Wednesday, January 22, 2014

His Grandmother Was A Monkey

Now for something a little different ...humor.  Well, at least I find it funny.  A fine fellow who goes by the name of Dan Arel has a post on a humanist blog entitled "Why Bill Nye shouldn't debate Ken Ham"  Now, in order to appreciate my unorthodox attempt at humor here, one really must follow the link and read his post.  Then come back here and see how, with just a little editing (including a sprinkling of scripture), I have taken his post which is, how should I say this... less than flattering of Christians, and turned it into something someone on the other side of the debate might enjoy.  Keep in mind that my changes are in bold italic; the rest are Dan's words so I am not entirely sure I can be accused of name calling.  In any case, I offer this in the spirit of good fun and hope no one takes too much offense, though I firmly believe that my version will prove more accurate in the long run; long run being like, you know - eternity.


So, without further fanfare, back at ya Danny Boy:




Why Bill Nye Shouldn't Debate Ken Ham


Creationists should not debate evolutionists. Period. This may sound harsh but let's start by looking at what sparked this statement. TV personality and science advocate Bill Nye (Bill Nye the Science Guy) has accepted an invitation to debate Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis / The Creation Museum on February 4, 2014 at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.


This is a bad idea and here is why.


Debating evolutionists offers their position credibility

When you accept a debate, you are accepting there is something worth debating. Political ideologies are worth debating, religion as it pertains to things like human well-being and flourishing can be worth debating, because these kinds of ideas claim to offer solutions to problems and they are debating the best way to solve such problems. While debates about the existence of God can be fun, they are not really that meaningful, since what can be known about God is plain to all men, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made(Romans 1:19-20).


Creationism vs. evolution however is not worth debating. Why? Simple, there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fairy tale, backed by mountains of propaganda, peer-reviewed papers (i.e. reviewed by others "in the faith" of evolution) you could stack to the moon and an incredible consensus of those whose "foolish hearts were darkened "(Romans 1:21). Creationism is a time tested history that is based on the word of God, on faith and logic. It also has a mountain of peer-reviewed papers (i.e. reviewed by others "in the faith" of Christianity) to back up its claims. Creationism has absolutely no scientific consensus, which is meaningless since as Christians we do not judge what is true or false by "consensus" as so many in the "scientific" community do. Creationism is not even considered science due to the fact that, just like evolution, it cannot be tested.


Why would a scientist debate this? Nye would do more for his world view by going on TV and indoctrinating youngsters into putting their faith in evolution and the importance of secular education instead of giving Ken Ham any publicity and a public forum with thousands, if not millions of viewers, to present the truth. Ham is a wise man and Nye just offered him up a forum to defend God’s word. It would have better for Nye to simply repeat his mantra over and over; "evolution is science".

Nye is not a biologist

I do not know an incredible amount about Bill Nye other than I loved his show. However, a Google search only turned up that Nye has nothing more than a bachelor’s degree in engineering and three honorary doctorate degrees. [Note: a Bing search on the original author, Dan Arel, turned up even less in the way of education, yet this comes across as reading "clearly Nye does not have enough education to be considered one of we elite.  My apologies if he was not actually peering down his nose as he wrote it]  We fault Christian apologists almost daily for trying to ride their honorary degrees, it would seem only fair we hold Nye to the same standard.


So we have Nye, a very smart man with a degree in engineering, not biology, not anthropology, and he does not practice any form of research science. Nye should be credited greatly for his work in education; but as a qualified candidate to defend evolution, especially against the likes of common men like Ken Ham, he is not.

You must fully understand your opponent

This is mere speculation but I have no reason to believe that Nye has the firm grasp on creationism that would be needed to go up against the likes of someone like Ham.


To win a debate successfully you must understand your opponent's position better than they do, in fact, you should know it well enough that you could debate for them.


Evolutionist have no rules, their dishonesty stops nowhere. Nye will attempt to use popular opinion falsely labeled as science and reason to bring down Ham, but Ham will care little for any pseudo facts or invented evidence and will stick to common sense and will feed on man’s conscience and use terms like "irreducible complexity" to confuse evolutionists. Key phrases like "half a wing" will fly from his lips as he openly ignores so called science's amazing misunderstanding of the impossibility of the evolution of things like the eye, or wings. Ham will be relying on faith, wisdom and biblical teachings to inform the viewers and will attempt to call out anytime science was obviously wrong to tear down its facade of unimpeachable credibility.


This debate is being held at the Creation Museum itself and this will ensure that the brain-dead evolutionist zombies come out in droves to tear down Ham and loudly mock anytime he points out a fallacy of evolutionist doctrine. Meanwhile Nye will likely abstain from shouting out that his grandmother was a monkey.

 

I honestly think it would be sad to see Ham destroy Nye, since Nye’s reward is in this world only. A little known figure outside of his circles, Ham will continue to be ignored by those who love to mislead impressionable youth around the world.

The American people will likely distrust Ham’s motive in offering such a debate and if he goes down, he will take down a lot of faith and history with him. The American people, who are already wary of so called science due to the global warming scam, are still unlikely to disown the idea of evolution since most of them have been brain washed into that faith for most of their lives. Nye on the other hand has little to lose since a loss will be chalked up to his lack of education and will never see the light of day.

Nevertheless, evolutionism
is a worthless and uneducated position to hold in our modern society so kudos to Ken Ham for his willingness to expose it for what it is in the face of so many who, "claiming to be wise, have become fools" (Romans 1:22).

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

what your edited portions lack is evidence from outside your book of fairytales. There is evidence for evolution while there is no evidence that the bible is anything more than fictional allegory and false claims.

St. Lee said...

May I suggest that you walk outside and look around. Take a good look. The evidence is everywhere.

And BTW, its not "my" book. It is Jehovah's. Whether or not it is a fairy tale or that the theory of evolution holds that distinction will ultimately become crystal clear. But thank you for your comment.

Anonymous said...

This is the greatest satire site of all time.

Better than the onion!

This is satire right? I mean, no human being is actually this ignorant.

I mean, unless you grew up with zero education.

Keep up this comedy gold!

St. Lee said...

Hmm, another person named Anonymous, and with the same mindset. go figure.

I don't think it quite fits the genre of satire, but I am glad you enjoyed it. That was, after all, what I aimed for. In retrospect I thought maybe I should have titled the piece "I Know You Are But What Am I."

It just struck me when reading Dan's original post that nearly all the same arguments could be legitimately presented by "my" side, though obviously most Christians would try to tone down the name calling. That's why I got such a chuckle from the editing; I did not do the name calling. In fact, at one point I purposely edited in such a way as to give Mr. Nye a break; "Meanwhile Nye will likely abstain from shouting out that his grandmother was a monkey." Personally I think that line is the best one in either piece.

Sorry to hear about your secular government education. But don't despair, I have the same, but was able to overcome it.

david ervin said...

All an evolutionist has to do is explain how the first cell came to be within the constraints of their theory's model, explaining how the cell's DNA and it's language came into being concurrently; or, explain how evolution posits continuous change and leaves behind a record of stasis broken by short periods of massive change.

Could we hear how evolution created a world of increasing complexity in abeyance of Boyle's laws? Could we have an explanation of how creatures came to develop increasing complexity AND the instinctual capacity to use that complexity (ie, it does little good to develop new limbs, better eyes, hands...etc without the ability to use those capacities programed CONCURRENTLY into their behavior). How does behavior, matching ability, get programed into DNA? I could go on and on...

Perhaps our evolutionist friends should actually watch a Ken Hamm video before they condemn what they believe he will say. Perhaps our evolutionist friends should study the scientific flaws of their own beliefs before they cast stones. perhaps our evolutionist friends should concern themselves with their own cartoonish and simplistic theories before they cast dispersions at the theories of others. Possibly, they could act like genuine scientists and study our world devoid of the trappings of their own religion.

As Ken Hamm would say: they can have their own beliefs but the facts belong to us all.

And, yes, I was once a disciple of Sagan and the rest; I gave it up when they were speechless in the face of the facts of our world. I am still a disciple, but of our Lord; with a worldly affection for beautiful machines created by the hand of man and an otherworldly affection for the awesome cosmos created by the hands of our Lord.

St. Lee said...

David, Thanks for leaving a comment. My only answer to it is a hearty AMEN!

Of course I am sure that both "Anonymous" and "Anonymous" will have great scientifically based comebacks for you like; "I don't believe you," or "you're stupid."

david ervin said...

The progressives have an endless supply of ad hominem replies...it's all they have. They clamor for debate but if the debater should run afoul of their dogma he is excommunicated. They are so unused to actual debate that when they are confronted by an unvarnished question they shrivel into silence...as when Mr. Dawkins was asked to explain some aspect of evolution (he fell silent). Or when the same Mr Dawkins, trying to sell his new book, unwisely accepted a spot on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. At about the third question, civilly presented, Mr Dawkins said: "Oh my God, you're one of them."

Half their position seems to be one of consensus as though 51% can vote everyone else into silence (if not the gulag). But, as Einstein once said about a letter refuting his theories, signed by a troupe of German scientists: "If what they say is true they only need one signature."

The other half of their position is one of credentials. If you aren't licensed you have no right to speak. But they are the licensers, if you cross them they unlicense you (excommunication) and you can no longer speak.

Mr Hamm is human and is not infallible. But to savage him as a fool for disagreeing with you is childish arrogance. Arrogance is what the progressives are all about because the fall of Adam & Eve was about arrogance and Christian salvation is about turning away from that arrogance.

From abortion, the power of Man over life, to evolution, the impotence of God, it comes back to the Garden and the original rebellion.

If you like history try http://www.wallbuilders.com. I watched a couple of the videos, they are AWESOME and if you know anyone who homeschools they would be indispensable.

St. Lee said...

In the aftermath of the debate it seems that Mr. Nye was in it for the perceived win, while Ken Ham was playing for the eternal "win." And that is as it should be.

Repeatedly (correct me if I am mistaken) Nye would take advantage of the debate format to give the impression that Ham did not have answers for his challenges. During one portion of the debate each would get a pre written question from the audience. The debater receiving the question would get a certain amount of time to answer and then the other would have a shorter time to give a rebuttal. Nye would use that rebuttal time to challenge Ham with a question. But of course the format required going from that rebuttal to the next question, which would be for Nye. This no doubt left many with the mistaken impression that Ham did not have an answer to Nye's challenge. I know better.

Ham on the other hand spent much of his allotted time presenting the gospel rather than poking holes in Nye's talking points. Praise the Lord for this man who was is willing to place the gospel message above the perception of winning a debate.

Ken Ham even took time to point out to old earth creationists how their views are not biblical. That time also was well spent in my opinion, though it could have been used to "win" the debate.

While my flesh would have liked to see Ken Ham embarrass Bill Nye intellectually, my spirit rejoices that God was glorified and the gospel was proclaimed!

St. Lee said...

By the way, that short section where Ken Ham pointed out the inconsistency of old earth creationism served to show that Dan Arel's concern that Bill Nye did not understand his opponent's view was very well founded. Nye showed an utter lack of theological understanding or even familiarity with creation as presented in the Bible when he said words to the effect of "I find the idea of sinning fish very troubling." Clearly he was not able to follow what was being presented by Ham. Once gain there was neither time nor opportunity to educate Mr. Nye, so he in effect got a pass on a ridiculous statement.

david ervin said...

We are trained to watch debates for the knockout punch vis-a-vis Ford/Carter or Reagan/Mondale; and the aftermath of debates are often a sampling of voices that would not have been changed anyway. The true goal of a successful debate is to use the platform to reach those you would not have reached any other way and nudge them gently. To plant seeds and not so much to rip out oaks.

I did not see the debate (sadley) though I'll try to find it somewhere (the modern conveniences are great).

Ken Hamm has said that we all see the same things but through differently tinted glasses so he knew what he was up against. A one hour debate isn't going to undo a couple of generations of publicly funded "education."

There are no absolute truths in the origins of life. The evolutionists take something that happens (inter-species changes) and extrapolates that to extra-species evolution that defies the very laws of nature that they proclaim. In the end, neither side has any genuine proof and that is the fact that must be uncovered. We need to show the "small man behind the curtain" and that he is driven, not by science, but by the ideology of humanism vice Christianity.

I have been shoved off of online debates with the admonition that if I am going to use Christianity I need to seek out a non-science forum even as they defend the indefensible with anti-Christianity. That is...they suggest that it happened this way because it surely happened and there are no other "scientific" possibilities.

The most horrific possibility to a humanist is that God is possible and every ounce of their energy is used to deny and coverup that possibility.

If God were not a danger, or could not be a possibility, to the modern Man no one would care about public displays. That God is real is proven, not by the believers, but by the panic of His opposers at the mention of His Name.

St. Lee said...

David, I think your last few sentences hit to the real crux of the matter and they mirror my thoughts as well.

I have suddenly been hit with a (possibly) great idea for another post combining analogy, humor and the "other" subject of my blog - motorcycles. It will have to wait a bit though, as I have a technical post in the works right now and little time to finish it.

B.C. said...

When I first heard of the debate taking place all I could think of was as though a person keep pushing against a brick wall trying to persuade it to move.
We walk by faith not sight,and that is so not science.
I do enjoy your blog site Lee. Refreshing.