Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Follow up to last nights debate...part 1


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
38 replies to this topic

#1
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

One of the evidences that Nye used for an earth older than 6000 years were ice cores from Greenland. 

 

Here is a bit more on them...http://www.reasons.o...ge-of-the-earth

 

The only response that Ham had was to bring up the frozen squadron being buried under 250 feet of ice and snow after just 50 years.  This is addressed in the link above, and also the ice cores do not rely on depth any more than a tree's rings rely on them all being the same distance apart. 

 

Is there an answer to the ice cores from the YEC point of view other than the frozen squadron?

 

Thanks!



#2
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,049 posts
Is there an answer to the ice cores from the YEC point of view other than the frozen squadron?

 

:thumbsup:

 

Depending Upon Your World View

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

 

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
 

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

Yes

 

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
 

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Romans 3:22-24

 

There are several historical markers in Antarctica which can be used to cross check these calculations for the past few thousand years. But historical volcanic events are not known beyond a few thousand years in the past which provide any certainty to the calculation of age. This method would be reasonably reliable if precipitation rates had been similar in the past. However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. http://www.icr.org/article/355/272/

 

~

 

Believe

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28

 

Love, Joe



#3
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

Is there an answer to the ice cores from the YEC point of view other than the frozen squadron?

 

:thumbsup:

 

Depending Upon Your World View

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

 

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
 

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

Yes

 

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
 

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Romans 3:22-24

 

There are several historical markers in Antarctica which can be used to cross check these calculations for the past few thousand years. But historical volcanic events are not known beyond a few thousand years in the past which provide any certainty to the calculation of age. This method would be reasonably reliable if precipitation rates had been similar in the past. However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. http://www.icr.org/article/355/272/

 

~

 

Believe

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28

 

Love, Joe

 

 

 

This is my worldview as well...

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

 

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
 

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
 

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Romans 3:22-24

 

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28

 

 

There is nothing in that world view that tells me I have to check my brain at the door to believe those things.



#4
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,049 posts
There are several historical markers in Antarctica which can be used to cross check these calculations for the past few thousand years. But historical volcanic events are not known beyond a few thousand years in the past which provide any certainty to the calculation of age. This method would be reasonably reliable if precipitation rates had been similar in the past. However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. http://www.icr.org/article/355/272/

 

It is not about the accumulation amount, it is about the layers that show a pattern of seasonal changes. 

 

:thumbsup:

 

It's About That (Pagan) Article Of Faith

 

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Hebrews 13:8

 

That Every Thing Is The Same

 

And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
 

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
 

And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:  All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
 

And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
 

And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. Genesis 7:17-24

 

Yesterday

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

 

Today

 

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17

 

And Tomorrow

 

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. Revelation 21:1



#5
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,049 posts
There is nothing in that world view that tells me I have to check my brain at the door to believe those things.

 

:thumbsup:

 

Absolutely

 

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9

 

A Little Leaven Puffs Up

 

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Galatians 5:9

 

The Whole Loaf Of Bread

 

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4

 

Scientifically Speaking

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20



#6
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts

 

Is there an answer to the ice cores from the YEC point of view other than the frozen squadron?

 

:thumbsup:

 

Depending Upon Your World View

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

 

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
 

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

Yes

 

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
 

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Romans 3:22-24

 

There are several historical markers in Antarctica which can be used to cross check these calculations for the past few thousand years. But historical volcanic events are not known beyond a few thousand years in the past which provide any certainty to the calculation of age. This method would be reasonably reliable if precipitation rates had been similar in the past. However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. http://www.icr.org/article/355/272/

 

~

 

Believe

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28

 

Love, Joe

 

 

 

Ice Cores:  http://creation.com/...phic-deposition

 

 

Rebuttal to each "point" made by Bill Nye:  http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate

 

 

Personally, I was extremely disappointed (and that's putting it lightly!!) with the debate on many levels.  There were multiple "Hanging Curve Balls" IMHO that needed and SHOULD HAVE been addressed but were left without adequate rebuttal or were lost in the fog.

 

Format had an impact but that is no excuse.  Regardless of format, I would have stayed on 3-4 topics (The Biggies) and Drove them Home Relentlessly:

 

INFORMATION,   LIFE FROM NON-LIFE (Nye brought up Louis Pasteur and Fred Hoyle... for cryin out loud !!!),  MACRO-EVOLUTION with a Compare-Contrast with "Micro", THE FOSSIL FIASCO  (Tiktaalik, are you kidding me??), RADIOMETRIC DATING (1 slide with ALL the know dates of rocks compared with the Radiometric Ages of said ROCKS)....and every time he brought it up....Pull up the slide. 

 

And you can be 100% sure you would have seen EVERY SINGLE POLYSTRATE FOSSIL ON THE PLANET...in my Presentation with Fireworks/Sirens/ and Bull Horns Going Off !!!!

 

 

That slide he had of the "Human Skulls" (which was laughable may I add) and asked if someone could explain it.  Ham had the Slide of the 2 DOG Skulls!!...all he had to do was pull up the slide Identify each to show the MASSIVE VARIATION WITHIN "KIND" and that would have been that.

 

 

There's so much more but I'm irritated enough @ this point to drop it and LOOK UP!!!  HE'S Coming!!....and you can be sure with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY..... HE'S NONE TOO PLEASED!!

 

 

(Revelation 21:6) "And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."

 

 

(Romans 1:20) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"



#7
nebula

nebula

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,992 posts

Personally, I was extremely disappointed (and that's putting it lightly!!) with the debate on many levels.  There were multiple "Hanging Curve Balls" IMHO that needed and SHOULD HAVE been addressed but were left without adequate rebuttal or were lost in the fog.

 

It's nice to agree on something!

 

 

I can only hope that Ham's encouragement to turn to the Bible for the meaning of life, etc. reached someone who needed to hear that.



#8
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts

 

Personally, I was extremely disappointed (and that's putting it lightly!!) with the debate on many levels.  There were multiple "Hanging Curve Balls" IMHO that needed and SHOULD HAVE been addressed but were left without adequate rebuttal or were lost in the fog.

 

It's nice to agree on something!

 

 

I can only hope that Ham's encouragement to turn to the Bible for the meaning of life, etc. reached someone who needed to hear that.

 

 

It should be noted that I was Looking @ the Debate from the standpoint of somebody that was "on the fence" with little to no science or Scriptural background.



#9
nebula

nebula

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,992 posts

 

 

Personally, I was extremely disappointed (and that's putting it lightly!!) with the debate on many levels.  There were multiple "Hanging Curve Balls" IMHO that needed and SHOULD HAVE been addressed but were left without adequate rebuttal or were lost in the fog.

 

It's nice to agree on something!

 

 

I can only hope that Ham's encouragement to turn to the Bible for the meaning of life, etc. reached someone who needed to hear that.

 

 

It should be noted that I was Looking @ the Debate from the standpoint of somebody that was "on the fence" with little to no science or Scriptural background.

 

 

So was I. ;)



#10
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts

 

 

 

Personally, I was extremely disappointed (and that's putting it lightly!!) with the debate on many levels.  There were multiple "Hanging Curve Balls" IMHO that needed and SHOULD HAVE been addressed but were left without adequate rebuttal or were lost in the fog.

 

It's nice to agree on something!

 

 

I can only hope that Ham's encouragement to turn to the Bible for the meaning of life, etc. reached someone who needed to hear that.

 

 

It should be noted that I was Looking @ the Debate from the standpoint of somebody that was "on the fence" with little to no science or Scriptural background.

 

 

So was I. ;)

 

 

Sorry Neb; Yes, I figured you were.  I should've attached it to my original message.

 

Target Audience was woefully assessed or outright ignored, IMHO.

 

It is nice to agree  :)



#11
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,321 posts
Can't seem to view the debate on you tube. Any place I can watch it?

#12
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,121 posts

I downloaded it from youtube     I'll see if I can find it again.  the one I saw had about a 15 minute countdown clock on the front of it.....  I almost missed seeing it.



#13
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Ham didn't explain his point clearly, if no-one has counted the layers in the 50 years of ice formation, then he should have admitted that and focussed on the depth of the ice. 

 

For example, the ice core is probably only 3000 m deep.  evolutionists are therefore claiming that for 60000 years we have tiny annual layers of 0.05 m and suddenly in the last 50 years we are getting annual layers of 1.5 m per year. This sudden 30 fold increase in the rate of icing would be very difficult for any evolutionist to explain.

 

My assumption is that layers are formed during every snowfall. This is pretty obvious, and would then explain the 1.5 m of ice forming over the last 50 years, which I expect would contain about 30 or more layers a year.



#14
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

Ham didn't explain his point clearly, if no-one has counted the layers in the 50 years of ice formation, then he should have admitted that and focussed on the depth of the ice. 

 

For example, the ice core is probably only 3000 m deep.  evolutionists are therefore claiming that for 60000 years we have tiny annual layers of 0.05 m and suddenly in the last 50 years we are getting annual layers of 1.5 m per year. This sudden 30 fold increase in the rate of icing would be very difficult for any evolutionist to explain.

 

My assumption is that layers are formed during every snowfall. This is pretty obvious, and would then explain the 1.5 m of ice forming over the last 50 years, which I expect would contain about 30 or more layers a year.

 

You are missing the fact that the lost squadron was found in the southern part of Greenland where it is much warmer and thus has several melts and refreezing cycle per year and gets seven times as much snow falls per year as where the cores are taken from.  That would be like using something found in Florida to prove something about what happens in Michigan.



#15
LuftWaffle

LuftWaffle

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 716 posts

You are missing the fact that the lost squadron was found in the southern part of Greenland where it is much warmer and thus has several melts and refreezing cycle per year and gets seven times as much snow falls per year as where the cores are taken from.  That would be like using something found in Florida to prove something about what happens in Michigan.

 

It cuts both ways though. Why think that the climate has remained the same in the area where the ice cores are being drilled? An ice core sample yielding a date of 300 000 years includes the assumption that the frost/melt cycle has remained constant for 300 000 years.

 

Is such an assumption any better than the YEC point that since layers of ice can form multiple times per year in certain locations one cannot rule that out for any location.



#16
ARGOSY

ARGOSY

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 672 posts

 

Ham didn't explain his point clearly, if no-one has counted the layers in the 50 years of ice formation, then he should have admitted that and focussed on the depth of the ice. 

 

For example, the ice core is probably only 3000 m deep.  evolutionists are therefore claiming that for 60000 years we have tiny annual layers of 0.05 m and suddenly in the last 50 years we are getting annual layers of 1.5 m per year. This sudden 30 fold increase in the rate of icing would be very difficult for any evolutionist to explain.

 

My assumption is that layers are formed during every snowfall. This is pretty obvious, and would then explain the 1.5 m of ice forming over the last 50 years, which I expect would contain about 30 or more layers a year.

 

You are missing the fact that the lost squadron was found in the southern part of Greenland where it is much warmer and thus has several melts and refreezing cycle per year and gets seven times as much snow falls per year as where the cores are taken from.  That would be like using something found in Florida to prove something about what happens in Michigan.

 

 

 

Your point would have been better if snow is 30 times more in the south.  7 times is not enough to explain the alleged thin layers of the north, they should never be that thin with their lesser melt cycles.



#17
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,200 posts

Speaking of a follow up to that debate.  One interesting thing that really got me to thinking was the sheer number of threats and vulgarity that Ham has received in E-mails and comments he received on facebook posts and stuff.  He has had to disable commenting on some things and delete comments elsewhere because of the extremely violent nature of the comments and their vulgarity.   This wasn't just a few, but so many that it required some action to be taken.

 

It really highlights something I have noticed over the years.  You can always tell when you are on the right track when it comes to things that matter for the Kingdom of God by how vociferously the enemy comes in and attacks.   When people cross the line into an area where they have no moral restriction and to the point where they are planning your demies or wishing for it, when you are villified mercilously simply because you stand for biblical truth, that is telling.

 

You are either walking into collision with the devil or you are walking in collusion with him.



#18
nebula

nebula

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,992 posts

I just read a (well thought out, in my opinion) article about the debate:

 

Ham on Nye: The high cost of “winning” an evolution/creation debate

by Nate Anderson - Feb 7 2014, 8:11pm EST

 

<snip>

 

Even before it began, the debate had been good for both men. Traffic to AIG's website soared by 80 percent, Nye appeared on CNN, tickets sold out in two minutes, and post-debate interviews were lined up with Piers Morgan Live and MSNBC.

 

<snip>

 

Nye's appearance with Ham has broken a widespread taboo in science against engaging in such debates. . . .

 

For all these reasons, Nye came in for significant criticism from the scientific community. Though well-spoken and a gifted communicator, Nye's own background is as a mechanical engineer, not a biologist. He had also agreed to do the debate at the Creation Museum itself, as far from a "neutral" site as one could imagine. Would he manage any more than publicizing Ken Ham's face, ideas, and exhibits?

 

But 150 years of post-Darwin science has not convinced huge swaths of the American public of evolution's truth. The debate promised Nye a huge platform for speaking directly to that public about science education—over 500,000 people watched the live YouTube-hosted stream alone—and he took it, speaking directly to the audience in a way Ham never attempted.

 

 

<snip>

 

For Ham, his life's work is also his family legacy. "Winning" or "losing" a debate with Nye doesn't matter; spreading the message does.

 

Full article here

 

~~~

 

The article is 3 pages long, but an interesting read nonetheless. In my next post, I will post some excerpts I wanted to comment on.



#19
nebula

nebula

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,992 posts

Quotes from the article I posted above followed by my comments.
 

For Ham, though, science is broken into two categories, "observational" and "historical," and only observational science is trustworthy.

<snip>

To him, the calculus of "one ring, one year" is merely an assumption when it comes to the past—an assumption possibly altered by cataclysmic events such as Noah's flood.


Does Ham have any observational evidence to show that Noah's flood caused additional tree rings to form? Does he have any scientific evidence at all to support such a claim?

 

Mainstream scientists don't recognize this divide between observational and historical ways of knowing (much as they reject Ham's distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution). Dinosaur bones may not come with tags, but neither does observed contemporary reality—think of a doctor presented with a set of patient symptoms, who then has to interpret what she sees in order to arrive at a diagnosis.

<snip>

"This idea that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws you have now is at the heart of our disagreement," Nye said. "For lack of a better word, it's magical. I've appreciated magic since I was a kid, but it's not what we want in mainstream science."


This highlights a huge weakness in the YEC argument - "the Flood explains everything" and "God intervened supernaturally to make things happen" are both assumption-claims made with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

The Bible doesn't even make a claim that God did anything special with animal reproduction or genetics for the repopulating of the earth.

 

Ham used the debate as a way to argue that young Earth creationists deserved that respect. His presentation was peppered with video clips from scientists like Raymond Damadian, inventor of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique. Ham's point was that, whatever views of origins someone holds, they are not necessarily Luddites—and they can still practice excellent "observational science."

The world of 1925 might never return, but the debate gave Ham a broad platform to make his case that the mainstream scientific establishment has made too many creationists scared to speak up; they need scientific "freedom," he said.


I agree with this. People should have the freedom to express such beliefs, especially where religion is involved, and does not interfere with their work as scientists. The belief that one's convictions about the origins of the planet and the universe harm their scientific endeavors or interpretations has yet to be proven.

 

Nye misfired a few times when moving away from the science. For instance, he repeatedly blasted Ham's reliance on biblical "verses translated into American English over 30 centuries," comparing the process to a game of telephone in which words get mangled.


Yes, attacking the Bible period was big no-no in attempting to gain sympathy from the side your are debating against.

 

Six feet into the Adams Synchronological Chart sits a beautiful color illustration of Noah's Ark resting on Mount Ararat, a rainbow spanning the sky above it. Adams follows the biblical account in claiming that the Ark carried eight individuals: Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. In 2247 BCE, after the waters drained away and this small family left their boat for the wider world, they had to repopulate it. Adams accepts an old Armenian tradition that links each ethnic group to one of Noah's grandsons—Shem's son Aram produced the Syrians, for instance, while Japheth's son Javan gave us Spaniards.

Accepting this history creates problems, however, even on its own terms. In the 4,000 years said to have elapsed since the Flood, humans have populated the whole Earth but have remained the same species, with the ability to interbreed with any other human. How then did the pairs of animal "kinds" on the Ark produce the millions of species we see today in such a narrow window of time?

That question became Nye's single most effective attack of the night.

Nye offered a simple equation that accepted Ham's logic: in the 4,000 years since the Flood, 7,000 "kinds" of animals have led to at least 16,000,000 species today. (Ham believes that God only stocked the Ark with "kinds" of creatures, which are roughly equivalent to "families," and these later diversified. One pair of dogs, for instance, became all dogs we see today.) This would mean that, on average, 11 new species have emerged on Earth every single day since the Flood—which is plainly not happening. (In reality, the situation is even worse, since Ham believes only 1,000 "kinds" were on the Ark and Nye argues there may actually be as many as 50,000,000 species on the Earth today.)

This is literally incredible, even to Ham. A hundred yards away from the sweltering debate hall, in the middle of the winding path through the Creation Museum's exhibits, just around the corner from the animatronic Noah, an exhibit shows the way "Life Recovers" after the Flood. It depicts the speciation of horses, but some tiny text at the bottom explains that the math doesn't really add up. "Present changes are too small and too slow to explain these differences," it says, "suggesting God provided organisms with special tools to change rapidly."

No evidence is offered for this position, which is textbook "God of the gaps" thinking in which God's miraculous power can be used to plug up the holes in an argument.


Ham again violates his own case for "observational" science to support his claim. The Bible does not witness to speciation, nor does the Bible state God provided organisms with "special tools" for anything. These are all assumptions created to explain support for a pre-conceived conclusion.



#20
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts

Quotes from the article I posted above followed by my comments.
 

For Ham, though, science is broken into two categories, "observational" and "historical," and only observational science is trustworthy.

<snip>

To him, the calculus of "one ring, one year" is merely an assumption when it comes to the past—an assumption possibly altered by cataclysmic events such as Noah's flood.


Does Ham have any observational evidence to show that Noah's flood caused additional tree rings to form? Does he have any scientific evidence at all to support such a claim?

 

Mainstream scientists don't recognize this divide between observational and historical ways of knowing (much as they reject Ham's distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution). Dinosaur bones may not come with tags, but neither does observed contemporary reality—think of a doctor presented with a set of patient symptoms, who then has to interpret what she sees in order to arrive at a diagnosis.

<snip>

"This idea that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws you have now is at the heart of our disagreement," Nye said. "For lack of a better word, it's magical. I've appreciated magic since I was a kid, but it's not what we want in mainstream science."


This highlights a huge weakness in the YEC argument - "the Flood explains everything" and "God intervened supernaturally to make things happen" are both assumption-claims made with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

The Bible doesn't even make a claim that God did anything special with animal reproduction or genetics for the repopulating of the earth.

 

Ham used the debate as a way to argue that young Earth creationists deserved that respect. His presentation was peppered with video clips from scientists like Raymond Damadian, inventor of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique. Ham's point was that, whatever views of origins someone holds, they are not necessarily Luddites—and they can still practice excellent "observational science."

The world of 1925 might never return, but the debate gave Ham a broad platform to make his case that the mainstream scientific establishment has made too many creationists scared to speak up; they need scientific "freedom," he said.


I agree with this. People should have the freedom to express such beliefs, especially where religion is involved, and does not interfere with their work as scientists. The belief that one's convictions about the origins of the planet and the universe harm their scientific endeavors or interpretations has yet to be proven.

 

Nye misfired a few times when moving away from the science. For instance, he repeatedly blasted Ham's reliance on biblical "verses translated into American English over 30 centuries," comparing the process to a game of telephone in which words get mangled.


Yes, attacking the Bible period was big no-no in attempting to gain sympathy from the side your are debating against.

 

Six feet into the Adams Synchronological Chart sits a beautiful color illustration of Noah's Ark resting on Mount Ararat, a rainbow spanning the sky above it. Adams follows the biblical account in claiming that the Ark carried eight individuals: Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. In 2247 BCE, after the waters drained away and this small family left their boat for the wider world, they had to repopulate it. Adams accepts an old Armenian tradition that links each ethnic group to one of Noah's grandsons—Shem's son Aram produced the Syrians, for instance, while Japheth's son Javan gave us Spaniards.

Accepting this history creates problems, however, even on its own terms. In the 4,000 years said to have elapsed since the Flood, humans have populated the whole Earth but have remained the same species, with the ability to interbreed with any other human. How then did the pairs of animal "kinds" on the Ark produce the millions of species we see today in such a narrow window of time?

That question became Nye's single most effective attack of the night.

Nye offered a simple equation that accepted Ham's logic: in the 4,000 years since the Flood, 7,000 "kinds" of animals have led to at least 16,000,000 species today. (Ham believes that God only stocked the Ark with "kinds" of creatures, which are roughly equivalent to "families," and these later diversified. One pair of dogs, for instance, became all dogs we see today.) This would mean that, on average, 11 new species have emerged on Earth every single day since the Flood—which is plainly not happening. (In reality, the situation is even worse, since Ham believes only 1,000 "kinds" were on the Ark and Nye argues there may actually be as many as 50,000,000 species on the Earth today.)

This is literally incredible, even to Ham. A hundred yards away from the sweltering debate hall, in the middle of the winding path through the Creation Museum's exhibits, just around the corner from the animatronic Noah, an exhibit shows the way "Life Recovers" after the Flood. It depicts the speciation of horses, but some tiny text at the bottom explains that the math doesn't really add up. "Present changes are too small and too slow to explain these differences," it says, "suggesting God provided organisms with special tools to change rapidly."

No evidence is offered for this position, which is textbook "God of the gaps" thinking in which God's miraculous power can be used to plug up the holes in an argument.


Ham again violates his own case for "observational" science to support his claim. The Bible does not witness to speciation, nor does the Bible state God provided organisms with "special tools" for anything. These are all assumptions created to explain support for a pre-conceived conclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Ham have any observational evidence to show that Noah's flood caused additional tree rings to form? Does he have any scientific evidence at all to support such a claim?

 

He doesn't have too.  Head over to the "OEC and ID" thread for a review of the "divination" of Tree Rings

 

 

This highlights a huge weakness in the YEC argument - "the Flood explains everything" and "God intervened supernaturally to make things happen" are both assumption-claims made with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

 

I'd like to see the same standard applied to Nye with Evidence of the Big Bang....with emphasis on How Nothing Exploded.  And his explanation for the origination of INFORMATION!!!  What was up with the Dog Story?? :24:

 

Well it's kinda difficult since it happened roughly 4,000 years ago and everyone died, Save 8.  However....how about the fossils (duh), the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (Like a Baseball Seem around the Entire Planet) and these:  Sort of Kill 2 Birds with One Stone (The Flood then the Fairytale Geologic Column)........

 

 

 

Polystrate7_zps6a5db13b.jpg  Polystrate6_zps2aa6540d.jpgPolystrate10_zpsb5c1ab05.jpg

 

Polystrate9_zps1aaee356.jpg    Polystrate8_zps4774c462.jpgPolystrate4_zps3be671cc.jpg  Polystrate3_zpscf8ad155.jpg

 

Polystrate1_zps871a6942.jpg   Polystrate2_zpsd6a4d75c.jpg

 

 

 

 

The Bible doesn't even make a claim that God did anything special with animal reproduction or genetics for the repopulating of the earth.

 

The Bible's Not a Biology/Genetics Textbook

 

 

I agree with this. People should have the freedom to express such beliefs, especially where religion is involved, and does not interfere with their work as scientists. The belief that one's convictions about the origins of the planet and the universe harm their scientific endeavors or interpretations has yet to be proven.

 

 

Proven??  It's just Intuitive, and.....

 

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.
Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14.

 

Professor Richard Lewontin, Geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology…..

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’
Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.

 

 

The Bible does not witness to speciation, nor does the Bible state God provided organisms with "special tools" for anything. These are all assumptions created to explain support for a pre-conceived conclusion

 

Well one reason the term "Speciation" was coined sometime after 4000 BC.

 

"These are all assumptions created to explain support for a pre-conceived conclusion"

 

Was this Nye's definition of evolution?  If so, I agree 100%.  It's about time LOL






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network