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

[KevanG]

Well 'obviously' we knew how to do all that thar reading n' righting back when GAWD made us with those dinos and the french poodles.

 

[Quasimod0]

What is interesting about Hamm's and other's claims that the earth is only 6000 years old is that their beliefs are so dependent upon one book and with their insistence upon that timescale, they don't really believe in existence before the invention of writing which estimated to have been developed around 5500 years ago.

Also that date is derived from the Genealogies in the bible, the thing is there are two of them. One copy is in Luke, the other is in either Matthew or Mark. The two of them contradict eachother but both represent an attempt to place Jesus in a family tree of famous figures from the Old testament. Similar family trees were written for other people like kings and such at the time.

I believe one family line lists the genealogy of Mary, and the other of Joseph

 

[Thundercrack85]

Except for the whole complete and utter lack of evidence thing.

But it doesn't contradict science. Whereas saying the Earth is 6,000 years old... presents serious problems. In every field of science.

 

[Destructus86]

Interesting anatomy on that green camel in the back....one part in particular....

Where the frak is that from? Is that really something someone believes?

 

[Dr.]

does anyone have a response for ken hamm's constant criticism that the science world has no consistent or accurate procedure for dating things? he kept bringing it up. and it's something i would have liked to of seen bill refute, but he didnt.

When the science of radiometric dating was new, it was more prone to problems (especially to do with the contamination of samples). But nowadays, the techniques are very precise and very robust - and the margin of error for all isotopes is in the 1%-2% range (E.g. a 3 billion-year-old sample from rubidium-strontium dating might be +/- 30-60 million years; a 600-year-old archeological item measured by carbon-14 dating might be +/- a couple of decades.) But even if the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth was off by a staggering (and highly unlikely) 50%, this is no consolation to Young Earth creationists (who claim the date of Genesis at between 6 and 10,000 years ago).

Also: relatively young radiometric dates (100s to 100,000s years) can be checked against tree rings, rock strata, ice cores, coral reef growth, etc. And older dates (into the multi-millions of years) can be crosschecked using other techniques (e.g., magnetostratigraphy).

The Earth is old.

 

[KalMart]

Where the frak is that from? Is that really something someone believes?

It's what some are trying to get children to believe. Not much different than teaching hate.

 

[KalMart]

What is interesting about Hamm's and other's claims that the earth is only 6000 years old is that their beliefs are so dependent upon one book and with their insistence upon that timescale, they don't really believe in existence before the invention of writing which estimated to have been developed around 5500 years ago.

Also that date is derived from the Genealogies in the bible, the thing is there are two of them. One copy is in Luke, the other is in either Matthew or Mark. The two of them contradict eachother but both represent an attempt to place Jesus in a family tree of famous figures from the Old testament. Similar family trees were written for other people like kings and such at the time.

The King James Bible...and Christianity for that matter...is also a big edited compilation of what used to be a pretty fractured faith until Roman emperor Constantine funneled them all into what's basically considered the 'authoritative' version of the Bible to this day. To even suggest that it represents any literal, scientific and perhaps even historical accuracy is laughable.

 

[Teelie]

Then there's all the apophryca.

 

[The End]

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene? Wow.

 

[webhead9707]

What is interesting about Hamm's and other's claims that the earth is only 6000 years old is that their beliefs are so dependent upon one book and with their insistence upon that timescale, they don't really believe in existence before the invention of writing which estimated to have been developed around 5500 years ago.

Also that date is derived from the Genealogies in the bible, the thing is there are two of them. One copy is in Luke, the other is in either Matthew or Mark. The two of them contradict eachother but both represent an attempt to place Jesus in a family tree of famous figures from the Old testament. Similar family trees were written for other people like kings and such at the time.

For the record, I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

The Bible never specifies a date for creation, but the creation accounts in Genesis provide some guidance. The genealogies and the length of the creation days play key roles in any biblical assessment of Earth’s age. The genealogies place a hard constraint that Adam and Eve appeared no more recently than 6,000 years ago. Since they contain gaps those genealogies cannot serve as timekeeping devices. However, it seems to stretch credulity to argue for anything much older than 100,000 years for Adam and Eve’s appearance on Earth.

Any other information on the Earth’s age must be inferred from the length of the creation days. The biblical word for day, yom, has four different literal meanings: 1) the daylight portion of a day, 2) part of the daylight hours, 3) an ordinary day (now 24 hours), and 4) a longer but finite period of time (no other word in biblical Hebrew carries this meaning). Although many Christians argue that those days represent ordinary calendar days, the biblical text indicates they lasted much longer. Days 1-3 cannot be ordinary days as humanity defines them because the Sun does not become visible until the fourth day. On the sixth day, Adam tends the garden, names all the animals, undergoes divine surgery and marries Eve. These events seem too significant and long to happen in one ordinary day. The seventh day, in contrast to the first six, never closes with an evening and morning. In fact, Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4 indicate that we still live in the seventh day.

The Bible never declares an age for the Earth, but evidence derived from the text fits most comfortably with a date far older than a few thousand years. RTB holds the position that the six days of creation represent long time periods and that the creation accounts reconcile well with the scientific date for Earth’s formation 4.6 billion years ago.

(Taken from here: http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/biblicalevidenceforanoldearth )

 

[KalMart]

Regardless of date, the Bible claims conscious supernatural design and credit for all that exists.....and that part is absolute horse s**t.

 

[webhead9707]

Regardless of date, the Bile claims conscious supernatural design and credit for all that exists.....and that part is absolute horse s**t.

I'm gonna pull a page out of your book. Prove it.

 

[KalMart]

I'm gonna pull a page out of your book. Prove it.

Evolutionary, cosmological, and geological study has done that already. Burden of proof lies with that which hasn't...like the Bible. Next.

 

[webhead9707]

Evolutionary, cosmological, and geological study has done that already. Burden of proof lies with that which hasn't...like the Bible.

I don't think the earth is flat. I believe God exists outside of time. So the Big Bang? I believe he made that happen. There are even parts of science that suggest a multiverse (Hmm...) or the recently discovered Dark Flow that we can't yet figure out. I get what you're saying, I just don't agree. Because you're saying I have nothing to put in a test tube, but a large part of the atheist argument when it comes to our origins is based on having nothing to put in a test tube. The evidence that we do have, can point to something greater. Lawrence Krauss even indirectly admitted as much in A Universe From Nothing.

 

[KalMart]

I don't think the earth is flat.

I never said you did.

I believe God exists outside of time. So the Big Bang? I believe he made that happen. There are even parts of science that suggest a multiverse (Hmm...) or the recently discovered Dark Flow that we can't yet figure out. I get what you're saying, I just don't agree. Because you're saying I have nothing to put in a test tube, but a large part of the atheist argument when it comes to our origins is based on having nothing to put in a test tube. The evidence that we do have, can point to something greater. Lawrence Krauss even indirectly admitted as much in A Universe From Nothing.

Why is it that something as rudimentary as a God made the big bang happen? What rational or scientific precedent is there for that? You must first prove that God exists before even beginning to attribute natural phenomenon to the concept of God.

And you cannot show a million +-year process in a test tube....but you can study, test, and match the results of it out in the world and even in space...retest and corroborate results. Unlike religion, that's how science has shown processes that we can't see. Religion cannot challenge science in a scientific or rational arena...it's not what religion does or is. The idea of coming from 'nothing' is an emotional concept not a rational one. Science will never say everything ultimately came from nothing...we can only point to what we've found out so far. But the more we do find out, rest assured it will be natural and not some all-powerful being (that religion somehow claims we can grasp, know its wishes and desires, and imagine ourselves being in its image??) sitting at the end of it.

 

[webhead9707]

I never said you did.


Why is it that God made the big bang happen? What rational or scientific precedent is there for that? You must first prove that God exists before even beginning to attribute natural phenomenon to the concept of God.

And you cannot show a million +-year process in a test tube....but you can study, test, and match the results of it out in the world and even in space...retest and corroborate results. Unlike religion, that's how science has shown processes that we can't see. Religion cannot challenge science in a scientific or rational arena...it's not what religion does or is. The idea of coming from 'nothing' is an emotional concept not a rational one. Science will never say everything ultimately came from nothing...we can only point to what we've found out so far. But the more we do find out, rest assured it will be natural and not some all-powerful being (that religion somehow says we ca grasp and imagine ourselves being in its image??) sitting at the end of it.

I get what you're saying, we just view things differently. What does proof of God look like to you? Hypothetically, whether I'm right or wrong, let's propose that for arguments sake there is a God, okay? What does him proving himself look like?

 

[KalMart]

What does proof of God look like to you? Hypothetically, whether I'm right or wrong, let's propose that for arguments sake there is a God, okay? What does him proving himself look like?

What does it look like to anyone? Whatever it may be...have him show it, provide concrete evidence. If you can't, then it's just as 'real' as unicorns or tooth fairies. Deists curiously feel they can comfortably hide behind 'unprovability'...as if that's some sort of badge of honor. But again, provability has to precede it...and whatever way that may be, whatever we haven't yet seen...that has to happen first. Until then, the concept of God is first and foremost unproven.

 

[KalMart]

Look, I'm not going to tell you or anyone else not to believe in God, or that you shouldn't have the free right to religion. I hold that freedom as dear as any other, whether I'm religious or not. I frankly wouldn't even go so far as to call religion a futile endeavor, devoid of any value whatsoever. Rather, I propose at least a bit more perspective, and to not see science as a threat or what have you to religion. There's got to be a way to still believe in God but not have to give him full credit for everything there is. Sure that may be a symbolic representation of his power et al, but the fact is we know better these days...and just like the rest of the world, religion should evolve as well.

 

[Doctor Evo]

However, it seems to stretch credulity to argue for anything much older than 100,000 years for Adam and Eve’s appearance on Earth.

The very concept of Adam and Eve is problematic in its own right from a biological perspective...regardless of date.

 

[KevanG]

Adam and Eve, Noahs Family post-flood and the animals off the ark, They all share a common issue that would be self evident with a few generations. I've always had issues with how that worked and no one has ever been able to explain it to my satisfaction, usually ending with 'It's one of Gods mysteries', 'It's not meant to be taken literally, it's all a metaphor', or 'Shut up and go away'.

 

[webhead9707]

Look, I'm not going to tell you or anyone else not to believe in God, or that you shouldn't have the free right to religion. I hold that freedom as dear as any other, whether I'm religious or not. I frankly wouldn't even go so far as to call religion a futile endeavor, devoid of any value whatsoever. Rather, I propose at least a bit more perspective, and to not see science as a threat or what have you to religion. There's got to be a way to still believe in God but not have to give him full credit for everything there is. Sure that may be a symbolic representation of his power et al, but the fact is we know better these days...and just like the rest of the world, religion should evolve as well.

I don't look at science as a threat by any means. I think if a religion requires staying in the dark, it's highly questionable. I mean, I think God ultimately has credit for everything, but also, I'm not one of those people that sees the NY skyline and says "Wow, God made all that." He may have given us the ability to create that resulted in that, but the New York skyline was made by men. Like you said though, let's not argue. We can all just be friends!

The very concept of Adam and Eve is problematic in its own right from a biological perspective...regardless of date.

True. I'm of the belief that God made other people too, and it just isn't mentioned. Otherwise, Cain, Abel, and Seth, would have had to get jiggy with their mommy.

 

[jonathancrane]

While part of me is happy that a debate of this type was held, the other part of me is not too pleased, as the insanity generated by the debate has taken over the web. Outside of the Hype, I used to spend most of my time on Tickld; well, thanks to the debate, Tickld has been overrun with trolls from both sides. I've been avoiding the news sites, because they're just as bad.

 

[KalMart]

I don't look at science as a threat by any means. I think if a religion requires staying in the dark, it's highly questionable. I mean, I think God ultimately has credit for everything, but also, I'm not one of those people that sees the NY skyline and says "Wow, God made all that." He may have given us the ability to create that resulted in that, but the New York skyline was made by men. Like you said though, let's not argue. We can all just be friends!

I don't think 'He gave' us anything...with the concept of a God or gods being a condition that we have created within ourselves fro early in our cognizant evolution...perhaps something that ongoing anthropological studies or the like will dive further into as time goes by. I'm fascinated by that prospect.

 

[webhead9707]

Adam and Eve, Noahs Family post-flood and the animals off the ark, They all share a common issue that would be self evident with a few generations. I've always had issues with how that worked and no one has ever been able to explain it to my satisfaction, usually ending with 'It's one of Gods mysteries', 'It's not meant to be taken literally, it's all a metaphor', or 'Shut up and go away'.

Well Noah's family had his sons wives, so that, in theory, would offer enough genetic diversity as far as being affected by illness, right? By the time of Abraham, God had not yet declared this kind of marriage to be contrary to His will (see Genesis 20:12). Laws governing incest apparently did not become enacted until the time of Moses (Lev 18:7-17; 20:11,12,14,17,20,21). Hence, there was no prohibition regarding marrying a sister (or niece or grandniece)

 

[KalMart]

Well Noah's family had his sons wives, so that, in theory, would offer enough genetic diversity as far as being affected by illness, right? By the time of Abraham, God had not yet declared this kind of marriage to be contrary to His will (see Genesis 20:12). Laws governing incest apparently did not become enacted until the time of Moses (Lev 18:7-17; 20:11,12,14,17,20,21). Hence, there was no prohibition regarding marrying a sister (or niece or grandniece)

When did he outlaw the gays?