>>From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link - PM
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:55 PM

I think hams point was that evolutionary theories have to posit elements that are not observable to fit their timeline. <<

I didn't hear that. I heard him discredit without offering any competing theory and he offered exactly ZERO observable data to support his timelime.

>>creationists like dr john Hartnett propose models that reconcile a young creation of the stars with their current distance. his book has a lot of mathematical calculations included after the main text. that is not to say that this model will be the last word on it, and evolutionary ideas on it will probably change to.<<

There is no such math. There is that the speculation that God made the Universe to look as if it were 6,000 years old. After all he is God, why not. But that would allow science and evolution to be taught as is without "corrections" from Mr. Ham. But that would never do. He spent 23,000,000 in donations from crazy people to argue with sane people over what is to be taught in schools.


>>just because the Wyoming floundered, and made by experienced shipwrights, does not prove the ark was unseaworthy.<<

Do you know that in the 1800's they were trying to build wooden ships as large as they could? The Wyoming was not the only attempt. It was just a large and spectacular failure. I think that Nye argued that with the materials and labor at hand the building of the ark would have been a monumental task. I think Mr Ham argued that if it had three hulls it may be able to float.

>> I think reference was made to other ancient large vessels that were fine.<<<

no such reference was made in the debate. No such wooden vessel is known to exist on the scale of the arc described in the Bible, Ever. You either believe it was supernatural, or that it was exaggerated, or you don't.

>>I don't recall any personal attack on nye....I shall have to watch it again.<<<

Ham said, because of Nye's beliefs, he would not want to ride on a plane that Nye had worked on.