Ken Ham vs Bill Nye (Is creation a viable model of origins?)

[Tanin]

The Futurama's missing link segment is one of the best ever. Too bad most don't take it seriously.

 

[KevanG]

I posted that in one of our other similar threads when someone started talking **** about the missing link thing. I never got a response. I mentioned that a cartoon used actual fossil evidence in a similar debate and that if they so felt the need to verify any of it they could do so using any number of anthropology books or visit any museum or even the Smithsonian and they would have fossil records going back thousands of years to disprove the single missing link theory and that it was a massive chain of links.

 

[The End]

[YT]RxrxnPG05SU[/YT]

 

[Hal_Jordan]

I just get annoyed when people try to state 'facts' with no actual factual backing. Like not taking fossil evidence into consideration when stating that we just popped into existence and cracking jokes about the 'incredible missing link that would prove all theories of evolution but has yet to show'.

I'm perfectly fine if people want to believe whatever as long as they aren't trying to deny vast collections of opposing scientific evidence to the contrary.

But that's the exact problem that creationists...are creating.

I find it most annoying when people talk about truth and proof, then point to the bible as their source. Sure some of it is historically accurate, that doesn't mean it is to be taken literally word for word.

 

[The End]

I posted that in one of our other similar threads when someone started talking **** about the missing link thing. I never got a response. I mentioned that a cartoon used actual fossil evidence in a similar debate and that if they so felt the need to verify any of it they could do so using any number of anthropology books or visit any museum or even the Smithsonian and they would have fossil records going back thousands of years to disprove the single missing link theory and that it was a massive chain of links.

I think one of the most frustrating things are the misconceptions and myths.

To this day, I still see a lot of people online and elsewhere claim scientists have not found 'the missing link', when many links have been found.

 

[KevanG]

[YT]RxrxnPG05SU[/YT]

That be it. t:

It's entertaining as all get out too as I've had similar arguments with people in person. It was in HS, I had a report on something and someone was going on about how evolution was BS. I actually had some resources pulled up for anthropology and started going through a few things which showed the stages and how they changed. He called it lies and stormed out after a few minutes, fun times.

 

[Marvolo]

I just get annoyed when people try to state 'facts' with no actual factual backing. Like not taking fossil evidence into consideration when stating that we just popped into existence and cracking jokes about the 'incredible missing link that would prove all theories of evolution but has yet to show'.

I'm perfectly fine if people want to believe whatever as long as they aren't trying to deny vast collections of opposing scientific evidence to the contrary.

Yep. Like any scientist will tell you there isnt ONE missing link. There are countless transitionary fossils and many have veen found. The evidence for bilogocal evolution is more numerous than the physical evidence for other well accepted scientific facts but evolution gets the attention and denial because it, in the minds of creationists, some how steps on the toes of god and takes something away from him. How that logic works ill never understand, but such is the case.

 

[KevanG]

I'm not really religious and wouldn't identify myself as any form of anything including atheist but I've always really really found the idea of evolution amazing. That we've come from single celled organisms into what we are now, through a guiding hand or not, and we are still evolving! We are still changing. Every generation is just a bit different than the last. Who knows what we can become in thousands or millions of years down the line. Why anyone would want to deny that we are becoming more than we were is beyond me.

 

[Marvolo]

I'm not really religious and wouldn't identify myself as any form of anything including atheist but I've always really really found the idea of evolution amazing. That we've come from single celled organisms into what we are now, through a guiding hand or not, and we are still evolving! We are still changing. Every generation is just a bit different than the last. Who knows what we can become in thousands or millions of years down the line. Why anyone would want to deny that we are becoming more than we were is beyond me.

Well one argument ive heard first hand from a number of fundamentalists is that evolution, in their opinion, takes god out of the equation. And thr idea that we could get to where we are without God shows the pride and arrogance of man. My counter argument is that just because we evolved doesnt strip God out of the equation nor is it arrogance to acknowledge and accept the tools and means that god used to get us where we are. Evolution imo is the kind of huge astounding mechanism that a higher power would use. Not some magic fairy dust to poof us into being as we are now.

 

[KevanG]

Have them play Spore, that should clear it up. I found it's the easiest way to try to explain a combined theory to people. God started it all, guided the evolutionary process into what we are and helped us get to the point where we could use free will and let us do our thing. He still watches and helps out but it's mostly us right now.

Not what I really follow but it combines the two fairly neatly.

 

[jmc]

God has been continuously taken out of the equation for the last 500 years and will continue to do so. Because we don't know all the answers yet doesn't mean we won't eventually figure it out. The thing is twisting science to suit religious text is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. Religious types can't fall back onto their tried and true methods of explaining everything through god because they know the science has emerged in the last 500 years that counter-acts their claims and will continue to do so as technology advances. It's a case of them trying to hold on because they don't want to believe the possibility that maybe some higher power didn't have a hand it who we are.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Yep. Like any scientist will tell you there isnt ONE missing link. There are countless transitionary fossils and many have veen found. The evidence for bilogocal evolution is more numerous than the physical evidence for other well accepted scientific facts but evolution gets the attention and denial because it, in the minds of creationists, some how steps on the toes of god and takes something away from him. How that logic works ill never understand, but such is the case.

For some reason a lot of people see evolution as a bunch of evil scientists trying to prove that there is no God. When in reality that couldn't be further from the truth.

It amazes me the amount of misinformation and just wrong thinking people will convince themselves of just to fit into their own person worldview.

Any time religion comes up as a public topic, its usually about evolution or gay marriage. The resistance to evolution I can at least partly understand, but even accepting evolution as 100% true, it still doesn't prove that there's no God.

The anti gay thing is really weird to me because out of all of the sins(being gay isn't even listed in the top 10)why are Christians so adamant and so overwhelmingly focused on THAT particular sin?

 

[Marvolo]

God has been continuously taken out of the equation for the last 500 years and will continue to do so. Because we don't know all the answers yet doesn't mean we won't eventually figure it out. The thing is twisting science to suit religious text is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. Religious types can't fall back onto their tried and true methods of explaining everything through god because they know the science has emerged in the last 500 years that counter-acts their claims and will continue to do so as technology advances. It's a case of them trying to hold on because they don't want to believe the possibility that maybe some higher power didn't have a hand it who we are.

Im strongly against filling the gaps with god, but saying god set off the big bang or moved the pieces to get a desired end result isnt twisting science imo. The science is still there unharmed and the ubuverse is fubctioning as its always been. The religious people just prefer to think a guiding hand is in the background. Its doing no harm.

 

[jmc]

Im strongly against filling the gaps with god, but saying god set off the big bang or moved the pieces to get a desired end result isnt twisting science imo. The science is still there unharmed and the ubuverse is fubctioning as its always been. The religious people just prefer to think a guiding hand is in the background. Its doing no harm.

I've got no problem if religious folks want to look at it that way, however there is no evidence to support that claim and should therefore not be written in any schoolroom text book. Science should be about dealing with the facts, not religion twisting them for their own agenda and claiming it to also be science.

 

[webhead9707]

Well a day is technically defined as one full revolution around the sun, and the sun, according to the Bible, wasn't created until the third "Day." The Bible also says God took dust and made man. Evolution, in a way, says dust became man. I don't take the Bible at face value, so I'm not dead set on either option. I don't really see how much it matters to be honest.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

God has been continuously taken out of the equation for the last 500 years and will continue to do so. Because we don't know all the answers yet doesn't mean we won't eventually figure it out. The thing is twisting science to suit religious text is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. Religious types can't fall back onto their tried and true methods of explaining everything through god because they know the science has emerged in the last 500 years that counter-acts their claims and will continue to do so as technology advances. It's a case of them trying to hold on because they don't want to believe the possibility that maybe some higher power didn't have a hand it who we are.

The majority of the human population NEEDS to believe in something more than this life. They would not be able to function in daily life without that assurance.

Religion is good for that and it serves a purpose, but when it starts to try and over reach and begins insisting that we treat unprovable stories as facts, and we better live by these "facts" or we're gonna burn for all eternity...it becomes a problem.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Well a day is technically defined as one full revolution around the sun, and the sun, according to the Bible, wasn't created until the third "Day." The Bible also says God took dust and made man. Evolution, in a way, says dust became man. I don't take the Bible at face value, so I'm not dead set on either option. I don't really see how much it matters to be honest.

Who wrote this down in the bible, and when did he write it?

 

[jmc]

The majority of the human population NEEDS to believe in something more than this life. They would not be able to function in daily life without that assurance.

Religion is good for that and it serves a purpose, but when it starts to try and over reach and begins insisting that we treat unprovable stories as facts, and we better live by these ''facts'' or we're gonna burn for all eternity...it becomes a problem.

I am of the belief that as technology advances more and more and our knowledge of the universe continues we as a species will eventually treat the gods that are worshiped today as being on the same level of those from ancient Greece, Rome, and Mesopotamia.

 

[Marvolo]

I am of the belief that as technology advances more and more and our knowledge of the universe continues we as a species will eventually treat the gods that are worshiped today as being on the same level of those from ancient Greece, Rome, and Mesopotamia.

That may be but we will still need belief and faith for the reason Hal stated. People need hope in something more, and i just dont see us removing that need entirely from our species. We need something to look to something bigger than ourselves and separated from our problems. There is nothing but a god or higher power, real or not, that can ultimately fulfill that.

I know that there probably isnt a god, but there are times where in my life where im so rundown and beaten that i just have to hope there is a higher power and that there is a plan cause otherwise id break. That might mean Im weak, I dont know or care. Its what my mind needs sometimes and sometimes i gotta go with it.

But i agree wholeheartedly about keeping this stuff out of science textbooks. In a philosophy or psychology textbook, sure, bring it up, but in science class it has no place.

 

[Tanin]

misunderstood question
edit

 

[Marvolo]

http://carm.org/when-was-bible-written-and-who-wrote-it

Not exactly what you want, but the closest estimates their are considering it wasn't written all at once.

That link is inaccurate regarding the Torah (first five books). Scholars today pretty much all agree that it was written by multiple authors over a number of centuries starting around 530 BC.

Edit: original post removed but the above post is for anyone who went to the link.

 

[webhead9707]

Who wrote this down in the bible, and when did he write it?

Honestly? Not sure. I don't base my beliefs on the old testament quite so much as the new testament though. We have a better idea of who wrote those and when.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Honestly? Not sure. I don't base my beliefs on the old testament quite so much as the new testament though. We have a better idea of who wrote those and when.

But they weren't written by, or even during the time of Jesus or God. Have you ever played the telephone game?

 

[SV Fan]

I find it most annoying when people talk about truth and proof, then point to the bible as their source. Sure some of it is historically accurate, that doesn't mean it is to be taken literally word for word.

I always say Spiderman takes place in New York and New York is real, does that mean everything in Spiderman comics is real as well

 

[webhead9707]

But they weren't written by, or even during the time of Jesus or God. Have you ever played the telephone game?

Haha, that's the same argument I use in regards to the old testament.

My POV, is that it was written close enough to the time Jesus was around, (based on what we know) that if it was inaccurate, at least a few people would have been like "Whoa...Wait..No bro.." Yes, I know that most people at the time were illiterate, but there was more than one priest that put the Bible together. (I believe it had 43 editors, but don't hold me to that.) At least one of those guys would have probably mentioned "Uh...My cousin was there..And that definitely didn't happen like that." Additionally, the priests would verbally share what was written with those around the towns. If something was VASTLY inaccurate, there likely would have been riots or at least stuff worth writing about. That's just part of why I believe, and I'm not gonna say I never have doubts, but I do believe. You don't have to, that's a very personal thing. I do though, and I've thought long and hard about every reason I believe. I deconstructed my faith and put it back together. Hopefully you can at least respect that.