Featured Bill Nye vs Ken Hamm

He lost not because he could not make good points about evolution but because he tried to criticize creationism and the Bible as well as Kens position when he did not fully understand them. He looked foolish.

 

Nye was throwing a lot of different things at Ham and he was trying to address what he could remember each time.

 

Wow, did we watch the same debate? Here's my thoughts on it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2083266

 

Evolution contradicts Scripture in so many places that it is impossible to reconcile the two. Darwin was a poor scientist and he loses.

 

Ummmm......yea we must not have watched the same one.

 

I find it interesting that the MSM is relying on a bogus poll on the British website Christian Today that resulted, as of this morning, in 94% claiming Nye won the debate. The New Republic's blogger on the debate went so far as to say this open poll -- i.e., anyone can access it and vote -- "might have been flooded by evolution lovers, but I doubt it." Really?? C'mon, man!

I think C. Shane Morris, a blogger for The Christian Post was right when he coined the term "Fish Wars" several years ago, referring to the militant Darwinists who created the quadrupedal ichthus to counter the creationist viewpoint, and at the same time openly mocking Christianity's second-most ancient symbol. Creationists followed with another volley with the "TRUTH" fish swallowing up a fish named "DARWIN." Darwinists followed with a dinosaur gnawing on the "TRUTH" fish, and it has continued and escalated in various ways ever since. Morris wrote the day of the debate, "The Nye vs. Ham debate is just another 'Fish War" escalation. It won't change any minds." And I doubt that it did.

 

There is no such thing as a Christian who believes in evolution.

 

I think Nye has been frequenting the BB based on the many fallacies he spouts

 

Haha, this one does. It's something that you will have to come to terms with or completely marginalize your self.

 

Sorry, but you can't be both because in order for evolution to be true the Gospel must be false.

Let's start with the obvious: Were fossils formed before Adam's sin?

If a literal understanding of the Bible's creation account is not to be trusted, then how do you trust the rest of the Bible?

 

Interesting that you acknowledge you "believe" in evolution, as JDF put the statement. You're aware, no doubt, that you are expressing faith by saying you believe? Faith in a theory, rather than a scientific law? By acknowledging faith in the theory, your are tacitly admitting that you have no proof it is true, that it is speculation, not fact. Whereas I don't have to "believe" in gravity or Newton's Laws of Motion because I "know they are true -- they've been proven, therefore are scientific laws, not scientific theories.

So the question becomes, in what do you place your faith? Probably, you will say "Jesus Christ." Good for you, if you do. As He Himself said, "You have done well." But what did Jesus say about creation? For one thing, He quoted from Moses' writings.

Genesis 5, NASB
2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.​

Jesus believed in Creation, not evolution. He made reference to the first male and female being created. He did not say that they evolved or that God created the amoeba after the amoeba kind and they evolved into humans -- male and female. He said they were created, and named Man, in the day they were created. It is a literal statement, both in the original Genesis passage, and in the Greek of Matthew 19:4. In other words, Jesus was speaking of an actual event, not summarizing millions of years of accident into a metaphorical 24-hour period. He was talking about a literal "day of creation." And why not? Scripture calls Him the Creator.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Colossians 1
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things have been created through Him and for Him. ​

In New Testament Greek, the words translated both "made" and "created" in these to passages have the same meaning, a literal, handcrafted creation. No evolution, no million years. He spoke all of creation into being, and handcrafted man.

So back to the question, in what do you place your faith? Can you look at the exegetical and physical evidences and claim you can believe in both?

I think not.

 

Evolution needs to be qualified by macro or micro, IMO. There is no disputing micro evolution.

 

I am not aware of any generally accepted, peer reviewed scientific theory that is necessarily incompatible with Christianity.

 

What's the matter? Was my little question too tough for you?

I guess they don't make internet tough guys like they used to.

 

Agreed. Animals experience subtle changes over centuries when they are separated by continents and based on traits that become dominant and also diets.

 

Primate to hominid to human would be one.

 

The key incompatibility comes with the fall. How God created the earth and the animals in it is of little consequence, other than in confirming the Biblical testimony. I have no problem with God speaking the world into existence and on the day of creation that world having sedimentary rocks, canyons, rivers, and full grown trees that would have visible rings if you cut them down.

The incompatibility is the fall. If Adam and Eve had not sinned and separated us from God; then Jesus need not have come. If mankind evolved simultaneously in various locations, that is a major theological problem. In order for the gospel to be true we have to be able to trace mankind back to a single man and woman.

That should be the focus of the argument.