BILL NYE VS KEN HAM: TONIGHT AT 7 PM

[Esquilax]

Sounds like straight up scientism to me. You would have been trusting in something that was completely wrong then. How do you know you’re putting your trust in something that is correct now? I’d rather put my faith elsewhere.

Well, hold on: the difference is that science continues to search and investigate, and when it finds an inconsistency or error, it corrects for it. At no point are the conclusions of science anything more than tentative, and subject to continued research and review. Compare that to the thing you're putting your faith in, which never changes and presumes to have all the answers irrespective of any other evidence.

Which is more likely to come to an actual understanding of the truth? And I don't even know why I bothered asking that question, because I already know you're just going to answer it by saying the bible is already in possession of the truth...

No, creationists start with the infallible and work their way from there, which makes far more sense to me. For the life of me I cannot figure out why nobody on here gets why they do that.

Because they recognize that the assertion that something is infallible is not the same thing as actual infallibility, especially when the fallibility of the self proclaimed infallible text is well known?

That really is a terribly glib answer, Stat.

I disagree with you. If God exists there are some things that must be factored into a person’s inferences about the age of the Earth; namely the flood and creation ex nihilo. When a person keeps those in mind, the evidence is very friendly to this timeline. If a person does not keep those in mind the evidence is very friendly to an Earth that is billions of years old. Ham touched on this point briefly in the debate, but I wish he had driven it home more because it is the hinge that everything else swings upon.

You're mistaking your very specific god as being the only hypothetical creation model. Granted, there are some god claims that can be excluded by an old earth, but creation as a concept? No.

Ignoring all of the epistemological shortcomings of a godless universe? I’ll play along because I like you; if God did not exist and if we could somehow still do science and predication without Him existing then the evidence would support an Earth that is millions to billions of years old (depending on the dating method that is used).

It's good that you ignored all those shortcomings, because those are nonsense objections made to avoid having to be accountable to evidence. Given that the evidence points to an old earth, I'll take it that this young earth stance is purely a faith thing, then?