[_ Old Earth _] Who Won the Ham/Nye Debate?

[Milk-Drops]

I would say Nye won in the sense that he was able to convey his ideals clearly and was able to answer Ken's points. As Pizza mentioned Ken didn't answer Nye's questions when prompted and avoided engaging directly. Ken never was able to convince me due to his way of trying to cast up smoke to hide his lack of knowledge in certain areas, and his redefining of terms, such as historical science. After reading several answers in Genesis articles and seeing other debates and presentations by Ham, it is clear he is more interested in preaching a message and not really about presenting facts for the audience to decide.

I can understand why many would take Ham's side, he just doesn't convince me personally.

 

[Sparkey]

Closing the thread for a moment -- clean-up time.
~Moderator

8 minutes later...

 

[Barth Jones]

I would say Nye won in the sense that he was able to convey his ideals clearly and was able to answer Ken's points. As Pizza mentioned Ken didn't answer Nye's questions when prompted and avo humanided engaging directly. Ken never was able to convince me due to his way of trying to cast up smoke to hide his lack of knowledge in certain areas, and his redefining of terms, such as historical science. After reading several answers in Genesis articles and seeing other debates and presentations by Ham, it is clear he is more interested in preaching a message and not really about presenting facts for the audience to decide.

I can understand why many would take Ham's side, he just doesn't convince me personally.

First, which questions do you mean when you say Ham evaded Nye's challenges? Second, Ham hardly redefined terms. He uses terms that exist, namely, "historical," "observational," and "science," correctly, to try to explain correct scientific principle. When men through science discovered what we now call, "atomic bonds," some bloke had to put their neck out and explain, "hey, atoms bond, let's call this principle an 'atomic bond.'"

 

[Milk-Drops]

First, which questions do you mean when you say Ham evaded Nye's challenges?

Off the top of my head, I don't remember specifics. I'm also pressed for time so I don't have the luxury of going through the 2+ Hour debate again. However, as I stated before Ken rarely did any follow up responses directly to Nye. He mostly just steam rolled through bringing up multiple points at once.

Second, Ham hardly redefined terms. He uses terms that exist, namely, "historical," "observational," and "science," correctly, to try to explain correct scientific principle.

Actually he made up an entire branch of science called historical science. "Historical" and "science" may be well understood, but there is no difference from Ham's concepts of Observational science or Historical Science. Its just science.

When men through science discovered what we now call, "atomic bonds," some bloke had to put their neck out and explain, "hey, atoms bond, let's call this principle an 'atomic bond.'"

Yes, but Ham didn't create something new, he just redefined branches of science that doesn't fit his view as historical science. If Ken really wants to impact science, he should probably invest in research and writing papers for journals. That would actually get him science credentials.

 

[Barth Jones]

Off the top of my head, I don't remember specifics. I'm also pressed for time so I don't have the luxury of going through the 2+ Hour debate again. However, as I stated before Ken rarely did any follow up responses directly to Nye. He mostly just steam rolled through bringing up multiple points at once. Actually he made up an entire branch of science called historical science. "Historical" and "science" may be well understood, but there is no difference from Ham's concepts of Observational science or Historical Science. Its just science.

Yes, but Ham didn't create something new, he just redefined branches of science that doesn't fit his view as historical science. If Ken really wants to impact science, he should probably invest in research and writing papers for journals. That would actually get him science credentials.

You're right according to convention, which has always been about conforming to convention.

 

[Barbarian]

There are historical investigations in science, such as astrophysics, relating to the formation of stars, and observational investigations, such as the evolution of new species in recent times. There is no branch of science that is exclusively historical or exclusively observational. That is merely Hamm's invention, and it's completely wrong.

 

[Barth Jones]

There are historical investigations in science, such as astrophysics, relating to the formation of stars, and observational investigations, such as the evolution of new species in recent times. There is no branch of science that is exclusively historical or exclusively observational. That is merely Hamm's invention, and it's completely wrong.

Nope. The essence of what he says, and he's very clear about this, is that evolutionists tend to induce from what they observe--what was history? Ham is being very fair by exposing this "new science," as fallacy.

 

[Barth Jones]

There are historical investigations in science, such as astrophysics, relating to the formation of stars.

Very remarkable that men can investigate the formation of stars. I always thought Christ was the one with God when he created them.

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. 9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

And that, is, in context.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
There are historical investigations in science, such as astrophysics, relating to the formation of stars, and observational investigations, such as the evolution of new species in recent times. There is no branch of science that is exclusively historical or exclusively observational. That is merely Hamm's invention, and it's completely wrong.

Nope. The essence of what he says, and he's very clear about this, is that evolutionists tend to induce from what they observe--

All scientists do. Science is inductive. Has to be. Deduction is only possible if you know the rules from the outset, and deduce the particulars from the rules. In science, we can only observe the particulars and by induction, figure out the rules.

what was history?

Gathering of facts.

Ham is being very fair by exposing this "new science," as fallacy.

It goes back at least to Ptolemy (about 200 A.D.) and was formalized as an inductive procedure by the time of Francis Bacon. As usual, Hamm is about 1800 years behind the curve.

Very remarkable that men can investigate the formation of stars.

Indeed. But we can observe them forming today. Starting with the Hubble telescope, we could get very good images of the process in various stages. You didn't know that God is still making them? He is, although you might not approve of the way He does it.

I always thought Christ was the one with God when he created them.

He's still one with God. Always has been. But maybe not the way you supposed.

You might consider this verse again:
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. 9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

 

[Sparkey]

I don't have a problem with "historical" observations -- looking at the evidence we have of the past. In fact all observations are, to one degree or another, 'historical'.

Case in point - it takes time for light to travel from the sun. More than 8 minutes. Even the light that comes from your computer monitor takes a moment of time to bounce off of things you see and reach your eyes. The only things that can not be considered historical are also things that Science does not deal with (I'm thinking prophecy here).

So the distinction between "observational" and "historical" is, at least to me, somewhat contrived.

View attachment 4184

But even if we can dispense with the point behind Ham's "historical" argument, we are still left with a very real problem. There is a widely held assumption that all things have continued from the beginning as we "see" them today. Many assume that the present is the key to the past. What other choice is there (being left to our own devices) in order to make sense of things ??? Could we trust God??? That is not science. Thinking that the exact same laws and processes that we see today apply universally everywhere in the universe -AND- always have from time immemorial <---- is a self-reinforcing delusion. "It is this way because it has always been this way."

The bible states that some are willingly ignorant of the fact that God has indeed acted throughout human history and that not all things we see today may be applied to yesterday.

 

[Pizza]

But even if we can dispense with the point behind Ham's "historical" argument, we are still left with a very real problem. There is a widely held assumption that all things have continued from the beginning as we "see" them today. Many assume that the present is the key to the past. What other choice is there (being left to our own devices) in order to make sense of things ??? Could we trust God??? That is not science. Thinking that the exact same laws and processes that we see today apply universally everywhere in the universe -AND- always have from time immemorial <---- is a self-reinforcing delusion. "It is this way because it has always been this way."

This is part of my point when I remind everyone that, during what we call the "Big Bang", matter flew out from the epicenter far beyond the speed of light. This means that laws of physics as we know them were violated - and if it DID happen, then time was not passing as we understand it.

Totally, a case of "... my ways are not your ways...." ;)

 

[Barbarian]

I don't have a problem with "historical" observations -- looking at the evidence we have of the past. In fact all observations are, to one degree or another, 'historical'.

Case in point - it takes time for light to travel from the sun. More than 8 minutes. Even the light that comes from your computer monitor takes a moment of time to bounce off of things you see and reach your eyes. The only things that can not be considered historical are also things that Science does not deal with (I'm thinking prophecy here).

So the distinction between "observational" and "historical" is, at least to me, somewhat contrived.

It is, but one can note that there's a difference between observing a speciation event in real time, and inferring the same process for things that happened millions of years ago. The fact that the same rules have always been observed whenever we test it, gives us considerable confidence that God created a knowable and consistent universe.

But even if we can dispense with the point behind Ham's "historical" argument, we are still left with a very real problem. There is a widely held assumption that all things have continued from the beginning as we "see" them today. Many assume that the present is the key to the past. What other choice is there (being left to our own devices) in order to make sense of things ??? Could we trust God??? That is not science. Thinking that the exact same laws and processes that we see today apply universally everywhere in the universe -AND- always have from time immemorial <---- is a self-reinforcing delusion. "It is this way because it has always been this way."

Every time we test it, that's the result we get. So we have a very high degree of confidence that God is trustworthy in His universe, as He is in all other things.

The bible states that some are willingly ignorant of the fact that God has indeed acted throughout human history and that not all things we see today may be applied to yesterday.

God does most everything in this world by natural means. Miracles that set aside the laws of nature (which are, after all, God's laws) are done, not because He must do that to make things work, but rather to teach us something thereby. So, it seems unlikely that He would do it in the absence of people to teach. And given the evidence, that seems like a pretty solid conclusion.

 

[Sparkey]

Even if we assume a Young Earth model (to shorten the total time period being discussed) the "every time we test it" only covers a very small percentage of the time frame under discussion. But under the Old Earth model - the percentage is much, much smaller.

Our testing began what? A couple hundred years ago? Okay, let's be as liberal as possible and call it a couple thousand years of testing? Can we then say that for the past several billions of years our testing has confirmed consistency? That's quite a stretch, a stretch on the order of a thousand million or so?

We could retire every conceivable objection if your "every time we test it" included at least one pre-flood instance, for instance. Where was Bill Nye when we needed him? Maybe he was sharing an espresso with Job? Probably not.

 

[Sparkey]

This is part of my point when I remind everyone that, during what we call the "Big Bang", matter flew out from the epicenter far beyond the speed of light. This means that laws of physics as we know them were violated - and if it DID happen, then time was not passing as we understand it.

Totally, a case of "... my ways are not your ways...." ;)

I've not heard about faster than light-speed travel even at the time of the theoretical big-bang. Somebody else can explain it better than I but according to what I've been taught about BB, all of space was compressed and all of space expanded. In relativity, the concept of velocity is a local observation - and co-moving coordinates don't have a simple relation to our localized calculations. FTL is not violated even at the "inflationary epoch" of the Big-bang.

What I'm as saying is that the Bible strongly suggests that things today are not he same as they were yesterday. But there is no "Book of Joe the Astrophysicist" in the Bible. We do see what the Holy Spirit said through Peter:

"For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”
(that's what Peter says some will say)
2Peter 3:4 ESV

For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,
2Peter 3:5 ESV

I'll admit that there is some mystery that surrounds these things. God created darkness first. Frankly, my mind thinks in terms of darkness as the absence of light. I don't know what to make of the Tohu wa-Bohu phrase in Gen 1:2. Some call that "chaos". I don't know this. Never seen it and don't know of anybody who "tested it" for consistency by today's standards.

By the way, that's also why I don't take a strong dogmatic stance on Young Earth. My sense of what Peter said, "that the heavens existed long ago," is that he was talking about a long time ago. How long? We are not told exactly. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "I'm not sure," or "I don't know," about such matters.

So even though I don't insist on a relatively young earth, I also don't think that we have the right of it because sometimes we are just too big for our britches.

 

[Barbarian]

Even if we assume a Young Earth model (to shorten the total time period being discussed) the "every time we test it" only covers a very small percentage of the time frame under discussion. But under the Old Earth model - the percentage is much, much smaller.

No. For example, we assume that the rules always worked the same since the beginning. We can test that by looking at ancient things and seeing if they are consistent with that assumption. And so far, they always have been. This is powerful evidence for God creating a reliable and knowable universe. The other issue is that if the physical constants that define "the way things are" were significantly different in past ages, then Earth would not have been able to sustain living things. The speed of light, for example, is a factor in the breakdown of radioactive material. If it was significantly faster in the past, the great increase in background radiation would have fried all living things.

 

[Pizza]

I've not heard about faster than light-speed travel even at the time of the theoretical big-bang.

I read a LOT, and at least one physicist said that he is sure of it. But he can't PROVE anything - all I can say is that many scientists are mocked, only to be proven right later on.
And many are accepted right away, only to be refuted later.

All in all, I go along with all of your post. There is so much we don't know, again, even Neil DeGrasee Tyson admits that "we only understand about 5% of what we are seeing in the universe."
By that, he is referring to astrophysicists - the guys who know the MOST.

How can any of us assert that we know...?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Nope. The essence of what he says, and he's very clear about this, is that evolutionists tend to induce from what they observe--what was history? Ham is being very fair by exposing this "new science," as fallacy.

Its not a new science. The point of theories to be predictive models or explanations of mechanisms. As far as I'm aware anyway. When Ham brings up a "fallacy" when inference or predictions are made from current models, its mistaken. The only way I could see inference being a fallacy is if its only a fallacy when compared to Ken's own position. Nye is defending the current scientific models, not Ham's position.

 

[Sparkey]

No. For example, we assume that the rules always worked the same since the beginning. We can test that by looking at ancient things and seeing if they are consistent with that assumption. And so far, they always have been. This is powerful evidence for God creating a reliable and knowable universe. The other issue is that if the physical constants that define "the way things are" were significantly different in past ages, then Earth would not have been able to sustain living things. The speed of light, for example, is a factor in the breakdown of radioactive material. If it was significantly faster in the past, the great increase in background radiation would have fried all living things.

Okay, thanks. Do you have examples that can clearly show that "all things continue" (without change) from the beginning? It has been my impression that many simply dismiss the bible as "allegory" or "myth" or "poetry," so if you're aware of scientific inquiry that includes the proposition that "things" were radically different in times past, I'd love to hear about it.

You mentioned one of the physical constants (Speed of Light) needing to remain constant, but what about other assumptions? The lifespan of man (and probably animals) has always been the same? The water cycle has always been the same (as we see it today)? What about God's curse to our labors - thorns and thistles? Was there ever a time when the created stuff was different in its very nature to what we observe today? What about childbirth?

Regarding the unknown effects of radioactivity? Do you know of any "what if" studies that include a time or period of stability such that the objection you raise would not apply? Or are we trapped in the box of our own design insisting that the boundaries and walls we see today must also apply to all time?

Then, what happens when people go in the opposite direction and pronounce needful change? When the assumption works in the other direction and we are told to disregard what we see about the boundaries between differing "kinds" of plants and animals? Those things that we see today, that support the idea that there are some kinds of boundaries, are ignored. It MUST be that all life came from a single ancestor? Why is this? Is it really impossible to even think about a kind an loving God who did what He said He did?

~Sparrow

 

[Barbarian]

Okay, thanks. Do you have examples that can clearly show that "all things continue" (without change) from the beginning?

Sure. For example, if any physical constants were different, we'd see signs of a huge increase in radiation in the rocks from that time. But we don't, except in the trivial case of the Oklo Reactor that went on when an unusually high concentration of natural fissionable material was formed.

It has been my impression that many simply dismiss the bible as "allegory" or "myth" or "poetry,"

I don't dismiss allegories or parable or poetry in the Bible. Often it's there, because it does a better job than a literal description would. It's why Jesus often used such things.

so if you're aware of scientific inquiry that includes the proposition that "things" were radically different in times past, I'd love to hear about it.

We can examine the solar system to test the idea that gravity was significantly different a few billion years ago. If it was a lot less or a lot more than it is today, there's no way to form the solar system we have now.

You mentioned one of the physical constants (Speed of Light) needing to remain constant, but what about other assumptions? The lifespan of man (and probably animals) has always been the same?

It seems to have been shorter for early humans. A lot shorter for very early ones. Even Neandertals aged faster than we do.

The water cycle has always been the same (as we see it today)?

Couldn't be different without a change in basic physical constants. Those are what determine the mass, viscosity, and state changes of water. So it gets back to that speed of light/radioativity thing.

What about God's curse to our labors - thorns and thistles?

Thorns and thistles preceded man in the scheme of things. But of course, agriculture and labor is a fairly recent thing for humans. Some human societies still manage to do without the curse of agricultural labor mentioned in Genesis. No one in the middle east, for several millenia, though.

Was there ever a time when the created stuff was different in its very nature to what we observe today?

Billions of years ago, before the uncoupling of the four forces. But that was long before man.

What about childbirth?

That was easier for earlier humans. Neonatal skull sizes have increased markedly, and pelvis sizes much less so.

Regarding the unknown effects of radioactivity? Do you know of any "what if" studies that include a time or period of stability such that the objection you raise would not apply?

The Olko reactor says that it would have to have been billions of years before the Earth was formed, it it happened at all.

Or are we trapped in the box of our own design insisting that the boundaries and walls we see today must also apply to all time?

There are all kinds of boxes to be trapped in. But the evidence offers no support to the box that YE has constructed. And in the absence of any scriptural support for a young Earth, I'd say that pretty much settles it.

Then, what happens when people go in the opposite direction and pronounce needful change?

Augustine pointed out that we are not God, we can be wrong about scripture,and we should always be prepared to change our opinions when the facts so indicate.

When the assumption works in the other direction and we are told to disregard what we see about the boundaries between differing "kinds" of plants and animals?

So far, no one's been able to show any boundary. As you might remember, a few threads dealt with the issue of species, and why we have such trouble defining them. It's precisely because those "boundaries" don't exist.

It MUST be that all life came from a single ancestor?

Don't think there's any way to get around it.

Why is this?

Genetic data, lack of a demonstrable "boundary", fossil transitionals, observed speciations, the observed hierarchy of living things, stuff like that.

Is it really impossible to even think about a kind an loving God who did what He said He did?

That's our line. We accept it His way. YE, not so much, I think.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Sparkey]

Barbarian? Have you concluded me a Young Earth Creationist? I'm not going to argue with you about what I think.