There was a big debate today between two high-profile proponents of their respective positions - Ken Ham for Creation, and Bill Nye for Evolution. Bill Nye claims to represent "science", yet gave us zero examples of Evolution while it is happening. He is in the same boat as Richard Dawkins, but at least Mr. Dawkins is truthful enough to admit that Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening.
What was telling, is that not only did the "scientist" not give any observed examples of Evolution while it's happening, but spent most of his time berating the Bible, and trying to make believers in it look dumb. He even went straight to the philosophical questions near the end (2:34:00 or so mark), showing that he is NOT about what is scientific or not, he is about trying desperately to get God out of the picture. He even admits around the 1:47:00 mark that observation is not necessary!!!
It was very nice to see Ken Ham keep to the high and straight road, never conceding anything in the story of Genesis might accomodate a long-earth theory, and peppering his comments with remarks to get people to give their lives to Jesus. He did say some things in the Psalms were "poetic", which weakened his position just a little bit, but over all, an extremely solid performance. I was praying for you sir!
It's nice to see this subject brought up in a public space, and the huge response (722,000 views) will hopefully make more people think about this subject.
Upon scientific basis - Bill Nye LOST, Ken Ham WON.
Using reasoning based upon observation: records of history : present knowledge of biology.
We exist - we did not make ourselves - we point to our parents - our grandparents and onward back through our ancestry.
But finally the tally reaches to the first man and the first woman - we did not make ourselves and we are fully human. All the couples were human without exception biology requires it, even though genetic damage is a given.
Our parents and and all the way back in our ancestry none of the man-woman couples made themselves, they required a man-woman couple before them through the laws of biology in operation to make them.
Therefore using the same totally human biology, when you get to the first man and woman couple - someone made them.
The first man-woman couple started out fully human, and someone had to make them.
Tracing backward through the observable linage of humanity someone who was pre-existing made each set of human children that in turn grew up and made the next generation of humans - who in turn grew up and repeated the process.
Until the first man - woman couple.
Someone had to be the first man, someone had to be the first woman; and the first man and the first woman did not create themselves.
Someone pre-existing who was not human mortal man - created the first human man and the first human woman ( otherwise the first man & woman would not have been the first ) - and gave them the authority to be fruitful and multiply and one flesh, and the ability to be fruitful and multiply and the instructions and motivations to do so.
Human biology has not changed regarding the laws governing one flesh-fruitful multiply - in any of the rest of observable history - and no observable data exists that the first man first woman couple created themselves. Someone else with powers abilities knowledges existing separate from and above and beyond humanity - did the creating.
the fallout from this debate has been that evolutionists believe that Bill Nye won and creationists believe that Ken Ham won the debate....
so where does this leave us?
I will say that Bill Nye challenged the belief that the only way that anything was ever created on this earth was based on the sun and photosynthesis... Hmmmm...
there is another form of life on this earth that does not depend on sunlight or the food chain through photosynthesis... it is called chemosynthesis and takes place near the deep sea trenches called black smokers... a whole world of life down there where none have any ties to the sunlight and photosynthesis... having said that, all the forms of life down there are similar in structure to things all over this earth and DNA that is consistent with all life forms on earth...... that supports a Creator God.
He of course was hinting at creation and taking a jab at the Bible and what God says in His Word.
A debator that I believe would be excellent along these lines would be Walter Veith.
Excellent post, Ed, showing clearly, by observation, that we humans have all come from a Creator. Even non-believers admit that everyone has had a mother and father (or in this degenerate age - at least a sperm and egg came together somehow). So, by observation, we come to the natural conclusion that something/someone outside of us had to have made the first pair. Of course that was God.
I make a lot of hay over the fact that even Richard Dawkins publicly admitted in 2004 that "Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening". Of course he is absolutely correct. He hastily went on to add that there are mountains of "circumstantial evidence", but that is basically admitting the whole ball of wax - Evolution fails the scientific method.
I thot Ken Ham did very well in not only staying calm and cool, but in giving observed evidence refuting the Evolutionist's position, and also in giving the straight gospel without compromise. So many times i've cringed in these debates because the apologist for Creation rejects the idea of a literal, 6-day Creation etc., but Ken Ham was unashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and gave a great witness.
Sure wish a bold Seventh-day Adventist would give a good witness too. As NB has noted, Walter Veith would be a great choice.
Dr's Robert Gentry Sr & Jr should have been there. Dawkins had to admit at trial , he could not disprove Dr gentry's work, and that legally evolution is a theory.
Dr's Robert Gentry Sr & Jr should have been there. Dawkins had to admit at trial , he could not disprove Dr gentry's work, and that legally evolution is a theory.
