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

[arapahoepark]

Found this:Ham Nye debate

 

[Tyrese]

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 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.

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, by overstating the case you may be weakening your argument.

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".

This is what I've been seeing as well. It's a scary thing. Others may disagree but I think the old earth view deserves more attention than it gets.

 

[earl40]

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.

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

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?

One can hold to the WCF totally and still be old earth. See post #49 in this thread.

Also I strongly suspect there are many "old earthers" in both the PCA and OPC in positions of pastor and teachers that may not teach the age of the earth because of the knowledge that many "young earthers" will completely throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is a valid and true observation I have seen through the years. The same goes the other way also and I respect the young earthers for the diligence they hold to scripture as God's infallible Word. This reason alone almosts makes me a young earther.

 

[Romans922]

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.

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.

My wording is according to His humanity. This is a proper reformed distinction.

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

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?

You made the statement so you should back it up...

But instead of avoiding the question like Bill Nye, I can answer. I can say very easily Jesus Himself said it in His Word. Genesis 5, 11, etc. Once you get to ch. 11 and Abraham it is fairly easy to date to the exodus and wilderness wanderings to the time all the way to Solomon. We know when Solomon lived, everyone pretty much agrees on that. Thus you get around 4,004 B.C. I won't say that it was exactly that, but pretty close to that date. Even if you have gaps in the genealogy which aren't really possible in these genealogies it would only throw it out to 10-11k years, not an old earth at all.

The reason there are no gaps is in the very words of Jesus Himself in those texts. Genesis 5 is very specific. If there may be gaps, then there wouldn't be "there were other sons and daughters" - those would be the gaps, but he gives you the son and his name for a reason and says the age, and years until the next one. Again, very specific. It is the same with Genesis 11.

Is there any reason to doubt what Gen. 5 and 11 say?



And the rest of the answer you gave,

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?

is again very troubling. Why are you even tempting yourself to sin by asking "Could Jesus have". The only road you will go down by what if's and could've's with the Lord God Jesus Christ Himself is a whole lot of heresy.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

One can hold to the WCF totally and still be old earth

Yes, the WCF does not mention age of the Earth, but it does mention the duration of creation, and I have yet to meet an Old Earth Creationist who also believes in a literal six-day creation.

 

[earl40]

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.

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.

My wording is according to His humanity. This is a proper reformed distinction.

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

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?

You made the statement so you should back it up...

But instead of avoiding the question like Bill Nye, I can answer. I can say very easily Jesus Himself said it in His Word. Genesis 5, 11, etc. Once you get to ch. 11 and Abraham it is fairly easy to date to the exodus and wilderness wanderings to the time all the way to Solomon. We know when Solomon lived, everyone pretty much agrees on that. Thus you get around 4,004 B.C. I won't say that it was exactly that, but pretty close to that date. Even if you have gaps in the genealogy which aren't really possible in these genealogies it would only throw it out to 10-11k years, not an old earth at all.

The reason there are no gaps is in the very words of Jesus Himself in those texts. Genesis 5 is very specific. If there may be gaps, then there wouldn't be "there were other sons and daughters" - those would be the gaps, but he gives you the son and his name for a reason and says the age, and years until the next one. Again, very specific. It is the same with Genesis 11.

Is there any reason to doubt what Gen. 5 and 11 say?

I agree that the age of man may be around that time frame. The question is how old is the earth and how do you assign age before the sun moon and starts were created. "14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: "

 

[Romans922]

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.

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.

My wording is according to His humanity. This is a proper reformed distinction.

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

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?

You made the statement so you should back it up...

But instead of avoiding the question like Bill Nye, I can answer. I can say very easily Jesus Himself said it in His Word. Genesis 5, 11, etc. Once you get to ch. 11 and Abraham it is fairly easy to date to the exodus and wilderness wanderings to the time all the way to Solomon. We know when Solomon lived, everyone pretty much agrees on that. Thus you get around 4,004 B.C. I won't say that it was exactly that, but pretty close to that date. Even if you have gaps in the genealogy which aren't really possible in these genealogies it would only throw it out to 10-11k years, not an old earth at all.

The reason there are no gaps is in the very words of Jesus Himself in those texts. Genesis 5 is very specific. If there may be gaps, then there wouldn't be "there were other sons and daughters" - those would be the gaps, but he gives you the son and his name for a reason and says the age, and years until the next one. Again, very specific. It is the same with Genesis 11.

Is there any reason to doubt what Gen. 5 and 11 say?

I agree that the age of man may be around that time frame. The question is how old is the earth and how do you assign age before the sun moon and starts were created. "14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: "

I added more to my last comment after I first posted so please read that.

As to this one, I assign it to what Jesus Himself said. morning and evening. Morning and evening. Morning and evening (each of the first 3 days of creation). Seems pretty simple. Praise the Lord for His clarity and His sufficiency. As for the age of man, man was obviously created the 6th day just as Jesus said.

 

[Logan]

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.

Sure, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Hodge appeared to take the position that he'd believe in six 24-hour days unless shown otherwise. Not a hard-core 6/24 position by any means but I don't know that it necessarily puts him in the "old earth" camp. I wonder if he ever wrote about this in the Review?

 

[ReformedChristian]

Here are my thoughts on the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate: On Ken Ham's side he did ok but I was disappointed because he really did not really challenge Nye too and let him get away with too much and switched from the presupp to evidential view and woulf of done better using the presuppositional method.

In regards to Nye he brought up predictions in science and how science works, Ham should of challenged him more on the Laws of Logic in science and the uniformity of Nature especially when there were certain points where Bill said idk in the question of consciousness for example which to me sounded like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, if that is the case how can he know anything for certain given the universe according to naturalism is a closed system how does he know it exist? he dodged the question and gave a rather bizarre description of consciousness rather then account for it which to me sounded like Ayn Rand's view that existence is proof of consciousness.

I would of challenged him and said sorry Nye but existence is not proof of consciousness, but it is consciousness that brings us into existence. If existence is proof of consciousness how do you know you exist? maybe your an illusion and in reality as BF Skinner said it's just chemical reactions in you brain.

You may think your conscious but then again whats to say its not just the reactions giving you this illusion and your not really conscious at all? and if that's the case that you cannot explain it then you cannot be certain of science and your whole foundation is destroyed because your using your consciousness to do the scientific work. Perhaps Bill needs to read Alvin Plantiga's Argument against Evolutionary Naturalism which destroys his whole premise of his view of consciousness ,this is where I think Ken had the moment to shine and if he had used that argument to his advantage he would of pulled the rug under Nye.

The rest of the time Nye spent going off topic into issues of morality, ethics, theology ,attacking the Bible and its trustworthiness and launching into a politcal rant about defending science against those who challenge Materialism and even engaging in name calling by referring to those who challenge the scientific establishment as Communist.

Those are my thoughts on the Post Debate between Bill Nyle and Ken Ham

 

[SolaSaint]

I watched the debate tonight and thought Hamm clearly did a great job. I thought he stuck to God's special revelation instead of attacking Nye's poor points of observation. Most of what Nye said has been explained by creationists in the past. Nye seemed lost in a few places in some of the audiences questions. It is no wonder Nye seemed lost, it is because he is LOST. He represented the wisdom of this world and we all know what God feels about that as recorded in 1 Cor. At least many unbelievers got to see the side of Creation which is mainly distorted or ignored on academia today.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

I wrote it was a stalemate in my review.
I focused on the arguments and clarity of presentation from the view of one who has little training in radiometry, for instance. They both were cordial. In fact, I could see Nye's tie spinning but he kept his composure. Ham seemed a less energetic according to one friend's opinion. I do think the debate form should have required answering some questions from each side.

 

[Afterthought]

I wrote it was a stalemate in my review.

A good review, and I agree to some extent it was a stalemate. However, it seemed to me the main question of the debate was never properly answered by Ken Ham. It seemed to me that the main question required giving **empirical evidence** to support his Creation model in the manner that modern scientists would do, and that is something I did not see Ken Ham address.

Thinking on the debate some more, it seems to me Ham's argument was along the lines of (1) I grant that I cannot prove my Creation model in the manner that a modern scientist would do, (2) but this is because modern scientists do not use the term "science" properly when applied to explanations of origins. (3) When "science" has been properly defined, it is seen that scientists are actually doing "historical science" and "science" properly means "operations science." (4) "Historical science" cannot be proven in the manner that modern scientists would use but instead depends on one's preconceived framework of the world and other factors. (5) My Creation model is my preconceived framework for the world, and those other factors show it to be a viable model. (6) Therefore, my Creation model is scientifically viable.

If some think the term "evolution" is used in a bait-and-switch manner, the term "science" in the debate question is at the very least confusing because of this change in meaning (well, I guess Ken Ham would say there is no real change in meaning but rather choosing to use the term as scientists mean it, i.e., "operations science," and showing it does not apply to the "science" used in the question), which leads to vagueness for the term "scientifically viable" and (to a lesser extent) "modern science." Perhaps if the question had been on what constitutes scientific viability, the debate points made by Ken Ham would be more on target. Or maybe simply requiring answering questions from the other side (as you suggested) might have been conducive to that end. Instead, when challenged to provide hard empirical evidence, Ken Ham ultimately appealed to faith....only he implicitly accused the other side of doing the same thing by his earlier distinction between "historical" and "operations" science.

At any rate, while this probably did nothing to advance this old debate, I think it does an excellent job of showing a quintessential empiricist's philosophy of science, along with the empiricist's ultimate epistemic authority and frame of mind to approach questions (e.g., as you noted, "I don't know, but let's find the empirical evidence needed to figure that out!") versus a quintessential "creation science" philosophy of science, along with that viewpoint's ultimate epistemic authority and frame of mind to approach questions (e.g., as you noted, "I do know because I have a book, and that book being true and unchanging, nothing can change my mind"), and some of the questions at the end were especially useful for that purpose. Indeed, I think the difference between the nature of faith and the nature of empirical observation was helpfully and pointedly illustrated by the debate.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

Sure, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Hodge appeared to take the position that he'd believe in six 24-hour days unless shown otherwise. Not a hard-core 6/24 position by any means but I don't know that it necessarily puts him in the "old earth" camp. I wonder if he ever wrote about this in the Review?

It might be worth consulting this book (which I only came across today): http://www.amazon.co.uk/Process-Pro...700058&sr=1-1&keywords=Process+and+providence

Finding out if Charles Hodge fundamentally disagreed with James McCosh would certainly be a worthwhile endeavour with respect to this question.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Perhaps if the question had been on what constitutes scientific viability, the debate points made by Ken Ham would be more on target.

That was my thought at the beginning. The Google+ Hangout allowed questions and I asked: "Which philosophy of science do you adhere to (eg, falsificationism, etc.) and does that make a difference in what you consider "reasonable" evidence? [ see Science and Pseudo-Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) for more examples ]"

Of course, if they asked that one, they would lose most the American audience.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Here's another review by a young earth site. It's an informative site for current evolution-creation news. Short articles.

 

[augustacarguy]

Ham just posted that tonight's Nightline will cover the debate, if y'all are interested...

 

[SherlockLogic]

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.

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.

Brother, while i commend you for contending for the truth, I don't appreciate the sarcasm. A historical Adam is a foundational belief. I myself am a young earth creationist, but our brothers who espouse an older earth and maintain a historical Adam aren't blatantly refusing to believe what the Scripture says, they are using a flawed hermeneutic.