So I have been "absent" for a while and this is only my second post of the year since I had some "things" to do.  Although I was occupied with other matters I've been briefly checking in now and again to see what new topics surfaced, but it's been sad to see that not much have been going on in the CC forum, or maybe I've just missed a lot.  Anyway, back to the thread.

I am quite surprised that this hasn't been posted yet.  It was dubbed, "The debate of the decade" and it has already been seen by millions of people.  Creation apologist and Christian author, Ken Ham, debated TV personality and Evolution apologist, Bill Nye or maybe more well known as "Bill Nye the Science guy".  The topic of the debate:  Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?.  This is one of the biggest questions in the scientific community today.  This is really a must see to those who haven't watched it yet.  You can watch the debate here:  

http://debatelive.org/

Get some snacks and drinks because it's quite a lengthy clip, just over 2h30min.

It would be interesting to get your thoughts on this.

First things first, I am catholic but I understand that science and religion can both work. The thing most people fail to realize is that the Bible is not a literal interpretation, nor is it a history book.

The Earth cannot be 6000 years old, we can provide evidence to prove it is older than that. the whole 6000 years, which is a really short time, is just saying that we have existed for a lot less time than God.

And with 7 days of creation was to show that God was dedicated to what he does. Could you imagine doing something for 7 days, minus one for rest. That is just to show his devotion to what he does and how much he loves us.

That is all I have to say. It is just my opinion, I may disagree with anyone else's, but I will respect your opinion. I just hope you do the same. If you want me to explain anything else to you, you can just ask.

A kiddie show host debates an old-earth crack pot for two and a half hours? Well... maybe if I have time to spend. It sound sort of entertaining but...

These evolution versus creationism things have been discussed elsewhere too. I don't want to repeat myself on that.

Brigand :  

Thank you for giving us your "thoughts" on this although you didn't.  Many people, including so called Christians are very quick to shun this topic as being done to death and uninteresting.  Here's why it is soooo important to know what you believe and where you came from.  It affects your whole world view.  Biology text books in public schools defines science as naturalism.  They say that the word "supernatural" is not allowed in science, in other words all of reality, the whole universe, all living creatures and humans came about as a result of natural processes.  So basically you are just an animal and you originated from a natural process.  It also means that according to this world view there is no God.  So who determines right and wrong?  Who cares, you're just an animal right?  That baby that's developing in the womb is just an animal, so get rid of spare cats, get rid of spare kids, what's the difference?  What about marriage?  Well there's no such thing as marriage.  Marriage comes from the Bible, but if the Bible is not true, God did not make Adam and Eve.  Why then shouldn't it be men with men, two women, one man with three women or whatever.  Who cares right?  The result of this crooked world view can be seen around us, that's why it is so important to teach your kids that they did not come from nothing.  That they are not "just an animal".  They are not a result of some random chemical reactions.  That they were created special, for a specific purpose, by God.



tornadocam :


Here's one of my older post's that explains where the 6000 years come from:  https://www.vizzed.com/boards/thread.php?id=28575&ppp=20&page=3#751514

"we call that micro-evolution"
Or maybe a bit more accurately, adaptation



QuigMaster1 :


"The thing most people fail to realize is that the Bible is not a literal interpretation, nor is it a history book."
How come?  I mean I do agree that some parts (taken into context) are not literal, since there are a couple of books that are poetic and uses a lot of comparisons to describe something.  I'm not going into the whole literal meaning of the Bible discussion since this will take us way off topic, but I'll just quickly touch on the validity of the Bible as a historical record.  I'll only use one example since there are way too many.  During the Assyrian period, short after king Solomon's death, critics challenged Isaiah 20:1 which reads, "In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and took it...
It was challenged because they knew of no king named Sargon in lists of Assyrian kings.  Now Sargon's palace has been recovered at Khosabad (I don't like posting links to Wikipedia, but here) including a wall inscription and a library record endorsing the battle against the Philistine city of Ashdod mentioned in Isaiah 20:1.

"The Earth cannot be 6000 years old, we can provide evidence to prove it is older than that.."
Can you maybe provide the evidence?  See my response above to tornadocam.






  

To be fair, ken ham typical uses terrible logic.
One of his favourite lines is "how do you know, were you there?".
The main problem with that is he doesn't realise you can turn that on his arguments.
The fact that he lectures kids on this is equally bad.
His dinosaur series is ridiculous.
As evidence of dinosaurs being dragons, he shows the welsh flag which has a dragon.
The fact his books have made it into classrooms goes some way to explaining the state of the american education system, teaching his stuff is detrimental to the long term success of a lot of kid's.

Equally from what iv seen of the other guy he does seem to be a kids show host, but then again so is ken ham. I wouldnt say either of them are a great authority on their subjects.

tornadocam : I'm really thrown off.  You're a scientist, so you understand that apes and humans evolved along the same time lines and we simply developed different traits from them.  Humans did not come from monkeys or apes and vice versa.

You also show that there is micro-evolution.  If you watch bacteria and viruses, which changed and adapt to their environments to survive, you can see the changes.  If it happens at the micro level, why would it not happen on a larger scale over hundreds of thousands of years?

Evolution suggests animals and plants adapt to their environment.  Considering specialization in nature allows animals to get very good at something and survive, I don't see how there is any argument against evolution.

tornadocam : I don't buy into the argument that humans came from apes either. But the thing is, evolution does not say that. I'm not trying to be rude, but anyone who uses the "if we evolved from apes, there would be no more apes" argument has a very wrong idea on what evolution says. Apes and humans come from a common ancestor. That is different than evolving FROM apes. Apes have been evolving just as long as humans have. Their evolution just took a different path than ours. 

You also seem to have the wrong idea on exactly what 'species' specifically means. We have observed animals branch into new species on more than one occasion. We have observed it in salamanders, urchins, seahorses, and mice, just to name a few. But you seem to think that therm species is more broad than what it really is.

A book that predicted the future, I could most certainly trust regarding it's records of the past.


SoL@R is right, though, many Biblical accounts have been cross referenced with other Historical records. Including Babylonian and Roman records. People used to always mock the Bible as being full of myths. I remember reading about how people doubted the existence of a tribe of people called the Hittites. But later a Frenchman found pottery and other records of the Hittites existence in Mesopotamia. The plagues of Egypt where found recorded in ancient Egyptian records, in the records, the scribe spoke a little bit badly of the Pharaoh, and that is not something that you should do back in the day like that! Not to mention all the different flood legends around the world.

SoL@R :

I admit that since I did not watch the thing, there was not much for me to say but you took it kind of in the extremes by saying that if one believes in evolution the out come can only lead to nihilism and atheism. I don't want to shun the topic, though. I just have become a bit cynical since many "so called Christians" don't seem to even understand the concept of evolution yet they like to argue about it even though only thing they argue against is their own misconceptions and prejudices. Also there have been topics similar to this before and I guess the lines have been drawn and none of us are willing to cross them. So why bother.

When it comes to science anyway, there might not be such things as supernatural per se but things that have not been explained yet. People should also remember that science is not dogmatic. It continues to grow and evolve (no pun intended) and it will probably never reach the point where we know all and understand everything. You cannot discuss or study science the way you do theology. I just personally don't see them as enemies and thus don't share this hateful approach towards it. Free will and our intellect were given to us for a reason. (I Believe.)

Oh and marriage was there long ago before the Bible was compiled or any of the books in it were written but that doesn't make the Bible any less of the good book it is.

SoL@R :  To answer a few of your comments/questions:

1.  We are just animals: True.  We are.  There is nothing more special to a human compared to dogs, birds, dolphins, and insects, etc.  We're animals, we poop, we eat, we procreate, we die.  That's it.

2.  Who determines who's right and wrong: Societies come up with their own rules.  Some nations have certain beliefs and others don't agree. Rules and laws are a social construct and humans are far from the only species out there that has rules.  Watch dogs in a park.  Watch lions in a pride.  Wild dogs and hyenas have a very well structured group and they even protect and care for wounded and old dogs.  Bees and ants are other excellent examples of societies and social animals that all function with rules and expectation.  

My daughter came from a happy coincidence and a lot of animals before me developing and adapting to survive.  Humans don't have claws, teeth, exceptional speed, the strong ability to swim, so we have brains.  That's our edge.  We also created the construct of God because people are afraid to go out there alone and brave the universe by themselves.  There are cultures with rules and "right and wrong" who have never heard of your version of God.

Creation?  It's pure luck.  We can't really measure time exactly and it may never have started or ended.  There could have been life all along because we can't imagine infinite.

I watched the whole thing, by the way.  Bill Nye had Ken Ham beat 100 ways to one and had science and math and numbers and proof to back him up.  Ham had, "Well, some person in the sky decided to make people for who knows why and then he told us to write a book and that book is 2,000 years old, so that's PROOF."

Now Ben Ham is getting on my nerves. I am Russian Orthodox, and I believe God let evolution take it's own path. He has had the opportunity to end humanity and chooses not to, meaning he is waiting to see what we'll fully become. And, he sees something in us, I mean, his own son gave his life to us. And for how Ben Ham is getting on my nerves, he is constantly using comebacks you hear small children use, "Were you there? How do you know? What would you know?" are examples. He is really unqualified to represent theists in the debate.

Thank you for all the replies and comments thus far. Before I reply to individuals, I would like to look at the definition of evolution first.  It is not to insult anyone's intelligence, but I think it’s important to define the term just so that we are all on the same page. I also apologize for the lengthy intro and I'm going to quote quite a few times from certain sources so mods, please ignore those.
First of all, we need to make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  Creationists have no problem and totally agree with Evolutionists on the former, but it is more accurately described as adaptation.  The latter is the one that causes problems and I believe that Evolutionists use micro-evolution as a base to defend and justify macro-evolution when they are totally different. 
So micro-evolution, according to oxforddictionary.com is, ”evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms,
especially over a short period.”
Macro-evolution according to the same source is, ” major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.”

Atheism.about.com says, “Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such micro-evolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.  Macroevolution,
in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.”

Biology online on micro and macro-evolution:  ” Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of a kind.  It is contrasted with micro-evolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within
a kind or population.
Example of micro-evolution:  Two long-haired dogs producing a short-haired puppy.
Example of macro-evolution:  An amphibian evolving into a reptile or a reptile evolving into a bird.

Macro-evolution is a very important concept because Darwinists / Evolutionists believe that it’s the mechanism for their idea that all life evolved from a common primordial ancestor.  Many Darwinists argue that because micro-evolution is a small scale biological change and macro-evolution is a large scale biological change, macro-evolution is simply the accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes over time.
Apparently this is a reasonable extrapolation of micro-evolution.  Evolutionists therefore often use evidence for micro-evolution as evidence for macro-evolution as I have already stated.  Macro-evolution requires new additional genetic information.  No amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macro-evolution and this is really what micro-evolution is about.  So in other words, no amount of micro-evolution will produce macro-evolution.  Evolutionists draw a false correlation between the two.  When Creationists, like myself, say that we don’t believe in evolution, we are not talking about micro-evolution.  I am referring to macro-evolution.  Micro-evolution is a credible, observable scientific phenomenon.  Again, Creationists do not believe in Darwin’s macro-evolutionary extrapolation of micro-evolution which there is no true scientific evidence for.  So if you want to debate creation vs. evolution, it is thus very important to distinguish between micro and macro-evolution. /end intro

Brigand :

” Also there have been topics similar to this before and I guess the lines have been drawn and none of us are willing to cross them. So why bother.”
I hear what you’re saying.  Yes, the topic has been discussed to the bone and it doesn’t seem like it’s going to end soon, but there’s a reason for it and I’ve mentioned that in previous posts.  Anyway, I apologize if I seemed a bit rude / sarcastic in my comment.  I just felt that if you are just going to comment for the sake of commenting, why comment?  It’s like some people that write a “review” for a game.  “This is a cool game” hardly qualifies as a review.  I suppose it’s just a pet peeve of mine.

” Oh and marriage was there long ago before the Bible was compiled or any of the books in it were written but that doesn't make the Bible any less of the good book it is.”
You’re dead right.

warmaker :

” We are just animals: True.  We are. There is nothing more special to a human compared to dogs, birds, dolphins, and insects, etc.  We're animals, we poop, we eat, we procreate, we die.  That's it.”
I’m just going to quote an extract from J.G.L. Wedge, B.A., B.D.,What do you think of the Bible?, Lindstrom Wedge, Chatswood (New South Wales),1991, p. 2. because I can’t put it any better:

” … the average young Australian, who believes what he is taught, believes the evolutionary dogma that he is only an animal who arrived by chance, lives by his wits, survives to breed and will die… without hope of personal immortality. Of course many intelligent young people examine the evidence and reject the theory of godless evolution, but the majority of ordinary folk … accept this theory and live like animals. Many come to see the utter futility and stupidity of struggling to survive, so after they have tasted sex and every other thrill of a purely animal existence, they decide to opt out of life into the oblivion of drugs or suicide. Others go on living like animals. They satisfy every animal desire that wells up within them. If they want sex they have it immediately. If they feel aggressive they show it. The crunch comes if they rape, harm or kill. They then fall foul of the law, and are jailed and punished for being the animals they were taught to be. 

Taking it further.  Just on the biological plane we are hugely different:
-The human brain possesses qualities that have no parallel in the animal world.  One consequence is man’s explicit mental capabilities.
-Man possesses the faculty of speech and his creative communication by means of his vocal system is completely different from those of animals.  We have the unique ability to pay attention to various matters at will, especially if you’re of the feminine kind  We have an incredibly wide range of interests and observation, because we can consider spatial and temporally remote objects.  We can imagine, talk about and “create” abstract things and we can use our system of signs to define or explain a term or a story.
-Only man is fully bipedal.  Our hands are not required to move us forward.
-Only man is able to express complex emotions e.g. joy, sadness, HOPE, laughter, shyness.  Some animals might have similar abilities,
but it cannot be remotely compared.

The Bible also clearly distinguishes between man and animal:
-We were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27).
-Only man received the breath of God, so in this way we were given a spirit (Ecclesiastes 12:7; 1 Thessalonians 5:23) so that we go beyond the limits of the animal world.
-Only man can communicate with God.  Only man possesses the gift of speech and prayer by means of which he can express all this thoughts before his Creator.  We were created to be near and close to God.
-Only man has a free will and possesses the faculty of creative thought.  Only human beings possess gifts such as freely developing personalities, inventiveness, writing, making and creating music, historical awareness etc.
-Even the difference in flesh is mentioned in the Bible.  1 Corinthians 15:39 say, ” All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind
of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish,and another of birds.”
-The Bible also tells us that we were not only created BY God, but also FOR God (Colossians 1:16).  This high purpose is ONLY ascribed to man.  Animals have also been created by God and are creatures of God, but they did not receive the calling to become children of God (John 1:12).
-Then one last thing.  In contrast to animals, man is an eternal being.  It means that your existence never ends, even after the death of your body.  You’ll either be in heaven for eternity or in hell (Luke 16:19-31).

” Who determines who's right and wrong: Societies come up with their own rules.  Some nations have certain beliefs and others don't agree. Rules and laws are a social construct and humans are far from the only species out there that has rules.”
Answer me these questions:  Is rape wrong?  Is murder wrong?  Is stealing wrong? Is lying wrong?  I’ll get back to you if you reply to this.

BluemageKyle :

” Now Ben Ham is getting on my nerves.”
” He is really unqualified to represent theists in the debate.”
Ben Ham might irritate people, not have the credentials and all the stars and stripes.  Heck, he might even get on my nerves, but Ken Ham, now that’s another story ;p  
A little research goes a long way.  Check this out.

SoL@R : Many young earth believers LOVE to use the lava flow example as a way to argue the reliability of radioisotope dating. But anyone who uses that clearly never even bothered to research farther as to why that happened. Once again, the young earth side likes to just stop the research as soon as it finds the information they want instead of looking even further. The reason why it gave such a huge error in the dating was because the incorrect radioisotope dating was used. You said so yourself, it used potassium-argon method. Usually, that would be fine for lava flow. But the in that particular case, it was not. The lava flow in this particular case was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Xenoliths cannot be dated using potassium-argon method because it typically contains excess argon bubbles inside, throwing off the reading. But on top of that, young earth believers who use the potassium-argon lava argument clearly have never researched potassium-argon method. If they did, they would know that potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks that are only 20-30 years old. The fact that that process was even used on those rocks was wrong in the first place. Radioisotope dating is reliable when you use the correct one (there are over 40). So your argument in that other thread that you posted here actually doesn't have a leg to stand on. It is just yet another case of young earth arguments stopping their research when they hear what they want to hear instead of looking any further into it.

Only man is able to express complex emotions e.g. joy, sadness, HOPE, laughter, shyness.  Some animals might have similar abilities, but it cannot be remotely compared.
I totally, completely, 100% disagree with that statement. Animals are just as capable as us. Just because many wild animals process those emotions differently doesn't mean they aren't there. I have worked with animals that have shown more capability of emotion than many humans I know. Their sadness isn't just 'similar' to ours. Dogs, for example. On more than one occasion, I have seen dogs grow up together, and become companions. When one dies, it is not uncommon for the other to die soon after from depression. I personally had a dog who was fairly young and very healthy when our older dog passed. She lost any will to live. She constantly laid in the other's most common spots (which she never did before). Nothing could make her show much happiness. She wouldn't eat. She became possessive of the chew toys that only the other dog played with. Her health drastically took a bad turn. She died a month later. She was hurt and mourning beyond anything I have personally seen in anyone. I have never personally known a person who loved someone so much that they literally could not live anymore with the other gone. I know it happens, but I have never known a person who has had that happen. To say that an animal is not capable of complex emotions, I believe, is a cold and naive thought. 

Sword legion :

Good question! Why was it important enough that God wanted it to be one of the ten commandments? But why people who are not Christians or Jews don't go around murdering people at whim since they were not deliberately told not to do so as we were in our Holy texts? And why do people of faith still do so sometimes anyway?

Ofcource I have no one answer to this myself. In my personal point of theological view it goes down to the fact that we are all sinners and will always break the will of God no matter how hard we try but in my more secular point of view I believe that to take a life of another human is the most taboo thing in most cultures, yet it seems so easy on the other hand by all when it comes down to that and it is accepted. But why?

rcarter2 :  I truly appreciate the effort  you put into your comments.  I must admit, I have not done extensive research in my first effort to "debunk" radioisotope dating, so I've decided to read a bit further and here's what I've found.  There has actually been plenty of in depth research done on the effectiveness of radioisotope dating by creationists.  It is just too much detail to mention here, so I'm really just going to give a broad overview.

A particular Dr. Steven Austin who is a professor of Geology and chair of the Department of Geology at the Institute for Creation Research carefully designed this research to counter all possible objections, including the argument you gave.  The argument that the magma must have picked up chunks of old rock (xenoliths) as it moved through the Earth and contaminated the sample and gave a very old age, is unfounded because Dr. Austin was particularly careful to identify xenoliths and ensure that none were included in his sample.  He gives a proper report of his sampling and research in this reference:
Austin, S.A., Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano, CEN Tech. J.10(3):335–343, 1996.

Another critic claimed that Dr. Austin's dacite sample (fine-grained volcanic rock that contains a sprinkling of larger, visible crystals, like chopped fruit in a cake) gave an old age because it contained old feldspar crystals.  They said that Dr. Austin should have known they were old, because the crystals were large and zoned.  However his results (which can be found in the reference) showed that the wrong ages were not confined to one particular mineral.  The idea that the age of a mineral can be anticipated by its size or colour is incorrect.  Another researcher, Dalrymple, found that the wrong ages in his samples were unrelated to crystal size or any other observable characteristic of the crystal.  Reference: Dalrymple, G.B., 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6:47–55, 1969.

There were many other objections that I'm not going into right now, but it did nothing to diminish the consequences for radioisotope dating of Dr. Austin's work.  It has been concluded that the method is fraught with problems and does not give reliable dates.

Regarding my apparent "cold and naive" thoughts towards animals, I apologize if I came across that way.  I truly love animals.  They are God's creation after all.  I made the statements in the tone that I made them, because I get saddened if someone tells me I'm just an animal.  Again, my quote from J.G.L. Wedge captures my thoughts and feelings on the matter.  I don't deny that animals have emotions.  I've also witnessed it first hand, but the bottom line is that there is a lack of conscience.  It's an action and a reaction, I mean have you ever seen a zebra pleading and debating with a lion before a hunt?  No remorse.  Survival of the fittest and relying on instinct rather than intellect.  I am not just a "coincidence".  A result of a random satisfying of a sexual desire.  Just because we are sometimes taken by surprise, does not mean that God is.  scripture is clear that God allows sinful humans to make mistakes and reap the consequences of those mistakes, but only a sovereign God could also promise that He will make “all things work together for the good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). In ways known only to God, He takes even our mistakes and unplanned events and weaves them together to fulfill His purposes. The administration of the universe is not based on serendipity. The Bible says that God’s purposes will prevail and that He is in control of even the most random event (Proverbs 19:21).  Proverbs 16:33 says, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.”  What may seem insignificant to us may be in fact a result of God’s omniscient power working on our behalf to accomplish His will in our lives.  God wasn't talking to animals when He made those promises.  A very personal God was and is talking to you and me.

SoL@R : You might want to do a little bit more research on Dr. Steve Austin before using his old research. It has been proven (some by his own admission) that his tests to counter radiometric dating were skewed. First off, it is already a red flag when someone sets up experiment with a goal in mind, whether you be scientist or creationist. Austin set up his experiments with a pre-decided conclusion. That is not science. Science is about getting your data first, and drawing conclusions last. Pretty much every famous creation scientist is about drawing your conclusion first and finding evidence to support your conclusion. But that is not the important part. Read on about Steve Austin.

In most of Austin's tests on lava flows, he was trying to discredit Rb-Sr dating, as it is considered to be one of the most accurate testing methods in many cases. He produced what he called a 'reliable isochron dating', and the dates it gave were impossible. He claimed that samples from single lava flows gave extremely different dates each time, even though the isochron dating was done correctly. One of the requirements for an isochron to signify the age of an object, is that the data points be derived from samples of materials which were isotopically homogeneous (with respect to each other) when the object formed, and all separated and ceased chemical exchange at the object's time of formation.

Upon where he claimed to get the flow samples from, it was already clear that the research was skewed. It took a few years to get samples form where Austin got his. But when they were obtained, the truth of his research came to light. From those particular locations, samples were always going to give mantle age from whole measurements of the lava flow, and Austin knew that before he even took the samples. The rock that came from those locations fall into two stratigraphic stages, which will give you mantle age results. To put it simply, Austin used Rb-Sr on samples from areas of which he knew already would give 'false isochrons'. But when others got samples from his research areas, he admitted what he had done. For example-

Austin admitted that his samples fell into two stratigraphic stages. He admitted that the different samples of lava flows he collected did not form at the same time. As for the crystals he found from 4 different lava flows, he admitted himself IN WRITING that his samples were not all cogenetic. He also disclosed methods that he used in his research. In EVERY research he has ever published that dated rocks at young age, he always used the outdated method one would use to find the MINIMUM age of surface crust and never any current method in finding the age of anything below the crust. But he always left out that detail. But he did disclose it eventually.

As for the xenolith argument you gave, it doesn't change the fact that he used K-Ar method to date lava flows only a few decades old. K-Ar method is not meant for that. But the thing is, almost nobody who isn't a geologist knows that. So he can use the incorrect dating method on a sample, get impossible results, publish his findings, and anyone who doesn't understand radiometric dating will eat that up. His research isn't about debunking the methods, it is about taking advantage of knowing that anyone who isn't an expert in radiometric dating will simply take his word for it because he is a geologist.

Dr. Austin has no credible research. Not because of his beliefs, but because he has been proven to, in a sense, rig his results. He has even confessed on numerous counts manipulating sample choice in his experiments. He is one of the worst creationist geologists you can use to support the argument of young earth. Many creation scientist have even disregarded his claims after his methods were brought to light.

rcarter2 :  
SoL@R :  
Sword legion :  
warmaker :  

 I have a good deal of respect for the fact that all of you are forum-users, composed of everyday people of all backgrounds and beliefs, who does research on half a dozen things before you speak about one.  Clearly, you love research and have a knack for it that I never have had and probably never will, along with plenty of experience in your given fields.  I just wanted to put that out there first and foremost, because I do not believe that most places are like that--at least, you would never hear that over the commotion of bickering.  After all, at least two of you mentioned that this is such a contentious issue, where perhaps it shouldn't be.
I don't mean, either, that it shouldn't be because one side or the other is right.  The "You weren't there, you wouldn't know" argument can (and should) be turned around.  It does go both ways.  The longest recorded human or creature to have lived was Methuselah at 969 years old, so unless someone can literally speak to rocks NOBODY was there.  There are NO firsthand accounts, there is only research and the Bible.
I believe that odds were drawn where they shouldn't have been, giving us only one side of the coin at a time.  Do I believe the Bang theory? Absolutely not; the odds are absolutely astronomically impossible that ALL of the elements for us to have life at all by chance.  While that isn't to say that it couldn't have been a tool that God used, I believe it is foolish to look at the numbers and simultaneously say that God does not exist and that therefore there is no afterlife and all that implies, whether incarnation, Heaven, Hell, anything.  (Sorry if I am on somewhat of a tangent at all.)
Animals were also mentioned, and really Legion had the best point there.  "Comparing a man to an animal, is like calling the moon a rock. Biologically we are similar to animals, and we are made up of similar materials."  But, I will say that when our dog died, we experienced everything that rcarter2 talked about: "Their sadness isn't just 'similar' to ours. Dogs, for example. On more than one occasion, I have seen dogs grow up together, and become companions. When one dies, it is not uncommon for the other to die soon after from depression. I personally had a dog who was fairly young and very healthy when our older dog passed. She lost any will to live. She constantly laid in the other's most common spots (which she never did before)."  After she passed, her mother did not last a month, and her best dog friends may have lived two more.  Animal emotions are very real, and very intense from depression to panic and excitement.  The only difference is thoughtful expression.
Finally, SoL@R's explanation of evolution/adaptation brought up something I had never compared before.  
"Atheism.about.com says, “Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such micro-evolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.  Macroevolution,
in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.”"
So, basically, macro-evolution is transmutation: the idea that one metal can become a different metal entirely, the idea that was the basis for alchemy, the grandfather of chemistry.  The only difference I see here is that macro-evolution refers to animals rather than metal, so why would it be any less conceivable that those who do argue that humans and monkeys came from the same ancestors would take a lead brick, remove a couple electrons and make it gold?  Or inject some into iron for the same result? (Disregarding the fact that the world system of currency would crash.)

My point is that both sides usually refuse to acknowledge the other side, but we aren't designed to know everything.  Science isn't designed to know everything, because we aren't; as such, we know what we know (for instance, the dynamics of gravity, space, drag, etc.) and the rest rest theory and faith, which is the same thing with a different name.  Sure, they imply different ideas, but those who come up with a scientific theory are really just acting in good faith of the concepts they believe to be true; the same can really be said of Christianity.  I act in faith that I follow God's Son and His will for me, that is my theory.  I feel it in my heart and would deny any denomination that tells me anything different, because my theory of God doesn't match yours, theirs, his, hers, its.  

That's my spiel.  

huygeb : The critical part about Bill Nye and Ken Ham getting together is that science and religion have been circling each other like boxers, always questioning, never directly confronting and talking it out.  It should be done with serious discourse, open minds, and a non-combative mood.

I enjoyed the two men talking because they approached this debate the right way.

The trouble I have with the Bible is the level of allegory it *could* represent.  Did Jonah really get swallowed by a big fish?  He survived?  Is that truth or is that a story.  Did Noah really have two of every single animal in existence on a boat?  That's a lot of animals.  How did they eat all that time they waited for water to drop.  And the entire world was covered in water?  Where did it go after the storm?  All animals were herbivores before the Fall?  So Lions suddenly turned into meat-eating machines immediately following and zebras got stuck with grass?  Lastly, people lived to 900 years of age?  Why don't do we do that nowadays?

Science has everything grounded in numbers, in solid facts, and is presented as "This is how it is."  There is nothing that can be construed as story or lesson.  Science is simply numbers and anyone can take away whatever they will.  The Bible has stories and people can draw their own conclusions.  There are multiple groups of people who interpret multiple Bibles and believe different things.

Every single scientist in the world understands it takes two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen to create a water molecule.  Russians, Chinese, Africans, South Americans, Europeans.... people at war who hate each other and their belief systems all agree there are two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom in water.

It's tough to support something that has so many possibilities and so many different interpretations.  I'm open-minded and I never have a problem with people expressing their beliefs.  I love that people find something, anything to believe in.  It's wonderful.  I'm glad we can talk this out.