 |
|
|
|
 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.  |
|
|
|
ok, no matter what you believe is what you believe. No one should have the right to tell you what to believe. I tell my 14 year old that you can "hear" both creationism and evolution and make your own decisions. Don't we want people to form their own opinions with information that is out there? I think both creationist and evolution can be introduced and then let it go
Introduced where? In school? I hope that is not what you are suggesting. You can teach your little darlings whatever you want in your own time, just do not attempt to poison/indoctrinate MY kids with something for which zero evidence exists.
Also, please explain why something that has no evidence at all, should be introduced to kids alongside a theory that has been peer reviewed and shown to be correct tens of thousands of times? There's no justification for that.
I am confused. Are you talking about evolution? Evolution is a theory. It is not peer reviewed. Darwinism in its original form has been disproven. And actually Neo-Darwinism says it is impossible for evolution to have happened here on earth. They have said that aliens from another planet seeded the earth with life. So you either have to believe in God or Little Gray people from another planet. But please feel free to take your pick.
No problem, Texasgal. We should also teach that the earth is born on the back of an elephant standing on a giant turtle. And that Odin killed off the frost giants. And that Satan is here to help.
Any other unproven, non-provable myths you want taught in public schools or shall we still to quantifiable facts and theories?
@texasgal,
Presenting them on "equal" footing in a science classroom is a disservice to the students because Creationism is *not* science.
Thankfully you don't get your way. Evolution is backed by much peer-reviewed data, creationism is not. I would hope that as a parent you would care that what your child is learning is based on evidence and not the stories of primitive man who had very little idea as to what was happening in the world around them and in turn invented gods of various forms to answer those questions. There is little excuse to accept the creationism story in the 21st century, there is great reason to accept evolution. Thankfully your child will leave home eventually and realize how silly the creation myth truly is.
But the simple fact of the matter is – CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE.
Creationists (and their Intelligent Design counter parts) have attempted to frame their argument to make it appear as though they're asking for the freedom to explore alternatives in science classrooms. However, it's really the injection of religious doctrine in a place where it doesn't belong.
We have mounds of evidence which corroborates the theory of evolution and even, if by some minor chance, it were proven that evolution is false that does not mean that creationism is, therefore, true. If creationists want creationism to be taught in the science classrooms they need to find some method of scientifically testing, run their tests and publish the results.
Really, this whole thing is as ridiculous as saying that children should be taught both the ideas that the earth is flat and a globe and allow them to figure it out for themselves.
And you're allowed to reproduce? Ugh
Very cheap shot Mr Billl Nye, why are you trying to paint and position Ken Ham as someone against Science. Science and Faith are compatible with each other, that is TRUE Science (not false science).
We would not have had GPS or Cell Phones if it was not of the discoveries of the people mentioned by Eric D (above), who were devout in their faith. May the Lord open your eyes Mr Nye to see Him and His beauty in making this world. We will be praying for God to be glorified and magnified in this debate.
Newton's religious views were hardly mainstream and would certainly upset any mainstream christian. Stop pulling straw men out of history when it's well known that the church of their times would put them to death if they didn't appease said church.
Christian nations have shown a history of supporting and developing sciences, not suppressing it.
The "science" they wanted to control and control the release of. How much was lost in the dark ages in the name of their god?
Truth is its own agenda.
You are talking about power mongers that tried and failed to use Christianity as a political power.
So what, just several centuries of power mongers?
Science and a literal reading of the Bible are not compatible.
@Monzer
"Very cheap shot Mr Billl Nye, why are you trying to paint and position Ken Ham as someone against Science. Science and Faith are compatible with each other, that is TRUE Science (not false science)."
Ken Ham *is* against science. He is the one how is trying to paint a psuedo-science, creationism, as a real science.
Last time I sat in Church, my scientific expertise didn't wreck my mind. And don't know what the problem is of these pseudo-scientific personalities!
Your scientific expertise has done nothing to improve your ability to make coherent sentences.
Huh?
"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.
deGràsse Tyson:
You are a man of faith! I put my faith in a God of the gaps type argument, too!
God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance
– deGràsse Tyson
Can't wait for the new Cosmos!
"Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps....There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons, based on knowledge, rather than default assumptions based on (a temporary) lack of knowledge."
Francis Collins
Second verse same as the first.
I AM
Engineering and Science thrived well before evolution and therefore Nye's argument is just a hoodwink in trying to convince creationism is incompatible to science which is false. But what he's trying to insinuate is that creationism is incompatible to naturalism which is true!
Huh?
wha?
Do you think science and engineering (medical field0 are more precise and offer more tangible results with or without evolution?
Yes... tell me any scientific breakthrough brought up by evolution!
Flu vaccines.
Agriculture and the pharmaceutical industry rely heavily on evolution.
Joe, you're a fvcking moron if you think science and engineering has less to offer with the addition of facts dealing with genetic structure and organic diversity. LOL
Hehehe... and how would a flu vaccine (mutation done through rearrangement of already existing information) explain transformation of molecule to man?
That wasn't what you asked the first time.
@Pete... maybe I need to understand what's your definition of evolution?
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Molecule to man? What's so difficult about that? Man IS molecules! Life is just a chemical reaction. You are made of carbon, potassium, calcium, and other chemical elements. The progression of early, simple chemical reactions into more complex ones (with the sole purpose of consuming available energy sources) is not so hard to understand. Vaccines don't EXPLAIN evolution (you didn't ask for them to), but they couldn't function if we misunderstood evolution. But they are a scientific breakthrough which exist BECAUSE of our knowledge of evolution, which IS what you asked for.
What is the alternative? Magic did it? God purposely engineered 99.99% of all animals species that ever existed to go extinct? He wanted to empower pathogens and parasites? Never in the human history of discovery and innovation have we found a process or phenomenon that operates according to supernatural influence. EVERYTHING we have ever investigated and understood has been found to have a naturalistic origin and function. We don't have the slightest shred of evidence to suggest that life and the universe would be any different.
Could gods have created the universe, and populated this one tiny planet with life? Sure, could have been. Could have been a million gods working together. But the time to believe that is when we have evidence of it.
Why talk to Joe? He actually thinks science and engineering is LESS with the facts of evolution included. Sheer willful ignorance supported only by the need for prideful arrogance.
Or if you prefer any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next
@Pete... thank you for your explanation... but based on your definition (to correct you -> from simple living organism).. this will involve mutation that creates new information in which through natural selection arises more complex organisms! But the issue of flu vaccines does not deal with mutation that gives new information! Just rearrangement of the existing information but the allele sequence remains the same.
"He actually thinks science and engineering is LESS with the facts of evolution included"
what do you mean by this!
@Joe,
"Engineering and Science thrived well before evolution..."
And our ancestors thrived well before walking upright.
Creationism is *not* science.
And where did I state creationism is science... I bet you believe science is naturalism!
Where did I state that you stated Creationism is science?
"... Nye's argument is just a hoodwink in trying to convince creationism is incompatible to science which is false."
science is not a world view but its methodology begins with a hypothesis through an observation (of an event) which is done through a worldview perspective... that is what it means!
@Joe
I don't disagree with that, but Creationism starts with revelation supposedly from the Bible and then searches for confirming facts, while disregarding disproving evidence, which is not science.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith)
@Joe,
"...which is done through a worldview perspective... "
I misread that. What do you mean by this?
a worldview perspective (based on my statement) is how you may consider to interpret the data based on own presuppositions that shape your thinking!
I believe he means before Charles Darwin's 'Evolution of Species.'
Well, he'd be wrong.
Prove me I'm wrong!
Well, he would be right about science being before Charles Darwin's 'Evolution of Species."
Before "Modern Science," science was referred to as "Natural Philosophy."
A link to watch the debate on-line:" Watch it live online: http://bit.ly/LvEW0S
Ok ...let's have this debate ... But so what? what happened to you be you and I be me.... I don't believe but have no desire to proof anyone right or wrong... If you believe and it makes you a better person, then more power to you!
The problem is that some believers in Ham's "model" are trying to influence policy.
Trying? Read the GOP platform. Plenty there to make you wonder about.
but if you push evolution onto the table in every school... isn't that an agenda?
Is teaching physics or chemistry pushing an agenda? Evolution is accepted science. And yes, certain aspects and ideas change about evolution, but so do ideas in physics and other sciences..
From what I've seen, there is an overwhelming lean toward the evolutionary side with school board agendas around the country. Are you talking about those "annoying" small number of people left on school boards or in classrooms, who believe in creation, and, "How dare they be allowed to use their scientific logic"? This debate seems to be about shutting the creation side down. I say this because so many of the comments on this article of the evolutionary belief generally become about calling the other person names or abusing them in crude comments just to shut them up. That is where any conversation ends, and argument, just for the sake of argument begins…and that is completely foolish to meddle with. There is some serious anger toward God when I read some of these!
Scientific research just tells us information. But it is people who make the conclusions about any research, one way or the other, whether a person believes in God or not. Espousing that Science and Creationism are mutually exclusive is ludicrous, considering that God created science by making this universe! We wouldn't have anything to use to work with in science had God not created it! No one has yet created a single cell from nothing! No one knows just exactly HOW God did it, but some evidence is pointing to a big bang...but who knows? The point is not necessarily HOW it was done, but that God did it. Yes, that is also a belief; but belief in evolution is just that, too…a belief. It is not to say that I blindly believe there is a God, because I see the evidence all around me, with no help from macro-evolution. We all make the decisions we do because of what we believe in life, and often times–as is the case of evolution, because of what we WANT to believe, regardless of any alternate evidence we see around us.
See, if there is no God involved, and we’re all just particles in motion, then we can do whatever we WANT to do, because if we had to bow our knee to a Creator, we would have to change the way we live…and many don’t WANT to do that. THAT is theology, a worldview, and NOT science! What is clear to me is that our worldview cannot separate science and belief, because in order to arrive at a conclusion about the result of a scientific test in the lab, we use our worldview to do so...no matter which “side” (which I think is silly to take “sides”, anyway) you’re on! And, by the way, it is my experience that people who have faith tend to be better at making impartial decisions, because they tend to want the truth. Truth seekers make better scientists because they have a better grasp on the reality of God, and therefore don’t believe that they are God! I’m certainly not saying that all evolutionists think they are God; but there are people I’ve talked to who seem to feel they are in complete control of their destiny…until a bout with cancer or some other devastation finds them wanting.
It appears to me that from about everywhere I look, creationism is being methodically and disproportionately smashed in any attempts by those who are non-believers in macro-evolution, by the "politically correct" in our culture. Remember, just because evolution is popular, doesn't make it accurate or true! It just means, in this case, that most everyone on the other side of the scientific story (creationists and Christians) are not being allowed to share a different view in the schools.
If creationists weren't sitting on School Boards and getting elected, then it wouldn't be a problem. But these people, who are USING the very technology and science that they so willfully describe as "wrong" are influencing policy and education. They are a rancid carcass stinking up the future. They are a plague that needs to be gotten rid of, like the notions of blood-letting and the idea that demon possession caused epilepsy.
A lasting dilemma, nearly like communism and capitalism if there's any more to it. Evolution is right that man owes his physical body to the animal. On the other hand the Bible that he creationists hold onto is rather symbolic, it is more an esoteric book. The fall from paradise is about man's descent from a spiritual realm into a physical body, so he could choose.
That is good. The spirit vs the flesh.
Except for the part where were know, for a fact, indisputably, that we are evolved animals. There was no such thing as the Garden of Eden, no sin, no Fall, and therefor the entire Creationist platform crumbles. They state openly on their websites that there is not one single scrap of evidence that will ever convince them to abandon their ideology, no matter how obvious or true that evidence is. They refuse to advance into the modern era and they're holding their audiences hostage as a result.
The atheist is forever relying on term's such as 'us' and 'we'. Always hiding behind his supremely good human intentions. Totally boring. Thesis: find the psychology behind that, and you become as if Buddha himself.
What?
So you came here, had nothing to add and made up something silly??? How was school today?
uhh... thanks for doing the exact same thing.
Well, maybe had the OP not acted like a 5 year old he/she wouldn't have gotten called on it.
So you retort by.... acting like a 5 year old, too?
This debate has nothing to do with atheism. It's about the proof of our origins vs the wishful dreaming myths of our origins.
Right. It is about science. Not atheism.
J-man not teaching creationism in school has nothing to do with being christian or atheist. it has nothing to do with wether or not there is a god. it has everything to do with basic science as stated above. this isnt religion vs science. this is right vs wrong. everyone on the planet used to think the earth was flat or the center of the universe or that the sun revolved around the earth. just like these old ways of though that science put to rest so will creationism be one day put to rest. it isnt possible. dinosaur bones werent put here to test mans faith in god. there are dinosaur bones because dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. plenty of people still have faith in god and know these facts to be true. stop being closed minded and embrace the unknown.
Best comment on this board. Evolution will pave the way for the inevitable elimination of creation myths.
It is really about origins. It can be demonstrated that things change or evolve. No debate there. How life began seems to be the debate.
No, Ham doesn't accept that things change and evolve.
why is he bothering with these willfully ignorant clowns? it will be the same arguments back and forth we always hear, nothing new will be said, no one will convince anyone of anything... but well, it should be fun anyway...
go for it, science guy......
I find it interesting how many insults come from the evolutionists. They can mock new discoveries but they will not research them. It really is the only, "Science," on earth where not examining all the evidence is encouraged. For example, in Paluxy river in Texas there are fossilized dino prints alongside fossilized human footprints. The invite has been extended and is forever open to any evolutionist who wants to examine the evidence. Wouldn't you know it that not even one person has accepted the offer. Though they are quick to try to pass the footprints off as fake.
You cannot mock opposing views in the hopes that they'll go away then call it science. You actually have to research the other side or you've not done the work. And this is why more than half of the earth's population does not believe in evolution. It's a theory that the proponents of refuse to prove. It's because they know they cannot prove it, they've never done the work. It's why they are so afraid of public debates. They have no foundation to stand on.
Lol where did you get THAT info from? Answers in Genesis?
Dino prints and human prints being in the same place isn't such a crazy notion. The problem comes in when "scientists" from Answers in Genesis come in and, with their absolute refusal to understand how radiometric dating works (and not just C-14 eithe,r but numerous other methods) assume that because these prints are in the same place, they must have been made at the same time. No. That's stupid. THEY'RE stupid. You're stupid too if you believe them.
A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
......and your guy gave no answer except because the Bible said so.
...and your guy gave no answer except "I don't know" and "I wish someone would tell me"
Ken Ham stated his beliefs were based on something he holds true. To refute because you do not want to accept what he holds to be true is a spiritual problem on your end. Honestly, I wish I had the faith of an evolutionist. To believe that something came from nothing seems more farfetched than an intelligent being creating everything with order.
And the intelligent being you refer to came from where?? That idea is as equally as far-fetched. As are most of the ridiculous stories in the Bible.
1. The Bible has been proven to be accurate by secular sources. One credit to the historicity of the Bible comes from An ancient historian by the name of Josephus (May have spelled it wrong) had an account of history that lined up with the timeline and events of the Bible and was written separately from the Bible.
2. The Bible states "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man that is in him? In the same way, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. But the unbeliever does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to understand it since it is evaluated spiritually. (1 Corinthians 2:11, 14 HCSB)." To sum this up, because you are not a regenerated being by the Holy Spirit, God and things of God (i.e., a self-existing, eternal, creator God) would not make sense to you.
I challenge all to be as open minded toward Christianity and creationism as Christians are demanded to be to Atheism and evolution. I've learned evolution in school, I've seen "evidence" that points out micro evolution (you may know this as adaptations), but with micro evolution, kinds stay the same. Micro does not give evidence to Macro where a monkey can be bread to eventually turn into a human. But it still makes no sense that by random chance something came from nothing. Unless it wasn't random, but orchestrated by an intelligent creator.
Well said.
Whit,
Would that be the same "intelligent creator" who TOLD Moses, allegedly right to his face that:
– You cure leprosy by having a dove killed, dipping a live one in its blood and having it fly around. Also, you have to anoint the toes of the suffer with the blood.–Leviticus 14
– You discover unfaithful wives when their bellies swell and their thighs rot after they are made to drink some magical water. – Numbers 5
– Prized striped goats are bred by having the mating parents stare at striped objects. –Genesis 30
– You may buy, own, sell, and will slaves to your descendants (only foreigners for slaves, though, no Israelis) –Leviticus 25
- “If two men are fighting, and the wife of one man tries to rescue her husband by grabbing the other man’s private parts, you must cut off her hand. Don’t have any mercy." Deuteronomy 25
There are several other similar instances of absolute rubbish that this "God" purportedly "spoke", along with a bunch of other rules and laws and rituals that are obviously only from the minds of primitive men. How anyone can believe that this stuff came from a real smart divine being is ludicrous.
Actually those laws were in place for a reason. The Egyptians were ruthless and enslaved the Israelites. Moses was chosen to lead them and to learn about God and his laws. Those you mentioned were not carried out randomly. Also there were many other laws for their protection such as burying excrement, to prevent the spread if disease and other laws to protect women and children. When Moses read the laws aloud to the people, they agreed to obey them. If you do real research on those laws you will find the basis for them. Many nations during Bible times were extremely brutal, especially the Assyrians and certainly those laws were meant to protect the Israelites, but God was always merciful if someone was genuinely repentant. You have to know the culture and the history behind them to understand them.
While I overlook you narrow misinterpretation of Old Testament verses, here is some background for your "unintelligent" creator.
Every type of sacrifice ritual was set in place to illustrate to a dumb human that there are consequences for sin and a necessity for atonement.
Every sacrifice was a foreshadowing of the Messiah coming and bridging the gap between God and man. These absurd ritual sacrifices are no longer necessary. Jesus paid it all on the cross, tore the veil separating God from Man and gave the only avenue to spend eternity in paradise with him.
On slaves, they were released on the year of Jubilee and compensated for their work.
The point of this debate was to argue the validity of creationism.
Creationist scientists do not set up an experiment and pray for their results to happen their way. They still follow the scientific method and look for ways to prove or disprove their scientific findings. It is just as valid as evolution and should be given equal consideration instead of endoctrinating youth to believe that evolution is the only one and anything else is stupid.
Good points. I started doing some fact checking on Nye's examples. I started with the tree he referenced found in Sweden, which is said to be nearly 10,000 years old. It turns out that the tree is a self-cloning spruce species that clones itself. Apparently, counting the rings is not an option, so the scientists carbon-dated the root system. If someone has a link to a good reliability study about carbon dating, I would love to read it. From what I hear, there are major problems at times with consistent results. The other oldest living trees range from about 2000-4800 years old. I don't know if carbon dating was used with tree known to be 4800 years old. The others are younger than 4000 years old.
Whit, What peer-reviewed scientific papers have they had published showing their work? All they do is try to refute science that shows that creation did not happen as the bible says.
In Santa we trust,
The scientific community will not peer review works done by a creationist. Many have attempted to publish but are not considered, not because their findings weren't scientific, but because they have a different theory on our origin.
That is one reason why this debate was a big deal. It was one of the few times a creationist wasn't rejected or censored.
Also in the debate, Ken Ham found scientists who did great things in science that were also creationists.
The man who invented the MRI machine. How many lives has that saved? Did he just pray and hope it happened to work? No, he did the research and came up with a way to use magnets and radio waves to illustrate what is going on in the human body. He picked a problem, did research, formed a hypothesis, did trial after trial, recorded data, and showed the world. Had it not been done in an era where God and the Bible weren't as rejected I do not think the scientific community would have accepted it. Now of course that is my opinion, but thank God the machine was made. It's invention helped keep me from dieing.
"The scientific community will not peer review works done by a creationist. Many have attempted to publish but are not considered, not because their findings weren't scientific, but because they have a different theory on our origin."
If this conspiracy were true, then we would expect to see the many submissions along with the anonymous reviewers comments posted on ICR/AIG. The reality is that journals want to publish paradigm-shifting work, but only if it holds up to appropriate methodological standards. Here's the problem for ID/creationism: the alleged mechanism is supernatural. There's no way to test it and thereby, no way to generate positive supporting evidence. This is why the vast bulk of ID/creationism "science" is little more than arguments of incredulity, i.e. evolution can't explain "X" (therefore god did it).
Actually, the supernatural has been tested many times, and has always come up short, nonexistent.
A good example of this is intercessory prayer. Multiple studies have been done which have shown no effect. It proves that a god who listens to and answers prayers, and cares about his followers, does not exist. My brother in law was a believer until his son from a previous marriage died of AIDS. The boy, a hemophliac, got the virus from a transfusion, and died at the age of 12 after a great many people prayed over him.
I'm still torn over whether to call the God claim a failed hypothesis or an unsupported claim. It all depends on how believers define "God" and the arguments they use. Since they usually move or remove the goal posts when evidence against God's existence is provided, I usually go with calling it an unsupported claim.
@HAA – touché
To those who believe the Moses story, there is no archeological evidence of any substantial population of jewish slaves in Egypt. Just another myth debunked by fact.
Ignorance can't be defeated by a single debate... a series of educational revelations can.
InfoVisions:
Struck blind by heavenly light and then....
Act now! operators are standing by to *save your soul*.
But wait, there's more. Die in combat and get 72 virgins. (void where prohibited, while supplies last)
If God created the world, then studying the world will tell us about God.
The conflict occurs when man made religion attempts to speak for God.
@Raymonde,
"If God created the world, then studying the world will tell us about God."
Regardless, studying the world will tell us about ... the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU
Hear it from the horses mouth.
Horses are smarter. They know they have a creator.
sounds like its coming from the horses azz to me. LOL
Hopefully Bill will find "TheTruth" before Bill finds out when he gets to that warm toasty place.
God is not religion. Man started religion.
God created science...DUH!
Finally you are beginning to understand. If you only look at the things of this world that is all you will see. This is why you cannot see God or the things of God.
When you can prove there is something other than this universe we can talk, until then you are just making stuff up as far as I am concerned.
@Fred,
Take it any way you want, but my point was that learning about the world is a worthy goal regardless of what religion or non-religion you ascribe to.
Brrrr,
That is a cold view pal.
Why is that "cold"? We learn about the things that we study. We certainly shouldn't "pad" our findings with speculations, just because those speculations may add "warmth".
Bill Nye, has said that teaching creationism to children is akin to abuse (not an exact quote). I find that offensive. About 80% of Americans identify as Christians. Less than 10% are atheists. Without making up any phony outrage, what kind of high horse does this guy ride to say that. I think not teaching your kids the truth (i.e. that there is a God) is akin to buying them a 1 way ticket to hell. That is not love, that is selfishness.
Can you give us the exact quote? Because if you're making that up, THAT'S offensive.
I think he said something more along the lines of it is o.k. if a parent wants to ruin their own life by being stupid, but there is no reason for them to take their kid down with them.
"If you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems."
I think teaching children that there is a possibility that they will burn for all eternity is utterly ridiculous. What other Dark Ages garbage are you infesting your children's minds with?
Exactly how do you measure the possibility that you will burn in hell as being any greater or less than the possibility that our existence is an accident of nature?
1. Who is saying that we're an "accident" of nature? That sure would be fvcking stupid.
2. You can't MEASURE the possibility of some fantasy with zero proof at all. How fvcking retarded.
You have absolutely ZERO evidence to back up your threats of hell or any kind of afterlife. THAT is why we can toss it out into the garbage heap of other stupid ideas.
Cpt
If intelligent life was not the result of infinite combinations of matter and energy over billions of years (i.e. not an accident) you have accepted some form of design theory. You will make the science guy cry for sure.
TallusRip
"You have absolutely ZERO evidence to back up your threats of hell or any kind of afterlife. THAT is why we can toss it out into the garbage heap of other stupid ideas."
=>Colin set up the devil strawman not I.
=>Then you must do the same regarding any suggestion or false statement that science has evidence to back up a claim of no god needed. Put your no god treats in the garbage heap of other stupid ideas until such time as you come with evidence of no god needed. Last I heard even the big bang theory is now out the window as we wait for a consensus to form around the birth of the universe that happened after a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole and ejected debris.
Yep. I consider it child abuse, and it should be outlawed. No parent should teach their children that some big bully might torture you forever in a pit of fire if you don't repeat a certain magic spell with the right emotion to go along with it. It causes brain damage.
I consider it child abuse to limit a child to naturalism. Science can only measure what is and always defaults to consensus to determine facts which are never true over time. It is amazing that anyone would limit a child and force them to believe there is no truth and what truth there is will not be true in the future.
For sure the best thing to do with children is to not offer them a choice. Don't tell them both views then let them make their own informed decision. By all means prevent them from researching opposing points of view just like the evolutionists. Force them into your view of truth and never let them prove you wrong.
I would think if you are that confident about your viewpoint you'd be happy to let them hear all points of view knowing they will eventually settle on your truth, if that's what it is. But it's not truth and that's why there is an issue. And y'all know it too.
I am talking about the evolutionists who refuse to go research Pawluxy River in Texas. Not a single one of them will go see the fossilized human footprints that are alongside fossilized dinosaur footprints. The offer has been extended and turned down by every one of them. But they are sure quick to mock the find.
Teach kids ABOUT religion all you want. All of them, not just the one you subscribe to. Let them be the judge of all these ridiculous mythologies that have spilt rivers of blood and held back human prosperity for millennia. After all, the more you inform people, the better judgement they can make. When you teach all religion from the same platform, of education rather than indoctrination, most kids will count them ALL as ludicrous and cast them off, as they should.
For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
identifying yourself as christian doesnt mean you believe in creationism.
D'oh! beat me to it.
If you don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis then why be a Christian. Do you believe that Jesus came to forgive the original Sin of a metaphor?
@Pete,
"Do you believe that Jesus came to forgive the original Sin of a metaphor?"
Personally, that seems easier to rationalize than a literal Genesis, but hey that's just evidence.
I don't personally believe that the death of Jesus has any bearing on my life. For me it makes no sense to be a Christian if you don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and thus I am not a Christian.
Christians don't really believe the bible, if they did then they would live it.
Christians are pagans, plain and simple.
The Messiah's name is YaHushuWaH and it is by this name that men shall be saved. Hey Zeus is named for a false god and that name will get you nowhere.
@J-Man,
You are conflating all Creationists with Christians, which is inaccurate. Many Christians accept evolution just fine.
Your aversion to reason is offensive. Christianity is dead. Humans do not need religion.
Well according to a recent Pew Research study – the number of Christians around the world has nearly quadrupled in the last 100 years, from about 600 million in 1910 to more than 2 billion in 2010. While the world population has also increased at the same rate ... i'd venture to say that by the numbers (agree with the need for religion or not) ... Christianity is far from dead.
And secularism, or its big brother, atheism, has grown exponentially to about 20% of the US population in just the last 10 or so years. Europe is almost completely godless at this point, and they are faring SO much better in EVERYTHING they do. The higher the religiosity of a region, the greater its ills and misfortune. When you consider how many people consider themselves Christian or Jewish just for the sake of tradition and ceremony, but don't actually believe, then the number of secularists rises even more. I've read that some 50% of Isreal is atheistic at this point. Christianity may not be "dead" but it's sure not doing fantastic either.
It is growing in third world countries where people are by and large uneducated. While it is declining in most of the developed world.
"Europe is almost completely godless at this point, and they are faring SO much better in EVERYTHING they do. The higher the religiosity of a region, the greater its ills and misfortune."
Really? Tell that to the tens of millions murdered under Josef Stalin.
Being offended by something isn't an argument against it.
Indoctrinating your children into a cult and not letting them make up their own minds is selfishness and hubris.
The same can be said if you deny them hearing about creation. Tell them both sides and let them make their own choice.
I'm pretty sure the qualification of his statement was "when you teach creationism AS SCIENCE". You are of course free to indoctrinate your children into whatever religious belief system you choose. Genesis is a valuable fable for stewardship and responsiblity. However, teaching them that Genesis is a science text is as bad as breaking a bone as far as their future capacity to work and be a productive member of society. Worse, even, since modern medicine can often cure a broken bone but has no answer for willful ignorance.
Medicine cannot heal a broken bone. The human body heals itself, that's the way YHWH made it. Just wait for a season and it will heal. Modern medicine cannot even speed the process up by a day. Not even a single minute. The human body heals itself.
Teaching Creationism to children is abuse in that it willfully ignores established science and handicaps their educational progress. It's similar to a parent willfully withholding life saving medication from a child in favor of faith healing.
Ask how many twenty-somethings are Christian. Kids are gullible. Ask that same group of kids again when they're 30, and I bet by that time it will no longer be 80% Christians.
Most people under thirty are not thinking a lot about being dead.
Hammer home the facts and call out his delusions Bill.
Do it for the kids and their future. They need your clarity and support.
Give'm hell Bill.
Love your last sentence, "give'm hell Bill. That is exactly what he has to offer and he gives it out generously. I prefer to say, no thank you to a generous helping of an eternity in Hell. Have a nice day.
What makes you think anyone would want to go to your heaven? Your god is a tyrant.
When I lay down to go to sleep, or slip into a coma and eventually die I wouldn't mind going with Jesus because in my dream life he's always been nice to me when I dream of him.
I know you are thinking, it's just a dream, well if am slipping off into a coma guess what I'm left with..my dreams. Once my brain is incinerated you can argue it wont matter then.
Sorry, but you're full of it. Hell doesn't exist, not in the gleeful way you want it to be.
Even Jesus said that.
I've dreamed of that before too. Not a fun dream to have. I'd much rather be able to wake myself up or move into a more comfortable dream (see above post).
God sends people to Hell just for determining that we should have evidence for what we believe to be true, rather than falling back on "musta been magic"? When you get to Heaven, do me a favor and explain to God exactly what it was that lost him so many followers. A little emphasis on demonstrability and falsifiability would've helped him save millions more, if that's what he cares about.
What about these delusional people: : Kepler, Bacon, Descartes (I think, therefore I am), Pascal, Newton, Maclaurin, Bernoulli, Galvani, Volta, Ampere, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, Kelvin, Marconi, Carver, Planck, Heisenberg, Von Braun, and Pollard (Manhattan Project).
These people are not scientific lightweights. And all were devout in their faith. Let's think about how life might be different if people like you (and Bill Nye) were to control who is ALLOWED to be a scientist. First and foremost we likely wouldn't have the computers either of us are using (Volta, Faraday, Galvani, Ampere) nor would we necessarily have the understanding we do of Quantum Mechanics (Planck).
Oh well, I guess the dark ages weren't so bad after all.
How many of those people claimed to believe in god just so they wouldn't be burned at the stake?
Nye makes a distinction between people of faith and those whose fundamentalist beliefs are at odds with science. The scientists you mention all fall within the first group.
Bill specifically mentioned that there are those who embrace both their faith and science. If that is the case, then there is nothing wrong with that. Ken, however, is not one of them.
Ken is precisely someone who embraces both science and faith. It's clear you have read nothing he has ever written. He does however distinguish between operational science (things that can be tested and are repeatable, like physics) and historical science, (things that are not testable and must determined using presuppositions and examination of evidence, like creation and common descent.)
What about these delusional people: : Kepler, Bacon, Descartes (I think, therefore I am), Pascal, Newton, Maclaurin, Bernoulli, Galvani, Volta, Ampere, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, Kelvin, Marconi, Carver, Planck, Heisenberg, Von Braun, and Pollard (Manhattan Project).
I believe you can be a mad man and still accomplish great things in science.
I don't think teaching todays kids ancient myths as fact will do them any good.
Eric this is a typical response I see from Christians every day it seems. First you realize guys like Newton, Pascal, and Descartes lived and died hundreds of years before the science behind evolution was even around? You do know most of those men you mentioned were not biologist? I also don't recall many of them arguing for creationism. To add it was punishable by death in some of those countries they were from to not adhere to Christianity.
Bill's already in trouble. He's expecting Ham to allow logic to prevail.
Bill is a mechanical engineer. Ham should be debating an evolutionary biologist.
Bill does not have a clue.
How to deal with Ham's completely failure when it comes to scientific principles? I'd agree with that.
he has. Dawkins has debated him many times, but he never learns from Dawkins or anyone who has a brain.