Who won the Bill Nye - Ken Ham Debate? Bill Nye!

I agree Nye won and he earned my respect all around. I tend toward the creation model of origins and thought Ham came up short; especially when there were responses to Nye. Ham focused on the philosophy of science instead of on the facts of research. The philosophy of science is an important topic in the creation/evolution debate, but Ham did not deliver on the necessary supporting facts. For instance, on Nye’s point regarding the 16M species versus 7K kinds (reduced further in number by Ham – way to support the other guys argument), Ham never gave a counter argument. The fact is using a creation/flood model, the gene pool would be richest in individual creatures post creation, and then to a lesser extent post flood; with the gene pool getting more specialized over time. Adaption to environmental changes would rely largely on existing genetic alternatives, so in time the alternatives within a group would thin, and adaption would become more difficult, and thus extinction of a specialized gene. Following the flood the growth of new species from the highly diverse kinds would be very rapid but then would follow an exponential decay curve toward extinction over time. This matches observed science; evolution partially avoids this problem of extinction (and thinning gene diversity) by saying that it is human activity that is the problem.

Ham focused too much on historical science. As Nye requested of Ham, present your model, make a prediction, and then let’s observe if the data supports. Both evolution and creation models do have a historical element, but both should also have a predictable observable element. Where I see evolution/naturalist model struggling in the observable is: a controlled demonstration of matter to life, a controlled demonstration of empty space self-generating matter, a controlled demonstration of conscientiousness arising, a control mutation experiment with significant progression from one species to another (using the fruit fly for example). The something from nothing transition is difficult for evolution model, but is directly in line with creation model.

Spelling correction - *consciousness

Good summary. There really wasn't even a debate. Ken Ham's concept of "historical science" as if that was a real thing undermined everything else he tried to say. There is no such thing as "historical science" as Ham described it. If there were, then no scientific progress would ever be made.

I do wish he had been called out on his contention that because science can never observe things in the past (demonstrably untrue) that we have to rely on someone who was there, i.e. god. Even if this argument were true on its face, which it isn't, what evidence does he have that the book he keeps referencing represents any form of truth? He ignores the biggest assumption in his argument, that the bible represents the literal word of god. Of course since he conveniently contends that observation is not the only valid scientific method, he can ignore that little anomaly in his analysis.

The bottom line is that any rational person will see that Bill Nye won based on facts and arguments. On the other hand "true believers" will say that Ham won because obviously the bible i the only truth.

I think we forget sometimes that GOD is all powerfull, and if he can create a world in six days; why can't he give the necessary tools to a carpenter to make a boat to carry the animals in. Plus how many KINDS of animals there were at that time not today. If GOD wanted to make a boat with paper he can because he is all powerfull.

@Heath: You seem to have several misconceptions or at least misunderstandings of both terminoligy and concept.

1) "Evolution" doesn't have anything to say about abiogenesis. It never has, and never will. That is a question for physical and organic chemists. Evolution tells us, in detail, what happens over time to populations of organisms in a complex environment.

2) "Evolution" doesn't say anything about the origin of matter from energy (what you call "empty space"). It never has, and it never will. If you're truly interested, rather than just raising straw man arguments you've cribbed from others, you may wish to look up the "Casimir effect" for a discussion of the energy present in empty space, preferably incorporated into a good undergraduate course in quantum mechanics.

3) Look up any of the following terms, together with the word "observed evolution": Galapagos finches, Lake Victoria Cichlids, guppies, Escherichia coli. There are many more concrete examples, but those are the easiest to understand. We have a vast amount of observational data on speciation, including the observed evolution of new traits (including previously "impossible" abilities, such as the digestion of citrate in the evolved E. coli).

If the bible is taken to be the only necessary account, begged questions about how the observer's (God's) observations came to be written in Aramaic/where/when/by what, are primary to establishing warrants for supposing, next, that such accounts are certainly true. All ancillary speculations are without point until there's more than the patently tautological: It's true because the Bible is true.

Thus: "Following the flood the growth of new species from the highly diverse kinds would be very rapid but then would follow an exponential decay curve toward extinction over time. This matches observed science; evolution partially avoids this problem of extinction (and thinning gene diversity) by saying that it is human activity that is the problem." is nonsensical. It has no context at all in any domain-specific sense.

There is no 'creationist philosophy of creationist science' for the obvious reason that you cannot develop a propositional domain out of the singular proposition: ' the accounts contained (in this document) are true because they are necessarily true.'

All secondary creationist speculation promiscuously grabs concepts and ends up malarkey simply because such speculations have no point if they begin with, in effect, 'the Bible is not falsifiable.'

Luckily enough, each and every such speculation is instantly consumed in the Popperian inferno and turned to ashes.

Good for Bill Nye! I always think a good airing of contentious ideas will give a good outcome.

BTW: The Houston Chronicle reported today that Bill had said the earth was formed billions of years ago BY THE BIG BANG. I cannot believe that this is correct; but it does show the lack of scientific background in the press corps.

Clarification: I cannot believe that Bill Nye said it. And I truly do not believe that the earth was formed by the big bang. (Incidentally, the multiverse theory doesn't need the big bang).

An aside. I like to read the Bible. The King James version in particular. It is great literature, and in some cases acceptable historical insight. Its moral precepts are mostly good (if you delete references to Joshuah's scorched earth policy) and we could do worse than to live our lives in accordance therewith.
The more modern versions (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses version) may be more understandable in today's jargon or (JWV) closer to the real meaning of the original, but they are not as literary.

Everything was formed by the Big Bang. Yet, nothing was formed by the Big Bang except a bunch of bosons and stuff.

@heath--I had never heard this formulation before, sounds like you envision the biosphere immediately after the creation event to be filled with many intermediate forms, which have gradually died away, leaving distinct species. This sort of mirrors the evolutionary view that, for example, the biota represented in the Burgess shale assemblage were all much more closely related to one another than any of their descendants are, e.g. comparing members of different phyla.

So if... whoever created God, must have been the one God was observing? Right?

Debates with believers are inherently pointless. "God said so" is not an argument. When your parents said "because I said so," everyone eventually asks, why? Why did you say so? I don't understand!

Oh, wait. Not everyone does that. Or, the parents are too dumb to even answer those life questions of a child, so they become a humble servant of God, unaware of how many answers to life's mysteries exist.

I love science and do have faith at the same time. When I run an experiment, sometimes I pray that it works to my hypothesis. and when it goes to *^&!, who do I blame?

Well anyways, looking at the Bible for the unexplained isn't the correct answer either.

I'd like to ask a some questions:
1. Can one argue that there are many Adams (Men) and many Eves (Women) of different cultures? (hence some people cannot understand one another, but when it comes to sex (it's all the same). The Cain and Able are different people of nations. (That could be the reason why there are wars among people)
2. The Ark and the Flood,(if there was an ark, where did it land and where are examples of it's remains. Why did it not get recorded of what type of material it was made from or detailed drawings or accounts of it's structure? There's some information in the Bible, but not detailed enough.
3. Who wrote the Bible? or why didn't one take down historical data properly?

I can't understand how anyone would think that the Bible is any more true than any of the other hundreds of religious texts that have been written over the past 10,000 years.

Just because you happened to be brought in a part of the world, during a time period where this is the prevailing religion, you somehow believe that YOU have the RIGHT religion, just because it's the first one someone told you about. If you were alive in Ancient Greece you'd be worshiping Zeus and the Olympians because that's the first thing you'd hear about. Or if you were born in India you'd be into Hinduism.

If you take one moment to think outside of yourself and look at the world objectively, it's really obvious that religion is a human construct, which has changed over time and through cultures. It's pretty obvious that it's all just written by people for whatever reason, and utilized by people, for many reasons.

It might be scary to realize this, so you may want to hold onto your Jesus bedtime stores, because it makes the world less scary, and you don't have to take personal responsibility, you can just trust in god.

The fact is that science has given humans more actual tangible results and actual explanations for our universe in just a few hundred years, than religion has given us in 10,000

Saying "God did it" is not an answer to a question. It's a cop out, even less useful than "I don't know" Because you don't know, no one knows. And if you believe in an old book, just because someone told you it's true, then you my friend are a sucker.

Please donate generously to your church. $$$

Ken Ham’s argument for the young age of the Earth was unassailable. The Bible tells us the age of the Earth, period.

One of the blogs I read regularly is Slacktivist (Fred Clark). Clark, an evangelical Christian who actually knows a thing or two about Biblical scholarship, thinks as little of Ham's interpretation of the Bible as PZ Myers thinks of Ham's understanding of biology.

Bill Nye lost all credibility when he suggested the Big Bang which is way out there ( no pun intended). I thought the debate was over origins. Also Darwin's theory was over 100 years ago, science has now illustrated that if Darwin were here today he would be embarrassed about his own assumptions.

Well , I can't wait until every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that He is Lord!!!! Then we will know who was right!!!!

In my humble opinion, I believe the best point raised by Ham was that because you can not reproduce, recreate or proof in a control environment ie. a bird becoming a cat or a rose becoming a pine tree, etc. it takes as much FAITH to believe in either argument.

@Michael Kelsey.. to clarify I used term "evolution/naturalist model" with naturalism to more broadly include things outside biology such as physics and chemistry. I am familiar with a fair number of your references. Also, for your benefit, I am systems and nuclear engineer and worked at Los Alamos Lab on the ground test accelerator project.

Ken Ham blew it last night with his "Young Earth" theory. If he had just come out and said that science is right in line with creation and creationism, it would have been a different outcome. Let's start out with God created the heavens and the earth... with a word God spoke the universe into creation (The BIG Bang), and all the elements began to form and coalesce into what are now galaxies, suns and planets and on some, a wonderful process began, which is life. The process continued and after millions of years and many changes, life as we know it today slowly became a reality. Then man, who was the smartest of the animals realized God and HIS power over all creation, and worshiped HIM. Today we know so much more than we did even 10 years ago, much less 6000 years ago. We now know, for instance, that man has been around for much longer then that. But when did he really become aware of much more than just the basics? When did he begin to communicate and create language and then write down his understandings? We were not there, but we do know that there were several iterations of man, before we became what are now. Is that evolution? Why is that not God's plan?

@Ouija Meter.. thank you for giving some consideration to my comment. And to further clarify, these original 'intermediate' forms (kinds) each represented a high level of genetic diversity. Per a creation model, a primary initial mode of die out would have then been the flood and a major contributor to the fossil record. The flood would have then resulted in a new starting point with a less diverse secondary 'intermediate' form (thus the fossil record would be expected to show a significant set of extinct creatures). And post flood, as these secondary 'intermediate' forms continued to reproduce over time, resulting into increasingly specialized forms due to environmental preferences, the end result would be a high degree and diversity of specialization, with fewer and fewer options for adaptive responses to environmental change; thereby the risk of extinction increasing in likelihood. This was what Ham showed but did not explain well in his 'orchard' model.

I have to laugh at all the people who questioned the way Bill Nye phrased the view about the Big Bang being to origin of the Earth. The Big Bang created EVERYTHING in this expanding universe. While the Earth was not created at the moment of the Big Bang event, its eventual rise came from the light chemical elements that were created by the Big Bang (which is actually the wrong thing to call it since explosions don't occur in space in the same way they do here on Earth and what really occurred was the vast expansion of space from a very hot, dense point). Bill Nye won the debate. Hands down. Nye was able to cite scientifically proven facts that even the smallest child could understand given a proper explanation. Ham used the same worn out arguments that "creationists" spout any time anyone questions their so called faith. Regurgitating something from a book of anecdotes and fables does not make you an expert worthy of debating even the most inexperienced scientist. I have three degrees, one in theology, one in ecological/environmental microbiology and one in organismal evolutionary biology and not once in either of my three fields have I ever seen any concrete proof of any claim made in Bible, including an elderly man and 7 people having the ability to create an ark, a worldwide flood that has occurred in the last 6,000 years if the Biblical timeline is correct (which it most certainly is not), or two of every animal congregating onto said ark. Religion was created as a way to control the masses by those in power. It is why wars are waged...in order to distract the population from larger issues that affect them. What better way to distract them than to start a fight with a common enemy? Tell you what...here's a great experiment for all you creationists. Find a livestock farm and get permission to observe it over a few days. Watch a cow on its own for a day or two. Typically they make their own decisions and decide when to eat, sleep, where to go, etc. Then place said cow into the herd. Watch how quickly they confirm to the herd mentality. No farm available? Go to any elevator in any nearby building and stand backwards and ride it up and down for a while. As people start to pile in, watch how quickly they mimic you, especially if someone else is doing it. THAT'S herd mentality...and that is what religion uses to make you conform and control you. Science allows individuals to reason and research issues, versus religions, which say worship or go to a fictional place where you will burn for questioning the herd mentality. For once, try not being one of the "sheeple" and disagree with the herd. Once you do that, you'll be able to open your eyes and view the world (and the universe) in a whole new light.

I thought that Bill Nye was pretty slick and successful in turning the debate into a means for political manipulation! ......Even though this debate was supposed to be between the viability of evolution compared to special creation. In that aspect I thought he scored really high! Rather than sticking to the topic of debate, he soundly attacked and ridiculed Ken Ham and the Bible! However in doing so, he left Ken Ham wide open to present a well organized, logical argument both for Biblical creation as well as against the inconsistent geological arguments which evolution attempts to promote.
Here are a number of points for consideration:

1.Ham successfully argued that evolutionary theory is an un-testable theory which can not be tested by true scientific methods. This relegates "belief" in evolutionary "science" to the same level as "belief" in creation.

2. Nye was able to offer No falsifiable experimental proof of his evolutionary scientific conclusions. His named "predictions" were actually predictions based upon evidence derived from recent observational science. Ham admittedly had no conflict with observational science which supports the creation model as well as Nye's claim for evolution.

3. Nye offered no substantial geological evidence of progressive evolution to support evolution's claims. This after hundreds of years of fruitless geologic research. Ken Ham lost a great opportunity to capitalize on Nye's reference to Grand Canyon geology supposedly "proving" hundreds of millions of years of age between the sedimentary deposits. All Ham would have had to do is show the Grand Canyon photo which displays those ancient layers all "folded" in a loop with no cracks or breakage proving that they were all plastic at the time they were simultaneously folded! That was a great score for Bill Nye!

4. Nye neglected to offer an explanation for the inherent intelligence found in the atomic elements resulting from evolution's "Big Bang" from which organized matter/substance "evolves". (Of course we all know that in evolutionary terms, "time" = "intelligence") Ham effectively pointed out that intelligent organization of matter requires a source of intelligence in order for it to organize. That source is of course the Creator of this universe in which we live!

5. Nye's claim that evolution works opposite the normal hierarchical processes does not eliminate the need for inherent intelligence required for a selective process of elimination. How can non-intelligence possibly know when the most intelligent choice has been made? Evolution's proposed processes are Contrary to logic - which (logic) in itself is intelligence.

6. Nye's Evolutionary theory is Contrary to all falsifiable proofs of the laws of physics and chemistry under which this universe is organized. Unfortunately, though he alluded to it, Ham neglected to hammer that point home as well.

7. Nye's evolutionary science had No explanation for the origin of matter or energy in the universe which violates another of the basic laws of physics - Cause & Effect? (Sorry, but the "big bang" just removes evolution one step away from the same question.)

8. Neither debater offered any explanation for the appearance of the incredibly organized human brain which allows the evolutionist to develop such a complex theory without material substantiation, or the Creationist to recognize and relate to an intelligent Creator. Well, maybe Ham did allude to it........ God, the Creator designed it!

9. Neither had an explanation for the incredible information stored in the single celled human zygote which is able to manufacture the multi-trillion celled, self sustaining structure which houses the human soul and spirit for its short duration of earthly existence, prior to its final place of eternal abode....... well, maybe Ham alluded to that as well.......

10. It should have been pointed out that scientists, out of all classes of people, should recognize the unmistakable fingerprint of the Creator of this universe with all that it encompasses - including themselves, along with the unmistakable message that each of us are accountable to Him Whom has offered us the incredible gift of eternal life! This of course, through forgiveness of our sinful rejection of Him, by the means of the substitutionary death of His Son Jesus Christ of Nazareth! (Oh yes, Ham did point that out....... several times.) Oh by the way, the Bible also points out that Jesus Himself was the means by which God the Father created the universe!

The most important question coming out of this debate for anyone to consider is this: Won't you wisely consider repenting from your dis-belief and willingly receive Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and Lord?

Approach The Creator and let Him know that you are willing to trust in Him if He will give you the ability to believe!

Bill Nye's "observational science" is an ever-changing understanding based on available information to date. Whereas our belief/trust/faith is in the absolute truth provided us by God, the creator of all. Frankly, all the debate in the world can not bring someone to the truth without them coming to the point of being willing to breech that chasm with faith in Jesus. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit, not just the Bible, points us to truth.

Sadly, I believe that Ken Ham let go a lot of softball issues brought up by Bill Nye. Many of his arguments have been answered before, like the so-called 'annual' ice rings, which are no such thing. Or issues of the creation of the Grand canyon and its layers, the complete lack of an actual 'fossil record' or geologic column anywhere outside of textbooks. So much has been clearly answered.
I believe the main point Ham tried to make was that both sides use the same information, the same evidence, but both view it from disticntly differing and, ultimately, unprovable positions, in this life, at least.
Nye also, with his continual insistenace that if someone believes in biblical creation negates their ability to 'do good science' as it were, is both ridiculous and false, ignoring the fact that he, and many like him, are standing squarely upon the shoulders of Bible-believeing creationists like Copernicus, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur, Morse, and a multitude of others, amy who are literally the fathers of many branches of science. As well, what does evolutionary thought have to do with the invention of the cell phone, with or without a camera, a car, any new technology? Absolutely nothing as seen by the inventor of the MRI, a creationist Christian.
No, I think the whole debate was overall poorly done, as the format was useless-should have been more back-and-forth, rather than two periods of two guys giving their arguments, but not really answering each other's points.

"[All you need to know about young earth creationism is that it] is God’s word, and the FAQ on the matter is the Bible."

Well, the FAQ on the matter is *a particular interpretation* of the Bible, which is often *assumed* to be the correct one by young earth creationists and many of those in the secular world who criticize them.

Careful reading of texts is not something people are generally trained in, and that is part of the problem. People don't even begin, usually, by asking the question (and I mean *really* asking the question), "What sort of text is this?"

If they did, they would find that there are a number of problems with the view that the Genesis accounts (plural—Genesis 1:1-2:3 is often treated as one account, and Genesis 2:4-25 is often treated as another) are intended as historical scientific accounts.

If they are, then there are some oddities that require explaining. But again, that's operating under the assumption that these texts are intended to function the way a modern scientific textbook is.

If you're interested in people who want to read the Bible on its own terms and the natural world on *its* own terms, please check out (and by all means, critique) this group of folks: http://biologos.org/.

@Michael baird I agree that if a god can do anything, that it could have made an unseaworthy boat float and all the rest of that crazy stuff. But then we are self-evidently well into the realm of supernatural explanations, not science. The debate was about if Ham's flavour of creationism was a valid basis for science, and it demonstrably was demonstrated not to be, even by what Ham said.

Science can tell us how we became human, religion can tell us how to be human. Respect for each other’s "magisteria" is the way forward for the religious and scientific alike.

It certainly is interesting, and a little distressing, to see the knots people twist themselves into in order to defend the congenital liar Ham and his views.
The Grand Canyon doesn't support the explanations of science? There is something wrong with realizing that as we gain knowledge existing descriptions can be improved? (As compared to sticking with the writings first organized by goat herders and re-written and re-organized in years since by men with the goal of maintaining their own power.) Statements like

Ham successfully argued that evolutionary theory is an un-testable theory ...

that make sense only to people unwilling to learn?

The

Bible is true...EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY EQUATION SAYS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AND 6 DAYS ARE BOTH TRUE DEPENDING ON SPACE-TIME COORDINATES; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.99999999999999999999999999999999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119988e-12; PLACING YHWH 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.
distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 - 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photons
space time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light survived, hence time kicks in), this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years; 6 OF OUR DAYS ARE STRETCHED OUT AND CONTAIN 14 BILLION EARLY YEARS OF THE UNIVERSE

*respectfully*
let's start without the math...lets be theoretical
When you get closer to light speed...time slows down
When you reach light speed...time stops for you (NASA has an article online saying this..and its well known)
So if someone were near the farthest photons...travelling near light speed...that persons time would get really really slow depending on their velocity
we know that relativity is true...we have to reset the time of satellites every day
gravity stretches space...when space is stretched...time slows down
the universe is stretching
a billion light years away is a billion years ago...two billion lights years away is two billion years ago
all astronomers interpret the stretching of space as the stretching of time
whether the time is literal 6 days or not has been a long dabate among bible believers
Schroeder is saying the 6 days is where the Bible says YHWH is at...above the universe...and that since the early universe time was not stretched out it was much faster so the math shows that 6 of our days contain 14 billion years when the universe was not as stretched..all scientist know stretching of space slows time down
the vedic indians said a day with their deities was hundreds of thousands of years
the bible has relativity in many places...it says a 1000 years is as a day, and as a watch in the night (about 3 hours); Other passages that were written decades after Christ said this is the last hour (deacades) it would appear that there is relativity in the Bible
The ENGLISH translations did butcher the HEBREW LANGUAGE of genesis one
Here is the order in Hebrew...
*********
darkness on the surface of the deep (black hole, abyss in septuigint)
light...singular not plural..there is only one light...1000 years ago there were Jews saying the universe began smaller than a grain of mustard
light separates from darkness as the universe cools to the point that photons are freed
atmosphere is formed and things start seperating
land and water on the earth seperate to for sea and land (singular)
land and seas become plural
plants are formed from the eretz (earth) eretz can mean dirt, land, nation, or the globe...the oldest fossils we have resemble plantlike structures...some of the ancient jewish theologians said plants were begun this time by their creation was ongoing through the rest of the days
the atmosphere becomes oxygenated and sun, moon and starlight reaches the earth...shines upon the earth...Genesis stresse two times the sun shined down on the earth...made in hebrew is asah...
also all the tenses in Gen 1 are imperfect in the hebrew language...
the Hebrew word for made is...
asah-to do, fashion, accomplish, make
(Qal)
to do, work, make, produce
to do
to work
to deal (with)
to act, act with effect, effect
to make
to make
to produce
to prepare
to make (an offering)
to attend to, put in order
to observe, celebrate
to acquire (property)
to appoint, ordain, institute
to bring about
to use
to spend, pass
as you see...asah does NOT necessarily mean "made from scratch" there are many other meanings such as work, deal, act with effect, perpare, attend to, put in order, observe, celebrate, acquire, appoint, ordain, institute, use, spend
this era is when the atmosphere became oxygenated and is very near the time that the luminosity of the sun began to rise intsead of plummeting
two times the text says the sun shined upon the earth
set (nathan)-to give, put, set
(Qal)
to give, bestow, grant, permit, ascribe, employ, devote, consecrate, dedicate, pay wages, sell, exchange, lend, commit, entrust, give over, deliver up, yield produce, occasion, produce, requite to, report, mention, utter, stretch out, extend
to put, set, put on, put upon, set, appoint, assign, designate
to make, constitute
here you can see that set can mean a good number of things
this era...something significant did happen with the sun moon and stars..they became visible on the eart and the suns luminosity began to rise
another point to prove my point...in Job 38 it places stars before the earth..therefore asah does not mean made from scratch
another point..look up the dictionaries online...a reflector can be called a light...see for yourself...the dictionaries say it
if the bulb in a flashlight is gone..is it still not called a light?
************
continuing...
tanniyn- dragon, serpent, sea monster
dragon or dinosaur
sea or river monster
serpent, venomous snake
as you can see...most of the definitions are reptiles or amphibians
unfortunately..the KJV translated it as whales becuase they were not aware of these other things
1000 years ago..there were Jewish theologions that knew this was reptiles
owph-flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
fowl, birds
winged insects
unfortunately the KJV translators were not aware of the flying insects and their large sizes...KJV chose birds when the Hebrew intended flying insects
************
Also Eve was created from adam
Create (bara)-to create, shape, form
(Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
of heaven and earth
of individual man
of new conditions and circumstances
of transformations
as you see...bara can mean to transform...actually Eve was transformed from Adam..YHWH didnt make her from scratch...he used Adams body and DNA
therefore...YHWH could have made animals from animals
unfortunately...many christians and atheists are too lazy to open a dictionary...even the websters english says that create can simply mean to change appearance of something
************
The English botched the Hebrew...but the Hebrew is actually in harmony with the modern scientific record...if you go by the Hebrew and not the English...as you can see
the original Hebrew tenses are imperfect meaning ongoing action rather than completed that day
and 6 days near the outer universe are 14 billion years here...it all depends on your velocity and how much space has been stretched..this is basic physics without the math...so its easier to understand...its in all physics texts
I counted about 18 things in all in Genesis in the correct order..the permutations are 18! are 1 in 10^15 odds or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 odds

there are 2000 fulfilled prophecies in the Bible the avarage odds are 1 in 10 each meaning the total odds are 1 in 10^2000
1 in 1 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 odds

Fred Hoyle estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!
Dr Harold Morowitz the probability of the chance formation of the simplest, smallest lifeform know, is about 1 in 1*10^340,000,000. Dr Carl Sagan, odds against the simplest of life forms taking shape on our planet by chance. 1 in 1*10^2,000,000,000. Dawkins, Gould, Morowitz, Nye all said -no one knows how life started. Mr. Dawkins do you know of a mutation that increases the information of a Genome *Dawkins rolls his eyes, drops his jaw looking lost for an answer* Stephen J. Gould: “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University. “Evolution’s Erratic Pace”, Natural History Vol. 5, May 1977).In 1982 Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in Biology after discovering DNA, wrote:"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the Origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, Futura, London 1982).Sir Fred Hoyle, a famous UK astronomer, wrote: "A super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology … The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number of 10 with 40 thousand noughts (zeros) after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of a purposeful intelligence," (Nature: vol.294:105, Nov 12 1981).In 1930 British physicist Sir James Jeans wrote:"Nature seems very conversant with the rules of pure mathematics … In the same way, a scientific study of the action of the Universe has suggested a conclusion which may be summed up… in the statement that the Universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician… the Universe can best be pictured, although still very imperfectly and inadequately, as consisting of pure thought… If the Universe is a Universe of thought, then its Creation must have been an act of thought. Indeed the finiteness of space compels us to think of the creator as working outside time and space, which are part of his Creation, just as an artist is outside his canvas," (The Mysterious Universe p 146).NASA astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote:Robert Jastrow "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a Biblical view of the Origin of the world: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply in a definite moment of time, in a flash of light and energy", (God and the Astronomers, page 14).Physicist and Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias wrote:"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, an Universe which was created out of nothing, one with a very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."Robert Shapiro wrote:"The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the Universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle","The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature.Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358."[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition)."The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or faith? L. H. Matthews, introduction to Origin of Species 1872 Darwin: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."’Letter to Asa Gray, 18 June [1857] (see the letter)

EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY TEACHES THAT 6 DAYS ABOVE THE UNIVERSE AND 13.7 BILLION YEARS HERE WOULD PASS AT THE SAME TIME
relativity teaches that the faster a person goes the slower their time occurs...as a person approaches the speed of light their time gets slower...YHWH is near the farthest photons ..the farthest objects in the universe...he is moving away from us near the speed of light riding the universe...below is a rocket simulation from a science website using the same principle..the rocket experiences a day ..the earth observers days are listed under the days column.

here is einsteins time dilation formula
T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;

now...plugging in the 13.7 billion years in days, and the 6 days we get...

13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.99999999999999999999999999999999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119988e-12

.99999999999999999999999999999999% speed of light is near the farthest photons (objects) in the universe...assuming Gott is correct on the 93 billion light year estimated width of the universe...this amounts to 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons

here is the rocket example form a non associated science site...

Rest Frame Time Elapsed
per Day on Ship
v/c Days Years
0.0 1.00 0.003
0.1 1.01 0.003
0.2 1.02 0.003
0.3 1.05 0.003
0.4 1.09 0.003
0.5 1.15 0.003
0.6 1.25 0.003
0.7 1.40 0.004
0.8 1.67 0.005
0.9 2.29 0.006
0.95 3.20 0.009
0.97 4.11 0.011
0.99 7.09 0.019
0.995 10.01 0.027
0.999 22.37 0.061
0.9999 70.71 0.194
0.99999 223.61 0.613
0.999999 707.11 1.937
0.9999999 2236.07 6.126
0.99999999 7071.07 19.373
0.999999999 22360.68 61.262
0.9999999999 70710.68 193.728
0.99999999999 223606.79 612.621
0.999999999999 707114.60 1937.300
0.9999999999999 2235720.41 6125.261
0.99999999999999 7073895.38 19380.535
0.999999999999999 22369621.33 61286.634

.99999999999999999999999999999999 13.7 billion years (age of universe) and 6 days for the person moving near light speed

Bible is true...EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY EQUATION SAYS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AND 6 DAYS ARE BOTH TRUE DEPENDING ON SPACE-TIME COORDINATES; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.99999999999999999999999999999999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119988e-12; PLACING YHWH 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 - 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photonsspace time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light survived, hence time kicks in), this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years; 6 OF OUR DAYS ARE STRETCHED OUT AND CONTAIN 14 BILLION EARLY YEARS OF THE UNIVERSE
create is bara in hebrew and can mean to transform
made is asah in hebrew and means to work on-not to make from scratch
tenses are imperfect in original hebrew
tanniyn usually means giant reptile rather than whale
owph could mean winged insect or fowl...insects are what appears in the fossil order

odds, origin of DNA code, how life started(scientifically)-dawkins said nobody knows, there is no proven means of increasing complexity by chance, the fossil record is mostly gaps, human changes are too rapid for chance mutations, quote their own showing the pitfalls

actually the 6 days work out to be 1/2 millimeter from the farthest photons when you plug in the numbers...but...if you read the first verse the heavens and earth were created before they were created because the tense is perfect then the word and (waw vav) means the 6 days of creation follow...to they were finished before they were created..then chapter 2 says they were created in a day...so..we have 3 different times

by the way...verse 1:1 where it was finished before the full 6 days...woud place YHWH even closer to the farthest photons..paper thin closeness or smaller

there are only two ways to interpret this
1. the days are symbolic
2. the day are literal which would mean relativity

gone forever are the days that time is a difficulty...thanks to Einstein

begat does not always mean a direct decsendant..there are gaps of generations in the bible that are 100's of years...also the jews in the talmud believed there were people before adam but adam was perhaps the first spiritual man

Bill Nye won the debate? Really? When asked the question of where does matter come from and where did conscience come from in humans, his response was "I don't know." He was so lame. There is an infinite amount that he doesn't know. There are plenty of famous scientists throughout history who believed in creationism (Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, etc.) Is he smarter than they? NO

Too bad Duane Gish passed away, it would have been a different story.

Wow, John Doe's insanely long and incoherent rant is an example of a self-refuting argument. Not that it supports the idea that Cretinists, er, Creationists are deluded schizophrenics who love to spew out reams of insane garbage...

To John Doe: I did not read your entire diatribe but quickly noticed a couple things you need to recalculate. First, a 'light year' is 6 trillion miles in distance, so "a billion light years away is a billion years ago…two billion lights years away is two billion years ago" is not even close to accurate but must be multiplied by 6 trillion to determine the number of years represented. Secondly, when God 'created' Eve, the Bible used a different word, not 'bara', but a word with an architectural reference meaning to build or sculpt into a form, as in art. In other words, Adam was made (bara), but Eve was BUILT! And when Adam saw her for the first time, the Hebrew describes his reaction as 'stuttering", such as "And me, as for me, I......" It does not translate into English as such and thereby loses his response & facts of the event!

All this recent talk debating evolution/creation (ultimately for some the existence of God) with Bill Nye The Science Guy and Ken Ham is exciting. As many may know, this is a non discussion for me personally. In 2005 I was dead for 30 minutes of a heart attack at age 50 and met God. He shielded his brilliant overwhelming glory from view behind a gray screen that could barely contain His awesome power and light. Unfortunately, non-believers will not take my word for it! In the end, each person will discover while here on earth that God is real by faith and that he created all that is, or at the very least in the end, each will discover God from the dark foreboding reality of the grave. Hopefully, not the latter, it may be too late. My testimony is in the book "Proof of the Afterlife - The Conversation Continues." All proceeds from it are donated to Servants of the Father of Mercy - they deliver food, water, clothing, blankets and spiritual supplies to the homeless living remotely under bridges and in alleyways. There's real proof that God is real!

I am a doctor and scientist. One thing that is never brought up in these types of debates that discuss how science works, is the following. Acceptable knowledge is built from observation through hypothesis generation to experimentation to more observation. Ultimately, if a body of knowledge is supported enough, a generalized theory and be voiced. BUT.... Pointing out rare observations that do not clearly fit are not theory-breakers. Any alternative theory, such as creationism, MUST ALSO EXPLAIN all of the other observations. So, creationism must also explain the red shift evidence that the earth is 13 billion years old. It must explain the dozens of intermediate horse fossils showing their evolution. There are billions...BILLIONS...of individual pieces of data that must be individually explained by an alternative theory. Creationism has no explanation for the VAST majority of these. Until it can, IT IS NOT SCIENCE. IT SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT AS SCIENCE.

@ Tom Gentry:
you state that "There are plenty of famous scientists throughout history who believed in creationism (Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur"

Can you site where they (Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur) have said to the public that they believe in Creationism?

Were you there?

Evolutionist presume that the world was created by the Big Bang. How is it that something can come out of nothing? The complexity of our DNA and genes are so much more complex than anything in the world. Look at a tv, someone designed it. It didn't come out of nothing. At the end of Darwin's life he said that he was wrong. Carbon dating is also unreliable. Two scientist took out a shell of a living mussel and carbon dated it and it dated to 2000 years even though the mussel only lived for a

A couple years. Evolutionism is not observable, measurable, or repeatable therefore it is not considered true science.

For us to genetically mutate is impossible. Almost always mutations are bad if not please tell me what mutation has actually done something that helped humans. Hugo de vries said that the giraffes stretched their neck because all the bottom leaves of the trees were gone. If their necks got longer the children wouldn't have long necks because the long necks don't occur in the gametes. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
II Peter 3:3-6 - (66 AD)

@Daniel #42: You ask "please tell me what mutation has actually done something that helped humans." I can name two specific point mutations right off the top of my head: one, the mutation which causes sickle-cell anemia, and which also confers immunity against malaria (presumably, the sickle-cell is a side effect); and two, the mutation which extended lactose tolerance from childhood into adulthood. We know those are both mutations because they only appear in _some_ human populations, not all.

Why exactly are you bringing up Lamarkism? Or is it that your scientific education stops in the seventeenth century, like your religious education?

It seems to me that Michael Kelsey's comment – that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis and never will – denies the entire purpose of the debate. He even seems to chastise Heath for suggesting the theory of evolution has ever had anything to do with the origin of life. Maybe evolution has no business addressing origins, as Kelsey suggests, but the evolution "package" includes a closed system minus any Creator. Therefore, proponents of evolution do not shrink from offering theories about how life might develop from non-living material. Any debate with a "creationist" is by definition about origins.

Bad news. A non countably infinite number of theories exist to explain any observations for the same reason an equal set of functions can generate any set of data points.

Doe - You can't back into statistics like that. Imagine all the variables involved in everyone that is here comenting on this blog is... well, here to comment on it. Every great great grandma having that specific baby who grew up and married that other specific person with all their life variables, etc, etc, etc until there was us who happened to be interested in this topic, speak English, find this blog....etc, etc... how many zeros do you suppose are involved; and yet, here we are...

The major problem with debating religious people in a scientific debate is that the religious believe in MAGIC. Clear and simple. If a person who values truth and science say that no one could stay alive in the belly of a great fish then the religious person can go to their default: god, miracles and faith.
I think the best way to treat this situation is through the Socratic method of asking questions. If we can make them question their beliefs then we can promote critical thinking and through critical thinking people will look towards science.

@Daniel #42 and Michael #43: Specifically there is a single mutation in the most common form of Sickle Cell disease that results in a single amino acid difference in one of the four chains of hemoglobin. The switch forms hemoglobin that is less deformable than "normal hemoglobin. The less "deformable hemoglobin is the more likely red blood cells will prematurely break down as they transit the micro-circulation. This can and does result in anemia as well as other significant pathology that in total result in a much shortened life span. The genetics of Sickle Cell Disease is called autosomal recessive. Recessive traits are expressed only if gametes from both father and mother have the mutation. If only one gamete has the mutation no expression is seen. It can be easily seen from this that two parents who have the trait for the disease (Heterozygous) but are not affected will have the following pattern of offspring: 1/4 will have no mutation; 1/2 will be heterozygous for the mutation and 1/4 will have the disease. By chance, being heterozygous for Sickle Trait gives measurable protection against the parasite that causes Malaria. DNA anthropology can now trace the origin of this mutation to Equatorial Africa a region where Malaria is rampant. Here we can see that for parents who are heterozygous for Sickle trait 1/4th of their offspring will not have the mutation and will not have protection against malaria. In all probability they have a lower chance of survival into adulthood and to have offspring themselves. 1/4th of the offspring will be homozygous for the mutation and have sickle cell disease and will also have poorer prospects for survival. But 1/2 of the offspring will have the protective characteristic of the trait and will enjoy protection from malaria. In a similar evaluation 1/2 of offspring from one parent who is heterozygous and another who does not carry the mutation will be protected. In the case of Sickle cell disease we know from the science of genetics and chemistry that the seemingly irreducibly complexity of the genetics and biochemistry of this disease can be deciphered.

God spoke into existence a universe with the appearance of age. It has to be this way. Everything created by man has an appearance of age especially when taking into account the sum and history of a product and its parts.
To me the most amazing thing is that around the globe "Recorded History" is recognized at about 4-6000 years BC. Isn't it fascinating that with the millions upon millions of years we have with humans evolving in complexity we only have recorded events and dialogue for the last 6-8000 years.
Shouldn't we have evidence of recorded history long before this or did human evolution not attain the necessary skill set until 6000 years ago? This would be millions of years after much of our cognitive and social skills were developed and reinforced throughout human culture and subcultures.
It does not make sense - at all. We should have a much longer documented and recorded history if evolution is true.
Do not rely upon "cave paintings and drawings" as examples - these cannot be dated. They will use material found in the vicinity of a "cave painting" date that material and then extrapolate the results to the painting or drawings. Hardly scientific.
If any recorded information could be found that was 20 - 100 thousand years ago then evolutionists would have a case, but they can't make a case without evidence. They have to admit that the oldest recorded history we have is under 10,000 years old. That admission up against millions of years of complex human evolution doesn't look good - at all.
Doesn't it seem peculiar that humans have only recently figured out the intricacies of written/visual communication and the means to do. These facts, against the backdrop of millions and millions of years, doesn't seem plausible? Evolutionists are not fighting creationists at this point they are trying to fight historical facts. We should be discussing documentation that goes back hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.
It is too much to swallow that it took millions of years to get to an era when knowledge and the means to gaining knowledge just happened to explode over a 6000 year period. Pure fantasy.
Frankly if what evolutionary scientists say is true it would make sense that the evolution / creation debate should have been settled a million years ago.

Interesting points from people here. Heath, I think you had a good analysis.

I do think that both Nye and Ham made some good points and there were some thought-provoking moments. I admit that I disagreed with both of them at times.

For instance, when Nye was insisting that science would stagnate if people were brought up believing in creationism. Prior to Darwinism, I believe there were many people who believed in a form of Creationism and that did not halt scientific progress. Granted I understand his concern that perhaps the pursuit of some of the big questions might be halted if people thought they had all of the answers.

Ham kept mentioning the "we don't know because we weren't there" thing. My comment on that front would be that we don't know because we weren't there when things were written down for the Bible so we don't know if the accounts were true. We only have these stories and we don't know if they were truly historical, or exaggerations, or flat out fables. His assumption that eyewitness reports are more accurate is also very faulty. Studies have shown that human memory of events can be extremely faulty and subject to change via subtle suggestions. That is why there will be different stories from different people who were present at the same event. Not only does the brain fill in the blanks when things are not remembered clearly, but there is also the way people interpret/perceive things. Some people interpreted the debate as seeing that Nye won and others interpreted the result as Ham winning. Now, if something is filmed/recorded with instruments then it can be more trustworthy.
I disagreed with Nye's assertion that America was the absolute leader in science. There are other countries that are inventing things and making discoveries at a faster/more prolific rate than America-- but he did admit to his patriotism which I think had skewed his perception.
Back to Ham, I disagreed with his assumption that science was all based on Christianity. Did he forget that there was science before Christianity existed?
I gave points to Nye for pointing out that the Bible has been translated and that Ham was picking and choosing what he wanted to believe as literal from the Bible and then trying to claim that he was some sort of authority on interpreting it.
On the taking Genesis literally front, I wanted to sit down and suggest to Ham that one of the reasons many Christians don't support the young earth theory is because some view Gensis as a metaphor for growing up and becoming enlightened. As young children we are protected by our parents and we trust them implicitly. Many children view their parents as infallible. Then when they grow older they become aware that things are not perfect. They gain knowledge. They realize that the world is a dangerous place.
Also, if one is going to try to use the timeline in Genesis, remember that the Bible basically says that 1,000 years is the blink of an eye to God. Humans are supposed to be made in the image of God and the average human blinks once every five seconds. So they blink about 17,280 times. Well, multiply that by 1,000. We get 17,280,000. Now, that might not equate billions of years, but it is well over the proposed 6,000 years. Also, if the earth did not exist to have days, how would a day even be interpreted? There is no frame of reference for the actual duration pre-existence of the Earth and its solar system.
I respect Ham's conviction in his beliefs, but I do think he loses some credibility when he keeps going back to the "because the Bible told me so" mantra.
As someone else here pointed out: What makes the Bible any more accurate/true than other religious texts? Ham's arguments about what the Bible had that other texts didn't was weak and inaccurate. I wonder if anyone has ever mentioned to him that many of the Biblical stories borrow heavily from pre-existing mythology and just alters things-- a bit like Harry Potter. While I do think there is *some* historical merit to the Bible, I think there is a lot of embellishment. There were also groups who omitted and added things to the Bible in order to suit their agendas and control the masses.
I have to agree with Nye that it is wrong to indoctrinate children with Creationism in public schools. If parents want to teach their children that, then they should be able to do so.
Sorry for rambling so much.

To some no explanation is needed. To others no explanation will do.
From: St. Bernadette Soubirous, Lourdes, France

Bible is true...EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY EQUATION SAYS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AND 6 DAYS ARE BOTH TRUE DEPENDING ON SPACE-TIME COORDINATES; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.99999999999999999999999999999999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119988e-12; PLACING YHWH 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.
distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 - 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photons
space time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light survived, hence time kicks in), this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years; 6 OF OUR DAYS ARE STRETCHED OUT AND CONTAIN 14 BILLION EARLY YEARS OF THE UNIVERSE

*respectfully*
let's start without the math...lets be theoretical
When you get closer to light speed...time slows down
When you reach light speed...time stops for you (NASA has an article online saying this..and its well known)
So if someone were near the farthest photons...travelling near light speed...that persons time would get really really slow depending on their velocity
we know that relativity is true...we have to reset the time of satellites every day
gravity stretches space...when space is stretched...time slows down
the universe is stretching
all astronomers interpret the stretching of space as the stretching of time
whether the time is literal 6 days or not has been a long dabate among bible believers
Schroeder is saying the 6 days is where the Bible says YHWH is at...above the universe...and that since the early universe time was not stretched out it was much faster so the math shows that 6 of our days contain 14 billion years when the universe was not as stretched..all scientist know stretching of space slows time down
the vedic indians said a day with their deities was hundreds of thousands of years
the bible has relativity in many places...it says a 1000 years is as a day, and as a watch in the night (about 3 hours); Other passages that were written decades after Christ said this is the last hour (deacades) it would appear that there is relativity in the Bible
The ENGLISH translations did butcher the HEBREW LANGUAGE of genesis one
Here is the order in Hebrew...
*********
darkness on the surface of the deep (black hole, abyss in septuigint)
light...singular not plural..there is only one light...1000 years ago there were Jews saying the universe began smaller than a grain of mustard
light separates from darkness as the universe cools to the point that photons are freed
atmosphere is formed and things start seperating
land and water on the earth seperate to for sea and land (singular)
land and seas become plural
plants are formed from the eretz (earth) eretz can mean dirt, land, nation, or the globe...the oldest fossils we have resemble plantlike structures...some of the ancient jewish theologians said plants were begun this time by their creation was ongoing through the rest of the days
the atmosphere becomes oxygenated and sun, moon and starlight reaches the earth...shines upon the earth...Genesis stresse two times the sun shined down on the earth...made in hebrew is asah...
also all the tenses in Gen 1 are imperfect in the hebrew language...
the Hebrew word for made is...
asah-to do, fashion, accomplish, make
(Qal)
to do, work, make, produce
to do
to work
to deal (with)
to act, act with effect, effect
to make
to make
to produce
to prepare
to make (an offering)
to attend to, put in order
to observe, celebrate
to acquire (property)
to appoint, ordain, institute
to bring about
to use
to spend, pass
as you see...asah does NOT necessarily mean "made from scratch" there are many other meanings such as work, deal, act with effect, perpare, attend to, put in order, observe, celebrate, acquire, appoint, ordain, institute, use, spend
this era is when the atmosphere became oxygenated and is very near the time that the luminosity of the sun began to rise intsead of plummeting
two times the text says the sun shined upon the earth
set (nathan)-to give, put, set
(Qal)
to give, bestow, grant, permit, ascribe, employ, devote, consecrate, dedicate, pay wages, sell, exchange, lend, commit, entrust, give over, deliver up, yield produce, occasion, produce, requite to, report, mention, utter, stretch out, extend
to put, set, put on, put upon, set, appoint, assign, designate
to make, constitute
here you can see that set can mean a good number of things
this era...something significant did happen with the sun moon and stars..they became visible on the eart and the suns luminosity began to rise
another point to prove my point...in Job 38 it places stars before the earth..therefore asah does not mean made from scratch
another point..look up the dictionaries online...a reflector can be called a light...see for yourself...the dictionaries say it
if the bulb in a flashlight is gone..is it still not called a light?
************
continuing...
tanniyn- dragon, serpent, sea monster
dragon or dinosaur
sea or river monster
serpent, venomous snake
as you can see...most of the definitions are reptiles or amphibians
unfortunately..the KJV translated it as whales becuase they were not aware of these other things
1000 years ago..there were Jewish theologions that knew this was reptiles
owph-flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
fowl, birds
winged insects
unfortunately the KJV translators were not aware of the flying insects and their large sizes...KJV chose birds when the Hebrew intended flying insects
************
Also Eve was created from adam
Create (bara)-to create, shape, form
(Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
of heaven and earth
of individual man
of new conditions and circumstances
of transformations
as you see...bara can mean to transform...actually Eve was transformed from Adam..YHWH didnt make her from scratch...he used Adams body and DNA
therefore...YHWH could have made animals from animals
unfortunately...many christians and atheists are too lazy to open a dictionary...even the websters english says that create can simply mean to change appearance of something
************
The English botched the Hebrew...but the Hebrew is actually in harmony with the modern scientific record...if you go by the Hebrew and not the English...as you can see
the original Hebrew tenses are imperfect meaning ongoing action rather than completed that day
and 6 days near the outer universe are 14 billion years here...it all depends on your velocity and how much space has been stretched..this is basic physics without the math...so its easier to understand...its in all physics texts
I counted about 18 things in all in Genesis in the correct order..the permutations are 18! are 1 in 10^15 odds or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 odds

there are 2000 fulfilled prophecies in the Bible the avarage odds are 1 in 10 each meaning the total odds are 1 in 10^2000
1 in 1 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 odds

Fred Hoyle estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!
Dr Harold Morowitz the probability of the chance formation of the simplest, smallest lifeform know, is about 1 in 1*10^340,000,000. Dr Carl Sagan, odds against the simplest of life forms taking shape on our planet by chance. 1 in 1*10^2,000,000,000. Dawkins, Gould, Morowitz, Nye all said -no one knows how life started. Mr. Dawkins do you know of a mutation that increases the information of a Genome *Dawkins rolls his eyes, drops his jaw looking lost for an answer* Stephen J. Gould: “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University. “Evolution’s Erratic Pace”, Natural History Vol. 5, May 1977).In 1982 Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in Biology after discovering DNA, wrote:"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the Origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, Futura, London 1982).Sir Fred Hoyle, a famous UK astronomer, wrote: "A super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology … The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number of 10 with 40 thousand noughts (zeros) after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of a purposeful intelligence," (Nature: vol.294:105, Nov 12 1981).In 1930 British physicist Sir James Jeans wrote:"Nature seems very conversant with the rules of pure mathematics … In the same way, a scientific study of the action of the Universe has suggested a conclusion which may be summed up… in the statement that the Universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician… the Universe can best be pictured, although still very imperfectly and inadequately, as consisting of pure thought… If the Universe is a Universe of thought, then its Creation must have been an act of thought. Indeed the finiteness of space compels us to think of the creator as working outside time and space, which are part of his Creation, just as an artist is outside his canvas," (The Mysterious Universe p 146).NASA astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote:Robert Jastrow "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a Biblical view of the Origin of the world: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply in a definite moment of time, in a flash of light and energy", (God and the Astronomers, page 14).Physicist and Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias wrote:"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, an Universe which was created out of nothing, one with a very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."Robert Shapiro wrote:"The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the Universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle","The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature.Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358."[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition)."The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or faith? L. H. Matthews, introduction to Origin of Species 1872 Darwin: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."’Letter to Asa Gray, 18 June [1857] (see the letter)

EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY TEACHES THAT 6 DAYS ABOVE THE UNIVERSE AND 13.7 BILLION YEARS HERE WOULD PASS AT THE SAME TIME
relativity teaches that the faster a person goes the slower their time occurs...as a person approaches the speed of light their time gets slower...YHWH is near the farthest photons ..the farthest objects in the universe...he is moving away from us near the speed of light riding the universe...below is a rocket simulation from a science website using the same principle..the rocket experiences a day ..the earth observers days are listed under the days column.

here is einsteins time dilation formula
T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;

now...plugging in the 13.7 billion years in days, and the 6 days we get...

13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.99999999999999999999999999999999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119988e-12

.99999999999999999999999999999999% speed of light is near the farthest photons (objects) in the universe...assuming Gott is correct on the 93 billion light year estimated width of the universe...this amounts to 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons

here is the rocket example form a non associated science site...

Rest Frame Time Elapsed
per Day on Ship
v/c Days Years
0.0 1.00 0.003
0.1 1.01 0.003
0.2 1.02 0.003
0.3 1.05 0.003
0.4 1.09 0.003
0.5 1.15 0.003
0.6 1.25 0.003
0.7 1.40 0.004
0.8 1.67 0.005
0.9 2.29 0.006
0.95 3.20 0.009
0.97 4.11 0.011
0.99 7.09 0.019
0.995 10.01 0.027
0.999 22.37 0.061
0.9999 70.71 0.194
0.99999 223.61 0.613
0.999999 707.11 1.937
0.9999999 2236.07 6.126
0.99999999 7071.07 19.373
0.999999999 22360.68 61.262
0.9999999999 70710.68 193.728
0.99999999999 223606.79 612.621
0.999999999999 707114.60 1937.300
0.9999999999999 2235720.41 6125.261
0.99999999999999 7073895.38 19380.535
0.999999999999999 22369621.33 61286.634

.99999999999999999999999999999999 13.7 billion years (age of universe) and 6 days for the person moving near light speed

Bible is true...EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY EQUATION SAYS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AND 6 DAYS ARE BOTH TRUE DEPENDING ON SPACE-TIME COORDINATES; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.99999999999999999999999999999999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119988e-12; PLACING YHWH 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 - 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photonsspace time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light survived, hence time kicks in), this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years; 6 OF OUR DAYS ARE STRETCHED OUT AND CONTAIN 14 BILLION EARLY YEARS OF THE UNIVERSE
create is bara in hebrew and can mean to transform
made is asah in hebrew and means to work on-not to make from scratch
tenses are imperfect in original hebrew
tanniyn usually means giant reptile rather than whale
owph could mean winged insect or fowl...insects are what appears in the fossil order

odds, origin of DNA code, how life started(scientifically)-dawkins said nobody knows, there is no proven means of increasing complexity by chance, the fossil record is mostly gaps, human changes are too rapid for chance mutations, quote their own showing the pitfalls

actually the 6 days work out to be 1/2 millimeter from the farthest photons when you plug in the numbers...but...if you read the first verse the heavens and earth were created before they were created because the tense is perfect then the word and (waw vav) means the 6 days of creation follow...to they were finished before they were created..then chapter 2 says they were created in a day...so..we have 3 different times

by the way...verse 1:1 where it was finished before the full 6 days...woud place YHWH even closer to the farthest photons..paper thin closeness or smaller

there are only two ways to interpret this
1. the days are symbolic
2. the day are literal which would mean relativity

gone forever are the days that time is a difficulty...thanks to Einstein

I am so sick of this debate and could spend hours if not days debating it yet refuse to get into it due to the ignorance of it in general.
Up front I do not believe in Evolution and that is not because I don't believe in science and not simply because I am a devout Christian. I don't believe in Evolution in summary due to the fact it is a Theory...at best even science refers to it and the big bang as a theory after 10 million alleged years.

Here is my basic up front simple guy argument.

1. Evolution is a theory that is not proven as stated above. There has been no noticeable change in anything I have seen in science or in life in my 33 years to support this except for weirdos who put their faith into it to be different.
2. Creation is real If i make a chair i created that and see results again there is not evolution (and change is not evolution) documented to my knowledge.
3. Time if the earth is that old why is evolution not still going on? Have you evolved? Why have animals not evolved to have thumbs or language like people? Why do giraffes (a common argument for evolution) still have long necks (the argument is they evolved to have long necks to eat trees leaves so why have they evolved back or why haven't other animals evolved to have long necks?
4. History: Science and History do not support the theory of the big bang or evolution. The bible whether you believe in it or not does serve as a history book from the time it says earth begins. If we have been around for 10 million years where is the history from that age period? Where are the evidence of the wars and civilizations from prior to 10,000 years ago? Why have in the last 2000 years we have went from Medival times to urban cities with electricty photo copy machines, cars, etc etc? Do you really think it took us 10 million years from the big bang to make a fire escape? If you think that is the case you are an idiot like the alledged cave man you believe in.

In short my logic is simple I believe the Bible is real and literal (I do not support the Gap theory like some other idiots) and can back my beliefs with logical facts in ordinary science history technology etc. I am not attempting to change anyone elses mind simply stating the idea of entertaining evolution is ignorance in my mind given the fact that nothing supports it minus the circular reasoning of the science community and the believers they create.

Final Point if you can put your faith in Science and believe that nothing exploded somehow creating everything and the life as we know it stick with it brother because that is way more faith then me and my family just believing in there is a God and he made us. Btw if you are right I just die no harm done. If I am right well you will regret your decision forever.

God Bless,
G

Post-Debate Answers Live w/Ken Ham (Feb. 5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IUHWp8XBpo#

Successful Predictions by Creation Scientists
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predict…

Bill Nye Scores on Debate Presentation if Not Logic
http://crev.info/2014/02/bill-nye-scores/

Clash over worldviews
http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate

Wow. Some very interesting posts and ideas from everyone on here.

For those of whom believe in the "GOD" almighty, your wrong. Sorry. Watch ZEITGEIST..it is the truth. Would you believe in a god 4,000 years from now if it said that a man today made the earth in the present now just because it is written in a book? Seriousaly..religion in general is a joke and the basis of all evil in the world. You all are just a bunch on cult belongings wackos who can't see past your own ignorance and are simple minded to be brain washed into such accusations. There is more evidence out there to support everything but what u believe to be true and for you to think that god put that evidence there to question your faith....come on. Enough said. Your not worth it because you can't even understand how stupid ken ham looks and acts in this debate.

http://9gag.com/gag/a096BBd

Ken Has changed my life, and my family! We now understand the "Words" God have given us, and we are now blessed to be the children of real science and scientist change our world! Christians must surrender their false hopes and recognize the model that has changed our world. Amen!

@Craig: thank you for making the point that bothered me most. Ham was allowed to get away with presenting the Bible as evidence that does not require corroboration because it is the Bible. Talk about a circular argument! (Creationists have no way of knowing whether the Bible was in fact written by Satan.)

I too was wrong about Bill Nye. He performed well and his performance will be a valuable thing to study for others. Congratulations Mr. Nye!

Greg: "Everything was formed by the Big Bang. Yet, nothing was formed by the Big Bang except a bunch of bosons and stuff." Of course, the building blocks were created. But the quote from the Chronicle said "the earth" was created. Was that an accurate quote of Bill Nye's statement? I don't think so.

G- You should've paid attention in junior high and high school. A basic understanding of biology and history will answer your elementary questions. Your answer of " God did it" is childish at best. Since the bible has all the answers, can you please let us know when it says that we will be able to finally travel to distant stars or communicate via invisible sounds thru magic wires? It can't you idiot, because it was written by superstitious desert dwellers with less knowledge of the world than today's 6th grader.

Kathy. If you wanted to learn what god actually wrote in the bible- shouldn't you at least invest time to read it in the language it was written in? Oh I guess you're too lazy

Nye got the prediction part of science well enough.
He could have used the “usefulness” part of science to cover where he uses “joy of discovery”, “assumptions”, “what you want to know”, and the “you weren’t there” counter. The joy of discovery is an evolved trait. “Usefulness” also sets the stage for we don’t know it all yet but we are learning.

Science is about the models of today. Nye could have lectured/corrected (a point) on the idea of prediction and to do science we make assumptions. If these assumptions (about the past) help make predictions – it’s good science. We don’t need to be there. Also counters the historical science (false science) thrust. The arguments about what really happened in the past is off point and not science. Science’s view of what happened in the past has changed. Therefore, we shouldn’t get hung up on describing the model of the past as if it is fact. For example, there are other models about the Big Bang such as the cyclic models, steady state models, etc. In religion there are eternal universe models with Gods being part of the universe.

Further science doesn’t have a model of everything. We are learning. So Nye’s comments about we have yet to learn things, but we will learn, is on point. This also takes care of the flagellum thing.

Prediction is publishing a forecast that has not yet been observed. Then later the thing is observed. Ham’s “predictions” were known when the bible was written. Therefore, not a prediction. Changing the definition of words is an ID (propaganda) thing that should be challenged. We should also distinguish between an indivual ID believer making a prediction and prediction of the model.

I disagree with Jason. Nye did a really good job all the way through. His later pushing prediction, the impact on the children of the future, the impact on the future of the US, and who sets the standards was to the point of ID in schools.

However, we see the new face of ID which is much more dangerous than the face presented in the debate with Jason. We also see the goal is the same – indoctrinate in schools.

Ham presented a good case for ID – one of the best I’ve seen. BUT Nye won the debate. Ham didn’t loose, Nye won. The target of such a debate is the religious people who would naturally be swayed by a Bible argument. Those who think Ham lost loose sight of who the target audience was. That Ham was targeting these folks seems obvious. It’s why he kept saying “Bible”. Given his target, he was not making a mistake in continually referring to the Bible as a source of everything.

Having said this, I would ask Nye about his response to the question about whether God created a universe with evolution rather than complexity. Did God create: (a) the universe in such a way that mankind would arise and complexity would increase. Or (b) the complexity and evolution couldn’t possibly do this – (the ID) case.
I think I understand science doesn’t want to speak of a specific religion such as God. But could bring up religion and case (a). Remember the focus is religious people who need to understand science not the IDers. Perhaps scientists should not be so afraid of referring to God or religion’s usefulness to mankind.

Nye also let Ham get away with the idea that evolution is toward increased complexity. Nye did start to get into it with the blind fish but lost his way. I think this ID thought will be seen in future debates. It needs to be countered. I suggest:
One of the most common misunderstandings of MODERN evolution (label it as a misunderstanding in the debate) is that one species can be “more highly evolved” than another, that evolution is necessarily progressive and/or leads to greater “complexity”, or that its converse is “devolution”. Evolution provides no assurance that later generations are more intelligent, complex, or morally worthy than earlier generations. The claim that evolution results in progress is NOT part of modern evolutionary theory; it derives from earlier belief systems that were held around the time Darwin devised his theory of evolution. Natural selection will only favor an increased complexity “progression” if it increases chance of survival, i.e. the ability to live long enough to raise offspring to reproductive (note not sexual) maturity. The same mechanism can actually favor lower intelligence, lower complexity, and so on if those traits become a selective advantage in the organism’s environment. One way of understanding the apparent “progression” of lifeforms over time is to remember that the earliest life began as maximally simple forms. Evolution caused life to become more complex, because becoming simpler wasn’t advantageous. Once individual lineages have attained sufficient complexity, however, simplifications (specialization) are as likely as increased complexity. This can be seen in many parasite species, for example, which have evolved simpler forms from more complex ancestor. Being fit for the environment rules not increased complexity.
The 2LOT argument of IDers was raised as it usually is. I thought Nye was going to loose it but he recovered nicely and got the open system into the argument. I think the IDers got it but few others.

I’m unsure why people are commenting on Nye’s incorrect comments (yes several) on cosmology. I suppose it leaves the door open to question his experise.

First let me say that most of you will object to my response as nonsense. I sometimes say for an example: I don't believe in elevators. Does that have any bearing on the existence of elevators?obviously not. I base my faith, yes faith on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Therefore when we always asserts the truthfulness of the Old Testament and it's accuracy; I accept it. BTW there is more evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead than there is that Julius Caesar ever existed. Much, much more I could/should say but that should be enough for you to choke on(figuratively) and to go crazy over. One salient point I thought was worth noting when Mr. Nye talked about such joy in researching, etc. Ken Ham asked him why such joy if you only have this life and then you are dead; no afterlife?? Poo-poo me all you desire but you know intrinsically that you are an eternal being; consider Jesus!?!?! I am sorry to say you may now begin your rants; but please know you will have to answer your Creator some day for your denial of His existence; so I rather hope you will be more honest within. And yes I will be glad to entertain any serious inquiry my email is jcoleman@insightbb.com...:) I pray you do. Thks Jim

This whole debate is a sorry sideshow to the real dialogue going on between science and religion. Here is a link that's a convenient entryway into the productive work being done:

http://cosmostheinlost.com/2013/09/30/top-10-list-turned-supernova-scie…

Vladimir Icorikov

"What if . . . ?"

There are two kinds of assertions, and they are either presumptions, or assumptions.

If you (the reader of what you are now reading), and yours truly (the writer of what you are now reading), want to seriously think, be sufficiently frank and forthright, and respectably honest enough, we can and should both concur that the environmental phenomena around us exists - both pertaining to physical objects and to forces of nature we have detected and yet detect with our sight, hearing, smell, and touch senses.

Such admission by the two of us is fortunate, because if either or both of us doubt, dispute, or disagree with the above premises, neither one or both of us would be worth talking to, but instead reprehensible and even dangerous weirdos worth having law enforcement officers and their assistants take charge concerning (and not regarding) us.

Note that I used the questionable word: "us".

I -- and you also -- must be careful to NOT speak for each other unless justified in doing so, and so also the word: "we" has to be used only when applicable and appropriate!

In other words, what is real is therefore (logically) NOT an illusion. And even if we assessed some phenomena around us to be illusions, it would behoove both of us to wisely discern which from what, and both act and behave accordingly.

Take, for example, the existence of both red and green stoplights at intersections - both of which environmental phenomena are directly related to the environmental phenomena of potentially-red-and-blue-strobelight-flashing squad cars perhaps in the near vicinity more than eager to relate to how you and/or I react to the two different-colored stoplights.

Now, either or both of us might presume that red and green stoplights are illusions, and/or that green means stop and red means go, but there is a realistic extremely-high-probability chance that those police officers previously alluded to might think otherwise.

In their case, they - quite ready and able to arrest and ticket violators who wrongly (?) react to the different-colored stoplights (in their "opinion") - assume that the lights are indeed reality and not illusion (and literally mean EXACTLY what they are supposed to mean regardless of "interpretive differences" or "contextual disagreements" - be they "constitutional" or not issues of either "freedom of [nefarious] speech" or "freedom of [coexisting] religion" or "reproductive choice" purportedly integrated with "women's health."

Because of that, we are fearful to contradict their take on it, and adjust our driving behavior with accommodation to their assessment.

Having established all that so far, that things around us DO exist and are not instead a lying illusion, and that we adjust our actions and behavior accordingly in the assumption that such is fact instead of myth, fairy tale, legend, tale, rumor, or heresay, we perhaps then continue into metaphysical speculations about the origin of all around us which does exist.

It is a noteworthy characteristic of the sane (contrasted with crazy or lunatic) to assume that real and non-illusional phenomena of nature around us (including those phenomena of nature humanity has manipulated for the construction and maintenance of buildings, walls, floors, ceilings, heaters, air conditioners, carpets, glass windows, light bulbs or equivalent, etc.) did not create themselves by themselves, particularly non-lifeform objects and forces (many of which - like the Creator(s)? thereof - are invisible to the non-aided human eye, such as wind, gravity, infrared and ultraviolet and microwave and X-ray radiation).

Even regarding lifeforms which reproduce, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the starters or first ones in existence did not create themselves by themselves.

Show me a paper dictionary that assembles itself out of forestwood, or a car with all its parts assembling itself (preferably off the assembly line) out of iron ore rocks buried underground, and I will consider giving you a popsicle. But only one. Per day. For a week. Or a month. Maybe.

Again, at this point, we have to repeat what was stated before, and more.

Such admission by the two of us about non-virtual reality is fortunate, because if either or both of us doubt, dispute, or disagree with the above premises, neither one or both of us would be worth talking to, but instead pathetic and even dangerous weirdos worth having law enforcement officers and their assistants take charge concerning (and not regarding) us.

The Origin of all things, at least in their initial manifestation, must - of necessity - be related to some Superior Force, or Thing, or Group of Things, or Lifeform (rather than person-less Inanimate Object, shall we assume?) . . . or - as one fascinating and intriguing Phenomenon of Reality (i.e. Holy Writ) puts it in variously-translated alphabet characters within its printed pages: God.

Please do not be shocked, dismayed, or even mildly taken back by this author mentioning the "religious" word: "God" associated with the concept of Creator.

You, the reader, are both strongly admonished and urgently implored to not now go off on some senseless rampage or hatefully-vicious binge or vendetta or crusade with a wildly-capricious conglomeration of slander and ridicule. Such does no good in continuing open-minded and non-fettered communication as to thinking about the origin of phenomena around us, and certainly does not negate the existence of the word: "God" within that environmental phenomenon known as: "The Bible" - nor does one's mindless and myopic disdain or scurrilous potty-mouthing negate anything in The Bible itself.

Dealer's Choice is choosing to not consider contents of the inferior-content Qur'an, Book of Mormon, Apocrypha, and a plethora of lesser litteration.

What (or better yet, Who) "God" is, relating to the thought and concept of 'Creator,' is comprehensively-enough and sufficiently elaborated upon within The HOLY Bible - a Bible penned by humanity themselves, comprised of beyond-mere-conjecture illumination and enlightenment and information which mere human mortals are not capable of concocting by themselves without Divine inspiration.

Don't get me wrong. Lying and dishonest fairy tales, legends, myths, allegories and metaphors, symbolism, and such can be facetiously made up by those who for some cause not only crave causing doubt and disbelief but relish and "get their kicks" and "jollies" imposing not simply silly and stupid, but downright dangerous and even lethal, misinformation.

What is contained within the contents of The Bible - in stark and refreshing and thankful contrast - is not simply the best description of environmental reality which currently exists, but gives humans an awareness, recognition, and fantastic overview of beyond-mere-physical "spiritual" phenomena not limited by the five human senses (and in addition, according to Biblical Scriptures, overriding mere physical phenomena and the limited parameters of such).

All the malicious doubt and denial in the entire world by impious revilers - by all those so given in to besieging and persecuting those of an entirely different mindset - has not and does not and will not negate the existent reality of either The Bible or the contents therein . . . though hollow and ineffectual sordid claims to the contrary have been, are, and will be made.

To quote from "the Forbidden Book" (i.e. part of the Sacred-66-books, Judeo/Christian, Old-and-New-Testament, Holy Bible) [ and "Excuse Me, for so doing" ]:

First Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart."
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the "foolishness" of what we preach to save those who believe.
22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than humans, and the weakness of God is stronger than humans.
26 For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth;
27 but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong,
28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;
31 therefore, as it is written, "Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord."

First Corinthians 2:1 When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom.
2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling;
4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away.
7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification.
8 None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,"
10 God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
11 For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.
13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.
14 The non-spiritual [man] does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to [him], and [he] is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
15 The spiritual [man] judges all things, but is [himself] to be judged by no one.
16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Part of that "mature" mentioned in verse 6 above relates to a healthy aversion against women in government, even though there was the silly-fluke case of Big Judge Deborah and Wimpy Barak in the Old Testament, and the vague meaning of the word "chief" in the New Testament:

Acts 17:4 And some of them believed and joined themselves to Paul and Silas, both a great group of the worshiping Greeks, and not a few of the "chief" (whatever that means) women.

But the majority jist of Scripture strongly indicates that women are not "chief" among adult males, and should not be called "sir" if in uniform (as, for example, an all-women-only Navy WAVE or Army WAC):

Ecclesiastes 7:28 ...One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found.

Isaiah 3:12 My people: children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. Oh my people, your leaders mislead you, and confuse the course of your paths.

Nahum 3:12 All your fortresses are like fig trees with first-ripe figs--if shaken they fall into the mouth of the eater.
Nahum 3:13 Hey, your troops are women within you. The gates of your land are wide open to your foes; fire has devoured your barricades.

First Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with propriety.

Relating to 'Adam and Eve' in verses 13 and 14 above, the mixed-gender couple was called man and wife right from the start in Genesis and thus legitimately and "legally" married without State-issued marriage-license certification (as it was in the United States during the 1700s and 1800s) by an IRS-501(c)(3)-non-profit-"officialized" reverend ordained from an IRS-501(c)(3)-non-profit-"officialized" seminary with all the heavy-handed IRS-mischief "equal-rights"-for-women-feminists-and-homopervert-sexual-orientation baggage associated with that.

Obviously outside the limited scope of "in and for church" only, Adam and Eve were not merely the first familial unity, but also the first government unit - proven by the fact that they themselves contrived sin-instigated skimpy clothes by their own restriction (Gen. 3:7), soon enhanced by God's choice of long-hair-bound/long-sleeved-and-long-robed/moccasins-wearing wardrobe for them (Gen. 3:21) -- mandatory (for the sake of decency devoid of becoming and being public nuisances exhibiting disorderly conduct ... see First Timothy 2:8-9) because other reproduced husband/wife governmental units came on the scene who also were required to be clothed in general public view for the sake of sane-survival general public modesty. Such is not only commonly characteristic of civilized indigenous human tribes, but also respectable neighborhood city councils, county and state assemblies, state and federal house and senate, and so forth.

So here we come to the "what if . . ."

Being that it has been said in Scripture that Satan used such: "what if . . ." contrariness in the Garden of Eden against The Original Mother of Us All (i.e. Great-Gramma+ Eve), let's use it positively for good.

What if the Earth is not "four billion years old?"

Have I now committed The Unpardonable Mortal Sin by that simple non-religious suggestion?

Where and How did fake "scientists" anti-scientifically and non-scientifically come up with that millions/billions-years-old fiction?

How come the tall mountains have not been worn away to global flatness by gradual-but-supposedly-long-term erosion during that immense time period?

Are quack "scholars" erroneously basing the "four billion years" on presumptions about radioactive dating of isotopes, miscalculating how much of the original or parent material there was to start with, while ignoring and not taking into consideration addition of identical isotopes mixing in during Noah's Worldwide Catastrophic Flood?

Why are sea-creature fossils found at the tops of the mountains? Can stalactites and stalagmites form by calcification in a VERY short time, as have diamonds from compressed carbon in an equally short time?

Could not probably-constant-speed enroute starlight from "millions-of-light-years-distant" stars and galaxies and nebulas which have been and yet are visible to human observers on Earth during the several thousand years of human history have been created along with the stars and galaxies and nebulas such supposedly are related to?

What if hallucinating pseudo-"scientists" and biased/bigoted-against-Genesis deceivers concocted that "4-billion" figure out of the blue -- using erroneous-source starting-point-and-time presumptions, exacerbating the falsity with presumptive never-never-land processes which never happened?

What if "God" (the Creator) DID create everything as historically recorded in Genesis?

The atheist and agnostic retort: "We simply do not know."

WHY should they be content with "not knowing," when there is at least ONE answer (what is contained within The Bible)?

Are they that way with other things in their lives? Do they want to know and find out if McDonald's still exists and is open for business when they are hungry? Do they not want to discover if their car will start to get them to McDonald's when they turn the ignition key? Do they not want to see if their BIOS passcode will get them into their computer after they have inserted fast food and drink into the big holes under their noses and gorged their arrogant bellies at McDonalds, or Arby's, Wendy's, Hardees, KFC, or Burger King?

Do they take pseudo-sophisticated pride in bragging to everyone that they "do not know?"

Or are they being hypocritical dastardly liars, claiming that they have no answer, when they damn well already know even the intricate details of Scripture's Genesis chapter one . . . but for some vile and filthy God-forsaken irrationalization have refused to accept that answer?

To (surprise surprise!) quote from the Bible once more ["Oh NO! Here he goes again!"]:

Second Corinthians 11:12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.
13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
15 So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
16 I repeat, let no one think me foolish; but even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little.
17 (What I am saying I say not with the Lord's authority but as a "fool," in this boastful confidence; [ and - shazam! - this "foolish" "non-authoritative" blurbing which follows is going to make it into canonical Scripture by Holy-Spirit enforcement ]
18 since many boast of worldly things, I too will boast.)
19 For you gladly bear with fools, being "wise" yourselves! [ and are you smart enough to sense my biting sarcasm? ]
20 For you bear it if a man makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face.
21 To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that! [ and are you smart enough to sense my biting sarcasm? ] But whatever any one dares to boast of - I am speaking as a "fool" - I also dare to boast of that.
22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. [ and it gets even better, as I really hit you with a lot more! ]

Are they suspicious or jealous against Christian believers who suggest to such prideful no-nothings that what is contained in Genesis of The Bible at least could be true and factual and valid?

Do close-minded atheists and agnostics (having no ready-for-actual-observation and honestly-documented proof of real-time evolution or even fossil-record evolution) dogmatically (thus hypocritically) despise those allegedly-"dogmatic" Christian creationists who in fact perfectly tie in the exact semantics of The Bible for what is in fact actually found in nature and their environment around them?

It is vital for lying doubters and scurrilous slanderers to not put words into the mouths of creationists which creationists never actually said, but merely indicated might be a possibility (even though a supposedly absurd one).

I remember one spiteful anti-creationist/anti-Bible doubter, trembling at times with somewhat-controlled demonically-sassy antagonism, say to me that I believed that pink elephants would come out of his rectum (although the term he used for his rectum was expletively defamatory). But in truth, I never actually said those words, rather that it is possible that pink elephants could or might be emitted out of the lamentable guy's fecal orifice. So there was a total disconnect as to what he said I said, with what I actually said. To follow up, I would gather that the elephants would have to be compressed and then expand upon emission, else the pain would probably be completely unbearable, with a quick and merciful death promptly petitioned for.

Perhaps if he ever met me again, he would blurt out: "You are so ruefully closed-minded." And my response might be: "If I was so closed-minded, I would not even be talking to you."

Speaking of pain, I assume (and not presume) that the reason an atheist or agnostic or some similarly disbelieving loonytoon does not presume that red and green stoplights are a deceptive illusion, is their fear of intense pain they could quite possibly inflict themselves with by being broadsided on the driver's side by some innocent victim violently but innocently connecting with them at some intersection, possibly with the police viewing the entire collision incident and ready to administer copious and irrevocable blame for (or "against" - depending upon your point of view) the disbelieving atheist or agnostic clearly at fault in that situation.

Ephesians 5:14 Therefore it is said, "Awake, Oh sleeper, and rise up from the dead, and Christ shall give you light."

In conclusion, it is sensible and admirable to assume that some answer presently available pertaining to origins (i.e. The Bible) is the ONLY viable answer (so far) instead of presuming either that there is: (1) no answer, or (2) that the Bible answers are wrong, a lie, invalid, deceptive, and erroneous (without having any reasonable grounds whatsoever for disregarding, castigating, and/or debasing them).

It is disgraceful to dislike the profession of having "faith" -- not false "faith" in the heretical and apostate myth of evolution, but rather in the marvelously-informative contents of The Bible.

Though scoffers will not admit it, they exercise non-catatonic faith in the perfectly-predictable phenomena (of the Creator who they rebelliously shun and blaspheme) as (for instance) they non-catatonically trust (yes: trust) that the floor on which they are now standing or sitting will not suddenly collapse under them, and the roof won't non-expectantly cave in on top of them, and that God's meteor from outer space will refrain from coming down and crashing on their thick skulls and air-brained contents therein without being formally invited whether by so-called "spam" public-service-announcement e-mails from devout and concerned Christian missionaries or The Spirit directly, morse-code telegraphs from whoever, or whatever.

They non-admittedly (and, again: non-catatonically, without being self-immobilized with terror-griped paralysis) trust a non-sadistic God's constant correctly-proportioned atmosphere so that they are not excruciatingly suffocating, gravity so they are not flung upward off the Earth and consequently consigned to writhing in anguish with the air-pressure-missing torture of suddenly boiling blood.

They trust friction on the roads they drive, gasoline to stay liquid until vaporized, rubber in tires to not quickly disintegrate, and God's Sun to not explode all of a sudden and incinerate them, yet they hypocritically brag that they neither believe in the Creator who sustains their very lives in remarkable pleasantness while He understandably and occasionally punishes them and Job-like collateral damage for and in their wayward asinine ignorance, with His hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, poisonous gases and spiders and snakes and irritating mosquitos which they should have - by now - learned to predict and control or avoid instead of fooling around bothering and harassing His saints who take pleasure in admitting that they at least trust and love Him and His.

It is common sense to go with something (such as the Bible's answers to origins) that is -- instead of bellering out goofy presuppositions and ridiculous theories that are not . . . which Scripture-concordant philosophy is very valuable in assuming that a drifting life raft still near enough for someone to jump into off the melting iceberg is "the thing to do" rather than refusing to admit the existence of the life raft or criticizing and condemning it for not being a preferred color, size, material, origin of manufactured production or brand, country of origin, known identity of purchase provider, or nitpickiness-calculated placement in the water.

Why don't articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post and The Boston Globe state EXACTLY the precise same words about the very same news item, and so why do scoffers criticize somewhat-different highlights written within the four gospels of the New Testament? And keep in mind that four thousand men could be part of five thousand men, and the Lord can use The Devil to do the Lord's will without the Lord being reprimandable -- even though the Lord "gets the credit" who ultimately controls it all.

The atheist and agnostic evolutionist must ["must?"] read precisely and only what the given words of The Bible really are -- rather than prejudicially and pompously defame what they mistakenly presume misrepresentatives have said it to have said ... gullibly depending upon pseudo-know-it-alls with or without academic credentials and post-graduate degrees in pseudo-"scholarly" brainwashed superstition and laughably-fraudulent "education" -- and then carefully scrutinize and analyze if it adequately-enough correctly relates to genuine and authentic reality and the bonafide reality of natural phenomena around us and what we are somewhat certain has happened in the past.

The only alternative concerning them is for them to pathetically and despicably wallow and flounder in the misty-fog abyss of depraved egocentric uncertainty and doubt accentuated into mean-spirited tirades of ranting blatter - causing misery both on themselves and against others.

Second Thessalonians 3:2 ...and that we may be delivered [away] from wicked and evil humans; for not all have faith.
Does God, according to His Divinely-inspired-Word Holy Bible, accept or promote so-called "gay" "rights?"

Does the LORD deem homosexual orientation "right" or instead "wrong?"

Does the Almighty Judge consider homogays (i.e. homoeffeminate and/or homosodomites) "equal with heterosexuals?"

Did the Creator, who destroyed all lifeforms (except Noah plus his immediate family and select Ark-transported lifeforms) on planet Earth with a global Flood, mean for the colors of the rainbow seen thereafter by Noah and Company to be interpreted as a promotion of homosexuality?

Let's find out by quoting some of His humanly-authored Scripture, some of which was verbally dictated to Moses according to:

Numbers 7:89 =

And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the Lord, he heard The Voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and It spoke to him.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

First Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the non-righteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (i.e. homogays), nor [same-gender] sodomites,
First Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Evolutionists do NOT WANT to accept THE ONE Biblical Answer!

As to timing the supposedly-old age of some large trees on Earth, it behooves honest and accurate scientists to use mechanisms to correctly determine starting points of time, and open-mindededly investigate known-and-not-known alteration factors in time durations all along the way from the first incidence or appearance of possibly-already-adult-from-the-beginning trees, to the present.

It is not legitimate for evolution espousers like Bill Nye to - without acceptable cause and without adequate proofs - disregard the Biblical answers as to origins of environmental phenomena on Earth. Indeed, Ken Ham could press Nye and similar disbelievers who reject the Scriptural answers to origins as to WHY he and they do so, and thus if one definition of absurd and despicable "fool" is to reject - for no scientific reason(s) and substantiation - the Scriptural accounts of creation in the Old Testament book of Genesis.

Moreover, not only "fool" would be an appropriate term for the aforementioned who reject what is obvious and right in front of them, declared by clearly sane and intelligent, genuine and scholarly, scientists, but - consequently also, the term: "stupid" would be applicable. Pathetic it is for those atheists and naysayers who have the innate intelligence to think otherwise do not -- but because of their insidious rebellion against subjection to the God and Christ of Scripture, they make themselves asinine idiots, imbeciles, or at least morons . . . and dangerous-against-society ones at that - as they "glory in their [evolutionist-superstition] shame."

The claimed eagerness of Nye to "find out the answers" belies and contradicts his hypocritical negation against that very endeavor. Nye, in fact, does NOT WANT to find out origins answers, because if he did, he would at least give verifiable and testable proofs as to why THE ONE answer given in the Bible pertaining to creation must be misconstrued a diabolically-deliberate and outright-lying fable, legend, tale, metaphorical allegory, or deceitful myth, concocted by non-inspired devious Bible authors who blasphemously misrepresented both the Creator and the phenomena He created -- all to hatefully and prejudicially defame the heretic fabrication of evolutionary theory which allegedly existed from the beginning (but actually did NOT so exist).

I noticed creationists can be wordy.

@ jon doe 31, 52
Posting it twice does not make it true. Joe @ 46 answered you and until you actually try responding to him you look like a dishonest ranter.

@ Al Verum 49
" To me the most amazing thing is that around the globe “Recorded History” is recognized at about 4-6000 years BC."
That means writing. We have artifacts from before that. Spoken language would have predated writing and art come from as far as 200,000 years ago, and artifacts going back over 1,000,000.

@ G 53

" In short my logic is simple I believe the Bible is real and literal"
Your whole comment really summarizes to that.

#1 is you pretending your experience is the same as everyone's experience, #2 physical objects are not populations of reproducing organisms, #3 scientists are not saying that evolution is not still going on (it is), #4 insisting that something is not true because of your book is not an argument or evidence.

The rest of us require evidence outside of an old book. Independent confirmation in other words. We find the evidence for evolution and the age of the earth convincing. I would take that seriously as the number of religious people seems to be dropping world-wide. Just pointing at a book and getting emotional has limited use in a multimedia world.

@ David 54
Those "predictions" were dealt with a long time ago. Just one example,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html
Sure you can refuse to accept the counter arguments, but I hope you were unaware of these objections because that would indicate that you were dishonestly pretending that posting those claims actually meant something. If you were already aware of these counterarguments you should have had an argument that included responses to the counterclaims.

As for the rest of it, your ignorance on the counterclaims leads me to suspect that you should probably go see if it has already been responded to before you just go claiming it means anything. I will look at the post-debate stuff though because that is new.

@ Icorigin 70
" Having established all that so far, that things around us DO exist and are not instead a lying illusion, and that we adjust our actions and behavior accordingly in the assumption that such is fact instead of myth, fairy tale, legend, tale, rumor, or heresay, we perhaps then continue into metaphysical speculations about the origin of all around us which does exist."

Just as long as there is something rational between flashing lights and traffic law, and whatever you want to plug into " metaphysical speculations about the origin of all around us which does exist."

" Even regarding lifeforms which reproduce, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the starters or first ones in existence did not create themselves by themselves."

No scientific hypotheses involving origin-of-life issues believe anything had brains or intention back then so I don't know why you would bring this up.

" Show me a paper dictionary that assembles itself out of forestwood, or a car with all its parts assembling itself (preferably off the assembly line) out of iron ore rocks buried underground, and I will consider giving you a popsicle. But only one. Per day. For a week. Or a month. Maybe."

And STOP.
This bears no resemblance to actual origin-of-life research. All current hypotheses involving the origins of life involve chemical events that were individually likely given the geochemical, and organic chemical conditions at the time. For example molecular replicators would have assembled out of the chemicals present with the existing chemistry. Sure the chances of the world we see now being formed from all those individual events was tiny, but it was one end point out of a huge number of them.

Basically the same answer that Joe gabe to jon doe in #46.

You can disagree with current origin-of-life research and that is fair, but first you have to be able to respond to it like you know what it actually says.

@ Greg 71

I find that if you just attack one critical claim at a time it's manageable. After all if the whole affair collapses without it you don't need to do much more.

And if point one still stands you can always move onto point 2...

I noticed creationists can be wordy

and incoherent.

Now, it doesn't matter how much Nye information doesn't have, when Ham does not even attempt to the answer the questions that are posed to him. He simply repeats his slogan over and over again, this is especially evident in the Crowd Questions.

He even flat out states that his mind can never be changed. This is irrational behavior, the refusal to accept what one observes before them. He uses his illusionary term 'Historical Science' as a crutch and a blanket statement to counter all points poised against him or Bill.

Even their interpretation of the text is flawed. 'Day' is in fact a word in Hebrew that means 'time'. An specified amount of time.

When I've asked creationists in my local area, if other religions can accept evolution, why can't your denomination? And their response every time, is this word for word, "Their Religion is wrong." Why? What is your reasoning for this? They refuse to say anything else but this. They offer nothing else.

Humans, with our complex minds are blown away at the fact the earth provides everything we need to survive, Air, fresh water etc. The sun is exactly far enough away so we don't burn, yet close enough to keep us from freezing. The animals are unique, and somehow have intelligence to survive on their own. How can someone so silly think this all just happened. Someone gave this a lot of thought.

After watching the debate twice, once last night and then again today I can say that Bill Nye came across as a rather cold speaker who kept attacking Ken Ham thru out the debate. He never referred to the Creation Museum as just that , he called it a " facility ". In general his tone was a demeaning one. I always enjoyed Bill Nye in the past however in this debate he could only be regarded as second place. Ken Ham did a very fine job of stating the Biblical account as he always has for many years but the best thing he did was presenting the Good News. God Bless Ken Ham and the Creation Museum !!!!!!!!!!!!

It blows my mind to think people believe something came from nothing. And I feel really sorry for the many believers in science and go looking for that truth because I promise you, if you genuinely look for God you will find him and understand faith and how faith beats science any day! Hashtag truth

It is hard to wake up every morning and go outside and think how all this happened by accident. Everything happpened so perfectly to sustain life as we know it. Science and theories are flawed. I would much rather know I was created and have a purpose than to think I evolved from apes.

Darwinian evolution is a faith.

How small a mind that can't comprehend the vastness of the universe and must explain what they can't comprehend to "God made it". I think that is the definition of "something from nothing." And this notion that for there to have purpose, or to be a good person, or to be a productive member of society, one must believe in God (most times it has to be the Christain God) to be insulting and small minded.

I am a Christian who believe in Science
if i have one question to Ken Ham is How The Chinese who had 5000 over years of history survived while noah ark only had 8 human, and there is no record of a super flood in the Chinese history..?

"Everything happpened so perfectly to sustain life as we know it"

This is a circular argument, of course. If it happened slightly different, there would most likely be life, but NOT as we know it. Heck, there may well be life unlike we know it somewhere else in the universe.

The question that always pops in my head when I hear this debate is, how can any people of faith dis the 'creation' so hard by denying the beauty and complexity of the universe which has been discovered by our observation? Science is what illuminates creation, yet it is denied. If you are of faith, aren't you denying God's work?

@China...Are you sure about that?

The Xia Dynasty (2070 BC - 1600 BC) is the first dynasty in China to be described in ancient historical chronicles. Although the Xia is an important element in early Chinese history, reliable information on the history of China before 13th century BC can only come from archaeological evidence, thus the concrete existence of the Xia is yet to be proven, despite efforts by Chinese archaeologists to link Xia with archaeological sites.

I side with atheism and science and watch a lot of the debates posted on yt that have richard dawkins, christopher hitchens, same harris, and others; i have to say compared to those debates, this one was awful on both sides. you cant expect much from ken ham, but bill nye seriously lost an opportunity here to speak clearly, not attack his opponent and instead focus on creation directly, and to teach the audience a little science and how its done instead of just stating the results of science. For example he couldve explained the discrepancies of dating methods and how they are individually accurate when used in the right situation.

here is the rocket example form a non associated science site...

Rest Frame Time Elapsed
per Day on Ship

v/c Days Years
0.0 1.00 0.003
0.1 1.01 0.003
0.2 1.02 0.003
0.3 1.05 0.003
0.4 1.09 0.003
0.5 1.15 0.003
0.6 1.25 0.003
0.7 1.40 0.004
0.8 1.67 0.005
0.9 2.29 0.006
0.95 3.20 0.009
0.97 4.11 0.011
0.99 7.09 0.019
0.995 10.01 0.027
0.999 22.37 0.061
0.9999 70.71 0.194
0.99999 223.61 0.613
0.999999 707.11 1.937
0.9999999 2236.07 6.126
0.99999999 7071.07 19.373
0.999999999 22360.68 61.262
0.9999999999 70710.68 193.728
0.99999999999 223606.79 612.621
0.999999999999 707114.60 1937.300
0.9999999999999 2235720.41 6125.261
0.99999999999999 7073895.38 19380.535
0.999999999999999 22369621.33 61286.634

.99999999999999999999999999999999 speed of light @ 6 days near farthest photons= 13.7 billion years

BIBLE AND SCIENCE AGREE...EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY EQUATION SAYS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AND 6 DAYS ARE BOTH TRUE DEPENDING ON SPACE-TIME COORDINATES; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.99999999999999999999999999999999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119988e-12; PLACING YHWH 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.
distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,000,000,000,000 - 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,999,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photons
space time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light survived, hence time kicks in), this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years; 6 OF OUR DAYS ARE STRETCHED OUT AND CONTAIN 14 BILLION EARLY YEARS OF THE UNIVERSE.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
the expanse was not made in 1:2 where YHWH is hovering above the waters....therefore since he was above the waters above that were above those below and there was no expanse therefore only one face... he was above the universe...the hebrew words for heaven are mayim (waters)...and shamayimn(fire and waters)

*respectfully*
let's start without the math...lets be theoretical
When you get closer to light speed...time slows down
When you reach light speed...time stops for you (NASA has an article online saying this..and its well known)
So if someone were near the farthest photons...travelling near light speed...that persons time would get really really slow depending on their velocity
we know that relativity is true...we have to reset the time of satellites every day
gravity stretches space...when space is stretched...time slows down
the universe is stretching
a billion light years away is a billion years ago...two billion lights years away is two billion years ago
all astronomers interpret the stretching of space as the stretching of time
whether the time is literal 6 days or not has been a long dabate among bible believers
Schroeder is saying the 6 days is where the Bible says YHWH is at...above the universe...and that since the early universe time was not stretched out it was much faster so the math shows that 6 of our days contain 14 billion years when the universe was not as stretched..all scientist know stretching of space slows time down
the vedic indians said a day with their deities was hundreds of thousands of years
the bible has relativity in many places...it says a 1000 years is as a day, and as a watch in the night (about 3 hours); Other passages that were written decades after Christ said this is the last hour (deacades) it would appear that there is relativity in the Bible
The ENGLISH translations did butcher the HEBREW LANGUAGE of genesis one
Here is the order in Hebrew...
*********
darkness on the surface of the deep (black hole, abyss in septuigint)
light...singular not plural..there is only one light...1000 years ago there were Jews saying the universe began smaller than a grain of mustard
light separates from darkness as the universe cools to the point that photons are freed
atmosphere is formed and things start seperating
land and water on the earth seperate to for sea and land (singular)
land and seas become plural
plants are formed from the eretz (earth) eretz can mean dirt, land, nation, or the globe...the oldest fossils we have resemble plantlike structures...some of the ancient jewish theologians said plants were begun this time by their creation was ongoing through the rest of the days
the atmosphere becomes oxygenated and sun, moon and starlight reaches the earth...shines upon the earth...Genesis stresse two times the sun shined down on the earth...made in hebrew is asah...
also all the tenses in Gen 1 are imperfect in the hebrew language...
the Hebrew word for made is...
asah-to do, fashion, accomplish, make
(Qal)
to do, work, make, produce
to do
to work
to deal (with)
to act, act with effect, effect
to make
to make
to produce
to prepare
to make (an offering)
to attend to, put in order
to observe, celebrate
to acquire (property)
to appoint, ordain, institute
to bring about
to use
to spend, pass
as you see...asah does NOT necessarily mean "made from scratch" there are many other meanings such as work, deal, act with effect, perpare, attend to, put in order, observe, celebrate, acquire, appoint, ordain, institute, use, spend
this era is when the atmosphere became oxygenated and is very near the time that the luminosity of the sun began to rise intsead of plummeting
two times the text says the sun shined upon the earth
set (nathan)-to give, put, set
(Qal)
to give, bestow, grant, permit, ascribe, employ, devote, consecrate, dedicate, pay wages, sell, exchange, lend, commit, entrust, give over, deliver up, yield produce, occasion, produce, requite to, report, mention, utter, stretch out, extend
to put, set, put on, put upon, set, appoint, assign, designate
to make, constitute
here you can see that set can mean a good number of things
this era...something significant did happen with the sun moon and stars..they became visible on the eart and the suns luminosity began to rise
another point to prove my point...in Job 38 it places stars before the earth..therefore asah does not mean made from scratch
another point..look up the dictionaries online...a reflector can be called a light...see for yourself...the dictionaries say it
if the bulb in a flashlight is gone..is it still not called a light?
************
continuing...
tanniyn- dragon, serpent, sea monster
dragon or dinosaur
sea or river monster
serpent, venomous snake
as you can see...most of the definitions are reptiles or amphibians
unfortunately..the KJV translated it as whales becuase they were not aware of these other things
1000 years ago..there were Jewish theologions that knew this was reptiles
owph-flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
fowl, birds
winged insects
unfortunately the KJV translators were not aware of the flying insects and their large sizes...KJV chose birds when the Hebrew intended flying insects
************
Also Eve was created from adam
Create (bara)-to create, shape, form
(Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
of heaven and earth
of individual man
of new conditions and circumstances
of transformations
as you see...bara can mean to transform...actually Eve was transformed from Adam..YHWH didnt make her from scratch...he used Adams body and DNA
therefore...YHWH could have made animals from animals
unfortunately...many christians and atheists are too lazy to open a dictionary...even the websters english says that create can simply mean to change appearance of something
************
The English botched the Hebrew...but the Hebrew is actually in harmony with the modern scientific record...if you go by the Hebrew and not the English...as you can see
the original Hebrew tenses are imperfect meaning ongoing action rather than completed that day
and 6 days near the outer universe are 14 billion years here...it all depends on your velocity and how much space has been stretched..this is basic physics without the math...so its easier to understand...its in all physics texts
I counted about 18 things in all in Genesis in the correct order..the permutations are 18! are 1 in 10^15 odds or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 odds

@Paul

How can you side with atheism and science when atheism is a belief but science is science? (side note - the choice to not believe in a deity is still a belief) Aren't you doing the exact thing you decry young earth believers of doing by trying to mix science and belief?

Teach a little science? You mean like the fact that to be called science it has to follow the scientific principle (ALL of it)? What you are all missing is the last piece of the method which states that the hypothesis needs to be reproducible/testable. Sorry, but there are zero experiments that reproduce the big bang or molecules to man evolution.

Ugh, where to begin with all the problems with radiocarbon dating?
Let's even use a website intended to discredit such "dumb" young earth believers (http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating):
Question: Kieth and Anderson radiocarbon-dated the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years. ICR creationists claim that this discredits C-14 dating. How do you reply?

Answer: It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are.
- Hmm, I hope they don't become marine biologists because mussels depend on oxygen in the water to survive. If their theory is that the water and humus they are surviving on is so old it hasn't mixed with the air enough, then these mussels would be dead long before they came along to do their tests. Not to mention most of the earth's carbon 14 exists in oceans.

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply...This [background] radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
-Hmm, why didn't they answer the question? In order to calculate the apparent "age" of the object, the current amount of C-14 needs to be known. So the point is, the coal/oil HAS a measurable amount of C-14 but shouldn't if it is that old. And statistically speaking, I'd be very hard pressed to trust a calculation that measures things in the 20,000 year range when the "background" radiation puts things in the 50,000 year range.

Question: Creationists such as Cook (1966) claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C-14 in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying. If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C-14 the atmosphere had. If we extrapolate as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C-14 in it at all. If they are right, this means all C-14 ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. How do you reply?

Answer: Yes, Cook is right that C-14 is forming today faster than it's decaying. However, the amount of C-14 has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines.
-Hmm, talk about circular reasoning! Of course we know the rates of C-14 creation in the atmosphere over the last 10,000 years - C-14 dating tells us what they were!...

...There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: one can count rings or one can radiocarbon-date the wood. Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to 6200 BC, one can check out the C-14 dates against the tree-ring-count dates.
-Hmm, once again tree ring counts validate C-14 dating. Or wait, does C-14 dating validate tree ring counts? That darn circular reasoning has me all messed up.

It is assumed that decay rates are constant. -- that is, rates we measure today are assumed to be the same as rates throughout all history. Simply because we have no method of altering decay rates, is not sufficient to justify that assumption. We know very little about the conditions under which the elements were first formed -- and even that information is based on speculation and assumption. Certainly those conditions were different then than now. It is assumed that daughter products used in dating come from only one parent source. That assumption may not be justified.

Sounds like there are plenty of reasons Bill should have stayed away from "explaining" those discrepancies because he would have floundered even more!

The debate really should have been over in a few sentences. Ken's model says the Earth is ONLY 6000 years old, then where were the dinosaurs? Certainly, for their size and amazing fierceness, some human being would have made note into the bible they say they saw a freaking dinosaur. (of course no human was here 65+million years old, and even if they were, the model would already be wrong).

Fact is, such a debate was always in favor of Ken Ham, because he could just ramble with a bunch of questions (and boy did he talk fast) and it would take Nye forever to explain to normal individuals with limited science knowledge.

Ken kept arguing that science based the age of the Earth on asteroids, and that no rock is billions of years old. The Canadian Shield itself is over 3 billion years old. He also said, there were many methods of dating that didn't date the Earth several billions of years (because those methods are incorrect and missing other factors). Fact is, 100% of the methods do NOT say the Earth is 6000 years old. If you use the most accurate methods and all of them converge at around 4.5 billion and you can repeat the experiments and measurements and it'll still be that.

lastly, @ the person who said "Nye was lame" for saying "I don't know" Scientists DON'T ever claim anything they don't know. They are honest. Scientists are the most critical about themselves. If ANY scientist were to make a mistake, other scientists will be the first to point it out. Scientists never say an absolute anything, "oh he has your traits, he must be your son" Scientists use statistics, probabilities to infer, "sir you are 99.9% likelihood to NOT be the father" That means if we run the test 1000 times, possibly there could be 1 time it became positive.

Observation science can't show evolution process? OH YES IT CAN.
1. You can see it simply by growing bacteria on a dish and adding stresses and antibacterial things. Eventually, you would see all the weak bacteria dead and only the super ones alive.
2. Every, and I say EVERY, person with AIDS has had their HIV virus mutate and evolve into something else. HIV normally can only attack one of the two T cells in your body, so even if you lose all of one, you still have the other. But over several years in time, where you have trillions of viruses, and almost no T cells of one type, eventually a new HIV virus will be able to attack the other T cell that is plentiful, and prosper and it is at THIS POINT, you are classified as having AIDS, because now both T cells populations are decimated and you could die to anything like a simple infection.

I personally studied Cell Biol and Genetics, and was particularly interested in genetic evolution. By looking at Mitochondria DNA, it's easy to calculate how long ago was the last ancestor shared between humans and chimps, humans and gorillas, snakes and crocs... it's actually quite easy to understand and spectacularly clear and logical.

Bill Nye did a good job
Ken Ham did not do so well articulating some of his points even though he knows much more
Neither proved anything
Both claimed many things
Bill Nye claimed there is an old tree that is over 9000 years old.
Old Tjikko he said was dated by dendrochronology
The fact is, the rings were NEVER counted to over 9000 years.
Counting the rings only gives an age of a few hundred years
The tree’s roots were dated using Radio carbon.
Ken Ham has always discounted that as full of errors

Let us not quibble about the age of the ancient ones. Not when Pando may be as much as a million years old. Certainly more than 80,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees

Also, counting rings, or dendrochronology, is not limited to a few hundred years.
.

Greg, you can't be serious?

Wikipedia...full of words like "may be,"cannot be," "thought to be," and "presumed."

Oh, and none of the trees in Pando are older than a few hundred years old but the "organism" is 80,000 years old. Based on what? Fallacious carbon dating?

What tree hugger would ever let anyone take core samples out of a living legend?

Come on, that isn't science or even facts.

Sorry to any tree huggers...I do think we should respect and care for the trees and meant no disrespect to you.

There are tree ring sequences over 5k from the present. The oldest one or two are apparently not known to Wikipedia. But of those listed, just under 5 k, they are well documented.

Coring is not harmful to the trees.

I am sorry you don't understand the nature of Pando ... Shame that a preconceived notion that the earth is 6k years old limits you so. But it is nice to have people around who can show us the medieval mind in operation.

It's Wikipedia, fix it and cite your sources.

I do understand the "nature" of Pando. My point is that there is nothing scientific about saying it's age is "certainly more than 80,000" years old when the methods used to determine said age are dubious at best.

Tell us how old you think Pando is.

I do understand the platform from which Bill presented his theory. From a holistic view point, Bill's presentation is purely scientific. We are cognizant of the fact that it requires scientific methodology to interpret the age of history. We are cognizant of the fact that mankind is an intelligent design and it requires someone smarter than human to design human. We are cognizant of the fact that biology was not a random act. Bill's theoretical exhibit of science is nothing more than one of the capsule from the proscription of creation science.
Let us not get bent out of shape about who win, lose, or draw. Ken's presentation was inclusive. He presented a chronological account of creation; he presented the event which explained how the fossils are geographically located and how the canyon came into being. He overwhelmingly expressed that behind all the science & ecological unanswered questions about young or old earth there is an IT (intelligent) designer.

Don't know why, Greg, you consider Bill Nye to have resoundingly won the debate. Each man made points the other seemed unable to refute. Both liberally cited scientific evidence for their claims. Each, I believe, succeeded somewhat in casting doubt on the other's view of origins.

There seems in this forum a tendency to laud Nye for staying within the realm of science and to discredit Ham for straying beyond its parameters. But both of them appealed to "logic" outside the rubric of science. For example, Nye assailed Ham's reliance on a translated text that's seen numerous iterations. But his telephone analogy doesn't wash because -- unlike the spoken word -- the written word isn't ethereal. We have manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic that date to the first century AD -- and conscientious linguists can and have diligently compared those texts. Yet it befuddled Nye that Ham would rely so confidently on those texts. In assailing that reliance, he breached scientific boundaries.

By the way, along those lines, take a gander at Isaiah 40:22. It says unequivocally that the Earth is round and that, as Ham noted, God stretches out the heavens. In fact, the original Greek uses a present participle form. Could that be a smoking gun for a Creator's role in an expanding universe?

At any rate, that verse hardly reflects the musings of a "medieval," flat-Earth mind-set.

Ham was right to draw a distinction between observable science and historical science -- and to cite proof that secular scientists also make that distinction (the textbook). However, he was wrong to assert that historical science is never observable; Nye refuted that contention with examples.

I believe Ham's claim that a person's world view influences the way they interpret the evdence is compelling. The cartoon of Ham and Nye drawing from the same bin of evidence was trenchant. On second thought, maybe that's not the root cause of the divide here.

Instead, maybe it's the fact that many scientists are averse to analyzing the world around them through anything but the prism of science. That's why Ham often proclaimed "I do know" when Nye disclaimed "I don't know."

Such debates would be more useful, I believe, if waged by opposing panels of scholars representing a handful of disciplines (say science, philosophy, logic, sociology). Otherwise, any truths arrived at are half-baked and out of context from the standpoint of existential ethos.

One final point, if I, too, may digress from the arena of science: Ever hear of Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel? The former was a law student and agnostic, the latter an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune and an avowed atheist. Both were eminent researchers who resolved to, through earnest study and argumentation, disprove the Bible's claims about Jesus.

Both were left so overwhelmed by the vindication of the Bible
through their research -- they accepted that Christ is God of the Universe.

McDowell proclaimed what both Ham and Nye acknowledged: You can't reproduce the origins of life and the world in a laboratory. But, judging by deeply corroborating eyewitness testimony, detailed prophetic accuracy and the painstaking integrity of the historical record, the Bible is true. Its affirmation "would be an open and shut case in a court of law," McDowell concluded.

Do I get a prize for being the 100th comment?

I think you know the answer to that already.

I'll make this my last few comments:

I think each man feels they won the debate. Nye got to tell the people of Kentucky how they'll ruin themselves by adhering to a belief he doesn't agree with but can't disprove. Ham got to present the gospel message and even if nobody listens, provide logical fallacies that should be enough for the discerning scientist to realize they hold to a belief just as strongly.

And I'm sure you all thought you knew what my name meant, but it actually was I call Bible study.

Thanks for at least approving the comments of people you don't agree with...but you really ought to stop approving whatever Mr Doe is trying to say.

@john doe, the problem with your approach is that the objects at great distance are also large. A galaxy a billion light years away is about the same size as galaxies that are nearer. It takes light the same length of time to cross a distant galaxy as it does to cross a nearby galaxy.

We know it takes light different lengths of time to travel from the Earth from the Sun, depending on the pathway it takes. A photon from the equator and a photon from the pole travel different distances and so take different lengths of time to reach the Earth.

The same must be true of stars in distant galaxies. Light traveling 1,00,100,000 light years will take longer than light that travels 1,000,000,000 light years to reach the Earth.

The Earth is rotating, once per day. Light from different parts of a distant galaxy is captured (or not) when that light reaches the Earth. If that light is traveling different distances (and we know it is), then what we are seeing is where the light originated, when the photons were released. If a distant galaxy is thousands of light years in diameter, then the light reaching us today originated at times that were thousands of years apart.

It is simple geometry. You can't have light that appears to be from very distant and large objects appear to be coming from very distant and large objects unless those objects actually are very distant and large. The alternative is that the trajectory of each photon was individually specified so as to give the illusion of large objects at great distances.

Not just photons, but neutrinos too.

@Brian LaMay: Lee Strobel, seriously? That's the man who repeatedly cites supposed microletters on coins, as reported by one Jerry Vardaman, as "the strongest example of archaeological confirmation" that the biblical story about Jesus' birth is true. If that's the strongest evidence, there is actually NO evidence! Vardaman only provided drawings, never allowed others to examine the coins, and most hilariously found the words REX JESVS on a coin. Oops. Oops? Yes, "oops". The "J" did not exist until medieval times!

Sobel has been pretty good in selling his story as the critical journalist who has done everything he can to disprove christianity. He has explained his former atheism as a way to justify his bad lifestyle. That is, he was never a real atheist. He was like the guy with a comb-over so he could pretend not to be bald.

@Brian LaMay: Also Josh McDowell is a good example of the closet-believer. His life story actually states he gave up on *religion* for a while. And then he supposedly set out to disprove "christianity", not the existence of a god.

science has nothing to say about first causes, but the bible has lots to say about man's rejection of truth. when the bible says that Jesus, who proved himself to be God by raising himself from the dead, was the one who created this universe, i put my faith in him, not man.

before that day when He comes to judge the earth it will be just as it was before Noah stepped into the ark.

Sorry, Marco, I didn't realize pure motives were a prerequisite for being an atheist. So Strobel's introspection -- his sense of his own depravity -- disqualified him?Perhaps Strobel should have dispensed with the coin "evidence" - but there is other archaeological evidence: the Shroud of Turin, the Nazareth Inscription, to name two. You may categorize the archaelogical evidence for the resurrection as flimsy at best. Conversely, how can one ignore the compelling circumstantial evidence for Creation: a seemingly mechanized cosmos that bespeaks order and connectdness, like parts in a machine. How about art? Can you have art without an artsit? Is it logical to assume that artists can be inspired to create by "uncreated, unengineered" beauty that screams the earmarks of creation? Now you're talking flimsy. No one in this argument is blameless when it comes to the accusation of parking logic alongside the curb. As Ken Ham noted, world view inherently informs -- and risks tainting -- our interpretation of scientific evidence.

What I found interesting is how Bill Nye speaks of the "joy" of discovery as if he's religious about the science he embraces. Just as Christians speak similar of the "joy" they have knowing their creator. Both sides speak passionate about their own beliefs. And frankly, both sides have valid points. However, I would rather have joy in both. You can have the best of both worlds. Our creator made it so.

I think that Bill Nye has clearly to be congratulated for his warm and kind tone during the whole debate.

I offered my own progressive Christian thoughts on the debate here .

Cheers from Europe were Creationist is really fringe.

Dear Greg,

When a dubious method like carbon dating is used to prop up dubious results, then it's all a castles in the air.

The tree rings were NOT counted to over 9000 years as was my contention and that sir, just happens to be true.

Before Mary, no one whether in Old earth creation camp or hardcore evolution camp thought soft tissue could survive past 100-200,000 years even in the permafrost of Siberia.
Then came Mary Schweitzer with soft tissue in a T Rex supposedly 65 million years old.

Then everybody in the evolution camp went berserk on that saying she was crazy and mistaken, contamination …blah blah blah…

But the fact Remains……

While they threw the facts to save the paradigm, I think someone has to be an absolute idiot to believe cartilage and blood cells or meat (from a “200 million “ year old fish) can survive proposed deep time….

The Specific Cause of the "Evolution vs. 'Creationism'" Controversy, and of the apparent discrepancy between science and the Bible

1. Human beings cannot understand abstract, invisible realities without first learning visible, concrete references. Radio waves are a good example: you cannot detect them directly with the 5 physical senses- yet they are nonetheless real. Spiritual matters are likewise not amenable to direct mental comprehension.
2. It is impossible to understand the Bible merely with the finite human mind alone, regardless of how much time and theology you employ to do so. The truths contained in the Bible must be REVEALED spiritually in order to be correctly understood mentally.
3. The best means to convey this is the illustration of learning a language. You cannot directly learn a language, the components of the language must first be directly correlated to visible concrete objects. A human being (a child, for instance) is first shown a visible picture of a physical object and then the audible or written symbolic language component is linked to it to give comprehension.
4. Likewise, the spiritual reality to come forth in the New Testament would be totally incomprehensible without firstly having the detailed typology of the Old Testament.
This is the crux of the reason why the mind alone is incapable of understanding the Bible: some of the accounts are literal, and some are allegorical. Without revelation, you confuse the two and fall into systematized error.
5. For example: "Behold the Lamb of God". Certainly allegorical- Christ is not being described as the 4-legged offspring of a sheep here. 'The New Jerusalem, the bride of the lamb'. Is the lamb marrying a physical city? No! Again, obviously allegorical. If the Bible is the Word of God, then scientific, empirical knowledge cannot help but verify it. Any apparent discrepancy is due to one of three things: A. Unjustified, inductive extrapolations of scientific findings. B. Incorrect, dogmatic (present on both sides of the E. vs. C. issue) interpretations of either secular or scriptural evidence. C. Lack of evidence in critical, specific areas for the purpose of preserving free will. Example: IF science ascertained factually that there was no fossil record prior to 6,000 years ago (i. e.: Adam and Eve, the human race magically and instantaneously appeared) don't you realize that this would be such prima facie evidence of direct Divine intervention that it would interfere with free will?
Now, to apply these parameters to the crux of the matter.
Life, like radio waves, is abstract and mysterious: it cannot be analyzed and comprehended directly. So any depiction of the process of life must be communicated allegorically.
6. The Bible is a book of LIFE, NOT a book of knowledge. Genesis Chapter One is an account of the propagation of life, NOT creation per se. It is an allegorical depiction of the relationship of the Spirit, the Word, light, and life. It is NOT a scientific chronology of creation. If a person interprets it literally instead of allegorically, then they are doomed to try to fit the square peg of the fossil record into the round hole of their mistaken (and incorrect scripturally) dogmatic, religious fallacy.
To my dear brothers and sisters: When did 'Creationism, et. al.' become an article of the faith? Why is it virtually considered heresy to believe that God may have used evolution to create man?
To those who are not yet my brothers and sisters: The world is headed inexorably in one direction, and no one can prevent it. Christ will return and, by all indications, sooner not later. THIS FACT, and not any amount of accumulation of the details of the physical universe, needs to be your primary consideration. The outward picture of the Flood and the Ark is a type foretelling a spiritual reality to come. It would be 'wise and prudent' for you to expend a modicum of time and effort to ascertain what the 'ark' symbolizes, and how you can enter into Him before the flood comes.
www.amessageforthehumanrace.org

Brain LaMay: pure motives are important, because it is clear that Strobel did not go in his self-proclaimed search with pure motives. He *claims* he set out to disprove christianity, but in reality he didn't. The coin "evidence" is a prime example of his dishonesty. Surely anyone who is truly skeptical would have asked himself why Vardaman was the only to see those letters, and even a letter than was non-existent at the time. A truly skeptical man even when on a quest to *prove* christianity would have disowned that as any evidence!

The Turin Shroud is also very weak as any evidence. Apart from the problems properly dating the shroud, it is equally difficult to place it in the right region, and then to assign it to one specific person (those who have seen inscriptions are like Vardaman: the only people to see them).

The Nazaret inscription has the same problems, although it is more likely to be from the right period and possibly from the right region. But there is no reference whatsoever to Jesus, and there is no evidence linking it to the resurrection. Grave robbing was common in those years, as a later edict shows. Necromancy was not uncommon, so that would even explain removing bodies from graves.

For the record, I am not the same G as the G who posted #53. This should be evident from my history of postings here.

I'm the G who believes in evolution, vaccination, the Big Bang, and scientific methods & findings generally. I have no objection to others believing whatever is natural to them, or whatever they deliberately choose. I object vigorously to those who seek to impose various unfalsifiable or undecidable beliefs uopn the public such as by inserting "intelligent design" into public school curricula, and I object vigorously to attempts to legislate away the rights of individuals and groups based on religious or ideological beliefs.

I don't think it's worthwhile to argue evolution vs. creation with fundamentalists. Live and let live, teach science in the public schools, and teach religion in Sunday schools and their equivalents in other denominations.

For the record, I am not the same G as the G who posted #53 or in #113.

I’m the G who believes in variation, vaccination, the Big Bang (God spoke and bang, it happened), and scientific methods & findings generally. I have no objection to others believing whatever is natural to them, or whatever they deliberately choose. I object vigorously to those who seek to impose various unfalsifiable or undecidable beliefs upon the public such as by inserting “molecules to man” into public school curricula, and I object vigorously to attempts to legislate away the rights of individuals and groups based on religious or ideological beliefs.

I don’t think it’s worthwhile to argue evolution vs. creation with naturalists. Live and let live, teach real science in the public schools, and teach communion with God in Sunday schools.

One of the most basic scientific rules is that "matter cannot come from non-matter." This rule is broken in the evolutionist worldview

For some unknown reason every evolutionist is under this illusion that evolution is scientific fact. Something cannot be scientific fact until there is no unknowns and evolutionist still have no anwser for where the atoms of the big bang came from, which makes it an unknown therefore evolution is just a scientific THEORY, not FACT.

Sam, what would be an example of that?

@ #82
Actually there is a history of the flood in Chinese history its called the Chinese Oracle Bones and the in the Chinese Flood "Myth" maybe if you were actually taught your ancient history you would have known that. most people forget that Daniel went east which might explain why so many Chinese carry the name....

I was very impressed with how Nye handled himself during the debate. He focused on using facts and reason to prove his points and did a great job. I was somewhat disappointed that he was unable to respond to Ham's comments about the origins of consciousness and matter. In my opinion, Ham also did a good job in the debate, even though I disagree with Young Earth Creationism. Ham simply focused too much on backing each of his points with the Bible as his only reference. To put it simply, I agree Bill Nye won, but Ken Ham did a decent job of representing his group.

It's ok, I used to believe in scientific theories too. But they are just that, theories. I began to question them before I met my savior. Just 4 questions for you Big Bang enthusiasts.

#1 If something came from nothing in both versions of creation, which is more believable, that matter and energy came from nowhere or someone created them?

#2 Who said science contradicts the Bible? Time-space theory can be used to explain time differences. The Hebrew translation of the Bible has many translations that don'tmake sense in English, so some of the Bible "facts" being disputed aren't even discernable.

#3 Some "facts" disputing the whole big bang theory have been brought up and ignored previously, like seashells on mountaintops, so I won't go there. But the system currently used for dating materials is vastly wrong a good number of times. If a 25 year old silver dollar can be dated 2000 years old, something is wrong with the system. How can you trust the science if the science can't prove itself? The old saying the exception to the rule proves the rule is nonsense. 2+2=4 but never 5 or 3.

#4, the most important question of all, how does life come from nothing? It happened millions of years ago numerous times, with more time several new species must have been created, right? Granted you can change to the crazy "we were planted by aliens" theory, but that still leaves out the question of where they came from.

I'm sure answers will be provided attempting to discredit me or my beliefs, but not one of you can answer any of those questions to prove your theory, whereas all my questions are answered.

Sam, when you say that "matter cannot come from non-matter", could you explain what exactly you consider to be "non-matter"? E.g., are photons matter, and what about neutrinos?

Also, if you claim "matter cannot come from non-matter" are you not saying that your god is material, too?

Sam, when you say that "matter cannot come from non-matter", could you explain what exactly you consider to be "non-matter"? E.g., are photons matter, and what about neutrinos?

Also, if you claim "matter cannot come from non-matter" are you not saying that your god is material, too?

Oops, sorry for the duplicate, Greg, just delete one (and this one, too) if need be.

ArchAngel, it might be nice if you get some further education on the oracle bones of China. There is no such things as the "Chinese Oracle Bones" telling a story of floods.

Also, "Daniel" (and I guess you mean its closest variant "Dan") is not a very common name in China. Not even close.

But they are just that, theories.

You don't know what is meant by 'theory'. It is not a guess, but an explanation for observations. A theory never grows into a fact, no matter how much evidence accrues. (A law is something that can be expressed as a mathematical equation.)

not one of you can answer any of those questions to prove your theory,

You don't know what is meant by 'theory'. No theory can ever be proven, although an essential feature of all theories is that they could, potentially, be disproved.

Some “facts” disputing the whole big bang theory have been brought up and ignored previously, like seashells on mountaintops

I cannot imagine how seashells on mountaintops could have any relevance to the big bang theory.

"If a 25 year old silver dollar can be dated 2000 years old, something is wrong with the system dating procedure.

[W]ith more time several new species must have been created, right?

Why? I get the impression you have only the haziest of ideas of the theory of evolution and almost zero knowledge of the facts that support it.

Sorry - I intended to do a strike-through of 'system' in the previous comment. I need to check up on my HTML.

Check out our podcast we talk all about this debate! It was super fun! "Disturbing Thoughts Podcast" on iTunes... http://goo.gl/Wdkb26

Off topic, but why does the remarkably white Greg Laden think it significant that the debate's audience was remarkably white? Was this a racial slam or an observation that minorities aren't interested in science?

Not off topic, Ross, but a bit obnoxious and not very well thought out.

An audience can demonstrate diversity or lack thereof, a person can not.

It was neither a racial slam nor an observation that minorities aren't interested in science. The room was full of creationists. None of them were interested in science. And none of them were minorities.

Explain where did all these things come from to even consider evolution, let alone life? If we came from being cells in a primordial soup then where did cells come from? If energy runs everything and everyone then where did energy originate? If the universe came from a "Big Bang" then where did the Big Bang originate? You can't get something from nothing, that's like trying to build a house having all the materials you need but with no hand or direction to establish its architecture. There has to be an intelligence behind all of this, but you ask, Where did God originate? HE IS ETERNAL GOD IS OURSIDE OF SPACE AND TIME BEYOND SCIENCE. By saying we came from a primordial soup that's not only degradation of human beings but it also leaves us trapped in uncertainty, in a hopeless inevitable and dark destiny of "nothing beyond death" state of existence which leads to despair. EVOLUTION IS DEAD....GOD IS ALIVE AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE BIBLE HAS BEEN PUT TO THE TEST AND CONTINUAL ATTEMPTS AT DEBUNKING IT, THE EFFORTS OF THOSE DARWINIAN SKEPTICS WERE FUTILE. One more thing mr nye the lying guy, can you explain the absolutely overwhelming historical evidence and preservation of The Bible and the accuracy of its prophecies? Can you explain consciousness? Sciences never could and science as a whole is built upon the foundation of a hypothesis which ultimately is just theory. The Bible was built upon a Rock of Truth, The Son of God, Jesus Christ. He came as God in the flesh, died on a cross for our sins, and was resurrected the third day as the Savior of the world. I can go on and on, but I will not be caught up in the affairs of the world, I have a mighty Living God to serve and He loves you all very much.... God bless you all and thank you for reading this....

The main problem I see is both sides lean to a "I'm right and you're wrong" mind set. Both men made statements that were truthful and to point. I objected to both on differing issues. ie Mr. Nye loses my support (not of his view but of his approach) when he frequently referred to himself as a reasonable man. (so if I do not stand in complete agreement with you I must be unreasonable). Not a good way to win supporters. Mr Ham made several condratictory statements to his own cause. (also not a good way to win support) I am a Christian and (as Mr Nye pointed out agree in many issues with science) I accept much of what science has to offer; however, I do not believe science has it completely correct and supporters on both sides should look to the areas they are in agreement on and proceed to learn from each other. If my religion totally disagrees with sciene or visa/versa then I should look at both to see why. one may be wrong or just incorrectly interpreted or not quite on the mark (either one may need tweeked). However they usually support each other and go hand in hand rather than fight each other and demand the I am right and you are wrong philosophy.

"but you ask, Where did God originate? HE IS ETERNAL GOD IS OURSIDE OF SPACE AND TIME BEYOND SCIENCE."

Ah yes, first ask "where did energy originate?" and then just postulate it's "god", and that "god" just exists. Occam's Razor would stipulate that if you accept that "god" just exists, you should even easier accept that energy just has always existed. No need to make a more complex hypothesis. There goes the "god hypothesis" out of the window.

Hey y'all!! Well I just thought that I’d like to add my opinion to this... But first, meaning no disrespect, the link to the Christian website that agreed that Ham lost was actually an atheist website.
I am a biblical 6 day Creationist, and I do agree that Nye did probably win, and Ham didn't do the best job defending the Bible. My reasons are many, but I agree with creationist Jay Seegert's commentary on it. If any of you would like to check it out, it is here: www.cewisc.org/Bill-Nye-Ken-Ham-Debat/

Uhm, Curry, the link given was not a direct link. The latter is here:
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/bill.nye.vs.ken.ham.debate.live.s…
Be sure to click on the "see results" option.

I rather enjoy the anonymity of blogs such as these; in particular, the fact that I have to visualize who you are when reading your responses.

I say this because when reading Sikm's response, I pictured a small child in a baby blue onsie who just heard something he/she did not like (and undoubtedly could not understand) and immediately plucked the pacifier out from his/her mouth and began regurgitating the same few lines you hear from every "believer," whilst stomping his or her feet in a heated temper tantrum.

It was adorable.

Okay seriously. Why the heck would any person think we came from monkeys. For crying out loud. Why are there still monkeys huh. So we just magically stated having babies. Give me a break.

Okay seriously. Why the heck does someone claim we came from monkeys and then states there are still monkeys today? Has this person not paid attention during their science classes at all?

Well, I'll not give you a break, I give you some remedial homework:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/07/23/why-are-there-still…

As Linnaeus already argued, we humans ARE monkeys (as in: primates).

Haha, it are comments such as Allaina's that make my day.

If you do not understand why there are still monkeys or how we are 'related' to chimps or how evolution works in general, there is this great thing called the internet. You are using it right now.

Why there are still monkeys and how we are connected to them is very simple to understand when you study it. It is also very cool.

The debate was good because it made more people around the world aware of just how psychotic Ken Ham and new age Christ culters from these weird and kooky recently created American takes on Christianity truly are.

@ I_call_BS

Why would water mixing or oxygen having anything to do with C-14 dating of a mussell?

YOU ARE MAKING YOURSELF LOOK SILLY, C-14 DATING IS BASED ON CONTENT OF THE CARBON 14 ISOTOPE.

This why it's so good at dating trees, bc the dating method relies on your c-14/c-12 ratio, and trees have the best ratios. Why would that be? How does C-14 dating actually work. Once you know the answers to these questions then we can have a serious scientifc discussion on inadequacies about the method. (hint: a trees carbon source is CO2 in the air, while a fresh water mussells is in the humus and limestone).

Also, we have never physically observed a vaccine in action, several biological signaling pathways that we inhibit to cure types of leukemia (see gleevec), quantum phenomenon (guess I'm not really using this ipad it's all in my imagination), etc... just bc you don't actually observe something doesn't mean you can't collect enough evidence and use logical methods to determine it's true (most of us do this on a daily basis). Say your eating a hamburger while talking to the butcher, the butcher is explaining where your burger came from, he then takes you to the ranch where the cow was slaughter, and you see people slaughtering other cows for hamburgers..... did you hamburger actually come from the hamburger facrtory? Most definitely yes, assuming you were rigorous in your investigation.

You mam or sir obviously have no idea what this science thing is your doing it wrong! Also, Atheism is a lack of belief, if anything atheism like science is rational skepticism.

Ken Ham won of course. You people only extol your prejudices.

Ken Ham did what most professing Christians will not do today. That is to present the Gospel to a society/culture which is hostile towards the One true GOD Jesus Christ. I fully understand the back lash that he has received from both enemy and supposed believers in Christ. I published a book several years ago that presents the undeniable evidence of how the Gospel's message of salvation by grace through Jesus Christ alone will transform a person's life. The book was received with mixed reviews and the publisher even backed away from the marketing agreement. Currently the book has a 5 star rating on Amazon and I have made the eBook free to anyone that wants to read it. To those who identify themselves as atheist or anyone else, read this testimony but be prepared for your world-view to be challenged.

Link: http://wsimpson.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/living-in-the-hope-of-my-imagi…

@William Simpson

Your God's gospel will most certainly transform a person's life; I have no doubt in that. I mean, just read Leviticus 20. This will transform any good person into an self-righteous murderer. For God's sake (please excuse the pun), every single person should surely be put to death. I am sorry but any loving parent would not so easily dispatch their children from this world, regardless of their "sins." I suppose this just means that humans are far more loving, accepting, and indeed moral than your God. A "creation" better than its creator. No wonder YOUR God is a jealous one.

Oh, and creationism is absurd to any thinking person. If we were created by a perfect being, then why do we have so many faults and glitches? Because God has left us to a broken world you say? Hmm, ok. Well then why do we have almost useless body parts such as an appendix? Why do human embryos have tails during embryogenesis? This by no means is an efficient design; and certainly not a design of a perfect being.

One more thing. If Jesus Christ is the one true God and necessary for redemption, then that means around 5 BILLION poor souls on this planet are going straight to hell. Not to mention those would-be catholics who tragically die before they are baptized. If there is a God, he should be held accountable for this nonsensical, nefarious actions.

Anyways, I will absolutely read your book; with an open mind. But in return, I as ask that you take the time to research and understand evolution; also with an open mind. I promise you that if you are receptive to it, and it clicks, you will find more beauty and majesty in life that you previously have.

Let's find who is on the team for NYE. “Sir Fancis Bacon? Surely not? He was a father of science. “A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.” Sir W. Thomson? The world respected physicist(degrees K.)? "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us. ..... I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism..... The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.............. The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words.......Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion." Einstein? No, never Einstein. “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” Galileo? Persecuted by religionists whilst debunking the concensus thinking of his age? '... he praised ... Copernicus for his belief in the voice of reason, although it contradicted sense experience. Such a faith rested on the conviction that the world was the product of a personal, rational Creator ... This biblically inspired faith ... is possibly the most precious bequest of this great Florentine ...' (Encyclopedia of World Biography). .....
I desist from quoting fifty other fathers and builders of science and rationality – all with this same or a similar message.
Who is on the team for HAM? What team? Him and that preacher bloke, Pat Robertson, who just finished telling him to shut up, because he brings common sense into disrepute? His nonsense educational resources accepted by a figurative handful of people worldwide? What or who is on his “team”? No, not all the creationist founders of science? They won’t volunteer to join his team. Not even Newton, although he may have been a young Earth advocate.
What does the Bible say?. If you are Richard Dawkins, this could be all ‘magic’? Give Dawkins his due, I'd rather be married by him than by Ken Ham. And I believe in christian weddings. I don't know how you would shut either of them up, if speaking at the reception. But neither of them can tell the geologic column from a cockeyed bandicoot.
First: It says the foundations of the Earth for our intents and purposes are of seeming incalculable age. Ken Ham, the literalist, has cut the fifty verses which speak of an old Earth out of his Bible.
Second: All plants existed as living species before they became tangible. OOOOH Magic. Ham never found that verse. (It’s in Chapter 2 of Genesis and he never got that far.)
Third. All plants were 'made' (a relatively minor action) Day 3, and a process was put in place to ‘let the earth bring them forth’. Flowering and fruiting vegetation did not realize or become tangible until Day 6. Literal Hebrew, line and verse, pagan religion according to Ham. Magic, of course. Geologically? -- spot on.
All complex or animal category life was created (ex nihilo) Day5. This, of course, is the Cambrian. There were, in fact, no true animals in the Pre-Cambrian. God implies in his immutable word there were none. He had not then created complex life. Only plant-category life. The fossils, if you aren't an antiquated Darwin devotee, and do read recent research, concur.
Now we separate the men from the boys and show the astounding accuracy of GENESIS.
Rabbits etc. existed, Day 5. (That's in GENESIS. It is also a fact in the mind of every expert palaeontologist.) But their fossils did not. They were not then manifested in their final, predestined form. More magic. More pagan religion (Ham). Rabbits, etc., having been created ex nihilo Day 5, became tangible Day 6. And that's when their fossils appear. The words employed (= made, formed of earth) are much less significant and allow a secondary action or modification. How? Try information technology, demanded by GENESIS and foreshadowed by the world’s leading palaeontologist, Sir Richard Owen, before Darwin got into print. Darwin may have something to contribute but latest research is leaning more towards Lamarck, c/o Epigenetics. Hint; it may be helpful to introduce quantum physics. You see, science does advance.
It goes without saying that anyone who has actually learned geology, and thinks to boot, knows that a thermostat of some sort must have kept the climate from destructive extremes. Once again, it’s in the Bible, in conjunction with science, line and verse – but to be up with the relevant technology is to be conversant with discoveries of the past six months. And modern 'scientific thinking', it seems, having forgotten its foundations, its rationale, and probably its lunch, is going steadily backwards from the mid-1800's as fast as it can. Before people wake up that Darwinism is a quasi-religious impossibility from Aristotelian never-never-land. That, in English, means Galileo, Lord Kelvin, Einstein, Bacon, etc., if re-incarnated, would be obliged to figuratively knock some heads together.
Regards, P.B.H., CreationTheory dot com, etc, etc..

Fascinating to read all of these comments (although I did avoid going through the "wordy" diatribes that scream cray-cray). I found myself reading the first few sentences of a comment and I was inclined (with prejudice, obviously) to assume that if the commentator sounded intelligent, then they must be pro-evolution. I was surprised/enlightened/mystified/disturbed to discover that I was wrong at least 30-40% of the time. Of course, by the time I came to the end of one of these arguments, it became clear that their well-meaning but unsuccessful attempts to support their beliefs with factual evidence came down to one or two common and illogical conclusions: Creationism is correct because I believe in God and because the bible told me so. These assumptions, however, don't prove ID any more than Ham's rant that Creationism must be true because all of these really smart guys believe in it, too.
I think the problem is generational and has everything to do with how one is brought up and that age old motivator: fear. When you are raised to believe that you are a bad person if you don't believe in god (yaweh, Mohammed, etc.) then you undoubtedly must find atheists/agnostics/questioners in general to be abhorrent and disgusting -but more importantly, our ideas must really frighten you. How dare we deny the existence of a god! Creationism must be true because if it isn't, then that means my God doesn't exist. And if God doesn't exist then who is responsible for me and for my actions. I alone am? Aaah!! Run away, run away!!

Saying "how can we have something from nothing" is not an argument in favor of creationism.Saying "you can't have something from nothing, so it must be God!" is not proof that the Earth is 6000 years old. Science that says "if it isn't A or B - then it must be God!" isn't science. Saying that the world was created by some dude no one has ever seen and no one in our lifetime has proven, without a doubt, actually exists, is not observational science or historical science - it's just nonsense. And, by the way, where exactly is this god? Why can't we ask him what he thinks?

Saying that "a car doesn't come out of thin air" so it must be the same with Earth (which is equating God & man - I thought that was a no-no?) is suggesting that God must be the one who made the Earth then - how is this empirical evidence? Why are we even having these ridiculous arguments and why is the bible - based on ancient and "childish superstitions" as Einstein so aptly observed - your basis for truth and proof? The Noah's Ark references are really hilarious. So thousands of species of animals went on this boat and they were all indigenous to that area around the boat - within a 5 mile radius? Tropical and arctic species alike? Noah must have lived in a really cool place. He was, according to the bible, 900 years old, so it must have been a really REALLY cool place...

I am sure that folks back then, trying to explain that which was then explainable, experienced a catastrophic flood or a monsoon or a hurricane with tidal waves - and having never experienced such an event before and without any knowledge of others existing around the globe (if they even thought it was a globe) assumed that it must be the work of an angry God. Noah and his boat could have originated as a tale of a survivor who tried to save his family and whatever animals he could and then evolved (as stories always do) into a fantastic tale of bravery and defiance and triumph. A tale you could tell your children and your children's children, to teach and to entertain. To use it as a basis for scientific fact and to determine our origins and the age of the Earth?? Preposterous.

I love the woman who complained about being from monkeys. So being from a guy's rib makes more sense to you?

Of course, it must be true if the bible tells us it is so. The Koran, obviously is not true, even though more people in the world believe in it that than they do the bible.
Ugh. I could go on, but it is pointless. Religion has persisted for centuries and, even though the recent crop up of born-agains is a bit disturbing, I do believe that future generations will come to their senses and accept Bill Nye as their lord and savior.
I kid, I kid.

Bill Nye in his debate with Ken Ham never asserted that people who believe that the Bible, as the word of God are anti-science. He asserted that the interpretation of something written by men claiming it to be the word of God, as scientific fact was incorrect, and did not follow the scientific method, which has
revealed to men those things that are said to be hidden from us by God. He stated several times that scientists welcomed challenges to established theories and if Creationism as a theory, can stand up to the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, then bring it, and if it rocks the foundations of what is often referred to as the theory of Evolution, then science is willing to discard that theory. In Kentucky, where this debate took place, lawmakers want to teach Creationism as a scientific theory saying that Evolution isn't a plausible theory because Darwin "made it up." The theory of Evolution was based upon observations of what Darwin termed natural selection. Theory does not mean wild-ass guess. The theory, which should really be called theories of evolution, was his attempts to explain what he observed in the natural world. If we are to believe Darwin made up natural selection, we would have to suppose that gravity and relativity aren't science either...maybe Newton and Einstein just made them up. Joseph Smith made up "Mormonism" and L. Ron Hubbard made up "Scientology," yet they are accepted as religions world-wide. Who is to say that what's in the Bible wasn't made up? Just believing it's true does not make it an established fact, or science. People are free to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't claim something is science unless they can repeat it with consistent results. There is a substantial amount of repeatable and verifiable evidence, that the earth is a whole lot older than it is claimed to be in Biblical history. Everywhere we can scan in our limited view of the universe, physics obeys the same laws. That's why we call them laws. What kind of God would tinker with the physical building blocks of his creation in order to confuse the people to whom he claims to want to reveal his secrets?
I also wonder what moral law was this God, the creator, following when (according to the Bible story) he wiped out all the life forms on the planet, except for the ones that it pleased him to keep? Adolph Hitler got nothing but scorn and death when he tried the same trick on the Jews.

I'm always amazed by people with blind leaps of faith following things that there is no evidence for. I feel sorry for Bill Nye and everyone else who blindly follow things that there is no evidence and also does not make sense logically. Faith in the Bible grounded history and science that can be demonstrated id the logical way to put your faith. The debate isn't Faith versus science. The debate is Blind Faith in Illogical concepts that can't be tested, versus faith in a God that can create the amazing things that we can see. I can't imaging being stuck in the blindness of evolution just to keep myself from answering to an almighty creator!! But there's still hope for Bill Nye and anyone else open to a creator!!

I absolutely agree Ken Ham won that debate with out a doubt. Mr. Ham stated it come down to man ideas over God ways. man ways are always wrong, and because of unbelief that what it come down to in the life of sinner that on their way to HELL.

Previous two posts are evidence that humans are monkeys.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/04/17/bill-nye-on-the-inside-sto…

The Bible was written by man. In the world of science many subjects and questions are left unanswered. Creationism only supports there ideas with what "The Bible" and what "God" say/said. To many these answers aren't substantial enough.They aren't proven in any way. PROVE TO ME/US there is a God who made life, who made everything we see, who died for our sins, who "will come back", who killed his creations, who judges and sends his creations to hell for not following him, who has magical powers and hates gays. Please do.

@Greg Laden:

A question: Are you a a believer in the theory of punctual equilibrium or gradualism?

Yes, I think they're both good.

I have to say again, red states don't need science.

@Politicalguineapig
Which is why Georgia Tech is one of the leading technological institutes in the world, right? Anyways...
@Greg
How likely do you think the Bible is true?

So, if Creationists are right, then one would assume that they would be able to convince more non-Religious people than evolutionists would.

I visited Answers in Genesis web sight at the suggestions of Ken Ham from the debate. Its just seems to me that all the creationists science is filtered through the bible rather than observation , I believe that science should not be limited to that, if a theory or presupposed explanation for a phenomena is left to pure science then if its faulty it will be discounted and rejected. Creationist theories and models can only work if you already believe that the Bible is the authoritative word on this. It doesn't leave one any room to accept other explanations ergo it isn't science at all rather belief in GOD and the Bible as the word of GOD.

@160: Based on historical observation, "if Creationists are right, then one would assume that they would have just as difficult a time convincing non-Religious people as evolutionists do".

There! Fixed that for ya...

@161: Anything that is filtered through the Bible (Koran, etc., take your pick) for "correctness", rather than being guided by observation and testing, is NOT science, hence the phrase "creationist science" is an oxymoron; it self-contradicts just as it attempts to kidnap credibility for itself (and fails at it, like intellectual slapstick humor).

Creationist philosophies are part "loyalty tests" and part "let's dumb things down to a point where I can understand the principles, even if that means falling off the roadway of reality and getting mired in simplistic myths that lead to error".

Science is complicated, time-consuming, and filled with yucky math!! But MAGIC is sooooo simple -- and we're not supposed to understand it, of course -- so what more could you ask for?? Huzzah for magic to explain everything!!

After all, one cannot be bothered with useful truth if it means being challenged to spend a few minutes thinking critically and going beyond immediate experience! "Ignorance is bliss" is the guiding principle here.

(Why does this so closely parallel the groupthink being perpetrated infamously in regions between Africa & Asia?? There MUST be a connection... Perhaps a scientific study is called for... DOH!)

I have watched the debate and non biasly Ken Ham had a much better arugent. Bill tried to set up straw men continiously, where Ken just shot with logic. I believe Bill Nye failed horribly, trying to build upon assumptions and heresay.

I believe Bill Nye won the debate. He gave actual historical and scientific facts. While Ken Ham used his belief in God to back up his facts, saying "ohh god said this so it must be true!". I am not against believing or spreading belief in religion. Just don't let it run our country like it is now.

Bill Nye won the debate hands down! Evolution is fact...backed by mountains of evidence...ongoing discoveries...science logic & rational sensibility! Creationism has beliens! God & Satan are ancient manmade characters! Not all 4,200 or so religions that exist can be right! But they can be all wrong! & they are! Creationism takes the facts of science...twist & warps the facts. to fit the bibles warped views! That's called pseudo science! God is ancient mans guess on where humans came from! Ancient man didn't have the technology or knowledge we now have! There is hope for the religious mind! It's called education!

Spelling correction...(beliefs...not beliens)

Lisa i love what you said about that every one will one day will face the lord one day i am a devoted christian i just can not beleive how many non believers will one day admi that jesus reigns. I am very very sad how many people dont beleive i wish i could meet every one of them and pruve to them that jesus reigns i cant syand the thought that so many of the will suffer in hell!

Sorry about spelling errors!

I take it you by Lord mean Vishnu?

You are hindu yeah?

@ Bryant :

I think Jesus was a man who said a lot of good things and would be horrified by what a lot of those who've claimed to speak in his name have done.

On the idea of hell, I think Isaac Asimov the humanist secular Jewish- Russian SF and science author absolutely nails it with this quote :

"A couple of months ago I had a dream which I remembered with the utmost clarity. ... I had died and gone to heaven. I looked about and knew where I was - green fields, fleecy clouds, perfumed air, and the distant ravishing sound of the heavenly choir. And there was the recording angel smiling broadly at me in greeting.

I said in wonder “Is this heaven?”

The Recording angel said, “it is.”

I said (and on waking and remembering, I was proud of my integrity), “but there must be a mistake. I don’t belong here I’m an atheist.”

“No mistake” said the recording angel.

“But as an atheist how can I qualify?”

The Recording angel said sternly, “We decide who qualifies. Not you.”

“I see,” I said. I looked about, pondered a moment for a moment then turned to the recording angel and asked, “is there a typewriter here I can use?

The significance of the dream is clear to me. I felt heaven to be the act of writing and I have been in heaven for over half a century …

The second point of significance is the recording angels remark that Heaven, not human beings decides who qualifies. I take that to mean that if I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think He would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God and whose deed is foul, foul, foul.

I would also want a God who would not allow a Hell. Infinite torture can only be a punishment for infinite evil, and I don’t believe that infinite evil can be said to exist even in the case of a Hitler. Besides if most human governments are civilised enough to try to eliminate torture and outlaw cruel and unusual punishments, can we expect anything less of an all-merciful God?

I feel that if there were an afterlife, punishment for evil would be reasonable and of a fixed term. And I feel that the longest and worst punishment would be reserved for those who slandered God by inventing Hell."

Pages 337-338 “Life After Death” chapter in 'I Asimov : A memoir' (Asimov, Bantam, 1995.)

So what do you think of that? Do you think Isaac Asimov is wrong and if so why?

Personally, I consider these to be some of the sanest and truest words I’ve read & I totally agree.

I'm a creationists ken ham was right

I have to agree with btao about debates with creationist, and that they are pointless. The word faith is mentioned plenty of times in the bible, and for a reason. It's because we can't prove God. If we could, there would be no need for faith. Faith in God is believing in him in the lack of evidence, and even in spite of certain evidence. And as for the questions that Ham didn't support with facts, and may have simply used his belief to justify why things are the way they are, well of course anyone who doesn't believe in God isn't going to accept that. If you believe in God, you believe that he can do anything and that is your answer, and someone who doesn't believe in God simply isn't going to accept that because that doesn't conform with the laws we know of here on Earth. Also, I certainly would not agree with a lot of Bill Nye's statements, and also many of the people's statements on here. If there was so much evidence, and it was just so obvious that we came from a big bang, why is it one of the most controversial topics? Trust me, if there was some indisputable evidence that evolution, or the big bang is more than just a theory, no one would even bother coming onto this website to give their opinion. You don't see people arguing about one plus one being two, and if you did, and you were a reasonable person, you wouldn't join the argument. It's debated because there is not indisputable evidence. I really liked the question "how did consciousness come from matter?". I can't explain how complex people are. Emotions, thoughts, the social aspect of our lives. I don't see how we all come from a single cell organism, and there is no other animal comparably close to us. Not even a little. And if we evolved from something, that means that we will probably continue to evolve. After how long of us not evolving are we going to realize evolution isn't real? Also, a big bang? Really? I'm sitting here typing into a computer, and communicating with people from who knows where. It's called big bang Theory because it's just that. A theory. I also don't see why so many people are so passionate about this theory. The majority of them probably can't even come close to comprehending the ideas and logic put into it, and it's funny because it's like then they are putting faith into it. They are putting faith into something they can't prove. And you may say, no, it can be proved, and there are some people out there that get the theory in it's entirety, but not you person reading this. You just don't. You're putting your faith into something you don't understand, so try not to be a hypocrite and say someone is crazy for believing in creation.

@Marco I do remember reading a DK book once about mythology, and as best as I can recall two beings(maybe deities) changed into serpents and rode out a world flood. After the flood subsided they sculpted humans from mud, or something close to that.

And it was the chinese story.

I can't believe Hams claims that because you can't observe historical events you can't prove it happened, yet he goes on to claim the accuracy for the Bible, which was written thousands of years ago. I think we can all agree that the Bible was written by people not God, yet he claims the Bible was the word of God. Was he there? did he see God speaking to the writers of the Bible? The answer is NO, so by his logic no one was there and therefor the claims that the Bible is the divine word of God cannot be proven.

Thanks Ken Ham, you might aswell start demolishing the Creationist Museum because, you just proved (according to your logic) that your Bible is a work of fiction.

Wesley, allow me to help you understand the logic of a creationist.

To a creationist the proof for the historical events described in the bible is in the *postulate* that the bible is the word of god.

What's most amazing is how they cleverly use it to promote the *competitor* god's agenda...

There is no such thing as a scientific creation model theory in the peer reviewed science journals - no research, no experiments NOTHING.
The OT, specifically Genesis, was compiled from older Akkadian and Sumerian polytheistic creation MYTHS. YAHWEH exists only as much as Zeus or Ahura Mazda.

Dear Mr. Science Guy,
I thought I could have gone to your article to see fact comparisons. You gave not one quote that Ham said and compared it to fact, not a very convincing argument on your behalf.
For the foolish that believe there is not evidence for Christianity you might as well throw away more than 1/2 of all the works of antiquity. You guys need to do more than just name calling here . . . . don't you think?

For the foolish that believe there is not evidence for Christianity you might as well throw away more than 1/2 of all the works of antiquity

Works of art or philosophy are not scientific evidence. The bible is not historical or factual evidence. That is the point.

And if it were, what would be the point of having it? After all, one could just consult the history books for spiritual enlightenment... Similarly, one does not consult the Bible for scientific understanding. The two do not contradict each other. Science does not deal with spiritual matters at all, and therefore cannot derive any learning that would be at odds with it. Members of religious organizations, in contrast, quickly find themselves in trouble when they attempt to cross the boundaries in hubris to dictate science from spiritual principles.

The Bible, being what it is, does not preclude anyone from writing spiritually-enlightening and didactic texts in today's or any other age.

Dean is correct that works of art or philosophy are not scientific evidence. I would agree with you that the Bible does contain historical accounts and factual matters, but it would be missing the point to lose sight of the fact that the purpose of the Bible to illuminate spiritual truths about man's non-physical nature and the non-physical world.

To confound this with the discovery and dissemination of truths about man's physical nature and the physical world would be doing not only yourself a great disfavor, but also risks misleading "the faithful" down the wrong paths of what the Bible means and what it's teaching.

The Bible teaches us about "the wine". It is not concerned about "the wineskin". Science teaches us about the wineskin, and about the physical world from which it originates, and how. The existence and nature of wineskins does in no way demonstrate or prove anything about wine, and therefore not only cannot be used in such an argument.

However, attempting to do so is a time-proven way to mislead inquisitive people away from learning about these matters, and is a powerful technique of those who would seek to get humanity to pour out the wine and focus solely on temporal, temporary matters of the carnal world.

So, Stephen Burgor, whose side are you really on? Are you but a "wolf in sheep's clothing" seeking to mislead in a clever, deceptive tongue?

Let us not be so foolish to understand that the New Testament and for that matter Old Testament scripture is simply “works of art or philosophy”.

But that is what they are. The events laid out in them are not supported by external evidence, and there is nothing pertaining to science in them.

Stephen Burgor, what 'evidence' do these manuscripts provide? Only that things have been written, nothing more. They thus provide no evidence for the accuracy of the contents. We already know that various books in the NT contradict each other, and that various historical events and geographical descriptions are inaccurate, so it is clear the content is not accurate.

You claim that we "believe hook-line-and sinker the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Ceasar, and Homer" - but what is your evidence for that? We accept that they may have written what is written, but that does not just mean we believe their content to be true. In fact, we often know their content to be wrong in various different ways.

Stephen Burgor wastes his time mis-directing people to distraction over physical evidence as a means to "prove" things which are innately non-physical.

Actually, it's worse than that. Stephen Burgor mis-directs people into focusing on physical distractions to prevent them from considering the non-physical truths of the Bible he claims to champion.

He is asking everyone to concentrate on the issue of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" This is the sin Stephen Burgor has fallen into... To which he is blind.

Dear Brainstorms,
You are so far out in space I can't seem to get a radar fix on you. What are you talking about? How is it that you are allowed to write and yet when I want to write you feel you have the authority to make declarations on when I am wasting my time? You must not even care about your own self to say I am wasting my time. Again . . . you refuse to look at truth and simply revert to name calling. You should not be afraid of the truth it is the truth that will set you free. Do you even know how the Bible was written? Proverbs 2:2 says to make your ear attentive to skillful and godly Wisdom and incline and direct your heart and mind to understanding. Skillful and godly Wisdom comes from God (Proverbs 2:6). God actually hides wisdom away, sound and godly wisdom just for me (and believers). He even says that knowledge shall be pleasant to me (Proverbs 2:10).

Exactly what "non-physical truths" are you even referring to? Let alone how in the world am I "mis-directing people". I have absolutely no clue what you mean about this "angels dancing on a pin" stuff. Finally - exactly what sin have I "fallen into"?

Bottom line: Evolution is a fact, nothing in the Bible disproves that.

As for the historicity of the Bible, suggesting that it has anything to do with evolutionary biology is gobbledygook. You are epistemologically confused.

Yeah, I hear myself. Do you hear yourself?

If you're feeling a little lost, allow me to refer you to the article at the top of the page:
"Who won the Bill Nye – Ken Ham Debate? Bill Nye!"

Well, I guess it proves that you refuse to look at evidence written just 1500 to 1900...

The bible is a closed system - there are essentially no statement contained in it that are supported by external evidence, and most of the major events represented in it contradict what we do know about the people then.
Couple that with the complete lack of science in it - there is nothing in it that could be counted as "evidence" - as that word is understand by, well, just about anyone - for any topic.

Dear O.A.
Now you are starting to sound like a first grader. Do you even realize your word is a philosophical term? You're the evolutionist and you are using a philosophical term as your argument? Still, I give you 24,000 pieces of evidence and you throw philosophy at me . . . . You refuse to look at archeological evidence, throw philosophical terms around to try to prove a point, and continue to ignore questions presented to you. On the lips of him who has discernment skillful and godly Wisdom is found, but discipline and the rod are for the back of him who is without sense and understanding.

Stephen, do you intentionally miss the point, or does it come naturally to you?

Dean,

He's in way over his head -- which is why he's now resorting to puerile trolling...

Yes, now that he's at the "oh no you ain't" level it's over.

He was *always* at that level. Way over his head, drowning in hubris and unable to listen or think.

Which renders him useless for the "holy mission" he thinks he's on. Probably turning away more people from "the faith" than otherwise, which is somewhat ironic.

Actually, for whatever has a grip on his brain, that's its point. Get them chasing their tail, then get them to argue how many angels can stand on a pinhead -- as though that were an important issue -- and help cause other susceptibles to also start chasing their tail.

http://thecripplegate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Circular-Argument…

Would you like to share your levels of education with the class?

Here's our "level of education" -- obviously higher than yours, Stephen Burgor:

This is what the LORD says: "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom." Jer 9:23

"Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves." Phi 2:3

"When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom." Prov 11:2

"Pride only breeds quarrels." Prov 13:10

"Haughty eyes and a proud heart, the lamp of the wicked, are sin!" Prov 21:4

"Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him." Prov 26:12

Ok. Here's some stuff you can "deny":

http://www.csntm.org/Library/Manuscripts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts

https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

http://bibletranslation.ws/manu.html

http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-testament-manscript-first-century/

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscript…

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscript…

It amazes me that evolutions can date something supposedly millions of years old yet cannot even spend the time to look at manuscripts that are 1500-1900 years old. It is amazing to me that evolutionists don't even know how many planets are in our solar system but can "know" how the universe was created. It amazes me how simply showing someone the truth with regard to 24,000 pieces of New Testament works of antiquity think that I am turning people away from Christ.

Ok then send me a message back about how stupid I am, how foolish I am, how I am "way in over my head" and yet the evidence will still be sitting there long after you are gone and this website is extinct. It is not going to disappear just by ignoring it.

Clearly your graduate curriculum has completely ignored critical thinking, science, or statistics.

Oh . . . got an "A" in statistics.

And the evidence is still there.

Stephen Burgor, the existence of God is NOT proven (or disproven) by the existence, absence, accuracy of, or total number of documents, whether produced today or in antiquity.

Your "24,000 pieces of New Testament works of antiquity" is equivalent to counting the number of angels dancing on a pin (must be 24,000 I'd say). It's not relevant to the cause you're pushing. And you can't see that.

The Bible was not created to open men's eyes to facts and knowledge of the tangible, physical world. We were given worldly intellect to discover and reason in order to learn that. Science is what we call that activity today. It is strictly a physical world activity and pursuit; it, and those things in the physical world cannot be used to demonstrate what you're trying to demonstrate.

Conversely, nothing in the Bible can be used to lecture anyone on the scientific facts of the physical world. You are "trying to bake a cake using a pencil sharpener". It's nonsense to argue what you're arguing. And you don't get it.

There is no conflict between what the Bible teaches us about the spiritual realm and what Science teaches us about the physical realm. Neither one informs, discovers, discredits, or proves the other.

Stop wasting time & attention beating this dead horse. Your "evidence" is just a bunch of writing on parchment. You need to go off and discover what the "real" proof is that you desperately want others to acknowledge. It's not writings of antiquity, for they are "dead trees" and lifeless themselves. The Word of God is a living thing, and you'll find it --and your "proof"-- in the minds of living men, not these things that are distracting you.

...and which you're using to try to distract us. Run along now.

"Well, I guess it proves that you refuse to look at evidence written just 1500 to 1900 years ago but can act like some kind of “authority” when it came to things 15 to 19 MILLION years ago. You obviously don’t even know that archeology is a science yet you claim to know “so much about science”."

Eh, what? Did I refuse to look at evidence? I asked what *evidence* you supposed to be present in the bible? We know the bible contains various historical and geographical mistakes. You know, stuff that physical evidence shows is wrong. And things that are internally contradictory.

That's normal for documents of that time, by the way. The fact that you cannot even admit that is no surprise, though.

This has nothing to do with evolution, but everything with your attempt to ignore facts and replace them with your beliefs.

"I teach critical thinking."

You just don't use it yourself then? I feel sorry for your students.

"I got an A in statistics."

I am skeptical of that, but I am skeptical of all your assertions given your immense ignorance of basic science and foolishness about what you believe constitutes evidence.

The census was not done as described in the bible. Crucifixion was not done as described. There is no evidence of a global flood. No evidence of a large earthquake at the time of Jesus' death. No evidence of people rising from the grave after the resurrection, etc., etc., etc..

If you don't have the understanding that there is nothing external to the bible that supports the major events, that is a huge lack of critical thinking (and honesty).

Dear Brainstorm,
Like I said . . . I cannot get a radar fix on you . . . .

Your quote . . ."The Bible was not created to open men’s eyes to facts and knowledge of the tangible, physical world."

There was a man named Jesus who died on a cross and shed his real blood for the forgiveness of sins. He was a real sacrificial lamb. Died a physical death on a physical cross and bodily rose from the dead. A soldier stuck a tangible sword into his side and tangible water and blood poured out. He was buried in a real tomb and a real tangible stone was rolled away.

Help me to understand what you are talking about?

There was a man named Jesus who died on a cross and shed his real blood for the forgiveness of sins. He was a real sacrificial lamb. Died a physical death on a physical cross and bodily rose from the dead. A soldier stuck a tangible sword into his side and tangible water and blood poured out. He was buried in a real tomb and a real tangible stone was rolled away.

There is the rub. There is no PROOF for any of that, other than the bible. Take it on faith alone - that's a choice. Assert it is a fact - that's dishonest.

Dean & Marco,
I asked for specific verses and books not your opinions. It is your statement (Marco). Support your statement.

Oh please, It is futile to think that there was no historical figure named Jesus of Nazareth during the time the Bible states. There is so much evidence (archeological science) to support it. The question for people and history is not did he exist but WHO was he?: Was he the Son of God or not?

Hey guys . . . I can't talk for a while because i literally have to finish a paper and teach class tomorrow. I can pick up our conversation perhaps tonight or this week end. :-)

Dean @ 219

Yeah I'm skeptical too. However there are plenty of people who slide through school with only a superficial grasp on what they've "learned"-- which is sufficient to get by in many jobs. (Then there are more sophisticated types, compartmentalizers like Ben Carson, for instance.)

I originally thought that Stephan was about 12 based on content, though his grasp on grammar was somewhat more advanced. Looking around the web (and barring ID theft) it appears that he's presenting only a slightly inflated version of himself here-- an indictment of the system, no doubt. And no particular surprise to anyone who has rattled around the workforce for a certain number of decades.

"(archeological science) "

Now you're just trolling.

"Marco,
Ok Marco. Show your cards . . . .
Exactly what verses are you referring to?"

Let's take one aspect at a time, OK?

First, an internal contradiction:

In Matthew 27:1-10, we read that Judas gives his reward for turning in Jesus to priests and then goes away and hangs himself. The priests buy a field from the money that is henceforward known as the Field of Blood

But according to Acts 1:18-19, Judas bought the field himself from the reward and died there (supposedly bursting open and spilling his guts), and that is why it was henceforward known as the Field of Blood.

So, which is it? What happened? It cannot have happened both!
There are more such issues.

Second issue: geographical issues/errors.
According to Mark 7:31, Jesus decides to travel to the Sea of Galilee from the borders of Tyre and then through Sidon. But Sidon is well north of Tyre whereas the Sea of Galilee is southeast of Tyre. That's a really, really weird route to take.
But it gets weirder - Mark also suggests Jesus went through the borders of Decapolis. But Decapolis was mostly *south* of the Sea of Galilee. The route gets even weirder! There are more of such similar issues.

Then there are the historical issues. Let's take one from Acts 5, where a speech that supposedly took place around 35CE refers to Theudas' revolt of 46 CE as a *past event*, and makes Judas' revolt come after that one again, even though it was well before (around 6-7 CE).

Yeah, apologetics and exegesis are not science, and descriptive manuscript compilations, while mildly interesting, don't really add anything to the discussion here.

Nor does biblical archaeology say what Stephan thinks it does. For a taste, see the expert commentary at Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology#Expert_commentaries

It appears that Stephan's breezy exposure to academia at b-school didn't teach him much about how the world works outside of ledgers and scriptures. Nor did he learn anything about how we know what we know, or even how to figure these things out. Intransigent parochialism, it's a bad thing.

Intransigent parochialism

Now that would be a good name for a Scotch.

Or a rock & roll band.

Ay, gangs doon brawlies an aw nae doobt!

Just for the record it seems that my own education has come into play. My degrees (3.99 gpa, and 3.94 gpa) are from universities both private and public universities accredited by the U.S. Department of Education. I teach undergraduate work at a university accredited by the U.S. Department of Education. I have been on 3 accreditation teams that certify high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools. I have been certified to teach in two different states by their state departments of education. None of these are Bible schools. I haven't taken any religious course work at any college level. Even though none of this has anything to do with discerning truth in science (my degrees) it seems that some of the bloggers here like to make totally false claims of my education while stating none of their own. You make false statements about my education and yet think you are stating truths about evolution. You are not creating a very good track record.

Now I am sure that after this post there will be more name calling coming from the other side but that is ok . . . I can take it :) Let us now take a more thorough look at some items over the next few days

"One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs." - Phillip E. Johnson
retired UC Berkeley law professor

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God."
James Tour, nanoscietist

Ooops . . . . nanoscientist

Here's a good one . . .
"In grammar school they taught me that a frog turning int a prince was a fairy tale. In the university they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fact!"
-Ron Carlson, American Novelist

Ooops . . . . turning into . . .

"Skeptics must provide more than alternative theories to the Resurrection; they must provide first-century evidence for those theories." - Gary Habermas

now that I have finished my post graduate certificate

Sure you did. I think I saw the celebration as I was freefalling through the atmosphere on my way home from the ISS.

In the university they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fact!”

Either from a work of fiction or Carlson is as massive a liar as you: nobody teaches that.

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

Part of a 1954 letter from Albert Einstein to philosopher Erik Gutkind. You can find the rest here:
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakn…

Most of Einstein's comment about religion and "god" reflect an awe of the universe, something a lifetime of study and attempts to understand it bring about, not the version you so transparently (and more than a little dishonestly) try to impose on him.

Hmm. A pure, disconnected quasi-religious-quote-mine-Gish-gallop apropos of nothing. More weirdness on the Internet. Go figure.

Dear Dean,
See . . . . name calling.

By the way . . . . still don't see where you got your training on critical thinking?

You don't need a great deal of thought to point out that your comments are only tangentially related to fact - and that's because you have some names spelled correctly.

Post-graduate certificate?

Ooops . . . not board (bored). :)

"Certificate" is not a term typically used for anything past a four year degree. It typically refers to something awarded for a few hours of work to gain mastery in some minor task.
The first thing that came to my mind with that term was a made up program at some fake college, in line only, like Phoenix - something they would give to make it seem their faculty have meaningful degrees.

I guess on my side I have the U.S. Department of Education, the State of Michigan Department of Education, the South Carolina Department of Education, the North Central Accreditation of Colleges and Schools, the Southern Accreditation of Colleges and Schools and you have . . . . what you think.
Talk about credibility! . . .

Oh, for pity's sake...

You have made a point of trying to impress us with your education. For that reason the disparity between your "qualifications" and the poor quality of your comments has become an issue.

You made your bed. If you don't like it, move on and stop deflecting.

It is apparent that you have different sets of standards.
Be critical of my education while not stating your own.

It's ok . . . . i am enjoying our little discussion.

Oooops . . . (i should be I).

You are out of your league. The way to demonstrate otherwise would be for you to make a strong case. This is not name calling. Again you are just deflecting.

So . . . . I guess we don’t need to discuss your credibility and all your research experience then?

Nope. It's OT.

Ok. Just so there's no confusion, it's not my sandbox, it's Greg's.

With regard to Marco's "historical error"

The common error (CE) in year dating is about 11 years? Really? 11 years? Ahhhh what manuscript are you quoting anyways? 11 year difference is laughable really, it is so miniscule. And yet there is no reference for me to even research? Where does this information come from Marco. Please give me SOMETHING to go on. I find it laughable because the earliest MSS that are available are maybe, just maybe 25-30 years and those are minuscule fragments (John Rylands's MS) and even that is a conservative date. (I'll let the evolutionists make the conversion to CE) So . . . question Marco. What evidence do you lay this claim to? I think this evidence would be something that the world would want to know about. Could you please share that with the class? I look forward to your response.

#244 Dear Dean, here's some more Einstein quotes that blog readers can look into. They can decide for themselves in discerning what he thought (references listed): Not that Einstein's thoughts were truth unto itself:

“Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.”[8]

“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”[9]

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”[10]

“The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”[11]

“My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”[12]

“I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”[13]

“What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.”[14]

“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”[15]

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.”[16]
8] H.G. Kessler, The Diary of a Cosmopolitan (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), p.322, quoted in Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1999), p.40.
[9] A. Einstein to P. Wright 24 January 1936, Einstein Archive reel 52-337; Jammer, p.93.
[10] Quoted in H. Dukas and B. Hoffman, Albert Einstein – The Human Side (USA Princeton University Press 1981); Jammer, p.144.
[11] Z. Rosenkranz, Albert through the Looking Glass (Jewish National Library Jerusalem, 1998), pp.xi, 80; Jammer, p.151.
[12] Einstein in conversation with W. Hermann in Hermann’s book Einstein and the Poet (USA Branden Press, 1983), p.132; Jammer, p.123.
[13] E. Salaman, A Talk with Einstein The Listener 54 (1955):370-371; Jammer, p.123.
[14] E. Strauss, Assistant bei Albert Einstein in C. Seelig, Helle Zeit-Dunkle Zeit (Europa Verlag, Zurich, 1956), p.72; Jammer, p.124.
[15] Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions (New York: Random House 1954), p.255; Jammer, p.132.
[16] Albert Einstein, The Quotable Einstein, ed. Alice Calaprice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp.195-6.

Stephen Burgor, why did you respond to only one issue I raised?

And why do you not acknowledge that even if the 'error' is only 11 years (in reality the problem is the error in the timeline), it is indeed an error? You can look it all up yourself.

Oh, and if Stephen Burgor starts citing scientists' views of god, here's a few more:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously."
(Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946)

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary."
Stephen Hawking, Der Spiegel (17 October 1988).

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time -- life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out."
Richard Feynman, quoted by P. C. W. Davies and J. Brown in Superstrings: A Theory of Everything,p. 208.

"Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor - but they have few followers now"
Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
-- Albert Einstein, in a hand-written January 3, 1954 letter to the philosopher Eric Gutkind.

Questions:

Why does anyone need to cite a human "authority" on this subject?

What does doing so "prove"?

Which is more important to the human mind, Truth or Ideology?

Why do so many religious fanatics willingly physically die for the sake of their Ideologies, but none will sacrifice their 'self' (i.e., their personal identities wrapped up in such Ideologies) for the sake of Truth?

What is the nature of hypocrisy?

Marco That is a darned good quote from Feynman, one I don't have here in my Feynman library.

Here it is again in a clip of Feynman on Uncertainty.

It seems to me that S Burgor is probably in his early twenties and having passed out as a graduate thinks he has all the answers. In reality he is too wet (meaning inexperienced and narrow in outlook) to even know many of the questions.

Ones cognitive framework can be thought of as moving along the continuum of:

data — information — knowledge — understanding — wisdom

but religious belief does not fit on that scale it lies outside of it. Now Feynman displays wisdom, wisdom which he brought to bear on the Challenger Shuttle enquiry. Now friend Burgor has yet to move onto understanding it seems.

I would sugget a reading of Daniel C Dennett starting with 'Breaking the Spell'. Richard Dawkins too is a valuable source. In this context I suggest 'Climbing Mount Improbable' and 'Unweaving the Rainbow'.

Marco,
By saying it (the 11 years) proves nothing. Proof is on you, you brought up the eleven years with showing no references . . . . With all your "educational experience in critical thought" I am surprised at your response.

Dear Lionel.
Please can't you at least get past all the name calling??????

Is that your only line of reasoning?

sb, if Einstein's final point about religion isn't clear enough for you nothing will be. You seem set enough in your actions to ignore all facts and deflect items without any backing argument. All too typical for the religiously deluded.

Hmmm I thought the fear of God was the beginning of wisdom. We obviously have two different starting points. Not sure if we can get to the same destination though. :)

Dean . . . again - it seems your strongest and only argument is name calling.

Be careful of which god it is that you "fear" (and therefore obey unquestioningly)...

Why do men make a god of their doctrines? Is it because they cannot see the real thing, or because they do not want to see the real thing?

Dean . . . again – it seems your strongest and only argument is name calling

The strongest argument is your ignoring of facts. Making a statement like that isn't name calling, it's describing behavior.
The "deluded" bit was simply a description of your beliefs.

The other part is your lack of understanding of how claims work. You are making the claims about a god, it is up to you to supply evidence to support them. The bible is not evidence. There is nothing external to it to support any of the stories there: not the flood, not the census as described, not the crucifixion, none of it. Until you have that there is no reason to take any of your comments seriously.

Nor is there any reason to take any of Hamm's comment seriously, as his statements don't remotely approach science.

Burgor

Please can’t you at least get past all the name calling??????

I have not resorted to that. If you think that my positing your lack of years and experience is name calling then you practically prove my point. Maybe your comprehension isn't that good either. Once again that is an observation and not name calling.

You would do well to follow the advice I gave and broaden your horizons.

It is hard to broaden one's horizons when one is running in circles of argumentation:

I'm misunderstanding, therefore you're calling me names demonstrates that I'm misunderstanding, therefore you're calling me names demonstrates that I'm misunderstanding, therefore you're calling me names demonstrates that I'm misunderstanding, therefore you're calling me names demonstrates that I'm misunderstanding, therefore you're calling me names demonstrates that I'm misunderstanding, therefore you're calling me names demonstrates that...

Here is my response to you with regard to what you raised as supposed contradictions. They only took a few minutes to research and came to be a great learning experience so I am glad you brought them up. I will try to be brief and to the point. I do find it amazing that YOU (caps for emphasis) bring up archeological evidence in trying to prove scripture incorrect while disregard any scriptural reference for archeological evidence that I bring up but I will proceed none-the-less:
•Mark 7:31- To say that it is a “weird route to take” must mean then that ANYONE that goes to more than one destination today is taking a “really weird route”. Practically EVERYONE must be taking “weird routes” in your mind.
Decapolis was a territory – not a city. In fact it is a group of many cities and historians are not even sure how many cities but it appears that it was between 10-14 depending on the time period. In fact one can even make the statement that, “that they were never formally organized as a political unit”.

References
Bible History.com. (2015). Retrieved from: http://www.bible-
history.com/geography/ancient-israel/israel-first-century.html
Wikipedia.com (2015). Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decapolis

With Judas buying the field or with the Saducee/Priests buying the field, there is no contradiction.

It can as easily be explained using this example: I give my daughter some money to buy some milk. She goes to the store and buys the milk. Who bought the milk? Me or my daughter?

Here's again my reply which goes unanswered:
With regard to Marco’s “historical error”

The common error (CE) in year dating is about 11 years? Really? 11 years? Ahhhh what manuscript are you quoting anyways? 11 year difference is laughable really, it is so miniscule. And yet there is no reference for me to even research? Where does this information come from Marco. Please give me SOMETHING to go on. I find it laughable because the earliest MSS that are available are maybe, just maybe 25-30 years and those are minuscule fragments (John Rylands’s MS) and even that is a conservative date. (I’ll let the evolutionists make the conversion to CE) So . . . question Marco. What evidence do you lay this claim to? I think this evidence would be something that the world would want to know about. Could you please share that with the class? I look forward to your response.

With the third example of "contradiction" what evidence do you have that this was 30 years off?

"To say that it is a “weird route to take” must mean then that ANYONE that goes to more than one destination today is taking a “really weird route”. Practically EVERYONE must be taking “weird routes” in your mind."

Not an answer - weasel words.
Bible history ------- is not a source written by independent researchers - why would you think it would be?
The fact that there was a region with the same name as one in the bible is not support for events in the bible. Nobody believes any of the events in the "Bourne" series actually happened simply because events take place in real locations. The same applies to your non-evidence.

Dean,

What?
Ahhh . . . You need to do some studying, at least try. The question was brought up so I answered it. What makes you an authority on archeology enough that you can refute what are known facts about the Decapolis. Plus you really need to put in some time into how the bible was developed. If you can't even recognize/understand how it was developed then why are you even commenting about it? You're simply showing your ignorance of history.

Lionel,
What are you talking about?
My lack of years of experience???? Compared to what?

Was Jesus of Nazareth an archeologist-historian? Or was he a rabbi?

Did he spend time debating the finer points of Jewish geopolitical history with those of his period? Or did he debate spiritual truths with them?

Was Jesus nailed to the cross because he got the dates and location of the Decapolis wrong?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Dean,
You are just flat out wrong with your statement: " is not a source written by independent researchers" It is simply ignorant of facts. There are numerous archeological evidences of non-Christian confirmation of new Testament history. I am not going to quote word for word but give you the dates and people:

Tacitus - a first century Roman - mentions Pontius Pilatus and how Nero blames Christians and Christus for the Great Fire in Rome.
Suetonius, secretary to Emperor Hadrian who reigned from 117 - 138AD, confirms the report of Acts 18:2 (Jews leaving Rome)
Josephus(ad 37 to ad 100) states both specifically and generally the historical nature of both the Old and New Testaments

Josephus even mentions all of the old testament books-all 39

You can investigate this for yourselves. You're just ignorant of truth here.

Here's more:
Julianus Africanus quotes Thallus who wrote around A.D. 52 and goes into discussion about the darkness that followed the crucifixion of Christ (A.D. 221)
Pliny the Younger in a letter to the Emperor Trajan in about A.D. 112 - describing early Christian worship practices.

Dean, Brainstorms and Lionel, oh . . . and Marco,

Let's turn our conversation though to something that you think you know a lot about rather than items you know little to nothing about . . . .

I truly believe that there is much scientific evidence to a creative designer when it comes to the universe. what do you think about that?

I guess I can accept the statement from Isaac Newton who said . . . you've heard of him, right . . . he was a "science guy"

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being" taken from "General Scholium"

Here's my first example of a creative designer: oxygen (there . . . a science term we can all relate to, right?)
On Earth, we have an oxygen rate of right around 21% - agreed? Much less than that and human beings would suffocate. If it got to 25% then unconstrained fires would take place making life on Earth impossible. so we really have a small variant for us humans to survive.

Oh yeah . . . and before you say that our oxygen was different 500 billion years ago . . . . let me know what device measured it and who was the young man or woman who measured it.

Dear Brainstorm, Here's my replies . . .

Was Jesus of Nazareth an archeologist-historian? no
Or was he a rabbi? probably yes

Did he spend time debating the finer points of Jewish geopolitical history with those of his period? In a way - with Pilate perhaps
Or did he debate spiritual truths with them? Yes

Was Jesus nailed to the cross because he got the dates and location of the Decapolis wrong? no (that's a weird question) but no
Well it looks like you are starting to see that Christ really was a person though . . .

I think debating that point has the purpose of distracting both the faithful and the inquisitive away from learning spiritual truths and instead aims to create meaningless debates over physical [carnal, wordly] matters that have nothing to do with the purpose and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus did not die on the cross so that you and Dean and Lionel and myself can better learn where interstellar molecules came from. That is worse than "beside the point".

Focusing on the wineskins [carnal containers, "meat bags", and the physical matter that constitutes them] can only serve to lure people away from the wine [non-physical, eternal, spiritual essence] that men are called on to study for the edification of their "true selves".

Jesus did not teach Jewish history, archeology, or the origin of physics to a group of fishermen in order to make them better "fishers of men". Nor did he enlighten them only to charge them to overturn scholastic studies of this earthly realm.

You are intentionally confounding the non-physical with the physical, and seek to "prove" spiritual truths using carnal methods, carnal argumentation, and carnal evidence. This is WRONG.

You are what wiser men than you call a "Baby Christian". Grow up Stephen, and I mean that in the most charitable way. You are obviously earnest and sincere in your beliefs, and your overall intent is probably meant for good, but your focus, your methods, and your strategy lack the maturity, effectiveness, and enlightenment that mature Men of God study, possess, and convey to others.

You will not "win souls for Christ" by historical proofs and such. That is not what this subject is about, and your "proving" by beating people over the head with regard to "evidence" is not the vehicle for anyone achieving salvation -- and that includes you.

You resemble Saul of Tarsus before he was stopped, corrected, and re-named -- or the naivete of the apostles prior to Pentacost. Your zealousness is admirable, but it is misdirected, and so it does more damage than good.

Do not proudly boast of and display your "credentials', as though that gives you "authority" over others. Pack in the disputation, hubris, and self-righteousness, and stop seeking to "correct" others until you have learned more about how to properly lead. Don't be a bull in a china shop, but a lamb that lies down at the feet of the teacher.

You who thinks you know so much, are one who has much to learn...

Second reason for my belief of a Divine Creator -
Our atmosphere
(I know it is hard for you all to believe in things that you cannot see but just run here with me for a second . . . )

If the atmosphere was thicker not enough radiation would reach the Earth's surface, thinner and we would be zapped away by too much radiation.
Also, we would have some serious problems with barometric pressures if the atmosphere changes and we would also have some serious problems of survival without the constant current levels of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide,
Different levels of any of these would throw the whole thing out of wack . . . . yes????

Third scientific reason for a belief in a Divine creator is:
A particular special interest in carbon dioxide . . .

If CO2 (that's Carbon Dioxide's scientific term, in case you were unsure) was actually higher than it is now . . . . we'd burn up. If it were lower . . . plants could not maintain efficient photosynthesis . . . and . . . . we'd die.
Isn't it amazing for all these constants to happen just at the same time . . . . wow . . . . what are the chance of that happening?

Stephen Burgor.

There are simple, material problems with a literalist acceptance of Bible mythology:

http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/

http://bibviz.com/

There are also philosophically fallacious issues with religious supernaturalism, but if one cannot get past a literal understanding of the Bible then there is not a hope in Hell of delving into the epistemological hurdles of a belief in sky fairies.

FWIW, I was raised in a Christian household and as a teenager taught Sunday School/Bible study. Religiosity never sat well on my shoulders though, as a consequence of my inherent analytical bent, and I could not reconcile my own observation of the scientific and logical fallacies of Biblical thinking with the inconsistencies that I was told to accept. Thank Heaven that I got better.

Faith.

The idea of Christian "faith" is a religious stratagem to encourage people to accept supernatural claims when there is no evidence for them, and/or where such claims are at odds with countering evidence objectively garnered from an empirical analysis of the universe.

Now, what the word for such a tactic...?

P.S. Bernard . . . you're right . . . . there is no hope in hell.

Well, Stephen, this is the claim I made:
"Then there are the historical issues. Let’s take one from Acts 5, where a speech that supposedly took place around 35CE refers to Theudas’ revolt of 46 CE as a *past event*, and makes Judas’ revolt come after that one again, even though it was well before (around 6-7 CE)."

Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas#The_Theudas_problem
The only 'solution' is to claim there were two people called Theudas who both started a revolt, with the one mentioned in Acts being supposedly unknown anywhere but in Acts...

Note there are plenty of issues in Acts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Acts_of_the…

Stephen #280:
Nice attempt at a deflection that may work with the gullible, but not me. In the old days traveling was hard, and took weeks. Thus, if you went from place A to B, you would not make a detour via a place C that is much further away from B than your startpoint (especially if there is no road between A and C, introducing yet another detour), and then go from C to B via another place D, which is beyond your intended destination.

I don't know any people who even today would go from, say, Tel Aviv to Jerusalem via Beirut and Arad...

Stephen Burgor #281:
Here you are not even trying to rebut the whole problem. Tell me, Stephen: where and how did Judas die?

Did he die on the field he/the priests bought, with his body bursting open, or did he die elsewhere from hanging himself?

It really cannot be both.

Stephen Burgor, your comments at #291, 294, 295 are logical fallacies (and in many ways incorrect anyway).

You are essentially begging the question, making the existence of our current biosphere a premise, to which the atmospheric conditions then have to be adapted. But our existence is not a premise, but a consequence.

Note that CO2 concentrations have been a lot higher in the past (up to a factor 20 higher), and oxygen concentrations have been around 35% some 300 million years ago. Life existed at that time, just not the same life forms as those that exist today.

Rather than the TV reruns of name calling.

What "name" did I call you?

Burgor

My lack of years of experience???? Compared to what?

Compared to having a broader education and horizons which would result from you taking my advice and reading Dennett and Dawkins as well as others such as the excellent 'Why Evolution is True' from Jerry Coyne and here is but one lesson from that latter A very nice video on the evidence for evolution from cetaceans.

You may ponder on the use of your appendix too. But do read 'Climbing Mount Improbable' and 'Unweaving the Rainbow' cited above in an earlier comment for within those books other 'religious mysteries' are answered by scientific rationale.

Now wrt the Bible and Christianity, it just so happens that I am the grandson of a Baptist Minister (UK) and was thus initiated (indoctrinated) in the ways of the church up into my early teens, which included studying the scriptures and sitting and passing an exam with high marks (top of the division) - I still have the tear off slip from the paper in a concordance and also the Certificate. That exam was passed by being able to memorise passages and explain their meanings in a way that was known to satisfy those who would be examining, i.e. spouting the 'party line'. That was about sixty years ago and thus I have likely forgotten more 'Bible' than you now know. You having stuck at knowledge on that continuum demonstrated above.

My grandfather had visions of my joining the ministry, I misunderstood and joined the Ministry of Defence (the Royal Navy and Fleet Air Arm) which continued my science education into atmospheric sciences amongst others and the practical applications where life depended on understanding.

Early on I picked up a copy of Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' in an SPCK (Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge) bookshop of all places and as I studied further into topics such as geology, palaeontology and ecological systems the inconstancies of a literal reading of the Bible became increasingly apparent.

But my learning in science did not stop there, and still has not as I burrow into aspects which impinge on climate science which encompasses all three sciences I began with at school all those years ago with some of it much changed. That is how science evolves whereas religious belief does not.

It is from that background and breadth of study that I can understand how narrow and shallow is your education - so far. Do not let it remain that way.

BTW I am not sure if I have obtained wisdom just yet.

Burgor

I truly believe that there is much scientific evidence to a creative designer when it comes to the universe. what do you think about that?

And from whence did that creator come?

I know its 'turtles all the way down'.

If you do not recognise that statement then here is some help with that (specifically Paul Davies) and many other concepts at the still available Salk Institute 'Beyond Belief' symposium which is well worth your time watching.

Stephen Bergor.

Where is Hell? How do you know?

What's in Hell? How do you know?

And why does a benevolent creator use emotional blackmail and fear to make people believe in him so as to avoid the apparent eternal torment of this place?

Oo, there's another question - how does Hell avoid cooling down and then disappearing altogether with the approach of the heat death of the universe, which is going to occur before the end of eternity? How does Heaven avoid it, for that matter?

Heh, I see on posting that Lionel is also poking at it with a stick.

The thing with faith, with religious belief, is that it is a shield against confronting questioning, so Stephen Bergor will be exercising those little gymnastic feats of mental fact-avoidance and cognitive scotoma in order to skirt the dissonance that might otherwise creep into his thoughts. Every time a nasty whisper of doubt creeps into his mind he will whip up the shield of faith and the bludgeon of logical fallacy to divert those unsettling thoughts.

Bernard,
Perhaps you can talk about faith to Brainstorms since he would rather talk about anything but science.

Reason number four for my belief in a Divine Creator:
Gravity

Another one of those invisible things that I believe in . .

If gravity was off by an incredibly minuscule amount we would not have life here on Earth. Our sun would not exist, hence we would not exist. This amount could not be off by more than 0.00000000000000000000001 The chances that this is happening all by coincidence is really starting to diminish.

Okay class . . . anyone want to address any of the first four?

Burgos sorry Burgor (I was researching another topic altogether):

Okay class . . . anyone want to address any of the first four?

Each of your 'reasons' is addressed by considering the nature of the universe and of how we have evolved from it. We are a part of it and not created by any divine magic simply evolved by a process of assembling the various building blocks of life as each of these evolved.

Further we understand the evolutionary nature of the elements in the Periodic Table and how those above helium had to wait for stars to self destruct.

Here is another worthwhile read from Dawkins, 'The Ancestor's Tale' which walks us backwards from us to the dawn of life using a route via each of our concestors shared with other species at major branches of the evolutionary tree. You will learn shedloads but it will take awhile longer to read than a Bible and much longer to understand some of the finer points as you appear to be starting from ground zero of evolutionary understanding.

You may also like to check up on Anthropic Principle.

Stephen Burgor:

If gravity was off by an incredibly minuscule amount we would not have life here on Earth. Our sun would not exist, hence we would not exist. This amount could not be off by more than 0.00000000000000000000001 The chances that this is happening all by coincidence is really starting to diminish.

You do understand, don't you, that by your reasoning the probability of gravity having any other particular value is equally small, independently of whether we would be here to measure it?

I truly believe that there is much scientific evidence to a creative designer when it comes to the universe. what do you think about that?

That you, like many others who say the same thing, can spell science but have no understanding of it.

Try thinking (look up the definition if you don't know what the word means) that changes in oxygen levels, or other physical aspects, for millions of years would most likely resulted in life adapting to those situations: the "we's" wouldn't be the same as we are.

What area was your alleged "education" in?

At #312, Stephen Burgor is once again begging the question.

Dean,
I've already went into my education. Why don't you share with the class what your's is in.

Degrees in math and statistics, teach both.
The point is simple: everything you put out flies in contradiction to history, archaeology, and science. More directly, your "arguments" are merely assertions with nothing supporting them, yet you wonder why you aren't taken seriously.

You know, what is most amazing about this supposed creative designer is that he supposedly is capable of getting gravity exactly right to x numbers behind the comma...and then designs something as stupid as the recurrent laryngeal nerves, which make a uselessly complex detour in mammals. Now, evolution fully explains why it takes this odd detour, and shows that it ain't no 'design'...

See Lionel . . . you start with the premonition that we "evolved". That word premonition is a hypothesis of which you base your whole philosophy upon. You then build upon this other hypothesis' in order to get to an end means. I am trying to share with you the improbability of this all happening by chance and ending up with the hypothesis that it did not happen by chance. But none of the hypothesis is based on anything but science of which I have only shared with you four separate items for which none of you still yet address its truthfulness.

I shall continue . . .

Reason five:
Moon-Earth gravitational interaction-

If the interaction between the moon and the Earth were any different - any different - tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too sever. If it were anything smaller orbital changes would in-turn effect the Earth and cause cataclysmic instabilities. Life would be impossible on this planet. These items - one through five are all continually happening at the same exact time. Any variances and we would not exist. The chances of this all happening at the same exact time is becoming incredibly minute. Incredibly minute. I believe there is a Creator behind it because the chances of it taking place at the same time even with just these five ongoing events is simply immeasurable.

By the way - Mr. Brainstorms,
Read this in church this morning - Proverbs 1:5 (although I've read it numerous times) The wise also will hear and increase in learning, and the person of understanding will acquire skill and attain to sound counsel so that he may be able to steer his course rightly.
I do not apologize for learning.

Reason 6 - Centrifugal Force

If the centrifugal pull of planets did not react upon each other in the exact manner in which they are right now nothing could orbit around the sun.

We further lesson the possibility of this happening "just by chance" . . . at the same time . . . . . over the course of billions of years of "evolution".

Reason 7
This might get a little deep here but bare with me:
A slight variation in the speed of light (299,792,458 meters per second) would alter other constants and preclude the possibility of life on Earth.

Reason 8
Jupiter
If it was on a different course it would not protect the Earth from being blasted with comets and other space material. Jupiter's force of gravity acts upon this material preventing it from running into the Earth.

"This might get a little deep here but bare with me"

Why do you think this is deep? Also you can go bare if you want, maybe you'll get a premonition, but leave me out.

BTW, the same objections apply to your later reasons as your former, which you failed to answer.

(And no, that's not name calling in case you were wondering.)

.

Hey Marco,
Let's not talk too much about current medical science- or other scientists, scientists thinking that they "know the answer to something" - it is a slippery slope. Science used to put holes in people's heads to relieve headaches.
There's enough mistakes in science just in 2012 of how these scientists have put tens of thousands of people at risk:

http://www.wired.com/2013/01/worst-science-misdeeds-2012/

Also it doesn't change the FACTS presented.

Reason 8
Thickness of Earth's Crust
Too thick - too much oxygen transferred to the surface
Too thin volcanic activity would make conditions unlivable.

Again the chances get smaller of this all happening by "chance".

Dear Apple sauce

Don't know what BTW means . . . . .

Be more specific . . . . don't know what you are referring to . . .

Reason 9

Rotation of Earth
Longer - temperature differences would be too great between night and day
Shorter - Wind velocities too great.

Of course this is all happening by chance - only by chance- Yet the God of chance is getting smaller and smaller.

Reason 10
Earth's Tilt of Axis
We are on a 23 degree tilt
Any thing more or less and surface temperatures would be far too great to support life.

Lessons the chancees even more that this all just "happened".

Number nine
Lightening
Too much - too much fire destruction
Too little - not enough nitrogen in the soil.

I have too little time to give you approximately 122 of these chance items.

You can ignore the science if you want - it is up to you. Hugh Ross (look him up) - an Astrophysicist has given the chances of all this happening is one chance in 10 to the 138th power.

I frankly do not have that much faith as those that believe in chance to think that this all "just happened". I guess I just don't have the needed faith to believe in evolution like those of us here that wave that banner.

How can you seriously suggest that all this happened by chance when there's virtually zero probability that all of the 100-plus constants would be as they are in the absence of intelligence. I am sure it is not easy for any of you. You must really have to give chance more of a chance in order to believe this wild speculation.

In the words of Geisler and Turek I am sorry - I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.

I have truly enjoyed playing in your sandbox. I must go.

BTW = by the way

Easy enough to find using this nifty thing called Google...

Sigh. Stephen Burgor denies the FACT of the unnecessary detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves (which are known for about 19 CENTURIES already, thanks to Galen).

The above demonstrates Nietzsche was right.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
(Friedrich Nietzsche / 1844-1900)

"Faith: not wanting to know what is true."
(Friedrich Nietzsche / 1844-1900)

Burgor

Marco wrote:

and then designs something as stupid as the recurrent laryngeal nerves, which make a uselessly complex detour in mammals.

Now Burgor, consider what that means for a giraffe. Now if you had bothered exposing yourself to any of the literature that I have cited above, in particular Dawkins and Coyne, you would already be aware of this.

Any creator who designed things like this should, and would, be sacked. Imagine if the fuel feed to your car engine came forward and then went back around the tank before finally being routed to the engine. Even with pumps at tank and injector inlet there are likely to be airlocks and fuel starvation bringing you to a halt in the middle of the motorway, aka freeway. Good eh!

Burgor:

Number nine
Lightening

As in the lightening holes designed into e.g. aircraft structures.

But I figure you mean lightning.

I have truly enjoyed playing in your sandbox. I must go.

What's up, out of reasons for blind faith?

That word premonition is a hypothesis of which you base your whole philosophy upon. You then build upon this other hypothesis’ in order to get to an end means. I am trying to share with you the improbability of this all happening by chance and ending up with the hypothesis that it did not happen by chance. But none of the hypothesis is based on anything but science of which I have only shared with you four separate items for which none of you still yet address its truthfulness.

Is there anything there that makes sense? You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about.

In your late arrival to the sandbox you’ve not addressed the scientific reasoning of why I believe there is a Divine Creator.

1) You've avoided answering the first order of business between us, which is the matter of the names that you alleged I called you.

2) Your "scientific reasoning of why [you] believe there is a Divine Creator" has not been the subject of any discussion between us until now, so I have had no reason to address it.

3) There is no "scientific reasoning" in your belief in a divine creator. Your belief is based on wishful thinking and faulty inductive reasoning, which is not scientific. And Lionel's already pointed you toward the Anthropic Principle.

See Lionel . . . you start with the premonition that we “evolved”. That word premonition is a hypothesis of which you base your whole philosophy upon.

You obviously do not understand the scientific method then, nor the history of the formulation of the scientific theory of evolution.

You then build upon this other hypothesis’ in order to get to an end means. I am trying to share with you the improbability of this all happening by chance and ending up with the hypothesis that it did not happen by chance.

I say this with intimate familiarity of the way Christian Creationists think: your warped understanding of "improbability" is based on a desire to minimise the science, which in turn arises from your desire to not believe it because it challenges your faith. Amongst several errors of thinking this is essentially an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

I have too little time to give you approximately 122 of these chance items.

To address your issue with "improbabilities" and "chance", the simple fact is that there are billions of stars in the universe, with billions of planets and with many permutations of distances between, sizes of, chemical compositions of, and ages of these respective celestial bodies that will on the balance of probabilities as we can calculate them not give rise to complex life, but that on the same balance of probabilities as we can calculate them give rise to complex life in at least some locations in the universe.

We are such a location. We simply won the lottery, which is entirely different to the assertion that it is impossible to win a lottery.

And as to the nature of the "fine tuning" of fundamental forces, the premise that "if they were a little different" is predicated that they could be different. In a hypothetical multiverse that may well be the case, but in our own universe it is not, and we simply come again to the tautology of the anthropic principle.

I do not apologize for learning.

Nor should you - when you actually do so.

Unfortunately you've shown little evidence of having done so to date, beyond the gathering of rote-listings of memes that are a bulwark of fallacious logic against the science that threatens your blind faith.

"Is there anything there that makes sense?"

Maybe for graduates of the Professor Irwin Corey School of Exposition.

People who so desperately wish they will not have to answer to GOD when they die, willing to believe such fanciful fables are to be prayed for. That the GOD of Mercy will open their eyes to the folly that is their lives. In the moments after death these people will make one final decision to reject GOD, in so doing they will have condemned themselves to an eternity of being absent from Him. Some call that place Hell.

"Some call that place Hell."

I call it the place where morons don't TYPE with caps in random locations.

Jim Taylor:

In the moments after death these people will make one final decision to reject GOD, in so doing they will have condemned themselves to an eternity of being absent from Him. Some call that place Hell.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

I just read this and realized as soon as I came to the reference to the Christian website giving Nye the win, Laden just lied through his teeth. I didn't read much of the rest of the comments to see if anyone caught this outrageous lie. Laden said a Christian website even gave Nye the win...Tons of truth there, not really. Freethougthblog is by PZ Myers, a very well known atheist. Laden is a LIAR, LIAR, LIAR. And the people that frequent this site said NOTHING about his misrepresentation. WHY?????? You want truth but snuff it out with pervasive lies as soon as you can. Great job mainstream science, teching our children the truth. Bunch of LIARS.

James, I don't know whether you are too stupid or too lazy to check, but the link here goes to Meyers' site, and there is a link there to the Christian site with the poll. There was no dishonesty, only (apparently) too much complexity for you.

Nothing blinds men like self-righteousness...

@342.Jim Taylor

People who so desperately wish they will not have to answer to GOD when they die, willing to believe such fanciful fables are to be prayed for.

And apparently preached at over the internet too because that helps?

Which God btw? Inti The Incan Sun God? Vishnu? Huitzilopchtli*? Allah? John Frum**? Catholic?Orthodox -Russian or Greek or Armenian or .. umpteen gazillionty others?

That the GOD of Mercy will open their eyes to the folly that is their lives. In the moments after death these people will make one final decision to reject GOD, in so doing they will have condemned themselves to an eternity of being absent from Him. Some call that place Hell.

Hell is a lunar crater in the south of the Moon's near side, within the western half of the enormous walled plain Deslandres. It's also a place in California, Michigan and the Grand Cayman island. Those are places which people call Hell accurately. The myth of a realm where people are tortured for an eternity by a hateful Deity not so much.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huitzilopochtli

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum

*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_(disambiguation)

That is not the same link as yesterday. Say what you will Dean, but that did not go to the same page as yesterday. And who cares what a click on poll says anyway? Only you.

And BTW, Dean, take a look at the comments 50, 51 and 52 on your link. They sum it up nicely, Trust in PZ all you want.

"Say what you will Dean, but that did not go to the same page as yesterday"

I don't believe you. And who cares about the poll - you brought it up.

If you can't be honest about something this simple I suggest you go back and look at your bible. You might some words about the advisability of lying. (Heck, it might be the first time you've ever read it.)

"Even a poll on a Christian web site gave a strong win to Nye"

that's what Greg Laden wrote.

Was the poll on a Christian website? YES!
Did it give a strong win to Nye? YES!
Did Greg Laden thus lie? NO!

In other words, James, you falsely accused Greg Laden of lying.

No ad hominem at all. I called you a liar, which is what you are James.

Your little hissy fit doesn't change that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7NJL0kuHhA&t=4s

Neil Degrasse Tyson makes a really dumb argument and I call him out for it