Ken Ham vs Bill Nye (Is creation a viable model of origins?)

[Lighthouse]

The Pat Robertson thing blew my mind.

 

[SV Fan]

Man I'd totally be guilty of that. What about The Holiday Special, is that canonical or apocrypha?
Do we celebrate Life Day or not?[YT]YRrm59Z_0w4[/YT]

I like to think the Holiday Special is Star Wars Canon so Bea Arthur can be a Star Wars Character

[YT]RzXKySxPFCI[/YT]

Now only if they could come out with a Bea Arthur Star Wars action figure

 

[Marvolo]

I like to think the Holiday Special is Star Wars Canon so Bea Arthur can be a Star Wars Character

[YT]RzXKySxPFCI[/YT]

Now only if they could come out with a Bea Arthur Star Wars action figure

Do not speak of that sinful abomination!

 

[chaseter]

What can you offer so as to support the veracity of the dates you're asserting for these tablets?

The 11th in the Gilgamesh poems only dates to 7 BC. Where do you derive these dates from?

What can you offer so as to support that incest hasn't populated the Earth twice according the the Bible...Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark. Humans and animals were boinking their relatives. Maybe God flooded the Earth because everyone was having sex with their sisters. How do you explain that? Where is the verse that says that God allowed incest for 1000 years so that the Earth could repopulate.

 

[SV Fan]

Do not speak of that sinful abomination!

What do you have against Bea Arthur?

 

[chaseter]

So when DO you think dinosaurs walked the Earth?

The more important question is...why are there no fossils of animals alive today alongside that of dinosaurs? Where is the fossil of an elephant or giraffe dead alongside a T-Rex? God created all land animals on the same day...so why is the fossil record so skewed??? I could have made Ken Ham stutter.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Still haven't gotten around to watching this debate, but I'm not sure it's such a great idea to debate a creationist to begin with, since it only validates their absurd point of view and puts it on equal footing with an actual scientific theory (evolution).

 

[Thundercrack85]

Still haven't gotten around to watching this debate, but I'm not sure it's such a great idea to debate a creationist to begin with, since it only validates their absurd point of view and puts it on equal footing with an actual scientific theory (evolution).

I don't see it as validation, so much as engagement.

If you ignore it, it will never go away.

Who is really reaching an audience that can be persuaded? Ham isn't going to convince anyone who wasn't already a creationist.

 

[Tanin]

Still haven't gotten around to watching this debate, but I'm not sure it's such a great idea to debate a creationist to begin with, since it only validates their absurd point of view and puts it on equal footing with an actual scientific theory (evolution).

Bill used science to denounce all the ideas Ken stated at the debate. While Ken basically quoted the entire time was just a more polite version of 'were you there' that he teaches kids.

It was interesting to watch.
Science is about proving and disproving not ignoring. Creationism should never be ignored.... just disproved.

 

[Dr.]

As far as evidence, have you ever considered the vast amount of geological evidence supporting the Holy Bible's account of the global flood in Genesis?

For instance:

• There are fossilized clams up to a foot or more thick on the summit of Mt. Everest.

Tectonic activity explains how sediments containing marine fossils can be raised up to mountainous heights.

Also: The claim that mollusk fossils ended up on Everest due to a world-wide flood would seem to contradict the creationists’ “head for the hills” hypothesis. This is the notion that the ordered layering of fossils that we commonly find is explained by the order in which critters died during the deluge. I.e., slow/primitive animals (like trilobites) got buried first, slightly faster dinosaurs were next and speedy saber-tooth cats were the last (because they were better able to make it to higher ground). (Btw, even if this were true, it would only be a statistical trend. T. Rexes were faster than many modern mammals; so at least a few of them should have reached the high ground ahead of sloths, etc.) In any case, it would be puzzling - according to “Flood geology” - how clams managed to scamper up Mt. Everest.

 

[Doctor Evo]

In any case, it would be puzzling - according to “Flood geology” - how clams managed to scamper up Mt. Everest.

I'm afraid this argument might be ineffective, given that clams tend to be broadcast spawners and tend to have a pelagic larval stage prior to settlement. There would be no need to "scamper."

Now, if these fossils were to reveal a well-established, age-structured population, the flood "model" would be entirely unable to account for it, given its supposed duration.

 

[Breogan]

So now this Creationist Ken Ham guy who debated Bill Nye over evolution and the "model of origins", is calling for an end to the search for extraterrestrial life because aliens probably don't exist -- and if they do, they're going to Hell anyway.

On his blog he writes - http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/07/20/well-find-a-new-earth-within-20-years/

"You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam's sin affected the whole universe,...This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam's sin, but because they are not Adam's descendants, they can't have salvation."

So now he speaks for god, condemning any possible alien life forms.

Driven in part Nye himself championing the exploration of space, and by NASA experts recently saying - "It's highly improbable in the limitless vastness of the universe that we humans stand alone," NASA administrator Charles Bolden said last week."

Ham writes - "Of course, secularists are desperate to find life in outer space, as they believe that would provide evidence that life can evolve in different locations and given the supposed right conditions! The search for extraterrestrial life is really driven by man’s rebellion against God in a desperate attempt to supposedly prove evolution!"

This is no more a "rebellion against God" than was Magellan circumnavigating the earth "proving" it was round.
Just because a round earth didn't jibe with the interpretation of a holey book, doesn't mean one should't go exploring
and try and understand the universe we live in.
It just means you might have to change your interpretation of your book!
That is the only "rebellion" he fears, that people won't interpret his book (an by extension his Museum) the way he wants.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

^^
The Bible never said Earth was flat, many religious paintings display Earth as a round or spherical object.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

^^
The Bible never said Earth was flat, many religious paintings display Earth as a round or spherical object.

I don't think that's necessarily the point, people have used the bible to explain loads of garbage, and any time people question them, they throw their christian beliefs in there face as proof regardless of the bible's stance.

Slavery, Segregation, persecution of other religions, sexual orientation, misogyny, disregard of science, the world being flat, etc etc.. (the list goes on and on) have all been explained at one time or another by using biblical references and people using there christian beliefs as a shield for there own ignorance.

 

[Spider-Who?]

My real question is if people prior to Noah were living 900+ years how is the Earth only 6000 years old.

Hell Adam lived nearly 1/6 the Earth's entire lifespan.

A pretty big factor in Creationists’ method of dating the earth is in looking at the genealogy and lifespans of people listed in the Bible. Listing the genealogies is a pretty frequent aspect of the bible – if I remember correctly, through these lists, one is able to trace Jesus’ lineage all the way back to Adam. Countless studies concerning this have been done (and continue to be done), so I’m going to assume the math is correct (which says nothing about the actual worthiness of the young earth claim, however).

I love how you want evidence, when you present none, for your ridiculous claims about dinosaurs existing in the last 6000 years.

Well, there are a LOT of interesting references, descriptions, and remarks (outside of obvious myth and fiction) concerning people seeing and interacting with organisms that sound very much like various species of dinosaur throughout history. A simple google search can show countless references made by all sorts of otherwise well-respected historical figures and texts. Obviously, this isn't hard evidence in the slightest, but something worth contemplation.

Every single dinosaur didn’t die out at the same time 65 million years ago –it’s possible that (like many living reptiles and marine life) some dinosaurs clung on relatively unchanged before finally dying out over the last few thousand years. Key word being “possible”, however – there’s a major difference between “possible” and “probable”.

I think the problem is that some people take the daydream of ancestors running around with dinosaurs too far and take interesting (but otherwise soft at best) evidence to heart without question. Of course, the same can be said of those who incorrectly see the KT event as a light switch and ignore/refuse to consider anything further. In any case, like ghosts and UFOs, I’ll take current scientific understanding at its word – but I do find the possibility interesting and fun to consider.

 

[Donnie Darko]

I don't see why faith has to contradict the idea of life on other planets. If we are to truly believe that God is omnipotent and omnipresent, why is it so hard to believe that he not only created life on other worlds, but also gave salvation to those "people" as well?

 

[KevanG]

Because humans are special little snowflakes and it's better to be alone in the universe than admit there might be something out there worth knowing that might be better than us at stuff.