are correct on this. The enemy is using Ken Ham and his young earth creation model as a type of controlled opposition. The anti-creation/anti-Genesis establishment knows that a Ken Ham type focus only will result in more young people who dismiss the Bible entirely. Christians have a tendency to be naïve, they do not always suspect that someone is doing something with an ulterior motive. Please read post (mine) 238.

People might dismiss the Bible because of the YEC argument, but they can change their minds.
The YEC movement is not new. I had a man explaining this stuff to me in the early 90s.
At the time I thought he was crazy, but eventually God became real to me.
When faced with the science, I was almost compelled to believe. I finally did in 1995.
There is much more to my story, but people do change their minds.
We need to plant and water. God will give the increase.

 

[1still_waters]

The whole I'm a DR/PHD validity thing seems like a scam.

It's like if someone wants to be taken seriously, they go to college, go through the hurdles of getting a PHD.

Once they have said PHD they can then pretty much say anything and be considered valid by all, or by a segment of the population that wants someone to agree with them, simply because they have a PHD by their name.

There is always going to be someone with a PHD who has an opinion that agrees with yours. There are even flat Earth proponents with PHDs.

So there may be little use in finding someone with a PHD whom also agrees with you, then tossing their research at someone who disagrees with you. Because chances are, the other person has research from someone with a PHD too.

 

[LClark]

The debate was cordial. The worst thing about the YEC view is that they, in essence, ignore biblical scholarship. They treat the first two verses of Genesis as if they did not exist or use the liberal interpretation that goes against all ancient translations. Christians need to understand Scripture before they start spouting science or pseudo-science.

John Calvin, in the 16th Century, made many wise comments on Genesis: “He who would learn astronomy…let him go elsewhere….”

”Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God.”​

 

[kenthomas27]

It's late, and I misread the title as "Bill Nye dates Ken Ham".

I did too! only...you know...I was wide awake.



and I read it twice.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

It may or may not be a scam depending on who, what, why, and where but that aside I agree with some of your points. What has my attention is this here. Can you name one flat earth proponent alive today who has a reputable accredited Phd?

I cannot. If you can, I'd like to see who that is.

There are even flat Earth proponents with PHDs.

 

[megaman125]

Ken put fourth all of the best claims that he could, he has every creation aid he can possibly get, serious money was put behind this debate or science fair if you will. If the proof was out there that god created the universe he would have displayed it.

Nothing we find supports a young earth, nothing we find supports that a god created the universe, especially in the way that the bible depicts.

Not one example of modern mammalian life co existing with early organisms or dinosaurs, no proof for the super massive global flood.

On top of all of that no claims for supernatural beings or ghosts, evil spirits (what is a spirit?) no proof for any sort of magic, telepathic powers within humans, people living a super long time, none of it.

Angela spoon fed you tons of evidence a couple pages back, but it's like I said, you refuse to look at or acknowledge any of it because it goes against your indoctrinated beliefs.

 

[Cycel]

Finally Ham is speaking on DNA, the Achilles heel of evolution.

According to Francis Collins, devout Christian and perhaps the foremost geneticist in America, genetics confirms the case for evolution. Check out his book, The Language of God.

 

[Jhana]

Angela spoon fed you tons of evidence a couple pages back, but it's like I said, you refuse to look at or acknowledge any of it because it goes against your indoctrinated beliefs.

I quoted one of the statements inside the book she copied and pasted a section from - a statement which nullified any real scientific bases for the book's claims - and nobody listened either. I wrote down simple reasons why just two out of the many claims in this book are false on a basic scientific level, and nobody bothered to listen either.

It seems that though you think our 'beliefs' are indoctrinated (a great twist on an oft used attack on christians, by the way), it would seem that by your own standards, then, your own collective views are indoctrinated, or at the very least bias. Thus, we're left with two apparently bias sides who refuse to listen to one another nor consider that they might actually be wrong.

That's not an argument based on evidence and fact. That's a pointless endeavour that'll go round and round like a roundabout. so let's make it simple. I've seen the geometric evidence for stars millions of years old, I understand the scientific premise. I've seen pictures of tree rings older than 6000 years, I also understand that premise. Thus, I trust that the world is older than 6000 years, because I have looked objectively at the evidence at hand and made a connection.

However, can I convince you of that, given that I posted scientific logic based on reputably theory, logic that you have all seemed to dismiss without considering, much less disproving with scientific theory that actually works?

No, I don't think I can. You'll continue to believe in the Earth-age you believe in, regardless of what I tell you. Am I worried? No, not in the slightest. I think the argument itself, and the way that it is being undertaken, is pointless, futile and illogical. And I think that the more we sit here and go round and round, the more we quarrel.

It's useless.

 

[PennEd]

Cycel, I'm curious. Is the point of you engaging on this site to convert people to Atheism, or is it to try an see if Christianity is true?

 

[Jhana]

Cycel, I'm curious. Is the point of you engaging on this site to convert people to Atheism, or is it to try an see if Christianity is true?

Why even start that ball rolling? That's a derailment, and it has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread, to comment on the debate and have an input as to whether the 6,000 year old earth theory is true or false, using any means that are relevant.

The man presented you with a good read, from a devout christian, on why the 6,000 year old Earth theory isn't correct and evolution makes sense, and so you start the car on the road to getting him kicked by asking questions that sit him outside the little circle.

It's so typical.

Why don't you just read the thing?

 

[PennEd]

If you are an Atheist on a Christian chat site, then BY DEFINITION you are the derailer .

God has put it on your heart to make an account, read or start threads,then attempt to convince committed Christians that what they KNOW is true, really isn't. It isn't unreasonable to ask what your motive is to spend time here. Perhaps you are afraid to even admit to yourself that you are here because YOU need Jesus, and are begging for God to use one of us to convince you of that fact. Otherwise, ask YOURSELF, right now, why are you bothering to talk to people that you think are foolish and have nothing to offer you.

 

[Jhana]

If you are an Atheist on a Christian chat site, then BY DEFINITION you are the derailer .

God has put it on your heart to make an account, read or start threads,then attempt to convince committed Christians that what they KNOW is true, really isn't. It isn't unreasonable to ask what your motive is to spend time here. Perhaps you are afraid to even admit to yourself that you are here because YOU need Jesus, and are begging for God to use one of us to convince you of that fact. Otherwise, ask YOURSELF, right now, why are you bothering to talk to people that you think are foolish and have nothing to offer you.

IN otherwords, your argument is based on absolutely no scientific facts and you want to hide that inability to respond with theory that befits the context of the discussion, by attacking me with cirulatory jargon that makes absolutely no sense at all.

Let me break it down.

'You are an atheist on a christian chat site, then BY DEFINITION you are the derailer'.

In fact, this christian chat site does not require its members to be christian. A chat site will also have people running it who are familiar with the term 'derailing'. It is to remove the argument from the subject matter. The same people will usually be quite familiar with the phrase 'ad hominem'.

Secondly, what you KNOW to be true, differs tremendously from other 'christians' on the site - Christains who KNOW other things to be true that are diametrically opposed to what you KNOW to be true.

My motive to be here isn't any of your business, frankly. I would ask what your motive to even ask me was, but then that'd be to further derail from the argument, into a little downard spiral that I don't particularly have the energy for.

Afraid to admit that I need Jesus? Begging for God to use one of you to convince me?

No offence, PennEd, but you can't even grasp the basic theory of things that ARE visible. To what end of ignorant would I have to be to think that you could ever convince me of the things that aren't?

As to your last question, PennEd, don't you think I'm foolish? You see me as the stupid little atheist come to disrupt the peace and ask ignorant questions, cause dissention and make a mockery of God. However, what you don't see is only because you're too angry to see it.

You keep attaching your ego to this argument, as do others. As evidenced in the personal attacks and flare-ups of personal condemnation that 'we atheists' keep receiving from you. But frankly, I don't see how your ego has anything to do with any of this. I can understand why it does to you, but in the context of the benifit that it offers the discussion, it has no value.

You might also consider the fact that nowhere did I say I was an atheist or of any religious affiliation.

 

[Jhana]

Now if you don't mind, it'd be quite good to either end this discussion, or continue it in a manner that is actually based on each of us examining the evidence in front of us to come to a conclusion, rather than attacking willy-nilly.

 

[PennEd]

1. How do you view what I wrote as an attack?

2.How do you think I would be viewed and treated if I went to an Atheist chat site and tried to convince you that you need Jesus?

3.I haven't met a Christian who doesn't believe God created the universe, man is in a fallen state due to his sin, in need of a savior, and Jesus Christ the only Son of God is that Savior. If you don't believe those tenets you aren't a Christian.

4. I must have touched a nerve because you can't even admit to yourself why your'e here.

5. My motive is the exact same with every unbeliever. To preach the Gospel, and through the Holy Spirit, snatch as many as possible from the fire. THAT is the primary commission of Christianity, and by extension this site and EVERY thread.NOT to score points on a pointless debate.

6. You can't really offend me. I have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus.

7.If you believe there is no God then, as God has said, the fool has said in his heart there is no God. If you do believe there is a God then you do well but the demons also believe there is a God and tremble. You need Jesus as well.

8. Finally, you couldn't be more wrong about me being angry or see you as a "stupid little atheist". I am humbled to have the opportunity to preach the Gospel and more than welcome you here to hear it. All I'm asking is that you be honest with yourself as to why you are here.

 

[megaman125]

I quoted one of the statements inside the book she copied and pasted a section from - a statement which nullified any real scientific bases for the book's claims - and nobody listened either. I wrote down simple reasons why just two out of the many claims in this book are false on a basic scientific level, and nobody bothered to listen either.

It seems that though you think our 'beliefs' are indoctrinated (a great twist on an oft used attack on christians, by the way), it would seem that by your own standards, then, your own collective views are indoctrinated, or at the very least bias. Thus, we're left with two apparently bias sides who refuse to listen to one another nor consider that they might actually be wrong.

That's not an argument based on evidence and fact. That's a pointless endeavour that'll go round and round like a roundabout. so let's make it simple. I've seen the geometric evidence for stars millions of years old, I understand the scientific premise. I've seen pictures of tree rings older than 6000 years, I also understand that premise. Thus, I trust that the world is older than 6000 years, because I have looked objectively at the evidence at hand and made a connection.

However, can I convince you of that, given that I posted scientific logic based on reputably theory, logic that you have all seemed to dismiss without considering, much less disproving with scientific theory that actually works?

No, I don't think I can. You'll continue to believe in the Earth-age you believe in, regardless of what I tell you. Am I worried? No, not in the slightest. I think the argument itself, and the way that it is being undertaken, is pointless, futile and illogical. And I think that the more we sit here and go round and round, the more we quarrel.

It's useless.

Finally you get it, and the bold is the biggest key. I'm willing to admit I'm biased towards Christianity (not because of anything related to young earth science.

Just an FYI, when I was an atheist I questioned the big bang theory, and I concluded it to be nonsense based on how logical questions just ripped it apart (see, like you I can also throw around the word logic to claim that my side is rational while yours isn't).

Now if you don't mind, it'd be quite good to either end this discussion, or continue it in a manner that is actually based on each of us examining the evidence in front of us to come to a conclusion, rather than attacking willy-nilly.

You evolutionists refuse to acknowledge any evidence that isn't from an evolution scientist, under the assumption that if it doesn't come from an evolution scientist, then it must be false because evolution is true. Once again, it's assuming the conclusion to prove the conclusion.

I guess if you do want to persist in this discussion, then please start by listing which non-evolution scientists that you would accept evidence from.

 

[Tintin]

I really don't understand how people can willingly ignore solid evidence. Please, look at this, it has references to reputable scientists, and a few of the 'points' the young Earth advocates actually make are decimated.

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs' (continued)

Oh, please! Dr. Dino isn't a credible proponent for biblical creationism, not like Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research.