Intelligent design is irrefutable and Darwinism is unsupportable. That’s not much of a debate.
It was a great debate and Ken Ham stayed on subject as Bill Nye kept trying to change subject and acted like an a** in my opinion!
I dropped at countdown of 2 minutes of music. Lost my interest right away.
It is young earth creationists that make Christianity look bad in these debates. Nye should have rather debated someone like Hugh Ross.
Science is free to operate from a set of assumptions. In fact science cannot happen without them.
There is no harm in a scientist beginning with the assumption that intelligent design is operative and/or implicit wherever order exists. Order, arrangement, and art are hallmarks of intelligence. There is also no harm in a scientist assuming this order to be the result, or evidence, of a higher being, even the One of Whom the biblical texts have testified from the beginning. In fact that makes sense, because it lends credence to, or is not unduly surprised by anomalies such as studies in quantum mechanics are beginning to yield.
Concerning matter as studied at absolute zero, Rob Thompson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, recently said, “It is a wonderland where nothing is certain, where objects behave both as particles and as waves, and where matter can be in two places at once.” Kind of makes “walking on water” or “turning water into wine” a less-than-remarkable possibility. It also undermines the paradigm (fairly recent) of an ancient universe.
If the presence of intelligence is rejected as operative behind the order we see, then it stands to reason the evidence will lead elsewhere, as it does for those who adopt the materialist point of view.
I happen to hold the former point of view, but do appreciate the great amount of legwork others do in unearthing the universe. The antagonism that exists between the two points of view is to be expected, for they cannot both be true in their assumptions and conclusions. Both may be science, but neither is able wholly to divest itself of faith.
2.5 hours - any clue as to MBs?
FWIW, I cannot get past the improbability that the incomprehensible DNA molecule assembled itself, absent any guiding intelligence.
Since my salvation is not contingent on me believing one way or the other, I can wait for the answer.
Nye is coming across as a bit of a jerk. Very condescending in his presentation. He keeps referring to this as “Ken Ham’s” creation.
Debating kooks only lends them credibility and tends to further kookify them.
Nye calls into question the accuracy of translating the Bible into English over thousands of years.
He displays a serious lack of knowledge in the translation of the Bible and the accuracy of those translations.
I’m currently in the process of studying Biblical Greek and it’s amazing how accurate the texts from antiquity are.
Can’t wait to study the Hebrew.
Once mucus has exploded, the body has to break it down. Mucus is sticky and it accumulates. If the body doesn’t break it down, it will eventually clog the lungs and other organs. Cystic fibrosis is a genetic condition where the ability lacks the ability to break down mucus. The ability to create mucus without the ability to break down mucus results in early death. Prior to modern medicine, cystic fibrosis patients died before reaching 18.
So what are the chances that the human race evolved the ability to create mucus, and break down mucus, at the same time? Statistically, it’s off the charts. If the ability to create mucus evolved first, the human race would have died out from cystic fibrosis. Under the evolutionary construct, there would be no physical need to evolve the break down ability prior to the mucus creation ability. These separate human systems had to be created together, or the body fails.
Watched the whole thing and calling this a debate on evolution vs creationism is a joke, this was at best a debate on young earth proposition which is a non starter.
Nye asserts that it is very improbable that Noah could have built the Ark.
Why? Because that was a long time ago and we’re much smarter today than Noah was. He also asserts that Noah was not a ship builder.
The Genesis account doesn’t give us the background of Noah.
It is a presumption of modern man that we are smarter than the ancients. Hogwash. Take a look at the pyramids. Pretty good engineering for a bunch of ancients!
But Nye’s biggest question, and it’s a good one....how do Christians know for sure?
I believe the Bible gives us the answer on this.
It is by faith and faith alone. He gives us insights into His kingdom in Romans by telling us that “that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.”
That’s what Nye is missing. He wants a mathematical formula to prove God. That’s not how salvation works.
It is by faith in Christ and Christ alone.
ping