BILL NYE VS KEN HAM: TONIGHT AT 7 PM

[Esquilax]

How do you know when something is in fact an error?

19th Century: “The Universe has a finite beginning!”
Early 20th Century: “Sorry, we were wrong- the Universe has always existed!”
Late 20th Century: “Sorry again, we were wrong about being wrong; the Universe definitely had a finite beginning!”

We can't know that, because we're not perfect. All we can do is hope to be as correct as possible at the time.

You’re proving my point; would you expect an infallible account of history and purpose to change? I wouldn’t.

You do understand that your account is demonstrably fallible according to the evidence, and the only thing propping up its supposed infallibility is your unreasoned faith, right? I mean, you did say before that strictly based on the evidence, the earth is older than the bible would indicate.

Who is more likely to be telling the truth, the child who has consistently given you the same story every time you ask him for it or the child who changes his story every time you ask him?

And if the story the first child was telling you was that he can fly and shoot ice cream out of his butt, and the second child kept getting new information every time you asked him? Doesn't that change the scales, there?

It’s not merely an assertion it’s an axiom. If the Bible were indeed infallible it’d certainly be the only infallible source we have correct? Then how could you possibly demonstrate its fallibility when all you have are fallible means? In my example above, there is no way to prove that the first child is fallible by appealing to the second child who always changes his story.

So, essentially, because science can't be one hundred percent right, you'll always assume it's wrong when it contradicts a book that claims it's one hundred percent right?

How much more dishonest can you get?

Whose? Yours or mine?

"No, you!" -Statler Waldorf, 2014.

Again, it matters where you start from. Start with the Bible and the Earth is young, start somewhere else and you’ll end up with a different age.

Start from an unjustified presupposition, young earth. Start from the evidence, old earth.

They are not nonsensical at all, knowledge and science presuppose that God exists.

Don't be ridiculous. Honestly, that's just insulting that you think any of us are stupid enough to buy that, you ought to be ashamed.

Asserting the evidence “points” to anything is what is nonsensical. When interpreted within a Biblical conceptual scheme the evidence points to a young Earth.

And how much of that biblical scheme, would you say, involves disregarding any evidence that seems to contradict the bible?