Stella
Junior Member
Use me O Lord
Posts: 62
|
Post by Stella on Feb 9, 2014 19:14:35 GMT -5
Ken Ham for Creation Versus Bill Nye for Evolution
Did anyone watch the debate between Ken ham and Bill Nye?
I am wondering what you guys thought of it. On the internet I found this statement that makes it sound as if everyone thinks science won the debate.
“An immediate winner was not declared and it was left for viewers to decide as to what they felt believable. After the polling session Bill Nye was declared the winner by a huge margin. It was even reported that around 90 percent of the viewers voted in favor of Nye with the rest siding with Ham.”
Personally, I think my father could have made a better argument for the Lord and His creation.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Feb 10, 2014 21:03:14 GMT -5
I did not see the whole debate, only internet clips of it (we do not do TV here in our home). However, my Face Book page was swamped with my non-Christian contacts rooting for science. On one post claimed a play by play recap of the debate in which he suggested that science totally decimated the creationist. Here is my opinion – First, the debate was between a well know television communicator in Bill Nye. He has had years of experience making the science seem palatable to children. On the other hand, this Ken Ham guy has never spoke to a crowd that already didn’t support his views. Therefore, as a television presence and educator, Bill Nye had the advantage. Secondly, for those who claim that science came across a lot more credible than Christianity; I’ll say this: Ken ham does not represent even the mainstream Christendom view, but just a fundamental fraction of it. Just because you can make one blond look unaware, doesn't mean all blonds are unaware. Just because you can make one dumb football jock look unaware, doesn't mean all football jocks are unaware. AND – just because Bill Nye took more applause than Ken Ham, doesn't mean Christianity is in error. The planers of this debate choose the contestants very carefully. As you said, your father could have come out with all the applause, if matched against a different represented of science. If the debate was between Bill Nye and any of many eloquent speaking Jewish Rabbis the end result would have been different I assure you. If the debate was held with representatives from mainstream Protestantism, an eloquent speaking Rabbi, Ken Ham, a Gnostic Priest, and Bill Nye, the end result would have been more realistic. To me, any and all, conversations that revolve around 6 days versus billions of years is mute and neither side is consistent with their own teachings. Einstein clearly says, and it has been scientifically demonstrated, that time is relative and therefore non-linear. 2nd Peter 3:8 clearly says that time is not linear. So, every argument about 6 days versus a billion years is flawed! Also, our reality is not a one dimensional set of facts. Science calls it a multi-verse and so does theology. Science clearly suggests that before the Big Bang all the energy of the universe must have been available to conform to the very laws of thermodynamics. Therefore that singularity from which gave birth to that Big bang was Omnipotent. Apply this line of reasoning to consciousness, then that initial singularity had to have been Omniscient. Then science says that the very first step in the Big Bang was expansion – therefore Omnipresent. The point - BUT - as long as you keep the debate one dimensional within the framework of linear time and between a seasoned television science educator and a small fundamental faction of Christianity’s whole – then the secular world can be confident to post articles like the one you quoted: “… After the polling session Bill Nye was declared the winner by a huge margin. It was even reported that around 90 percent of the viewers voted in favor of Nye with the rest siding with Ham. … The debate might be over, but many are left wondering what purpose it actually served! Did it finally solve the age-old question? Did it finally prove once and for all who was right and who was wrong? Unfortunately all those questions remain unanswered and so the quest continues. While it proved that one idea might have a larger following than the other, it is yet to be seen if anyone actually reconsidered their views after witnessing the debate.” Ken Ham for Creation Versus Bill Nye for Evolution guardianlv.com/2014/02/ken-ham-for-creation-versus-bill-nye-for-evolution/What purpose did the debate actually serve? It served to diminish Christendom as a whole while empowering secular reasoning. The more the secular world can cast doubt on those initial Bible stories – Creation and the Flood – the more people will doubt any of the Bible stories. The Unitarian Church already preaches that the Virgin Birth and Resurrection were medically and scientifically impossible. Just more pollution and dilution of the truth. Even your article concludes - “… Did it finally solve the age-old question? Did it finally prove once and for all who was right and who was wrong? Unfortunately all those questions remain unanswered …” Science did not prove anything. If science had proof they would stop calling their ideas THEORIES. But, they believe them to be true nonetheless, though faith in their own abilities to answer all of life’s questions. Just as I believe in Creation. I cannot prove it – I believe it to be so through faith.
|
|
|
Post by Virginia on Feb 11, 2014 12:43:21 GMT -5
If evolution is the only answer---then by now elephants and monkeys and all other animals would be able to learn languages and speak and share ideas--but they cannot. They can communicate with each other by grunting or whistling noises but not language we can understand. By now elephants should be able to build a house if evolution is the only answer.
Am I making any sense in what I am trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Feb 11, 2014 14:54:34 GMT -5
Perfect sense!
I address this same idea in some recent writing for book #3.
Half a billion years. That’s how long
The Nautilus has called our planet home, unchanged for half a billion years, surviving all the major mass extinctions that hit the reset button on life throughout the globe. Only now they face extinction due to over fishing.
Tiny sea creatures known as Rhabdopleurids defy evolutions natural process to grow and adapt into more complex organisms over time. Rhabdopleurida are small worm-shaped animals that live in our oceans. They build their homes out of collagen on the shells of dead clams. It may not be an extravagant existence, but they've lived this way for 500 million years, without any evidence of evolutionary change.
Starfish have been unchanged in the fossil record for 420-million years.
Several species of sharks have not changed in 400-million years.
The Coelacanth first appeared in the fossil record 360 to 400-million years ago. Coelacanth fossils from 240-million year ago were used as evolutionary proof of a transitional form, a fish with feet like fins to walk on the bottom of the ocean. However, evolutionist claimed that the Coelacanth went extinct 70-million years ago. Evolution textbooks wrote much about the extinct Coelacanth, some called it a half-reptile and half-fish creature. Some claimed that the coelacanth made the decision to come out of the ocean and onto dry land, morphing its fins into feet and became one of the earliest reptiles.
However, to surprise of evolution scientist, there are two known living species today. The first living coelacanth was discovered in 1938. Currently, living coelacanths are well known in the western Indian Ocean, primarily from the Comoros Islands, but in 1997 and 1998, coelacanths were caught in Indonesian waters. Opps!
None of these species show any evidence of change. I could list many more that defy evolution’s theory.
While, on the other hand, evolution has not produced a single example of something that has changed. To stand a chimpanzee, an Orangutan, and a Man side by side and claim a progression of species is a terrible example. Chimpanzees and Orangutans still exist and Man’s ability to climb trees has declined not improved.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon on Feb 12, 2014 12:18:30 GMT -5
I have herd the question asked - if evolution is correct, then why are there any simple lfe forms left on the planet. Shouldn't have single cell organisms grown up by now?
|
|
|
Post by Virginia on Feb 12, 2014 13:12:55 GMT -5
I think species that evolved into something else is due to genentic errors that seemed to create an advanced species or a changed species but not evolution.
I just saw a show about "STAR CHILDREN". Children born today with superior knowledge. Children who can see and hear what others cannot. Children who are psyic. Also other children that have been seen knocking on doors asking for food or water that have black eyes. The entire eyes are black even the white part. They said if one of these appear at your door do not let them in. They have the power to disappear at will. What these are--no one knows.
The HOPI indians talk about Star People but this is something different.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Feb 12, 2014 18:39:57 GMT -5
I agree with you to a point. Genetic mutations do cause changes. In Chernobyl they have some much mutated fish and frogs, and well as people. Children are being born without legs and all sorts of deformities. I have en seen pictures of frogs with three eyes. However, not one of these genetic mutations served as an advantage to the species. In every documented case of a genetic mutation, whether by radiation or natural occurrence, it is always reported as a corruption of function. Never, has it been reported as an increase in ability or function. Also, never have these mutation lead to a new species. As for star children, Scripture is very clear that genetic hybridization occurred before the flood. It continued after the flood, as evidenced by the seven tribes of the Rephaim, of which, both Joshua and Saul were told to kill every last man, woman, child, and livestock. Why livestock? Jewish text tells us that the genetic hybridization of Genesis 6 occurred with animals as well. Every ancient religion has stories of ½ man + ½ animal creatures –Centaurs, Minotaurs, Satyrs , and more. However, even though farmers can breed a donkey and a horse together to make a mule –that mule is incapable of reproducing itself to perpetuate itself as a new species – Rather it remains as a donkey / horse hybrid. Add this to the alien evidence of cloning and constantly reaping new genetic material from us to continue their cloning. Shed a different light on the origin of those aliens – especially Greys.
|
|
|
Post by Virginia on Feb 13, 2014 10:53:56 GMT -5
Stella--I am not surprised about Bill Nye because he things UFOs are not real. Then he needs to explain what people are seeing.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Mar 8, 2014 19:21:41 GMT -5
Scientific creationism vs. Bill NyePravda.ru 26.02.2014 By Babu G. Ranganathan english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/26-02-2014/126942-scientific_creationism_bill_nye-0/Bill Nye, in his debate with Ken Ham, alleged that science does not support belief in creation. Nye is wrong.What really is science? There are two types of science. Empirical science is the knowledge of an event or a thing witnessed through our senses. You know that the moon exists. You can see it! You know that the chair exists because you can see it or feel its support. The other type of science is forensic science. Forensic science is not direct knowledge but indirect knowledge of something. You didn't witness the person's death and you didn't see how he died, but through careful collection and analysis of evidence you are able to determine how the death occurred. The scientific method is used every day in forensic science to determine whether an event in a crime scene was an accident or by design and intention. Mathematical probability is a scientific argument and is frequently used in determining many issues of scientific inquiry. The scientific method cannot be used to prove events that occurred outside of human observation. No one observed the origin of the universe by either chance or design (so neither can be proved by science), but scientific evidence via mathematical probability can be used to support either a chance or design origins for the universe. Some things don't need experiment or scientific proof. In law there is a dictum called prima facie evidence. It means "evidence that speaks for itself." Of course, in the complexities of human society and relationships, prima facie may not always be what it seems. An example of a true prima facie would be if you discovered an elaborate sand castle on the beach. You don't have to experiment to know that it came by design and not by the chance forces of wind and water. If you discovered a romantic letter or message written in the sand, you don't have to experiment to know that it was by design and not because a stick randomly carried by wind sketched it there. You naturally assume that an intelligent and rational being was responsible. Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe. The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance are 10 to the 65th power. That's just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them. The late great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated that the odds of the simplest cell forming by chance are 10 to the 40,000th power! How big is this? Consider that the number of atoms in the whole known universe is only 10 to the 23rd power. It has been shown that amino acids can come into existence by chance, but it has never been shown that these basic building blocks can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. An amazing fact is that there are left-handed and right-handed amino acids. In life all the protein molecules have to be made up of left-handed amino acids as well as be in the right sequence. If a right-handed amino acid gets into the mix the protein won't work. DNA, the genetic code, also is made up of various smaller molecules (nucleic acids) that have to be together in a precise sequence in order for the DNA to work. There are left-handed and right-handed sugar molecules making-up nucleic acids. In order to get a working DNA molecule the various nucleic acids have to be not only in a precise sequence but they also have to contain only right-handed sugar molecules. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then the DNA won't work. Information, in any form, is positive evidence for intelligent origin. That's what DNA (the genetic code) is, information. Even Carl Sagan said sequential radio signals from space would be evidence of intelligent origin. What about the sequence of molecules in the genetic code? The sequence of molecules in DNA, that make it a code, is powerful prima facie evidence for an intelligent origin and cause. What about "Junk DNA"? It isn't junk! Recent research published in scientific journals such as Nature and RNA has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are essential in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed in the body). Explaining how an airplane works doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Science and natural laws merely explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never explain the ultimate origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Time is no help to chance. For every good accident there will be thousands of bad ones with the net result, over time, being deleterious, not beneficial. A partially evolved cell (an oxymoron) that is unprotected by a fully functioning cell membrane would disintegrate in the open environment long before it could evolve into a complete and living cell. True science shows it's not rational to believe we're here by chance, even within the evolutionary time frame of billions of years. True science shows that the universe is not eternal and could not have come from nothing by natural processes. The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor's degree with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East."
|
|
|
Post by Virginia on Mar 15, 2014 19:29:24 GMT -5
DNA Scientists say our DNA over the past 5,ooo yrs has changed 7%. Is this evolution or God's doing or Aliens doing?
|
|
|
Post by New guy on Apr 1, 2014 7:10:55 GMT -5
Is God doing something?
Interesting question. How can the scientist be sure that the changes they observe are not programmed to do so? Even if it was an alien that manipulated a DNA sample somewhere, how can anyone be sure it wasn't according to God's grand plan?
I just read the paper on Incremental Creation. It is an interesting idea. Stop arguing details and compare the bigger pictures. I like it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 11:21:33 GMT -5
Darwinism served it's purpose at the time. It's validity was not the point but it's resulting chaos.
...in my opinion...
|
|
|
Post by Alan McDougall on May 26, 2015 12:29:54 GMT -5
Ken Ham for Creation Versus Bill Nye for EvolutionDid anyone watch the debate between Ken ham and Bill Nye? I am wondering what you guys thought of it. On the internet I found this statement that makes it sound as if everyone thinks science won the debate. “An immediate winner was not declared and it was left for viewers to decide as to what they felt believable. After the polling session Bill Nye was declared the winner by a huge margin. It was even reported that around 90 percent of the viewers voted in favor of Nye with the rest siding with Ham.” Personally, I think my father could have made a better argument for the Lord and His creation. Hi Stella, I do not believe in blind evolution, because it is based on favorable mutations happening, which slowly are supposed to increase the viability of an evolving species. Ape to Human etc? Evolution has no explanation for the sudden appearance of millions of seemingly fully formed new life forms, in the Cambrian Period of our earth's history. What I believe, is that so-called evolution, is nothing more than an experimenting God. Like the paper and wood early aircraft of the Wright Brothers, morphing into huge 600 seat maga passenger planes of today. Anyone with even one brain cell, could easily see this change over time was the work of an intelligence?
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 26, 2015 16:32:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 26, 2015 17:04:00 GMT -5
Welcome my fried!
This is not ahr -
There are so many discussions I would love to explore there but - I have been censored for preaching a theology - not necessarily focused upon learning Ancient Hebrew Grammar. AND they are correct, esoteric Gnostic cosmology is not their focus
This is a much more open discussion - you are correct 'keep it polite' But disagree all you want - fight with us if you choose - debate can and do get heated, but that's OK -
why?
Although the aim is always to keep it casual - we are ultimately discussing those things that define our own conscious and perspective. Fighting to understand a concept is different than just disagreeing.
Gnosticism - personally I embrace so much more information from a much larger data set than either - the OT only, NT only, OT+NT only, Coptic or Roman or Islam.
God's plan is not for the Hebrews only It doesn't morph into a Roman Gentile only thing either God's plan is a global plan, it is a galactic plan - this includes a lot more than just the Middle East or the Western Roman Christendom - ALL Creation witnesses to the Lord - period.
|
|