Since when has this been about winning and losing? I thought it it was about seeking answers to truth? Looking at evidence to see if it supports the hypothesis? I would never tell anyone I can prove God exists; only that the evidence leads a designer of the universe rather than natural selection by chance. It is a whole other conversation to get into in dealing with the claims made by Jesus Christ; that He is the God who designed and set everything into motion.
Since when has this been about winning and losing? I thought it it was about seeking answers to truth? Looking at evidence to see if it supports the hypothesis? I would never tell anyone I can prove God exists; only that the evidence leads a designer of the universe rather than natural selection by chance. It is a whole other conversation to get into in dealing with the claims made by Jesus Christ; that He is the God who designed and set everything into motion.
there was a thread somewhere talking about the pope (it might be this one, idk), but i thought i'd post this here anyway.
this pope is the shit! i am completely shocked that he said the following:
Pope Francis also suggested that Catholics shouldn’t be arrogant in insisting that they alone possess the truth, a comment likely to cause controversy among the more conservative members of the church.
“To [have a] dialogue means to believe that the 'other' has something worthwhile to say, and to entertain his or her point of view and perspective,” Francis wrote.
“Engaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and traditions, but the pretence that they alone are valid and absolute.”
But not the super-duper-die-hards. They would consider the Pope infallible, wouldn't they?
lol, supposed to at least. i never understood how pope infallibility worked. there have been various popes that did crazy things and more recent popes who have changed ideas put forth by previous popes and so on. i guess they're only infallible at the exact moment of time and in the future they could be wrong still? idk.
what are the big three that catholics necessarily have to believe? infallibility of the pope, the immaculate conception of mary, and transubstantiation (the literal change of bread and wine into the body and blood of christ).
lol, supposed to at least. i never understood how pope infallibility worked. there have been various popes that did crazy things and more recent popes who have changed ideas put forth by previous popes and so on. i guess they're only infallible at the exact moment of time and in the future they could be wrong still? idk.
what are the big three that catholics necessarily have to believe? infallibility of the pope, the immaculate conception of mary, and transubstantiation (the literal change of bread and wine into the body and blood of christ).
I really don't know. When it comes to Roman Catholicism, I guess you could say I Protest.
yeah, after reading the whole quote by the pope, it does seem that he did not quite say that atheists can achieve salvation. it seems (to me at least) that he was saying that they could be saved if they continued to do good deeds because they will meet and be with catholics (in the place of good deeds), and as a result it's possible they could also be saved.
still not too bad though i guess. at least he's opening the dialogue and is willing to discuss.
yeah, after reading the whole quote by the pope, it does seem that he did not quite say that atheists can achieve salvation. it seems (to me at least) that he was saying that they could be saved if they continued to do good deeds because they will meet and be with catholics (in the place of good deeds), and as a result it's possible they could also be saved.
still not too bad though i guess. at least he's opening the dialogue and is willing to discuss.
Not a guy I see eye to eye with. I can't tell you what I really think of the Pope in a public forum as I am not ready to be permanently ban a la Darby. That would require a different forum of communication.
But not the super-duper-die-hards. They would consider the Pope infallible, wouldn't they?
A true Catholic would not be too fussed about the press that the Holy Father seems to be generating. As for Papal infallibility, that is only the case when the Pope is speaking "ex cathedra". In other words, when the Pope is making his Super Bowl picks, he is NOT infallible.
Catholicism does not need me to defend it. Part of the problem with reports about Pope Francis is how his statements are being parsed and interpreted. No thought seems to be given to how his words correspond to Catholic teachings. Depending on the quote the various authors simply seize on one aspect of his text, and ignore the context. Nothing, in all of this Pope's speeches, letters, sermons, etc. has altered the basics of Catholic belief in any way. Authors who would suggest otherwise are not paying attention.
what are the big three that catholics necessarily have to believe? infallibility of the pope, the immaculate conception of mary, and transubstantiation (the literal change of bread and wine into the body and blood of christ).
The infallibility of the Pope is no where near the top of the list . . . just google the Apostle's Creed, and that will give you the basics.
yeah, after reading the whole quote by the pope, it does seem that he did not quite say that atheists can achieve salvation. it seems (to me at least) that he was saying that they could be saved if they continued to do good deeds because they will meet and be with catholics (in the place of good deeds), and as a result it's possible they could also be saved.
still not too bad though i guess. at least he's opening the dialogue and is willing to discuss.
The bolded portion is why this Pope will be a great one . . . he is forcing people to think more about their Faith than about their politics. The extremists in ALL faiths have, for too long, been driving political agendas (particularly in the US of A) disguised as Faith, rather than religious agendas that ignore politics. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but also render unto God. Too many people of "Faith" forget the second portion of that quote, and it is the more important part.
Originally Posted by trigs
what are the big three that catholics necessarily have to believe? infallibility of the pope, the immaculate conception of mary, and transubstantiation (the literal change of bread and wine into the body and blood of christ).
The infallibility of the Pope is no where near the top of the list . . . just google the Apostle's Creed, and that will give you the basics.
Believing the Apostle's Creed is not enough to make one Catholic, just Christian.
Trigs is right at least on the transubstantiation, and I think he means the eternal virginity of Mary - neither of which I believe in, though I'm down with the one immaculate conception. Papal infallibility might not be near the top of the list but it's on the list; along with something about saints, maybe?
Believing the Apostle's Creed is not enough to make one Catholic, just Christian.
Trigs is right at least on the transubstantiation, and I think he means the eternal virginity of Mary - neither of which I believe in, though I'm down with the one immaculate conception. Papal infallibility might not be near the top of the list but it's on the list; along with something about saints, maybe?
I was referencing the Creed as it is often referred to as the Profession of Faith, during a mass. Nowhere in it is the infallibility of the Pope (when speaking on Doctrine) mentioned, unless you wish to stretch that to include the statement of belief in the "Holy Catholic Church".
One thing that is interesting, with respect to Roman Catholicism, is the Papacy itself. One authority, one interpretation, one doctrine. This "dictatorship" (if you will) does not allow for the schisms that have occurred in Islam, where there exists no hierarchical structure to prevent misinterpretation, nor the multiple fracturing that has happened in the Protestant movement (including Evangelicals). No Westboro Baptists in Rome. The article Mike linked to was very interesting in terms of highlighting this point.
One thing that is interesting, with respect to Roman Catholicism, is the Papacy itself. One authority, one interpretation, one doctrine. This "dictatorship" (if you will) does not allow for the schisms that have occurred in Islam, where there exists no hierarchical structure to prevent misinterpretation, nor the multiple fracturing that has happened in the Protestant movement (including Evangelicals). No Westboro Baptists in Rome. The article Mike linked to was very interesting in terms of highlighting this point.
It does allow for schisms...they just happened long ago. That's what Protestants are. THere never used to be a Catholic Church....just "The"Church. We scared them away with indulgences/simony. And they wanted divorce too. ;-)
The Catholic church does have different sects as well...(you always hear about Coptic Christians causing/receiving shit in the middle East)
I guess what I should have said is that the RC Church is the only major religion that uses the "top-down" method of dissemination of it's message in order to maintain cohesion. There are folks inside the Church arguing for "change" or "modernization", but they aren't doing it with bombs.
As for Bill Nye . . . debunking Creationism/Young Earth theories on the Origin of life does not necessarily equate to denying the existence of God. Personally, I enjoyed what I saw of the debate so far (almost 3 hours? not in one go, sorry).
I'll watch it this weekend. I know can Ham will have an interesting perspective, much different than Dr. William Lane Craig or Dr. Stephen Meyer as they would subscribe to the theory that the earth is 13.7 billion years old where as Dr Ham is on the side of the earth being in the 10 - 12 thousand years old period.
The debate asked this question: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era?" Creation (as the word is commonly employed) refers to the Genesis account, which may be read any number of different ways.
1. The Gap Theory is a form of old Earth creationism as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days (light being "day" and dark "night" as God specified), but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.
2. An allegorical interpretation of Genesis is a reading of the biblical Book of Genesis that treats elements of the narrative as symbols or types.
3. Day-age creationism, a type of old Earth creationism, is an interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). II Peter 3:8
4. Theistic evolution, is the view that hold that religious teachings about God are compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of evolution relates to religious beliefs. Supporters of theistic evolution generally try to harmonize evolutionary thought with the belief in God. (See Dr.Francis Collins head of human genome project and Dr. Michael Behe - Lehigh University – Biochemistry)
5. A literal reading of the Genesis text. Creation of everything known to man in 6 literal 24 hour days. That the earth is no more than 10 - 12 thousand years at most. (Dr. Ken Ham)
Creation v. Evolution is alive and well!
• 70 news media outlets at the event
• 3 million people watched the debate live. goggle
• 1,733,476 youtube hits as of this writing.
Moderator - Tom Foreman from CNN frames the question “Is the creation model a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era.”
He announce that there was a coin toss and Ken Ham won and elected to go first.
Most of the debate centered on the credibility of Genesis. Ham treats it as literal history; Nye as an unreliable ancient text. Ham argues that the world is young, Nye that it is old. A guy like Dr. William Lane Craig who states that he is a Christian believes the earth is 13.7 billion years old and he has a problem with Ken Ham
(I really want to see a debate between Ken Ham and William, Lane Craig.)
Ken Ham gives a 30-minute presentation covered the basics of the creation worldview, including the creation time-frame (6 literal 24 hour days) the difference between operational and historical science, and the difference between natural selection and evolution of new kinds. He demonstrated how the biblical record explains the phenomena we see in the world today, such as intelligent design behind life and other complex systems, animals reproducing after their kind, and all humans as one race. He used lots of slides and quotes from peer reviewed PhD in their respected fields of study. And even has a few skype type videos.
Ham argues terminology - "Historical Science" is a term used to describe sciences in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data, such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology and archaeology. (Were you there? —Job 38:4) Nobody was.
"Operational Science" is any science that "deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites."
Ham takes the position from the get go that believing in God does not hurt the furtherance of science (which is a point Bill try's to drive home) with a list of scientist and their accomplishments/inventions trying to cut the legs out from Nye before he gets started. (One of the high points of the debate occurred when Ham showed short clips of prominent creationists who are involved in high-tech science and medicine, in order to counter Mr. Nye’s contention that science advances when society becomes more evolution-based. One of the creationists was Dr. Raymond Damadian of New York, inventor of the MRI scanner, and who is an outspoken creationist and whose invention has saved countless lives. You can watch Dr. Damadian’s clip on YouTube.)
Nye attacks the question by simple saying no. He wants to get across the point that to believe in God is to hinder the scientific progression of mankind. He ignored the people Ken talked about and certainly has ignored the likes passed scientist (Creation scientists) some names may shock you).
Nye then brings out a laundry list of ideas for Ken Ham to answer:
• The existence of fossil corals (and shows a rock that he picked up outside the debate area.)
• Ice cores with 680,000 layers, each formed in a summer/winter cycle.
• There are trees older than a biblical timeframe allows for. One tree he showed was 9500 years old counting the rings. Another was 4500 years old.
• If the Grand Canyon was the result of a catastrophic global flood, why are there not grand canyons everywhere?
• Why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers?
• He tried to rebut the idea that there is one human race by showing a graphic of all the different types of hominid skulls that have been discovered to argue that there was a progression in human evolution. (Ham had PPT slides and was ready for that one.)
• Why are no kangaroo fossils showing a migratory path from the Middle East to Australia?
• He talked about the ark and a simply man like Noah and his sons wouldn't have the where with all to build an ark that wouldn't twist and break apart in the waves never mind to take all the animals on the ark and care for them.
On the surface it seems like Dr. Nye has some great questions. But really what it showed (in my humble opinion) was that he never did his homework on whom he was debating. For every question he had, Dr. Ham said “That is thoroughly discussed by Dr. so and so on our site!” Everyone of his objection during his 30 minute speech! As well as others I have not listed. If Dr. Nye had just did some research he could have said Dr. so and so who argues about the ice core with 680,000 layers is wrongs because … or any of the other questions he proposed to Dr. Ham.
Now Dr. Ham did not answer Dr. Nye’s question with his time but he did say look at my site it has the answer to your question.
Dr. Nye brought up a number of times that the ancient text could not be trust but never got into specifics as to why. He just kept repeating it over and over.
I do applaud Dr. Nye for going into Dr. Ham’s home turf.
The question answer period was good. Both got to answer the same question. One for two minutes and the other for one minute depending on whom the question was asked too.
Overall, I like these kinds of things. I think it promotes thinking, which I believe is important. Unlike Richard Dawkins, who said:
“I agree that to do this on Ham’s home turf was a mistake, and indeed it is almost always a mistake to give wingnuts the oxygen of publicity, and the respectability of being seen on a platform with a real scientist, anywhere”.
Or Dr. Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology at the University of Chicago, says that:
“The response from the evolutionist side is clear: let’s not give creation any exposure … he should just continue to write and talk about the issue on his own, and not debate creationists. By so doing, he gives them credibility simply by appearing beside them on the platform.”
Who won the debate?
I am not a scientist but consider myself a theologian. I watch the debate with my brother. Who started watching when Nye starting speaking. Nye was good very articulate (I expected nothing less) asking lots of question I had no idea were even being asked by the scientific community. And thought, how is he (Ham) is going to answer that, well he would say “Dr. so and so has written a paper on that topic. Every question Dr. Nye asked Ham said "there was a paper written to answer that objection. " Ham did handle the dating methods produced by Nye saying “this is millions and millions of years old.” Ham had lots of arguments against it. One slide had over 30 objections to carbon dating and radiation dating. A lot of that was over my head. I will say that I thought Ham did a very good job on the theology side of things although he was really in any jeopardy there because Nye didn't want to go there.
I felt Dr. Ham held his own and while not having the answer in front of him to the objections raised by Dr. Nye. He did say, (and I have looked) his website answers a lot of the skepticism raised by Dr. Nye. I am sure that there are people who doubt the answers given, nevertheless there are satisfactory answers given and that is all that is required in I Peter 3:15.
Comments
Does this mean science wins then? >:D
Since when has this been about winning and losing? I thought it it was about seeking answers to truth? Looking at evidence to see if it supports the hypothesis? I would never tell anyone I can prove God exists; only that the evidence leads a designer of the universe rather than natural selection by chance. It is a whole other conversation to get into in dealing with the claims made by Jesus Christ; that He is the God who designed and set everything into motion.
Lol I'm just joking around
OK, but is there a white bearded boogie man judging how we live our lives?
Lets leave Donald Sutherland out of this, okay?
this pope is the shit! i am completely shocked that he said the following:
that is just amazing! #bestpopeever
Pope Francis: The internet is a 'gift from God' - World Politics - World - The Independent
Pope Francis raised a lot of eyebrows Wednesday after saying all people who do good works, including atheists, are going to heaven.
Surprised you never brought this up Trigs!
i missed that one! amazed to say the least. the die-hard catholics must be getting crazy pissed at this guy.
But not the super-duper-die-hards. They would consider the Pope infallible, wouldn't they?
I will let Milo defend Catholicism although if you don't mind reading this guy gives an "interpretation" to what he believes the Pope meant.
What Pope Francis really said about atheists | CatholicVote.org
lol, supposed to at least. i never understood how pope infallibility worked. there have been various popes that did crazy things and more recent popes who have changed ideas put forth by previous popes and so on. i guess they're only infallible at the exact moment of time and in the future they could be wrong still? idk.
what are the big three that catholics necessarily have to believe? infallibility of the pope, the immaculate conception of mary, and transubstantiation (the literal change of bread and wine into the body and blood of christ).
I really don't know. When it comes to Roman Catholicism, I guess you could say I Protest.
yeah, after reading the whole quote by the pope, it does seem that he did not quite say that atheists can achieve salvation. it seems (to me at least) that he was saying that they could be saved if they continued to do good deeds because they will meet and be with catholics (in the place of good deeds), and as a result it's possible they could also be saved.
still not too bad though i guess. at least he's opening the dialogue and is willing to discuss.
Not a guy I see eye to eye with. I can't tell you what I really think of the Pope in a public forum as I am not ready to be permanently ban a la Darby. That would require a different forum of communication.
A true Catholic would not be too fussed about the press that the Holy Father seems to be generating. As for Papal infallibility, that is only the case when the Pope is speaking "ex cathedra". In other words, when the Pope is making his Super Bowl picks, he is NOT infallible.
Catholicism does not need me to defend it. Part of the problem with reports about Pope Francis is how his statements are being parsed and interpreted. No thought seems to be given to how his words correspond to Catholic teachings. Depending on the quote the various authors simply seize on one aspect of his text, and ignore the context. Nothing, in all of this Pope's speeches, letters, sermons, etc. has altered the basics of Catholic belief in any way. Authors who would suggest otherwise are not paying attention.
The infallibility of the Pope is no where near the top of the list . . . just google the Apostle's Creed, and that will give you the basics.
The bolded portion is why this Pope will be a great one . . . he is forcing people to think more about their Faith than about their politics. The extremists in ALL faiths have, for too long, been driving political agendas (particularly in the US of A) disguised as Faith, rather than religious agendas that ignore politics. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but also render unto God. Too many people of "Faith" forget the second portion of that quote, and it is the more important part.
Believing the Apostle's Creed is not enough to make one Catholic, just Christian.
Trigs is right at least on the transubstantiation, and I think he means the eternal virginity of Mary - neither of which I believe in, though I'm down with the one immaculate conception. Papal infallibility might not be near the top of the list but it's on the list; along with something about saints, maybe?
Of particular note would be the third-to-last paragraph; contrast that view from 6 years ago with the Pope's recent remarks that we are discussing.
Well said, not bad for an Emmanuel dropout! ^-^
It does allow for schisms...they just happened long ago. That's what Protestants are. THere never used to be a Catholic Church....just "The"Church. We scared them away with indulgences/simony. And they wanted divorce too. ;-)
The Catholic church does have different sects as well...(you always hear about Coptic Christians causing/receiving shit in the middle East)
As for Bill Nye . . . debunking Creationism/Young Earth theories on the Origin of life does not necessarily equate to denying the existence of God. Personally, I enjoyed what I saw of the debate so far (almost 3 hours? not in one go, sorry).
Science is cool.
Thanks Nik, didn't know this debate was happening. Here is the link
Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD - YouTube
I'll watch it this weekend. I know can Ham will have an interesting perspective, much different than Dr. William Lane Craig or Dr. Stephen Meyer as they would subscribe to the theory that the earth is 13.7 billion years old where as Dr Ham is on the side of the earth being in the 10 - 12 thousand years old period.
1. The Gap Theory is a form of old Earth creationism as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days (light being "day" and dark "night" as God specified), but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.
2. An allegorical interpretation of Genesis is a reading of the biblical Book of Genesis that treats elements of the narrative as symbols or types.
3. Day-age creationism, a type of old Earth creationism, is an interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). II Peter 3:8
4. Theistic evolution, is the view that hold that religious teachings about God are compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of evolution relates to religious beliefs. Supporters of theistic evolution generally try to harmonize evolutionary thought with the belief in God. (See Dr.Francis Collins head of human genome project and Dr. Michael Behe - Lehigh University – Biochemistry)
5. A literal reading of the Genesis text. Creation of everything known to man in 6 literal 24 hour days. That the earth is no more than 10 - 12 thousand years at most. (Dr. Ken Ham)
Creation v. Evolution is alive and well!
• 70 news media outlets at the event
• 3 million people watched the debate live. goggle
• 1,733,476 youtube hits as of this writing.
Moderator - Tom Foreman from CNN frames the question “Is the creation model a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era.”
He announce that there was a coin toss and Ken Ham won and elected to go first.
Most of the debate centered on the credibility of Genesis. Ham treats it as literal history; Nye as an unreliable ancient text. Ham argues that the world is young, Nye that it is old. A guy like Dr. William Lane Craig who states that he is a Christian believes the earth is 13.7 billion years old and he has a problem with Ken Ham
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dDOkDOMJj8)
(I really want to see a debate between Ken Ham and William, Lane Craig.)
Ken Ham gives a 30-minute presentation covered the basics of the creation worldview, including the creation time-frame (6 literal 24 hour days) the difference between operational and historical science, and the difference between natural selection and evolution of new kinds. He demonstrated how the biblical record explains the phenomena we see in the world today, such as intelligent design behind life and other complex systems, animals reproducing after their kind, and all humans as one race. He used lots of slides and quotes from peer reviewed PhD in their respected fields of study. And even has a few skype type videos.
Ham argues terminology - "Historical Science" is a term used to describe sciences in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data, such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology and archaeology. (Were you there? —Job 38:4) Nobody was.
"Operational Science" is any science that "deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites."
Ham takes the position from the get go that believing in God does not hurt the furtherance of science (which is a point Bill try's to drive home) with a list of scientist and their accomplishments/inventions trying to cut the legs out from Nye before he gets started. (One of the high points of the debate occurred when Ham showed short clips of prominent creationists who are involved in high-tech science and medicine, in order to counter Mr. Nye’s contention that science advances when society becomes more evolution-based. One of the creationists was Dr. Raymond Damadian of New York, inventor of the MRI scanner, and who is an outspoken creationist and whose invention has saved countless lives. You can watch Dr. Damadian’s clip on YouTube.)
Nye attacks the question by simple saying no. He wants to get across the point that to believe in God is to hinder the scientific progression of mankind. He ignored the people Ken talked about and certainly has ignored the likes passed scientist (Creation scientists) some names may shock you).
Nye then brings out a laundry list of ideas for Ken Ham to answer:
• The existence of fossil corals (and shows a rock that he picked up outside the debate area.)
• Ice cores with 680,000 layers, each formed in a summer/winter cycle.
• There are trees older than a biblical timeframe allows for. One tree he showed was 9500 years old counting the rings. Another was 4500 years old.
• If the Grand Canyon was the result of a catastrophic global flood, why are there not grand canyons everywhere?
• Why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers?
• He tried to rebut the idea that there is one human race by showing a graphic of all the different types of hominid skulls that have been discovered to argue that there was a progression in human evolution. (Ham had PPT slides and was ready for that one.)
• Why are no kangaroo fossils showing a migratory path from the Middle East to Australia?
• He talked about the ark and a simply man like Noah and his sons wouldn't have the where with all to build an ark that wouldn't twist and break apart in the waves never mind to take all the animals on the ark and care for them.
On the surface it seems like Dr. Nye has some great questions. But really what it showed (in my humble opinion) was that he never did his homework on whom he was debating. For every question he had, Dr. Ham said “That is thoroughly discussed by Dr. so and so on our site!” Everyone of his objection during his 30 minute speech! As well as others I have not listed. If Dr. Nye had just did some research he could have said Dr. so and so who argues about the ice core with 680,000 layers is wrongs because … or any of the other questions he proposed to Dr. Ham.
Lots of pages at his site. (Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics)
Now Dr. Ham did not answer Dr. Nye’s question with his time but he did say look at my site it has the answer to your question.
Dr. Nye brought up a number of times that the ancient text could not be trust but never got into specifics as to why. He just kept repeating it over and over.
I do applaud Dr. Nye for going into Dr. Ham’s home turf.
The question answer period was good. Both got to answer the same question. One for two minutes and the other for one minute depending on whom the question was asked too.
Overall, I like these kinds of things. I think it promotes thinking, which I believe is important. Unlike Richard Dawkins, who said:
“I agree that to do this on Ham’s home turf was a mistake, and indeed it is almost always a mistake to give wingnuts the oxygen of publicity, and the respectability of being seen on a platform with a real scientist, anywhere”.
Or Dr. Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology at the University of Chicago, says that:
“The response from the evolutionist side is clear: let’s not give creation any exposure … he should just continue to write and talk about the issue on his own, and not debate creationists. By so doing, he gives them credibility simply by appearing beside them on the platform.”
Who won the debate?
I am not a scientist but consider myself a theologian. I watch the debate with my brother. Who started watching when Nye starting speaking. Nye was good very articulate (I expected nothing less) asking lots of question I had no idea were even being asked by the scientific community. And thought, how is he (Ham) is going to answer that, well he would say “Dr. so and so has written a paper on that topic. Every question Dr. Nye asked Ham said "there was a paper written to answer that objection. " Ham did handle the dating methods produced by Nye saying “this is millions and millions of years old.” Ham had lots of arguments against it. One slide had over 30 objections to carbon dating and radiation dating. A lot of that was over my head. I will say that I thought Ham did a very good job on the theology side of things although he was really in any jeopardy there because Nye didn't want to go there.
I felt Dr. Ham held his own and while not having the answer in front of him to the objections raised by Dr. Nye. He did say, (and I have looked) his website answers a lot of the skepticism raised by Dr. Nye. I am sure that there are people who doubt the answers given, nevertheless there are satisfactory answers given and that is all that is required in I Peter 3:15.
Prophet22