So since the whole Bible is meant to be the word of God who are we to pick and choose what to believe? There were originally other books in the Bible. Someone chose to get rid of them. You can't pick things out of the Old Testament to believe and then say that the New Testament did away with the things that you didn't agree with and say that there is a scientific basis for it, that is what Ham tried to do.

 

Too much to get into but it is not as simple as you put it. Maybe a three in the premium section will be more appropriate.

Ham had a great chance to answer Nye's main question to him and missed it. Nye wanted to know one thing that Ham could predict about the future regarding Creationism. Ham repeated or restated some of his earlier thoughts. He should talked about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. At least that would have shown that there is an answer (whether one believes that or not) for the original question.

Too much to get into but it is not as simple as you put it. Maybe a three in the premium section will be more appropriate.

 

We always get: well it is to much to get into. Speak your mind. State your beliefs. Let's hear it.

Somebody needs to build a time machine fast to go back 6001 years and see what happens in order to settle this debate once and for all. Maybe the DeLorean from the Radio Shack Super Bowl ad is available.

 

Wouldn't that be a suicide mission?

A DeLorean doesn't have the proper life support system and couldn't survive in open space.

The fundamental difference in the debate comes down to this - proof versus faith. Nye believes in scientific proof. Ham's creationism is based on faith in the Bible as the literal and infallible word of God.

The fundamental difference in the debate comes down to this - proof versus faith. Nye believes in scientific proof. Ham's creationism is based on faith in the Bible as the literal and infallible word of God.

 

The operative word you use is "literal."

 

A word that I believe injures the sacred text by not respecting the genre or purpose of each writing.

Here's video of the full debate (2 hrs 45 min):

 

Here's a pretty interesting, and surprisingly not so pro-Nye article about the debate:

 

The Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate Was a Nightmare for Science - The Daily Beast

I haven't watched the debate yet but I would think a better choice to debate Ham would have been Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris.

But it's really difficult to debate issues if one party's basic arguments are based on faith and the the other person is debating from a scientific view. All the faith-based person has to say to any question is, "I know I'm right because it is the word of God from the Bible. That's all the proof I need."

We always get: well it is to much to get into. Speak your mind. State your beliefs. Let's hear it.

 

Okay, I am glad you are eager for the discussion. I am going to try to be concise and clear.

 

1. The Bible is indeed the infallible word of God. However, within the Bible there are different writing styles that have specific objectives. For example, the book of Psalms are a bunch of poems and hymns written by David, Solomon, and a few other Kings. They are not historical stories. The messages in them are true but King David himself did not walk through a valley called "death" and felt no evil because God was with him. There was not a literal staff or rod that comforted him. It is a poem about how David feels comfort from knowing that wherever his life leads him, he has God on his side.

 

2. The books of 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles all cover the same time period and stories, so there is some overlap. Therefore we do not believe that the same King died three different times just because it is mentioned in three different books. All three books are the perfect word of God but are written with different initiatives from authors that probably had different dialects so they may refer to the same mountain by two different names.

 

3. The entire OT points towards a messiah coming. In the New Testament Jesus is the Messiah and he is a new covenant that erases the old one. Therefore since Jesus fulfills OT law, there is not need to follow the same OT Laws. For example, the law in the OT stated that Jews had to be circumcised. In the New Testament Jesus wanted Christianity to include everyone so he established that since Jew and Gentile are equal in his eyes, that circumcision is no longer necessary. He also tells Peter "do not call anything unclean that I have made clean." Since Christianity is all encompassing and Judaism was exclusive, it is now okay to eat meat that was previously considered to be unclean. There is no longer any need for Jews to be set apart from the world so there is no need to continue to perform the traditions of circumcision and dietary laws that were intended to set them apart.

 

4. You mentioned something about "some guy taking books out of the original Bible." This is not at all accurate. A council of Monks or scholars or whatever was convened to combine all holy Scriptures. There was a list of set requirements that all books had to meet in order to be included. Some books did not measure up because they were too questionable (no validation of date, author, time period, or consistency with other books). It was a long and specific process completed by the most qualified people of the day. For example, The Gospel of Thomas is not included in the Bible because it was proven to be a false Gospel. The reason is that within the book there is a reference to a holiday that was not established until the the 7th century, therefore the council knew that it was impossible for Thomas to have written it. IT would be like me claiming to have a letter written by Abraham Lincoln, but there is a reference to the Vietnam Memorial in it.

 

Sorry this response is so long. I understand if you just skim over it. Half way through I forgot what track I was on so it may be a little all over the place, but these topics were brought up by someone.

Here's a pretty interesting, and surprisingly not so pro-Nye article about the debate:

 

The Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate Was a Nightmare for Science - The Daily Beast

 

Good article. One of the major pushes of the creationists is to have it taught in science classes. Since there is nothing "scientific" about creationism - it's faith - they argue that theories of evolution are controversial and science classes should "teach the controversy." Unfortunately, an appearance like Nye's implies that there is a legitimate scientific controversy.

Good article. One of the major pushes of the creationists is to have it taught in science classes. Since there is nothing "scientific" about creationism - it's faith - they argue that theories of evolution are controversial and science classes should "teach the controversy." Unfortunately, an appearance like Nye's implies that there is a legitimate scientific controversy.

 

Very true

 

how can you teach something I science class that has no scientific proof?

Very true

 

how can you teach something I science class that has no scientific proof?

 

Good point but some would say there is no scientific proof for evolution either. I taught social studies for several yeas and both these topics came up. I would just explain each said and tell the kids that it is important to learn about things that you disagree with. So if you disagree with evolution then it is still good to learn about it. Same with creationism, Islam, or Christianity.

Good point but some would say there is no scientific proof for evolution either. I taught social studies for several yeas and both these topics came up. I would just explain each said and tell the kids that it is important to learn about things that you disagree with. So if you disagree with evolution then it is still good to learn about it. Same with creationism, Islam, or Christianity.

 

Yet there is scientific proof that shows the world older than 6000 years.

 

Here is a question I have. Since Ken Hamm says he only believes what is in the bible. Where in the bible does it say the earth is only 6000 years old and where does it say that when God created the universe it wasn't through a Big Bang?

Good point but some would say there is no scientific proof for evolution either.

 

Those people would be absolutely and completely wrong. "Proof" may be the wrong word as I'm not crazy about it from a scientific perspective. It implies an absolute nature that works for Euclidian geometry but not so much for evolutionary biology or cosmology. That said, the evidence for evolution on a cellular level is overwhelming. The evidence for it on an anatomical level might be more compelling still.

 

Even so, I like Habib's thought on this. I'm not crazy about a dichotomy consisting of science on one hand and faith on the other for many reasons -- not least of which being that I consider myself a strong proponent of both. But the primary reason I don't like is that I don't think a discussion of the two need be confrontational on its face. No doubt that the two will clash from time to time, but it's turned so malicious that I think it's easy to forget the NUMEROUS people that are students of science and believers in faith.