Featured Bill Nye vs Ken Hamm

I recall the lineage being traced back to one man and one woman in a stiff some years back.

 

FWIW here is a video of Baptist Pastor Rick Warren officiating at Nye's wedding a few years ago:

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/the-science-guy-gets-married/

Touching prayer at 7:35.



http://saddleback.com/story/2788.html

 

Oh, heaven forbid, you mean he's a believer and spouts this nonsense?? Great googly-moogly!

Or, maybe he just lied to Rick? Naw, I don't think he could get away with that.

 

To me DNA is the end of the discussion. We can look at the current DNA mutation rates and then compare the DNA of people in different regions and calculate the age of a common human ancestor. Using the best methods available right now it points to a common human ancestor 200,000-60,000 years ago.

Like the point Ken tried to make several times during the debate, that assumes that current mutation rates are constant and that they have been constant over the last 200,000 years. That is a bad assumption.

Personally I believe that major mutations, what we call race or skin color, as well as language differences were introduced by God at Babel. So if we include the possibility of major mutation at a given time, like Babel, then a 200,000 to 60,000 year gap for that common ancestor could very easily drop to the young earth estimate of 6,000 years.

I know that is kind of like Ham using the flood to explain layer of sedimentary rock, something I don’t think is necessary as I believe God could have created sedimentary rock as part of creation, but both arguments are scientifically sound.

 

@RichardDawkins: I was against Bill Nye's decision to debate. I now realise Ken Ham is wonderfully embarrassing for Xtians & should be given max exposure.

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/06/92_percent_say_bill_nye_won_in_christian_today_poll/

92% of those polled say Bill Nye won the debate. That's a Christianity Today poll.

 

My apologies, I saw this on a Tweet and grabbed the headline off Google in-between a couple meetings this afternoon.

This isn't a scientific poll, the original article made it sound scientific.

This is an internet based opinion grabber. I'll see if I can find something credible.

 

Says the man who won't debate William Lane Craig.

 

That's what I thought.

 

Al Mohler's take on the debate.

In this light, the debate proved both sides right on one central point: If you agreed with Bill Nye you would agree with his reading of the evidence. The same was equally true for those who entered the room agreeing with Ken Ham; they would agree with his interpretation of the evidence.
That’s because the argument was never really about ice rods and sediment layers. It was about the most basic of all intellectual presuppositions: How do we know anything at all? On what basis do we grant intellectual authority? Is the universe self-contained and self-explanatory? Is there a Creator, and can we know him?

On those questions, Ham and Nye were separated by infinite intellectual space. They shared the stage, but they do not live in the same intellectual world. Nye is truly committed to a materialistic and naturalistic worldview. Ham is an evangelical Christian committed to the authority of the Bible. The clash of ultimate worldview questions was vividly displayed for all to see.​

http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/02...entral-worldview-clash-of-the-ham-nye-debate/

 

How does one win a debate defending a fairy tale?

 

That was the night of the poll. I made note of this several days ago, and it was 94% then. Now it is 96%. And you don't think this unscientific poll could have been crashed by atheists and pro-evolutionists?