Evidence for God from Science

Does anyone remember the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye?

Anyway I was just sitting here pondering the debate and I was thinking that the claim Ken Ham made of "You weren't there" in regards to macro evolution was kind of contradictory and hypocritical, what I mean is Ken Ham claims the Bible says something but in fact it is quite disputable what it says and really Ken Ham is claiming he knows the original authors thoughts when he wrote it and the intentions of the original authors, now I am not saying that it is not possible to deduce the authors intentions but really Ken Ham "wasn't there", so how can he possibly claim that he knew what the authors intentions were and what the author was thinking at the time, unless he has a time travel machine that we do not know of. Seriously though there are other methods of determining the truth of Macro evolution as is there other methods of determining what the intentions and meanings of the author of Genesis are, we can say we have warrant to believe these things but at the end of the day we may still be wrong because "we weren't there".

So Ken Ham's point hypocritical or not?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Does anyone remember the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye?

Anyway I was just sitting here pondering the debate and I was thinking that the claim Ken Ham made of "You weren't there" in regards to macro evolution was kind of contradictory and hypocritical, what I mean is Ken Ham claims the Bible says something but in fact it is quite disputable what it says and really Ken Ham is claiming he knows the original authors thoughts when he wrote it and the intentions of the original authors, now I am not saying that it is not possible to deduce the authors intentions but really Ken Ham "wasn't there", so how can he possibly claim that he knew what the authors intentions were and what the author was thinking at the time, unless he has a time travel machine that we do not know of. Seriously though there are other methods of determining the truth of Macro evolution as is there other methods of determining what the intentions and meanings of the author of Genesis are, we can say we have warrant to believe these things but at the end of the day we may still be wrong because "we weren't there".

So Ken Ham's point hypocritical or not?

I would have much rather seen someone who can represent evolution from the side of a believer like Kenneth miller debate someone who can better intellectually represent ID like Doctor Stephen Meyer, as this would be a debate that could reach more people then Ken Ham and nye and their arguments are much better.

bippy123 wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Does anyone remember the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye?

Anyway I was just sitting here pondering the debate and I was thinking that the claim Ken Ham made of "You weren't there" in regards to macro evolution was kind of contradictory and hypocritical, what I mean is Ken Ham claims the Bible says something but in fact it is quite disputable what it says and really Ken Ham is claiming he knows the original authors thoughts when he wrote it and the intentions of the original authors, now I am not saying that it is not possible to deduce the authors intentions but really Ken Ham "wasn't there", so how can he possibly claim that he knew what the authors intentions were and what the author was thinking at the time, unless he has a time travel machine that we do not know of. Seriously though there are other methods of determining the truth of Macro evolution as is there other methods of determining what the intentions and meanings of the author of Genesis are, we can say we have warrant to believe these things but at the end of the day we may still be wrong because "we weren't there".

So Ken Ham's point hypocritical or not?

I would have much rather seen someone who can represent evolution from the side of a believer like Kenneth miller debate someone who can better intellectually represent ID like Doctor Stephen Meyer, as this would be a debate that could reach more people then Ken Ham and nye and their arguments are much better.

I totally agree, I was pretty disappointed with both sides in this debate, Nye was out of his depth and so was Ken Ham.

But do you think Ham was trying to eat his cake and have it also? Seems to me his whole argument rested on "You weren't there" and in fact neither was he, which would invalidate his whole argument.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Does anyone remember the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye?

Anyway I was just sitting here pondering the debate and I was thinking that the claim Ken Ham made of "You weren't there" in regards to macro evolution was kind of contradictory and hypocritical, what I mean is Ken Ham claims the Bible says something but in fact it is quite disputable what it says and really Ken Ham is claiming he knows the original authors thoughts when he wrote it and the intentions of the original authors, now I am not saying that it is not possible to deduce the authors intentions but really Ken Ham "wasn't there", so how can he possibly claim that he knew what the authors intentions were and what the author was thinking at the time, unless he has a time travel machine that we do not know of. Seriously though there are other methods of determining the truth of Macro evolution as is there other methods of determining what the intentions and meanings of the author of Genesis are, we can say we have warrant to believe these things but at the end of the day we may still be wrong because "we weren't there".

So Ken Ham's point hypocritical or not?

I would have much rather seen someone who can represent evolution from the side of a believer like Kenneth miller debate someone who can better intellectually represent ID like Doctor Stephen Meyer, as this would be a debate that could reach more people then Ken Ham and nye and their arguments are much better.

I totally agree, I was pretty disappointed with both sides in this debate, Nye was out of his depth and so was Ken Ham.

It was as if they got these 2 together just for popularity sake instead of getting to the truth . Meyer is my favorite be uses it was his argument from specified complex information that converted me from evolution to ID.

Oh yea I definitely thought Ken ham was trying to have his cake and eat it to, because the ""we weren't there" argument has nothing to do with evolution as it's a historical science which attempts to understand and piece together clues as to how life got to where it is today . ID also does this as well . The fact if the matter is no one was there but that doesn't prevent us from doing inductive science to try to give the best explanation of what happened . His statement was silly and should be apparent to evolutionists and creationists alike.

I eat ham for breakfast.

Eggs and ham are one of my favourites.

Just thought I'd share.

I saw it and it was a draw IMO and comes down to who you choose to believe.I felt Ken Ham should've hammered a little more on what school science books are teaching and how wrong it is,I also thought he could've defended Noah's flood better than he did,but it was a tie in which people choose who to side with because of a lack of real evidence on both sides.I wish it could've been a knowledgeable gap theorist debating Nye,you would see evolution lose.

Didn't watch the debate.

Ken Ham is about the worst representative of creationism that one could ask for in my opinion. He certainly doesn't represent me.

All I really need to say.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Come on guys, seriously!!

I think we all need a group hug.

Group hugs are awesome

Speaking of Ken Ham, things aren't going so well for him and AIG.

http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/kentuc ... ect-42056/

“State tourism tax incentives cannot be used to fund religious indoctrination or otherwise be used to advance religion,” tourism secretary Bob Stewart wrote in a letter to AIG, according to The Courier-Journal. “The use of state incentives in this way violates the separation of church and state provisions of the Constitution and is therefore impermissible.”
Ham notes the new conditions set forth by the committee are not found anywhere in the law.

If this is true, the state is in for some trouble.
Mr Stewart better be 100% sure that NO state tax incentive has EVER been used to fund or advance ANY religion.

Wouldn't want those funds going to future terrorist organisations like Al-Qaeda.
Government does a good enough job at that.

Or to be more fair (if that was a low blow), a lot more harm would come through promoting bourbon.
Much better to "Follow the Kentucky Bourbon Trail tour to learn how and where ‘America’s spirit’ is made."

Mmmmmm . . . bourbon. Could use one right about now! Where is FL when you need him?

I am posting these two links hoping...

Besides, whose words are better than our Father's?

http://www.openbible.info/topics/resolving_conflict
http://www.openbible.info/topics/humility

Even though I disagree with Ken Ham and young earth creationism he is still a brother in Christ.I try to focus on the things I agree with him about but YEC has had its chance long enough against evolution science and it cannot get the job done and destroy evolution,it is time to get out of the way and see the gap theory defeat evolution,YEC cannot do it.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Even though I disagree with Ken Ham and young earth creationism he is still a brother in Christ.I try to focus on the things I agree with him about but YEC has had its chance long enough against evolution science and it cannot get the job done and destroy evolution,it is time to get out of the way and see the gap theory defeat evolution,YEC cannot do it.

https://23thorns.files.wordpress.com/20 ... dmills.jpg