Evidence for God from Science

So apparently the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky will be hosting a debate between the museum's founder (Ken Ham) and popular scientist and science educator, Bill Nye. Here are a few articles regarding the announcement:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/bill- ... sm-111933/

http://gma.yahoo.com/39-bill-nye-scienc ... .html?vp=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html


According to the Creation Museum, the topic of the debate will be "Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?" and Ham said he hopes the debate (and other events at his museum) helps show that science actually supports his interpretation of the bible, and that people like Nye are unfairly drawing people away from the church by claiming science is at odds with young-Earth beliefs.

To me, the title seems kind of odd to me. I anticipate Nye will argue that Ham's version of creationism is not a scientifically valid model and try to show that Young-Earth Creationism is a soundly debunked worldview by scientific standards. Of course, by eliminating any reference to evolution, it seems that Ham wants to focus solely on creationism in the debate, which is curious because many anti-evolutionists base their arguments for creation science off of perceived flaws in evolution.

I'm hoping they post a video of the debate after it happens. I don't think public debates are a great way of determining the validity of scientific matters, since debates usually rely on speaking and debating skills more than the actual information presented, but they can be fun to watch. This one in particular should be good, since Bill Nye has a good personality and is generally good at communicating scientific material.

Needless to say and to put it quite simply, that debate is going to be a utter disaster. And I'm assuming it will be a disaster for both sides. And just, you know, a overall disaster. And it will attract the mainstream media, and as usual, they will then use this debate to mock and belittle Christianity as always. So, sadly, i"m not looking forward to it by any means.

Hey wait, I'm not done yet. Knowing that the debate is taking place in my home state, "good ole" Ken TUCK *insert Disney's Goofy laugh here* things could get ugly as well as violent. I know that intellectually both yec or Ken Ham's version of yec as well as Bill Nye's Richard Dawkins form of atheism are totally bankrupt and both are known to be very arrogant and have short fuses, they could go toe to toe on stage. But just comparing the "tale of the tape" I would put money on Ken Ham.

He's a thick, brawldy and brawny wild Australian ranch headed jackaroo who's probably been known to throw down a few Foster's and have his share of "fist digs" at a many of pubs in the outback. If Bill Nye runs his mouth too much he might get whooped Kentucky $tyle and get backer juice spit in his eye! Again I think the debate will be a disaster but if it gets "really good" Ken "HAM" might make Bill Nye squeal just like a southern country Kentuck piggy!

But again in all honesty, just the thought of this debate makes me cringe and want to crawl into the fetal position in bed and hide and hibernate under the covers until this winter is over because I don't think anything good will come out of this disaster. But if you all like disasters, blood baths, and I don't know, the UFC than this debate is for you!

DRDS wrote:Needless to say and to put it quite simply, that debate is going to be a utter disaster. And I'm assuming it will be a disaster for both sides. And just, you know, a overall disaster. And it will attract the mainstream media, and as usual, they will then use this debate to mock and belittle Christianity as always. So, sadly, i"m not looking forward to it by any means.

Agreed. I think this is only bad for Christianity.

Ham was correct in stating that the term science has been hijacked by naturalism and have indoctrinated the masses into believing that science and religion are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I watched the debate and have found that both sides have valid arguments and both sides missed the mark. Ham hit the nail on the head with his argument regarding evolution but lost to Bill on the young earth debate. Both views take a leap of faith to believe in. Both had serious gaps and left me with more questions than answers.
Christ quoted Genesis as a reference point and felt comfortable using the Word of God as a viable and and sound doctrine. This was a win for creationist. Bill had a win on the old earth due to the overwhelming historic evidence. Rocks being moved by icebergs ancient fossils and time frames.because of this, I was not sold on the young Earth idea. Thank God our salvation does not hinge on our belief in a young Earth. Bill was not able to convince me on the evolution and clearly lost that argument. This is just my humble opinion.

I'm watching the debate now and I think Ken Ham's interpretation of the Bible with his science is awful.. It's debates like these that pull many away people from the Bible. I would have much preferred to see Dr. Hugh Ross debate Bill Nye with the local flood theory and other OEC claims. Sadly, much of the world will never get to understand the true claims of the Bible.

Oh well....

I watched a significant chunk of it to where I could at least see the bulk of each of their arguments. Ken Ham was surprisingly much less insane sounding than I expected, but his reasoning is still very flawed. He keeps making the distinction between observational and historical science, but keeps unfairly dismissing Nye's claims that fall under "historical science" and inappropriately claiming that he has all of the "observational science" on his side, which he definitely doesn't. Like many YECs, he talks as if there's equal evidence for both a young earth and an old earth and that it all comes down to personal beliefs when it comes to choosing which to believe.

I knew beforehand that I would side with Bill Nye. Though I notice, both here and in other places where he talks about creation vs evolution, he does put the ancient age of the earth and universe in a bundle with evolution of species when providing evidence for the latter. I wonder how he would feel about the old earth creationist position.

I would have much preferred to see Dr. Hugh Ross debate Bill Nye with the local flood theory and other OEC claims. Sadly, much of the world will never get to understand the true claims of the Bible.

Nye wouldn't debate someone over local flood theory (I think most atheists will probably accept the idea that Noah's flood was simply a big local flood). Nye's major critique of Ham is that he feels Ham and other YECs out there are doing today's children a disservice by essentially ignoring science and teaching their kids that the literal interpretation of the Bible should be treated as a science textbook. It's true that Nye is an atheist/humanist, and he might not be a fan of organized religion, but he's more interested in science education and that bastardization of science that Ham preaches than he is with theology and scripture.

Ivellious wrote:ignoring science and teaching their kids that the literal interpretation of the Bible should be treated as a science textbook.

That's a problem.. Because the "literal interpretation" of the Bible doesn't call for a global flood. Also the sequence of creation events recorded in Genesis can be proven to have some scientific merit or explanations.

Sorry, when I said "literal interpretation", I meant "literal" as in how YEC adherents see it. I realize other interpretations can be just as literal, but in the context of talking about Ken Ham's views I meant it as how he sees it.

Ivellious wrote:Sorry, when I said "literal interpretation", I meant "literal" as in how YEC adherents see it. I realize other interpretations can be just as literal, but in the context of talking about Ken Ham's views I meant it as how he sees it.

No problem.. Thanks for the clarification. But I agree with you that the Bible isn't technically a science book. It's more of a story book in my view.. Oh, and poetry as well. It does not explain everything.

Cheers..

Gman wrote:

Ivellious wrote:ignoring science and teaching their kids that the literal interpretation of the Bible should be treated as a science textbook.

That's a problem.. Because the "literal interpretation" of the Bible doesn't call for a global flood. Also the sequence of creation events recorded in Genesis can be proven to have some scientific merit or explanations.

I think the only point that Bill Nye is making here is simply that the Bible is not useful for discovering science. Science is a lot harder than reading a 2000 year old book with 21st century 20-20 hindsight.

Neil deGrasse Tyson expresses the same idea in a more pragmatic way: Believe me, if the Bible had ever been shown to be a rich source of scientific answers and understanding, we would be mining it daily for cosmic discovery.

Morny wrote: I think the only point that Bill Nye is making here is simply that the Bible is not useful for discovering science. Science is a lot harder than reading a 2000 year old book with 21st century 20-20 hindsight.

Neil deGrasse Tyson expresses the same idea in a more pragmatic way: Believe me, if the Bible had ever been shown to be a rich source of scientific answers and understanding, we would be mining it daily for cosmic discovery.

Well... Not exactly... I've stated this before.

The Bible is relevant to science in that it can furnish a conceptual framework in which science can exist. The Bible did furnish the conceptual framework in which modern science was born. Science can verify and falsify the claim of religion or the Bible. When religions make claims about the natural world, they intersect the domain of science and are in affect making predictions in which scientific investigations can either verify or falsify.

Example, science can certainly be used to falsify religion. Consider ancient Greek and Indian religions that the heavens or the world rested upon the shoulders of atlas, or on the back of a turtle were easily falsified.

Science can also verify religious claims, such as God creating the universe out of nothing a finite time ago. The Bible also teaches that the universe had a beginning. This teaching was reputed by Greeks philosophy and also by modern atheism. Then in 1929 the discovery of the expansion of the universe this doctrine was dramatically verified by the big bang theory. An entire universe created out of nothing (Ex nihilo) just like what the Bible foretold. Science can thus verify this (so called) religious prediction.

"I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go." -- Galileo Galilei

Morny wrote:

Gman wrote:

Ivellious wrote:ignoring science and teaching their kids that the literal interpretation of the Bible should be treated as a science textbook.

That's a problem.. Because the "literal interpretation" of the Bible doesn't call for a global flood. Also the sequence of creation events recorded in Genesis can be proven to have some scientific merit or explanations.

I think the only point that Bill Nye is making here is simply that the Bible is not useful for discovering science. Science is a lot harder than reading a 2000 year old book with 21st century 20-20 hindsight.

Neil deGrasse Tyson expresses the same idea in a more pragmatic way: Believe me, if the Bible had ever been shown to be a rich source of scientific answers and understanding, we would be mining it daily for cosmic discovery.

Well, in a sense, that is exactly what they are doing. Based on a Chrisian worldview we would expect the cosmos to be pursposeful and for nature to be intelligible. Guess what, nature is intelligible. But why? From a materialistic view, the cosmos being intelligible is arbitrary and meaningless. There is no more REASON for there being something rather than there being nothing. Amazing that so many want to argue that what really MATTERS is that man is an accident of nature. If they are correct, which I assume you believe them to be, then the basis of the argument is that what really MATTERS is that we don't matter. And yet, here you are on a forum acting like it matters. It is the hypocrisy of hypocrisy.