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

[Hal_Jordan]

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

In a few hundred years, it might be considered actual history.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

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.

Actually, that would have made the different recollections even more confusing.

Especially considering that this is "the word of God." How is that considered, "well, close enough."

 

[SV Fan]

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

I am still wondering if Jesus had a sermon on the mount(matthew) or plain(luke), something got lost in translation between this event.

 

[webhead9707]

Actually, that would have made the different recollections even more confusing.

Especially considering that this is "the word of God." How is that considered, "well, close enough."

As you like it, friend.

 

[DrCosmic]

How can creation not be a viable model of origins? "It was made that way." Is the topic more nuanced than that?

It doesn't seem to me that evolution is a viable model of origins. It's so unlikely, and it's all coincidence, but no one treats life like it's one big coincidence, everyone searches for fairness and meaning, and that self awareness is a very disadvantageous trait, but every human being seems to be born with it. Evolution may describe how we got from a ball of hot denseness to bipedal scientists, but it doesn't explain the search for meaning that drives people, that some people find in the pursuit of evolution as an origin for the universe... it doesn't even explain the origin of that ball of hot denseness that supposedly exploded. It's a nice theory for use in medicine and such, but to evolution as the origin of everything? I dunno man, if you can't answer "Where did the first thing come from?" and "Why do we care where we came from?" then I don't think you have an origin story.

 

[webhead9707]

How can creation not be a viable model of origins? "It was made that way." Is the topic more nuanced than that?

It doesn't seem to me that evolution is a viable model of origins. It's so unlikely, and it's all coincidence, but no one treats life like it's one big coincidence, everyone searches for fairness and meaning, and that self awareness is a very disadvantageous trait, but every human being seems to be born with it. Evolution may describe how we got from a ball of hot denseness to bipedal scientists, but it doesn't explain the search for meaning that drives people, that some people find in the pursuit of evolution as an origin for the universe... it doesn't even explain the origin of that ball of hot denseness that supposedly exploded. It's a nice theory for use in medicine and such, but to evolution as the origin of everything? I dunno man, if you can't answer "Where did the first thing come from?" and "Why do we care where we came from?" then I don't think you have an origin story.

I thought Batman Begins was a good origin story..

 

[KevanG]

"Why do we care where we came from?"

We're curious monkeys that's why. We don't know where the first thing came from so we look for it using things we build. That's what we do. We build. Fish swim, birds fly, Humans build. We build to sate our curiosity. We don't know things so we have an urge to find out. If that leads to more questions? Then JOY! We have more to do, more to find out and more to learn. That's the ultimate things that drives us, not safety or contentment, curiosity. We have this burning urge to know more. That's why so many people get a rush from solving problems no matter the source. We may find out what the universe was like before and where everything came from or we may not but the fun isn't the knowing, it's the learning.

 

[DrCosmic]

Evolution describes curiosity as advantageous? Because I find it to fall on the dying side of natural selection.

 

[JewishHobbit]

A Christian Scientist came to my old church once, and I wish I could remember every detail of what he said, but he was the first person to ever make the 6,000 years argument sound logical to me. I don't remember much of it, but I know it had something to do with the theoretical layer of water that circled the Earth prior to the Flood. I don't recall the details, but I remember something about how the way we measure age of fossils, rock, etc. would be completely messed up if that was not accounted for. Then he explained a bunch of studies and crap that showed how if the world was covered in water, fossils would be measured closer to 6,000 than what scientists believe.

It was a pretty awesome presentation with a whole lot of scientific facts, geological studies, etc. from sources both Christian and non.

I wish I could remember the guy's name, but that was over ten years ago.

 

[KevanG]

Evolution describes curiosity as advantageous? Because I find it to fall on the dying side of natural selection.

Really? Why wouldn't curiosity be a good thing? It gets the brain working which makes the creature smarter and more inventive over time. Eventually it can lead it to migration of the species and making it more widespread thus increasing the overall population. Curiosity means that new things will be tried and means that they could become tool users which leads to building which means a demand for more brain power which makes them smarter. It's a cycle that can end badly say if they get curious if an active volcano is just water and they all jump in but those would be idiots not reflecting the entire species.

 

[webhead9707]

"Why do we care where we came from?"

We're curious monkeys that's why. We don't know where the first thing came from so we look for it using things we build. That's what we do. We build. Fish swim, birds fly, Humans build. We build to sate our curiosity. We don't know things so we have an urge to find out. If that leads to more questions? Then JOY! We have more to do, more to find out and more to learn. That's the ultimate things that drives us, not safety or contentment, curiosity. We have this burning urge to know more. That's why so many people get a rush from solving problems no matter the source. We may find out what the universe was like before and where everything came from or we may not but the fun isn't the knowing, it's the learning.

I have no actual comment, but dang that was poetic man.

 

[KevanG]

Thanks. I enjoy the debates we have here. I can't remember where I heard/read it but ever since it was first described to me that humans build because that's what we do, it's stayed with me.

 

[Tanin]

A Christian Scientist came to my old church once, and I wish I could remember every detail of what he said, but he was the first person to ever make the 6,000 years argument sound logical to me. I don't remember much of it, but I know it had something to do with the theoretical layer of water that circled the Earth prior to the Flood. I don't recall the details, but I remember something about how the way we measure age of fossils, rock, etc. would be completely messed up if that was not accounted for. Then he explained a bunch of studies and crap that showed how if the world was covered in water, fossils would be measured closer to 6,000 than what scientists believe.

It was a pretty awesome presentation with a whole lot of scientific facts, geological studies, etc. from sources both Christian and non.

I wish I could remember the guy's name, but that was over ten years ago.

That is the form of creationist science I respect.

 

[Human Torch]

To put it into state textbooks isn't analogous to freedom of speech; that's a state promoting a certain view point, creationists are not owed that sort of platform, that's not a freedom of speech issue. Teaching children to reject scientific reality is dangerous. Evolution is spread across many fields of science and you're effectively barring children from being effective in those fields by teaching them creationism.

There is nothing "dangerous" in showing both sides of an issue.

It's more "dangerous" to present only one as "fact".

 

[KevanG]

That's true enough. Every side in a debate should have a fair and equal opportunity to state it's case.

 

[JewishHobbit]

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.

I think this is completely accurate, and I'm the perfect example.

My faith is the lowest it's ever been, dangling by a string. I still hold on, not because I truly believe, but because I refuse NOT to believe. Nothing's convinced me that religion is right or wrong, I've just slowly realized that I struggle to maintain my belief.

There are multiple reasons why I refuse to let go, but one of them is the notion that if there really isn't a God, then I don't really see the point in living. What's the point of a measly 80 years that result in nothing and everybody forgetting you? Why would any of us want to live such a disappointing and miserable life? Blow up the planet so we no longer exist and we'll be accomplishing just as much then as currently are in life. Art is pointless. Love will always end badly in death. Children are simply the beginning stages of descent to nothingness. I don't want to live in a world that is so absolutely pointless and miserable.

Why would any of you want to live such a miserable, disappointing life without any hope of any kind that matters? And for that matter, why do you (spoken generally) embrace that so much that you feel everyone else should also live such worthless, nothing lives?


This isn't being said disrespectfully, but in my eyes, without there being a God and something to look forward to post-life, there isn't any reason to live now. Nothing matters.

 

[DrCosmic]

Really? Why wouldn't curiosity be a good thing? It gets the brain working which makes the creature smarter and more inventive over time. Eventually it can lead it to migration of the species and making it more widespread thus increasing the overall population. Curiosity means that new things will be tried and means that they could become tool users which leads to building which means a demand for more brain power which makes them smarter. It's a cycle that can end badly say if they get curious if an active volcano is just water and they all jump in but those would be idiots not reflecting the entire species.

How would they be idiots? How would they know a volcano was active? That's the thing about curiosity without a knowledge base, it leads to a swift, swift death. Curiosity is good for a species, because the species can learn from those that die from curiosity, but it is not good for an individual, it does not allow an individual to dominate in a highly competitive environment.

 

[Tanin]

The science teacher in our school taught us Evolution. He told us about when he couldn't even teach evolution because it was a touchy subject just years before as he grew up too. He also taught if we wanted to learn about creationism to check the library as he couldn't teach any of it in the curriculum. (Note this was 15 years ago)

 

[Hal_Jordan]

A Christian Scientist came to my old church once, and I wish I could remember every detail of what he said, but he was the first person to ever make the 6,000 years argument sound logical to me. I don't remember much of it, but I know it had something to do with the theoretical layer of water that circled the Earth prior to the Flood. I don't recall the details, but I remember something about how the way we measure age of fossils, rock, etc. would be completely messed up if that was not accounted for. Then he explained a bunch of studies and crap that showed how if the world was covered in water, fossils would be measured closer to 6,000 than what scientists believe.

It was a pretty awesome presentation with a whole lot of scientific facts, geological studies, etc. from sources both Christian and non.

I wish I could remember the guy's name, but that was over ten years ago.

It would be nice if you had more specifics, but that tends to be the creationist viewpoint.

It's all very vague to fit into whatever facts are presented when criticized.

 

[Human Torch]

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

The Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other work of classical history including Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tacitus.So...yeah,try again.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

If God exists without a cause/creator, why can't the universe exist without a cause/creator?

The latter seems more likely. The universe lacks sentience by itself, much less omniscience, omnipotence. The chances of the physical universe coming from nothing are far greater than an ultimate being coming from nothing.

 

[SV Fan]

The science teacher in our school taught us Evolution. He told us about when he couldn't even teach evolution because it was a touchy subject just years before as he grew up too. He also taught if we wanted to learn about creationism to check the library as he couldn't teach any of it in the curriculum. (Note this was 15 years ago)

Thing I don't get is how the hell is creationism "science"

The Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other work of classical history including Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tacitus.So...yeah,try again.

There is no other proof Jesus existed other then the bible. You think if a guy healed the blind and rose from the dead that would be top news of the day or at least get some coverage in real time

It should also be pointed out Egyptians were articulate record keepers and not one mention of Moses

 

[Tanin]

The Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other work of classical history including Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tacitus.So...yeah,try again.

The problem is that while the stories have stayed the same since manuscripts have been around... the stories are from before written history.

We don't know how much they've changed due to oral historical telling before they started putting pen to paper (so to speak)

 

[Hal_Jordan]

There is nothing "dangerous" in showing both sides of an issue.

It's more "dangerous" to present only one as "fact".

You are wrong. Just look at propaganda like "Reefer Madness," to see how it made a generation of people terrified of a plant that never killed anyone.

It is dangerous to tell people Superman is real, or whatever other things you want to make people believe that have no basis in reality.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Thing I don't get is how the hell is creationism "science"

"Cuz you cain't prove that it isnt!" "Neener neener neener!"