quantumfaith
Active Member
I missed that of the debate, so I can't comment. I will say I did not appreciate Bill's bend toward agnosticism or even atheism. I would appreciate more a debate between believers having differing views.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Don't miss the next great debate
- Thread starter Jedi Knight
- Start date
I missed that of the debate, so I can't comment. I will say I did not appreciate Bill's bend toward agnosticism or even atheism. I would appreciate more a debate between believers having differing views.
Archie the Preacher
Member
Disingenuous?
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary site:
Jedi, that is how science works, evidence - proof - changes the viewpoint. Scientists are not always happy to see their pet theory disproved, but it is evidence which drives theories and research.
Ken Ham has been quoted as saying nothing will ever change his mind on the subject. So when Jesus returns and verifies the age of the Earth as some 4.7 billion years ago from 'now', Mr. Ham will still deny it.
How is that disingenuous?Jedi Knight said:
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary site:
Jedi, that is how science works, evidence - proof - changes the viewpoint. Scientists are not always happy to see their pet theory disproved, but it is evidence which drives theories and research.
Ken Ham has been quoted as saying nothing will ever change his mind on the subject. So when Jesus returns and verifies the age of the Earth as some 4.7 billion years ago from 'now', Mr. Ham will still deny it.
Archie the Preacher
Member
That cuts both ways, Jedi
Or is the 'majority' right when you follow them?
Now it's my turn. Mark 7:1-3.Jedi Knight said:
Or is the 'majority' right when you follow them?
Did Jesus provide proof? Did they rally behind Him? Evolution was created to try and kill the God of the Bible because they don't want to face Him as their judge.
Kent Hovind and Ken Ham totally different manners in responding in a debate. But yes I like to discuss this topic because it opens doors and hearts to fundamental issues of life. That said I strongly believe a young Earth is the Biblical answer and an old Earth view down plays Gods simple truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
humblethinker
Active Member
QF, you know that Ham would NOT like it though. He wants only to argue against atheists/agnostics, it is part of sustaining the false dilemma.
humblethinker
Active Member
At least they can all agree that Ali G does not understand evolution or creation science:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eB5VXJXxnNU
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eB5VXJXxnNU
Watching the debate on YouTube. Each side just finished their first arguments.
First, the debate topic is too broad, and it allows too much from both sides to be brought in which can't be discussed in depth. The debate topic should have been something like, Is radiometric dating a reliable gauge of the age of rocks?
But because the topic is broad, the floodgates are open to allusions to a dizzying array of subjects the education of which most have only an introduction, and that frought with mistaken notions.
But despite that, Ken Ham was well-poised, well-prepared and within his first five-minute presentation identified the need to define the terms in the question and to be consistent in their usage.
Bill Nye seemed nervous, and seemed to be winging some of his arguments, and that surprised me, but I think his weakness could have been due in part to the fact that he didn't expect Ham's opening to be a strong one, and that he himself didn't realize till that night that he employed shifting definitions in his arguments. I could be wrong. I got the impression he was expecting a featherweight and got suckerpunched.
That's my impression so far.
First, the debate topic is too broad, and it allows too much from both sides to be brought in which can't be discussed in depth. The debate topic should have been something like, Is radiometric dating a reliable gauge of the age of rocks?
But because the topic is broad, the floodgates are open to allusions to a dizzying array of subjects the education of which most have only an introduction, and that frought with mistaken notions.
But despite that, Ken Ham was well-poised, well-prepared and within his first five-minute presentation identified the need to define the terms in the question and to be consistent in their usage.
Bill Nye seemed nervous, and seemed to be winging some of his arguments, and that surprised me, but I think his weakness could have been due in part to the fact that he didn't expect Ham's opening to be a strong one, and that he himself didn't realize till that night that he employed shifting definitions in his arguments. I could be wrong. I got the impression he was expecting a featherweight and got suckerpunched.
That's my impression so far.
humblethinker
Active Member
I felt embarrassed for Ham. "I've got a book for you" is hardly a scientific hypothesis.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Our simple truths are simply different.
Nor is "I don't know" regarding where the material that started the universe came from.
But THAT is what Ham was referring to. He knew the answer when Nye didn't. No they're not. Either one is true and the other is false, or they're both false. They aren't simply different.
One can debate origins ad infinitum with no winner at the end.
Origins is really not a subject for science class--creation/evolution as well. The scientific method cannot be used. Theoretical models can be devised; but in the final analysis faith is required for evolution and divine creation.
Then there are those who believe in divine evolution aka: theistic evolutionists--the best of both world views. Not really--this view ignores the suddenness of creation in Genesis 1.
Faith comes by hearing, hearing The Word of God. Ken Ham knows this. Perhaps some more evidence like: the first book printed and is still on the best seller list; much assailed, but never successfully refuted--even in American English would have been helpful. Ken did a good job.
Bill Nye was getting hit with both barrels--he said early that he had learned something. His countenance was changing--the scales of unbelief glaring from his eyes. The seed has been sown. We will see on what kind of ground.
Pray for Bill Nye and all of his colleagues.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Origins is really not a subject for science class--creation/evolution as well. The scientific method cannot be used. Theoretical models can be devised; but in the final analysis faith is required for evolution and divine creation.
Then there are those who believe in divine evolution aka: theistic evolutionists--the best of both world views. Not really--this view ignores the suddenness of creation in Genesis 1.
Faith comes by hearing, hearing The Word of God. Ken Ham knows this. Perhaps some more evidence like: the first book printed and is still on the best seller list; much assailed, but never successfully refuted--even in American English would have been helpful. Ken did a good job.
Bill Nye was getting hit with both barrels--he said early that he had learned something. His countenance was changing--the scales of unbelief glaring from his eyes. The seed has been sown. We will see on what kind of ground.
Pray for Bill Nye and all of his colleagues.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Last edited by a moderator:
Finished watching the debate. The topic was too broad, so Nye could bring in an array of conventional wisdom for which too little time was allowed to deal with adequately, but Ham was good at hitting the highlights.
Nye was campaigning.
The moderator should have done better at selecting questions for the debators. The personal questions were stupid.
Nye was campaigning.
The moderator should have done better at selecting questions for the debators. The personal questions were stupid.
quantumfaith
Active Member
In much the same way the C/A debate goes on.
Not sure what you mean by "evolutionary theists" ignore the suddenness of creation....the "big bang" is pretty sudden.
I look forward to more such debates. However, I think I would enjoy more two or more theists (christian) debating.
:applause:
Sudden enough for all life to be in existence immediately?
http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate
Here's a discussion of the debate. There is a video of the discussion embedded.
Here's a discussion of the debate. There is a video of the discussion embedded.
humblethinker
Active Member
@RichardDawkins: I was against Bill Nye's decision to debate. I now realise Ken Ham is wonderfully embarrassing for Xtians & should be given max exposure.
LOL - Not so embarrassing. Just remember that this is coming from the guy who believes we came from crystals flying through space.