Sep 4, 2012
Ken Ham and scientists from the Creation Museum respond to Bill Nye
Last week Bill Nye made some remarks against teaching creationism to children. Here are some responses from a few young-earth creationists…
(via Skeptic Money, Reddit)
* * * * *
I support euthanizing idiots. How about you?
Just remember, Samuel, there will always be someone who considers you an idiot…
And like it or not, Bill Nye is one of them. These folks were much less condescending, that’s for sure!
Don’t insult Bill Nye. Creationism is absolutely ridiculous.
…except that creationists can explain why reason and logic exist in the first place, which naturalism cannot account for.
And a theory stating that all living systems came from a crystals or a puddle is absolutely not.
Oh my god! Some guy called “John” on the internet says creationism is ridiculous! I better change my view right away. Thanks for the thoughtful response John!!
Why don’t everyone just agree to disagree and let it go? Obviously neither party of this debate is going to change their minds in the near future, so just ignore each other.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/fossilized-organic-materials
ENJOY!
Bill Nye was not condescending, I’ve seen it. Maybe when things are difficult for you to understand it is because your brain hasn’t developed enough yet. As for these people, a red flag should be the fact that they need to dissect every little sound that came out of Bill Nye’s video. All he is trying to say, which I understand is impossible for creationists to wrap there closed minded brains around, is that adults believe what you will, but there are PROVEN scientific theories that children must know in order for the world to become a better place. Ken Ham talks about the scientific community (non believers) as brainwashing science into kids?! I find that hilarious because that is exactly what happened to me as a kid, but with church. Luckily I’ve been smarter than the church for a long time, even getting trouble at Catholic School in 2nd grade for thinking that the whole belief system is a sham. Needing to believe in something more than yourself is a survival method for humans because we are the only animals that we know of that understand abstract thought (space, time, past, etc.) which means that we are the only animals on the planet that understand that no matter how fast we outrun a predator we will eventually grow old and die. It is important for people to believe that there is a god or a heaven- it is important to have faith if it is the only way you can find purpose in life. But I have learned that faith is just a crutch to make a hard life worth living when people are too afraid to choose thier own purpose for themselves. It’s easier to be in a community where everyone feels supported and their beliefs validated. But tell me, if the bible is a literal historical science from the one who created himself, who wrote it? If there weren’t even people yet, say we’re only on day 3 of it all, who witnessed it to write that down. Those of you that I offend or piss off, I truly feel sad for you that you can’t let go of bullshit, that you find it impossible to take credit for anything good in your life (since you’ve already given credit to the mythical creatures or god or whatever), and that you so passionately believe in fairytales being true that you seem absolutley insane- I feel really bad, I wish nothing more than for you to be able to stand alone, strong and proud with nothing to fear, even of death, with the knowledge that at the end of it all the lights just go out.
Preach it! Oh, wait a minute….anyway, good job summing up the truth.
There will always be ignorance where people do not look at various views and seek out truth. If you believe macroevolution is true and the first living things somehow spontaneously came together with no intelligent assistance, then you have not been keeping up with origin research discoveries in the past 20 years and have simply accepted things that have ben disproven already. Macroevolution does not guarantee that our intelligence would correspond to reality, so if apes were your ancestors, then you may not be able to know reality only possibly survive it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/fossilized-organic-materials
ENJOY the FACTS!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/fossilized-organic-materials
ENJOY the FACTS with an OPEN mind!
Gonna burn a few Christians at the stake, eh, Samuel?
I can see the world leaders getting together and saying “Alright guys, we’re going to go ahead and get started euthanizing idiots now. Did anyone get that definitive list from Samuel where he infallibly lists who is and isn’t an idiot?”
What does euthanizing mean?
And what did you just inject me with?
^Okay, that was kind of hilarious. :)
There’s the proof that evolution happens in varying degrees, and with some, it stopped in the dark ages. For those people, we also found that Earth is NOT flat and is not the center of the universe.
Gotta get away from voodoo and magic at some point and grow as a species.
The flat earth/center of the universe argument is tired. Give us a real argument, rather than insults, and perhaps you’ll sound more enlightened.
It was the intellectuals of the day that said the earth was flat and the rest of the world was taught the same, hmmm, yes glad wrong ideas eventually get laid to rest.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/fossilized-organic-materials
ENJOY the FACTDS!!
These people didn’t make SENSE.
“Historical science?” What is THAT? WHAT eyewitness account? If God did indeed create the earth in 7 days, there wasn’t anybody around to record it. And the book isn’t written in the first person, so I don’t think God wrote it Himself.
And you can’t take a vote on truth. You can’t say, most of the world believes this, so it must be true.
Of course there are problems with the theories of evolution – because it’s a work in progress! And teaching a child about concept, just so you can explain why it’s wrong, is not opening a child’s mind. It’s closing it.
Thanks for showing these videos. Everybody has the right to an opinion. Everybody has the right to choose their own faith. But faith does not belong in the classroom.
And evolution’s not at least partially based on faith? “One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, NOT MORE ORDER” (“A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity”. Science. Vol. 217 (Sept. 24, 1982). p. 1239 Roger Lewin)
You have to take it on faith that systems get better and more orderly, don’t you.
I would like to understand how a law of how energy is irrevocably lost through heat transfer has anything to do with this argument, if you would please?
That’s not the only way the 2nd law of thermodynamics is defined.
That is why I asked how it applied. Merely stating something is false doesn’t present the truth.
I think he’s referencing the fact that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum. Of course this doesn’t rule out evolution because more complex systems can still be more favorable if they are more efficient.
According to the articles I’ve read, there’s no answer to how evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And the full quote from Lewin goes something like this:
“One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order. One legitimate response to this challenge is that life on earth is an open system with respect to energy and therefore the process of evolution sidesteps the law’s demands for increasing disorder with time.”
Thus, it’s not a matter of whether or not evolution contradicts the law of entropy, but rather how evolution fits into the laws of thermodynamics.
Further, most of the articles that covered this were from Creationist sites such as the Institute for Creation Research (it sounds weird…I think they should’ve put Creationist but meh). Anyways, most of the articles were quite a put-down to evolutionary thinkers filled with little quips and insults.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/fossilized-organic-materials
ENJOY! Since you do not understand the law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics is not a problem for evolution, because the earth is not a closed system. There is more than enough energy arriving from the sun to offset the local decrease in entropy on Earth.
Oh, I didn’t see your reply. That sums it up way better than I did. Haha, thanks!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/fossilized-organic-materials
ENJOY the FACTS!
This is science, proven here, not faith!
Well, between Bill Nye and the Creationist Guy, I will agree that someone doesn’t understand science. That person is not Nye.
To say that “creationists have no problem with teaching their children evolution” does not speak well of Mr. Ham’s powers of observation. I’m looking at you, Kansas State Board of Education, 2005….
Disclaimer: I am a scientist, who works with engineers (who are also scientists! fun fact!).
There is quite a bit of difference between “teachiing” and having one sole opinion crammed into you for years straight.
How sad that otherwise (apparently) intelligent people actually believe this malarkey.
Is being condescending supposed to bolster your argument? Well, it doesn’t. There have been millions of brilliant men and women, both contemporary and historical, who are devout and intellectual Christians. The fact that you find this “sad” belittles you and your position.
How does it belittle her and her position? I really am confused on this.
That was so painful to watch.
My favorite quote: “We do see fossils and distant stars, but their history of how they got here really depends on our world view. Do we start with man’s ideas about the past who wasn’t here during the supposed billions of years of Earth’s history? Or do we start with the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God who created it all.”
Ludicrous. The Bible is a creation of man. It’s a period piece about morals with an enticing plot. Much of the does not apply to life today. A lot has changed. Humans have evolved.
Exactly. The Bible was written by MEN (not God) who had a very limited life experience. They wrote what they knew. If you told a man 4000 years ago about television, computers, and cell phones, they would think you were a witch or shaman and probably burn you at the stake or stone you. The men who wrote the Bible simply weren’t able to comprehend the science of how the human species evolved.
I cracked up laughing at that point. Haha, written revelation of the eyewitness account. Can’t breathe.
I am a parent, my kids are homeschooled, and I will be teaching them about evolution when their curriculum is advanced enough to delve into origins. I’ll be teaching them about intelligent design at the same time, explaining the theory behind evolution (as well as I’m able to from textbooks) and the biblical basis for creationism. Let’s face it. Evolution is an integral part of a humanistic worldview – which is almost diametrically opposed to a Christian worldview. Would I, as a Christian, be completely irresponsible if I were to teach them, without comment, about a worldview that I believe is false? Yes, just as any humanist parent would be irresponsible if he were to do likewise. If I were to avoid teaching my kids about the competing beliefs concerning origins, I would be teaching them to be scared of what they don’t believe, and I won’t do that to them. But I will teach them to test each and every philosophical system thoroughly.
Ummm – Mark, your argument fails when you call science a philosophical system.
Go ahead and teach the Christian creation myth in lesson on religion. Heck, I homeschooled for 8 years, and I taught my kids all kinds of mythology – Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, Christian, First Nations…
But don’t try to teach intelligent design as science, or evolution as philosophy – because that’s just disingenuous.
Sorry I wasn’t clear, Margaret. I was referring to the philosophical system of humanism. I do agree that evolution falls under the category of science. I’ll be teaching intelligent design as a worldview – because as far as I know it can’t be proven (or disproved) scientifically.
Here’s the thing with evolutionary science that I just can’t shake … I believe the Bible’s account, and don’t find evolution as a basic theory to be in conflict with it. However, I do find its explanation of Godless origin to be completely unnecessary and unfounded. Evolution doesn’t require atheism, but atheism does seem to be a major impetus behind many of its most vocal proponents. I am not atheist, because in my life, God has shown himself real and trustworthy.
How on earth do you prove a big bang or the words God used to speak the universe into being? You just can’t “prove” either – the big bang is based on theory, and God’s creative act is based on text. I believe the text. Call me a neanderthal, call me a believer in crazy magic, but that fact will still stand. I believe God’s word.
Well said.
And you shouldn’t find it in conflict with the Bible. As Darwin expounded it, even the order in which beings evolved is eerily similar to the order in which biblical creatures were made (coming from the Christian context as he did, Darwin’s observations aren’t really all that shocking). If anything, people of the Abrahamic faiths should be complaining that Darwin plagiarized the Bible.
Most of modern Western science has its basis in the Abrahamic faiths and their teachings. Indeed, if it weren’t for Islam, our entire numerical system would not exist. The Big Bang is the same way. The big problem that our Abrahamic friends have is one of attribution – they believe there is a source to attribute these things to, and science fails to do so. Whether science does so rightly or wrongly, or our Abrahamic friends are right or wrong to ask for that attribution is really not worth getting into, despite all of the ink that has been spilled by proponents of either side. It isn’t actually helpful in doing anything except perpetuating our arrogant, stupid obsessions with our own ego’s need to be right.
Great post, Christopher, except for one equivocation. You said, “The Big Bang is the same way. The big problem that our Abrahamic friends have is one of attribution – they believe there is a source to attribute these things to, and science fails to do so.” But really you are talking about naturalism here, which can be distinguished from science.
One can make all sorts of scientific observations without implicating the existence or non-existence of God. But when you move beyond talking about what is observable and measurable and begin postulating about what exists beyond the scientific realm of material phenomena, you leave science behind and move into the realm of philosophy.
Theism and naturalism are both philosophical concepts, and as such science says nothing about either. Science also plays no favorites between them. Nevertheless science is often invoked by to support a naturalist worldview through the common equivocation of the two.
So the real objection of creationists is the teaching of philosophical naturalism as being the same thing as science, while at the same time shutting out any competing philosophical viewpoints.
Margaret,
The ideology and premises that drive much of the science behind the theory of evolution are actually highly philosophical. A book was written about this very subject about 20 years ago called “Darwin on Trial”. I found it to be a rather helpful read. I would recommend it to you. If you’d rather peruse a summary, I’d be glad to send you my paper that I wrote on it.
God bless,
Andy
Hi there Andy,
I wouldn’t mind reading your paper!
Cheers,
James (Irish university student)
Technically, every science is build upon the original science of philosophy. Philosophy in itself is learning through observation and critical thinking, regardless of the topic.
Evolution isn’t anti-Christian. Use science for science, use the Bible for faith.
Thank-you! This is exactly what Bill Nye meant. I think the reason why he said creationism is inappropriate for children is because most people who do teach creationism, tend to ignore evolution. I say let the kid choose perhaps that’s due to my upbringing (my parents let me choose), but it just seems rather malicious to force your child into a specific type of thinking just because you believe so too. Of course, eventually it does get a bit difficult with differing thoughts (I’m an atheist and my mom’s a Buddhist), but in the end religion and belief isn’t all that important. I figure if there’s a God then he’ll be forgiving enough to overlook my beliefs (cause if a god isn’t forgiving, then that just doesn’t seem like a higher being type of behaviour) and if there isn’t a god then it doesn’t really matter. haha.
Dear 22 Words- You truly need to add both a “like/upvote” button and a “donate to my education” button if you are going to continue to allow comments.
Thank you for posting the rebuttals. I appreciated Dr. Ham’s response to Nye’s conclusion that if you teach your kids creationism, they will be unable to pursue science careers. I was taught both growing up, and wound up getting a degree in Chemistry. Not only that, but evolution was barely mentioned at all in my BioChem classes, and not at all in my other chemistry classes. My professors considered it to have little to no worth when it came to teaching us the core principles of chemistry. Evolution, (and creation for that matter), really is not all that important to most science fields.
Gotta love how they throw in critical thinking as a way to back creationism. Critical thinking IS evolution and the basis of all science. Also, Creation Museum (what a blast that place would be for the kids), if you’re so sure about your arguments then enable comments for your youtube posts. So disappointing.
I like how these tools have disabled rating and commenting on their videos. Thats all I needed to see.
First of all thi
“God” hates these people for their exploitation in his name. That is why there is drought in the South & Midwest. Hurricanes, tornado’s, fires and scorching climate will gradually wipe these smug, self-righteous exploiters from the face of this planet.
I’m not being a smartass, but what drought?
I live in the South, and we’ve had plenty of rain.
I live in Kansa and I can tell you for a fact that most of the Midwest is in the worst drought we have seen since the thirties, though I don’t exactly agree with bill.
I feel bad. But I can’t stop laughing.
First of all this guy doesn’t give any defense for creationism, he just says evolution is wrong. Second he says bones dont come with tags and pictures giving the date from which they came, this is why we have radiation dating which has been proven a multitude of times. Then he says that he hoped Bill didnt use evolutionary principles in Boeing planes, any engineer out there knows this is false. You start with a design then you test it and make improvements, you keep doing this until you have a final product that might be completely different then what you started with, that’s evolution. This guy is just spouting a bunch of BS.
Isn’t the engineer the “intelligent designer” in your example? Evolution is random and undirected. What you describe is an intelligent being adding new information and perfecting a creation. Your example sounds like Genesis to me.
Let’s call a spade a spade here, people. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It should not be taught in the schools as anything more than a possible explanation of the origin of life. I’ve never seen anything evolve (at least on the scale we’re talking about here) just like I’ve never seen anything created (something made from nothing). To be fair both these ideas should be presented on a level playing field and the same credibility given to both. Then we can all move on and talk about what’s really important: science that can help mankind.
P.S. I am genuinely looking for answers here: Why aren’t there people walking around who look like monkeys? You know, that are still in an earlier stage of evolution? If we don’t have people like that, shouldn’t there at least be an absence of monkeys? I’m not being sarcastic or trying to prove a point. It’s something I’ve honestly always wondered and never found an answer to. Little help?
People (human people) evolved from monkeys the same way other kinds of monkeys did. Some evolved, and some didn’t. They formed different species of monkey, then the differences grew more pronounced, and eventually they split off into apes and humans (or at least that’s how my high school bio teacher explained it). It’s very similar to how different bird species evolved out of just the one. I think land and physical separation also helped. As we evolve species grow more diverse.
there’s a few simple things which have definitely “evolved”, and you can see it happen – the first are the breeds of dogs & cats – do you think that chiwawas existed in the “Garden of Eden” or “on the Ark”? Of course they didn’t
all that has happened with dogs, cats, cows, chickens, etc is that man has selectively bred different breeds to become more of what they want as an animal – this is considered “micro evolution”, which is minor changes to the species, but enough micro evolutions eventually make a macro evolution – it doesn’t happen over a few years, it takes hundreds or thousands of years for a species to dramatically change
the simplest way to make an “evolutionary change” is to find 2 of the same species of animal with the traits you want and to breed them, then again with their children only breed with the ones with the traits you want, eventually you have “evolved” a new type for that species, and with enough breeding you can eventually create a new species
do you think that the evolution of man happened in one lifetime, or in your case (for wanting to SEE an evolution happening) several years? humans are STILL evolving – take a look at mankind’s skeletons from a few hundred years ago, they are a LOT shorter than we are now, because humans are slowly evolving to be taller, stronger, faster and more intelligent (for the most part)
it’s people like the creationists who try to teach that incest is a GOOD thing and we all come from it (not only Adam & Eve, but Noah and his family apparently “bred” each of the continent’s races), not only that but we are “created in God’s image”, which is why we have an appendix, which kills at random 1 in every 4 people…
next, if you take the Bible as being 100% correct, then the Earth was created specifically for mankind – 90%+ of the Earth is uninhabitable by man (oceans, ice, mountains, swamps, etc), so according to the Bible, less than 10% is what they consider to be “designed for mankind”, not to mention how much space is outside of the Earth, which is COMPLETELY uninhabitable – it’s like being a parent, designing a room for your child, but only letting them sit in the corner and the rest of the room they can’t use – yup, it’s a “perfect” room for the child :-P
PhilA,
In your opinion, where did the second generation of humans come from? Were they other animals that happened to have the exact same mutation at the same time (relatively) as the first generation? Or was that incest too?
Your incest example is a very bad critique.
the second generation of humans came from the first generation, it’s called “breeding”
as for incest, the first humans (according to the Bible) was Adam and Eve, they had 2 sons, one of whom killed the other, leaving Adam, Eve & Kane – only ONE woman, therefore Kane must have either procreated with his mother, or his sister, meaning INCEST
next we move to Noah, who was on the Ark with his wife, his sons and their wives, after the flood (killing all other humans and air breathing animals) spread around the world to re-populate it, meaning that each man & wife must have had children who either bred with their siblings or parents, meaning INCEST
therefore, according to the Bible, we are all descendants of incest between the family of Adam & Eve, and then incest between Noah’s children and their families – we are ALL inbred!
You do realize that in both your scenario and the Biblical scenario, incest is implied, unless you believe that not only has macro evolution developed the various species but that those mutations happened en masse to prevent this?
“if you take the Bible as being 100% correct, then the Earth was created specifically for mankind”
I don’t think the Bible says that.
Technically speaking, the earth (and everything else) was created to display God’s attributes and magnify his glory, although yes, humankind is a very special part of that creation.
“there’s a few simple things which have definitely “evolved”, and you can see it happen – the first are the breeds of dogs & cats – do you think that chiwawas existed in the “Garden of Eden” or “on the Ark”? Of course they didn’t”
You do realize that chihuahuas are still dogs, right? More to the point, are you aware that pure-bred dogs, cats, horses, etc actually have an enormous number of health issues? The more a gene mutates (specializes), the weaker it becomes overall. As it turns out, a population of diverse dog breeds will eventually revert back to a wild “mutt” form.
Evolution fails because mutations (which may be favorable under a certain outside constraint) weaken the gene overall, they don’t strengthen it. As a result, when the outside constraint is removed, the gene pool reverts back to the original strain, and the mutated gene pool dies off.
About the last part, I have to disagree with you on that. First, there are multiple types of mutation, of these, most end up being harmful, a lesser percent having no effect, and a tiny portion actually leading to a better genetic change). Further, what you call strengthening is dependent on the environmental influence. However, when the outside influence is removed, the gene pool does not revert back to the original strain because 1) the original allele might still be present, actually scratch that, will be present, 2) the new environmental influence that comes will throw a shift in the allele balance or frequency. So what I’m saying is that evolution does not fail because some mutations are favorable no matter what and others are not favorable no matter what, and then there’s the gray area that remains dependent on the environment. For example, in populations where cases of malaria are high, the allele for sickle-cell anemia is also high. However, if you move said population to a non malaria zone, eventually the allele frequency for sickle-cell anemia will lower. That, however, does not mean the sickle-cell anemia allele will be gone from the gene pool because it’s a recessive and that’s why there will always be carriers.
Bill, seek help.
Just to add my two cents into this debate…
I believe in evolution and creationism, to a certain extent. God created the world and people and animals and everything in seven days, but God days follow a different time scale than human days. A “God day” could last two million years. I think people evolved from whatever, but God was pushing and prodding that evolution along the right paths, guiding it towards his intended end result. I guess my version doesn’t cover everything, but it makes sense to me.
Whelp, in the original Hebrew text, the word “day” is a literal 24 hour day. I’m not trying to argue, just thought I’d through in my to cents as well :)
Actually “yom” has a wide variety of meanings
http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm
Hebrew Dictionaries
Let’s start with the possible meanings of Yom;
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press)
“It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague “time,” 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.).”
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (symbols omitted)
from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:–age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (…live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), younger
As you can see, Hebrew dictionaries attest to the fact that the word Yom is used for anywhere from 12 hours up to a year, and even a vague “time period” of unspecified length.
Chad,
First, thank you for the time you’ve invested in your research. If you don’t mind, I’d like to offer some push back. My understanding is that whenever ‘yom’ is modified by a numerical adjective in the OT (the first day, etc…), it always refers to a 24 hour period.
Andy
I would like to point out that the creation account in Genesis is clearly written in prose. This is helpfully indicated by your Bible translators, who usually indent the lines.
Think for a moment about about how you normally approach prose (eg the Old Testament Prophets)—particularly how ‘literal’ you interpret the text.
I know you said you didn’t want to argue. So don’t understand this as directed specifically at you. I just don’t understand this position. If “day” is a literal 24 hour day, then that means we are imposing our standards upon God. Also how do we have 24 hour day when there is no earth or Sun on the few days? If there is no Sun, the earth cannot be spinning around it on it’s axis to create the 24 hours necessary. Then the big problem if we have “God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day” doesn’t that mean God made the greater light to rule for 24 hours, which would make no sense because then the moon has no time to rule and the verse goes on to describe the moon as ruling.
I know you didn’t say it, but people often say the whole account is literal. Yet that baffles me just as much. Adam and Eve did not literally die when they ate the fruit. We don’t say that snakes are incarnations of Satan. Most people don’t think there are literally waters above the heavens (besides the scientific impossibility of it frying us all to death, there is no exegetical ground for saying that this somehow burst during the flood). When it says their eyes were opened and they understood they were naked no one thinks they actually had their eyes closed before this. People are just really picky about what they want to take literally.
A six 24-hour day interpretation of Genesis is exegetically impossible. Which is why you have people abandoning it as early as Augustine, way before the whole evolution “debate”. The people who will not allow for any allegorical understanding of the Bible must have a hard time accepting the Apostle Paul when he uses Genesis allegorically in Galatians 4. The whole thing is preposterous to me.
Here here!
Or hear hear!?
It’s “hear hear”. It’s the shortened version of “hear ye, hear ye” or “hear him, hear him” used during the olden times. :D
Well, I know this going to soud cliche, but nothing is impossible with God. If He created the world in a literal 24 hour day, who are we to say it’s impossible? Or crazy? If you can’t take the Genesis account literal, then how can you say the rest of it isn’t? And to answer your thing about Adam and Eve…no they didn’t die right away, but they did die. Just like God said they would.
“A six 24-hour day interpretation of Genesis is exegetically impossible.”
Your opinion. The book is not written poetically (as are, say, the prophets, or Song of Solomon). Genesis is written historically. So the burden of proof is on the person who reads it allegorically to justify their position. To simply say “a six 24-hour day interpretation of Genesis is exegetically impossible” is not only false, it makes one look like they haven’t actually considered the arguments of the other side in close detail.
“The book is not written poetically (as are, say, the prophets, or Song of Solomon). Genesis is written historically.”
Almost correct. The book is written historically, but Genesis 1 to 2:2, 4:23b-24, 8:22, 9:25-27 (at least) are written in prose. We need to approach each passage in a manner appropriate to the style in which it was written.
“If He created the world in a literal 24 hour day, who are we to say it’s impossible? Or crazy?”
I agree with your point. But if the Biblical account (at least to me) does not necessarily demand a ‘literal’ interpretation, why would I insist on interpreting it that way, when scientific evidence seems to agree with the opposite?
I get tired of hearing all of this crap. Neither argument here can be proven 100%, although historically, evolution does have more facts to reference to. I disapprove of the christian faith based solely on the fact the bible has been mistranslated numerous times (a simple reading of the torah with an understanding of the words will prove this), not to mention if the council of nicaea is the equivalent of having all sects of the faith becoming one sect, which further shows the lack of clarity on the etymology of the original teachings themselves. Any intrinsic value would have been lost or at least blurred beyond imagining. Any true faith would have tried to rectify that, regardless of the impact it may have had on the religion as a whole, especially if it meant whether or not one spent and eternity in ‘hell’. I’ve yet to see christianity as a whole do this.
You would think Bill Nye would have been done with school but these guys just took him right back.
Abraham,
Thank you for posting this. It’s cool to see a balanced representation of different view points on your blog. I like it.
Andy
LOVE Ken Ham! He is awesome! So thankful for men like him who are spreading the truth of God’s word.
Next you should post some Old Earth Creation views which I find more compelling.
Signature in the Cell was an excellent book on the OE/ID view
I’d be quite willing to accept that a God created the Earth & started life, but there’s NO WAY that it’s the Biblical God – if it was, then he’s done a TERRIBLE job of creating it – killing of people because he’s angry at them, destroying people because they don’t lay down and worship him
I’d rather not believe in a God who sentences people to eternal damnation just because they were born in a place where they had no chance to learn about “him” – like the Americas, Australasia, the Orient 500+ years ago – yup, born in the wrong place, zero chance of learning, and you’re damned for eternity – THAT is a loving God :-P
Couple of quick things, not to delve completely into the philosophy of it all:
God’s judgement is not a reflection of the goodness of His creation. This would exclude free will which, in my opinion, is the epitome of a considerate and thoughtful creator.
As far as location damning people, 1) the Bible clearly states that all of nature points toward God and His creation so that man is without excuse and 2) man is saved by faith, not works or knowledge. The Bible teaches a God with full knowledge and full justice (fairness). If God is fair and knows all circumstances, His decisions will always be right. This is why it is essential that Christians adhere to the fact that we cannot judge any other man’s salvation. That is God’s right, alone.
So, what you’re saying is that it was the American Indians, Aborigines, Eskimos, etc FAULT that they were born somewhere that was nowhere near the Middle East where the Bible was written?
Before, during and after Christ’s time the Bible was only available around that area, and since nobody had sailed to the Americas, Australasia, Japan, etc at that time then the Bible could never have been taken to those places, and therefore those peoples would have never known of Christ’s existence, therefore could have never had “faith”, and therefore (according to the Bible) be excluded from Heaven
And therefore, according to you, it’s “God’s right” to exclude people from Heaven just because of where they had been born? Yup, that’s a “loving God”, deliberately excluding peoples from Heaven just because of their place of birth, not because of who they are and what they do during their life
Actually, I was arguing directly against everything that you just said (which was simply a recitation of what you said above that prompted my response). It appears you simply want to sound smart, so you keep spouting the same nonsense if anyone disagrees (or appears to with a cursory glance) with you in any fashion. I’ll try one more time to address what the Bible states rather than what we may hear from Christians, as that is the issue at hand.
The Bible does not outright condemn anyone who has not heard of Jesus. To say so would be to ignore the Old Testament and so much of what the New Testament says regarding those who lived before Christ, namely the patriarchs. Their faith is what was counted for them, not in the name of Jesus because they couldn’t have known.
Additionally, as I thought I had described fairly well above but, I guess, failed instead, we cannot assume God’s judgement on anyone. That is His right, not arbitrary or slighted. If God is the God that Christians believe Him to be, his knowledge and justice is perfect; therefore, any decision He will make regarding the lives of His creation will be perfect and just. To summarily dismiss the lives of an known populace (much less an unknown one) based on our limited perspective and limited understanding is faulty, so I tend to come down pretty hard on the Christians that I see acting as if they know what God does with those who have had no access to Scriptures for any reason. If I am told to not judge my brother, how much less should I judge those whom I’ve never even met or heard of?
You seem to adamantly condemn a god that would arbitrarily decide who suffers, but what you seem to miss (and I see it far too often in people who condemn such a god) is that is not the God of the Bible. The Christian God is one who is good, righteous, fair, and trustworthy. Unfortunately, the god that you see presented by far too many believers is one of condemnation, irritability, and fickleness. I was never arguing in favor of such a god. He would not be my God.
For you to promptly dismiss every Christian you encounter as this judgmental, superstitious yes-man is just as faulty as Christians who wholly dismiss nonbelievers under the heading of evil, corrupt, and out to destroy anything good they see. It’s just an unfair categorization of a whole that is far to diverse in the individual parts to ignore.
You want patience, love, and understanding. I see it in your passion against a vicious deity. Express those values in your arguments, and prove that they are worth holding high. Otherwise, your arguments will end up becoming that which you say you abhor. I don’t contend to win you to my faith in this. I just contend to make the discussion between believer and non-believer better for all involved.
I just wanted to point out that Carr’s comments are spot on. This is an example of an educated Christian that understands the we serve a God of LOVE.
Why are comments and ratings disabled on YouTube? Are you afraid of what people really think of this video?
Probably because they know that the bulk of the comments won’t be fruitful to discussion, but will be belittling and rude.
Chris, note that in the comments *here*, PhilA dumps on Ham’s overall beliefs, but is willing to accept the possibility of (what has become known as) intelligent design. Corey also disapproves of Christianity, but concedes that “[n]either argument here can be proven 100%”. Although neither viewpoint expressed is all *that* nuanced, their views are simply not permitted in Nye’s world and are shouted down in seemingly *rational* venues.
Now kick that up (down?) to what goes on in the Youtube world. The last time a rational discussion that had anything to do with the subject being discussed in the original video occurred on Youtube was early in the Calvin Coolidge administration.
That would be my best guess as to why comments are disabled.
Because of trolls whose only mission in life is to troll Christian YouTube channels. Ok, maybe that’s an exaggeration. But, there are trolls out there and no doubt the Creation Museum would be flooded with them. It’s kinda pointless arguing with them and trying to monitor the comments, so it’s easier just to turn them off. Don’t believe me? Go to YouTube and type in “Wretched Radio”, and then click on the second result. It’s a channel for a Christian radio program and every! Single! Video they put up is hounded by trolls. Gets rather annoying. :/ But it’s a good thing they are watching the videos.
I must admit, after watching Bill Nye’s video and not considering the opposing viewpoint, I pretty much stated: Bill Nye 1, Creationists 0. However, after watching both of these response videos, I will give them credit for changing my mind. I now would say: Bill Nye 1, Creationists -2. But I’m pretty sure the Creationists would say that that score violates the second law of thermodynamics, because anything that a) has numbers and b) goes against creationism, somehow violates the second law of thermodynamics.
I’m tempted to report them on youtube. sigh.
To all the creationists, I humbly and simply ask; why is the christian creation story the only alternative narrative to creation? I would argue that it is only because 1. as conscious beings, we place value upon our own experience and suggest that because we are intelligent therefore it is because of miraculous design, 2. as a western culture, value is placed upon the western christian experience to the exclusion of others. The suggestion that humanity whilst possessing incredible power over the destiny of the planet, may be the product of a cosmic experiment is perhaps too confronting. Why is it more or less confronting than questions like does God care one way or the other OR am I worshipping the right God?
Tremendous issues here. I’m very glad to look your article. Thanks a lot and I’m looking forward to contact you. Will you please drop me a e-mail?
Observational science – They don’t believe in evolution, then pumping their cars with fossil fuel.
Stopped watching half way for the sake of my blood pressure. Half-truths, misconceptions, distortions… Great way to argue for your God, guys.