Posted on 02/03/2014 5:44:47 AM PST by 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?”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
See post 40
Conveniently forgetting what Albert Einstein said about gravitational time dilation...
Starlight and Time by Russell Humpheys
The key to the starlight and age of the universe is ‘gravitational time dilation’.
Here is how these debates end, The final one is with God, and it does NOT last very long.
Another big chink in their armor is what Darwin himself said about his theory - the reason why they need more than just a single transitional fossil.
“If you do not find thousands upon thousands of missing links then my theory completely falls apart.”
“Shut up”, the liberal argues...
Back then they didnt understand the creationist rules of the game, and what you are calling debate is just a game.
Evolutionists are absolutely the wrong ones to get involved with this and the reason is simple.
Creationists want to talk about EVERYTHING but Creation, that is their game to be critical with nothing to defend. That is why they admit that they don't EVEN think its science. So to be on equal footing those debating them just need to be experts at Creationism writings and the first Book of Moses Genesis writings, not evolution.
Because Creationists refuse to come up with a ‘theory’ to defend its up to their opponent to create it for them.
Start with the two completely different Creation stories and the two completely different Flood stories, demand that they explain how all four can be scientific history when they are nothing a like.
I get to do some math for work from time to time and if Creationists were debating that A (Creation) is better than B(evolution) using probabilities then they would argue that Prob(A happened)>Prob(B happened) but they don't, they just talk about B as if that proves A.
They argue that Prob (evolution=B ) is small so Creation =A must be true but that's just a false premise for the know nothings. They are not mutually exclusive.
No matter how small the probability is of the straw men that Creationists create for evolution, its still bigger than zero which is what Creationists off for P(A),
Pretty amazing those evolutionists, with all their degrees and knowledge “didn’t understand the creationist rules of the game...” You’d think with their superior worldview, they’d mop the floor with those rubes. :)
Something else evolutionists like to do is change the terms...so they can run around with their fingers in their ears, saying “You’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re a religious nut and you’re wrong!” Such is the simple translation of their position.
Bottom line, they lose or draw even in the public arena—they don’t WIN like they thought they would.
They remind me of Brave Sir Robin.
Con men have certain skills that others don't refine , bait and switch etc., you dont try to outcon them, you hide your money from them.
Thats not what those evolutionists are about so they don't belong in the creationists circus show.
Creationists admit up front “ Creationism is not science”, so there is nothing for an evolutionist to discuss with them.
Those who understand Creationistm and the literal text of Geneis are the ones that should be debating Creationists,
How did all the kinds safely get from the landed Ark to remote areas of the world in twos?
Which version of creation in the Bible is the literal truth?
Which version of Noah's Ark flood in the Bible is the literal truth?
Those are questions to ask a creationist who admits they are not about science,
That has nothing to do with evolutionists theories so they wouldnt know to ask them,.
Lawrence O Donnell on lib station MSNBC was telling his viewers to watch this ‘debate’ tonight so that should tell you its just another fiasco.
Part I page 1 of Dr Walt Brown’s book:
“
The Scientific Case for Creation
Part I is a brief summary, in outline form, of 130 categories of scientific evidence that support a sudden creation and oppose gradual evolution. As Figure 1 shows, categories 1–42 relate to the life sciences, 43–92 relate generally to the astronomical and physical sciences, and 93–130 relate to the earth sciences.
Quotations, references, and notes on pages 52–106 provide supporting details for specific conclusions. Usually, these details are based on research done by evolutionists who are experts in a relevant field. Choosing evolutionists rather than creationists will minimize charges of bias. (Besides, no testimony is more convincing than that from a “hostile witness.”) Most people find the quotations, highlighted in blue type, fascinating.
For many years, students, teachers, and professors have been unaware of most of this information, especially the broader conclusions that can be reached. Those conclusions are stated in Figure 1 and in large, bold headings on the following pages. The larger the heading, the broader the conclusion. There is one overall conclusion for the life sciences, one for the astronomical and physical sciences, and one for the earth sciences. Each has three supporting conclusions, for a total of nine. A typical supporting conclusion is based upon about a dozen categories of evidence. All 130 are summarized in the following pages. Figure 1 shows the relationships of these 3 + 9 broad conclusions and the 130 categories of evidence.
Scientific information cannot be suppressed for long, so it is not surprising to see a growing awareness and excitement concerning this information. Some evidence involves new discoveries. Other evidence, discovered long ago, has been poorly disseminated. If all this information were openly presented in science classrooms, better education would result. Regardless of your age or education, you can learn and help others learn this information about a subject that holds great interest for most people—the subject of origins.
“
Read it for yourself - if you dare - dunt dunt duhh!
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
While I’m wading through all that stuff perhaps you can answer a question for me. When Noah and his family and all those animals were on the ark? What did they drink?
One of you gave that to me yesterday.
All I needed was a completely bogus example from that doc and it not surprisingly was in the first chapter ‘The Scientific Case for Creation :Life Sciences ‘:
“If one set of DNA (one cell’s worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin! “
The weight of DNA is cited as scientific evidence of the Adam and Eve Creation a few thousand years ago, LOL .
This book is Pages after page of worthless trivial cited as evidence that something in the past happened, and cited as 'suppressed evidence'. Self identified Creationists wont even read this dribble.
You claim it is cited as evidence but no where is that claim put forth as creation evidence. Even your reading comprehension skills are suspect. DNA is cited as creation evidence.
Water.
I’m sure your true intention is where or how did they collect the water?
This is precisely why I started out repeating their is no hard science in historical speculations which describe both creation and evolution.
Furthermore, maybe either one of you would like to tell us all how the Moon was formed or rather evolved?
How about the title of the chapter its in called :”Evidence of Creation” ? Even you can understand what that is supposed to mean.
DNC cant be cited as ‘Creation’ evidence anymore than a rock can, what could be cited is evidence of exactly how that process worked and where it came from.
Or exactly what steps did creation take that created DNA?
Those are not discussed in this Sunday school lesson book.
That request would make sense if that kids Sunday School story book you referenced produced that for the case you cite,
Asking how evolution did something is not evidence of anything, its just a question,
Boy :”Mom where did I come from?”
Creationist Mom:” Where did your dog come from?”
Boy:”I dont know, where did I come from?”
Creationist Mom:”I just offered you proof of where you came from”
The only way you and I are able to communicate like this is due to intelligence and many layers upon layers of information systems embedded within - DNA has the fingerprints of a much higher intelligence all over it!
So, yeah, God did it!!!
Or are you still wanting to claim it happened by accident?
In a way. They couldn't drink the water they were floating on since it was salt water. Where did they get the water for drinking?
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.