Intelligent Design

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

gregladen — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:03:36 +0000

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

In the Spring of 2010, evangelical Bible scholar Bruce Waltke, in speaking about the overwhelming evidence for evolution, said “To deny that reality will make us a cult, some odd group that is not really interacting with the real world.”

In response to this, Ken Ham, president of Kentucky’s Creation Museum, commented, “What he is saying ultimately undermines the authority of God’s word.”

Both statements seem to be true. (I don’t think you necessarily need to have faith in a god to accept the basic logic of Ham’s statement.) Also, that’s really all you need to know about young earth creationism. It is God’s word, and the FAQ on the matter is the Bible.

Last night, science communicator Bill Nye debated Ken Ham at Ham’s Creation Museum in Kentucky. This debate came about because of a statement Bill Nye made not long ago suggesting that creationism, and in particular efforts to force creationism into textbooks and, via other means, into classrooms, does harm to children and ultimately to society. Ham took that statement as a cue to challenge Nye to a debate, and Nye accepted.

Many people, myself included, objected to Bill Nye’s acceptance of this challenge. The reasons for that objection are outlined here, and here. I need not repeat them.

The debate happened last night. When it comes to creationism, I admit that I am not an objective observer, but I can try. I think Ken Ham did fine in that debate. He spoke before his own audience. A remarkably white but gender and age diverse gathering of followers of the Bible and believers in creationism seem to have responded well to Ham. His rhetoric was consistent. We know everything, we understand the most important issues of origins, creation, and evolution, and all of this information comes mainly from the Bible. There are a few other details.

At the same time, however, Bill Nye also did well in this debate, objectively speaking. He presented science, science, science and more science. He presented the science clearly, convincingly, chose his examples well, personalized the discussion wherever possible even to the point of doing a Lewis Black moment (pulling out a fossil he had picked up earlier in the week!). During the few moments when we were allowed to see the evangelical audience during Bill Nye’s presentation they looked, frankly, charmed. And how could they not be, Bill Nye is a charming guy!

In my view, again biased in favor of science because, well, because it’s the correct view, Bill Nye won the debate by a large margin. Friends on Twitter and Facebook equated the debate to the Superbowl, with Bill Nye being the Seahawks and Ken Ham being Denver. Apt. Perhaps even an understatement. Even a poll on a Christian web site gave a strong win to Nye

One could say that it was easy. Bill Nye made it look easy. He focused on the science, as I mentioned, but he also frequently applied that science to Ken Ham’s young earth creationism. One might wonder if Noah’s Ark could have stayed afloat during the great flood, with all those animals on it, for as long as the Bible says it did. But during this debate, Bill Nye sunk that Ark again and again. In addition to an excellent and convincing high altitude view of evolutionary science, and effective deconstruction of young earth creationism, Nye also made frequent and engaging references to the amazing outcome of unfettered scientific study and technology, which I think helps people appreciate and personalized science. He even made an argument from patriotism (not a scientific argument for evolution, but an argument for honest pursuit of knowledge).

Ken Ham’s argument for the young age of the Earth was unassailable. The Bible tells us the age of the Earth, period. Ham claims all of the dating methods are fallible, none are as good as eye witness evidence. (That would be God.) This is unassailable because it is untestable, but based on good science, we can say it is wrong. But you can’t really do much about a religious belief. Ham presented counter evidence contrary to the generally accepted science, but it was the usual bogus, incorrect, easily dismissed set of arguments. For example, some really old stuff was dated to really old (as it is) with the potassium argon method but to only 40-something thousand years using radiocarbon dating. The reason for that, of course, is that radiocarbon dating generally does not function beyond 40-something thousand years old, so all older material produces a young date with that particular method. If you measure the height of a great mountain with a ruler, the mountain will come out to be one foot tall, unless you get a bigger ruler. Also, somewhere in there I think Ken Ham made the argument that we should not wear clothes. Yet he was wearing clothes. Please explain.

An edited version of this debate, with just the Bill Nye parts, will make an excellent overview of why evolutionary biology is the way to go and young earth creationism is not.

There were definitely several moment where I wish I could have jumped on the stage and given Bill’s answer for him. For example, Ham scored a point by deconstructing functional interpretations of mammalian dental anatomy, in relation to the question of whether all the animals were vegetarians during Ark-times. I could have crushed that response in a way that would introduce even more evidence for evolution. But Bill Nye is an expert in other areas. Moreover, Bill Nye did the right thing by not responding to most of Ham’s specific points, but rather, continuing to return to his own main points. Nye, in a sense, provided a slower and more ponderous, and well done, science version of the Gish Gallop. He had a number of powerful points and stuck to them, and mostly avoided going off track.

The fact that Bill Nye did very well in this debate does not mean that we should all start debating creationists, especially at events with a door charge that goes to support an entity like the Creation Museum. Put a different way: Bill Nye is a professional. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. But the widespread concern, including that expressed by yours truly, for this particular debate was wrong. I will be happily be dining on crow today at lunch.

gregladen Wed, 02/05/2014 - 03:03

Tags

Creation Science

creationism

Intelligent Design

Science Education

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

*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