-
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.
T
Tintin
Guest
When you use the evolutionary theory bias you've been taught, yes, that's the conclusion you arrive at. But what if the scientists aren't objective as you believe they are in their findings?
If you found a human skull laying next to a T. rex then you might have a leg to stand on. Fact is that will never happen.
tell me why you believe what you believe, because you think its true or because you feel you have to? You honestly in your heart believe the earth is only 6000 years old and humans co existed with dinosaurs?
tell me why you believe what you believe, because you think its true or because you feel you have to? You honestly in your heart believe the earth is only 6000 years old and humans co existed with dinosaurs?
S
Stinger
Guest
Hello John,
Both Ken Ham and Bill Nye have the same current physical model. So based upon the current state of the universe, they would each be using the same laws of physics to predict future outcomes.
For example, each would use the same laws of physics to predict the outcome of an upcoming physical action. More specifically, let's say each were to see a car travelling at a constant speed of 60 miles per hour. Assuming no acceleration, each would predict the car to be 1 mile further along one minute later. So each has the same predictive model.
The question that this debate is about, is what was the car doing (speed and acceleration) before being observed? Bill Nye's position is that since the car is currently traveling at 60 mph, then it was always doing 60 mph, so he would back-track based upon this assumption. Ken Ham, on the other hand, might claim that based upon other observations and evidences, that the car was not always doing 60 mph, so his back-track model would be different.
So Ken's predictive model is just as good as Nye's, because predictive models (based on initial conditions and assumptions) work as long as initial conditions are understood and assumptions are accurate. It is the backward-looking assumptions that differ between the two.
S
st_sebastian
Guest
I'm not sure this is the case. It sounds as though you're implying Ham is a deist, who thought that god put all things into motion and then let natural law take over, without exception. Rather, I think it's clear that Ham's god is an interventionist who can and does things that Nye would never accept as a real possibility.
For example, if Ham believes that the world will end in fire when Jesus comes back at the end of time, then this is a prediction that Nye would never, ever make. Since Ham is such a literalist, I can't imagine him not believing that. One of these hypotheses (he will or he won't come back) is correct; the other is not.
I doubt they even concur on everyday questions. Does prayer have an actual effect, for example? What happens to the millions of people who have died and will die? Are we spirits inhabiting bodies or are we biochemical, full stop? While they might agree on the basics of Newtonian mechanics, I imagine the similarities stop there.
S
Stinger
Guest
As you pretty much said, their model would agree except where God (or catastrophe) steps in to change things. So Ken's model allows for effects which Nye's model doesn't. Nye can't consider such possibilities because their existence would shatter his current world-view, so Nye rejects such possibilities.
S
st_sebastian
Guest
I gave other examples of places in which they definitely differ. To put it another way, since it didn't stick the first time, Nye is a materialist. Ham is not. They disagree about the very substance of reality.
This sort of triumphalism is an ugly shade on anybody. Please be serious.
M
megaman125
Guest
Agricola and Tintin, I told you that they would still try to make the millions of species argument. Again, anything to cling to their disbelief. They just hope that as long as they desperately believe it isn't true, that maybe the truth will go away. Back in reality, all they're really doing is surpressing the truth.
so if its only 2 of every kind, and yet we now have multiples of every kind then evolution would be in fact..true?
H
Huckleberry
Guest
Concerning animals that were aboard the ark (not a ship, it only had to float) we're only talking about animals who breathed through nostrils here. Aquatic life, insects, arachnids, bacterium, et al, were able to survive without direct care from Noah. That limited his responsibility to basic land animals.
Think about this carefully. It is documented that Noah had two of every "kind" of land dwelling animal on the ark (clean beasts and birds he took seven each). Regardless of how much variation has occurred since then, there are only so many basic "kinds" of animals.
Panthers and tigers are the same "kind" of animal. Zebras and donkeys are the same "kind" of animal. Water buffalo and musk oxen are the same "kind" of animal. After the flood, the basic "kinds" of animals began repopulating the world, and as continents and islands became isolated from each other and different ecosystems developed, variation/speciation began occurring.
Four or five thousand years worth of generations, combined with natural and artificial selection, has produced the vast diversity of organisms that we now observe. It is possible that the number of "species" that didn't survive the Flood was greater than what there is today. Don't tell the EPA. They'll fine God retroactively and probably attempt to shut Him down.
T
Tintin
Guest
No, macro-evolution still wouldn't be true. Micro-evolution would be true. But that's one kind becoming another species of the same kind, not the bollocks of primordial soup to human. They're not the same thing.
H
Huckleberry
Guest
If you were using common sense concerning this subject,
you would understand that "dinosaurs" are not extinct.
They exist today in miniature:
Put this little guy (Jackson's Chameleon)
in a perfect environment (as the world was before the Flood)
give him no natural enemies,
let him live for eight or nine hundred years,
and you've gotcher self a triceratops.
T
Tintin
Guest
H
Huckleberry
Guest
How it works is that environmental conditions have
stunted life on this planet, including human life.
The environment before the flood was conducive to great
longevity and giant organisms (see "fossil record").
The flooded out remnant of Earth that we inhabit
is conducive to disease and shortened life spans.
T
Tintin
Guest
No, I agree with you on that bit but the chameleon and triceratops, while both reptiles, are vastly different creatures. A better comparison would be the giant monitor lizard/goanna (Megalania prisca) that reached up to 9 metres in length and the Komodo Dragon we have today that reaches up to 3 metres in length.
M
megaman125
Guest
micro-evolution would be. Evolution from a single celled organism to... well, everything we have today, would still be an unproven faith based belief system.
Folks, we have a distinct and specific hypothesis, with implications for the set up of an experiment, a scientific experiement. Now just do the experiement and doing so will provide the proof that evolutionists keep claiming they have but can never produce.
Actually, reptiles do continue to grow their whole life. With this in mind if you had a "terrible lizard" (dinosaur) that lived many centuries, it is logical to believe they were simply old reptiles that just kept right on growing. There is also no reason not to believe that not so terrible lizards, that only live decades today, are basically the same as their ancestors.
T
Tintin
Guest
There is some truth to that but I don't think dinosaurs had to always be old to achieve the size they did. I'm sure God just created some to reach the size they did. Maybe the Jackson chameleon is a descendant of a species of dinosaur, but I don't think the Triceratops is it. The only similarity would be the horns on its head and the fact that it's a reptile.
No there is no desperate hope or suppressing going on.
Theists make a claim, and personally for me there isn't enough evidence for me to believe that claim. Its not a choice I'm making or something I'm surprising, I simply cannot believe it to be true because the evidence doesn't support it. That's all there is to it.