Ken Ham (Creation) | Bill Nye (Evolution) Debate

[Holy Mole]

I heard that Ham got smoked.

J/K Didn't watch it!

 

[ALAYMAN]

The problem is that the voice that was heard didn't seem very confident in his knowledge of the subject and kept deferring to his experts who work for him who were not on the stage to give him credibility.  Getting heard is half the battle.  Having something to say is the other half.  He didn't seem comfortable really interacting with the topic in debate.

He couldn't offer expert witness in every field of scientific discipline that was discussed.  He did a good job of pointing out the tenuous links in many scientific theories that are based on less than iron-clad assumptions.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I didn't watch the debate but I've read from many sources that Ham said Christians who disagreed with YEC either hadn't read their Bibles or didn't really believe it and that it was Nye who ended up defending all those of the faith who reject YEC.

In the part of the debate mattered most to myself (i.e. respect, grace, love, etc), the atheisticish agnostic seems to have "won" instead of our Christian brother.

Stuff and nonsense on both accounts, particularly the latter.  Could you cite some specific examples from your sources where Ham demonstrated a lack of any of those things?

I could cite several efforts by NYE to misrepresent Ham and demonstrated general debate incompetence or uncharitableness.  Just for starters, NYE claimed that Ham said Natural Law changed over time, despite Ham explicitly stating just the opposite.  Or there was the time that NYE claimed that it was convenient that Ham is too easily satisfied with the "God did it" explanation of worldview issues, despite the fact that Ham had taken time to briefly explain that the laws of logic and science would not make sense without a God who gave us the ability to use them via reason.

 

[ddgently]

I didn't watch the debate but I've read from many sources that Ham said Christians who disagreed with YEC either hadn't read their Bibles or didn't really believe it and that it was Nye who ended up defending all those of the faith who reject YEC.

In the part of the debate mattered most to myself (i.e. respect, grace, love, etc), the atheisticish agnostic seems to have "won" instead of our Christian brother.

Stuff and nonsense on both accounts, particularly the latter.  Could you cite some specific examples from your sources where Ham demonstrated a lack of any of those things?

Read Ham's blog for a week. He is very dismissive of Christians who disagree with him, saying they don't respect the authority of God, and that they are compromisers.

I could cite several efforts by NYE to misrepresent Ham and demonstrated general debate incompetence or uncharitableness.  Just for starters, NYE claimed that Ham said Natural Law changed over time, despite Ham explicitly stating just the opposite.

Ham actually does state this, if not explicitly. In the debate alone, I at least recall him saying that the rate of radioactive decay changes over time. In other forums, he's alluded to the speed of light varying. More generally, he attacked what he calls "Uniformitarianism:" the idea that the natural processes we see at work today operated the same in the past. That's the same as saying natural laws change.

Or there was the time that NYE claimed that it was convenient that Ham is too easily satisfied with the "God did it" explanation of worldview issues, despite the fact that Ham had taken time to briefly explain that the laws of logic and science would not make sense without a God who gave us the ability to use them via reason.

Those are two different things. Ham (and more broadly, his organization) does default to "God did it" whenever they run into a prediction made by YEC that contradicts evidence we observe today. See, for example, the article on AIG about cratering of the solar system. When they run into the problem of too much heat melting the craters whose origins they are attempting to describe, they say in essence, "well, there could be a miracle here." That's not science.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Read Ham's blog for a week. He is very dismissive of Christians who disagree with him, saying they don't respect the authority of God, and that they are compromisers.

The discussion and my reply was not about his blog, but about the claim of rsc2a that Ham direspected those of OEC persuasion during the debate.  At one point, he made it explicitly clear that salvation is based on a Person, not a belief in the origins of man.

Ham actually does state this, if not explicitly. In the debate alone, I at least recall him saying that the rate of radioactive decay changes over time.

I watched the whole thing and didn't see what you are claiming.  Could you cite the quote from Ham, or where it is located in the video?

In other forums, he's alluded to the speed of light varying. More generally, he attacked what he calls "Uniformitarianism:" the idea that the natural processes we see at work today operated the same in the past. That's the same as saying natural laws change.

I'm a radiochemist by profession, and have noted changes in observation of fundamental abundances of Uranium daughters.  You might argue that the rate of decay didn't actually change, but merely our ability to accurately measure it, but recent scientific data have intimated that fundamental decay rates are affected by other phenomenon, like solar flares.

Those are two different things. Ham (and more broadly, his organization) does default to "God did it" whenever they run into a prediction made by YEC that contradicts evidence we observe today. See, for example, the article on AIG about cratering of the solar system. When they run into the problem of too much heat melting the craters whose origins they are attempting to describe, they say in essence, "well, there could be a miracle here." That's not science.

You missed the point.  rsc2a is claiming (indirectly and blindly by trusting sources other than his own eye-witness) that Ham was being uncharitable and unChristian in his attitude and conduct, and at the same time that Nye was a better representation of what ought to constitute civil discourse and Christian comportment.  He's wrong on both assessments.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You missed the point.  rsc2a is claiming (indirectly and blindly by trusting sources other than his own eye-witness) that Ham was being uncharitable and unChristian in his attitude and conduct, and at the same time that Nye was a better representation of what ought to constitute civil discourse and Christian comportment.  He's wrong on both assessments.

 

[Bob H]

The discussion and my reply was not about his blog, but about the claim of rsc2a that Ham direspected those of OEC persuasion during the debate.  At one point, he made it explicitly clear that salvation is based on a Person, not a belief in the origins of man.

He did exactly that...........BTW, he was more "charitable" then I would of been.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Just a couple of the canards and inaccuracies that Nye attempted to foist on the audience....

1) Numerous times he alluded to the implausability and unreliability of the Biblical witness (regarding truth claims) due to the probability of errors entering into the transmission of the text over "thousands of years".  He did so by referencing the "telephone" gimmick, where a person tells a story to one person, who then must pass the story on to another, then another, then another, and at the end of the "telephone" line you have a story that is unrecognizable from the beginning story.

2) Nye made reference to a rebuttal that Ham gave regarding diseased fish (in regards to death, dying, illness, and the fall) and in doing so Nye claimed that it is laughable to assert that anything such as "the fall" occurred when a worldwide flood happened.  Of course Ham had never said that "the fall" happened during the era of the flood.  Whenever Nye entered into the field of theology he showed how inept he was at handling the Bible.  At one point Nye asked "are the fish sinners?" in order to attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of Ham's theology.

3) He repeatedly referred to the Young Earth Creationist position as "Ken Ham's Model" in an effort to mock and discredit the hypothesis of YEC.  It was a subtle form of ad hominem, not unlike his condescending remark to Ham that "Noah had superpowers", or his reference to "magic".  At another point he alleged erroneously that the "literal" interpretation of the Bible that Ham employed was one of convenience (because we no longer stone disobedient children or refuse to eat pork, ie, contextually apply a proper hermeneutic to the OT laws).

4) Nye frequently appealed to the majority of the "billions" of Christians that held to evolution as a basis for truth, attempting to compel Ham to convert merely because enough people believed something. 

5) Nye regularly had a body posture that portrayed smugness, rolling his eyes and such.

6) In an effort to describe what drives his worldview Nye said that life might possibly/theoreticall come from non-life, and it excited him to find evidence to support the preposterously unscientific fantasy.

That's just for starters, but Ham was obviously the cad and Nye the proper gentleman.  :

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Just a couple of the canards and inaccuracies that Nye attempted to foist on the audience....

1) Numerous times he alluded to the implausability and unreliability of the Biblical witness (regarding truth claims) due to the probability of errors entering into the transmission of the text over "thousands of years".  He did so by referencing the "telephone" gimmick, where a person tells a story to one person, who then must pass the story on to another, then another, then another, and at the end of the "telephone" line you have a story that is unrecognizable from the beginning story.

I did not see or hear the debate so I have no argument to be made one way or the other. However, apparently Nye unknowingly does have some biblical support. Jeremiah addressed this very same issue of interpolation with the Torah (yes, the one that is recorded in our Old Testament):

Jeremiah 8:8
English Standard Version (ESV)

8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord (Torah) is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie..."

 

[rsc2a]

I find it odd that the biggest criticism of Nye is that he doesn't have more than an outsider observer's understanding of the Bible. I also find the criticism that Nye "frequently" mentioned that the majority of Christians had no problem reconciling Scripture with science to be a very odd critique. I especially find the last odd because it's Alayman's critique yet  when I use the same point, he calls it out as falsehood.*

*Whether or not Ham said that Christians who disagreed with YEC either hadn't read their Bibles or didn't really believe it during the debate or not, I do not know since I have not watched it (nor do I intend to). I have read from several sources that he did in fact say this, and I made it clear that my knowledge was not firsthand in this instance. I do know that he has made these claims before so it would not surprise if me at all if he had and goes to show that the principle still remains.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

In honor of Alayman's return!
http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/02/05/bill-nyes-reasonable-man-the-central-worldview-clash-of-the-ham-nye-debate/

 

[ALAYMAN]

I did not see or hear the debate so I have no argument to be made one way or the other. However, apparently Nye unknowingly does have some biblical support. Jeremiah addressed this very same issue of interpolation with the Torah (yes, the one that is recorded in our Old Testament):

Jeremiah 8:8
English Standard Version (ESV)

8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord (Torah) is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie..."

Do you really believe that this text is referring to textual errors entering into the manuscripts?

I find it odd that the biggest criticism of Nye is that he doesn't have more than an outsider observer's understanding of the Bible. I also find the criticism that Nye "frequently" mentioned that the majority of Christians had no problem reconciling Scripture with science to be a very odd critique. I especially find the last odd because it's Alayman's critique yet  when I use the same point, he calls it out as falsehood.*

You're doing what you regularly do, as you twist and contort words.  I've never said that science and the queen of sciences shouldn't be reconciled.  I said that allegedly (and dubiously) "billions" of Christians accept evolution, therefore Ham should accept it simply because the majority do.  Fiat nor consensus doesn't determine truth.

And there were numerous more matters in my last that you ignored, like the uncharitable nature of Nye, which is the opposite of what you've claimed.

*Whether or not Ham said that Christians who disagreed with YEC either hadn't read their Bibles or didn't really believe it during the debate or not, I do not know since I have not watched it (nor do I intend to). I have read from several sources that he did in fact say this, and I made it clear that my knowledge was not firsthand in this instance. I do know that he has made these claims before so it would not surprise if me at all if he had and goes to show that the principle still remains.

I find it odd that you readily accept the opinion of people who apparently never offered a shread of evidence to support their opinion, or at least you've continued to not show any proof of the claims if they've cited any.  You'd rather believe uncharitable notions about your brother in Christ, all because he holds a differing non-essential belief from you.

In honor of Alayman's return!
http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/02/05/bill-nyes-reasonable-man-the-central-worldview-clash-of-the-ham-nye-debate/

I'd forgotten about Nyes refusal to address the questions about where the matter came from to form the big bang, and where consciousness came from.  Apparently its only the secularists that's allowed to duck the hard questions.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]You're doing what you regularly do, as you twist and contort words.  I've never said that science and the queen of sciences shouldn't be reconciled.  I said that allegedly (and dubiously) "billions" of Christians accept evolution, therefore Ham should accept it simply because the majority do.  Fiat nor consensus doesn't determine truth. [/quote]

Has anyone made the claim that you said such?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]And there were numerous more matters in my last that you ignored, like the uncharitable nature of Nye, which is the opposite of what you've claimed.[/quote]

Seeing as how you were talking about non-verbal mannerisms from a debate I haven't even seen, what would you expect me to say?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]I find it odd that you readily accept the opinion of people who apparently never offered a shread of evidence to support their opinion, or at least you've continued to not show any proof of the claims if they've cited any.[/quote]

I haven't stated whether or not they provided any evidence or not in regards to their opinion of the debate.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]You'd rather believe uncharitable notions about your brother in Christ, all because he holds a differing non-essential belief from you.[/quote]

My opinion on Ham has absolutely nothing to do with whether he's a YEC or not. I get along with our dear admin quite well, and we have different views on this topic...and have even debated it vigorously. My opinion on Ham has to do with statements he has allegedly made during the debate, a debate that I have absolutely no interest in watching myself. Did he actually make those statements during the debate in question? I have no idea. But! I know he's made those statements before because I've read/heard them myself.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]I'd forgotten about Nyes refusal to address the questions about where the matter came from to form the big bang, and where consciousness came from.  Apparently its only the secularists that's allowed to duck the hard questions. [/quote]

Why would you expect a "scientist" to address philosophical questions in a scientific debate? Why would they even need to?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]I'd forgotten about Nyes refusal to address the questions about where the matter came from to form the big bang, and where consciousness came from.  Apparently its only the secularists that's allowed to duck the hard questions.

Why would you expect a "scientist" to address philosophical questions in a scientific debate? Why would they even need to?
[/quote]

I wouldn't call these philosophical questions.  I'd say they're metaphysical questions (and I never metaphysical I liked because of the prostate exam). 

That's the real divide here.  Often, the "science" side feels they MUST explain everything in material terms.  They will not allow a supernatural explanation of anything.  So the answer to where the matter came from could be simple.  It was always there.

This approach is intellectually crippling, of course.  What if God placed a fully grown tree in your front yard overnight, with no signs of having disturbed the ground.  The materialist would get up, see the tree, and be REQUIRED by his a-priori commitment to materialism to make up some fairy tale about how this so-called miracle had a material cause.  "It's a genetic mutation that causes trees to sprout and become fully grown overnight!"

The person who accepts the existence of the supernatural doesn't have to do that.  They may hypothesize about possible material causes, but they can also accept the possibility there was a supernatural cause.  That's real intellectual freedom.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=The Rogue Tomato]I wouldn't call these philosophical questions.  I'd say they're metaphysical questions (and I never metaphysical I liked because of the prostate exam). [/quote]

Ehh...tomato, tomato.

[quote author=The Rogue Tomato]That's the real divide here.  Often, the "science" side feels they MUST explain everything in material terms.[/quote]

It should. At the same time, those who approach things from a scientific perspective should be fine with "I don't know" to many questions. 

[quote author=The Rogue Tomato]They will not allow a supernatural explanation of anything.  So the answer to where the matter came from could be simple.  It was always there.

This approach is intellectually crippling, of course...

...The person who accepts the existence of the supernatural doesn't have to do that.  They may hypothesize about possible material causes, but they can also accept the possibility there was a supernatural cause.  That's real intellectual freedom.[/quote]

On this we agree...maybe.

I have a theological problem with separating things into a purely physical (i.e. natural) or purely spiritual (i.e. supernatural) category. The whole idea that these are separate realms is a very modern notion indeed.

I would say that everything material has a supernatural cause (both initial and continuing) but may follow definable laws. I would also say that often the miracles of the Bible may very well be accomplished by natural means. (I'm thinking Elijah and Mt Carmel. The fact that lighting may have lit the altar doesn't make it any less miraculous of an event.) I would also allow that God can clearly do things that violate the known "natural" laws of creation.

The concept of a God who does miracles by reaching down in creation from time to time is pretty much a modified Deism and not orthodox Christianity at all. Same goes for a God-of-the-gaps that a lot of people believe in. God is actively involved in creation at every moment. Sometimes it's just more obvious than others.

 

[BandGuy]

James White chimes in on the debate:

2/6/2014 Geordi and Riker Talk to the Pakeds, or Bill Nye Talks to Folks in Kentucky

 

[ALAYMAN]

Has anyone made the claim that you said such?

Yes you did, when you previously had said...I especially find the last odd because it's Alayman's critique in direct reference to the concept of reconciling science and religion (post# 54).

Seeing as how you were talking about non-verbal mannerisms from a debate I haven't even seen, what would you expect me to say?

More obfuscation, par for the course.  Why would you address the one issue from the six that I cited?  The other items have nothing to do with visual interpretation of body language.  I suppose the next thing you'll say is that you aren't going to take time to check the video to see if the other things I claimed are legitimate allegations either.  It seems sort of like the evolutionist who only sees the evidence that he wants to see...."my mind's made up, don't bother me with the facts".

I haven't stated whether or not they provided any evidence or not in regards to their opinion of the debate.

I know you haven't, despite the fact that my first post to you asked for specific instances of these allegations of Ham's uncharitableness.  You ignored that request, and now you're being coy or elusive.  Will you produce the evidence/quotes from those folk who claimed Nye was more of a Christian (decent, civil, etc) then Ham now?

My opinion on Ham has absolutely nothing to do with whether he's a YEC or not. I get along with our dear admin quite well, and we have different views on this topic...and have even debated it vigorously. My opinion on Ham has to do with statements he has allegedly made during the debate, a debate that I have absolutely no interest in watching myself. Did he actually make those statements during the debate in question? I have no idea. But! I know he's made those statements before because I've read/heard them myself.

"Allegedly".  That is my main bone of contention.  What was he alleged to have said that was acrimonious, condescending, deceptive, or otherwise unchristian?  Your predisposition to not like Ham allowed you to easily believe falsehoods regarding the debate.

Why would you expect a "scientist" to address philosophical questions in a scientific debate? Why would they even need to?

Tomato answered you quite well, but simply put, are you so naïve that you believe science to be devoid of any philosophical constructs, presuppositions,  and influence?

 

[rsc2a]

Has anyone made the claim that you said such?

Yes you did, when you previously had said...I especially find the last odd because it's Alayman's critique in direct reference to the concept of reconciling science and religion (post# 54).

It's honestly not that hard to follow. Nye defended the vast majority of Christians, you know the ones that believe in some form of creation other than YEC. You called that "stuff and nonsense", then you later critiqued him for doing this exact thing. I made no claim about your beliefs whatsoever.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Seeing as how you were talking about non-verbal mannerisms from a debate I haven't even seen, what would you expect me to say?

More obfuscation, par for the course.  Why would you address the one issue from the six that I cited?  The other items have nothing to do with visual interpretation of body language.  I suppose the next thing you'll say is that you aren't going to take time to check the video to see if the other things I claimed are legitimate allegations either.  It seems sort of like the evolutionist who only sees the evidence that he wants to see...."my mind's made up, don't bother me with the facts".[/quote]

I actually addressed five of your six points if you want to count. Three of them could (again) be summarized as such: Being critical of a non-believer who has rudimentary knowledge of Christianity for bad theology is absurd. One would be regarding the "billions" of Christians, and one would be regarding the physical mannerisms.

And, no, I'm not going to watch the video. I have better ways to spend my time than burning two hours watching two people debate badly about their bad theologies and their bad understandings of science. If you happen to have a transcript, I'd be happy to read it.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I haven't stated whether or not they provided any evidence or not in regards to their opinion of the debate.

I know you haven't, despite the fact that my first post to you asked for specific instances of these allegations of Ham's uncharitableness.  You ignored that request, and now you're being coy or elusive.  Will you produce the evidence/quotes from those folk who claimed Nye was more of a Christian (decent, civil, etc) then Ham now?[/quote]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ham+nye+science+debate

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

My opinion on Ham has absolutely nothing to do with whether he's a YEC or not. I get along with our dear admin quite well, and we have different views on this topic...and have even debated it vigorously. My opinion on Ham has to do with statements he has allegedly made during the debate, a debate that I have absolutely no interest in watching myself. Did he actually make those statements during the debate in question? I have no idea. But! I know he's made those statements before because I've read/heard them myself.

"Allegedly".  That is my main bone of contention.  What was he alleged to have said that was acrimonious, condescending, deceptive, or otherwise unchristian?  Your predisposition to not like Ham allowed you to easily believe falsehoods regarding the debate.[/quote]

He has made statements that are "acrimonious, condescending, deceptive, or otherwise unchristian". I just have no idea if he made them in this venue. The fact that I have personally read some of these statements is why I believe them. Honestly, do you even read my replies before commenting?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Why would you expect a "scientist" to address philosophical questions in a scientific debate? Why would they even need to?

Tomato answered you quite well, but simply put, are you so naïve that you believe science to be devoid of any philosophical constructs, presuppositions,  and influence?[/quote]

He said he would call them metaphysical questions, not philosophical ones. Metaphysics is itself a branch of philosophy.

And, yes, science is absolutely dependent upon philosophical constructs, influence as is all of life. What science is not is a venue to make determinations about things for which we have no way of empirically knowing. This is pretty basic stuff...

 

[ALAYMAN]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ham+nye+science+debate

More stuff and nonsense, as you spin, spin, spin.  But this pitiful effort above epitomizes your usual lack of intellectual honesty.  Which one of those thousands of google links specifically contains the allegations you made that Ham was unchristian whilst Nye was a darling?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I did not see or hear the debate so I have no argument to be made one way or the other. However, apparently Nye unknowingly does have some biblical support. Jeremiah addressed this very same issue of interpolation with the Torah (yes, the one that is recorded in our Old Testament):

Jeremiah 8:8
English Standard Version (ESV)

8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord (Torah) is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie..."

Do you really believe that this text is referring to textual errors entering into the manuscripts?

I do. Goes right along with what he preached in front of the temple in the previous chapter:

...6 if ye oppress not the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place (i.e, the temple)...

...21 Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh.

22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices:

23 but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.