Ham-on-Nye debate pits atheists, creationists

Washington Post ^ | 1/30/14 | Kimberly Watson

[SoFloFreeper]

Bill Nye may be “The Science Guy,” but Ken Ham is the “Answers in Genesis” man, and a debate between the two over the origins of life has nonbelievers and Christians wringing their hands.

Nye, host of a beloved television science series, and Ham, president of a creationist apologetics ministry, will meet at the Creation Museum, where Ham is also the president, on Feb. 4. In what some wags are calling “the Ham-on-Nye debate,” they will weigh this question: “Is creation a viable model of origins?”

[SoFloFreeper]

Scientists DO believe in Intelligent Design!

Seven Nobel Laureates in science who either supported Intelligent Design or attacked Darwinian evolution

Harvard Scientists Write the Book on Intelligent Design—in DNA

The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory

[DoodleDawg]

Spoken like a true product of public school education.

Did my answer go over your head? Do I have to re-post it uaing smaller words?

[DoodleDawg]

Creationism Science is just ‘Look over there, don't look over here. Everything just appeared a few thousand years ago and that's all there is too it. Now lets get back to those missing bones’

I submit that 'creationism science' is an oxymoron.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I submit that ‘creationism science’ is an oxymoron. “

They invented the term in attempts to get it taught in science classes, problem is that the same creationists would contradict themselves when arguing with other Christians about it.

[MrB]

That’s a clever title... I don’t care who ya are...

[MrB]

That post also showed blazing ignorance of the “biology” of the Ark.

[MrB]

Ken Ham has also done a lot more research than Nye on this topic. He’ll mop the floor with him.

[DoodleDawg]

Ken Ham has also done a lot more research than Nye on this topic. He’ll mop the floor with him.

You're setting your bar pretty low when talking about beating a TV show host. But I would question how much 'research' is involved in Creationism. Isn't it all there in the Bible in black and white? What's to research?

[MrB]

I’ve seen that argument as well - lowering expectations for Nye in order to make his defeat less ignoble.

The “what” is in the bible, but not so much the “how”. The evidence is what is to be researched in order to refute the interpretation of the secularists whose goal is not “science” but a refutation of God.

[BrandtMichaels]

Well now that’s not the complete truth either. There is not just one evolution nor creation theory and the debunking depends upon who you are talking to.

But this one hydroplate theory [yes, it does include more science than you might think and predictions too] is better than any evolutionary theory because it gives the cleanest overall interpretation of all the signs imho of course...

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

[DoodleDawg]

I’ve seen that argument as well - lowering expectations for Nye in order to make his defeat less ignoble.

Define defeat? Convert people from evolution to creationism? I don't see that happen; there is nothing new in the creationism argument that might convert someone. It's all been said before. Convert people from creationism to evolution? If it hasn't happened yet then nothing Nye could ever say could make it happen. It's an exercise in futility, a publicity stunt, a paycheck for Nye.

The “what” is in the bible, but not so much the “how”.

Sure it is. God did it. God separated dark from light, firmament from water, and on the fifth and sixth days created all the animals of the Earth as well and man and woman in the exact condition that they exist today. What more research do creationist require in that respect?

The evidence is what is to be researched in order to refute the interpretation of the secularists whose goal is not “science” but a refutation of God.

What if the evidence refutes Genesis? Does it no longer become evidence but is instead heresy?

[MrB]

You’ll notice I referenced the

INTERPRETATION

of the evidence that refutes Genesis.
The funny thing about secularists is that they don’t allow for other interpretations and don’t recognize their own assumptions that lead to the interpretations that support their assumptions.

[sickoflibs]

I have read a number of Creationist Science books.

That link under evidence of Creation cites the standard Creationist argument that its improbable that the building blocks of life came together by pure random accident.

That argument is exactly how I stated it, that it doesn’t support the non-existent Creationist theory, it just straw mans an origin of life theory, which is meant to discredit evolution.

But there is no alternative provided.

So there is nothing to debate.

Its like saying we need to get rid of Obamacare while claiming an alternative is that no-one ever gets sick.

[BrandtMichaels]

Sorry I could not agree less with your analogy.

Mathematicians [not christians] are the single highest group percentage that reject the theory of evolution b/c the odds of random chance producing life are staggering - so small it’s not worthy of being called a theory.

Plus it is the evolution crowd which abandoned abiogenesis - so there is no foundation just this gigantic assumption of a single cell starting point. There is not only stasis in the fossil record but zero evo explanation for polystrate fossils too. I could go on and on but their is no point b/c your crowd simply ignores all their major problems or declares them off limits while slinging crap at creation.

Even information theory strikes a blow against random chance b/c you could not be having this conversations over several different communication layers w/o their being an ultimate creator at each and every level. The inter-connnectedness of life also tells the tale of the need for an intelligence far above anything man could ever accomplish.

It’s God you’ll have to answer to someday not me. The evidence against evolution is simply staggering. Pastor John MacArthur summed it up best ‘You simply love your sin more than you love your God.’

[Don W]

Not smaller words, but deeper and more logical premises, as opposed to the vitriol and vile insinuation IMPLIED by your post.

[SoFloFreeper]

No, you were “uaing”, as you put it, your public school education about as well as can be expected.

[MrB]

polystrate fossils...

like those trees whose roots are millions of years (according to their strata) older than their tops? :)

[SoFloFreeper]

Don't know if you've heard of this book; it is a well written one that doesn't take a firm position on the age of the universe, but DOES indicate that there can be a question on the subject...in other words, not all of us who believe in intelligent design are "young earth" folk. :)

Anyway, I recommend it.

[SoFloFreeper]

So there is nothing to debate.

See? What did I tell you? All sorts of evolutionists were EAGER to debate those men who, though educated in the sciences, were convinced of the evidence of a Creator...there are records of all sorts of debates...but NOW, the evolution side is NOT interested in debate...and it ISN'T because their side "won" when the two ideas were put side by side.

I submit it is because they weren't able to defend their conclusions in an adequate fashion.

Think about it; if the evolutionists were mopping the floor with every "creationist", they'd be HAPPY to go prove them wrong over and over....but, uh, they CANNOT do that. So they just say "Shut up."

[SoFloFreeper]

Here are some youtube debates between two differing sides:

The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate]
Biola University
http://youtu.be/2CnZ3n8I5b8

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution - Stephen Meyer vs. Peter Ward (rematch)
Sponsored by the Seattle Times
http://youtu.be/Sakmq5L3IiE

Does Science Point to Intelligent Design? (William Dembski vs Robert Shapiro)
Columbia University
http://youtu.be/_o8eNB_VJKY