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

[The End]

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

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

A fact isn't open to interpretation.


Consider.


Is flat Earth a viable model of the shape of the Earth? Why not present all sides to the issue?

Evolution is a fact. As much as it is a fact that the Earth is round.

 

[Feenix]

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)

He couldn't teach creationism because it's not science.

Creationism isn't science, its religion. It doesn't have a testable hypothesis, it can't be observed, measured, tested, etc. It. Is. Not. Science.

Ergo, it should not be taught in any science classroom.

 

[The End]

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.

Do you get no enjoyment from life?

If you do get enjoyment from life, what difference does the existence of god make?

I find it very curious that people think ONLY the insertion of an external creator makes anything worthwhile.

 

[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.

 

[KevanG]

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.

Considering the incredibly high heat levels, the dead things all around for a very big distance and other factors it would cause most animals to turn away from going near the volcano. it would take fairly bull mindedness to go all that way and jump in.

Curiosity also allows those that do survive, not everyone does when trying new things, to teach the children these things and the children will work out even better ways to do whatever. Even in death those idiots in the volcano showed that since they didn't come back and say it was a refreshing dip maybe don't do that anymore.

I think this sums it up well.

 

[The End]

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

??? What does that even mean?

This may not be the correct thread for such a discussion, but since its been brought up, you are wrong.

Hal_Jordan is correct. The gospels of the bible were written after the death of Jesus, everything outside the bible that mentions Jesus was written a century after his death. So what support are you talking about?

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Considering the incredibly high heat levels, the dead things all around for a very big distance and other factors it would cause most animals to turn away from going near the volcano. it would take fairly bull mindedness to go all that way and jump in.

Curiosity also allows those that do survive, not everyone does when trying new things, to teach the children these things and the children will work out even better ways to do whatever. Even in death those idiots in the volcano showed that since they didn't come back and say it was a refreshing dip maybe don't do that anymore.

I think this sums it up well.

Curiosity is not the same thing as stupidity.

 

[Tanin]

He couldn't teach creationism because it's NOT SCIENCE.

I can't believe we're still having this "debate." Creationism isn't science, its religion. It doesn't have a testable hypothesis, it can't be observed, measured, tested, etc. It. Is. Not. Science.

Ergo, it should not be taught in any science classroom.

I was just telling a story from school.

Creationism could be a science if they tried to prove it on a natural level rather then say just God did it.

If people want to prove the earth is say 10,000 years old I am not going to tell them they are dumb as anything can be possible. But I expect them to start showing actual hypothesis that can't be dis proven.

They just going to have a very rough time of it.

 

[KevanG]

A fact isn't open to interpretation.


Consider.


Is flat Earth a viable model of the shape of the Earth? Why not present all sides to the issue?

Evolution is a fact. As much as it is a fact that the Earth is round.

Facts should always be discussed and reviewed periodically, just to make sure. t:

 

[JewishHobbit]

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)

If you want to learn more about that, I hear a book called The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel talks about that in a very interesting way. I watched a quick video on it once, and it made a lot of sense, but I've forgotten a lot of it now. I hear the book went into more detail talking about the traditions and ways word of mouth was reliable back then.

 

[SV Fan]

I should point out I don't think Evolution should be taught in first or even 2nd year science. Basically any science courses that are prerequisites should not teach evolution, Evolution should be taught in first year biology basically. In the case of Creationism it should be taught in a religious studies coarse.

 

[DrCosmic]

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.

I agree. This is why evolutionists and atheists baffle me. There's some kind of disconnect between their beliefs and the way they live their lives. This is true of most people, so I don't hold it against them, but still, man.

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.

Wait... what? If X has omnipotence, then the chances of it doing anything it desires is 100%. If Y is nothing, the chances of it doing anything at all is 0%.

To put it another way, God may a timeless entity, a truly higher power that created time and space, as such trying to find a cause for it would be like trying to say what the number 9 smells like. That provides no logical contradictions, and in fact is taught by several belief systems. The Universe however, is not a timeless entity, and we understand it via cause and effect, thus, it not having a creator creates a logical contradiction.

 

[KevanG]

Curiosity is not the same thing as stupidity.

I know. Just responding to the good Doctor.

 

[random_havoc]

Creationism isn't science, its religion. It doesn't have a testable hypothesis, it can't be observed, measured, tested, etc. It. Is. Not. Science.
Ergo, it should not be taught in any science classroom.

Evolution cannot be observed, repeated, verified and is not subject to experimentation. So is it not science and shouldn't be taught in the classroom as well?

 

[Tanin]

I should point out I don't think Evolution should be taught in first or even 2nd year science. Basically any science courses that are prerequisites should not teach evolution, Evolution should be taught in first year biology basically. In the case of Creationism it should be taught in a religious studies coarse.

I agree with this.

 

[The End]

Facts should always be discussed and reviewed periodically, just to make sure. t:

Sure. Discussed, reviewed, open to the possibility that it could be wrong.

But to put something so firmly established as evolution on the same level of serious consideration as creationism is, well, not being factual.

 

[KevanG]

Evolution cannot be observed, repeated, verified and is not subject to experimentation. So is it not science and shouldn't be taught in the classroom as well?

They've done tests on bacteria, viruses and the like charted evolution and adaption to various stimuli over dozens of generations so while on a macro scale it can't been observed it has been so on a micro.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Was my post subtly off topic or something?

 

[KevanG]

Which one?

 

[Superwoman Prime]

I agree. This is why evolutionists and atheists baffle me. There's some kind of disconnect between their beliefs and the way they live their lives. This is true of most people, so I don't hold it against them, but still, man.



Wait... what? If X has omnipotence, then the chances of it doing anything it desires is 100%. If Y is nothing, the chances of it doing anything at all is 0%.

To put it another way, God may a timeless entity, a truly higher power that created time and space, as such trying to find a cause for it would be like trying to say what the number 9 smells like. That provides no logical contradictions, and in fact is taught by several belief systems. The Universe however, is not a timeless entity, and we understand it via cause and effect, thus, it not having a creator creates a logical contradiction.

Oh, thank God. Metaphorically. I thought everyone in the thread had me on ignore.

Which one?

Never mind.

 

[random_havoc]

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

Here's the difference: If we're saying we're sticking strictly with observable, naturalistic scientific perspective then everything, ABSOLUTELY everything has a cause. Therefore to be consistent with evolution and naturalistic perspectives the universe also absolutely must have a cause (which causes an infinite loop with us never having an answer).

On the other hand God by very definition is beyond all physical laws therefore they wouldn't apply to him.

 

[Tanin]

I am sooo looking forward to watching the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate to be honest.

I just hope Ken says more then just 'Were you there'

 

[The End]

Evolution cannot be observed, repeated, verified and is not subject to experimentation. So is it not science and shouldn't be taught in the classroom as well?

Natural selection is observed all the time.
Speciation can be observed.
Mutations are observed.
Fossils are dated, and show transition from apes to us modern humans, that's observed.
That human chromosome 2 is fused from ape chromosomes is also observed.

All this and more has held up to repeated tests.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Evolution cannot be observed, repeated, verified and is not subject to experimentation. So is it not science and shouldn't be taught in the classroom as well?

It is observable, that why there's, you know, extensive evidence. It can not be replicated in a lab because of the very nature of it taking thousands of years. But thanks for trying.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Evolution cannot be observed, repeated, verified and is not subject to experimentation. So is it not science and shouldn't be taught in the classroom as well?

And creationism is more proven and should be taught in schools?