First off, I really enjoyed watching the debate last night. I am just going to go over some of my thoughts and response to both men in the debate. I am not in any way an expert in knowledge of scientific understanding, so I may be wrong in some of my thoughts, though I will endeavor to research and accurately portray the science.
The main disagreement that I have with Bill Nye (despite the whole old Earth argument) is that he seems to believe that a person who believes in the Bible and a literal six day creation cannot be a scientist. This is just not true, as Ken Ham demonstrated by showing many Creationist who were also scientist. Ones personal beliefs does not change the constants of the universe, so a creationist and an evolutionist can study science just the same. They both have the same things to look at and study, and each person can see the same things. Where they differ is how that data is interpreted.
Ken Ham relied heavily on the "you weren't there so how do you know" argument. While this is true, neither man was there. Neither one knows for sure exactly what happened. Ken Ham believes that the Bible tells the accurate portrayal of the creation while Bill Nye believes that the Big Bang was the beginning.
One question I wish was explained was how could a tree date to be older than creation exist. I do not that some species of trees will produce more than one ring per year if there is a period of drought during the normally wet period, but I would still like to see good answer for this question.
Bill Nye also made a foolish comment about reading the Bible. The Bible is written in different writing forms, historical, apocalyptic, poetic, etc. You have to read those types of writings differently. Historical writings are literal. Apocalyptic are largely metaphorical. Poetry can be both. You can't read all types of literature the same way. You will not read Edgar Allen Poe the same way as you read an autobiography.
I remember Bill Nye making this comment, "Then, as far as Noah being an extraordinary shipwright, I'm extraordinarily skeptical." He mentions how his family built ships in New England and how it took a lifetime to learn the trade. Well, the Bible states that Noah was 500 years old when he was told to build the arc. I'm sure he had plenty of time to learn how to build a ship properly, much more time than Bill Nye's ancestors. Also with this same story, Bill Nye failed to acknowledge that all species were not put on the ark. We need to remember that the sea creatures stayed in the sea. Noah did not need to carry them on the ark. Also, all the single celled organisms just hitched a ride on the wood, people and animals. Those would not need extra room either.
Another thing Bill Nye stated was that there isn't enough time for all the species to have been in 4000 years since the flood. Well, just look at dog breeds. How quickly did all the breeds of dogs we have today came into existence?
The main disagreement I have with evolution is that creatures are becoming more complex. This is just not true. If anything, they are loosing genetic information. If you have a dog species where some have long hair and some have short hair and place them in a cold environment. More than likely, through survival of the fittest, the long haired dog will live to reproduce and the other will not. The population will loose the genetic ability to have short hair since only the long haired dogs reproduced. You can only reintroduce the short hair by breeding in another short haired dog. Likewise, long haired dogs would probably die off if placed in a warm environment while short haired ones would survive.
One thing that Bill Nye showed was a picture of many different skulls that he implied were many different human species, or all the ancestors that lead up to the human race today. Well, what if they were all the same race of human? Before the flood, there would have been a much wider variety of humans and facial features and head structures. Since Noah and his family likely only represented a small portion of the total human genome at that time, it is safe to assume that there were other facial and cranial structures that existed in Noah's day that we will not see today since they all died in the flood.
Bill Nye also said multiple times that how can someone take Ken Ham's word that the Bible is true instead of what is seen and observed. I think Bill Nye missed it there. Ken Ham does not disagree with what is seen and observed. He disagrees with how it go there. Also, if Bill Nye is going to say that it is unreasonable to accept the Bible as a historical document based on one man's word, then how many other books, that are widely accepted as historical fact, have been taken on the word of men to be true. The word of those men who were not there to witness the historical events. All those ancient historical books, including the Bible, have been translated into "American English."
Why not teach creationism in schools? It is just another "theory" when approached by science, just like evolution is a theory. It is call the Theory of Evolution, not the Fact or Principle of Evolution. It is still a theory. The Bible and Christianity are not taught in schools because people do not want religion taught to their kids, but they are fine when they are taught about Islam and Buddhism and other world religions, but do not dare talk about Christianity.
These are just some of my thoughts. I do not have time to delve in more since I have to get going. If you have not listed to the debate, you can do so HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment