or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

post #1 of 115
Thread Starter 

Did anyone else watch?

 

(I don't know if this link will work… it's still ongoing).

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

 

post #2 of 115

I heard about this a while back when they had a little pissing contest. Should be interesting.

post #3 of 115
I watched the first 45 minutes or so live. Might go back tomorrow and watch the rest.

From what I watched, it seemed like most of Ham's argument was that since history before a few thousand years ago wasn't recorded, we can't know for sure what happened. That would indicate that essentially all scientists of the last 500 years have been god-awful (heh) at extrapolation and prediction.
post #4 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post

From what I watched, it seemed like most of Ham's argument was that since history before a few thousand years ago wasn't recorded, we can't know for sure what happened. That would indicate that essentially all scientists of the last 500 years have been god-awful (heh) at extrapolation and prediction.

That's pretty much it. Yet what's written in the bible is unassailable fact (except the parts he didn't like).
post #5 of 115

It is like arguing with a lamp post.  What is the point?  Creationists will never change their mind and always cherry pick the Bible to make their point.

post #6 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

It is like arguing with a lamp post.  What is the point?  Creationists will never change their mind and always cherry pick the Bible to make their point.

Bull.  I studied all of this, lost my belief, spent time as an agnostic in doing so but came to a faith in design by natural revelation.  Take it to the "first cause".  Either the Cosmos always was or a Being always was.  Either one takes a leap of faith, everyone should admit that on both sides.  Micro evolution(and mutations) is plenty, macro is not.  I get tired of the lumping of "everyone" in this camp stuff about this issue.  Other than that I really don't want to participate in this thread.  It is overly divisive for no need.

post #7 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by cipher View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

It is like arguing with a lamp post.  What is the point?  Creationists will never change their mind and always cherry pick the Bible to make their point.

Bull.  I studied all of this, lost my belief, spent time as an agnostic in doing so but came to a faith in design by natural revelation.  Take it to the "first cause".  Either the Cosmos always was or a Being always was.  Either one takes a leap of faith, everyone should admit that on both sides.  Micro evolution(and mutations) is plenty, macro is not.  I get tired of the lumping of "everyone" in this camp stuff about this issue.  Other than that I really don't want to participate in this thread.  It is overly divisive for no need.

 

Agreed. I think there's a lot more common ground than the two sides want to admit. "Naturalism" and "creationism" don't have to be mutually exclusive. 

post #8 of 115

post #9 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by cipher View Post
 

Bull.  I studied all of this, lost my belief, spent time as an agnostic in doing so but came to a faith in design by natural revelation.  Take it to the "first cause".  Either the Cosmos always was or a Being always was.  Either one takes a leap of faith, everyone should admit that on both sides.  Micro evolution(and mutations) is plenty, macro is not.  I get tired of the lumping of "everyone" in this camp stuff about this issue.  Other than that I really don't want to participate in this thread.  It is overly divisive for no need.

 

I think Macro evolution does exist. I do think some species are interlinked, i think some are not. It isn't that black and white, but I do think evidence points towards the bible being incorrect on a when the universe was create. 

 

Also the one point Ham kept making was the bible is the only evidence that is dated to the time it happened. He is incorrect in that point. 

 

Quote:
 This leaves the question of when these works were created. Scholars in the first half of the 20th century came to the conclusion that the Yahwist was produced in the monarchic period, specifically at the court of Solomon, and the Priestly work in the middle of the 5th century BC (the author was even identified as Ezra), but more recent thinking is that the Yahwist was written either just before or during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century, and the Priestly final edition was made late in the Exilic period or soon after.[5]

 

Basically the first 5 books of the Old T, were written in the 5th - 6th century BC. Meaning 600 to 400 BC. That means they were written 2400 to 2600 years ago. That means that there is about a 3500 year gap between when creation supposedly occurred and when it was written down. 

 

So when Ham says that the bible is the only reliable source of information because it is evidence of the time is false. Those who wrote it were either citing some previously written down theories or word of mouth. 

 

Also the story of the great flood is very much linked to the story of Gilgamesh. The first 5 books were written in the Babylonian Empire. Which through history is descendants of the Sumerian Empire, which was ruled by Gilgamesh. So linking the great flood of the Sumerian lore to the bible is an easy fit. 

post #10 of 115

I will end with this.  Again the question is not a biblical one at all for me as a creationist.  And saying one has evidence while one does not is crap and is being closed minded.  Too many on both sides only look at the evidence that fits their theory.  There is evidence to both and they both take a leap of faith, end of story.  As stated I really don't want to get into this divisive topic any further where usually someones intelligence ends up being insulted, and where people post stupid pictures that say "evidence".  Have fun guys.

post #11 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by geauxforbroke View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cipher View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

It is like arguing with a lamp post.  What is the point?  Creationists will never change their mind and always cherry pick the Bible to make their point.

Bull.  I studied all of this, lost my belief, spent time as an agnostic in doing so but came to a faith in design by natural revelation.  Take it to the "first cause".  Either the Cosmos always was or a Being always was.  Either one takes a leap of faith, everyone should admit that on both sides.  Micro evolution(and mutations) is plenty, macro is not.  I get tired of the lumping of "everyone" in this camp stuff about this issue.  Other than that I really don't want to participate in this thread.  It is overly divisive for no need.

 

Agreed. I think there's a lot more common ground than the two sides want to admit. "Naturalism" and "creationism" don't have to be mutually exclusive. 

 

Faith and science are two different things. It's sort of like comparing mathematics and history. If one or more people start using the "facts" from one subject or another to "disprove" the other one, problems occur.

 

One topic really has nothing to do with the other.

post #12 of 115
Thread Starter 


It's important to note that:
a) Nye is not necessarily an expert on this particular branch of science (he's certainly more qualified than most people, though).
b) Ham is presenting not on behalf of "religion" as a whole, but on his particular subset only.

That said, I think that to most people, Nye destroyed Ham. The only things on which Nye stumbled (badly) are "what was there before the Big Bang?" type questions. Because… he can't know. For all we know, there is a God and God made the big bang happen, and since he/she/it is all-knowing, knew we'd arrive at exactly where we are right now.
post #13 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by cipher View Post
 

I will end with this.  Again the question is not a biblical one at all for me as a creationist.  And saying one has evidence while one does not is crap and is being closed minded.  Too many on both sides only look at the evidence that fits their theory.  There is evidence to both and they both take a leap of faith, end of story.  As stated I really don't want to get into this divisive topic any further where usually someones intelligence ends up being insulted, and where people post stupid pictures that say "evidence".  Have fun guys.

I'm with you on this.  Even if you [wisely] left the thread never to return.  :-P  At some point in history we have to take a leap of faith or simply admit that we haven't the foggiest idea what started it all.

 

That is my favorite philosophical question to ponder when I want to make my brain explode.  At some point in time, whether it was 500 million, or billion, or gadzillion, years ago, things "started."  Something had to start it.  What?  Why?

 

Oh, and lastly, prior to that "start" there was "nothing."  What did that look like?  What color was it? ;-)

post #14 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cipher View Post
 

I will end with this.  Again the question is not a biblical one at all for me as a creationist.  And saying one has evidence while one does not is crap and is being closed minded.  Too many on both sides only look at the evidence that fits their theory.  There is evidence to both and they both take a leap of faith, end of story.  As stated I really don't want to get into this divisive topic any further where usually someones intelligence ends up being insulted, and where people post stupid pictures that say "evidence".  Have fun guys.

I'm with you on this.  Even if you [wisely] left the thread never to return.  :-P  At some point in history we have to take a leap of faith or simply admit that we haven't the foggiest idea what started it all.

 

That is my favorite philosophical question to ponder when I want to make my brain explode.  At some point in time, whether it was 500 million, or billion, or gadzillion, years ago, things "started."  Something had to start it.  What?  Why?

 

Oh, and lastly, prior to that "start" there was "nothing."  What did that look like?  What color was it? ;-)

 

I could argue that it was monochromatic, but I'm sure that could be subject to many arguments because it was quite possibly before there was light. ;-)

post #15 of 115

A friend just sent me a buzzfeed with messages to bill nye from 22 creationists at the debate.  http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

post #16 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by cipher View Post
 

Bull.  I studied all of this, lost my belief, spent time as an agnostic in doing so but came to a faith in design by natural revelation.  Take it to the "first cause".  Either the Cosmos always was or a Being always was.  Either one takes a leap of faith, everyone should admit that on both sides.  Micro evolution(and mutations) is plenty, macro is not.  I get tired of the lumping of "everyone" in this camp stuff about this issue.  Other than that I really don't want to participate in this thread.  It is overly divisive for no need.

 

Arguments about the origin of existence of our universe have essentially nothing to do with arguments about evolution of life.  Any honest person, including cosmologists and theoretical physicists, will admit that we don't, and probably never can, know the origins of existence itself.  At least almost surely not with any certainty.  As many physicists have said, the mystery and wonder of these kinds of questions surely leaves some space for belief in God.

 

But evolution of life is completely unrelated.  The evolution of life requires as a given prior the existence of the universe.  How or why our universe came into existence is irrelevant.  I'm a statistician and computational biologist who does genetic research.  If you think, in believing in purely natural "micro" evolution but asserting that "macro" evolution requires divine intervention, that you're drawing a logical conclusion supported by physical evidence, observation, and experimentation, then you simply do not understand the science or what's been observed.  That's not to call anyone names or question anyone's intelligence.  Most people haven't spent a career studying and working in genetics and biology.  Genetics and evolution are complex and easy to misunderstand (or misrepresent).

 

It is simply a fact that there are only faith-based, not evidence or observation based, arguments for drawing a distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution where "macro" evolution requires divine guidance.  Evolution resulting in large changes (i.e. new very different species) or complex biological structures simply is "micro" evolution on geologic time scales that boggle the human mind.  It is of course possible that evolutionary changes are guided by God.  But all the constantly increasing evidence continues to show that no divine force at all is needed for evolution to have resulted in our current world.  And there is a massive literature of evidence supporting the conclusion that in fact evolution has occurred in a way that looks very much like the outcome of a random walk constantly bumping up against various geologic and environmental shifts on earth.

 

One may believe in divine guidance of evolution.  But honesty requires acknowledging that the argument for this is entirely one of faith of a different kind than the "faith" that a non-believer has that in investigating the many questions of genetics and evolution to which we still do not know the answers we will not suddenly make discoveries that completely contradict what 100% of the evidence we do currently have points to.

post #17 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

 

Oh, and lastly, prior to that "start" there was "nothing."  What did that look like?  What color was it? ;-)

 

Obviously periwinkle.

post #18 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by geauxforbroke View Post
 

Agreed. I think there's a lot more common ground than the two sides want to admit. "Naturalism" and "creationism" don't have to be mutually exclusive. 

 

Faith and science are two different things. It's sort of like comparing mathematics and history. If one or more people start using the "facts" from one subject or another to "disprove" the other one, problems occur.

 

One topic really has nothing to do with the other.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

The only things on which Nye stumbled (badly) are "what was there before the Big Bang?" type questions. Because… he can't know. For all we know, there is a God and God made the big bang happen, and since he/she/it is all-knowing, knew we'd arrive at exactly where we are right now.

 

This was my point. Those that don't believe in a God say that everything came from a Big Bang. Bible thumpers say that the Big Bang couldn't have happened because God made everything. Maybe God created everything via the Big Bang.

 

One of the big places I don't agree with Ham is on the age of the universe. Yes, the bible says that God created everything in 6 days. However, the bible also says that, to God, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day. In other words, time has no relevance for God. So maybe the "6 days" were actually millions of years in "our time". 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham