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

[Feenix]

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?

Oh, but it can. Look it up. You're just assuming it can't.

But, please, tell me how creationism is science.

 

[The End]

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.

Evolution in terms of speciation does take place.
Even on a smaller scale, such as the wide variety of dogs, is evolution in work.

 

[Human Torch]

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

We've gone over this elsewhere,but that's a foolish statement.
Jesus was mentioned by Josephus,Pliney The Younger,Tactitus and several other sources.

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

I doubt they'd want a record kept of the one person that helped bring their empire to it's knees.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Evolution in terms of speciation does take place.
Even on a smaller scale, such as the wide variety of dogs, is evolution in work.

Oh, but that doesn't count.

 

[JewishHobbit]

??? 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?

If I'm remembering correctly, 3 of the 4 gospels were written by eye witnesses, and the 4th was written by a disciple of an eye witness. That's less than a generation of the original account, and the earliest recovered texts show how little the writings have changed since that time. That much I remember from that 'The Case for Christ' book I mentioned above.

The book was written by an atheistic journalist who had set out to prove Jesus was a myth to prove his wife wrong but ultimately convinced himself that the Bible was accurate by using sense outside of the Bible verses. The videos I saw on it were interesting. One day I'll actually read the book (as well as the others he's written).

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.

I do get enjoyment from life, but knowing that nothing in this lie goes beyond another 40 or 50 years makes all that joy pointless. There being a God brings me a lot of personal joy in a lot of ways that someone who has never believed could never understand. It's like a person who has never had children trying to fathom what it's like having a son or daughter of your own, or a person who hates dogs trying to fathom why some owners treat their dogs like children. They just can't get it until they experience it.

Yes, there are things in life that bring me joy, but with nothing meaning anything what's the point in any of it? Happiness is shallow if all its meant for is to get us through life. That's a very limited way of looking at life, and I'd be miserable living that way.

I think for me, my mind has expanded to fathom an eternity, life with my children is not limited. Time spent with friends does not stop but for a short snippet of time. I've build a mindset that I have a father when I haven't really had a real one in my life, and to lose God would be like someone realizing they've never had a father after growing up with one. I would lose a whole heck of a lot more if there weren't a God than if there was.

 

[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.

I wouldn't dare argue against "eternal" and "all powerful". It's just really hard for me to wrap my human mind around. Thank you for clarifying, though.

 

[random_havoc]

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.

Here's where it's important exactly how you're going to define evolution. By definition, to get from microbes to man requires genetic mutations that over time would have ADDED an incredible amount of genetic mutation over time. In the studies you're referring to there have been mutations that lost genetic information (which can still overall benefit the organism but by definition cannot equal evolution like we're talking about) or already exising information has been duplicated (same problem).
No mutation has ever been recorded that added brand new genetic information in any scientific study (which would have had to have happened consistently for millions of years).

So, no, evolution has not been tested, observed or recorded even on the micro scale.

 

[The End]

We've gone over this elsewhere,but that's a foolish statement.
Jesus was mentioned by Josephus,

A century after Jesus died.

Pliney The Younger,

Over 100 years after Jesus died.

Tactitus and several other sources.

Over 100 years after Jesus died.

Seriously. Look it up.

I doubt they'd want a record kept of the one person that helped bring their empire to it's knees.

If you have to shift your claim until it can't be falsified then why should anyone take it seriously?

 

[Feenix]

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.

Funny thing about physical laws, you have to abide by them.

For instance, no woman, since Mary (as they say) has ever succeeded in getting pregnant with either having sex or having an embryo implanted. Since that kind of technology didn't exist thousands of years ago, it seems entirely impossible that Mary could have gotten pregnant without having sex. And since it has never been witnessed in history and never will be, we can logically assume that the initial report of this "miracle" was either grossly exaggerated or a flat out lie.

No one can suspend the laws of the universe and to say a god can because he says so in a book is not evidence.


Ps. You didn't answer my question: how is creationism science if evolution isn't?

 

[random_havoc]

Evolution in terms of speciation does take place.
Even on a smaller scale, such as the wide variety of dogs, is evolution in work.

No it's not. That's why debates start off often with defining the terms. In speciation dogs lose genetic information which results in larger varieties of breeds. Eg. Some breeds lost the gene that restricted fur growth and so they now have longer fur which is better suited for colder climates. It's beneficial but is a loss of genetic information, therefore the exact opposite of what is required for evolution.

 

[Human Torch]

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.

There isn't any fact,unless you have Doc Brown's Time machine and can give us a first hand account.Otherwise it's all theory,conjecture & speculation.And if that's the case,both sides should be taught equally.

I frankly don't get it.Why so afraid to have Creationism have it's day?If it's so unfathomably illogical as you would have us believe,it'll be rejected.No big deal.

 

[DrCosmic]

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.

Ah, I see. I've never been near an active volcano. Be that as it may, if the other members of the species don't have curiosity as well, then that trait dies out, never becomes dominant. The local cluster learns one fact for every curious individual... they do not become a curious species.

Curiosity is not the same thing as stupidity.

Curiosity is what people do when they leave what works to try new things, correct? For an ignorant individual in competition, that means that they will likely find some new surprising way to die, and even if they don't, they won't be optimizing their resources and thus will be at a disadvantage. Is that stupid? I dunno... is it productive and evolutionarily advantageous? Absolutely not.

But hey, if you guys are convinced that these curious individuals never got themselves killed and consistently found advantages that allowed them to become dominant, good on ya. That's too much coincidence for me. I don't believe individuals can go through life taking ignorant risks and dominate their species. If you do, then you have much more faith in humanity than I do.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Cause and effect within the physical universe...

Physical universe required for cause and effect? Because that's our only frame of reference for it.

 

[DrCosmic]

I wouldn't dare argue against "eternal" and "all powerful". It's just really hard for me to wrap my human mind around. Thank you for clarifying, though.

Yeah, I don't really see the relevance of a God I can wrap my mind around, personally. And to clarify further, I don't mean eternal in terms of existing throughout all time, but extra-temporal, existing outside of time on some real comic book cosmic being stuff.

 

[DrCosmic]

Cause and effect within the physical universe...

Physical universe required for cause and effect? Because that's our only frame of reference for it.

It does seem logical that cause and effect are a function of a physical universe. They are a function of time, and if time and space are the same thing, you must have space aka a physical universe to have cause and effect.

 

[random_havoc]

??? 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?

There is far FAR more historical evidence for Jesus and his life than there is that Alexander the great or even Caesar ever existed.
Here's a video by a man recognized as one of the world's leading experts on the biblical manuscripts explaining in far more detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-RMdX0zi-Q&list=FLBvlpWJYio6dbV0BuvOyt_A

 

[JewishHobbit]

While the thread has mostly been cordial, it's starting to grate on my nerves a little. I'll be back after the debate.

Have fun

 

[Snow Queen]

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.

To offer an alternate point of view, I find there being nothing after this life to make it all the more special.

 

[Human Torch]

A century after Jesus died.



Over 100 years after Jesus died.



Over 100 years after Jesus died.

Seriously. Look it up.




If you have to shift your claim until it can't be falsified then why should anyone take it seriously?

I don't get your reasoning though.Who started Christianity?The Tooth Fairy?
There's is more than enough evidence that Jesus lived.Like it or not,the most hardened skeptic can't prove otherwise.

 

[KevanG]

Here's where it's important exactly how you're going to define evolution. By definition, to get from microbes to man requires genetic mutations that over time would have ADDED an incredible amount of genetic mutation over time. In the studies you're referring to there have been mutations that lost genetic information (which can still overall benefit the organism but by definition cannot equal evolution like we're talking about) or already exising information has been duplicated (same problem).
No mutation has ever been recorded that added brand new genetic information in any scientific study (which would have had to have happened consistently for millions of years).

So, no, evolution has not been tested, observed or recorded even on the micro scale.

The issue I'm making is that under observable conditions we were able to see organisms change and mutate over generations to meet new changes in the environment. It's a consistent adaptation to new environmental factors that took place over time and generations. Whether induced or natural it's still changes to suit a need at the given time in it's environment. They evolved to fit the new environmental niche they were placed .

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Funny thing about physical laws, you have to abide by them.

For instance, no woman, since Mary (as they say) has ever succeeded in getting pregnant with either having sex or having an embryo implanted. Since that kind of technology didn't exist thousands of years ago, it seems entirely impossible that Mary could have gotten pregnant without having sex. And since it has never been witnessed in history and never will be, we can logically assume that the initial report of this "miracle" was either grossly exaggerated or a flat out lie.

What would you say to your daughter if she was pregnant and swore she was still a virgin and had no idea how this happened...while having a boyfriend at the time and she could be killed for having a baby out of wedlock.

 

[random_havoc]

Funny thing about physical laws, you have to abide by them.

For instance, no woman, since Mary (as they say) has ever succeeded in getting pregnant with either having sex or having an embryo implanted. Since that kind of technology didn't exist thousands of years ago, it seems entirely impossible that Mary could have gotten pregnant without having sex. And since it has never been witnessed in history and never will be, we can logically assume that the initial report of this "miracle" was either grossly exaggerated or a flat out lie.

No one can suspend the laws of the universe and to say a god can because he says so in a book is not evidence.


Ps. You didn't answer my question: how is creationism science if evolution isn't?

You managed to entirely miss my point. If there is no God, then what you said is correct, but then ALSO the universe existing is a complete paradox because everything we know about science says everything has a cause, meaning we hit the infinitely repeating loop backward because nothing should be able to exist without a cause.

As to your question, I wouldn't argue that creationism should be taught in a science class. However I would say that the many arguments showing the flaws in the theory of evolution should be taught, and in particular as someone else already posted it shouldn't be taught except ONLY in particular classes. In my own experience it was taught in history classes where it didn't fit, and numerous other classes that had nothing to do with biology or even history. And when I tried to point out problems with the theory I was basically told to shut up.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

While the thread has mostly been cordial, it's starting to grate on my nerves a little. I'll be back after the debate.

Have fun

IE: I stated my case. Everyone found seriously flawed holes in my logic, Im out!

 

[Tanin]

IE: I stated my case. Everyone found seriously flawed holes in my logic, Im out!

That's unneeded and quite rude a statement to assume about anyone.

 

[random_havoc]

The issue I'm making is that under observable conditions we were able to see organisms change and mutate over generations to meet new changes in the environment. It's a consistent adaptation to new environmental factors that took place over time and generations. Whether induced or natural it's still changes to suit a need at the given time in it's environment. They evolved to fit the new environmental niche they were placed .

Again, I'm not denying mutations. But evolution, to get from microbes to man, takes LIBRARIES AND LIBRARIES worth of BRAND NEW information being made by random mutations. Not ONCE has such a genetic information gaining mutation been recorded or even artificially caused. Therefore every example you've given proves nothing