Barth Jones
Member
Since some folks prefer to just observe, and others like to type, tap and click, please answer just "Ham, (or otherwise)" if you will, or expounding would be even better.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[_ Old Earth _] Who Won the Ham/Nye Debate?
- Thread starter Barth Jones
- Start date
Pizza
Member
Nye by a THIN margin. Both men were gentlemen to one another and the audience, I was pleased with the debate.
I say Nye because he landed a big win when he made it very clear that Ham's position (or his "science" if you will) cannot and does not predict anything.
If Ham would have just RESPONDED in ANY way to Nye's three or four attempts at asking the question, then I'd maybe call it a draw.
But again, I was pleased with the debate and with both of them.
I say Nye because he landed a big win when he made it very clear that Ham's position (or his "science" if you will) cannot and does not predict anything.
If Ham would have just RESPONDED in ANY way to Nye's three or four attempts at asking the question, then I'd maybe call it a draw.
But again, I was pleased with the debate and with both of them.
Barth Jones
Member
Nye's a trickster in my opinion. Ham's biggest fault, I think, is failing to discover the obvious answers to the questions about the tree rings, dinosaur bones and fossile records right in Gen 2:7.
Barth Jones
Member
Since when was science, interpreted as "science," unless it predicts something? Science is nothing more than one very useful way of looking at nature. It's a process, among many, that gives insight so we can invent comforts and conveniences.
Last edited:
Barth Jones
Member
First post, one three-letter word, appearing twice in that verse, answers these questions.
Pizza? Christianity and Science is in the debate area. We do ask our members to be respectful of others here as well as in the Non-debate areas.
It's the "daughter forum" of YEC that is a Non-Debate area (a 'sanctuary' so to speak).
It's the "daughter forum" of YEC that is a Non-Debate area (a 'sanctuary' so to speak).
Barth Jones
Member
I don't mean disrespect to Nye. He's flesh and blood. But men's tongues, reach many little ears. Tongues control institutions on the earth. It's life and death. God gives men mountain-moving power in these tongues. It is a war, not plastic toy figures.
The point is this--Christ wrapped mysteries in enigmas, explaining later to those who kept listening.
Man, 3-letter word. What was Adam on day one of his being? He was not a child, nor an infant, or a particle, was he?
Yet, how many days did he mature to be a man? He was a man on day one. So there's your tree rings and fossile record.
In other words, 10,000 rings in a tree trunk do not prove that earth is at least 10,000 years old. Rather, the account Moses gives us of Adam's creation and the testimony of God proves the 4,000 rings not accounted for were there, the fossile record was there, on day one. Props to Bryan Downs.
The point is this--Christ wrapped mysteries in enigmas, explaining later to those who kept listening.
Man, 3-letter word. What was Adam on day one of his being? He was not a child, nor an infant, or a particle, was he?
Yet, how many days did he mature to be a man? He was a man on day one. So there's your tree rings and fossile record.
In other words, 10,000 rings in a tree trunk do not prove that earth is at least 10,000 years old. Rather, the account Moses gives us of Adam's creation and the testimony of God proves the 4,000 rings not accounted for were there, the fossile record was there, on day one. Props to Bryan Downs.
Last edited:
Pizza
Member
Yea, I haven't been around here in a while and like I said in another thread, don't have much time to post, let alone read the rules, etc. So I was trying hard to stay within the rules - I think I'll take a look around and familiarize myself with the place again.
Pizza
Member
He is also not a believer - you cannot give him flack for his position or call him a trickster when he is simply asserting what he knows. I think you are crossing a line that is destructive here.
If you knew the man face to face, and were trying to get thru to him, would you call him a trickster to his face? It is your kind of attitude that leads to the whole "science versus religion" thing that is SO destructive.
I agree that Adam, and Eve, were created as adults (or at least teens). As to the literal interpretation of early Genesis - I'm not ready to work hard to defend that. The church has taught a LOT of error over the centuries such as "the earth sits at the center of the universe, and everything orbits around it". This is but one instance where man's interpretation of scripture has led him astray from the truth.
Our understanding of space and time are so very incomplete. (As Neil DeGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist) points out: "We understand about 5% of what we are observing in the universe".) For this reason, I find debating the age of the earth to be a waste of time. The big bang theory states that, at the moment of creation (if you will let me use that word), the universe burst into being and expanded at (what they can only see as) several times the speed of light. This very observation means that time is not easily defined in those first seconds/minutes/etc. Time depends on your point of observation, so how do you explain "how long it took"?
I honestly believe that God explained the unexplainable in just a few verses. He left a lot out, because you CANNOT describe or explain creation in a few words. You are talking about fields of physics that barely have names for them!
As I have started back in school (Major in Math, Minor in Physics) and I learn about quantum and nuclear physics, I find myself facing concepts, theories and mathematics that are SO involved, that I find it inconceivable that ANY Christian thinks that a mere mortal human can grasp any of this. No one in particle physics believes this, nor does anyone in the sciences assert that THEY understand or have figured out any of this.
I read early Genesis only as God's reasonable attempt at explaining all of this. I started out with a faith but with IGNORANCE of such physics. My faith cannot be shaken.
But when we as Christians jump up and down insisting that WE understand it all, and that the earth is 10,000 years old because of a few verses in the Bible - all we do is make the scientists laugh. I prefer to pursue science and my faith as Newton and Galileo did, Galileo took the earth from the center of the UNIVERSE and moved it - yet, his faith remained.
Mine will as well.
Barth Jones
Member
You just said "the church has taught (scientific) error," and yet you say we cannot know anything about acute science. How can you judge, for example, that Galileo set the course of the various satellites correctly for posterity, if indeed mortals cannot grasp any of this? In fact, have you considered how atomic, molecular, and astronomical physics probably correlate very closely? I don't perfectly grasp atomic bonds and so forth, but what if the earth and the "other 8 members of our solar system" share the sun as two atoms would bond around an electron? The electron belonged to one atom. But another atom joined, and so now you have 9 planets (in my opinion an electron is not a charge, but a particle carrying a charge) orbiting this electron which, according to Galileo and posterity, is at the center of everything. But we saw that the earth at first was an atom of it's own right.
Barth Jones
Member
I wouldn't call anyone a trickster to their face. I would expose the trickster who beguiled them.
Pizza
Member
We cannot know ANYTHING about science?
We cannot grasp ANY of this?
What did I type in my posts that gave you these ideas?
Pizza
Member
And in this case, that would not be Nye.
Barth Jones
Member
Yes, here is what you said, " I find myself facing concepts, theories and mathematics that are SO involved, that I find it inconceivable that ANY Christian thinks that a mere mortal human can grasp any of this."
Pizza
Member
You don't just take Genesis literally, do you? We can understand a lot, but as I said - an Astrophysicist with a PHD believes that he and his colleges only understand 5% of what they are observing. With that in mind - what hope do us mere dunces have of understanding the universe and it's creation with only a few verses of Genesis to go on? And what illogical God would try to explain creation to us in a few verses? God would not - and those who attest that He DID do so are doing JUST what Barbarian said in HIS post:
With that, I'm out of this conversation. I answered your question as to who won the debate. Arguing over this is just a waste of time.
I wish you luck with Barbarian - he is retired (or so I remember) and will probably go several rounds with you!
With that, I'm out of this conversation. I answered your question as to who won the debate. Arguing over this is just a waste of time.
I wish you luck with Barbarian - he is retired (or so I remember) and will probably go several rounds with you!
Barth Jones
Member
A "mere" mortal human? Heb 2:7
Barth Jones
Member
Mat 13:52-- He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”
Last edited: