The End is Nye

Joe continues,

Your quote said we can use animals for food. Humans are animals. Therefor, according to the Bible it is OK to eat humans.

Humans are higher than animals according to the book of Genesis.

16 lbs wheat to produce 1 lb of beef- USDA It takes 435 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef- Natl Cattlemen’s assoc (meaning it is a low estimate) 35 kilocalories of fossil fuel to produce 1 kilocalorie of beef- Cornell Univ

Okay. And...? If you want to eat a vegetarian or vegan diet, then do so. But don't get holier than thou about it. Eating meat is not wrong according to the Bible. Please learn to deal with this fact.

Then there is mad cow’s disease- pig waste pits. Did you know that there is an acceptable level of fecies in your meat? Yum yum…

And did you know that there's acceptable levels of pesticides and GMOs in your vegetables? Ask Monsanto! Barb

Barb- references: 16 lbs wheat to produce 1 lb of beef- USDA It takes 435 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef- Natl Cattlemen's assoc (meaning it is a low estimate) 35 kilocalories of fossil fuel to produce 1 kilocalorie of beef- Cornell Univ Then there is mad cow's disease- pig waste pits. Did you know that there is an acceptable level of fecies in your meat? Yum yum... Joe

Barb:

What part of the scripture I quoted did you not understand?

Your quote said we can use animals for food. Humans are animals. Therefor, according to the Bible it is OK to eat humans. Nice job. Joe

Joe again:

No, that is a fact. So living life as God originally intended isn’t a good thing, then…

And your references to back up that fact are...where? Living life as God intended is apparently not what you think it is. I quoted scripture to prove my point. Debate that if you wish. Barb

Joe @ 56:

Barb- Humans are animals- or do you think we are plants?

Humans are mammals, yes. What part of the scripture I quoted did you not understand? JGuy @ 58:

Barb. I don’t want to get into a big discussion. But who raised Jesus from the dead?

His father did. You can't resurrect yourself, and the Bible clearly speaks of God being eternal and never dying. Barb

Barb. I don't want to get into a big discussion. But who raised Jesus from the dead? JGuy

The land, water and resources it takes to raise that meat could be put to better use.

In your opinion.

No, that is a fact. So living life as God originally intended isn't a good thing, then... Joe

Barb- Humans are animals- or do you think we are plants? Joe

I always liked the story of how Jesus, after resurrecting Lazarus, said, "Give him some strong meat." It would not be the same if he had said, "Give him a carrot." Mapou

Joe again writes,

So God endorsed cannibalism?

People eating animals isn't cannibalism. Please develop some reading comprehension skills.

And there is plenty wrong with eating meat.

Such as? A meat-based diet does provide good sources of protein that vegetarian diets sometimes lack.

The land, water and resources it takes to raise that meat could be put to better use.

In your opinion. Vegetarianism or veganism definitely has health benefits for people, but your point was that the Bible allows only for vegetarian diets. You are wrong, and I pointed this out. Deal with it. I think Michael Pollan put it best when he wrote, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Barb

So God endorsed cannibalism? And there is plenty wrong with eating meat. The land, water and resources it takes to raise that meat could be put to better use. Joe

Joe writes, "Exactly! I love bringing that up with the JWs who come to my house- “Do you eat meat? You do? Then you really don’t live the word of the Bible do you?” As a JW, I feel compelled to answer this. Although typically I don't answer people who are sarcastic and rude when I knock on their doors. This comes from the issue of "Awake!" magazine (2/22/04), in an article on pets:

Animals may benefit man by serving as food. Originally, God provided only vegetation as food for man. But more than 1,600 years later—after the Flood of Noah’s day—God said: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you.” (Genesis 1:29; 9:3) Thus, God made the concession for humans to eat animals. Evidently, this concession was for man’s good, although originally God did not include meat as part of the human diet.

As far as JWs are concerned, we are trying to live the Bible, as Joe puts it, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with eating meat. Unless Joe wants to debate the merits of the scripture I quoted. Barb

Querius:

There’s significant evidence that Genesis 1 through the story of Jacob was written by at least 10 authors on clay tablets.

This does not surprise me one bit. Genesis does look like a compilation. I can detect at least two different Adam and Eve stories in Genesis. There is the one in the garden of Eden (which I think is metaphorical) and there is another story with a couple named Adam and Eve together with their children (Cain and Abel, etc.) and a bunch of other people who also lived at the time. Mapou

The original vegetarian state.

Exactly! I love bringing that up with the JWs who come to my house- "Do you eat meat? You do? Then you really don't live the word of the Bible do you?" Joe

Incidentally, if any of you are unaware of the (clay) tablet theory of Genesis that was first proposed by P.J. Wiseman in the 1930s, you might be interested in this article: http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp There's significant evidence that Genesis 1 through the story of Jacob was written by at least 10 authors on clay tablets. The story of Joseph to the end is presumed to have been originally written on papyrus in Egypt. The first few chapters of Genesis has some fascinating themes that include: - A single, unnamed, all-powerful God creating nature in harmony, perhaps commanding that it be created: "Let there be...". - A binary system of separation: light and dark, earth and water, etc. - A succession of things created out of other things. The final creation of God was a human female. - An evaluation of each creative period. It was "good" (not perfect). - A terrestrial perspective---thus the unnamed greater and lesser lights/lamps might have been somewhat obscured early on by mist, and that these lights aren't Gods. - The original role of humans to protect and tame nature. - The original vegetarian state. - The introduction of suffering through an intelligent creature. And so on. -Q Querius

UD-Thanks for posting such valuable posts! Thank God for intelligent ID'ers that post here. Blessed to read ID'ers comments here and enjoy how BA77 ties his post with a neat verse and music. Look forward to this debate with Nye, hopefully he will score better here than he did at "Dancing with the stars"! Chalciss

Mapou, I did not mean to offend but this is what you previously stated:

The Genesis creation story is hard to interpret because the moment the text mentions a devious talking snake and trees of life and knowledge, it is an immediate sign to me that a huge part of it is metaphorical.

So I don't think you can say I was misrepresenting you. Again I meant no offense. I hope you strongly consider my previous comments. It's pretty clear that the majority of Genesis, (especially relating to Creation and the global flood), is not written in metaphorical language. It is written as a historical account. lifepsy

lifepsy:

So you use a couple verses that seem metaphorical to discount the entire Creation and Flood account in Genesis? The construction of the Ark is metaphorical? The majority of the account of Genesis sounds more like matter-of-fact, historical bullet points. Not metaphor.

You know, I don't appreciate that you think it's OK to put words in my mouth. This discussion is getting nowhere fast, in my opinion. This is my last post in this thread. Sorry. Mapou

Mapou, 37

I don’t believe in either a global flood or a young earth. Yes, I’m a Christian and I’ve read the book of Genesis many times. The Genesis creation story is hard to interpret because the moment the text mentions a devious talking snake and trees of life and knowledge, it is an immediate sign to me that a huge part of it is metaphorical. Why? Because I have seen the same metaphors used in other symbolic scriptures.

So you use a couple verses that seem metaphorical to discount the entire Creation and Flood account in Genesis? The construction of the Ark is metaphorical? The majority of the account of Genesis sounds more like matter-of-fact, historical bullet points. Not metaphor. Mapou, does it mean anything to you that Jesus Christ himself gave a history lesson on the flood? For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, Matthew 24:38 Or how about that in the gospel of Peter, we are told straight out that people will come in the last days and deny that the Flood happened? Does that sound metaphorical? 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: 2 Peter 3:5-6

It takes arrogance and self-deception for anybody to declare to the world that he or she has a monopoly on Biblical interpretation. I, too, can read, and I have my own interpretation. I may be wrong or I may be right. Who knows?

You seem awfully certain in your declaration that the YEC interpretation is wrong, and the Non-YEC interpretation is right. You're preaching it rather loudly, actually. lifepsy

A decent summation of YEC geological arguments (VERY long and playlist is a little out-of-order at the beginning): http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11166601CA0FB279 johnnyb

pps. When I wrote, "Job happens to be that book." This means Job happens to be the oldest book. At least as I've read is believed among scholars. And it happen to fit the prediction made from the model that it would have more mentions of snow and ice. JGuy

correction "not I have a better grasp on your thinking now" should read "now I have a better grasp on your thinking" By the way, one example of an idea I have that I might not want to teach or assert is this. Taking a young earth view, and having good reasons to believe there was an ice-age for several hundred years after the flood... I once put all this together and made a prediction that if this were true, then perhaps the oldest book of the bible might have more references to ice, snow and cold. Job happens to be that book. And indeed, it has a disproportionate number of references to ice and snow. In fact, it has the most references to snow with 5 out of 25 total in the bible, the next was psalms with 4, and the rest were distributed in various other books once or twice. As for ice, it has 2 of the 3 total references in the entire bible. Though compelling, since it followed a prediction based on my YEC model, I naturally try to remain cautious with how I might present information like that. JGuy

Mapou @ 40 I'm not going to make a full judgement call. But your interpretation seems over extrapolated. This can happen if one takes something as a metaphor, and starts reading into it... making puzzle pieces to fit into some construct they imagine. But thank you for sharing your thoughts, not I have a better grasp on your thinking now. That said. I believe that some of what we read in the bible is both literal and figurative(metaphorical?). Perhaps, a better description might be both literal and as types. For example, few will argue that Abraham and Isaac are literally true account of a man named Abraham and his unique son Isaac. And further, that this account also serves as a prophetic model or type of God the Father and Jesus the unique Son of God - especially at the cross. There are more than one example of this kind of typing in scripture, I believe. So, it would not surprise me if there are elements in Genesis that are (or seem to fit very well) both literal as I read it, and yet also serve as a type or model at some other level. For example, taking the flood and the ark as literal account, yet the ark serves as a prophetic type of Jesus the Messiah..where there is salvation inside the ark (Jesus) from God's wrath - e.g. in Ephesians we see Paul writing about being "in Christ". Anyway, not sure where to go with all this. I'd rather not get too side-tracked with extended thoughts. Even though there are passages I compellingly find as both literal & types, I would not want to come off as asserting/teaching what I imagine is compelling as actually what scripture says. I'd rather stay tentative on some. JGuy

JGuy, Here's my current thinking. Take it or leave it. In my opinion, the serpent of Genesis is a metaphor for the Devil or Lucifer. I can assure you that, based on other scriptures, the Devil is not a literal serpent or dragon. He is described elsewhere as a beautiful, music-loving Archangel, a scoundrel for sure, but a beautiful one nonetheless. The prophecy about the woman getting bitten by the serpent and the latter getting its head crushed by the woman is obviously symbolic. This alone tells me that the Genesis story is at least partially metaphorical. Now, I am not going to ask you or anybody else to believe what I am about to say but, based on my research, I am almost certain that the tree of life is a scientific metaphor that represents the hierarchical organization of the genome. The tree of knowledge, on the other hand, symbolizes the hierarchical organization of knowledge, not just in general, but also the way it is structured in the brain. I also think it is possible that the Genesis story about Adam and Eve is just a metaphorical account of a very ancient but scientifically advanced civilization on earth that came to an abrupt end after falling out with the Elohim. They became advanced precisely because, metaphorically speaking, they ate of the forbidden tree of knowledge. Why did the Elohim forbid them to eat of those trees? Apparently, the Elohim did not trust the early humans and wanted to test them. Subsequently, after the fallout, the humans were kept from gaining an understanding of (i.e., eating the fruit of) the tree of life (the genome) which would have given them the know-how to stop aging and become immortal, just like the Elohim. IOW, the humans blew it, big time. You can make of this as you wish but the above is a part of my current interpretation of the Adam and Eve story. It is always subject to revision. My favorite motto: search and you shall find. Mapou

Jerry is right this time: Kan Ham will destroy Bill Nye. Poor Bill! Levan

Mapou

Why? Because I have seen the same metaphors used in other symbolic scriptures.

-- I've seen metaphorical writing that used metaphors which use term(s) X (&Y). -- Therefore X (& Y) in this ancient scripture is/are a metaphor(s). Does that sum up your reasoning? Questions: How do you know the other writing is purely metaphorical? Even if that were true that one was metaphorical, how do you know the other is using X as a metaphor? Is it possible that a literal interpretation can be used metaphorically in separate texts? Is it possible that one was originally literal, and then subsequent use became figurative? More importantly, why would a term need consistently be a metaphor across different texts? Are the terms accused of being metaphors actually misleadingly interpreted words? e.g. Perhaps, 'serpent' has a better translation from ancient Hebrew in the context. That they may not be metaphors is very possible in a universe, we could never have imagined alone, that was created by a sovereign God, especially one where God emphasized having child-like faith and trust in God's word...so.. Is it's possible that in this case - amidst our abundant ignorance on historical matters - a kind of child-like belief is needed rather than reliance on our oft puffed up intellectualizing (not making an accusation). Perhaps we need sometimes faith like that where Jesus spoke of having a faith like a child, and absent the taint of a puffed up mind (stemming from pride in one's otherwise extensive knowledge). Where does this leave one? Well, not sure this would lead to any immediately clear conclusion on the literal (or not) nature of the terms in the text...but I'd say we should be slower to applying extra-biblical interpretations of scripture. We are left, imo, simply more at the mercy of God's word.... Basically, akin to being put in Eve's position in Genesis chapter 3, where now we know we must instead rely solely on what God said, and not what we feel or think in contrast. Perhaps, life since the fall incorporates this as a lesson - woven into the plan from the beginning. We learn from the error of Adam & Eve not trusting/believing God's WORDS, where they rather gave over to some feelings and thoughts contrary to God's direct words...so, perhaps as some lesson, we can not visibly see God like Adam and Eve could in the garden, so we are even more-so in a state that we must believe what God said, and not by our sight or own reasoning. I feel like I'm rambling on..so..read with a grain of salt as just some thoughts to ponder. JGuy

lifepsy, I don't believe in either a global flood or a young earth. Yes, I'm a Christian and I've read the book of Genesis many times. The Genesis creation story is hard to interpret because the moment the text mentions a devious talking snake and trees of life and knowledge, it is an immediate sign to me that a huge part of it is metaphorical. Why? Because I have seen the same metaphors used in other symbolic scriptures. It takes arrogance and self-deception for anybody to declare to the world that he or she has a monopoly on Biblical interpretation. I, too, can read, and I have my own interpretation. I may be wrong or I may be right. Who knows? Unless some angel comes to me in a dream and reveals the truth to me, I am forced to doubt my own understanding, let alone somebody else's. As a Christian, I believe that the Bible contains amazing, world-changing, scientific knowledge written in a metaphorical language. For example, I am convinced that the secret of how the brain and intelligence work can be found in the books of Revelation and Zechariah. I write about my research in "Biblical AI" on my blog but I don't go around and try to convince anybody that I'm right. Why? Because all I got is a bunch of words. But as soon as I can demonstrate an intelligent computer program based on the principles that I was able to decipher from the ancient texts (a program that knocks everybody's socks off), then it's a whole different ball game. I'm getting close but I'm not there yet. In the meantime, I will keep researching until I find more stuff. Mapou

Mapou,

PS. Finding human fossils in the same sedimentary layers as dinosaur fossils would also be powerful evidence. Where are they?

Have you ever stopped to consider there may be reasons for the fossil sequence other than time? Within the context of a global flood: Rapid burial by ecological zone, with species mobility considerations, actually provides a strong argument for expecting a fossil sequence similar to what we observe. http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_sorting#Sorting_mechanisms lifepsy

Mapou @ 31 I wouldn't hold my breath. By the way, those are wreck-less accusations of operating in deception about career preservation motives of YEC scientists. If it were careers YEC were worried about, they could much more simply join the more entrenched old earth industry. I don't disagree with any claims on delusional thinking on the part of Darwinists. Though, I won't go so far as to say they are largely being intentionally deceptive, unless we want to call avoiding the debate deception - which is often the case. In contrast, YEC won't avoid discussing the issues within their own models as Darwinists tend to avoid issues in Darwinism. This is apparent if you filter through the YEC literature. JGuy

It would be interesting for Ham to ask Nye what is the cause for the distribution of fossilized tracks of animal kinds to be significantly inconsistent (clearly biased in lower strata) with the distribution of the fossilized bodies of the same kinds of animals. And being the case true for at least amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs. Of course, this would cause serious questions about the reliability of the secular consensus on the origin of the strata. Ham would have an easy simple answer with a global flood. Nye would be left with an awkward enigma. http://www.grisda.org/origins/09067.htm JGuy

There are tons of old artwork depicting sauropod-like dinosaurs. Hundreds of examples... found all over the world... This guy has documented tons of them.. very interesting http://s8int.com/WordPress/tag/dinosaurs-in-literature/ Prominent historians wrote about dinosaurs rather matter-of-factly as well. There is nothing too surprising or far-fetched about this. Dinosaurs were simply a relatively endangered animal that was hunted to extinction in the past. The Bible is obviously describing a large Sauropod in Job as well. lifepsy

Mapou, 3

I am an old-earth, old-universe creationist. What good points do the YECs have for a young earth, pray tell? I have not seen or heard any.

For one, that it has been experimentally demonstrated that moving water currents will mechanically separate sediment types and lay them down in distinct horizontal stratification. Exactly like the dominant geological pattern we find all over the Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7exxtkN8610 Kind of makes you wonder if conventional old-earth geology might be fundamentally wrong about a lot of things, huh? lifepsy

The main problem I see with YECs and Darwinists is that a refutation of their worldviews would mean the destruction of many careers. Many livelihoods would come to an abrupt end. They simply cannot allow that to happen. So they keep up the fight for their survival and, in the process, their followers are deceived. That's too bad. Unfortunately for the promoters of both of these worldviews, sooner or later, the houses of cards that they have so painstakingly constructed over the years will come crashing down and that'll be the end of it all. I hate to be a prophet of doom but I have reasons to think that the end is closer than they are willing to believe. Mapou

The fish swam to the other side of the earth- some road the giant wave... :) Joe

-Joe

Ham will lose that part of the debate.

That's what I'm interested and concerned about this debate.

“If the asteroid impact of 65 mya wiped out the dinosaurs, why don’t we see their fossils in and just on top of the K-T boundry, ie the time period they would have died?”

The asteroid theory is just...I'm surprised not how the dinosaurs (may) died rather how the fish lived, because if the asteroid actually landed at the gulf of Mexico you think that the fish would have died by the shock wave as well as the pollution. origin_surgeon

Mapou, Engineering- operational science- is one thing. Reconstructing a dinosaur from bone fragments is another. And I don't think Ken Ham will "win" this point if it is part of the debate. I just watch a lot of "History Channel" and remembered seeing depictions of dinosaurs- some on cave walls too- by ancient peoples. Joe

origin_surgeon: Are the Ica Stones Fake? Skeptics Under Fire It looks like the Ica stones could be a whole debate just by themselves... Joe

Joe @23:

So the ancient paleontologists were just as apt as the modern paleos?

Well, they did not have to be. However, when I see powerful evidence for the amazing engineering abilities of ancient societies, I think that, even though they did not have the accumulated knowledge of the 21st century, they were not the dummies that many pompous academics make them out to be. Mapou

o_s- there isn't any "proof" and Ham will lose that part of the debate. However Ham could counter with "If the asteroid impact of 65 mya wiped out the dinosaurs, why don't we see their fossils in and just on top of the K-T boundry, ie the time period they would have died?" Joe

hi mapou. there is a lots of evidence for young earth. take a look at this: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth mk

Mapou, So the ancient paleontologists were just as apt as the modern paleos? Joe

Joe, The stegosaurus in Cambodia looks promising but there not a whole of information about it, it might be a hoax so in case if Mr.Ken Ham views this as proof it'll be unwise without a through examination along side with skeptics. as for the Inca stones according to this archaeologist Ken Feder in his book the Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology: From Atlantis To The Walam Olum it reads

"The Ica Stones are not the most sophisticated of the archaeological hoaxes discussed in this book, but they certainly rank up there as the most preposterous."

origin_surgeon

LP

Only mathematical morons try and plot the Earth’s population and come up with a YEC. Ian Juby is one of those morons.

I have had little experience with reading your posts until yesterday. I mostly concede to one point on GA's. But this (ad hom fallacy) is not the kind of argument I respect. Try again.

That the “young earth view makes sense with a straight forward reading of the bible” is balanced by many other religions. If you were born in India and/or adopted Hindu cosmogony then you would have a a very Old Earth view.

You might have a point if I had meant to apply that reason for nonbelievers. But I didn't intend it for Hindu's and atheists - that should have been implicitly clear enough.

Most Christians in Europe/UK are Old Earth. YEC seems to be a peculiar phenomena mostly American. YEC are amusing though.

Even if you were correct, so what? One could counter with the actually effective retort that most Christians before Lyell believed in a young earth. e.g. the "amusing" Isaac Newton in/from England (not America).... That many were first duped (even to this day) by the original faulty old earth arguments of Lyell does nothing to help your case. But again, it doesn't matter, the specific point your comment targets was clearly not intended for non-believers of the bible in the first place. JGuy

PS. Finding human fossils in the same sedimentary layers as dinosaur fossils would also be powerful evidence. Where are they? Mapou

Joe @17, Scientifically speaking, to prove that humans lived during the time of dinosaurs, one needs to show that those drawings are contemporary with dinosaur fossils. It's a sure bet that the drawings are no more than a few thousand years old or less. So the question should be, if those drawings truly represent dinosaurs, how did ancient human societies find out about them? I suggest that they did it the same way modern humans did it. They dug the ground and found fossils. Mapou

Mapou, I agree with a caveat- "young" is relative. I disagree with a 6.000 year old earth and I know the Bible doesn't say the earth is 6,000 some odd years old. However I also disagree with a 4.5x billion uear old earth as that is totally untestable. Joe

OS- I have never seen that image. stegasaurus in cambodia inca stones Joe

In my opinion, young earth creationists are just as much out to lunch as the Darwinists. The available evidence clearly shows an extremely old and carefully designed universe. Anything else is dogma and superstition, not science. Telling it like I see it. Mapou

@Joe.

there are depictions of dinosaurs in ancient drawings- is that scientific evidence for our coexistence?

Yes and no. Yes, to some degree it would because primitive man would know what dinosaurs looked like before fossil experdisions but No, because one of the most important Pictographs for creationism has been debunked Also Mr.Ham will be debating towards and against a very skeptic crowd, so evidence best presented would be for example our ancestors used young dinosaur bones for tools or even better; a human foot in a T-rex mouth. origin_surgeon

Can Bill Nye give scientific evidence for evolutionism? BTW there are depictions of dinosaurs in ancient drawings- is that scientific evidence for our coexistence? Joe

Tthe question is: Can Ken Ham give scientific evidence that humans co-existence with dinosaurs? If you seen his museum there are statues makes the suggestion that we did,(at least from a YEC view point) however Mr.Ham answers the question it will certainly tip the scale the view of the debate. origin_surgeon

'The End is Nye'. Many a true word, if punnily misspelled, is said in jest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI_KExaudxk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnlcedAynkc What was that about God having to apologise to Sodom and Gommorrah, if he didn't judge the US soon? (think unfettered capitalism); not to speak of the rest of us Western-capitalist rogues. That 'every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father,' has become that bit more plausible to truculent atheists. Axel

^ "i don't agree with you so i'll call you a moron and use the fact that a lot of other people don't agree with you either as evidence as to why you're wrong" wentzelitis

It all happened Last Thursday but that aside JGuy, read this post. And I mean read it, http://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1783&p=29572#p29572 Only mathematical morons try and plot the Earth’s population and come up with a YEC. Ian Juby is one of those morons. That the "young earth view makes sense with a straight forward reading of the bible" is balanced by many other religions. If you were born in India and/or adopted Hindu cosmogony then you would have a a very Old Earth view. Most Christians in Europe/UK are Old Earth. YEC seems to be a peculiar phenomena mostly American. YEC are amusing though. Lincoln Phipps

It would not surprise me to see Nye back away from this debate (although he may be too far committed at this time). If it happens, Nye will be plastered - of that I have no doubt. For starters, like the vast majority of people, Nye doesn't even understand what the true issues are in this matter. For instance, those opposing Biblical Creationism generally don't grasp that this is first and foremost a *theological* matter long before it is a "scientific" one. Besides that, what "science" are we talking about - the one that presupposes Materialism? Nye is ill-informed, misinformed and uninformed in these areas. Jorge

Mr Coyne sure has the right to articulate suspicions of motivations!!! Then why not everyone? If we do likewise EVIDENCE is demanded like for why people seem denied positions in school or other professions. Nye is useless as a debater. I don't know how good hAm is but he's sharper and can only win. I'm banned at Coyne's webpage. I think they can't take intellectual fighting and are afraid of this being made apparent to audiences normally shut out from creationists. If they can't beat a YEC creationist on science and origins then what is your hope for keeping the old faith alive? Its hilarious in these last days of evolutiondom to see them far apart. YEC was here first ID friends by the way! Robert Byers

F/N: On origins, I think we all need to take a step back from the fallacy of confident manner on a past we did not observe and must only model in light of best explanation of its traces, in the face of a bit of hard-bought wisdom from Job, as God enters the debate over his troubles, talking out of the storm:

Job 38: 1 . . . the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy? . . .

We were not there, and should humbly face the fact of the limitations of warrant regarding knowledge claims on a past we did not observe. Otherwise, we will be guilty of darkening counsel with foolish words that presume a degree of certainty we simply cannot have. In this regard, I find myself increasingly concerned about the slander that willfully, blatantly and maliciously accuses parents and others who seek to raise godly children in an increasingly bizarrely godless age of darkness put in place for light -- bitter for sweet -- poison for food -- evil for good [I am specifically alluding to Isa 5:20 - 21], of "child abuse." That is an accusation with menacing teeth in an age where people may easily be robbed of children by over-zealous welfare officials. And, it is an accusation that those who make it MUST know is patently false and poisonously prejudicial. If Mr Nye is of that number, he has already forfeited any moral high ground, and should not be entertained as though he were a credible, sympathetic figure. He would be a willful false accuser and enabler of false accusation. He would owe us all an abject public apology, retraction and corrective instruction on the same level of exposure as that toxic false accusation. And that extends directly to Dawkins and ilk. Failing such, that ilk should be publicly marked as willful false accusers. It seems, I need to state a warning -- I insist on learning from Niemoller, I will not be silent:

He who would rob me of my children, would rob me of my posterity. He who would rob me of my job, would rob me of my livelihood and my life. He who would rob me of the gospel, would rob me of my soul.

KF PS: On relevant worldview issues on the credible reality of God, cf. here on in context, including here on Darwinism, Darwin's attitudes and motives and so-called free thought. On the credibility of the gospel, cf. here on. kairosfocus

Mapau @ 3 I'm a YEC. And personally feel near compelled to argue that we CAN'T know the age of the earth. However, that's not my firm position here. I'm just stating that it may be much harder than most convinced people think (whether young earther or old earther) to make such an assessment about the general age of the earth at any level - if not impossible. That said. There are plenty of arguments that contradict the old earth view. For example: C14 in half billion year old diamonds. Faint young sun paradox. Salt in the ocean. Erosion rate of the continents. Helium levels in zircons...and others.. AND the general evidences of young life on earth, such as C14 in dinosaur fossils, the persistence of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is an enigma. DNA and proteins in supposedly tens and hundreds of million year old excavations. Age of mitochondrial eve using observed fast mutation rates. Earth's population. Lack of dead people in graves or caves...etc.. Granted, evidence of young life does not mean a young earth, but it does mean there is a problem with the basis for determining the old life ages in the first place (i.e. a problem stemming from the old earth paradigm). Finally, a young earth view makes sense with a straight forward reading of the bible. No evolution. Man was specially created with all other life. With a global flood about 4500 years ago. And the generations from Adam to Christ make sense. JGuy

Wow! Nye referred to Ham as "this guy"... This tells me Nye has not enough of a clue about who he's getting into a debate with. Ham inviting Nye to a debate is like a shark inviting a mackerel to have lunch sometime. I hope Nye doesn't back out. Of course, if he does, this will not look good either. So, no matter what, evolutionists will regret this ever being scheduled. JGuy

@3.

I am an old-earth, old-universe creationist. What good points do the YECs have for a young earth, pray tell? I have not seen or heard any.

Mapou, Even though I'm a old-earth creationist as well but there are some arguments worth looking. e.g. The shrinkage of the sun. origin_surgeon

George E. @1:

but the creationists have for their part many, many good points to use against both the old-age creationists and the evolutionists.

I am an old-earth, old-universe creationist. What good points do the YECs have for a young earth, pray tell? I have not seen or heard any. Mapou

Coyne believes that when a dog is drowning, everyone should offer him water. News

The evolutionists have a couple of good points to use against the creationists (we know they have none against the IDers, because if they did, we would have heard one of them by now), but the creationists have for their part many, many good points to use against both the old-age creationists and the evolutionists. I suspect that Nye may be somewhat unaware of these tough creationist arguments, and so Coyne, who evidently is aware of them, is trying to give him the heads-up. George E.