Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate

[alanmolstad]

Let me show you how this question of "chance" is to be understood by the Christian regarding evolution

In the Bible story of Jonah and the Whale we see a very good example of how we should look at the teachings of evolution...(or chance)...and of God's control of the universe.

In that story the person of Jonah is at one point on a ship in the middle of a great storm.
The men on the ship want to understand why this storm is so bad and who is to blame for it?, so that cast lots and the lot falls on Jonah.

Now consider this casting of the lot onto Jonah.


Was it simply "chance"?

was this part of the story only dumb luck?

Or is there something about the casting on to Jonah that makes you see God's hand in it?

THAT......that answer is how we should view the way evolution has formed all life including humans on this earth.

For because of our faith when we read about the casting of the Lot onto Jonah we see God's hand in it.

But can we prove it?......no.

There is no way to prove it was God's hand in the casting of the Lot onto Jonah....Its just due to our faith that we think that is what happened, but there is no proof.

however if a scientist were observing the men on the ship cast lots, and watched the lot fall onto Jonah, then that scientist would consider the results to be what you would expect if the casting of the lots were done in a manner consistent to the laws of probability and chance.



finally, in an answer to a lady on the question of the age of the earth,I remember that Walter's answer was, "What difference does it make?"

What Martin was saying is that it does not matter to a Christian from a faith or salvation point of view what age of the earth is.
This is because we hang our salvation and faith on the fact that there IS a God who created the earth.....and it does not matter how long ago that that happend.

[alanmolstad]

here is an interesting side note...

Did you know that the numbers that science teachers in evolution teaches for the rise of modern man, are kinda close to the numbers given by the Young earth Creationists?....



Consider:
Lets say you invent a time machine and are able to travel back into time and kidnap men from past ages.
How far back can you go before you start kidnapping men who can be discovered to not be true modern men?

The answer is about 10,000 years.
If you go back past that then at our current level of science we would be able to tell the difference between that man from the past and a common man of this modern age.

In my Ken Ham ORIGINs cl*** I had to read a lot of the works of a guy names Henry Morris, and in one of his works he talks about a concept called "gap genealogy"
He therefore allows for a lot of lost information in the Text, and admits that this could push the time of the creation back even to 10,000 years ago.

[MichaellS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Let me show you how this question of "chance" is to be understood by the Christian regarding evolution

Was it simply "chance"?

Or is there something about the casting on to Jonah that makes you see God's hand in it?

THAT......that answer is how we should view the way evolution has formed all life including humans on this earth.

For because of our faith when we read about the casting of the Lot onto Jonah we see God's hand in it.

But can we prove it?......no.

There is no way to prove it was God's hand in the casting of the Lot onto Jonah....Its just due to our faith that we think that is what happened, but there is no proof.

You will certainly have to elaborate why the Christian should feel at ease with “chance”.

V10 But “the men knew that he was fleeing from the presence of the LORD” Or are you also saying the very pivotal New Testament verse 10 in Acts: “And they drew lots” was also “chanced”, by the activity of divination?

What Martin was saying is that it does not matter to a Christian from a faith or salvation point of view what age of the earth is. This is because we hang our salvation and faith on the fact that there IS a God who created the earth.....and it does not matter how long ago that that happend.

Not unless it conflicts with existing scripture.

“It is better to take refuge in the LORD Than to trust in man.” (Psalm 118:8)

Since you were so well accustom to Mr Ham whom you found to be deceitfully leading the sheep astray, what collection of works by Mr. Martin can you point me to that would at least begin to counter the scriptures Mr. Ham presents us with?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by MichaellS

You will certainly have to elaborate why the Christian should feel at ease with “chance”.

V10 But “the men knew that he was fleeing from the presence of the LORD” Or are you also saying the very pivotal New Testament verse 10 in Acts: “And they drew lots” was also “chanced”, by the activity of divination?

if you mean this story found at Acts 1:26 ?

"Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles."

Then it is only by faith that the men did this to decide what person to advance into the position as being "one of the 12"

Is there any proof that this was done by the command of the Lord?....no

Is there any hint that God's hand was seen in the outcome?.....no

Thus it is only by faith that any see God's hand in this drawing of the lot in that story.



But to return to what i was saying....
The drawing of lot is not just "random" chance, if we mean "anything could happen",for we know that the drawing of the lot will conform to the known rules of probability that govern such things.

This is why when a scientist looks at the evolution of humans and all life on this earth and looks for proof that there was a "god' controlling the development of life, he will NOT FIND such proof!

All of evolution and the path it has taken to develop life on the earth has always been completely within the rules that govern such things (just like drawing the lot seen above)

But so how does a Christian look at the same facts found by science and come away with an understanding that evolution is just a tool of the Lord's hand?
>>>>The answer is : By Faith!





It is by faith that when I look at the history of the earth, and the evolution of life here, that I see God's hands at work.

It is by faith that when I read the story of Jonah and the whale and see the casting of the lot onto Jonah that this was by God's hand that the lot fell on Jonah.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by MichaellS

[SIZE=3]



Since you were so well accustom to Mr Ham whom you found to be deceitfully leading the sheep astray, what collection of works by Mr. Martin can you point me to that would at least begin to counter the scriptures Mr. Ham presents us with?

I got to know Mr Ham as well as can be expected while attending an 8-week cl*** that he taught to a small group of students including myself.
I also got to meet with him socially and attended a small backyard party where we shared some food and played volleyball. (He is taller than I am by the way)

So I have no problem with who mr Ham is as a person.

But the teachings of YEC (young Earth Creationism) are an invented lie that was dreamed up because people just did not know any better and now refuse to listen to reason.

YEC is a false teaching....its like believing that the cross guarantees riches and all our healing and health (as the "name it and claim it" teachers teach within the church.)
Its a false idea, taught by Christians who dont know any better.

[MichaellS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I got to know Mr Ham as well as can be expected while attending an 8-week cl*** that he taught to a small group of students including myself.
I also got to meet with him socially and attended a small backyard party where we shared some food and played volleyball. (He is taller than I am by the way)

So I have no problem with who mr Ham is as a person.

But the teachings of YEC (young Earth Creationism) are an invented lie that was dreamed up because people just did not know any better and now refuse to listen to reason.

YEC is a false teaching....its like believing that the cross guarantees riches and all our healing and health (as the "name it and claim it" teachers teach within the church.)
Its a false idea, taught by Christians who dont know any better.

“Refuse” reason? Okay, I’ll present the contention of some of the scripture from the link, that is if you count on the truth of scripture more than one’s own personal feelings. For if I only show forth my own expressions of personal belief without holding it up to the light of truth that is found in the bible, to see how it will fare, then this also refuses reason.

Mr. Ham maintains Old Earth theorist might have trouble with this one for instance:

“The gap theorist must also choose to ignore any evidence consistent with a belief in a young age for the earth, possibly no greater than 10,000 years. There is much evidence for this—e.g. the decay of the earth’s magnetic field, the quan***y of meteoric dust on the moon, the breakup of galaxy clusters, etc.

Exodus 20:11 states, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Note the emphasis, “and all that in them is.” If the fossil record was in the earth after the six days of creation and before Adam sinned (as gap theorists suppose), then God would have had to make that strata during the time limit of six days, since it is an integral part of “all that in them is”!”

Do you have objection or maintain this separate strata?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by MichaellS

“Refuse” reason? Okay, I’ll present the contention of some of the scripture from the link, that is if you count on the truth of scripture more than one’s own personal feelings. For if I only show forth my own expressions of personal belief without holding it up to the light of truth that is found in the bible, to see how it will fare, then this also refuses reason.

Mr. Ham maintains Old Earth theorist might have trouble with this one for instance:



Do you have objection or maintain this separate strata?

as far as I know, the "Moon dust" arguments have been dropped from the modern printing of the books by the Young earth teachers...

as for your question > "Do you have objection or maintain this separate strata?"
I dont understand what you are asking me?

Im not sure what I am objecting to?...what do you mean "strata"?

as far as I know, NASA puts the age of the universe back in time about 13 to 16 billion years or so.....

As far as I know there is no credible evidence that goes back farther yet...but it may be something we will learn in the future.

i would have no trouble learning from science that the age of the whole universe is over 20 billion years...or more.

[MichaellS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

as far as I know, the "Moon dust" arguments have been dropped from the modern printing of the books by the Young earth teachers...

as for your question > "Do you have objection or maintain this separate strata?"
I dont understand what you are asking me?

Im not sure what I am objecting to?...what do you mean "strata"?

as far as I know, NASA puts the age of the universe back in time about 13 to 16 billion years or so.....

As far as I know there is no credible evidence that goes back farther yet...but it may be something we will learn in the future.

i would have no trouble learning from science that the age of the whole universe is over 20 billion years...or more.

Strata, which is the plural of Stratum, which is a single layer of sedimentary rocks which KH stresses the Old Earth theorist cannot have it both ways per his comment.

“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is" (Ex20:11)

“gap theorists suppose, , the fossil record was in the earth after the six days of creation and before Adam sinned, , then God would have had to make that strata during the time limit of six days, since it is an integral part of “all that in them is”!””

Why would He do that, just so we could believe in evolution? Com'n.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by MichaellS

Strata, which is the plural of Stratum, which is a single layer of sedimentary rocks which KH stresses the Old Earth theorist cannot have it both ways per his comment.





Why would He do that, just so we could believe in evolution? Com'n.

Im no expert in that topic...
The Bible I know, and there is nothung in the bible that teaches against the idea that the earth hasbeen here for billions of years, and that the layers of earth we see are as they appear.....a true record of earth's history going back millions and billions of years.


no need to invent ways around this.

The simple truth is the best answer....the earth is old...

[alanmolstad]

There are 2 questions that the Young Earth Creationist does not like to be faced with.

Q1 - What does the Bible say God created first "in the beginning"?

Q2 - Where in the Bible does it teach that the 7th day of Genesis is ended?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

There are 2 questions that the Young Earth Creationist does not like to be faced with.

Q1 - What does the Bible say God created first "in the beginning"?

Q2 - Where in the Bible does it teach that the 7th day of Genesis is ended?

And that is where we point out the flaws in Young Earth thinking...
When I ask "What does the bible say God created first "In the beginning"? Im pointing out that Im not telling them what the text means, Im just showing them what the Text says.

It says in black and white things that the YE teacher does not want to address.

I dont have to twist things around to make it fit my views.
i dont have to invent things, I dont have to pull reasons out of thin air.
I can simply read the text as written and say...."Amen"


When the Bible says that the first thing God made"In the beginning" was the heavens...I can say "Amen"

the same is true for the 2nd Question I ask the YE teachers - "Where is the ending for the 7th Genesis day in the Bible?"

The YE teachers have no answer for that question.
They add an ending only because it needs to go there in order for Genesis to agree with young earth teachings.

But if you dont add your own invented ending to the 7th day....If you simply read and say, "Amen" Then you read a story that fits with modern science and the teachings of evolution.......


and "Amen" to that as well!

[MichaellS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

And that is where we point out the flaws in Young Earth thinking...
When I ask "What does the bible say God created first "In the beginning"? Im pointing out that Im not telling them what the text means, Im just showing them what the Text says.

It says in black and white things that the YE teacher does not want to address.

I dont have to twist things around to make it fit my views.
i dont have to invent things, I dont have to pull reasons out of thin air.
I can simply read the text as written and say...."Amen"


When the Bible says that the first thing God made"In the beginning" was the heavens...I can say "Amen"

the same is true for the 2nd Question I ask the YE teachers - "Where is the ending for the 7th Genesis day in the Bible?"

The YE teachers have no answer for that question.
They add an ending only because it needs to go there in order for Genesis to agree with young earth teachings.

But if you dont add your own invented ending to the 7th day....If you simply read and say, "Amen" Then you read a story that fits with modern science and the teachings of evolution.......


and "Amen" to that as well!

Tell ya what Alan, I can answer those two for myself right off the top. Then again should I?

You have said quite a spiel up to now, but low on returning the scriptural volley, just keep on giving more rhetorical inspiration. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but now I’m beginning to wonder if you have a personal problem with confirming that inspiration with the word of God every now and then?? And I think you know what I mean, , not every last item, but not a barrage of comments on end either.

God bless.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by MichaellS

Tell ya what Alan, I can answer those two for myself right off the top. Then again should I?

You have said quite a spiel up to now, but low on returning the scriptural volley, just keep on giving more rhetorical inspiration. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but now I’m beginning to wonder if you have a personal problem with confirming that inspiration with the word of God every now and then?? And I think you know what I mean, , not every last item, but not a barrage of comments on end either.

God bless.

Once again,,,did not really catch that.

But if you have a question or a doubt about something I have written, just let me know and I would be happy to have a 2nd look at the post again...

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by MichaellS

[SIZE=3]Tell ya what Alan, I can answer those two for myself right off the top. Then again should I?

"should I?"



that part I did catch, and I yet still don't understand why you would not?

I simply wanted to maintain a constant conversation on this website so as to encourage new posters.
To that end I would ask that if you would like to post more of your answers to my questins, that it would be helpfull to continuing this conversation and useful toward getting more people to chime in.

[MichaellS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

"should I?"



that part I did catch, and I yet still don't understand why you would not?

I simply wanted to maintain a constant conversation on this website so as to encourage new posters.
To that end I would ask that if you would like to post more of your answers to my questins, that it would be helpfull to continuing this conversation and useful toward getting more people to chime in.

Now your talking Partner. I couldn't agree more in the very spirit of your tone, , excellent!!

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by MichaellS

[SIZE=3]Tell ya what Alan, I can answer those two for myself right off the top. Then again should I?

You have said quite a spiel up to now, but low on returning the scriptural volley,]

IfI understand this part of your comments, (And I much confess that I dont understand a bunch of things from your posts in general) I believe you are asking for a step by step, verse by verse examination of what I think is being talked about in the Genesis story?


I shall go find a useful OT Bible Text website that has the text up so I can copy-paste and I will start going over the different verses and adding my own comments as to what it is talking about.


The only reason I have not done that so far is that Im more into just showing people what the Genesis story "says".....and I try not to be too forward in teaching them what i think it "means"


My reasoning is that what I think it "means" is just the very same as to what it "says"

Therefore I start out by only asking people "What does it say?
I ask "What does it say?" because most of not all of the Young Earth Teachings are not based on what the Text says, but what teachers like Morris and Ham thought it "means" regardless of what it actually "says"

[alanmolstad]

Genesis 1 (New International Version)


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Here we see the first things God made.
"The heavens" is clearly listed first of all the things God would go later on to make.
What is the "heavens"?

The answer is that in the Bible we see many different things talked about and named "Heaven" or "Heavens"
Now of these many different things, we do see the idea for the full canopy of stars in the night sky....
So the idea of the "stars" is well within the scope of different meanings the bible will use in connection to the term "Heavens"

So "stars" = "Heavens"
This seems clear enough as to what the Bible wants us to understand as the first things God made in the beginning....Stars, but also all the other things up there in the stars, for the term "Heavens is not just talking about the stars like our sun, but also "all in the heavens"is the context i get from this 1st verse of Genesis...

To me this includes the many things we do find in outer space besides just the stars.

So right at the start of Genesis we find an idea that fits nicely within the concepts of the Big Bang idea as well as what we know from modern science as to how the universe evolved.

It has one different however....the Bible is very sure who caused this to happen..."God created"
The idea that God Created this universe is not an idea found in science at all.
There is no known way to test for a God in science, thus we should never expect to read that one day science proved "God did it"

[alanmolstad]

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep,


"The deep" is a term that mostly and ONLY is talking about waters....
The word "deep" shows us that we are not just talking about a little stream, but rather we are dealing with seas of water...vast seas....


"the earth was formless and empty"....the word "was" here, is tricky, for it is based on a word that can mean both "was" or it can mean "became"
and in many ways this is true here too.

We should keep this in mind as we read this section, that the earth was or became something.
What was it?...... "Formless and empty"


What do we take Formless and empty to mean?....
Well "formless" is talking about a foggy uncertainty to the outline.
The earth is still there, the earth is still real...still hard ground...
But it's outline is unsure as seen here...

In Bible school the image I was taught as to what this "formlessness" was talking about was that you were to imagine standing on a road on a very foggy day.
You hear a sound.....the sound grows louder and louder...the sound now resembles the sound of a large truck.
But as you look into the fog you cant see the truck yet.

the sound grows....now you start to see a dark shape on the road....its hard to see, but its clearly something.



The truck was always there, always real, always made of hard steel and iron....But as you looked at it from your view point it was "formless"

[alanmolstad]

"the earth was formless and empty"

The word "empty" is only talking about a lack or people.

The image I have is that of a large sports arena, with seating for many, yet its before the game starts and so all the seats are empty.

The earth was created empty, but its a type of emptyness that expects to be "filled"

[alanmolstad]

shall I go on?.....

[alanmolstad]

asyou never got back to me, I guess I should just sum up the rest of what I was going to write if you needed to see more of how I go over the text verse by verse.

I would have pointed out that the place where the Bible draws all life from, both animal life and human life according to the teachings of Evolution is "the earth itself"
The earth is the final place where the teachings of evolution will trace back life to.

Then I show how the text in Genesis teaches the very same thing, that all life, be it human or animal, all come from a common starting point in the Bible...(The Earth)


Next I would likely deal with the events of the 4th day.
The deal with the 4th day is that this is the point where the Young earth teachers had to start adding things to the text and re-working the first part of the story to make everything fit with how they wanted the 4th day to read.

But I show how it is not necessary to add all that junk to the story (like the invention of a "sourceless light)

The story of the 4th day reads like a normal story with no need to add things to it to make it work with the first part of the Genesis week.

We remember that at the first day the Text tells us that God created the "Heavens" and so we take this to be talking about the "stars" and as our sun is just a normal star that was created also "In the beginning"we have all the source for the light talked about on the 4th day.

I point out that the words "also made the stars" is an addition to the text and does not actually belong there at all.




point by point I can show what Im talking about is the only correct way to understand the Genesis story...

[MichaellS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

asyou never got back to me, I guess I should just sum up the rest of what I was going to write if you needed to see more of how I go over the text verse by verse.

Hi, if I only had ample convenience, I would be on here more. If you will only be a tad bit more patient, I’ll try to respond eventually.

I would have pointed out that the place where the Bible draws all life from, both animal life and human life according to the teachings of Evolution is "the earth itself"
The earth is the final place where the teachings of evolution will trace back life to.

Curious Alan, with your use of quotations here, “the earth itself”, are you referring to something previously said by yourself or someone else?

Then I show how the text in Genesis teaches the very same thing, that all life, be it human or animal, all come from a common starting point in the Bible...(The Earth)

This is not something I can support in good conscience.

“by him all things are held together.” (Colossians 1:17)

“, , by him all things subsist - Or are sustained, , The meaning is, that they are kept in the present state; their existence, order, and arrangement are continued by his power. If unsupported by him, they would fall into disorder, or sink back to nothing. - Barnes' Notes on the Bible

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by MichaellS

[SIZE=3]
Curious Alan, with your use of quotations here, “the earth itself”, are you referring to something previously said by yourself or someone else?

I always am quoting the Bible...even if I dont list the chapter and verse, Im still always quoting a source and not just myself...

[alanmolstad]

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation:


12 The land produced vegetation:

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts







So all animals are from the Earth itself.
But what about humans?
Are we from a different place than all the animals, or are we from the very same place?


"you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken"








God commanded "the ground" of this earth to bring forth life.
And we humans are from this very same source.

[alanmolstad]

so I was dealing once with a person who held that the Bible was all myth, and had nothing in agreement with modern science at all.


I asked him, "Where does your godless evolution trace all human life back to"
"The great apes and man share a family tree" was his answer.

"Good answer" I said.
But then I asked, "Is that it? Is that all the farther back in time evolution goes? Apes appear out of thin air and we evolved from them after that happened?"

"Well no not at all" came his answer, "The evolution of mankind goes back millions and millions of years before the rise of apes"

"So ok I get that" I then go on to ask, "And can you tell me where this story of evolution started at?"


He paused and suggested that there were likely just simple cells in a tide pool that split and caused all evolution from then on


I challenged this, by asking, "But what came before even that first simple cell?"

This got him to think for a moment, then he answered, "Before that I would guess that the very building blocks of life are what was the start"



"Another Good answer" I told him...."And where are even the most simple building blocks of life from?"

His answer was "They are a natural part of the earth itself, we are a natural evolved part of this planet"





His answer is correct....and it fits nicely next to what the Bible teaches at Genesis 3:19