The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Pro Football Board

The place for discussion on the NFL

College Baseball Board

The place for discussion on college baseball

Reply

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" Debates...

  • Rebels247

    Rebel 30

    ramssuperbowl99 said... (original post)

    There's a substantial difference between saying, 'this doesn't match up with what we've heard' and 'this is nonsense'.

    He couldn't be blunt in his tone because he'd alienate the audience.

    So when he created a video two years ago stating that "children shouldn't be taught creation", was he worried about alienating an audience?
    This is an excuse.

    The Future Is Bright! Hotty Toddy

  • Rebels247

    Rebel 30

    CMXI said... (original post)

    Here's my favorite:

    God doesn't exist. Prove me wrong.

    Man you must have been busy. This thread has been here 2 days and you're just now jumping in? Welcome!

    The Future Is Bright! Hotty Toddy

  • TheBigSpur

    Bodhi

    Rebel 30 said... (original post)

    So when he created a video two years ago stating that "children shouldn't be taught creation", was he worried about alienating an audience? This is an excuse.

    If he wasn't trying to win an argument in front of a live audience, then I would say the two have nothing in common. There is a method to debate, and part of that method is to express points without pissing off the other side.

    signature image

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  • goodnews said... (original post)

    Yes there are severe problems as Ham demonstrated last night. In one example Ham pointed out that in one specimen the argon testing gave a date of approximately 45M years, and the same specimen was dated to about 45 thousand. Scientists look at that result and choose based upon their presuppositions. You do that over and over for generations and you have to admit the likelihood of error is great. And that's no small error either. I don't have a problem with scientists using dating methods, just be honest that your conclusions could be really far off so others don't build their conclusions on your "iffy" ones.

    I'd love to hear your "MOUNDS" of evidence of evolution taking place beyond the Kinds. And, your small pick example sounds great, but isn't back up by the raw data. Again, another example of evolutionary assumptions that somehow become the norm without any raw data.

    If a world flood happened due to rain and the subterranean water coming up (the Biblical teaching) then the water would rise (just like we see today) gradually and create rock layers (see Mount Saint Helen) one on top of each other. As rock layers would be naturally relocated due to the massive amounts of water moving them and things would die in those respective layers. As to your last sentence, you do know that evolutionists have major trouble with their rock layers. Case in point, there are layers at the Grand Canyon that are underneath other layers that are supposed to be millions of years older than the layers underneath them. Well, that's ridiculous, and everyone knows it. But, according to the evolutionary models those layers are supposed to be switched. Yet, there they are, in the wrong order. If you have a catastrophic flood, you no longer have a problem.

    That wasn't one specimen that measured the two dates. It was two specimen that were next to each other.

    Scientists have a large fossil record. Once they have the fossils, they can begin to make a phylogenetic tree. Then, they can use genetic testing to PROVE the progression. You can see over time how certain appendages are forming. I'm not sure what you want me to link here, Like Bill said, using these methods they've predicted the existence of completely undiscovered types of animals.

    I can't find your Grand Canyon example anywhere online. Again, explain how the progression of life can be seen as rock layers progress. This is just an incredible coincidence?

    signature image
  • Wolverine247

    CMXI

    Rebel 30 said... (original post)

    Man you must have been busy. This thread has been here 2 days and you're just now jumping in? Welcome!

    Been working like a madman. It snowed like crazy where I live, and people in Missouri don't know how to handle snow, so I've been running around dealing with shit that normally would never be an issue (i.e. we need to get this guy to a deposition at a firm an hour and a half away, but he doesn't have a license to rent a car, the cabs aren't running, half the streets are unplowed and the highway is a deathtrap!)

    Add in the fact that half the partners in my office have decided that it's easier to stay home and wait out the snow in comfort and suddenly I'm waiting god-knows-how-long for e-mail answers to questions that I'd normally just ask by walking into their office. I, being the brilliant young lawyer that I am, live so close to the office that I don't have any excuse for not showing up due to weather.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • 21kai95 said... (original post)

    You can't prove that Santa, leprachaun's, unicorns, big foot, etc, etc don't exist. Does that mean you believe in them?

    That is not how logic, and more specifically science, works.

    There is a man that lives on the moon. He speaks to me telepathically, and says I should rule the world. Prove me wrong.

    What are you talking about? I was simply answering a mistaken point which claimed that Ham stated that lions on the ark were vegetarians. He didn't say that. He said the original species of lions were vegetarians. He would say the lions on the ark were indeed meat eaters. The point being that neither camp can prove or disprove what the original species ate. We weren't there and don't any raw data to demonstrate what they ate. That's how logic works.

    Please, stay on track and lose the sarcasm. I understand this debate very well (and I see good points from both sides) and don't need to degrade it. It's been pretty good so far. If you want unsubstantive sarcasm, please start your own thread.

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

  • TheBigSpur

    Bodhi

    goodnews said... (original post)

    He didn't say that. He said the original species of lions were vegetarians. He would say the lions on the ark were indeed meat eaters. The point being that neither camp can prove or disprove what the original species ate. We weren't there and don't any raw data to demonstrate what they ate. That's how logic works.

    If neither party can prove or disprove what they ate back then...why would he think they were vegetarian? Other than it fitting his argument? I fail to see how logic would play into a total guess. If anything logic would err on the side of them eating meat, as they currently do, and fossil records show things such as canine teeth found in meat eaters. I'm not saying they were or weren't, but what on earth is logical about a total guess with no basis of proof? At least the meat eater version has SOME logic behind it.

    signature image

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  • 21kai95 said... (original post)

    That wasn't one specimen that measured the two dates. It was two specimen that were next to each other.

    Scientists have a large fossil record. Once they have the fossils, they can begin to make a phylogenetic tree. Then, they can use genetic testing to PROVE the progression. You can see over time how certain appendages are forming. I'm not sure what you want me to link here, Like Bill said, using these methods they've predicted the existence of completely undiscovered types of animals.

    I can't find your Grand Canyon example anywhere online. Again, explain how the progression of life can be seen as rock layers progress. This is just an incredible coincidence?

    No. The wood specimen was encapsulated in the rock.

    The phylogenetic tree is helpful, but, has many holes in it and has some data forced into places for expediency.

    Grand Canyon examples are abundant. Here's a good one.

    http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon2.html

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

  • goodnews said... (original post)

    No. The wood specimen was encapsulated in the rock.

    The phylogenetic tree is helpful, but, has many holes in it and has some data forced into places for expediency.

    Grand Canyon examples are abundant. Here's a good one.

    http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon2.html

    I know that, you made it seem like it was one rock that gave two different dates.

    What are the many holes? Again, if the flood is a realistic explanation WHY don't we find these animals all jumbled together? You keep dodging this question.

    How did I know the link was going to come from a creationism website?

    signature image
  • Bodhi said... (original post)

    If neither party can prove or disprove what they ate back then...why would he think they were vegetarian? Other than it fitting his argument? I fail to see how logic would play into a total guess. If anything logic would err on the side of them eating meat, as they currently do, and fossil records show things such as canine teeth found in meat eaters. I'm not saying they were or weren't, but what on earth is logical about a total guess with no basis of proof? At least the meat eater version has SOME logic behind it.

    Yes. Them being meat eaters now and fossil records showing they were most likely then too is how logic works. Saying they could've been vegetarians with no proof whatsoever is the same as saying they could've jerked each other off and used the seman for sustenance, can't prove me wrong cuz you weren't there.

  • TheBigSpur

    Bodhi

    goodnews said... (original post)

    No. The wood specimen was encapsulated in the rock.

    The phylogenetic tree is helpful, but, has many holes in it and has some data forced into places for expediency.

    Grand Canyon examples are abundant. Here's a good one.

    http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon2.html

    I think this is what is throwing some people off with the way you argue about it.

    "The tree is helpful, but has holes in it"......Well isn't the whole God thing just 1 giant hole with nothing helpful? I mean there is zero real evidence to prove God. Isn't "helpful, with some holes" better than "nothing but a hole"?

    edit: anyone ever spell a word wrong 5 times in the same 2 sentences? I just wrote "whole" in every one of those for some reason.

    This post was edited by Bodhi 5 months ago

    signature image

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  • TheBigSpur

    Bodhi

    SCirish843 said... (original post)

    could've jerked each other off and used the seman for sustenance, can't prove me wrong cuz you weren't there.

    or was I?

    Mysteries of the universe...

    signature image

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  • "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than it has in all the previous centuries of it's existence."

    Nikola Tesla

  • Bodhi said... (original post)

    or was I?

    Mysteries of the universe...

    They don't have opposable thumbs, somebody had to help them.

  • Something to think about..........How Does God/Prime Creator learn or grow? Or even experience "IT's 'Creation?'

    Possibly through the 'sparks' We call Human Beings?

    If God knows everything there is to know,
    Then I ask: how can God learn or grow?
    If you knew all that was and all that will be,
    Then how can any decision you make be free?
    If you were everything and everything was you,
    Then there would be nothing for you to do;

    And there we find God, in this very position,
    Imprisoned by the power of his own condition,
    But there is a way to escape from this net,
    All that God would have to do is forget,
    Forget what He was and in ignorance find
    Choice and free will, from confusion of mind;

    And so God created a plane of limitation,
    That confusing place we call creation,
    A place of ignorance where we're free to choose,
    Free to make mistakes and free to lose;
    For only a being who knows not what is true
    Has the free will to choose what to do;
    Through us God can live, think, feel and see,
    And experience He knew, but now He can be;

    Yet though we've forgotten where we come from,
    The closer we get, the happier we become,
    With control of awareness you can return,
    But you have less choice the more you learn;

    Each mortal longs for the infinite's touch,
    Yet the infinite longs to know not so much

  • Rebels247

    Rebel 30

    CMXI said... (original post)

    Been working like a madman. It snowed like crazy where I live, and people in Missouri don't know how to handle snow, so I've been running around dealing with shit that normally would never be an issue (i.e. we need to get this guy to a deposition at a firm an hour and a half away, but he doesn't have a license to rent a car, the cabs aren't running, half the streets are unplowed and the highway is a deathtrap!)

    Add in the fact that half the partners in my office have decided that it's easier to stay home and wait out the snow in comfort and suddenly I'm waiting god-knows-how-long for e-mail answers to questions that I'd normally just ask by walking into their office. I, being the brilliant young lawyer that I am, live so close to the office that I don't have any excuse for not showing up due to weather.

    Lol. Where I live it snows once every couple of years. Even then it only stays around a few days. About 3 years ago we got 6 inches of snow twice within a couple weeks of each other. I was pissed! Haha

    The Future Is Bright! Hotty Toddy

  • Bodhi said... (original post)

    If neither party can prove or disprove what they ate back then...why would he think they were vegetarian? Other than it fitting his argument? I fail to see how logic would play into a total guess. If anything logic would err on the side of them eating meat, as they currently do, and fossil records show things such as canine teeth found in meat eaters. I'm not saying they were or weren't, but what on earth is logical about a total guess with no basis of proof? At least the meat eater version has SOME logic behind it.

    Good question. Ham's point was in respect to the evolutionists discounting the Biblical teaching based on the fact that lions have sharp teeth. The Biblical account states that all animals were originally vegetarians. The anti-Biblical scientists claim that since lions have sharp teeth then that somehow proves the Biblical account to be incorrect (which states that lions were originally vegetarians). Ham gave examples of modern animals with sharp teeth that are vegetarians. That's where all the talk of vegetarians lions on the ark came from. Someone said Ham stated that the lions on the Ark (long after the original lion species) were vegetarians. My point was that Ham knew that by that time (the Flood and Ark) lions ate meat.

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

  • Regarding the truth, I would have to say that there is definitely some creationism going on in that statement.

  • 21kai95 said... (original post)

    I know that, you made it seem like it was one rock that gave two different dates.

    What are the many holes? Again, if the flood is a realistic explanation WHY don't we find these animals all jumbled together? You keep dodging this question.

    How did I know the link was going to come from a creationism website?

    Did you really expect the website to be generated by an old earth evolutionist? If you actually read the article objectively you'd see why I'm somewhat sympathetic to the creationists claims. However, I also appreciate the evolutionary side (as I stated previously regarding Mr. Nye's contention with the ice tubes that would be difficult for the creationists to explain. I also think there are problems with the ideas of a very young earth, as I stated previously). Since I've spent a good bit of time looking at publications from both sides I understand fairly well what each is saying. As a former agnostic evolutionist I hated the fact that creationists existed. Then, I gave them an honest look. It's been enjoyable and enlightening to do so and I appreciate the offering made from both sides.

    My whole point in this thread (if you'll actually read it and not have knee-jerk reactions) is that there needs to be a genuine discussion from both sides as both sides have good points. To think otherwise is being willfully ignorant, IMHO.

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

  • Bodhi said... (original post)

    I think this is what is throwing some people off with the way you argue about it.

    "The tree is helpful, but has holes in it"......Well isn't the whole God thing just 1 giant hole with nothing helpful? I mean there is zero real evidence to prove God. Isn't "helpful, with some holes" better than "nothing but a hole"?

    edit: anyone ever spell a word wrong 5 times in the same 2 sentences? I just wrote "whole" in every one of those for some reason.

    Given the number of posts I've made on the thread, and how often I've repeated myself (if folks would read all my posts in the thread they'd have different assumptions about my point of view), and given that it's Nat'l signing day and I have a busy day at work, I'm doing the best I can with the few seconds I can get over today. Sorry, if I can't take the time to conjure in depth points today. I realize that could make things confusing.

    I don't think the evolutionary tree is terrible. In fact, I think it's very helpful. My point is that many evolutionists (or more like the folks who follow them w/o really studying it themselves) act as if the tree is some sort of infallible scientific apparatus. There are some genuine concerns (even among evolutionists) regarding how some use the tree. In truth, the connecting species we've been waiting for for generations haven't materialized. Maybe the Biblical teaching regarding microevolution and Kinds is more scientifically viable than the notions of macroevolution which is very much an unsubstantiated theory. One could easily make that argument if they were being objective. I'm not saying that proves the creationists to be right, but, if one isn't blindly committed to the evolutionary models then the raw data should at least give you pause.

    FWIW, I misspell words often when I post quickly over here. No worries.

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

  • VoiceoftheHawkeyes

    Hawkifish

    Ramssuperbowl99 wins this thread.

    signature image
  • The framing of this argument is the key. When you frame it as Christins arguing that God created everything a few thousand years ago vs a 13 billion year old universe you severely hamper the arguments and evidence. Christians may have made it all up but that also doesn't mean they're wrong just because the universe isn't 4000 years old. Many famous and knowledgable scientists are freaked out by how exact the universe is and how numerous governing laws of the universe are fine tuned exactly to allow us to exist. If any of these governing laws were altered by a fraction the universe would not exist. This is a fact. It freaks out a lot of scientist. It freaked some out so much that they came up with theories that would counter an intelligent design universe and would allow for the fine tuning of our universe. Those are the theories involving the multiverse and bubble universes. They argue that yes our universe is the ultimate winning lottery ticket and is tuned in such a way that allows for our existence and that it defies all odds. Like a trillion to one occurrence. So they create this multiple universe theory saying that there are trillions of bubble universes out there and one of those universes out of the countless trillions was bound to tuned just like ours so we could exist. To me that's going out of the way to disprove the intelligent design theory.

    Our universe does not have to be governed the way it is. The governing dynamics could be completely different. At the moment of the Big Bang if the universe would have been exploding at just one percent faster the universe would have flown apart and we wouldn't be here. If it was going one percent slower it would have collapsed back on itself and we wouldn't be here. The process of how carbon is formed in stars is such a delicate and finely tuned process that it could be considered a miracle. And there are countless other examples that explain how our universe works on a macro scale and yet we still don't know really know how the universe works on the quantum levels. We just don't know. We don't even know how gravity works on a quantum scale. So it's silly for anyone to claim they know one way or the other they answers to the mysteries of life.

    You have to shed the symbolisms of religion and the dogma. Elevate the argument to a plain deserving of the subject. For all we know we're living inside the Matrix or some other similar system. And you can use science to support your case. Nothing happens in the realm of science without a cause. Things don't just happen. Science claims there was a Big Bang or a beginning and we can measure certain aspects of it. Something caused the Big Bang. It didn't just poof out of nowhere. It has a cause. And a cause demonstrates intelligence or meaning. And until we can answer that question of how or why no one person or group can claim they know the answers to the origins of life. So don't be one of those people that tries to frame the argument as evolutionist vs the 4000 year old universe religious people. It's so much bigger than that and limiting the scope limits the evidence and arguments that can be made.

    And if I could have one thing answered to give us insight on the question of life it would be to know if alien life on planets far far away have the same DNA structures as life on earth and if it was made up of the same building blocks and amino acids. To me that would denote design.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "We're modern-day gladiators, and that mental toughness is really important to have in a good team." Nick Saban

  • BamaOnLine

    sf2k4

  • sf2k4 said... (original post)

    facepalm_msu

    Doesn't really understand the debate.

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

  • CMXI said... (original post)

    Jesus H. Christ. facepalm_msu

    Okay, let's explain how rhetoric works. If you make an overly-generalized statement ignoring actual facts, you can practically link anything to anything. Example: "If goodnews was clinically retarded, we'd expect him to demonstrate little to no comprehension of logic-based arguments...and what do we find? Goodnews has demonstrated little to no comprehension of logic-based arguments!"

    Here's a shortlist of the fallacies I find in Ham's arguments:

    1) The "Observer" Paradox

    Ham dismisses much of modern science by simply saying "You weren't there, you didn't observe it, therefore you don't really know what happened." In turn, he says the only thing that did observe it all and knows what happened is God. Therefore, God must be right - but that's ridiculous, for one primary reason: if observation is the only true method of determining what happened and what exists or existed, how can anyone know that God exists?

    Ham says "we observe things in the present, and we're assuming that has always happened in the past." He points this out as a supposed fallacy in modern science. Yet, the observation of things in the present is more concrete evidence than has ever been produced for the existence of God. Ham's arguments are all based on an unprovable, non-evidenced assumption - that God exists. Science and the existence of God in Ham's understanding are simply incompatible.

    2) The Overly-Generalized Flood Argument

    I've already attacked the logic behind the statement you advanced, but merely saying that "billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water" is evidence of a Great Flood is absurd. Modern science has demonstrated the general rate at which rock layers form. Moreover, to borrow a phrase from Ham, scientists have "observed" the formation of rock and ice layers over hundreds of years. Under the timeline assumed by Christianity, it would simply be impossible for various rock layers to form, even assuming a Great Flood ever actually happened.

    Beyond that, the entire "Noah's Ark" story defies credulity. Genesis 6:15 states that "The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits." The Bible says that the ark was over 500 feet long. Now, the largest wooden ship ever built by man, the Wyoming, was 330 feet long. The ark was allegedly built by a family with no experience building boats before. The Wyoming was built by some of the most skilled shipbuilders of the day. The Wyoming proved unseaworthy in a moderate storm, and yet we're supposed to believe a much larger ship, built by infinitely-less-experienced workers, with thousands more living beings on board, could land safely on the top of a mountain after a 40-day storm? Really?

    3) The Supposedly Sacrosanct Nature of The Bible

    Again, Ham's arguments require the assumption that everything the Bible says is the literal truth. Moreover, they require the assumption that all the words are exactly as God spoke them and that there has been no human input whatsoever. Both of these assumptions defy any reasonable person's sense of logic.

    First - translation. Have you ever "observed" a document that, when translated from one language to another, retains every single little nuance, connotation and character of the original document in the original language? The notion that a document originally written in Aramaic and translated countless times since still retains the exact original meaning, phrasing, etc. is laughable. Linguistically, it's a well-documented phenomenon that various cultures have words and terms for things that other cultures simply don't address. (ex. schadenfreude, tartle, kummerspeck, iktsuarpok, greng-jai, etc.). Add in the fact that there are even multiple

    Second - authorship. Take 2 Peter, for example. A classic example of pseudepigrapha, this is a book that all but the most rabid fundamentalists will agree could not possibly have been written by Peter - and yet it is accepted into the Bible as gospel and advanced as on par with the rest of the scripture. Ditto for about 1 Timothy and about half of the letters allegedly written by Paul. If such recognized forgeries are accepted as gospel truth, how can there possibly be any sort of argument that the rest of the Bible is beyond reproach? Again, I'll use "observation" - nobody alive today observed God come down and write the Bible, nor did they observe God even tell other people what to write, so how can anyone possibly logically claim that the Bible is all truth?

    Here's what it ultimately comes down to, for me - to believe what Ham is saying requires actively ignoring evidence to the contrary in order to believe a fanciful story with zero evidence to back it up. Such belief requires the active choice to turn away from everything modern science is based upon.

    Finally, I recognize that I'm repeating a number of arguments Nye used, but these are the same points of contention I would raise, and I'm also assuming not everyone reading this thread watched the debate.

    CMXI - You sell yourself and the rest of us short with your childlike insults. You may not agree with me but I understand the debate very well. So, please, for the sake of good discussion leave your emotions at the door. My arguments are always logical and well thought out. You've only known one position and can only spout the talking points from that position (maybe you'll prove me wrong).

    I don't agree with Ham on everything he teaches, but, I have listened to him quite a bit as he has been a leading creationist for some time. When he asserts the "you weren't there" stuff he's not saying that we can't know anything about the past b/c we weren't there (again, if you actually better understood the argument from both sides you'd know this). What he's wanting the evolutionists to do is to have a moment of pause and stop taking such large leaps of faith when there are so many variables about the past that we cannot know. For example, a remember reading an article a couple of years ago about a study from Purdue University (not creationists) that stated that the way the sun is behaving today is actually changing the radioactive decay rates, or at least making them inconsistent, to the extent that they were worried about the ways they measure decay. Now, when you consider that evolutionists are dealing with oodles of time (Billions of years in the past), and you consider that we're seeing today in the changing rates of decay, you have to have some pause about what we don't know about those supposed billions of years. How have decay rates changed in the past that we can't see or know much about? It's a reasonable question by Ham.

    Per usual the above paragraph is reasonable, logical according to the raw data, and should be discussed. All my points are like this. For you to say any differently is childlike and ignorant.

    I've never said that Ham's Flood argument is airtight. But, please explain to me why the data suggests the flood account to be "absurd." It's true that if there was a global flood of the scope that the Bible describes then we would expect to see billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. And, in fact we do find that everywhere. Now, this doesn't mean that creationism has won. But, again, it's interesting, and should be to anyone who hasn't blindly bought into one system w/o thinking it all through, some pause. Next, your argument against the Ark was frankly about the weakest I've ever heard. The Bible says that Noah and his family had about 100 years to build the Ark, so there was plenty of time to get it done. I'm a white collar guy buy I could figure it out if I had that much time. Also, smaller scale versions of the ark have been built and have been demonstrated to not only be seaworthy, but downright unsinkable (a simple google search will demonstrate this to be true).

    Again, the above is logical and well thought out, just like all my arguments.

    Next, I and now we're getting into territory where I'm well credentialed (unlike the science realm where I'm a novice). I believe the bible is literally true in the sense that I believe what its authors meant it to say is true. For example, of course Jesus didn't literally mean to pluck your eye out to keep you from committing certain sins. He was using an extreme example to make a point that certain things are dangerous and should be avoided strenuously. And frankly, and as respectfully as I can be, your understanding of the documentary evidences for the bible is what is actually laughable. It's true that numerous copying and translating of old documents normally leads to some variations among the manuscripts and often, over many years, leads to great confusion as to the originals writings. And, there is certainly some variation among the biblical manuscripts as well. However, the documentary evidence for the Bible is uncannily and overwhelmingly good, especially as we compare it to other writings. Even with the uses of source criticism and higher criticism the biblical manuscripts have shown amazing agreement. Your example of Peter and Timothy betray some kind of random and ill-informed teaching not based at all on the facts. It's so preposterous that there's no point in saying more. Again, CMXI, please do yoiur homework fully and objectively.

    Again, I don't criticize you for disagreeing with Ham as I have some concerns regarding all his positions. I also think that the evolutionary models have a lot of credence. But, to say that Ham offers "zero evidence" is just a statement of sheer ignorance, IMHO.

    I look forward to your logical, respectful, response.

    This post was edited by goodnews 5 months ago

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.