Debates on scientific dating
"If the universe came about by natural processes, where did the laws of logic come from? He claimed that Christianity gives a basis for the rules of logic and the order of nature, both of which are necessary for science."There's a book out there that does document where consciousness comes from – God made man in His own image," Ham explained."If we abandon the process by which we know nature …"I claim there's only one infallible dating method – a witness who was there and who knows everything and who told us – that's the Word of God."Nye, however, argued that there is no difference between observational and historical science."When [scientists] make assumptions, they're making assumptions based on previous experience," he argued."If you insist the natural laws have changed, for lack of a better word, that's magical," the "science guy" declared. "You Weren't There""We observe things in the present, and we're assuming that has always happened in the past," Ham explained."Your interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago, as translated into American English, is more compelling for you than everything that I can observe in the world around me."What follows is a list of Ham's five best arguments for the Creationist model, along with Nye's five best arguments against it. But he noted a significant weakness in using modern science to explain the past – "You've got a problem, because you weren't there."Ham argued that there are different kinds of science: observational science, which involves the world as it is, and historical science, which attempts to understand the world that came before.
"Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era," Ham, a Christian, proclaimed at The Creation Museum Tuesday night.The creationist argued that science supports his view of a historical six-day creation, as outlined in the first chapters of Genesis.He also listed a great deal of prominent scientists who believe in the creationist model.Nye, an agnostic, retorted that such ideas are fanciful."Why should we accept your word for it that natural law changed 3,000 years ago and we have no record of it?