Bill Nye Vs Ham

The age of the earth has been debated for centuries. Many people believe in evolution that it took billions of years for everything and everyone to form. Others believe that God created the earth in seven days and that the earth is young. Secular scientist and Christian scientist both use different methods for determining how old the earth is. For example, Secular scientist look and use the layers of rocks to help them, while Christian scientist uses the Bible and look at historical data from other cultures to help them. Doesn't looking at archeological data seem more accurate than looking at rocks? If the earth is truly billions of years old, then why is there little sediment on the sea floor? Or how can secular scientist explain finding soft tissue in a fossil if the earth is old? The most logical explanation is that the earth is young. Many people believe something just because people say that it is true, sometimes it is good to investigate for yourself and see if it is good for you.

Ken Ham is a Christian who established a creationist museum, he insisted the Earth still young. Ken Ham said: "Today, there is too much influence of the theory of evolution on children, we need to take the child back to the correct view of the world in this debate, and it is a good opportunity to let people know more about God, and the spread of the Gospel. "

He also refutes that a meteor wiped out the dinosaur population and the climate change plays a role in extinction.

Bill Nye is a major voice in Global Climate Change. Global Climate Change is a major problem that needs to be dealt with on Earth. Bill Nye has been advocating to the government and public to become more aware of these problems and do something about them. President Obama invited Bill Nye to visit the Everglades National park with him on Earth Day April 22nd, 2015. President Obama and Bill Nye discussed how to make Science more successful in schools. Bill Nye believes that children either learn to have a love of

Bill Nye believes that people began from evolution which is accepted universally among mainstreamed scientists. Evolution is the thought of humans starting from germs and then animals and later on to how we are today. Also that we all have descended from common ancestors and natural selection. Bill Nye is arguing against the Genesis creation, which is believed life originates from acts of “divine creation” taking from the bible. One argument that Bill Nye offers is that there would not be enough time, for the four thousand years creationists believe earth was created, for Noah's ark to be built and earth to create. For example, there are trees that are over five

Because science does not have an omniscient back-up source, any lack of explanation for current phenomenon is easily construed as a weakness to a scientifically unsophisticated audience, placing the burden of proof unfairly at the feet of science. Despite these tactics, a thorough explanation of current scientific understanding eliminates any question of doubt about the age of the Earth, and can directly combat what Young-Earthers consider their strongest claims.

In 1820 another French man named James Fourier took the next step in estimating the Earth’s age. He accounted for the fact that the Earth is still hot in its core and using mathematical techniques that he developed and we still use today for time-varying phenomena, came up with a number too staggering foe him to write down. He did however leave us his equations and it is easy to plug in the same numbers and get the answer that he could not say, which comes out to be 100 million years. (Gribbin, 16)

Of course, our journey isn’t about the creation-evolution debate. That’s good because the creation-evolution debate is an emotional topic and emotion can cloud thinking. While we’ll use the topic of creation-evolution for examples, the particulars of the debate isn’t the focus. Therefore, since sound and sane reasoning is the destination of this journey, we’ll focus on reason.

Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis teach us about the natural world and that God created everything. The argument of evolution can be proved wrong reading the first chapter of Genesis. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth” (Genesis 1:1, NLT) He created the world in six days, on each day he would add something new to his list of creations such as light, darkness, sky, seas, plants and animals, and finally man and woman “On the seventh day God had

Creationists, mistaking the uncertain in science for the unscientific, see the debate among evolutionists regarding how best to explain evolution as a sign of weakness. Scientists, on the other hand, see uncertainty as simply an inevitable element of scientific knowledge. They regard debates on fundamental theoretical issues as healthy and stimulating. Science, says evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, is "most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information may be explained in surprisingly new ways." Thus, through all the debate over evolutionary mechanisms biologists have not been led to doubt that evolution has occurred. "We are debating how it happened," says Gould (1983, p.256).

If the question was posed as to what is the debate between creationism vs. evolution consist of, the thought that it is ‘“God did it” vs. “Natural processes did it,”’ (Scott, 2004) may arise. Science cannot absolutely prove or disprove Creation or Evolution. Yet scientist and the remainder of society use creationism and evolution to prove our existence. Creationist believe in the Christian account of the origin as recorded in Genesis. Creationism is the belief that statements such as “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (NIV) found in Genesis 1:1 and also “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (NIV) found in John 1:1. Evolution is the belief that everything just changed over

In the history of science vs. religion there have been no issues more intensely debated than evolution vs. creationism. The issue is passionately debated since the majority of evidence is in favor of evolution, but the creation point of view can never be proved wrong because of religious belief. Human creation breaks down into three simple beliefs; creation theory, naturalistic evolution theory, and theistic evolution theory. The complexities of all three sides create a dilemma for what theory to support among all people, religious and non-religious.

The debate between creation and evolution has been around for a long time. For much of it, it has presented a choice between the two. Some claim that you either believe in God or evolution, not both. Others, that you have to choose young earth creationism simply because theistic evolution is not a viable option. Still more present young earth creationism as a naive understanding of both the Bible and science. However, since each position has evidence in support of it and against it, it is in no way true that any of them present us with an undeniable position of definite accuracy. Furthermore, the idea that there is only a choice between creation and evolution is false. Indeed, there are more positions than even creationism and theistic

This perspective accepts that climate change is happening, it agrees with the data explaining that the existing climate patterns are extremely abnormal. However it denies the fact that humans cause it as seeks other blame for it. This model simply states that climate change is a natural process and nothing to worry about because of the Ice Age. It rejects any idea that human activities and their carbon footprint could cause these problems. In fact, it argues that the Earth would be experiencing the same climate changes even if humans did not populate it. However, the scientific data clearly rejects these

For decades the age of the Earth has been a major conflict between science and religion, but why is it such a big conflict? If, in the year AD 1600, an individual had asked an educated European how old the planet Earth was and to recount its history, the response would have been that it was about 6000 years old and that its ancient history was given by the biblical account in Genesis (Changing Views of the History of the Earth). If one asked the same question of an educated European in AD 1900, one would have received a totally different answer (Changing Views of the History of the Earth). The answer would have been the Earth was ancient, there had not been a Noachian flood, and that the species of life had not been fixed over the history of Earth (Changing Views of the History of the Earth). In short, Genesis was an allegory and not literal history (Changing Views of the History of the Earth). This brings up the different views between “young earth creationists” and “old earth creationists” and those that support an infinite universe. The problem today is each side contains major valid points of evidence of both biblical and scientific, on the age of the planet Earth.