Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Creation vs Evolution debate

[M30USA]

I don't see how one can differ. I don't see how it's a matter of interpretation. A generation is a generation. There were 77 generations in total from Adam to Christ. They're all accounted for. Otherwise you start getting into the shady area of the Bible not being literal or that it's incomplete in its genealogy account listing in Genesis and Matthew.

 

A huge problem with saying that the Bible doesn't have a COMPLETE genealogy from Adam to Christ is that someone can come along and say that Jesus was an angel, or that he wasn't fully human (the seed of the woman). This is a theological problem which can lead to big time error. The genealogies were done for this very reason--to eliminate all doubt as to Jesus' direct connection in lineage to Adam and Eve. This is why Paul had to argue in Hebrews that Jesus was NOT an angel. He knew because of the complete genealogy.

Edited February 17, 2014 by M30USA

[TheFinalWord]

I don't see how one can differ. I don't see how it's a matter of interpretation. A generation is a generation. There were 77 generations in total from Adam to Christ. They're all accounted for. Otherwise you start getting into the shady area of the Bible not being literal or that it's incomplete in its genealogy account listing in Genesis and Matthew.

 

A huge problem with saying that the Bible doesn't have a COMPLETE genealogy from Adam to Christ is that someone can come along and say that Jesus was an angel, or that he wasn't fully human (the seed of the woman). This is a theological problem which can lead to big time error. The genealogies were done for this very reason--to eliminate all doubt as to Jesus' direct connection in lineage to Adam and Eve. This is why Paul had to argue in Hebrews that Jesus was NOT an angel. He knew because of the complete genealogy.

 

I do not see the leap in logic you're making about angels, but I will admit I do not understand many of your theories about angels so I will leave you to that.

 

No matter what logical reason you give in regards to summing dates, at the end of the day you are doing what the Holy Spirit did do in Exodus 12:40, but did not do in Genesis 5. And I think for good reason. In regards to literal, the literal reading does not add up the dates like you are doing. So, I am the one sticking to the literal text.

[M30USA]

TFW, do you disagree that 1,946 years passed between Adam and Abraham? Genesis gives the exact age of every man in the line when they begat their son (the next in line). The total is 1,946 between Adam and Abraham.

 

Can we at least agree on this?

[M30USA]

(Edited because I didn't want to start a tangent.)

Edited February 17, 2014 by M30USA

[mukkrakker]

Can we at least agree on this?

 

Because we have definite proof of when (and by who) that was written?

[TheFinalWord]

TFW, do you disagree that 1,946 years passed between Adam and Abraham? Genesis gives the exact age of every man in the line when they begat their son (the next in line). The total is 1,946 between Adam and Abraham.

 

Can we at least agree on this?

 

Probably not friend, because the text does not do that.

 

If I am sitting there with a calculator and add up the dates, I am doing what the text does not do. And I would be doing what the text did not intend for us to do. There are examples where the bible does this, so it is not as though there is no method for explicitly bracketing dates. It is just not done here, for a reason IMHO. One reason is that you get into orthodoxy issues, i.e. "if you don't add up the dates, you are undermining the gospel of Christ"

 

Begat does not always mean immediate descendents. Even father, is not always used in the same way as we understand family make-up today. When God says to Jacob in Gen. 28, "I am the God of your Father Abraham". Jacob was the grandson, not son.

 

I do agree there is likely a limit on the gaps. I agree with Dr. Millam we probably have 20 to 40% complete genealogies, but there is no case for adding them up and then being dogmatic on a date. Telescoping genealogies was common and the text does not add up the dates.

 

The Genesis Genealogies: Are They Complete?

[M30USA]

Probably not friend, because the text does not do that.

 

If I am sitting there with a calculator and add up the dates, I am doing what the text does not do. And I would be doing what the text did not intend for us to do. There are examples where the bible does this, so it is not as though there is no method for explicitly bracketing dates. It is just not done here, for a reason IMHO. One reason is that you get into orthodoxy issues, i.e. "if you don't add up the dates, you are undermining the gospel of Christ"

 

Begat does not always mean immediate descendents. Even father, is not always used in the same way as we understand family make-up today. When God says to Jacob in Gen. 28, "I am the God of your Father Abraham". Jacob was the grandson, not son.

 

I do agree there is likely a limit on the gaps. I agree with Dr. Millam we probably have 20 to 40% complete genealogies, but there is no case for adding them up and then being dogmatic on a date. Telescoping genealogies was common and the text does not add up the dates.

 

The Genesis Genealogies: Are They Complete?

 

 

 

Okay, thanks for clarifying your position. At least I know where you stand now.

 

 

The problem I have is that several other verses and concepts in Scripture seem to be inconsistent with that theory.

 

 

For example, how do you account for the following verses where it seems that the writers of the Bible, themselves, believed in a complete genealogy and even counted the numbers of them?

 

 

a) "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: 'See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones...'" (Jude 1:14) ***This corresponds to Period 1 in my previous post.***

 

 

b) "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah." (Matthew 1:17) ***This covers the ENTIRE 42 generations from Period 2 in my previous post.***

 

 

The Genesis lineage, specifically, isn't just in list format. Much of it is also covered in narrative form, where we see exactly who is the direct son of whom.

 

 

Additionally, if what you and others propose is correct, then we have a missing section whereby someone can challenge the lineage of Jesus and claim that he might have been an angel or angelic. Even if one is missing, it's not complete. People in Paul's day argued that Jesus was an angel. The first several chapters of Hebrews addresses this. People still argue this today. Look at Jehovah's Witnesses who believe he was the Archangel Michael. This is why the lineage is so necessary. I know you believe the "angel topic" is insignificant, but the early church believed it was hugely important. Every church father up until 450 AD believed in this concept and understood it. If even a SINGLE generation is missing, then one could argue that the father of that specific generation was an angel (as occurred in Genesis 6) and therefore "contaminated" the entire subsequent lineage, thereby precluding the possibility of a human messiah born from the "seed of the woman" (Eve). The Bible needed to show ALL MALES in EVERY generation to show they were also human.

Edited February 18, 2014 by M30USA

[Untouchable_Fire]

Christian Today asks it's readers to vote on "who won" the debate

WATCH Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate VIDEO in FULL HERE: Who won Creation vs Evolution debate? [POLL] | Christian News on Christian Today

You have to vote to see the results. As of ten minutes ago 27,101 votes.

Ken Ham 8%

Bill Nye 92%

Did I mention this was at Christian Today ?

In case I didn't, this was a vote on the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Creation vs Evolution debate held by the readers of Christian Today web site...

 

The debate was a fail from the start. Neither can be proven and both seem fundamentally flawed.

 

People who believe in radiometric dating without question are just idiots. We have lava flows that are recent and test out to be 200 million years old. It's ok for scientists to Use this method because there is nothing yet better, but most supporters have this wild eyed, ignorant zealot belief in it. It's like watching a car drive at 60mph for 10 seconds and then assuming it has never sped up or slowed down.

 

That said... I believe in framework theory that the creation story of the bible is talking about the order of the universe not the physical creation of it.

[Untouchable_Fire]

"I put my faith in a higher power" a higher power that funnily enough no one has ever demonstrated, or given a single shred of evidence aside from ancient books that contain more inaccuracies and inconsistencies than they do truths. Yet these same types of people will argue against evolution which has stacks of evidence-why? Because they're not in the business of evidence or even truth-seeking. They like their beliefs, and want to believe them, so it's in the ears the fingers go, and on the blacked out glasses go, and lalalalalalalalala, goodbye reality.

 

I think a billion or so people all feeling the same should demonstrate something.

 

If you read the bible like a historical document you will never get it.

 

Any rational person who is versed in evolutionary biology understands that it isn't a substitute for religion. I worked on the human genome project and I remember the shock when we realized how few genes there are compared to a flatworm. The only people out of touch with reality are the ones that think evolution answers the questions of religion.

[TheFinalWord]

For example, how do you account for the following verses where it seems that the writers of the Bible, themselves, believed in a complete genealogy and even counted the numbers of them?

 

It is explained because our definition of what constitutes a legitimate genealogy is not the way genealogies were used in biblical times. Telescoping was a method for giving a general overview or making a point. For example, who was from the tribe of Levi to serve as a priest.

 

a) "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: 'See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones...'" (Jude 1:14) ***This corresponds to Period 1 in my previous post.***

 

They are referring back to previous genealogies. It is nothing wrong with the genealogies. It was used differently than the way we use them today. What I am talking about is adding up the years like you are trying to do. It's not done in the bible because they did not use genealogies in the way you are trying to make them be used.

 

b) "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah." (Matthew 1:17) ***This covers the ENTIRE 42 generations from Period 2 in my previous post.***

 

The Matthew account parallels the accounts in 2 Chronicles. And it is telescoped (to what degree is hard to say, again the bible does not add up the dates like you are doing) as actually more information is found in the Chronicles.

 

"Matthew 1:11 compared to 2 Chronicles 36:1–9: In Matthew 1:11 we read that Josiah is the father of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin). In 2 Chronicles, we see that Josiah is the father of Jehoiakim (2 Chronicles 36:4) and grandfather of Jehoiachin (2 Chronicles 36:8).

 

In both Matthew and Luke, Zerubbabel is listed as the son of Shealtiel. In 1 Chronicles 3:17–19 we find that Zerubbabel was actually the son of Shealtiel’s brother, Pedaiah."

 

 

The Genesis lineage, specifically, isn't just in list format. Much of it is also covered in narrative form, where we see exactly who is the direct son of whom.

 

This is done many times in the genealogies...

 

Did God tell Jacob that he was the God of his Father Abraham.

 

Was Abraham actually Jacob's father or grandfather?

 

The reason I go to this is most people are familiar with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham was Jacob's grandfather, not father (as we define it), yet God said Abraham was Jacob's father. Does that mean the bible is wrong? No, they just labeled family trees differently. Father could be grandfather, son could be direct son or grandson.

 

You are trying to impute our conception of genealogy onto the biblical model. The evidence that what you are doing is non-scriptural, humbly speaking, is that the bible itself does not add up the dates. Again, you can give all the logical inference you would like. But there are many cases where we can see telescoping occurred and the bible does not add up the dates. To me, it's an open and shut case.

 

Additionally, if what you and others propose is correct, then we have a missing section whereby someone can challenge the lineage of Jesus and claim that he might have been an angel or angelic. Even if one is missing, it's not complete. People in Paul's day argued that Jesus was an angel. The first several chapters of Hebrews addresses this. People still argue this today. Look at Jehovah's Witnesses who believe he was the Archangel Michael. This is why the lineage is so necessary. I know you believe the "angel topic" is insignificant, but the early church believed it was hugely important. Every church father up until 450 AD believed in this concept and understood it. If even a SINGLE generation is missing, then one could argue that the father of that specific generation was an angel (as occurred in Genesis 6) and therefore "contaminated" the entire subsequent lineage, thereby precluding the possibility of a human messiah born from the "seed of the woman" (Eve). The Bible needed to show ALL MALES in EVERY generation to show they were also human.

 

If Paul already argued it, using the telescoped genealogies, than I do not believe we do not need to add up the dates like you are doing to make this case.

 

I do not believe the angel topic is unimportant. I do think your attempt to make the bible claim things it does not claim to reconcile your opinion about UFOs is flawed. That's another post and we've debated that before

 

I would like you to provide quotes from the early church fathers that NOT adding up the dates in anyway undermines the genealogy of Jesus. Ussher did not do this until the 1600s and that was way after the church fathers. Notice the early church fathers did not do this, way before science or archeology got into the game. Again, I think for good reason. Because the bible doesn't do it.

 

I am not opening the door for what you are claiming. That each person is not listed is inconsequential to establishing the lineage of Jesus. Your argument that Paul was able to do so, despite not tabulating the dates, makes my point.

 

Anyway, fun to debate with you brother. I see where you are coming from and it is basically a YEC vs. OEC debate that (to me) there is not enough biblical data to no for sure either way. Thanks for your time.

[M30USA]

Yeah, I think we're at an impasse here. Fortunately it's not a critical issue or central to the faith--lest any onlookers should think we are arguing among our faith or divided. All I wanted to do was understand your position and now I do.

[TheFinalWord]

Yeah, I think we're at an impasse here. Fortunately it's not a critical issue or central to the faith--lest any onlookers should think we are arguing among our faith or divided. All I wanted to do was understand your position and now I do.

 

Yes, I agree. Do you think if the bible leaves an area open that science can provide answers?

[M30USA]

Yes, I agree. Do you think if the bible leaves an area open that science can provide answers?

 

 

Well, science merely being study and observation, yes. All truth is God's truth. This especially applies to where the Bible doesn't specify. But I believe when the Bible does specify, it's usually for a reason.

[pie2]

That alarmingly can't be verified by any other means than his words. Case closed.

 

 

He seems to say his opinion would be swayed by God, in whom he puts total trust. Which is much different than saying his position is completely immutable, as you had posted. We're not arguing the reliability of his position, just that you misrepresented what he said (imo).

 

 

I don't see the point in entering a debate if you're not even remotely open to the possibility of being proven wrong.

 

 

While I really respect someone who can keep a level head in a debate, and even humble themselves to admit error, I don't think the primary responsibility of the debaters to remain "open to the possibility to being proven wrong". I think their main task is to present arguments as honestly and accurately as possible.

 

 

Now, for the viewers, that's a different story. I think they're the ones who should keep an open mind when hearing both sides.

 

People need to get over this unwillingness to accept evolution as the fact that it is, and let the rest of the world move on.

 

 

Those who have accepted evolution as fact are not some displaced minority group suffering at the hands of the Christians! No oppression on that worldview that I can see. At least in the education, political, social and scientific communities.

[M30USA]

Those who have accepted evolution as fact are not some displaced minority group suffering at the hands of the Christians! No oppression on that worldview that I can see. At least in the education, political, social and scientific communities.

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

Just take a look at who gets all the government research grants. You think there's any creationists? Ben Stein actually did a documentary where he investigated this and flat-out proved that the government gives almost all the grant money to evolution study and ignores creation study. (And for those who think that you can just study what you want without grants...let's see how far you get without money, just like everything else.)

[TheFinalWord]

Exactly.

 

 

Just take a look at who gets all the government research grants. You think there's any creationists? Ben Stein actually did a documentary where he investigated this and flat-out proved that the government gives almost all the grant money to evolution study and ignores creation study. (And for those who think that you can just study what you want without grants...let's see how far you get without money, just like everything else.)

 

I know a few. I don't know any that get government grants to study young earth creationism.

 

Evolution and Christian Faith | BioLogos

 

Here is biologos request for proposals:

 

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/RFP_831.pdf

 

Francis Collins, is a theistic evolutionist, and head of the NIH, which is basically the largest grant-funding agency in America. So it goes back to what is a creationist?

 

I do know that young earth creationist foundations, provide research funding.

 

National Creation Science Foundation Awards First Grant

 

I know I can find creationists that get government grants to conduct research, though not necessarily to study young earth creationism from a scientific perspective.

 

However, it is a fundamental disconnect.

 

A scientist doesn't request grant funding to prove or disprove creationism. They get grants to test scientific hypotheses. If the results imply a creator, that is what they find afterwards. The data is the authority, not the theory. They don't go into a grant, with ideas already in mind, a priori, and then get money to prove their initial thoughts. At least they shouldn't and that is why the grant funding process is so rigorous.

Edited February 18, 2014 by TheFinalWord

[TheFinalWord]

Well, science merely being study and observation, yes. All truth is God's truth. This especially applies to where the Bible doesn't specify. But I believe when the Bible does specify, it's usually for a reason.

 

I don't know what you mean by observation.

 

Is inferential statistics a valid way to predict outcomes? In theory, we cannot observe everyone in a population. We take a sample (random) and generalize to a population from the sample, using statistical theory, such as the central limit theorem. Although we cannot directly observe the entire population, we can, with confidence (usually 95%) determine a population mean value for some variable. The only catch is that a theoretical population mean must exist. In that case, a theory is not just about observation, but about measurability (i.e. are the variables on some measurable scale, such as interval/ratio), generalizability, predictability, and in many fields practicality. If so, regardless of whether they are observable, they can be falsifiable. Furthermore, many variables are unobservable. Knowledge for example. Measurement may not be perfect, but we can gauge it with a degree of confidence (most theory is about degrees of confidence, not perfection). But I can tell there is a difference in knowledge scores when I give someone that has studied and exam against someone who has not. The person's knowledge is not directly observable, but indeed exists (at least cognitive, not talking about skills, there are different forms of knowledge and application aka Bloom's taxonomy). I cannot observe a person's knowledge. I can test for it, and make inferences.

Edited February 18, 2014 by TheFinalWord

[maiden of rohan]

I think a billion or so people all feeling the same should demonstrate something.

 

If you read the bible like a historical document you will never get it.

 

Any rational person who is versed in evolutionary biology understands that it isn't a substitute for religion. I worked on the human genome project and I remember the shock when we realized how few genes there are compared to a flatworm. The only people out of touch with reality are the ones that think evolution answers the questions of religion.

 

No one claims that evolution answers all of the questions. It answers the questions about the diversity of life. Any rational person knows that in order to believe something, one must have evidence of said thing. Or you should, lest you be deemed irrational. I don't trust anyone or anything that claims to have all of the answers-something religion has been claiming for umpteen years.

 

Honestly-I don't care that a billion or so people believe in it. That makes what? 5 billion that don't then? If you're going for "popularity" demonstrating the truth of something then I think you fall spectacularly short of doing so.

 

If you're using this as the basis of your argument-which is a logical fallacy-then what if a billion or so people believed that magic universe building pixies did it? Would it make it true? Or would you still need a demonstration of their existence?

 

Just because a lot of people believe it-and isn't it funny how they believe the exact religion that is most popular and pervasive in their culture? If truth is then dictated by geography, how can one label it truth?

 

Either way, a deity has not been demonstrated, ever, in the history of man, regardless of how many people claim to believe otherwise.

[maiden of rohan]

Exactly.

 

 

Just take a look at who gets all the government research grants. You think there's any creationists? Ben Stein actually did a documentary where he investigated this and flat-out proved that the government gives almost all the grant money to evolution study and ignores creation study. (And for those who think that you can just study what you want without grants...let's see how far you get without money, just like everything else.)

 

You know why creation study gets nil? Because it's worth nil. It's nothing more than religion masquerading as "science."

[Untouchable_Fire]

No one claims that evolution answers all of the questions. It answers the questions about the diversity of life. Any rational person knows that in order to believe something, one must have evidence of said thing. Or you should, lest you be deemed irrational. I don't trust anyone or anything that claims to have all of the answers-something religion has been claiming for umpteen years.

Honestly-I don't care that a billion or so people believe in it. That makes what? 5 billion that don't then? If you're going for "popularity" demonstrating the truth of something then I think you fall spectacularly short of doing so.

If you're using this as the basis of your argument-which is a logical fallacy-then what if a billion or so people believed that magic universe building pixies did it? Would it make it true? Or would you still need a demonstration of their existence?

Just because a lot of people believe it-and isn't it funny how they believe the exact religion that is most popular and pervasive in their culture? If truth is then dictated by geography, how can one label it truth?

Either way, a deity has not been demonstrated, ever, in the history of man, regardless of how many people claim to believe otherwise.

 

How much of life's diversity does evolution explain?

 

I personally experience it through a feeling. That is proof to me but not to you. Scientific Thinking can neither quantify nor qualify this... You must feel it yourself to have faith. A huge chunk of the human population feels that as well. Our experience is not invalid.

 

Regarding culture and geography... roughly the same percentage all over the world are true believers. Cultural Christians predominate in the western world... In Arabia it's cultural Muslims. Many people just go with the flow but feel nothing.

[M30USA]

You know why creation study gets nil? Because it's worth nil. It's nothing more than religion masquerading as "science."

 

Science, by definition and qualification, cannot know how the world was created or (if you don't believe in creation) how something came from nothing. All science CAN do is learn how things developed from the time they already came into existence and from that point on.

 

Even evolution is not a claim about how the world started. It's a claim about how life, once it was already in existence, evolved to the current point. So therefore--in this regard--evolution is not the opposite of creationism. This is because evolution cannot go back to before life started when there was nothing--not even the amino acid complexes for proteins or the primordial soup. A more appropriate opposite of creationism is the Big Bang. But even that can't explain how something came from nothing. Nobody can. Nobody ever will. It's beyond the realm of science because we are dealing with something that existed before our entire reality as we know it.

 

This is why I support neither creationism study nor the Big Bang study. There is nothing TO study. Eventually you must keep going further and further back in time and ask what came before that...and that...and that. It never ends. EVENTUALLY, by logic, it becomes a PHILOSOPHICAL question irrespective of science. So I partly agree that creationism is "nil" and can't be studied. But neither can the pre-big bang theory.

[pureinheart]

 

This is why I support neither creationism study nor the Big Bang study. There is nothing TO study. Eventually you must keep going further and further back in time and ask what came before that...and that...and that. It never ends. EVENTUALLY, by logic, it becomes a PHILOSOPHICAL question irrespective of science. So I partly agree that creationism is "nil" and can't be studied. But neither can the pre-big bang theory.

 

You did it again. Thank you. This issue has confused me for a very long time.

[Keenly]

I'll pick the only side that actually attempts to prove its claims.

[M30USA]

I'll pick the only side that actually attempts to prove its claims.

 

Me too. But I also understand what CAN be proven and what CAN'T.

[Keenly]

Me too. But I also understand what CAN be proven and what CAN'T.

 

Do you?

 

Do youuuuu?