That's exactly what Mr Ham was on about with regards to observable science and historical science, what you linked to was purely assumption and not observable science.
Nye vs Ham debate
- Thread starter thedoc46
- Start date
Yes all based on assumption which is what folk have been saying for ages.
Absolute rubbish, many Christians use observable science to support their worldview.
Just repeating yourself isn't really going anywhere...people have explained this to you time and again.
What do you think an apple tree is? Where do you think they came from?
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,371
- Location
- Northumberland
Where is the observable science that covers what happens in the old testament. Or are you of the opinion like Ham that because it happened in the past we can't observe it and therefore have to "assume", a word you fond of that is is true? Nye's debunking of Noah's ark was hilarious, the "observable" physics of wooden ships flexing because they are too large and the hilarious land bridge to get the Kangaroo's back to Australia. Also if we are all descended from Noah and his family how come we aren't all gibbering imbeciles due to the lack of genetic diversity. The American bible belt especially should know about inbreeding.
Then why don't you join them rather than listening to people like Ken Ham...even creationists criticise his opinions as being misrepresentative and even he accepts that Evolution by Natural Selection is a validated position, albeit he believes (without foundation I might add) that evolution sprung up from the species on Noah's Ark 2500 years before Christ. His argument is based purely on an unsupported view that Genesis must be taken literally and that unless 'you were there' you cannot know anything...which ironically puts his own argument in the toilet unless he is the immortal Adam or God himself....
Like I said, he is a fool, and the only bigger fools are those that follow him.
But Adam and Eve! you know, the duo who have belly buttons depicted in all drawings of them dating back to the earliest times...
aarrrrggghhhhh of course its observable.... its been proven through the fossil record...
i give up....
Even Islam is marginally more enlightened than these people, they don't follow the 6,000 year old earth and worked out man came from monkeys.
Really this evangelical nonsense has only been around for 30 years, it's surprising that it has gained such a foothold, almost at the exact same time science is beginning to understand all these natural processes.
I suspect that they see this as a threat and deliberately promote the exact opposite in order not to be steamrollered.
Really this evangelical nonsense has only been around for 30 years, it's surprising that it has gained such a foothold, almost at the exact same time science is beginning to understand all these natural processes.
I suspect that they see this as a threat and deliberately promote the exact opposite in order not to be steamrollered.
So you believe in what Ham says and the version of the bible he uses?
Last edited:
The debate was as silly as I expected it to be. Ken Ham however made Creationism appear more absurd than I possibly thought it could made to. He spent the first half arguing more in the guise of a conspiracy theorist than a theologian, all that nonsense of about science and secularists hijacking terminology. Then the second half was just the circular reasoned nonsense of "God did it, It says so in the bible and that's God's word so proof he did it!"... even to the flabbergasting point of him claiming all science to be Creationist as it's part of God's creation.
On one hand I guess Bill Nye was a good sport about it by actually being willing to argue on Ken Ham's terms and taking on his points such as with the myth of the Arc. But I still kind of wish he hadn't agree'd to it, as seen from those message cards in the pictures of the creationists leaving - they just don't understand what science is in order to be able to understand what Bill Nye is trying to say.
Look at Kedge. You have someone who demonstrates every time he posts he just doesn't know what the scientific method is. That science is a process of acquiring knowledge devoid of authority is just not something someone can understand without forging a few extra neuronal links when they've been brought up and had their brain wired to believe in an authority that tells them there are no mysteries out there for science to solve in the first place because they already have the answers in their book. God did it!
There is no reasoning with that mentality.
On one hand I guess Bill Nye was a good sport about it by actually being willing to argue on Ken Ham's terms and taking on his points such as with the myth of the Arc. But I still kind of wish he hadn't agree'd to it, as seen from those message cards in the pictures of the creationists leaving - they just don't understand what science is in order to be able to understand what Bill Nye is trying to say.
Look at Kedge. You have someone who demonstrates every time he posts he just doesn't know what the scientific method is. That science is a process of acquiring knowledge devoid of authority is just not something someone can understand without forging a few extra neuronal links when they've been brought up and had their brain wired to believe in an authority that tells them there are no mysteries out there for science to solve in the first place because they already have the answers in their book. God did it!
There is no reasoning with that mentality.
.![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,859
- Location
- Auckland
This is a pretty stellar post.
Ham: One source of information... >2000 year old book.
Nye: Multiple sources of information... constantly being added to by multiple people around the world, independently of each other.
I think what strengthens the argument 100% in favour of Evolutionists... is the fact we will embrace any data that challenges our thinking, however in the creationists view, nothing will ever change it. Its sad that they are unwilling to open their eyes to what is going on around us...
P.s. If any one wants a laugh, watch this: If her views don't grate on you... her voice will!
Nye: Multiple sources of information... constantly being added to by multiple people around the world, independently of each other.
I think what strengthens the argument 100% in favour of Evolutionists... is the fact we will embrace any data that challenges our thinking, however in the creationists view, nothing will ever change it. Its sad that they are unwilling to open their eyes to what is going on around us...
P.s. If any one wants a laugh, watch this: If her views don't grate on you... her voice will!
Last edited:
Which is true, for certain things you can't and most would agree with this. It really only depends on what the subject in hand is, for example, is a certain code of conduct reliable or viable in our day that was written down centuries ago?, imo of coures yes absolutely.
The first five books of the Old Testamentwere written by Moses which is Genesis through to Deuteronomy. The other books and letters you can research yourself?. Written after creation.
Apple tree is apple tree chap, sure yeah there are variations. I believe apples can only come from apple trees and the apple trees only fron the apple seed and this is observable science, there is no evidence of proof contrary to this know fact.
Can you be more specific with regards to old testament science?. I can tell you that the Bible clearly states God created the first human pair (man and woman) we know with observable science that humans can only come from humans, for example.
Natural selection nor mutations can create complex organisms, they can only act on what is already there, obviously the interesting question is where did life originate, where did it come from in the first place, what is its origin?.
No one can make another believe in what they believe, this is true, ultimately it is all down to the individual-who perhaps might be on the quest for truth or scientific truth.
It's been assumed through the fossil records, imo.
They can only assume man evolved from an ape like creature or a monkey. The is no observable scientific evidence of proof for man to monkey evolution.
I don't necessarily believe everything anyone says, i believe the Bible has wise counsel, its teachings do work but only if you apply daily its guidance. I can't prove to anyone that God exists.
Observation, testability, repeatability, falsification or to prove factual to the best of the individuals ability for establishing laws etc.
That's just variation and i don't know anyone who is against this.
Genuine question... Do you honestly believe a supreme being created a woman from the rib of a man? Furthermore, why isn't this the method by which humans are conceived today?
I beleive anything would be possible with a supreme intelligence. Because you only need the parent species, there would be no need for a continous direct creation.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,124
