Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate thread: LIVE play-by-play

Discussion in 'Defending the Faith' started by Tim, Feb 4, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tyrese

    Tyrese Puritan Board Sophomore

    I think that's great. It gives people the opportunity to hear the perspective of a Creationist. Many people have only been taught Evolution.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2014
  2. Frosty

    Frosty Puritan Board Sophomore

    Tim, I wanted to thank you for your consistent updates on the debate. It's much appreciated.
     
  3. raydixon9

    raydixon9 Puritan Board Freshman

    I watched it and in a split decision based just on debate scored it for Mr. Nye. As a 6 day creationist and supporter of Mr. Ham and the AIG ministry, I felt Mr. Ham was a bit too cordial. It reminded me of the McCain-Obama debates where McCain wouldn't attack Obama at all but just defend his positions. The same for Mr. Ham. Nye repeatedly attacked Ham misrepresenting his arguments but Ham never counter-attacked. Ham never called out Nye's misrepresentations of his positions nor his fallacious claims. He tied to bait Mr. Nye into the easily defensible(from a Christian worldview) debate about the origin of the laws of logic but Nye wouldn't go for it. He would not press it, though. Hopefully this will draw lots of media attention which will bring curious visitors to creationists websites.

    Ultimately, the debate settled on not Evolution vs. Creationism but Humanism vs. Theism. "Some men you just can't teach...I don't like it any more than you do.."

    It's funny that I was actually expecting something different than what I'm used to in a traditional political debate, but we got the exact same; people talking past people. Again, I hope the debate will be a cause for more conversation.
     
  4. earl40

    earl40 Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Just a side not. Many Christians are "emabarresed" by Ham dogmatic stance that the earth is 6,000 years old. Am I one of those? Yes in that I seriuosly doubt Jesus did the math to date creation to 4,004 BC and In my most humble opinion He (Jesus) could have understood the issue that the creation may have been around much further back. Also I would not say I am completly "embarresed" but I hold my view (old earth) based on the possibility that many read the account in Genesis incoorrectly and appreciate Ham opposing view that we could be Christians. In other words, Ham is "embarresed" by old earth creation....and for good reason if we old earth people are wrong. :)
     
  5. Justified

    Justified Puritan Board Sophomore

    I agree completely that Nye "debated" better. I was really frustrated by Nye's blatant misrepresentation of Christian thought, but even more so with Hams neglecting to address it at some point! For example, Nye made some claim that a fish "sinned" and that's why it dies now. The one that really grinded my gears is when Nye said that Ham and Christians are distorting the bible by deciding some parts are poetry and some parts historical... nope Nye, the reason we call some poetry is because they are poetry! Nye had very minimal knowledge of Christianity which appalled me. Although Ham did decent, he could've done a little more to combat Nye's strawmans.
     
  6. Logan

    Logan Puritan Board Junior

    I agree that I was sorry some things didn't get addressed, but it is a formal debate and if one goes off on every tangent then one is likely to get nowhere. Ham did a good job of sticking to the topic and not jumping at a lot of the bait. So did Nye.
     
  7. Tim

    Tim Puritan Board Graduate

    I agree with Logan. The more debates I watch/hear, the more I realize that it is inevitable that some frustrating claims by the opponent need to be left alone for the sake of focus.
     
  8. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    Huh? You are saying Jesus 'could have understood' that creation was much older than what it was? You do know Jesus created the heavens and the earth, and from all eternity He knew all these questions. Your wording is very troubling.
     
  9. SRoper

    SRoper Puritan Board Graduate

    Why is that disturbing? What does Luke mean when he says, "Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man"?
     
  10. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    Scott that is referring to his human nature. Earl's comment, in the context of creation, seems to ignore Jesus' divine nature altogether. Is there somewhere in Scripture where we find Jesus contemplating the dating of creation that such a statement could actually be made by Earl? I don't know of one. I'm willing to be corrected however.
     
  11. BJClark

    BJClark Puritan Board Doctor

    Justified;

    Actually, Ham did address the sinning fish issue, he just didn't call it that--When he addressed Man's fall and how all creation suffered because of it, I would have re-watch the debate to find exactly where he discussed it but it was during his presentation. (which will have to be done later as I need to go out). It's just Mr. Nye does not understand nor does he comprehend how man's fall could possibly effect all other creation.

    What would be really great to see is an after debate discussion between the two men, where Mr. Hamm could directly answer those type of questions--

    But I have a question as I am not fully aware of all the details I think it's the laws thermodynamics and entropy which causes the expanse of the Universe--

    If we are to consider the expanse of the universe since the time of creation, where things would be 'dying' or 'aging' (at the same time but not the same speed) would that not lead to the earths age appearing older than it really is? I don't know the rate of expansion, but lets say we could calculate the speed of expansion and go back 4000+ years...and calculate?

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081109163155AAs5zR5





    If the earth is aging at what the speed of light? That could certainly explain the appearance of an older earth..

    And then do we know exactly how many 'days' or 'years' Adam and Eve were in the garden before the fall?
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2014
  12. reaganmarsh

    reaganmarsh Puritan Board Senior

    Yes, Tim, thanks for taking the time to do this!
     
  13. SherlockLogic

    SherlockLogic Puritan Board Freshman

    [/QUOTE]
    I will have to disagree with Ken ham when he said, "I'm not saying those who believe in a old earth are not Christians." I have a hard time believing that people can outright reject the first few chapters in the Bible knowing that Christ himself believed these things. I think this is why Christ said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." I think many people are wise in their own eyes to see that we need to humble ourselves and accept what God has taught us in His Word.[/QUOTE]

    I would tread carefully here. While it is true that those who are ultimately wise in their own eyes have cause to question the validity of their confession, if a professing Christian maintains the foundational doctrines (regarding creation) of the infallibility, exclusivity, and inerrancy of the Scriptures, as well as that of a historical Adam; and yet while believing these things he still interprets an old earth creationist view, we must nevertheless consider him a brother in Christ.
     
  14. Bill The Baptist

    Bill The Baptist Puritan Board Graduate

    I would agree that we should be charitable to each other and recognize that none of us possesses infallible knowledge. That being said, what is troubling about Christians who believe in a so-called "old Earth" is not so much what they believe about the age of the Earth, but the other things that seem to inevitably go along with it, i.e. non-literal six-day creation, death before the fall, etc. These are significant theological issues because death and the fall are the very reason why the cross was necessary, and if these things actually preceded the fall, then the death of Christ was needless and purposeless. Oh, and by the way, all of the reformed confessions confess creation in six literal days.
     
  15. Tyrese

    Tyrese Puritan Board Sophomore

    I will have to disagree with Ken ham when he said, "I'm not saying those who believe in a old earth are not Christians." I have a hard time believing that people can outright reject the first few chapters in the Bible knowing that Christ himself believed these things. I think this is why Christ said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." I think many people are wise in their own eyes to see that we need to humble ourselves and accept what God has taught us in His Word.[/QUOTE]

    I would tread carefully here. While it is true that those who are ultimately wise in their own eyes have cause to question the validity of their confession, if a professing Christian maintains the foundational doctrines (regarding creation) of the infallibility, exclusivity, and inerrancy of the Scriptures, as well as that of a historical Adam; and yet while believing these things he still interprets an old earth creationist view, we must nevertheless consider him a brother in Christ.[/QUOTE]


    Luke 24:25-27 says, "Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."

    First noticed that He began with Moses. Then notice that He called them fools for being slow of heart to believe. The reason its important to understand and believe all that is written in the Bible is so that were not worshipping the wrong Jesus.

    By the way a lot of Christians deny the historical Adam. Is that considered foundational as well?

    Its discouraging to see people outright denying what the Bible says and so many are ok with it. I guess its more important to "tread carefully" than to believe what the Bible actually says.
     
  16. Alan D. Strange

    Alan D. Strange Puritan Board Junior

    The debate was between a flood geologist (at least in large part, though there was more to Ken's position than only that) and a naturalist. As such it brought forth some interesting points.

    Flood geology is a theory set forth by some Christians to interpret the evidence in a way that they believe to be consonant with Scripture. Unguided, as Ken put it, "molecule-to-man" evolution is the only option for the naturalist who denies God and claims that nature is all there is. He has no alternative, in rejecting the Creator, but chance development over vast amounts of time. But he can't make sense of even that consistent with his naturalism. Plantinga has nicely pointed this out, especially in Where the Conflict Really Lies. Of course, Van Til has done much more than this and has asserted the impossibility of the contrary: deny the God of the Bible and one has no basis for affirming anything whatsoever with any consistency given an antitheistic worldview. But such antitheists affirm things all the time, because antitheism presupposes theism.

    It's too bad that the debate was not theism v. anti-theism, because, in my view, that's the only sort of debate a theist should have with an antitheist. He should have challenged him on his naturalism, keeping the focus there, and not made the debate one over what would appear to many viewers to be conflicting scientific theories. But, given all of Ken's commitments, I understand why he did what he did. Thus it was what it was and both men were at least rather well-behaved. It's hard to know otherwise what to make of it all.

    Peace,
    Alan
     
  17. stephen2

    stephen2 Puritan Board Freshman

    Tyrese, I'm not sure how this (last quote in particular) was meant to be read, but I want to echo what Blake has said. It may be troubling (as Bill put it) when Christians believe in an old earth, but being troubled by it is a far cry from suggesting they aren't Christian. Not only would this exclude men like Martyn Lloyd-Jones from the kingdom, it is making an inessential (though important) doctrine essential. Let's believe what the Bible says and tread carefully. I am one of many who was saved long before I properly understood even the doctrine of justification (or the doctrines of grace) let alone the age of the earth.
     
  18. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor

    Respectfully, brother, I think you are missing the point of what is being said here. Nobody is saying it is "okay" to deny what scripture teaches (I too am 6/24 and believe that the espousal of any other position is a matter for church discipline), but they are merely pointing out that you should be less extreme in your condemnation of others. Professing Christians who disagree with us on this matter should be admonished as brethren, so that we may encourage them to give up their erroneous views (2 Thess. 3:14-15; Gal. 6:1); suggesting that they are not Christians is probably not the best way to go about winning them over. Are you saying that Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen were not Christians simply because of their view of creation?
     
  19. Logan

    Logan Puritan Board Junior

    I don't know Machen's views, Warfield's I understand are possibly uncertain, but what are you thinking Hodge believed?

    Edit: I ask this because I knew nothing other than that Hodge was a 6-day creationist, but I could be mistaken. I did read his systematic theology and several of his books/articles.
     
  20. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor

    Although it has been nearly ten years since I read the first volume of Charles Hodges's Systematic Theology, I distinctly remember him arguing against a literal 6 day creation viewpoint. My time is limited at present, but I will try to track-down the precise reference tomorrow. As for J. Gresham Machen, he refuses to affirm 6/24 in his book, The Christian view of man. See this essay for more: http://www.wts.edu/about/beliefs/statements/creation.html

    N.B. I dissent from the thesis of the above-linked essay.
     
  21. Logan

    Logan Puritan Board Junior

    If you're referring to the section on Geology and the Bible (vol 1, pg 570) then I think that section should be read as a hypothetical (i.e., if geologists really are correct, then the Bible could be interpreted etc.). Note the second paragraph which begins "Admitting the facts to be as geologists would have us to believe" (which I take as a hypothetical admission). Perhaps there is some other place you are referring to though.

    Not necessarily a strong 6-day argument, but I've not seen it as against it either. I think Hodge's short piece on "what is Darwinism" should be taken into consideration as well, in which he equates the idea to atheism.

    Edit: Incidentally, Hodge speaks in that sections that Christians need not be afraid of facts of geologists and the like, it's the theories we have to contend with. I thought it fitting given Ken Ham's distinction between observational and historical science, but which he largely meant the interpretation of the facts, much like Hodge spoke about.
     
  22. Tyrese

    Tyrese Puritan Board Sophomore

    If you read my original comment again you will see that I never said people can't be Christians if they hold to a old earth view. I said, "I have a hard time believing that people can outright reject the first few chapters in the Bible knowing that Christ himself believed these things. I think this is why Christ said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Sure this is a hard saying, but does what Jesus say not apply here?

    In my disagreeing I'm not saying EVERYONE who holds to the old earth view are not Christians, Im just saying I wouldn't be surprised if many who hold this view disbelieve/doubt other important doctrines as well (and that's a scary thing). I believe this is one of the many teachings that is causeing the downward spiral in so called Evangelical Churches.

    You said, "I too am 6/24 and believe that the espousal of any other position is a matter for church discipline." And, "Professing Christians who disagree with us on this matter should be admonished as brethren, so that we may encourage them to give up their erroneous views (2 Thess. 3:14-15; Gal. 6:1);" Its being assumed here that I disagree with this. I agree that this should be our apporach. But is this what were seeing? I see prominent figures teaching these things and they're not being disciplined because these individuals have big names. For me it doesn't come down to names.
     
  23. earl40

    earl40 Puritan Board Post-Graduate


    My wording is according to His humanity. This is a proper reformed distinction. :)
     
  24. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    And where is that we see Jesus in His humanity consider the dating of creation?
     
  25. earl40

    earl40 Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    What discipline would you suggest? Just curious? :) BTW One can be a 6 day creationist and still believe in an old earth.
     
  26. earl40

    earl40 Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Good question that I will answer with the same to you. Where in scripture do we read He (Jesus) dating the earth to approx 4,000 (edited from 6,000) years? Could Jesus have read Genesis and surmised that the time we observe today after the sun moon and stars were created, is different than before the sun moon and stars were created?
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2014
  27. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor

    Tyrese, it may not have been your intention to say that OECers were not Christians, but that is what it sounded like. I am not saying your basic point is wrong, however, but by overstating the case you may be weakening your argument.
     
  28. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritan Board Doctor

    I have just looked it up; that was the very section which stuck in my mind. The comments about the meaning of the word "day" do not, to my mind at least, appear congruous with a hard-core 6/24 position. If there is any contrary evidence that he did believe in 6/24, I would like to see it.

    He does, but rejecting Darwinism is not the same thing as affirming 6/24. Many people in the past, and many people in the present, have rejected Darwinism without embracing 6/24. It is crucial to make these distinctions.
     
  29. earl40

    earl40 Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Though I have found many OECers to deny many essential doctrines of The One True Faith. So I can see where Tyrese can say "I find it difficult to believe". :)
     
  30. Tyrese

    Tyrese Puritan Board Sophomore

    Being that I'm not a pastor I can't completly answer this question for you. I can't tell you what you should do in your church. I would think it should be treated like any other false teaching. But I will say if a pastor is in a Church that claims to believe the 1689, and he's teaching things contrary to that confession, he should be removed from his position. There's no telling what he will begin to go against next. I wouldn't be interested in finding out.

    Let me ask you a question, do you think a church should discipline false teaching?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page