I saw about 40 minutes of it, entertaining.
Ham (Creationist rep) was a young Earther and mainly just lectured on Bible verses while Nye (Science Guy rep) seemed very prepared for this show (which is all it was) and he lectured the Creationists on rather basic facts like the speed of light and how far Australia is from Mount Ararat, and that the creationists have not come up with a single Kangaroo bone between the two places many thousands of miles separated.(none of that is new BTW)
That forced Ham (Creationist rep) to argue that there is not a single law of science observed today that we can assume applied even a few hundred years ago.
Excellent ... thanx for posting
The whole idea is rubbish.
Excellent article - thank you.
Great piece. Thanks for the link.
The key is to focus on the lack of scientific evidence for evolution, as we have no fossil evidence for transition from one species to another, and forget arguing about the time table.
It’s all about “how” versus “why”.
I also detected an implicit threat from Nye: that if we and our posterity will not accept his religious dogma, we will be somehow be constrained from technology and our nation will fall to nations that do accept his religious dogma.
For me it comes down to the notion of humility. The problem I see with anti-creationists is that they seem to be overly impressed with scientific discovery, forgetting that it is a field of thought where man is continually proving himself wrong. Further, they seem to have two stumbling blocks; (a) a lack of confidence that God is powerful enough to be capable of a six-day creation, and (b) that man’s reverse engineering of creation (whether God-driven or not) is competent to reach such far-reaching conclusions without missing some unknown factor that would send their conclusions in a far different direction. The latter seems especially problematic in that the very length of time required to accommodate the macro-evolutionary model makes it exponentially more likely that man doesn’t have sufficient information to accurately extrapolate a scientifically defensible conclusion.
Creationists, on the other hand, should exhibit humility as well, similarly allowing for things that God hasn’t spelled out so as to prevent them from dogmatically staking out a position on the mechanics of His creation. Everyone seems to agree that the Bible was not intended to be a service manual for the planet, so while it’s legitimate to defend the creation story in general, debating the mechanics in a venue where the “other side” has home court advantage, by virtue of having built the arena, is of limited value and is engaged in with some risk to credibility in other, more spiritually significant areas.
I would say that Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation or his Laws of Motion applied a few hundred years ago, or a few thousand. I'd go further and add millions and billions of years but according to Ham the Earth is nowhere near that old.
I believe God created us through a process. I don’t think Darwinian evolution explains that process accurately at all. Neither does Creationism.
Our misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about that process has been exploited to undermine faith in God in general and Christianity specifically.
I was a little disappointed by Hamm (with whom I agree). He failed to use a variety of arguments and physical examples that I’ve heard him present in his earlier videos.
Both of these guys are nuts.
With all due respect the bible never claimed a 6000 year old earth. .ever! This 6000 year claim is some crap a bad bible scholar came up with...
While the whole idea of a 6000 year old world is a no brainer, there is nothing to suggest that our universe wasn’t concocted by someone 12 billion years ago.
What’s totally confused is the date of the earth vs the creation date of man. The earth is old. Man in the likeness of God could be 6000 years old. This creation means when man first received a soul. The first Adam and Eve of the Bible with free will.
bump