**
The gospel, and the many ways and opportunities in which it is presented: Creation debates, evangelism, street preaching, etc.
**
Watching social media discuss the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye creation debate, a word kept coming popping up all over the place: the gospel. Let’s first look at its use within the widely publicized creation debate.
To sum up my general views on yesterday’s debate: I have a hunch that most people supported the guy on their side of the fence, and most likely were not swayed to jump to the other side of the fence after hearing the debate.
This 40-second video might accurately portray what a lot of people felt:
**
**
While many people looked at this debate as an opportunity to discuss science vs creationism, many were focused on this venue as an important gospel opportunity:
**
**
Here are comments from articles highlighting the gospel in the context of the debate from familiar names:
**
“Ham was consistently bold in citing his confidence in God, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the full authority and divine inspiration of the Bible.” ~Albert Mohler
**
“Ken Ham has an unwavering commitment to biblical authority and to the gospel. I admire that about him and do believe him to represent the most compelling position. I am grateful that he is out there fighting the good fight. He’s one of the good guys.” ~Denny Burk
**
First, I thought Ken Ham did very well. He shared the Gospel multiple times (I think I counted 4 complete Gospel presentations, as well as numerous references to sin, the Fall, and redemption in Christ), and he stuck to his message that the true disagreement is at the presuppositional level. ~JD Hall
**
Here are other comments from around the net:
Then you were not listening carefully. Ken Ham did what he needed to say. The gospel true was preached and he stuck to the Bible rather then [sic] his own opinion. As for the debate, it will go on till the end of time because the unregenerate heart will not understand God and will always ask to see more signs. ~Guy
***
How many times did Ken Ham share the gospel? ALOT… How many times did he direct everything to God & his word? ALOT… Bill Nye & the media is portraying that He won the debate… AHH, but you are wrong again world.. If one soul came to the Salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ – It was ALL worth it. How many non-believers do you think watched? Praising God for using this debate and Ken Ham & AIG to further His kingdom & for His glory!! ~Jay
***
1st Corinthians1:18 for the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing……… ken ham wove the gospel message into his portion of the debate, that in itself is a great advance. Do you have any idea how many unsaved heard the Gospel last night because of that….. ~Glen
***
More importantly last night, the Gospel was presented with Truth and grace. A seed was planted. It’s now up to the Holy Spirit to show Bill Nye the error of his ways. If the Lord can transform Saul of Tarsus, He can certainly transform Bill Nye, the Science Guy! Keep praying… ~Lee
***
That’s a whole lot of gospel talk, right?
While some in the Christian camp were thrilled with Ham’s gospel presentation and made note of how many times he included the gospel message in the debate, others (including Christians) were not so impressed:
**
**
There was a great debate on the topic of the gospel following the above tweet.
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. John 5:39-40
**
I’ve been thinking about this gospel that so many talk about. Obviously Ken Ham was being judged by Christians on how well and how many times he presented it. It seems there must have been people on the sidelines with scorecards making tally marks when listening to Ken Ham’s words, judging whether or not he passed their gospel presentation test.
Someone actually created a Facebook page on the same day of the debate to devote themselves to praying for Bill Nye: Pray for Bill Nye: “Let’s commit to praying that the Holy Spirit will prick the heart of Bill Nye “The Science Guy.”
I’m glad Ham touched on the important facets of Christianity – sin, death/resurrection of Christ. However, I’m curious to know how many people were won over to Christ by Ham’s gospel-ese words? Did anyone’s heart get stirred by hearing that gospel message four times in the debate? I suspect not. ::::Did I hear a collective gasp from a certain crowd? ::::
But this focus on the gospel message within the debate also reminds me of those who share the gospel recklessly. I’m not talking about being a fool for Christ, but maybe that other F word: Farisee, oops Pharisee.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are likewhitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:25-28, ESV)
Case in point, street evangelist Tony Miano doing his thing on Twitter yesterday – a smattering of spiritual words/verses in response to the recent announcement from Scotland that they now allow same-sex marriage. Look at the behavior. Look at the words in the hashtags. This is a man whose ministry is to share the gospel. The dude gets PAID to act like this. Seriously! (Strong language warning!)
I’m afraid that the following particular passages are sometimes used as a license to be rude when sharing the Gospel. The verses have been quoted by those who share their brand of the gospel on a whim, seemingly without a care in the world as to the responsibility of sharing it in a way that honors the Lord, or by looking at their life as a reflection of Christ and a witness to His saving grace.
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:17–18).
Here’s another verse along the same lines:
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16).
In conclusion, I have a hunch that God is not counting how many gospel presentations at creation debates or how many people are acting foolish for Christ while street evangelizing or on evangelizing on Twitter:
**
He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.
Luke 16:15
Related articles:
Spiritual Sounding Board 
That video is very funny and a bit creepy when you think of dumb sheep following their pastor/guru leader blindly.
I took that sheep picture on the way to my physical therapist (about 1-1/2 hrs away) – – it was taken from my car and through a fence and all, but I kind of like it because of my Twitter handle: @DefendTheSheep. Funny thing — I’ve been going there for over 8 months and that’s the first time there have been sheep outside this barn. So I had to pull over for a shot. 🙂
LikeLike
Ed, First of all, I totally agree about the free gift. What I am saying is many make it “cheap”.
One of the problems is that in the 1st Century the focus was more on “renewal” than “pardon”.
John the Baptist preached “repent” and Jesus’ very first teaching was “repent”. That teaching is all through the Gospels.
The word is “metanoia”. We think of it as “repent” and miss the bigger meaning. Meta in common Greek is preposition: “From…..To”. The second part is related to the Greek “nous” which communicates the inner core of man’s being. So the word would have communicated in the 1st Century a “From…To movement in the core of our being”. A metamorphosis. Fruits worthy of repentance is a change of heart that comes to expression by a contrasting way of life. It is a lifestyle. Walking in the light. Not sinless perfection but you know it when you see it.
This was a requirement of authentic Christianity but abandoned within centuries when corrupt priests and tyrants legalized Christianity, Overtime the focus turned to pardon with renewal being seen as somewhat less important than pardon and some even saw renewal as impossible . (like Augustine, the Reformers, etc)
I think you get this when you mention discipleship. As Gary said, it is not”go and save”people. It is,go and make disciples.
I like how JC Ryle put it. He said Justification and Sanctification are two different things but you cannot have one without the other. The pardon is worthless if it does not change us. If we think the pardon is all then that is easy believism. There is also renewal. And Jesus Christ promised the Counselor/Advocate to help us.
LikeLike
Quoting Ed: “Who did the Bereans consult? Just a question. I look forward to the day that you can say, “insight from my own mind, based on a book that God wrote, called the Word of God.”
Yes, since the summer of 2003 I have been doing my best to look to Scripture, guided by the Spirit, and not to the theologians-as-Holy-Spirit-substitutes, as the foundation of my thinking and doing–and I have been getting in trouble, especially with preachers, ever since.
Still, I do not expect I will ever get to the point that I am unable to profit from the Spirit-inspired insights of others, such as NT Wright, Dallas Willard (a Southern Baptist BTW), Leanne Payne and chapmaned24.
LikeLike
Lydia, another teacher (theologian?) from whom I am profiting greatly, says, “If we think the pardon is all then that is easy believism.”
A believer, or supposed believer embraces easy believism when they live their Christian life as though having said the sinners’ prayer is the be all and end all of being a Christian. It is as though a mail order bride were to enter a contract to marry, maybe exchange some correspondence and even get married by proxy, but never take up life together with her husband. Such a marriage would not be real. It would be subject to annulment. Maybe those who rely on easy believism are only fooling themselves to think they are Christians.
LikeLike
“Still, I do not expect I will ever get to the point that I am unable to profit from the Spirit-inspired insights of others, such as NT Wright, Dallas Willard (a Southern Baptist BTW), Leanne Payne and chapmaned24.”
One of the best advertisements for NT Wright was Piper. When he tried so hard to marginalize him as teaching wrong things I decided to check him out. :o) Piper did the same thing with Instone Brewer, another scholar.
While I disagree with some of Wrights interpretations , he really is a scholar/pastor combo which is unusual. He captured my heart because he actually believes in and teaches “kingdom” now for believers and not only that he believes in Christian virtue. Very unusual these days. And something I had come to understand and searching for anyone, anywhere who also believed “On ‘earth’as it is in heaven” for us today.
In my neck of the woods, the seminary boys tried to turn Willard into an Eastern Mystic so I had to check some of his stuff out. Imagine my surprise he was an older philosophy prof in a suit and very soft spoken. Now gone to be with Christ. The Reformed leaders did not like him and I am guessing because of free will.
I like Gordon Fee, too. His book,”How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth”is excellent. I highly recommend it.
The key, I think is to know Christ and then one is not easily led astray. I went for almost 5 years without any other input except me, the Holy Spirit, tons of prayer and scripture. I did that on purpose to get rid of some filters that needed to go.
LikeLike
“A believer, or supposed believer embraces easy believism when they live their Christian life as though having said the sinners’ prayer is the be all and end all of being a Christian. It is as though a mail order bride were to enter a contract to marry, maybe exchange some correspondence and even get married by proxy, but never take up life together with her husband. Such a marriage would not be real. It would be subject to annulment. Maybe those who rely on easy believism are only fooling themselves to think they are Christians.”
Gary, In the mega seeker world, you were saved when you became a “member” of the church. I was around easy believism for years. They marketed to the “unchurched” to make them “churched”. That was salvation. Sinners prayer was not needed. Just join. When the “unchurched” became “churched” then they are saved. It was ridiculous and a constant revolving door.
I don’t really have a problem with the sinners prayer. In some situations it can be a marker of sorts. (kind of hard to explain)
I have a problem when that is ALL there is. A sinners prayer. So you believe and confess that? Now what? That is when the “hard” part comes in. I am one that believes sanctification (renewal) is synergistic. The Holy Spirit within us working with us to change us “From……to”.
Very few out there are teaching “new creatures in Christ” anymore. It is thought to be impossible.
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
I never thought I would need to say this to you, but you are getting way too technical for me in this explanation. I am usually the analytical one, but wow.
No, I do not agree with the premise of the argument against cheap grace. I read Bonhoeffer’s explanation, and I highly disagree with it.
I mean, really…One question was asked in the NT…What must I “DO” to be saved. What was the answer? Bonhoeffer’s quotes? No.
What Bonhoeffer is doing is making a gift cost something by the receiver.
Do we really have to tap dance to get a Christmas or Birthday gift?
So, what does it mean to believe? The law is our school master to bring us to Christ. Now that we are under Christ, we are no longer under a school master.
We are FREED from sin. We are DEAD. Stop concentrating on something that we are dead to. Those who concentrate on NOT sinning, wind up sinning. Struggling with sin is different than sinning on purpose.
Besides,WHO is teaching that you don’t have to repent PRIOR to becoming a Christian? WHO? I don’t know anyone…not even televangelists.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Well, Gary W, I’ve had my share of preachers disagreeing with me, as well. But that don’t bother me none. But really, I see way too many people quote author’s of books, and it boggles my mind. In my early years of studying controversies, I read an Ellen G White book, the founder of the Seventh Day Adventists. I have a few friends that are 7th Day Adventists. They proclaim that her books are soooooooo inspirational. Wow…really? She was a whack job, a proven liar, a false prophet, etc. I saw for my self quite a few Gospel mistakes of hers in one of her books. But the 7th Day Adventists acknowledge her shortcomings, yet, still single her out as a person that was and is, “soooooooo insparational”.
That is just one example as to why I look to this instead: “What do YOU think from your study?” I don’t care what Ellen G White thought. Well, I do care, only for the purpose of warning people to stay away from her books.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Again, Gary W,
I see nothing wrong with the much disliked “sinners prayer”. There has been, and it is a lawful act, for a proxy marriage in the military. Then the husband gets killed in war. Nothing was done to consummate the marriage. So, I am not one who likes bad analogies about a mail order bride, etc.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Lydia observes, “I don’t really have a problem with the sinners prayer. In some situations it can be a marker of sorts. (kind of hard to explain)”
I’m not saying people shouldn’t say the sinners’ prayer, but how would it be if, instead of inviting people to say the sinners’ prayer, evangelists and other preachers invited people to be baptized? Maybe less seed sown in the rocks, only to sprout and die?
LikeLike
Ah, but Ed. In your revision of my analogy, the failure of consummation was not volitional. Your version of the analogy, though valid enough, only applies to a situation where the new believer, having said the sinners’ prayer, dies (physically) shortly thereafter.
And, again, I suggest that we ought not to have allowed the sinners’ prayer to take the place of water baptism. While I am inspired by the 1st Century practice, I do not base my position on some sort of a legalistic dedication to the practice of water baptism. It’s just that I perceive wisdom in the New Covenant practice. I believe those who would be willing to be baptized immediately upon salvation are more likely to come to evidence the fruit of their new birth–and that they would also be less likely to fall away.
LikeLike
Ed, I am not so sure we are that far apart.
“We are FREED from sin. We are DEAD. Stop concentrating on something that we are dead to. Those who concentrate on NOT sinning, wind up sinning. Struggling with sin is different than sinning on purpose. ”
I don’t see it like that at all. It is about being a new creature in Christ. Repenting is about seeking to be more like Christ. Not making dates with Satan to go “deep with our sin” as some Reformers have taught. Our focus is Christ. But, I will say that we need to “practice” virtue. 1 John refers to it as “walking in the light”.
We are not saved to sin all we want.There is a change or what is the point? Hebrews 10 is instructive here as is all of `1 John.
And I also think many have wrong definitions about what is sin. To give ONE example, some think turning the other cheek to a wolf in the Body who is devouring people is not what Christ was teaching. You hear this all the time in certain circles. I say that is wrong, we stand up to wolves because they claim to be Christians and are hurting people. They may also be false teachers putting heavy burdens on people to follow them. Jesus stood up to the religious leader wolves of His day. Those wolves are still around folks wearing a plastic fish.
“Besides,WHO is teaching that you don’t have to repent PRIOR to becoming a Christian? WHO? I don’t know anyone…not even televangelists. ”
Well, I don’t think we are magically changed in one instant because we say we believe. That is the beginning. We accept the Justification. The Cross. The resurrection is where we tend to miss it. (the book of John has a wonderful correlation to Genesis “creation” and new creation with Christ. On the first day….and so forth. He is communicating the new creation in Christ)
That is why I have a problem with how we have typically understood repentance. Saying “sorry” is not what it is about. It is an inner change that expresses itself outwardly as we “abide” in Christ. Vine and branches stuff.
Honestly I don’t think we are that far apart just saying it differently. The focus is not on past sin or rooting out sin making dates with satan. Our focus is on Christ, it has to be with the indwelling Holy Spirit!. Becoming new creatures in Christ. And yes, we struggle. We are also told that without Holiness we will not see God.
LikeLike
“I’m not saying people shouldn’t say the sinners’ prayer, but how would it be if, instead of inviting people to say the sinners’ prayer, evangelists and other preachers invited people to be baptized? Maybe less seed sown in the rocks, only to sprout and die?”
Where I came from, being baptized was the next step. :o)
LikeLike
“Ah, but Ed. In your revision of my analogy, the failure of consummation was not volitional. Your version of the analogy, though valid enough, only applies to a situation where the new believer, having said the sinners’ prayer, dies (physically) shortly thereafter.”
Like the thief on the cross who proclaimed belief but could “live out” his salvation. He did not have the opportunity to “walk in the light” for long.
LikeLike
“So, what does it mean to believe? The law is our school master to bring us to Christ. Now that we are under Christ, we are no longer under a school master.”
Ed, not to get us totally off track but I am genuinely interested in what you have to say about this as it relates to 1st Century Gentiles who had no understanding or experience with the Law of Moses?
LikeLike
Gary W,
You had said: “but how would it be if, instead of inviting people to say the sinners’ prayer, evangelists and other preachers invited people to be baptized?”
My response: Because this is where you have a bunch of different man made definitions and meanings behind the word baptized. It’s a confusing statement. Change denominations, and it means something different.
John, The Baptist discussed water…but that Jesus would baptize with fire.
Acts 19:
19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
________________________________
LikeLike
But this is the same thing that happened at the Scopes trial. “I’m a Christian, and because I’m a Christian I will close my eyes to any evidence that doesn’t support what I’ve already decided about the origins of life.” Frankly, I don’t want the gospel tied to this. I don’t want people to think that young-earth creationism is part of the gospel, or that if you trust in Christ you also have to change your thinking on this.
What Ham has done is presented Christianity as something that people who disagree with young-earth creationism will want nothing to do with.
LikeLike
@krwordgazer:
Did St Paul describe faith as “the substance of things hoped for” or as “the denial of all observable evidence”?
LikeLike
@chapmaned24:
Wasn’t Ellen G White (specifically one of her visions) the origin of the “Flood Geology” that current YECers (like Ham) take as the Fifth Gospel and invoke to explain ALL the geological complexity of Earth? (Granted, it is a step above handwaving invocation of miracle after miracle after miracle, but not by much.)
LikeLike
So, Gary W, you are one who believes that water baptism doth now save you, huh?
I’m sorry, Gary, I do not believe in physical water saves anyone from anything.
It is a physical show of faith, is what I believe. Pysical water has no magical power.
Eternal water saves. The washing of the water of the word. That saves.
If Baptism is as you say, then the thief on the cross is not with Jesus.
Oh, and we cannot say that his case is different due to Acts chapter 2 not happening yet.
This is why I say that there are way too many different concepts of what Baptism really is.
A sinners prayer is sufficient, because baptism is a spiritual thing, not a physical thing. Your show of faith is the water baptism. We are baptized in the death of Jesus. We are baptized with FIRE. That’s spiritual, not physical. Baptism shows a death to the old, life to the new.
Babies getting baptized is another hot topic. All that does is get the baby wet. It didn’t do anything magical.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
When you said “virtue”, I get it, as long as this virtue is this:
Christian conduct is different than concentrating on not sinning.
We are only under two laws under the law of faith. Love God and Love people.
If we love God, and people, what sin is produced? None whatsoever. The fruit is OBVIOUS, to the sight. You will know them by their fruit. A good tree, a bad tree.
But to put rules and regulations on our salvation is nuts. To tell someone that they are not saved because they say the right prayer, or they didn’t get baptized in physical water, when they were indeed baptized…without physical water, and much other stuff is ludicrous.
Bonhoeffer said that cheap grace is like communion without confession. Really? When was confession a part of communion to begin with? Communion is a remembrance, not a confession. He has many other analogies that curdle my stomach.
Rules, schmules. Get rid of them.
A Prison guard asked Paul what he must do to be saved, and this was the answer:
Acts 19:
30 …what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
The only thing necessary to become a Christian is to BELIEVE. But some don’t believe that. They want to add rules, and rituals.
Repent is part of that belief, because it’s part of the Gospels. What does repent mean? Change your way of thinking. Catholics think it’s penance…to DO something, when Jesus already did do something. Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran. His thought process was much like a Catholic, because all the Lutherans wanted was for the Catholics to reform. They did not want to defect Catholicism. But they did, because Rome was unwilling to reform. Luther didn’t fully understand Grace, yet he understood grace better than the Catholics did. The Catholics criticize Luther for saying, “Sin boldly”. He did say that. So, what we have is that a Lutheran still has Catholicism in his bloood, with all of the do’s and don’t’s rules and regulations an how to be saved.
All ya have to do is believe, but people don’t believe that. It’s just that simple.
What did Abraham have to do to be righteous with God? Jump thru hoops? Romans Chapter 4 states that he was RIGHTEOUS PRIOR TO circumcision, because he believed God. There was no rules. Abraham did not have the law. The law did not hold Abraham captive. There was no barrier. All he did was believe God. How is it that no one believes that?
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Yes, I believe in death bed repentance. The parable is the worker that came at the last hour and got paid just the same as those who worked all day.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
you had said: “Ed, not to get us totally off track but I am genuinely interested in what you have to say about this as it relates to 1st Century Gentiles who had no understanding or experience with the Law of Moses?”
My response: My supervisor in the Navy would always respond with, “What does the book say?” So, that is where I take you. What does the book say?
Acts shows how Paul did it with Gentiles.
I start out with Acts 17. Read that chapter. That is a good start. It gets people interested so that they want to hear more. And they did hear more.
As Paul went up the chain of command in his bonds, he preached God to Gentiles. So, it isn’t what I think, in this issue. I resort to the book. What does the book say?
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
HUG,
I had vaguely remembered a little bit in regards to that. I just Googled that topic just now, and noticed that she called those geologists “infidel geologists”. Yes, she was much like Ham in this case. When I was studying her, I was more interested in why the 7th Day Adventists adhere to going to church on Saturday, instead of Sunday.
They say, “Shall we continue “IN” sin so that grace may abound”, but FAIL at reading the rest, which states, “How shall we if we are dead TO sin live any longer therein”.
They skip part of it, then blame Rome for changing the Calendar. Weird.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
No Ed, I don’t believe water baptism saves. I do, however, expect that a greater percentage of those who receive water baptism are saved, and persist, than the percentage of those who merely say the sinners prayer.
Maybe we all agree that church membership does not save, as Lydia tells us is preached by some.
LikeLike
Well, Gary W, I think it is wrong to keep score, or to maintain statistics as to the percentages of those who “said the prayer” that you are against, vs. those who just got wet as I am against.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
This is a great article and really proves what I’ve been saying all along about Ham. He tries to back peddle and say that you can be a Believer without believing in YEC, but look at his actions:
http://sojo.net/blogs/2014/02/10/gospel-according-young-earth-creationist-ken-ham?utm_content=buffer9b54b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Ham has been backed into corners on this issue and essentially forced to admit that you can still be a Believer without believing in YEC – – – – but – – logically, it’s going to be difficult to believe the rest of the Bible, so the implication is that he questions those Christians who can be Christians without holding to YEC.
LikeLike
I just saw Julie Anne tweet a link to this article: http://tinyurl.com/oedxjcq
I suspected as much. That debate was all about the $$$ to begin with. Notice how that article isn’t touting how the go$pel was shared. It was never about the go$pel. If you research the bonds being offered to fund the ark project, they are the riskiest type of bonds, and AIG is under NO obligation to pay back the debt.
LikeLike
Thanks, BTDT, for adding that link here. I tell you what, I never even thought to wonder about the bond issue. I’m ignorant on that. Someone should give credits on this blog for how much stuff is taught/learned here. I’ll get the most credits for learning 🙂
LikeLike
I had not previously seen the debate, but it was on C-Span last weekend, and I did watch that. I have to say, Ham did a terrible job, quite literally. Nye had Ham on the run.
Nye had asked Ham how Kangaroos got from the Ark to Australia without any fossil proof of their migration. Great question. Ham did not have an answer, and side stepped it. It would have been nice if he had just said, “I don’t know.”
On the other hand, the moderator asked Nye how we have consciousness, and Nye did not know…but he proclaimed that he did not know.
If I was moderator, I would have challenged each person to answer their “I don’t know’s” for the next time they meet for a debate.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
JA, thank you for tweeting those article links. This whole go$pel sharing of the debate is such a farce. AIG is just another money changer in the temple. http://tinyurl.com/lje9xdx
“Northern Kentucky officials, including Williamstown Mayor Rick Skinner, said the project would bring hundreds of jobs and attract hotels and restaurants to a largely rural community about 50 miles south of Cincinnati.
“We’re happy to be the home of the ark,” Skinner said.”
I bet he is.
“Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear has defended his support for the project saying that if the park were to fail, the state would not be out any money.”
But, somebody will.
“Earlier this year, Bloomberg News reported that the ark project was drawing comparisons to tourist attractions from Alabama to Nebraska that have defaulted on such bonds . . .”
LikeLike
Corroborating BTDT’s links posted yesterday, we learn that “a municipal bond offering has raised enough money to begin construction on the Ark Encounter project, estimated to cost about $73 million.” http://tinyurl.com/owby6hh
This is a MUNICIPAL bond offering? Wonder how that gets through the wall of separation of church and state? I wonder if interest payments on the bond issue are being touted as tax free? If so, I wonder how they are getting past the prohibition against tax free municipal bonds being issued for non-public purposes? At least there used to be such a prohibition; I should disclose I haven’t had occasion to check into the issue for several years.
LikeLike
Good thing the original ark didn’t cost $73mil or it would never have gotten off the ground lol
LikeLike