How Many Christians Will Lose Their Faith After Bill Nye Trounces Ken Ham?

[danielwoods]

I just watched the debate and Ham pretty much sold the audience about "there is a book" (bible) that can answer the questions that even Nye has no clue about. From that point on it was the usual misinterpretation of creationism and if it is relevant to science. Ham does a pretty darn good job of selling the case of what the issue is really about with defining what science is, what evidence is and how none of that has any relevance on connecting evolution with why we have technology (they really aren't related). Ham states over and over that both creationists and evolutionist embrace observational science and how that science has led to everything from the hubble telescope to the MRI machine. He then wisely argues that no new technology or invention has hinged off the theory of evolution (that was a very solid fact, kudos to Ham) being true or false. Nye kept arguing that there is no predictive power from the creationists but in so doing disregards Ham's repetition of the evidence such as the rocks laid in catastrophic form, the fact that "kinds" do not produce other "kinds" etc. Nye trys several times to win the audience by telling one liners for a laugh but fails miserably.

The only strong point that Nye came up with was how literal the bible should be and how wishy-washy Ham's response was over some being poetic and other parts literal. That was it though- the only strong point. As for his weak points-

Not enough time for all the fossils to get there. But what is this based upon? We have no observational science to document just how many living things can and will stack up in sedimentary layers in rapid and catastrophic burial beds. We have instances in recent history like Mt. St. Helens creating massive local flooding that rapidly buried billions and billions of dead things.

How did certain animals get to different continents. According to Mormon scripture we have record of migrations of people transporting animals of different kinds across the ocean.

Noah's ark too big to be sea-worthy and built by unskilled craftsman. Perhaps this is his weakest argument and surprisingly Ham doesn't address it. This is obviously a point where Nye has no belief in God or he would know that the scriptures say that it was God who designed the ark and instructed Noah how to build it. God also instructed two other groups in scripture we know of how to build sea going vessels who did not have previous ship building experience. This is where Nye just lacks logic and faith.

The sun creates energy which led to complexityof life. Wow! So, if I go and build a fire and throw a tree on in it's gonna turn into something more complex because I am creating energy? Wow! But then he states that evolution produced ultimately from this energy doesn'y necessarily get smarter. He should of never attempted to open his mouth on that one.

In the end Ham wins this debate hands down. Despite Ham dwelling too much on the "literal" aspect of the bible he seemed to be more directed at selling the public whats really going on and being honest about it. Nye kept trying to equate science with evolution and that because of this we have satellites, medicine, etc. But this all comes after Ham already and emphatically states that evolution has nothing to do with inventing new technology. Bill Nye does get credit for one thing though- he truly thinks its astonishing that life is here and we exist and he wants to find out...and then Ham again states"There is a book"...

 

I agree. Nye didn't interact with the points about observational science being different than historical science, even though Ham quoted a Science text that made that exact distinction. Nor did Nye even acknowledge the problem of creating new information. In essence, as you said, Nye just stated that life arrises by adding sunlight to something!  I thought that Nye's continued use of "this is just unreasonable..." to be unpersuasive, and his references to "how we do science *out there*" to be condescending. 

 

I agree that scientists don't like to do debates like this, however if they can't answer the creationists (directly), what are they really saying about the quality of their science? 

[teddyaware]

I agree. Nye didn't interact with the points about observational science being different than historical science, even though Ham quoted a Science text that made that exact distinction. Nor did Nye even acknowledge the problem of creating new information. In essence, as you said, Nye just stated that life arrises by adding sunlight to something!  I thought that Nye's continued use of "this is just unreasonable..." to be unpersuasive, and his references to "how we do science *out there*" to be condescending. 

 

I agree that scientists don't like to do debates like this, however if they can't answer the creationists (directly), what are they really saying about the quality of their science?

Though I'm keeping an open mind on the subject of creation, I get the impression the reason why evolutionists think they're justified in throwing the scientific method out the window is because they believe the geological and fossil evidence is overwhelming; so overwhelming, in fact, that they think they can break their own rules. After the casual disregard for the scientific method, it's too often replaced with strong doses of presumptuousness, arrogance and smug condescension. In today's world, this is often enough to intimidate the fair-minded and put the evolutionists in the secular catbird seat.  

[thesometimesaint]

Setting dates without direct observations can lead to error, which may or may not be true, because none are directly testing time. 

 

Take deep ice cores for example. How does one know that each "annual" layer is an actual annual layer and not just representative of a storm? My point is that it's not actually verifiable. It may be an annual layer, it may not be. Not actually observing it means the conclusions are based on conjecture. 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you're right, maybe not. Unfortunately it's not testable (directly). 

 

The models we create to fit the data into a framework has within it a level of untestable assumptions. The evolutionary model and the creation model both explain the observational data. The difference is the starting point.

 

No one has ever seen an electron. Are you now denying they exist? Electricity the jumping of an electron to higher state of energy. Is what powers the computer you are using right now to communicate with us here at MDD.

 

Have you ever heard of an atomic clock? It uses the rate of decay of the caesium-133 atom by measuring the microwave radiation fingerprint of it to measure time. It is highly accurate.

 

Ice core dating.

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php

 

That is simply not true. We use both direct observation and proxies to establish accurate dates. There is always tolerances built into any system. But to say we can't trust them is plain silly. IE; The car you drive has tolerances built into it. You shouldn't claim that because cars have tolerances built into them we shouldn't use them.

[maklelan]

 

The models we create to fit the data into a framework has within it a level of untestable assumptions. The evolutionary model and the creation model both explain the observational data. The difference is the starting point.

 

No, there are not untestable assumptions, there are observable conditions and facts and natural laws. We have studied these laws down to the point where we were able to predict the existence of a particle that was many times smaller than an electron and then go out and find it. The notion that we must rest on fundamental methodological assumptions is just plain old not true. 

[cinepro]

Here's a question I would have liked to have seen asked to Ham (or any other creationist or ID believer):

 

If a group of people wanted to use every power of investigation (including all of the natural sciences such as biology, astronomy, geology etc) to figure out how old the Earth was, and what the history of the origin and development of plants, animals and humans is, but they had no knowledge of or access to the Holy Bible, what would their ultimate theory look like?

 

Would their investigation lead them to believe in a primary human ancestor ~6,000 years ago, with no humans before that?  Would they posit a "bottleneck" for all human and animal life around 4,000 years ago, after which all species descend from a common pair and fan out from a single point on the planet? 

 

Of course not.  They would arrive at pretty much the exact same spot that modern science is at regarding the age of the Earth, and the evolutionary tree of the Earth's inhabitants.  That's the problem.  It's not an issue of "different kinds of science".  It's an issue with having a strong, immutable faith in a literalist and specific reading of an ancient book, and a desire to maintain that belief at all costs. 

 

It's like the Astronomer and Biologist that Ham presented, both saying that there was nothing in their fields that they saw that contradicted a theory of a young earth.  But how is that any different from them saying that there isn't anything in their fields that contradicts the theory that God created everything 24 hours ago and made it look like things had existed for longer than that, and implanted memories and knowledge into our brains to make us think we had been living for much longer than 24 hours, and had ancestors etc.?  It's great that you've created a theory that is flexible enough to dodge all the contradictory evidence in your field, but that's not the point of theories in the first place.

 

As for the hypothetical researchers above, it's granted their theory would have unknown properties where they wouldn't be able to explain many things. Certainly, they could theorize an outside force that directed or "designed" the process at these unknown points, but isn't that just a different way of saying that they don't know?

 

So I'm sure Ham scored a lot of points with people who believe in a literalist reading of the Bible (including some LDS), but ultimately

 

(FWIW, this also applies to the history of the Americas without the Book of Mormon, but that's another discussion).

Edited February 5, 2014 by cinepro

[danielwoods]

No one has ever seen an electron. Are you now denying they exist? Electricity the jumping of an electron to higher state of energy. Is what powers the computer you are using right now to communicate with us here at MDD.

 

Have you ever heard of an atomic clock? It uses the rate of decay of the caesium-133 atom by measuring the microwave radiation fingerprint of it to measure time. It is highly accurate.

 

Ice core dating.

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php

 

That is simply not true. We use both direct observation and proxies to establish accurate dates. There is always tolerances built into any system. But to say we can't trust them is plain silly. IE; The car you drive has tolerances built into it. You shouldn't claim that because cars have tolerances built into them we shouldn't use them.

 

However, if the thing in question can't be tested or observed, on what basis are the tolerances rendered? 

 

Quote below talks about interpreting the data differently. 

 

 

"In my articles on ice cores, I reinterpreted the annual layers in the middle and lower portions of the GISP2 core as subannual layers, based on a Flood–Ice Age model, incorporating warm oceans, cooling continents and high levels of atmospheric particulates from volcanic activity.^1,2,3 Thus, my starting assumptions assume significant climate instability post-Flood and rapid accumulation of snow and ice. In this scenario, annual ice layers would be on the order of metres.

On the other hand, uniformitarians start with an assumption of great age, generally stable conditions and Milankovitch orbital cycles to create ice ages. As a result, uniformitarians are looking for very thin annual layers on the order of centimetres and even millimetres near the bottom of the ice sheet.

The resulting difference in age-interpretation is a result of the starting paradigm; the data is the same and does not speak for itself. What we believe colours what we see."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/icecore

[Nofear]

I didn't watch the debate. Mostly because I'm bored by it (e.g. it has very little to do with LDS theology). But a friend pastor posted this article: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2014/02/creationism-is-materialisms-creation.html

 

He opens the article with the quote: "I take Frederich Nietzsche quite seriously when he says, “when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you,” and thus I did not, nor ever will watch the recent debate between Bill Nye The Science Guy and Ken Ham The Creation Man." And then goes on to assert:

Fundamentalism, which includes creationism, is a modern phenomenon. The Middle Ages, though rife with scientific illiteracy in comparison with our age, never bred such a beast. It is a 20th century frenzy, not the product of ignorance as much as a by-product of materialism, and I daily blame — in an odd, bitter ritual that usually involves throwing pretzels at a cut-out of Richard Dawkins — the propagators of this selfsame materialism for cursing the world with the idiocies of devil-buried fossils and 6-day literalism. For evolution is only ever a threat to the idea of God if your idea of God has been hopelessly manhandled by materialistic assumptions. That’s right kids. Creationism is materialism’s inescapable, obnoxious spouse.

 

It was a fun read. Hopelessly wrong in it's theology, but he does make some very good points about the "debate".

Edited February 5, 2014 by Nofear

[Rob Osborn]

I'm fine with miracles. That science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be called science,

So, is God outside of doing things scientific? I am pretty sure even you don't agree with that. So why do you think I think He works outside of scientific means?

[thesometimesaint]

I agree. Nye didn't interact with the points about observational science being different than historical science, even though Ham quoted a Science text that made that exact distinction. Nor did Nye even acknowledge the problem of creating new information. In essence, as you said, Nye just stated that life arrises by adding sunlight to something!  I thought that Nye's continued use of "this is just unreasonable..." to be unpersuasive, and his references to "how we do science *out there*" to be condescending. 

 

I agree that scientists don't like to do debates like this, however if they can't answer the creationists (directly), what are they really saying about the quality of their science? 

 

Science isn't about debate per say. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Science is about what can be predicted from the evidence shown to another  disinterested(not uninterested) scientist.

 

When people like Mr. Ham, whom heads up the Answers in Genesis group, refuse to accept even the most basic of science and instead posit a God. There really isn't much of a scientific debate possible.

[Rob Osborn]

Though I'm keeping an open mind on the subject of creation, I get the impression the reason why evolutionists think they're justified in throwing the scientific method out the window is because they believe the geological and fossil evidence is overwhelming; so overwhelming, in fact, that they think they can break their own rules. After the casual disregard for the scientific method, it's too often replaced with strong doses of presumptuousness, arrogance and smug condescension. In today's world, this is often enough to intimidate the fair-minded and put the evolutionists in the secular catbird seat.  

You've probably heard about the "Lost Squadron" which happened 50 years ago. 8 American planes set out for Britain in WW2 from a secret base and instead turned back due to weather and went down in Greenland. They were all rescued except the planes were ditched there. After some 50 years people began looking for them and couldn't find them. Many attempts later they found the planes buried under 250 feet of ice and a mile or so further away due to glacial drift. This is quite telling in that ice core samples are not what scientists say they are as far as age goes. They ended up boring a large hole in the ice and rescued one p-38 piece by piece and drug it up through the hole and restored it calling it "glacier girl", Here is the link, hope you enjoy.http://p38assn.org/glaciergirl/index.htm

Edited February 5, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[cinepro]

So, is God outside of doing things scientific? I am pretty sure even you don't agree with that. So why do you think I think He works outside of scientific means?

 

I think most scientists would acknowledge that you could go through all the hundreds of thousands of scientific studies that have been done over the years and append to each one "...because God made it that way" or "...because God did it".

 

But they would also acknowledge that it would be rather pointless, which would be the point.  Allow theists to silently (or overtly) assume it, like they do now, and let science continue on its merry way with atheist and theist scientists working together.

[Rob Osborn]

Science isn't about debate per say. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Science is about what can be predicted from the evidence shown to another  disinterested(not uninterested) scientist.

 

When people like Mr. Ham, whom heads up the Answers in Genesis group, refuse to accept even the most basic of science and instead posit a God. There really isn't much of a scientific debate possible.

Did you even watch the debate? Ham did an excellent job of speaking about historical and observational science. Nye was unwilling to even address this fact. How can Ham even approach Ny in debate if Nye doesn't want to address this issue? Why is it that pretty much all evolutionists want to skip outside this area? Like Ham said- its the old "bait and switch" claiming that their evidence is observational science when in fact it is not.

[Rob Osborn]

I think most scientists would acknowledge that you could go through all the hundreds of thousands of scientific studies that have been done over the years and append to each one "...because God made it that way" or "...because God did it".

 

But they would also acknowledge that it would be rather pointless, which would be the point.  Allow theists to silently (or overtly) assume it, like they do now, and let science continue on its merry way with atheist and theist scientists working together.

A godless science will never be able to answer why we are here and what our purpose here is. It will also never be able to explain the origin and sustainment of life here on this planet. Creationism nor Intelligent Design seek to be happy with the whole "because God did it". But, acknowledging that some intelligent cause is more than likely the reason behind life goes pretty far to explain what godless science has yet to get around and explain.

[cinepro]

A godless science will never be able to answer why we are here and what our purpose here is. It will also never be able to explain the origin and sustainment of life here on this planet. Creationism nor Intelligent Design seek to be happy with the whole "because God did it". But, acknowledging that some intelligent cause is more than likely the reason behind life goes pretty far to explain what godless science has yet to get around and explain.

 

Sadly, religion will never be able to answer why we are here and what our purpose here is beyond a guess on the part of the religion and a desire to believe on the part of the believers. 

 

In other words, even if we leave the answers to those questions to religion, given different competing answers from different religions, we would still need a scientific method to determine which answer is correct.

 

I might have a strong preference and belief in the LDS-provided answers to those questions, but even that doesn't mean they are "answered".

Edited February 5, 2014 by cinepro

[Rob Osborn]

Sadly, religion will never be able to answer why we are here and what our purpose here is beyond a guess on the part of the religion and a desire to believe on the part of the believers. 

 

In other words, even if we leave the answers to those questions to religion, given different competing answers from different religions, we would still need a scientific method to determine which answer is correct.

Through God and his Son Jesus Christ we will come to the truth an donly through them will we come to the truth. This is a stark reminder to godless science that they can never know the truth concerning these important questions.

[thesometimesaint]

However, if the thing in question can't be tested or observed, on what basis are the tolerances rendered? 

 

Quote below talks about interpreting the data differently. 

 

 

"In my articles on ice cores, I reinterpreted the annual layers in the middle and lower portions of the GISP2 core as subannual layers, based on a Flood–Ice Age model, incorporating warm oceans, cooling continents and high levels of atmospheric particulates from volcanic activity.^1,2,3 Thus, my starting assumptions assume significant climate instability post-Flood and rapid accumulation of snow and ice. In this scenario, annual ice layers would be on the order of metres.

On the other hand, uniformitarians start with an assumption of great age, generally stable conditions and Milankovitch orbital cycles to create ice ages. As a result, uniformitarians are looking for very thin annual layers on the order of centimetres and even millimetres near the bottom of the ice sheet.

The resulting difference in age-interpretation is a result of the starting paradigm; the data is the same and does not speak for itself. What we believe colours what we see."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/icecore

 

If it can't be observed it isn't science.

 

We have abundant evidence that the earth is very old. We constantly check, recheck, and check again to see if it really is as old as we say.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.htm

 

To put it kindly AiG is a bunch of religious zealots that use a religious argument on a nonreligious subject. There was no Global Flood when man has been on the earth. .

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

Ice Core studies don't give a 6,000 +/-  year old earth. We use isotopes of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other isotopes to measure their age. The oldest so far is about 1.7 millions of years old.

[Rob Osborn]

If it can't be observed it isn't science.

 

We have abundant evidence that the earth is very old. We constantly check, recheck, and check again to see if it really is as old as we say.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.htm

 

To put it kindly AiG is a bunch of religious zealots that use a religious argument on a nonreligious subject. There was no Global Flood when man has been on the earth. .

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

Ice Core studies don't give a 6,000 +/-  year old earth. We use isotopes of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other isotopes to measure their age. The oldest so far is about 1.7 millions of years old.

So, by your own standards then Darwinian evolution of man evolving from a lower order of species can't be science because it isn't observed. I can live with this. Thanks for the update.

 

Hello World, Darwinian Evolution has been admitted that it is no longer science, send it over to the philosophy and religious groups. Amen!

[thesometimesaint]

Did you even watch the debate? Ham did an excellent job of speaking about historical and observational science. Nye was unwilling to even address this fact. How can Ham even approach Ny in debate if Nye doesn't want to address this issue? Why is it that pretty much all evolutionists want to skip outside this area? Like Ham said- its the old "bait and switch" claiming that their evidence is observational science when in fact it is not.

 

For some strange reason science by definition can't posit a God or Godlike force. It is perfectly content to let Theists and Atheists alike to test it using established scientific methods. The simple reason for this is that God is omnipotent. You do know what that means don't you? Any answer would be dependent on what God did or didn't choose to do. That is not science it is religion.

 

I have no problem with observational science. However that is not what you or AiG does. It goes from its conclusion that God did it, and Chery Picks its "observations" to fit its preconceive conclusions.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/

http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=443

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design

[thesometimesaint]

So, by your own standards then Darwinian evolution of man evolving from a lower order of species can't be science because it isn't observed. I can live with this. Thanks for the update.

 

Hello World, Darwinian Evolution has been admitted that it is no longer science, send it over to the philosophy and religious groups. Amen!

 

Human evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

[danielwoods]

No, there are not untestable assumptions, there are observable conditions and facts and natural laws. We have studied these laws down to the point where we were able to predict the existence of a particle that was many times smaller than an electron and then go out and find it. The notion that we must rest on fundamental methodological assumptions is just plain old not true. 

 

Unfortunately the past can't be directly observed, no matter how confident one is, therefore conjecture and assumptions play a role.

[Rob Osborn]

For some strange reason science by definition can't posit a God or Godlike force. It is perfectly content to let Theists and Atheists alike to test it using established scientific methods. The simple reason for this is that God is omnipotent. You do know what that means don't you? Any answer would be dependent on what God did or didn't choose to do. That is not science it is religion.

 

I have no problem with observational science. However that is not what you or AiG does. It goes from its conclusion that God did it, and Chery Picks its "observations" to fit its preconceive conclusions.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/

http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=443

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design

But you just said it has to be observed to be science. Let me ask again- If evolution of man from a lower species is not observed then it can't be science. We can't invoke some godlike force here (supernatural) because what we see in nature has no observed case of man evolving from a lower order of species. Therefore, according to your definition, evolution of man is not science.

[Rob Osborn]

Human evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

Humm... Lots of skulls that could either be human or ape/monkey. Not convinced at all.

[danielwoods]

Human evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

 

A quote from your link, "Discovered by Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye in 2001 in Chad, in the southern Sahara desert. Estimated age is between 6 and 7 million years."

 

Since it wasn't observed, it must not be science, which is what you said. It's an "estimated age..." 

[The Nehor]

You do not have to directly observe something for it to be science.

This discussion is getting very silly.

[Freedom]

Unfortunately the past can't be directly observed, no matter how confident one is, therefore conjecture and assumptions play a role.

There fore world war 2 never occurred because we cannot observe it. The roman empire never existed because we cannot go visit the emperor. We DO observe it through the evidence. Since you have no alternative explanation for the evidence you are arguing from silence.