Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD

[PennEd]

Me saying that in years to come there will be a faster way to cook food does not count as a prophecy of the microwave.

For me to recognise a prophecy as 100 prophecy then I would want exact events in exact places and at exact time. Some vague prediction full of analogies and symbolism is NOT prophecy.


If you can show me accurate prophecies that outline specific events, times and places then you'll have my full attention.

I fear this applies to you. I pray you would repent while you still can:


19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Don't be that person who who finds out too late and says, " If only I listened to those people in ChristianChat"!!

 

[Elin]

I go to church every Sunday

Define the meaning of "church" in your statement.

You practice deception.

 

[st_sebastian]

I'm sorry, be being brand new to this board, I picked up this thread where it was (on page 20 I think).

I'm talking about the response I wrote to you. I mention that they differ on souls, for example, so they differ on what humans are and how they work. For some reason, you ignore that and only allow that they differ on miracles and catastrophes. Odd.

And, yes, Nye is a pure naturalist.

Then we agree that their models differ on more than the past, and that your assertion that their predictive abilities are equivalent is nonsense. They make entirely different claims, from the fate of the individual, to the fate planet, to the fate of the universe, to the presence or absence of a soul, etc.

He won't consider anything supernatural, no matter how much evidence may be pointing in that direction.

It's for this reason that you're going to be /ignored. It is essential in any debate to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, you can insist that any disagreement he has is disingenuous. You cannot have a candid conversation if this is the sort of rhetoric you're fond of.

You're not being plonked because you threaten my belief system. It's because two posts in, you're already showing such poor sportsmanship.

 

[Elin]

He's a paid creation scientist, just like kens TelePrompTer pros

And other scientists are not paid?

So how do they pay their bills?

 

[Elin]

yeah you have to be correct. I'm sure the Monsanto people didn't bother learning how the fish evolved the gene they were looking for they just cut joe up and threw it into a strawberry patch!

This information does prove evolution. The stars are currently moving away from us,

Does that make the earth the center of the universe?

 

[Jhana]

Jhana, it is incorrect to say that "evolution doesn't violate the laws of science." Evolutionists do violate the laws of science. They do this by implying that time, space, matter and energy (that of which the universe consists) somehow---self originated out of nothing! This contradicts the laws of science (i.e., physics). Evolutionists violate the laws of science when they teach, directly or otherwise, that dead inanimate matter somehow "evolved" into the first form of life. These two teachings violate the most basic laws of science. The bottom line is that the origin of time, space, matter, energy, and the origin of the first form of life---cannot be scientifically explained. The only explanation for the origin of these is Yahweh, the self existing supernatural being who created these---out of nothing.

I'm not disregarding the fact that science has no explanation for how matter cannot come from 'nothing'. For matter to exist, it must have 'always' existed, if that makes sense. Because matter cannot be scientifically created or destroyed, only changed from energy to matter and vice verse.

But that isn't a sound basis to say evolution is flawed.

Just because we cannot physically create life on Earth from chemical compounds, does not mean that life does not or can not exist. And since life exists, then it is feasible to suggest that life can evolve, as we see in mutations of genes and in the progress of animal evolution. The theory of evolution itself is not negated by the fact that life cannot currently be created in a laboratory from compounds

Neither is the theory of abiogenesis disproven. Because at some point, the Earth's conditions were of magma, smoke, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and as an underpinning summation; conditions in which life CANNOT exist. At a certain temperature, life ceases to be. And it is theoretically correct to say that at some point in time, Earth had these temperatures.

Therefore, at some point in time, the Earth cooled, and life came to be. That is abiogenisis. The formation of life from chemical compounds.

That isn't the same as me saying 'God didn't create life'. That isn't what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that life had to have had a 'beginning' on Earth. At one point in time, life 'began'.To say that abiogenesis, (life forming from chemicals) is impossible, is to say that life does not exist. But yet it does exist.

What you really mean is that abiogenesis has not been recreated, and thus you explain this fact by saying 'then God must have created it'. and I'm not disagreeing with you, because what you say is as valid a theory as any.

Just be careful not to equate the theory of non-divine abiogenisis with evolution. Evolution is only the progression of life via mutations. Abiogenesis is the very beginning of life itself.

 

[Elin]

you are the one with a supernatural claim... That needs no demonstrable proof? If you search
you will find demonstrable proof for the scientific facts I posted.

"Demonstrable proof" sounds like your deceptive phrase for "evidence."

Like your deceptive phrases about being a "Christian" and going to "church" on Sunday.

You practice deception.

Evidence is not proof if it has no causative connection.
Substantiated evidence of my fingerprints were found in the home,
but that doesn't mean I did the crime. . .I live there.

Perhaps if you were to attend a high school science class.

High school science class where they present theory as scientific fact. . .

Yeah, that would help a lot.

 

[Jhana]

Does that make the earth the center of the universe?

An infinite space cannot have a center. You're thinking of the universe in terms of flatness. But it expands in every direction infinitely, thus 'center' is a term that doesn't apply.

 

[Elin]

If that info was real it would be headline news. Ken would have won the debate. The problem is no evidence exists for a YEC. I'm sorry its just not real.

So your proof is that it hasn't made headline news?

Now that's solidly scientific.

 

[Huckleberry]

I also have no problem with the theory that perhaps an asteroid hit Earth with some form of life already living on it...

That happened.

That the Earth is in fact about 4 billion years old, and life began a few billion years ago. It's not unfeasible.

Not feasible.

Evolution doesn't violate the laws of science. It just accepts the law of probability in the universe.

The probability of the DNA molecule originating without intentional cause is ZERO.
The laws of science show exactly what the Bible says repeatedly:
Organisms can ONLY bring forth after their own kind.
So-called "microevolution" by definition only produces variant species of the same kinds.
No one has ever observed any organism producing anything other than its own kind.
The very concept of "macroevolution" is unscientific and naturally impossible.
You could breed horses for a bazillion years,
and you would always end up with some kind of horse.

 

[Elin]

It's to bad that the focus in this controversy has to be on evolution versus a young earth creation only. I can't think of anything that drives more young people from considering Biblical creation than Ken Ham's dogmatic assertions that it all happened in six twenty four hour days a mere 6000 years ago. Young earth creationists base this on a belief that Adam was the first human. If this is true, where did Cain find a wife? If this is true, who were the humans that Cain feared "...shall slay me" (Gen. 4:14) when he was driven into their land? Young earth advocates try to get around this by claiming that Cain's wife was a sister, but there is no scriptural evidence for this. They are reading it into the text.

There is likewise no Scriptural evidence that Adam was not the first human.

You are simply reading into the text that Cain did not marry his sister.

And the people Cain feared would have been the numerous future generations,
for they lived for hundreds and hundreds of years during that time.

And then there is the Genesis flood. Ken Ham's universal cover-the-planet interpretation also, drives away those with critical thinking skills. Yes, there was an ark, and a flood, but it could not have held dinosaurs and the thousands of other birds and animals necessary in a Ken Ham type interpretation. Neither could it this flood have covered a planet with its 30,000 foot mountain ranges. The Bible does not say this,

The bible states both:

"All the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." (Ge 7:19)

"Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark." (Ge 7:15)

Noah didn't have to find 'em, nor round 'em up.

The ark was the length of 1 1/2 football fields, as wide as 3/4 of a football field, and as high as a four-story building.

It woulda' worked.



it does not require us to believe that there were no humans before Adam, or that the flood of Noah's time covered 30,000 foot mountains. I had long suspected this but could not properly explain it until I read Biblical Antiquities: Book I by archaeologist and Bible scholar E. Raymond Capt. As Capt explains, the key to understanding the creation story is to know that, unlike the rest of Genesis, it was recorded much earlier, and not in Hebrew, but on clay tablets in ancient cuneiform. When reading Genesis you will notice this, you will notice a brevity, and a style in the first few chapters that are not in the rest. There is more, much more to this, and it is very fascinating.[/QUOTE]

 

[IntoTheVoid]

I fear this applies to you. I pray you would repent while you still can:


19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Don't be that person who who finds out too late and says, " If only I listened to those people in ChristianChat"!!

I'm willing to listen, your the one who couldn't respond with what I was asking for.

 

[Jhana]

That happened.


Not feasible.

The probability of the DNA molecule originating without intentional cause is ZERO.
The laws of science show exactly what the Bible says repeatedly:
Organisms can ONLY bring forth after their own kind.
So-called "microevolution" by definition only produces variant species of the same kinds.
No one has ever observed any organism producing anything other than its own kind.
The very concept of "macroevolution" is unscientific and naturally impossible.
You could breed horses for a bazillion years,
and you would always end up with some kind of horse.

Evolution isn't the same as abiogenisis, and evolutionary theory isn't based on the premise of one animal producing offspring of a different kind. That's an argument engineered to make the theory look bananas. Evolutionary theory is based on slow-progress mutations and small changes in biology over billions of years.

 

[Elin]

If the YEC were correct you would think the rest of the christian world would back them up... they don't though and the YEC claims have more leaks than the Iraqi navy...

Is that more of your scientific proof?

 

[Elin]

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.

More assertions without demonstration which are, therefore, without merit.

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.

You lie about being a Christian. . .so why would we believe anything else you say?

 

[Elin]

I have wondered about Nye's proclivities....

Anybody wondering about Tr's proclivities?

 

[Stinger]

Okay, let's think about this, you say that a few thousand years is not enough time for a single pair (or perhaps a couple of pairs, for I really don't know where the 'kind' distinction line would have been drawn) to generate all the various cat species. ...

Right well I can certainly gather that view; that a few species of cat might evolve or develop all of them. But that still doesn't explain endemic species. Nor does it explain the fact that leopards have spots and tigers have stripes. If all cats were to come from a single genus or a single type of cat within the last few thousand years, then all cats would probably have stripes, or spots, or have manes, or not. Cats don't swim oceans. So we wouldn't have native cats in places separated from Israel by ocean on all sides.
...

Hello Jhana,

I don't understand why you would say that the ark account can't explain endemic species. The geography of the globe was probably not the same then as it is now, in particular, there is much evidence that the sea-levels were much lower than they are now, so migration of land animals would have been easier. Remember, after the ark the animals would have likely had access to areas which later became isolated, at which point those animals would have been cut-off from the general population and would have continued to breed within their specific (and limited) gene pool.

Evolution doesn't violate the laws of science. It just accepts the law of probability in the universe. Somewhere, somehow, life would have eventually formed. Whether by God's hand or not, we have no 'scientific' proof, but certainly, theory actually points that way.

I'm sorry, Jhana, but evolution does violate one of the most fundamental laws of physics in a very big way. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't understand physics, or is not being true to the laws of physics.

 

[Huckleberry]

I have wondered about Nye's proclivities....

I predict his proclivity is toward being a total jackass wussy.
What else kind of man would tick off a woman to this point and then get a restraining order on her?
War Of The Roses | The Smoking Gun

 

[Stinger]

...
I literally, don't have a definitive view, and I'm open to whatever truth is given me.

The question really, that I ask is; does the story even have to be literal? Does it have to mean the Earth is only 6000 years old? Why can't it be parabolic or relevant to the times at hand? If it can't be, then why can't it be?

I see no reason it can't.
...

Hello again,

I am glad you are open. Taking the flood account as figurative has a number of issues (and Ken Ham's AnswersInGenesis website would discuss these). First, in the New Testament both Jesus and Peter (if I remember correctly) speak in such a way as to indicate that they accept these accounts as literally true. 2nd, to take them as allegory really has negative repercussions throughout the rest of the Old Testament as well - the time chronologies of the persons living would be totally out-of-whack. 3rd, there is just way too much physical evidence that the flood account is true, and that the earth is actually young (though the universe as a whole could be 'older', in a comparative sense, though all were created at about the same time... age and time again being 'relative'). Again, there is a lot of young earth material out there to examine if you are truly interested.

 

[Stinger]

Jhana, it is important to remember that Adam, an eighth day creation (Genesis 2), was not the first human. The man described in Genesis 1 is pre-Adamic man. These were the people who Cain feared "...shall slay me" (Gen. 4:14) when driven into their land. It was from among them that Cain found a wife ("and Cain knew his wife" [Gen. 4:17]). Ken Ham tries to get around this by reading into the text, the idea---that Cain married a sister. There is no evidence for this.

The bottom line is that one should not attempt to estimate the age of the universe based upon the idea that Adam was the first human. This will result in the building of additional errors upon the first.

Hello Historicist,

Where you get this notion I do not know, but it is not biblically accurate. There is no evidence for what you are saying. Adam was the 1st human.