How do you explain the near universal consensus among scientists and the lack of disagreement from Rome? Is Satan leading such an enormous conspiracy that almost every notable scientist in the field and yes, even the Church herself is blind to it?
Yes, as if indolence and the spirit of entitlement weren’t ruining the country more than any sort of spirituality. Those are the real enemies of progress in the sciences.
I loved his closing peroration, though. I thought it showed a lot more wonder and awarenes sof the mystery of creation than anything Ham said
Many of our Fundamentalist brethren can be rather narrow in their world view. Getting people “saved” according to their idea of salvation occupies so much of their thinking they have little time or interest in wondering about the beauties of the natural world. There may be more hope for Mr. Nye’s salvation in that than in Mr. Ham’s for all Mr. Ham’s efforts at defending the god of Fundamentalism.
And did you notice that Nye credits Hubble with proving the Big Bang and says that “Fred Hoyle” came up with it, but conveniently left out Msgr. Fr. Georges Lemaître’s having actually posited the theory to begin with.
yes, both had a good debate. i knew Bill Nye espouses scientism more than darwinism or evolution but had no idea how much until he exhibited an anti-evolutionary view by citing the "big bang" theory incorrectly. ( he makes the claim that the theory was the cause of life; while the theory clearly states there is a first cause, then nothing/someing, then the "big bang" then even more life ) Mr. Ham cited non-biblical proofs consistently that the bible talks about and then just started talking about the inerrent Word of God as being only the Bible and the only truth; so got a little:rolleyes: upset when he moves in the transition. overall they both were fairly charitable to all. Ham kept on mentioning "we all know", "reason" ,"there is this one book" and finally "science says." Nye on the other hand keeps talking about "joy" while not mentioning origins much. and there was throughout the land much complaining during this discussion.i agree with You. Mr. Ham does succeed in using the right known evidence in the present but fails in his regard to stick with an intelligent estimate like most theorists. E.G. “based on this evidence one could infer that the earth (not the entire universe ) is either about a few million years old or 100,000 - 10,000ish years or less based on x evidences and also this many q > v disciplines of learning.”
If only Bill Nye could have debated a leading proponent of YEC and learned something of those creationist responses. You know, maybe someone with a national presence; maybe someone who operates a creationist museum or something like that.