 |
|
|
|
 Science educator Bill Nye, left, will face off against creationist Ken Ham in Tuesday night's debate.
February 4th, 2014
01:17 PM ET
Bill Nye: Why I'm debating creationist Ken HamEditor's note: Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye on Tuesday at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, with CNN's Tom Foreman moderating. The debate will be live-streamed at 7 p.m. ET on CNN.com, and CNN's "Piers Morgan Live" will host both Ham and Nye at 9 p.m. Tuesday after the debate. Opinion by Bill Nye, Special to CNN (CNN) - A lot of people have been asking why I accepted Ken Ham’s invitation to debate the origins of life Tuesday night at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. In short, I decided to participate in the debate because I felt it would draw attention to the importance of science education here in the United States. What keeps this country in the game economically is our ability to innovate. New ideas lead to new technologies, which drive new businesses and new opportunities. Technological innovations absolutely cannot be created without fundamental understanding of science, the means by which we know nature. How many young adults and taxpayers use mobile phones? How many of us rely on global navigation systems that use satellites high above the Earth’s surface to find our way around? Even if you eschew smartphones, you rely on the system to keep airplanes in the sky and ships at sea on their routes. Modern farmers plant seeds in fields with extraordinary precision using information beamed from satellites in space. MORE ON CNN: Ken Ham: Why I'm Debating Bill Nye For the United States to maintain its leadership in technology, we need well-educated science students. To allow our students to come of age without the knowledge gained through the extraordinary scientific insights and diligence of our ancestors would deprive them of understanding of nature and our place in the cosmos. It would also rob our students of their future. Without scientists and engineers to create new technologies and ways of doing society’s business, other economies in other countries will out-compete the United States and leave our citizens behind. Tuesday's debate will be about whether Ham’s creation model is viable or useful for describing nature. We cannot use his model to predict the outcome of any experiment, design a tool, cure a disease or describe natural phenomena with mathematics. These are all things that parents in the United States very much want their children to be able to do; everyone wants his or her kids to have common sense, to be able to reason clearly and to be able to succeed in the world. The facts and process of science have enabled the United States to lead the world in technology and provide good health for an unprecedented number of our citizens. Science fuels our economy. Without it, our economic engine will slow and eventually stop. It seems to me that Ham is a fundamentalist. Around the world there are billions of people, who embrace the facts and process of modern science, and they enjoy their faith. By all accounts, their faith enriches their lives. These people have no conflict with their faith and science. Ham is unique in this regard. Fundamentally, Ham’s creation model is not part of modern science. His idea has no predictive quality or ability. It provides no means to learn more about the world around us. It does not enable students to make consistent sense of nature. So, we’ll see. We’ll see if his model stands up to traditional scientific inquiry: If a certain claim is true, then we would expect a certain outcome. I’m excited and very much looking forward to the encounter. Bill Nye is a science educator and CEO of the Planetary Society. The views expressed in this column belong to Nye. soundoff (2,162 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next »
« Previous entryKen Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
We need to require churches to teach evolution right alongside creationism.
Are you an idiot?
The protection that keeps creationism out of our public schools keeps evolution out of our churches.
Most churches do.
Oh bunk. There is no reason for any churches to be teaching evolution even at churches with congregations that are enlightened enough to accept it.
Nope! The have a right to believe whatever they like, with no outside interference. Taking their drivel into the public square, now that is totally different – there they should be treated exactly the same as astrologists, their predecessors on the evolutionary tree of stupidity.
Kids go to school because it's the law. They are taught ONLY evolution there.
People go to church by CHOICE.
Kids need to be taught critical thinking. How to think for themselves.
You are against free speech?
No. Believers and astrologists have a right to free speech. We shouldn't give them any special status because they believe and spout crap.
If we have to let arrogant and irrational folks like you into the public square, we better let Christians and astrologists.
How have I demonstrated arrogance and irrationality? By daring to say "The emperor has no clothes!"?
You are full of yourself.
Really? At least I can read and comprehend. Where did I suggest denying anyone any right?
Green, You have the right to believe what you want but creationism isn't science and shouldn't be taught as such. There is a well-funded movement to get creationists elected to school boards with the sole intent of changing the curriculum. Creationism is not science. If they want to teach alternatives they should teach the myths of the Norse, Greek, native Americans, Sikhs, etc.
I watched the whole affair. First thing which came to mind was you cannot debate with a lunatic. But Bill Nye did a pretty good job to those of us on the sane side of the equation but I don't think he won over any of the minority (hopefully) zealots. This whole affair was "created" by the creationists as part of their agenda to get "intelligent design" into mainstream curriculum. This must be fought and thrown out at all costs. These creationists know that the only way to expand their base is to do it through children and the way to get through to them is the education system. It should never be allowed to happen.
Logic can't convert zealots. People who are emotionally vested in the whole "salvation/eternal life" scam won't be swayed by mere fact.
By claiming sanity for yourself, you make a wildly, unscientific, unobservable assumption! 😉 Please be more scientific!
I trust that wink is a tongue in cheek. Nowhere did I claim "sanity" nor make any "wildly unscientific, unobservable assumptions. I merely stated the obvious. Ken Ham is a religulous delusional with an agenda which is either to further the cause of his "museum" 😉 or bolster "intelligent" (now there's a w.u.u.a) design. I cracked up when Ham said that evolutionists had hijacked science and then proceeded to pervert the term by incorporating it into his agenda. Joseph Goebbels would have smiled at that.
Also I would have loved to see the late Chris Hitchens in Bill Nye's chair. Bill did an adequate job but Hitchens would have knocked it out of the ballpark and a for sale sign would be on the museum tomorrow but I doubt Chris would have stooped so low and Ham would never have allowed him on scene.
Exactly
Children should be kept from religion. It should be given an X rating
There are fewer of these debates now for a reason. Creationists have been getting their clocks cleaned since the rise of the internet. Their stuff is tailored for lying to the faithful in a church setting, not the fact checking of the internet. In the 90s they were everywhere online. Not so much now.
My takeaway is that Creationism is nothing more than a fancy mega church with a charismatic minster. They want converts and money and some sense of self importance. Bill can try to change the thinking of simple people but it is futile. On the other hand I bet there are a lot of scientists who do not believe in the bible but at least believe in some sort of intelligent design or creator.
Yes, that makes sense. As an outspoken atheist, I think it is extremely sensible to feel as if there is some "ground of being" from which all particles and sensations arise.
This “debate” tonight showed that the religious delusion of creationism, based on a book that is over 5,000 years old cannot stand up to reasoned, rational crtiicism. Ham's constant fall back to “god said this, god said that, god made this” is typical of the weak minded who fall back on the book of fairy tales and fables. At one point Ham questioned how 45,000 year old wood could be found in 45 million year old rock. Wait a minute, Ham, I thought the world was only 6,000 years old, yet you just admitted to 45,000 year old wood. OOPPS!
He never claimed that the 45,000 year measure was accurate. The point was that the dating methods are wildly in accurate and inconsistent.
What I learned from watching the debate:
Scientists have a question, and search for a solution that best answers the hypothesis.
Creationists have an answer, and work it make it apply to every hypothesis that's presented to them.
I'll take science. It can show its work, and is self-correcting. Creationism is a worldview based on a sheep-herder's mythology. It has no place in a discussion about science.
"I'll take science."
Since you watched the debate, what science are you talking about? Observational science or your belief that everything evolvoved from a primordial soup?
All you have to do is ask why god never appears anymore. Watch all the excuses come out. Trying to explain away why god does not appear. He/She/It is too busy, we're too arrogant for asking, gods ways are not our ways, there is a reason for everything (we just don't know the plan), etc. etc. etc. A magical, mystical, invisible friend who's everywhere all the time but just does not appear in physical form for all to see. sad....
God seemed to show up everywhere when relatively unsophisticated tribesmen in the ancient world were writing down their myths. But when there are scientific discoveries that call his existence into question, god is nowhere to be found. Go figure.
Or why the big sky god never regrows someone's missing limb. . Never the obvious.
It is so painful watching young earthers babble about their "science." It hurts. I need some medicine, and a vaccination. Please hurry, the pain is bad, so very very bad.
A wonderfully scientific rebuttal /s
The pain you're experiencing is your IQ being chipped away as you listen to the delusional Ken Ham.
Again. No scientific factual response so you resort to insults.
Appartently you didn't watch the debate.
Genesis 1:1 –> In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Truth.
Prove it.
Make me.
.....
P.S. My response is as juvenile as yours.
Why is his response juvenile? Why should your statement go unchallenged and unproven?
Actually, asking for proof is what adults do. If you make the claim that something is true, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support that claim. So go for it. Prove your claim.
I realize my answer was juvenile, but so was your initial post.
You may think so, and that's fine. I see it as a foundational belief of the Christian faith.
Belief does not equal fact. Claiming that your belief is a fact only makes you a liar.
What if Genesis 1:1 is true?
Given the apparent "don't give a poop" at!tude of the alleged god, I don't think it matters if it is true or not.
"In the beginnining (13.7 billion years ago) there was a particle that eventually gathered enough friends, matter and energy to create a big bang from which the universe expanded, grew, lived, breathed, etc." Prove IT!
I didn't make any claims. You did. Prove it.
If you don't believe the big bang hypothesis, then how did you get here? you must have some "claim"?
Macroevolution -> "In the beginning, matter created life."
Prove it.
Oh, and where did the matter come from?
Ok, where did God come from? who created him?
OK, what about the Hindu creation myths, or the Navaho indian creation myths? Equally true to them.
–
saying something is true without demonstrating it doesn't automatically make it truth my friend, merely another belief.
Nor does the failure to "demonstrate" or "prove" it means that it's not truth.
OK, so lets use your logic exactly. the universe was created from the halitosis of a belching space goat. Truth.
–
Now disprove it. Until you do, it's equally valid as your "truth" – you just said so.
Yawn.
Whats the matter friend? can't counter the argument you started, so resort to theatrics?
–
Pffttt
Prove the existence of God, and then we can talk.
Prove the nonexistence of God, then WE can talk.
I can prove that God does not exist because absolutely not one shred of verifiable evidence exists to prove its existence. Can you provide anything besides a book written by humans?
Prove primordial soup to people evolution.
If you cannot look at the complexity of DNA, as well as the order of our universe, and not actually be persuaded that there is a God, then there will never be enough "proof" for you.
Much like I can't "prove" that Jesus is the Son of God who came to save people from their sins and from judgment.
It is, however, what the Bible says, and one day you will be held accountable.
Another upstanding Christian making proxy threats.
What in the world is a "proxy threat"??? Is this some kind of stockholders meeting we're talking about?
I'm just referring to common sense.
You obviously fail to grasp the very principal of evolutionary theory all together. complexity EVOLVED OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS from very simple structures. Creationists constantly point at complexity and say "explain how that complexity "sprang" into existence without a god" without once ever realising that that is exactly what evolution does – it didn't spring into existence – it evolved over time.
I don't have to understand evolution's theory at all to look at the complexity and order of the world and realize that a higher being creating the world makes much, much more sense than evolution over billions of years.
If you want to believe in the fairy tale of evolution, go ahead, that's your choice.
By the way, you're making an argument from incredulity. The fact that YOU cannot imagine DNA arising without an intelligent designer doesn't mean there exists an intelligent designer. It just shows your lack of imagination (and education).
Actually, I have a law degree. Not that that makes any difference.
You're right about the fact that I have a lack of imagination. Evolution is a result of many people's wild imaginations.
davidchrichton,
You are threatening nonbelievers with hellfire via god, your proxy.
When I said a lack of education, I meant a lack of education about evolution and the like. I am not insulting you, even if you seem happy that I will burn in hell. I've learned to expect that from the morally superior Christian.
And exactly what did I imply, or say even, to make you think I would be "happy" that you will burn in hell ????
"I don't have to understand evolution's theory at all to look at the complexity and order of the world and realize that a higher being creating the world makes much, much more sense than evolution over billions of years."
So you concede your position is based on intuition rather than the available scientific evidence?
You can call it intuition if you like. I'd call it common sense.
Yes. Yes I can look at the complexity of DNA and the Universe and not be persuaded to see the existence of a God of any kind. I have no fear of judgement because no God exists to judge me. I do not live my life in fear and certainly not in fear of you or your God that you are unable to prove exists outside of the fact that a book written by fallible humans wrote.
You may not believe in God now. One day you will, though.
You claim to have a law degree davidchrichton, but your skill at arguing leads me to believe that you never passed the bar and are now flipping burgers at a McDonalds.
Wow. How long did it take you to come up with that?
... via evolution
“In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.”
From the book of Bilbo, 1:1
Truth
When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters mingled as a single body,
No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,
None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined–
Then it was that the gods were formed in the midst of heaven.
Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called.
-Enuma Elish / Tablet 1
Ok... We will teach creationism. Straight from the Koran. Let's see how you handle that one
Bill (sorry, not Ken) seemed to be saying on the one hand things remain constant (which is why you can do date testing today and know it is reliable as it was the same as it has always been, the continents are moving at the same rest as they always have) but then admitted that Newton's second law introduces chaoticness (i.e. not constant( and that the sun keeps pumping out different rates of energy (i.e. not constant) and that the universe is speeding up (i.e. not constant). How does he reconcile both at the same time?
Could someone in the scientific community respond to this? He can't argue things stay the same so we can say the world is millions of years old and then at other times give examples of how things are not constant. It would seem to undermine his whole scientific argument.
You're talking macro versus micro. Bill is only talking about macro when it comes to things like the continents moving at a consistent rate. Bill would acknowledge that on a micro level the continents would have minor fluctuations that when averaged out over the macro do not have any significance. I can look on Google and it'll tell me that I can drive from LA to SF in a given amount of time, and I may very well drive there in that given amount of time. However I may go slower or faster at any given time during the trip. What I won't do is go 1,000 MPH right to the outskirts of SF, then go 0.5 MPH the rest of the way just so Google's average time will work out.
Thanks. He did not make that distinction in the presentation. It could be an oversight. But an awfully convenient oversight for him to pick and choose what is macro and what is micro. My guess is that it is a lot harder for him to do that which is why he avoided it.
Erm, the fact that the universe changes does not mean the laws of physics have changed as well.
Right now, it's dark outside; tomorrow morning, it will be bright. Shall we rewrite the science books?
Erm, Newton's 2nd law of motion IS physics!!!
And the day / night example you site is not accurate. He is saying that there is unpredictability (the universe is speeding up) It would be more accurate to say it is day today and sudden more day (i.e. not constant). Then he at other times he will say things are always constant so carbon dating is accurate because things never change. He just can't have it both ways.
The universe has been speeding up since the Big Bang. It's like how, if you floor the gas pedal at a green light, the car continually accelerates even though your foot is not moving. Crazy, right?
Just to be absolutely clear, I think you're confusing change with chaos. If you push a gas pedal or drop a rock off a cliff, its speed changes at an absolutely predictable rate. I don't know what confuses you about this.
@carshapedstar1
Exactly – there are examples in science where there are not constants – i.e. things can change over time. So he can't argue that using various dating techniques will present accurate results because there is no change and then say that there are numerous examples of change in the universe. It is just too convenient for him to have it both ways.
I don't think you understand what a constant is. A constant is not a natural phenomenon, it's a number we use to understand them. If the rate of radioactive decay were changing, we'd have a hell of a lot of trouble keeping our nuclear reactors running, and yet there's been not one deviation in fifty years.
Shouldn't you provide some proof that the laws of physics are subject to random arbitrary changes? Is this a gradual process or does it just happen whenever Ken Ham decides it does?
@carshapedstar1 To be absolutely clear, then you need to extend the same assumption to Ken. Things are not always constant and can change. Various ways of dating the age of the earth that are based on the assumption that things are always the same is not a safe scientific assumption because there is chaos and or change in science that cannot be accounted for.
@carshapedstar1
I don't think you understand what convenient interpretation is. You are trying to have it both ways. Chaos means things change. The universe is speeding up – chaos or change. Unless you can scientifically account of that over time (and how can you do that as you don't know what chaos has been introduced or what changes have been introduced). The sun gives off different rates of energy – how do you account for that? You can't because you weren't there.
Okay, well if the rates at which radioactive isotopes decay change and every nuclear reactor and atomic weapon on earth explodes, then I guess the surviving scientists will be able to measure the new rate. Ditto for if the constant that translates mass into gravitational attraction changes and all our satellites crash into earth or fly off into space.
Until then, it seems a safe assumption that they haven't changed since we started measuring them. Maybe what you also don't understand is that these things can be checked and in fact are checked. We assume they won't change because otherwise we can't really build anything, but we don't assume that they haven't – it's just that, whenever we re-check them, they're the same.
First of all, it's the Second Law of Thermodynamics, not of Newtons. Second of all, that law does not say anything about speed or anything being constant. It says that all real processes will lose energy to heat which contributes to randomness. However, the law cannot predict how fast the energy is lost. That will depend on other laws guiding the transport of energy.
Ken Ham was wrong to interpret scientific constants as equivalent to constant rates. In fact, science tells us that the rate of radioactive decay is always changing. The rate however is changing according to a exponential rate of which the exponent is constant.
Thank you for the correction. However your interpretation is not correct according to Nye. Go back to the debate. He mentions that it introduces chaos (unpredictability), that the sun feeds the earth with different rates of energy and that the earth is speeding up (ie. it is not constant).
Mr. Nye does not have a Ph.D. in science, and on the spot, he might not present science in the most correct way. Again, just like Mr. Ham, you have the wrong idea about "constant." We know there are constants that guide the rate of things in nature. Not all natural things are guided this way, but many are.
These constants do not mean constant speed. Some things occur with constant acceleration, which means the rate of change is the same. This is how gravity works. Things in free fall always increase speed at a constant rate, which we call the acceleration of gravity. Some things occur with exponential decay, which means the rate is guided by e^(-kt) where k is a constant and t is time.
These constants are all over nature on Earth and in the universe. Each of them affect the speed we measure in different ways, with different equations. Just because some things are speeding up, doesn't mean there isn't a constant involved. The speeding may be constant (v = kt), or it might be exponential (v=e^(kt)).
Ken seemed to be saying on the one hand things remain constant (which is why you can do date testing today and know it is reliable as it was the same as it has always been, the continents are moving at the same rest as they always have) but then admitted that Newton's second law introduces chaoticness (i.e. not constant( and that the sun keeps pumping out different rates of energy (i.e. not constant) and that the universe is speeding up (i.e. not constant). How does he reconcile both at the same time?
"The Bible says...."
The Judaeo-Christian god is a failure. According to CHristians – one can only enter heaven if one truly believes in Jesus and accepts him as their Personal Savings Consultant, or some such crap.
That means that the vast majority of everyone – in the entire history of the world so far and up to this very second – are going to hell. More people have NOT been Christians than have been – so that means that in the grand struggle between Satan and your pathetic yahweee – Satan wins.
Your god is a pathetic loser.
HA HA!
Your words could have come from the mouth of satan himself. I'd think about that if I were you.
Name calling is not going to help your case.
That is the mark of your side of politics, the left-wing ("the Beast") . Other marks are, anti-God, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and pro-gay marriage, but there are many more.
That's a gigantic assumption to make about anyone, chris.
Not only has Satan been winning all this time, he still has some spare time to make personalized toast for people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JuSfRgh0Vo
The fact you don't like doesn't mean "failure". He has opened up a way for salvation through faith and repentance.
What about the pitch for the creationist museum at the start seems they are in it for the money that is what The Ham is after The Almighty Dollar!
Because of Ham i will make an offering to the Ape-Man...
2 things to know about creationism .
The bible in genesis mentions 2 creations. the first its said in verse 1 was destroyed, and the second what christians call creation was actually recreation. I wonder why christians don't ready their bible. how can the earth be without form an void be a new creation. The earth is indeed millions of years old, but in its recreation is a a few thousand years. so sciene and the bible are accurate.
2. If day and night was created on the 3rd day, then that means the first day was not a 24 hour earth day. WE ALL KNOW THAT THE BIBLE SAYS A DAY TO THE LORD IS LIKE A THOUSANDAS TO US. The 7 days of the bible were certainly not 7 earth days, hence why its kepis saying evening nd morning the first day. Time does to start in the evening unearth, so
I could write a book and use the same weak reasoning to say its true.
Wrongo. Science and the Bible are not compatible. The OT is pretty clear on the 6 day creation myth. The thousand days is a later edition. Get it straight.
I wished Ham had asked something more fundamental like, at which point in evolution did mommy nature decide that a living organism needed body systems like a circulatory system, digestive system, etc, etc, AND at which point along a several million year line did it happen, not to mention, how did the organism survive without these systems. I think Nye could easily explain that away.
Now Glenn, you're not being a very honest Christurd, since if you were, you'd state that no matter HOW many explanations you'd get – no matter how scientifically proven they were – you'd STILL not believe in reality and instead believe in fairy stories.
Then again – expecting a Christurd to be honest is a pretty laughable expectation!
Kind of a simple thing to explain compared to an omniscient being floating in a void. This may be difficult for you to understand but any "answer" leads to the ultimate question of "why something rather than nothing?". It is not answered in the bible either. It's not god's autobiography or journal. The trick of religion is convincing you that it answers more than it does.
you really need to read more....
These two people are not qualified to discuss such a topic.
I'm surprised that Nye didn't talk about all the inconsistencies throughout the Bible, or at least some of the statements that are provably false, like saying that bats are birds, that the Moon is a shining light, or that the stars can fall from the sky. These books were written by cavemen who didn't understand what they saw around them. It was only after years of observation - the scientific method - that we came to know facts.
I'm also surprised that Nye didn't talk about many other religions and creation myths, especially those that pre-date the Bible, and which the Bible took from. For example, there were many stories of virgin births, like Krishna and Zorosh, and the flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Why should the Christian Bible, which comes later than these, be special?
2 things to know about creationism .
The bible in genesis mentions 2 creations. the first its said in verse 1 was destroyed, and the second what christians call creation was actually recreation. I wonder why christians don't ready their bible. how can the earth be without form an void be a new creation. The earth is indeed millions of years old, but in its recreation is a a few thousand years. so sciene and the bible are accurate.
2. If day and night was created on the 3rd day, then that means the first day was not a 24 hour earth day. WE ALL KNOW THAT THE BIBLE SAYS A DAY TO THE LORD IS LIKE A THOUSANDAS TO US. The 7 days of the bible were certainly not 7 earth days, hence why its kepis saying evening nd morning the first day. Time does to start in the evening unearth, so
Yes, we read our Bibles. It says a day is LIKE a thousand years. That verse means nothing when it comes to Genesis 1.
I'm glad he didn't get into a scripture debate, that wasn't to question.
to -> the
Bill continually asserts that believing the Bible will cause the US to fall behind the world in technology and progress. Does he forget that this nation was primarily a Christian nation when it became great and now we seem to be slipping? We aren't becoming more Christian, we are becoming less.
YEA!
The US was never a Christian nation. The founding fathers state this pretty emphatically in our treaty with Libya.
We are a secular nation, as the Framers intended.
Now all you have to do is show "cause and effect.". How great, or better, might the USA be without the baggage of religion?
@laajjk,
He was saying that at all, in fact he mention specifically, at least twice, that there are billions of people of faith that accept science. They are not mutually exclusive.
^ *not* saying that at all
no he states the bible in science will slow your economy down. Bill is not responsible for what you understand 🙂
Its a myth that this nation was created as a Christian nation. Quite the opposite many of the people that escaped to here fled oppressive Christianity and wanted to flee nations that force their brand of Christianity & state. The founders themselves were mostly agnostic, atheist or as Christians didn't want a Theocracy. Stop reading history books that have been revamped by Christians, they have an agenda to change history to match their perception of it. Doesn't make it the truth.
Most people had faith regardless of our stated governmental position. Who were the first groups to start hospitals and universities?
This country actually belonged to the American Indians. Christians stole it from them. This nation was founded on freedom of religion, not any one particular one. It's quite annoying that some folk keep shoving their beliefs down the throats of the rest of us. No freedom there.
@laajjk this is a classic correlation vs. causation argument. Just because one thing happens at the same time as another does not equal causation. Just because my car is low on gas doesn't mean taco bell is low on supreme chalupas. Stop making relationships that are convenient to your argument.
Our country did not become great because it is Christian. Our country become great because it sustained the least damage in World Wars and gained the most profit out of it. Another war today however would devastate us because our military are the most costly in the world.
Never try and teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Science proves processes, not origins. And none of you can sufficiently answer my simple question: How can something come from nothing? I have been honestly, sincerely asking this question of evolutionists for years, and not one of you has been able to answer it.
Nothing is unstable.
or
virtual particles.
Where'd your stupid, powerless godlette come from, M0R0N?
The fact that you have to resort to using all caps and interjecting the term 'moron' pretty much shows me the weakness of your position.
... but what has that got to do with evolution?
Who created the creator?
You ask a fair and reasonable question. It is a question whose answer cannot be comprehended by the human brain.
I don't know about that, try me.
In other words, you don't know. It's okay to admit that you don't know, but it's silly to make up stuff like "It is a question whose answer cannot be comprehended by the human brain". That just means that you don't understand and are too intellectually lazy to actually wait for honest answers.
This sounds somewhat of a cop-out, with all due respect.
Most Christians don't realize how few answers the bible really provides them. It's not God's autobiography to be pointed to as if it's all in there somewhere. It's not. Religion is an IOU for an answer and that's the trick of it. It gets people to fill in the blanks in their own minds and pretend it's in the scripture somewhere.
You have cynically swerved into the truth. In Christianity you are presented with mysteries. The dual nature of Jesus is a mystery. The Trinity is a mystery. The Church tells you to ponder the mysteries, which will help you to grow and mature as a Christian. Your cynicism comes from you categorizing this honest intellectual exercise as a trick.
But just because my brain cannot comprehend it doesn't mean that it isn't so. Foe example, I leave my house. I say to my dog, 'I am driving to Florida. I will be back in 3 days.' Those concepts of space and time mean nothing to my dog. He cannot comprehend it. The dog's inability to grasp these concepts of space and time, however, does that invalidate the reality of these concepts. In this analogy, the dog is to humans what humans are to God, relatively speaking of course.
There are many, many things we know now that were at one point not understood. This is why we explore and research and experiment. Those who say "I don't understand" without making the effort to understand are not people to be taken seriously.
It's okay to say "I don't know." What is foolish is to say "god did it" without a single shred of evidence that any god actually exists. One thing is for certain. If god did indeed do it, then something must have created god. Because something can't come from nothing.
Your question is intentionally misleading. We don't know that the conditions before our universe began were "nothing". Whether it's an multiverse, strings, energy ribbon, quantum fluctuations or what have you that's not nothing. No scientist just says, "absolutely nothing became something". No matter what you believe the ultimate answer is something we are going to have trouble imagining. We live in a causal universe. There is always a cause. Dealing with the first cause or the eternal (universe or diety) is just bizarre. We already know our everyday conceptions of normal break down under extreme conditions. Extreme speed, mass and scale change the rules as we know them here and now. Now you want an easy answer the ultimate extreme condition? Good luck. The bible doesn't provide one either. Why something rather than nothing has simply not been answered.
No, something did not come out of nothing. There was always something. You can't have something without nothing, or nothing without something. The two sort of rely on each other to prove each other's existence. I personally believe the universe is infinitely complex to a point where it's impossible to completely figure out, because every answer would inevitably lead to more questions. I think both sides of the debate get a little too heated when again the two need each other in order to know that they have the truth. You can't know what's right without knowing what's wrong.
People act as if these two men are the definative spokespersons for their respective beliefs. Mr. Nye does not speak for all non-believers, just as Mr. Ham does not speak for all Christians. This debate is entertaining. That's it. Neither side can present irrefutable evidence to support their claim. Can't prove or disprove religion or secularism. Probably never will be able to. Funny how mad people get, though.
A smart person will recognize that they may be (and probably are) wrong, whichever side they're on.