Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Creation vs Evolution debate

[TheFinalWord]

Had Christ lived today would his declaration of being the son of god not be taken with some skeptical thoughts? They said David Koresh, Jim Jones, Sun Myung Moon, etc. were all crack pots. Why would I believe Jesus Christ over any of them?

 

Good points.

 

His claims were actually treated with lots of skepticism in his time.

 

Some people said he was demon-possessed.

The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”“I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.

 

What helped back up his claims were his miracles.

Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. “He put mud on my eyes,” the man replied, “and I washed, and now I see.” Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others asked, “How can a sinner perform such signs?” So they were divided.

 

In many ways Jesus mirrored Moses (Moses prophesied one such as him would arise among Israel). Both Moses and Jesus claimed to have received testimony from God. Both backed it up with miracles.

 

Even after Jesus death, the Pharisees (religious leaders that opposed Jesus) and Jews were skeptical of Jesus' claims and developed a plan:

“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!

 

When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

[M30USA]

Good points.

 

His claims were actually treated with lots of skepticism in his time.

 

Some people said he was demon-possessed.

The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”“I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.

 

What helped back up his claims were his miracles.

Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. “He put mud on my eyes,” the man replied, “and I washed, and now I see.” Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others asked, “How can a sinner perform such signs?” So they were divided.

 

In many ways Jesus mirrored Moses (Moses prophesied one such as him would arise among Israel). Both Moses and Jesus claimed to have received testimony from God. Both backed it up with miracles.

 

Even after Jesus death, the Pharisees (religious leaders that opposed Jesus) and Jews were skeptical of Jesus' claims and developed a plan:

“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!

 

When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

 

I guess what I meant was that, Jesus' radical claims aside, he didnt exhibit any of the chaotic or pathological character traits that accompany a personality disorder. Additionally, people's personality disorders become more evident the closer you get to them and the more you know them. With Jesus it was the opposite--the more people knew him, the more perfect they found his character and morals to be. Even those trying to kill him could find no fault with him. This is when they resorted to false accusations and twisting of legality to "catch" him.

Edited February 13, 2014 by M30USA

[mukkrakker]

Jesus...didnt exhibit any...pathological character traits

 

How can you possibly know that? He may have been locked up in a psych ward for thirty years, before he became infamous...

[misternoname]

Jesus performing miracles is just another fairy tale written by men in a time when people were gullible. I don't think of the Bible as a historical account of ancient times but more of a fictitious morality tale.

[pie2]

Christian Today asks it's readers to vote on "who won" the debate

 

WATCH Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate VIDEO in FULL HERE: Who won Creation vs Evolution debate? [POLL] | Christian News on Christian Today

 

You have to vote to see the results. As of ten minutes ago 27,101 votes.

Ken Ham 8%

Bill Nye 92%

 

Did I mention this was at Christian Today ?

 

In case I didn't, this was a vote on the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Creation vs Evolution debate held by the readers of Christian Today web site...

 

 

It's so weird that today the results say there are 47251 votes, and it's the exact same percentage: 8% Ham, 92% Nye. What are the chances of that?

 

 

After reading some of the comments on this thread, I was expecting a subpar performance by Ham. But it wasn't at all! I liked the debate, and it definitely gave me something to think about (i.e. the Noah's Ark argument from Nye). All in all though, I thought Ham brought excellent points to the debate as well.

 

 

It seemed to come down to a matter of perspective on historical evidence. It can be so disheartening when people think we have it all figured out, I think they ignore the millions of "scientific" errors and misconceptions believed throughout time.

Edited February 15, 2014 by pie2

[Keenly]

It's so weird that today the results say there are 47251 votes, and it's the exact same percentage: 8% Ham, 92% Nye. What are the chances of that?

 

 

After reading some of the comments on this thread, I was expecting a subpar performance by Ham. But it wasn't at all! I liked the debate, and it definitely gave me something to think about (i.e. the Noah's Ark argument from Nye). All in all though, I thought Ham brought excellent points to the debate as well.

 

 

It seemed to come down to a matter of perspective on historical evidence. It can be so disheartening when people think we have it all figured out, I think they ignore the millions of "scientific" errors and misconceptions believed throughout time.

 

Did you skip the entire Q and A segement?

 

Maybe Ham should have been the one on dancing with the stars, because he sure is good st dancing around questions without answering them, lol.

[pie2]

Did you skip the entire Q and A segement?

 

Maybe Ham should have been the one on dancing with the stars, because he sure is good st dancing around questions without answering them, lol.

 

 

lol, yes I did! It's so long...I'll try to get there. Maybe this weekend. So, I take it that's where things start to fall apart?

 

 

But did you take anything positive away from his initial points?

[Keenly]

lol, yes I did! It's so long...I'll try to get there. Maybe this weekend. So, I take it that's where things start to fall apart?

 

 

But did you take anything positive away from his initial points?

 

Not really, because I wasn't really seeing any proof or facts behind what he was saying. He sincerely believed what he said, but he didn't really have any data or corresponding evidence to prove to me that it was correct.

 

 

Finish the debate, and then report back. Trust me

[pie2]

Not really, because I wasn't really seeing any proof or facts behind what he was saying. He sincerely believed what he said, but he didn't really have any data or corresponding evidence to prove to me that it was correct.

 

 

Finish the debate, and then report back. Trust me

 

 

Bill Nye and Ken Ham are both adorable in their own ways! The ever-present bow tie, the accent...how can anyone not love these guys?

 

 

The points I appreciated from the debate:

 

 

 

• The "data and corresponding evidence" that many people seem to be looking for (repeatable, observable phenomena) just aren't going to be produced. Ham is discussing a philosophical way of looking at what we have in terms of matter, being, history etc. If Ham didn't answer "where matter comes from, and how did we come to be", then Nye certainly didn't offer any proof either.
  
• Secularists really have hijacked the term "science". There does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding created by not really understanding the terms we're all talking about, and science is one of them. But at the end of the day, I definitely don't think non-religious people have any ownership over "science".
  
• The "orchard" classification system of species seems so interesting. Obviously there wasn't time to go deeply into how it works, and I'm curious to know more about it. But these types of changes really would alter how we look at the development and changes (or not) of species.
  
• It seems like both guys were just talking at each other, and talking past each other sometimes. It wasn't always like a discussion, it seemed like both wanted to make their own points but didn't always relate what they were saying to each other's points.
  

 

 

I think Ken Ham delivered the crushing blow to his own side when he and Nye were asked, "What would change your mind?"

 

Ham answered, "Nothing."

Nye answered, "Evidence."

 

 

After having read your post, I was waiting for this moment in the debate. And actually, I think you've really misrepresented what he said. Ham explained the background to his beliefs which have proven true to him over and over, explaining (imo) that he has put his faith in a trustworthy power higher than any man.

[TheFinalWord]

 

• The "data and corresponding evidence" that many people seem to be looking for (repeatable, observable phenomena) just aren't going to be produced. Ham is discussing a philosophical way of looking at what we have in terms of matter, being, history etc. If Ham didn't answer "where matter comes from, and how did we come to be", then Nye certainly didn't offer any proof either.
  

 

Good points Pie2!

 

Well, the one thing I do not understand about Ken Ham (I have watched his debates with other versions of creationists) is this idea that we cannot observe the past. In astronomy, that is all they can do is observe the past. It takes time for light to reach us. For example, when we are looking at the sun (not directly!) it took that light 7 minutes to reach us. So we are seeing it as it was, 7 minutes ago. Keep going with that thought...when we look at the closest star to us, besides the sun, Alpha Centauri (actually a binary star), the time it took the light from that star to reach us is 4.3 light years. So we are not seeing it in the present, but in the past. Keep going out...I think you see what I mean. So we really are seeing starlight that took billions of years to reach us. We are directly observing the past...yet, Ken Ham continues to claim we can't see the past b/c we weren't there? I'm trying to see his point, but this idea that we can't know the past using the scientific method just does not seem valid.

 

Here is Dr. Hugh Ross (an astrophysicist) explaining this to Kent Hovind:

 

Hugh Ross vs Kent Hovind - How old is the Earth? - YouTube

[M30USA]

Totally true, Pie2. It sounds like a silly point but I've repeatedly seen on this forum that, for all the people arguing in favor of "science", almost none of them know what science actually is--or what it's criteria for appropriate application are (repeatability, measurability, etc.).

Edited February 16, 2014 by M30USA

[pie2]

Here is Dr. Hugh Ross (an astrophysicist) explaining this to Kent Hovind:

 

Hugh Ross vs Kent Hovind - How old is the Earth? - YouTube

 

 

Oh my, so interesting!! At first I was scared...another 3 hour video. . But you took me right to the spot...thank you! And now I even want to finish the whole thing. I don't even know which one is which, but I assume Hugh Ross has a little less hair...?

 

 

Anyway, I'm no Young Earth fanatic or anything. But was Kent Hovind saying that we have a "rubber ruler" (love that!)? That seems to go along with Ham's ideas about not having any immediate proof that what we observe here is constant throughout, across all space, time, distance? I don't know though! What am I even talking about?

 

 

Ross and Hovind go on to talk about entropy, which was also mentioned in the Nye-Ham debate. I had never heard about the 2nd law of thermodynamics arguments, but have been thinking about it all day, and how it relates to the logic of a creator.

[M30USA]

I've gone back and forth over the years between young and old earth creationism. There are really good points for both theories. At the current time I have no opinion on this, lol.

 

The only thing I will firmly stand on is that Adam was created roughly 6,000 years ago.

[pie2]

I've gone back and forth over the years between young and old earth creationism. There are really good points for both theories. At the current time I have no opinion on this, lol.

 

The only thing I will firmly stand on is that Adam was created roughly 6,000 years ago.

 

 

 

Love this! Yes, I think that is a fair middle ground .

[M30USA]

Love this! Yes, I think that is a fair middle ground .

 

 

I think it's interesting that even secular history books will tell you that advanced civilization, art, music, math, science, and government all seemed to just explode out of nowhere...around 6,000 years ago. Granted, they believe humans existed way before that, but it's interesting that even they point to 6,000 years ago as a time when humans had a huge boom in advancement. Was it advancement or was it really that humans, at that time, BECAME the humans that we are today? What took place then? (Stop me before I get into one of my theories.)

Edited February 17, 2014 by M30USA

[pie2]

I think it's interesting that even secular history books will tell you that advanced civilization, art, music, math, science, and government all seemed to just explode out of nowhere...around 6,000 years ago. Granted, they believe humans existed way before that, but it's interesting that even they point to 6,000 years ago as a time when humans had a huge boom in advancement. Was it advancement or was it really that humans, at that time, BECAME the humans that we are today? What took place then? (Stop me before I get into one of my theories.)

 

 

 

 

Stop!! Things are going so well .

 

 

I agree completely that the explosion of civilization as we know it seems to coincide in a similar way to our history in the bible. Very significant, imo.

[TheFinalWord]

The only thing I will firmly stand on is that Adam was created roughly 6,000 years ago.

 

Yeah, I don't agree. Basically, the dates Bishop Ussher developed assume no gaps and assumes the lists compiled were meant to be exhaustive. We know there are gaps in the genealogies. Lightfoot got even more precise and claimed that Adam was created Oct 23, 9am, 4th-5th meridian time.

 

The Holy Spirit adds up years in certain parts of Genesis. In other places, He doesn't. Why do we feel it is okay to add years where the Holy Spirit doesn't?

[pie2]

Yeah, I don't agree. Basically, the dates Bishop Ussher developed assume no gaps and assumes the lists compiled were meant to be exhaustive. We know there are gaps in the genealogies. Lightfoot got even more precise and claimed that Adam was created Oct 23, 9am, 4th-5th meridian time.

 

 

?

 

 

Who is Lightfoot? What do you mean, meridian time Oct. 23 etc. etc...

 

 

The Holy Spirit adds up years in certain parts of Genesis. In other places, He doesn't. Why do we feel it is okay to add years where the Holy Spirit doesn't?

 

 

No, I don't feel that way!

 

 

So, what are your thoughts about the origins of Adam (like, do you have a rough idea of when that might have happened), and the explosion of modern civilization?

[TheFinalWord]

?

 

 

Who is Lightfoot? What do you mean, meridian time Oct. 23 etc. etc...

 

 

No, I don't feel that way!

 

So, what are your thoughts about the origins of Adam (like, do you have a rough idea of when that might have happened), and the explosion of modern civilization?

 

Joseph Lightfoot was a biblical theologian.

 

Well, I am still thinking about this topic Right now, I am watching Dr. Craig's series Doctrine of Creation.

 

 

 

Both are multi-part series

 

On another note, I am amazed how Craig has the energy and time to teach on so many topics! haha He teaches these classes at his church.

[pie2]

Well, I am still thinking about this topic Right now, I am watching Dr. Craig's series Doctrine of Creation.

 

 

 

Both are multi-part series

 

 

 

 

On another note, I am amazed how Craig has the energy and time to teach on so many topics! haha He teaches these classes at his church.

 

 

Well, I'm amazed by you...for the same reason!!! It's really awesome how much you know.

 

 

But I think Craig is paid to do this all day long. It's his job, yeah? I'm sure being in the public eye is motivation enough to stay on top of the so many topics. I mean, he's "attacked" from all sides; there's always someone who's trying to call him out and bring him down, it seems.

Edited February 17, 2014 by pie2

[Haydn]

Love this thread. Could i inject some levity?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5KvGS_wT_4

[TheFinalWord]

Oh my, so interesting!! At first I was scared...another 3 hour video. . But you took me right to the spot...thank you! And now I even want to finish the whole thing. I don't even know which one is which, but I assume Hugh Ross has a little less hair...?

 

 

Anyway, I'm no Young Earth fanatic or anything. But was Kent Hovind saying that we have a "rubber ruler" (love that!)? That seems to go along with Ham's ideas about not having any immediate proof that what we observe here is constant throughout, across all space, time, distance? I don't know though! What am I even talking about?

 

 

Ross and Hovind go on to talk about entropy, which was also mentioned in the Nye-Ham debate. I had never heard about the 2nd law of thermodynamics arguments, but have been thinking about it all day, and how it relates to the logic of a creator.

 

That video was from a series in 2000. So a bit out of date, but still gives the basic info.

 

Kent Hovind is hilarious. Very good speaker. He's a bit of a revolutionary and is currently in prison for not paying his taxes. At one time, he was pretty much the voice of YEC.

 

Yes, Hugh Ross is the man with no hair He is an astrophysicist. The youngest person ever to serve as director of observations for Vancouver's Royal Astronomical Society. There's debates between him and Ken Ham you can watch.

 

Reasons To Believe : About : Who We Are : Hugh Ross

[maiden of rohan]

Bill Nye and Ken Ham are both adorable in their own ways! The ever-present bow tie, the accent...how can anyone not love these guys?

 

 

The points I appreciated from the debate:

 

 

 

• The "data and corresponding evidence" that many people seem to be looking for (repeatable, observable phenomena) just aren't going to be produced. Ham is discussing a philosophical way of looking at what we have in terms of matter, being, history etc. If Ham didn't answer "where matter comes from, and how did we come to be", then Nye certainly didn't offer any proof either.
  
• Secularists really have hijacked the term "science". There does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding created by not really understanding the terms we're all talking about, and science is one of them. But at the end of the day, I definitely don't think non-religious people have any ownership over "science".
  
• The "orchard" classification system of species seems so interesting. Obviously there wasn't time to go deeply into how it works, and I'm curious to know more about it. But these types of changes really would alter how we look at the development and changes (or not) of species.
  
• It seems like both guys were just talking at each other, and talking past each other sometimes. It wasn't always like a discussion, it seemed like both wanted to make their own points but didn't always relate what they were saying to each other's points.
  

 

 

 

 

 

After having read your post, I was waiting for this moment in the debate. And actually, I think you've really misrepresented what he said. Ham explained the background to his beliefs which have proven true to him over and over, explaining (imo) that he has put his faith in a trustworthy power higher than any man.

 

That alarmingly can't be verified by any other means than his words. Case closed.

 

Just because he believes what he thinks is true does not mean it is. Also, you have yet to identify where I misrepresented what Ham said. He essentially admits that there is nothing, no amount of evidence that will change his mind. Also, why should anyone care what people put their faith into since by definition, faith is the excuse people give to believe something when they have no evidence?

 

I don't see the point in entering a debate if you're not even remotely open to the possibility of being proven wrong. People need to get over this unwillingness to accept evolution as the fact that it is, and let the rest of the world move on. These debates should not need to happen, and wouldn't need to happen if people like Ham would remove the cotton from their eyes, pull the wool away from their eyes, and open themselves up to reality.

 

"I put my faith in a higher power" a higher power that funnily enough no one has ever demonstrated, or given a single shred of evidence aside from ancient books that contain more inaccuracies and inconsistencies than they do truths. Yet these same types of people will argue against evolution which has stacks of evidence-why? Because they're not in the business of evidence or even truth-seeking. They like their beliefs, and want to believe them, so it's in the ears the fingers go, and on the blacked out glasses go, and lalalalalalalalala, goodbye reality.

Edited February 17, 2014 by maiden of rohan

[M30USA]

Yeah, I don't agree. Basically, the dates Bishop Ussher developed assume no gaps and assumes the lists compiled were meant to be exhaustive. We know there are gaps in the genealogies. Lightfoot got even more precise and claimed that Adam was created Oct 23, 9am, 4th-5th meridian time.

 

The Holy Spirit adds up years in certain parts of Genesis. In other places, He doesn't. Why do we feel it is okay to add years where the Holy Spirit doesn't?

 

TFW,

 

There are no gaps in Biblical genealogy.

 

Period #1

We know there were 1946 years from Adam to Abraham (documented in Genesis).

 

Period #2

Then there were 42 generations from Abraham to Christ (documented in Matthew chapter 1). Even if you drastically overshoot it and assume that each male was 50 years old when they had children during this "gap" (most were much younger), you still get 2,100 years from Abraham to Christ. This is a safe assumption because lifespans were already reduced from pre-Flood lengths way before this.

 

Period #3

Finally, add another 2,000 years from Christ to today and you have about 6,000 years.

 

If you're wondering, I've actually spent HOURS and gone through the entire genealogy myself. I went over the math multiple times and I also know where the alleged loopholes are (see next paragraph).

 

The only way you can get around this is if the definition of "year" in Scripture is not literal, or if it's changed since then (as in from lunar year to solar year), or if you believe anyone between Abraham and Christ (period #2) lived a ridiculously long time--which, as I said, is not possible because lifespans were down from pre-Flood lengths way before this. Otherwise this is a topic where Scripture documents VERY well and leaves no confusion as most people claim.

Edited February 17, 2014 by M30USA

[TheFinalWord]

TFW,

 

There are no gaps in Biblical genealogy.

 

Period #1

We know there were 1946 years from Adam to Abraham (documented in Genesis).

 

Period #2

Then there were 42 generations from Abraham to Christ (documented in Matthew chapter 1). Even if you drastically overshoot it and assume that each male was 50 years old when they had children during this "gap" (most were much younger), you still get 2,100 years from Abraham to Christ. This is a safe assumption because lifespans were already reduced from pre-Flood lengths way before this.

 

Period #3

Finally, add another 2,000 years from Christ to today and you have about 6,000 years.

 

If you're wondering, I've actually spent HOURS and gone through the entire genealogy myself. I went over the math multiple times and I also know where the alleged loopholes are (see next paragraph).

 

The only way you can get around this is if the definition of "year" in Scripture is not literal, or if it's changed since then (as in from lunar year to solar year), or if you believe anyone between Abraham and Christ (period #2) lived a ridiculously long time--which, as I said, is not possible because lifespans were down from pre-Flood lengths way before this. Otherwise this is a topic where Scripture documents VERY well and leaves no confusion as most people claim.

 

Thanks for your overview. No offense, but I think I will stick to Dr. Walter Kaiser Jr., an Old Testament scholar (one of the NIV translators) who has spent 35 years analyzing these issues.

 

Hard Sayings of the Bible - Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred Brauch - Google Books