The Defective Image: How Darwinism Fails to Provide an Adequate Account of the World
Ben M Carter
Posted on 02/04/2014 2:11:25 PM PST by Zeneta
Bill Nye, The Science Guy, will debate Ken Ham, The Creationist Guy, tonight at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. They will debate a question from the 1920's: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?" Yes or no? This is a bad idea for everyone but the creationists.
Whatever his intention, Nye is sitting down as a representative of "evolution" against Ham, implying that there are two equal sides to a debate that has already been settled scientifically. By simply agreeing to participate, Nye is simultaneously elevating the proponents of Biblical creationism, while marginalizing his own position.
Ham is a young-Earth creationist. That means he believes the world is only seven thousand years old or so, because if you look at the Bible in the most literal way possible, that's the timeline. God literally created the world in seven, 24-hour days, and so on from there. In a post on CNN promoting the debate (CNN will moderate the event), Ham lamented that "Several hundred well-attended debates [on creationism vs. evolution] were held in the 1970s and 1980s, but they have largely dried up in recent decades." There is a reason those debates have dried up: Ham and his ilk have no factual ground to stand on.
(Excerpt) Read more at thewire.com ...
Evolution seems to occur in the lines they draw between known fossils.
So much for the scientific method.
It’s all inferred.
Thanks.
I love watching Phillip E. Johnson on this subject.
Sadly, he passed away.
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy - Phillip E. Johnson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alEXZllh8kI
Same as what you just said. Sit down.
when ID started, I thought it would be a sound approach, but I saw 6 plenury sessions at yale University when they had a seminar there in the 90’s
It was fantastic, but one thing missing: The Mention of the Bible and God as creator
It was totally absent
I havent read every person’s book on things, but I did hear 8 people speak, and not one sounded like a Biblcal Creationist in the first and foremost mentioning of a Creator God and the fall of man and sin
ID was just a nice talk
and I have yet to see a major ID proponent speak of a Biblical approach to their science
I’m with you on this.
The ID movement has seem to take an approach that they think would allow them a foot in the door.
THIS is when we(and Mankind) “Won”:
Genesis 3
King James Version (KJV)
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Each side in something like this always thinks they won. Debates like this are silly.
I tend to agree.
Many debates are structured on a format that both parties simply state their position and the viewers are left to decide who won.
Rarely is there a moment in which a counter party is forced to publically acquiesce.
I’m not sure about tonight’s debate format.
Ken Ham certainly knows this.
There were a lot of debates on this topic many years ago that allowed for direct questions.
divergent thoughts and skepticism not allowed. The new standards of “science.”
Romans 1:20 is a good start. Remember ID is for the unbeliever as proof of the existence of a Creator God “so they are without excuse”.
“Ham is a young-Earth creationist. That means he believes the world is only seven thousand years old or so, because if you look at the Bible in the most literal way possible, that’s the timeline. God literally created the world in seven, 24-hour days, and so on from there.”
The science of evolution may have its faults, errors and weaknesses, but even without the science of evolution the scientific view of the age of the earth as more than just a few thousand years is more defensible, more defensible than a young earth.
There was even a post here on FreeRep by a scientist with knowledge of phsyics and a lot of its math who explored the “six days” of creation from an orthodox science view. It was so detailed I cannot do justice to it in this space. But, in the final analysis he was saying that if you take the “day” to mean not “one earth day” but a “G-d day” from a perspective beginning at the point science refers to as the “big bang”, and understanding what Eisteins theories say about time, and the “traveling at the speed of light” altering of the perspective of time, to those travelling or looking back over great distances, which is NOT the same as from a point of refersence at the beginning of it all that never changed, he found he could mathematically break down the time since the big bang to the early earth era into six distinct periods that are represented by different “earth years” each, but from G-d’s perspective - from that point in creation just preceding the big bang - would be each just one of six “G-d days”. That is a VERY rough idea of what he produced.
The problem with the “young earth” theory is not its objections to evolution, but its lack of ability to refute the much older earth-theories in science that do not need evolution to substantiate them.
I have no problem with the “days” in the Bible, regarding creation, NOT referring to “earth days” in the litteral since. It is enough for me that I don’t have to understand HOW G-d created the universe, whether in any number of litteral days or any number of virtual days, it will always be beyond the undersstanding of humans to fully comprehend. I can take THAT on faith, without an “old earth” shattering my faith in G-d.
I have study many arguments between old earth an young.
One thought that seems to have taken hold is “ Just because it happened a long time ago, doesn’t mean it took a long time to happen”.
can you post that discussion ... i would be interested in seeing his math
read Genesis again then, if the days are time periods, read genesis and tell me how long plants lived before the sun was made on day 4
Why would it be a problem? God is a God of Life, I'm sure He can sustain his work apart from a sun.
I knew this was a fool’s errand, Ken Ham. This food debate has successfully damaged the cause of Christ.
Ken Ham’s foolish insistence on a young Earth is EXACTLY why this debate has damaged the cause of Christ in America.
Amen to your #33. The young-earth theory is broken, and cannot be fixed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.