 |
|
|
|
 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.  |
|
|
|
Very easy Debate.
"God Created" Science. God and His Creation wins......no matter how MAN has screwed things up because of sin and disbelief.
Debate over.
that was easy. a no brainer for no brainer folks. lol
Just as easy, and lazy: "God did it."
Evolution did it.
...Or, there is no God. Far easier to understand/accept the messes we are in and how the universe functions today without Man having to run a god-puppet justifying everything.
Agreed. Once you buy into the story that a big invisible sky wizard chanted magic spells for six days only to wind up with a universe so fragile that one twist of one woman's wrist threw the whole thing into nuclear meltdown, there's really nothing left to debate.
But god created man, and his creation has flaws, so god fucked up and made mistakes and god isn't perfect so he isn't a god and doesn't exist as such.
Back to the drawing board for ya, sonny.
I believe that Santa did it.
easy.
Except as Bill points out, that does not progress knowledge. That STOPS knowledge. If humans accepted as religion would like that God is the explanation and think no further, we would still believe the world is flat and the earth the center of the universe. Religion actually burned people at the stake for suggesting such heresy.
Science on the other hand embraces challenges to theories IF the challenge improves predicting outcomes. Religious challenges however do not help predict any event, describe any phenomena more accurately or have supporting evidence for their challenges.
They should have invited someone else who's understanding of Evolution compliments their faithfulness to God.
There are those of us out here 😀
There are actually MANY of us out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR8qIrJcJh4
Raymonde, apart from the inherent conflict in your statement that renders it fallacious, it's "whose", not "who's", you stupid moron.
Another jobless English major trolling for grammar and spelling mistakes...
Go for it, Mr. Nye. His arguments are empty.
A dog can produce a big dog, small dog, etc. but a dog will never produce a non-dog. A dog cannot and will never create a new species. Microevolution is science. Macroevolution is a religion.
Your ignorance is astounding. Please tell me that you're not on my "side." You are a god believer, yes? I sure hope so with that sort of stupidity.
What is your side? The atheist troll side? Good grief, nobody wants to be on your side.
Mr. Nye, you should not be giving creationism any publicity by debating a con man like Ken Ham. THERE IS NO DEBATE on this issue. It is 100% certain that creationism is fairy tale non-science, and over 150 years of mountains of evidence in favor of evolutionary theory make it extremely unlikely to be replaced by any other scientific theory. Don't give creationist fraud like Ham any credibility by sharing a stage with him. It does nothing for science and gives creationism completely undeserved cred.
Obviously creationism vs. evolution is in the eye of the beholder. That said, when I grew up the only part of creationism was in the Pledge of Allegiance (one nation, under God). I believe the creationists want creationism taught in public schools is because not as many people are going to church and therefore are not exposed to the other views. But that's just my opinion. I believe in the separation of church and state (no doubt a simplistic view many evolutionists use) because the states pay for public schools and it should be the parents' responsibility to teach the bible, whether it's themselves, by going to church, or sending the kid to a school based in religion, like catholic school, or the Jewish learning process, or Muslims, or any number of other religions whose roots are in creationism. And that makes me think, if creationism is taught in public school, who's version will be taught? I understand there are over 50,000 religions in the world? Which one is right?
How silly. "Eye of the beholder." No, evolution is proven scientific fact, not "beauty." Educate yourself.
The term isn't literal, it's a way of saying creationism and evolution are beliefs. I believe they are also learned, not innate (as in born "with"). I *am* educated in science and, in fact, an atheist, which means I am an evolutionist. I also have my own opinions that you or anyone else can disagree with, but as long as no one tries to jam their ideology down my throat I'm respectful of their beliefs. You might consider educating yourself about proverbs, metaphors, respect and the danger in making assumptions. Just thoughts for you to consider; not trying to ram anything down your throat.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but it seems to me as if you're doing a bit of azzuming, yourself, there. I take issue with your initial description because it seems soooooooooooo wrong to use it as you did. So much so, that I find it to be irresponsible of you. Maybe you should conduct some sort of poll to see what others think about it.
I have no problem w/having a 'Religion' class in jr highschool, for ex! Providing that it teaches the History of Religion & represents the 10 most widely utilized religions, incl. their varying belief protocol, it should be presented in a purely 'scientific study' of how religions have become so important & have such an impact on the human race! Studies should include similarities & differences of various religions, as well as all stories of Creationism! Popol Vu & the Epic of Gilgamesh come to mind! However, creationism has no business in a purely scientific arena & I think Bill Nye will 'clean the floor' w/Ken Ham's as.sertions! Science is not a 'belief system' or a 'religion' as KH likes to purport & creationism is not a viable 'alternative' to scientific theory! It's religion & has no theory to back up its claims! I agree w/BN that KH is a fundamentalist, I'd say one who thinks we'll all go to hades if we don't think like he does! Separation of Church & State-let's keep it that way!!
Just for the record. Creationism is not a biblical theology or science. Its a hodgepodge of BS science and BS theology. Please do not associate the Christian God of the universe (who himself is the ultimate scientist) with childish notions trying to identify themselves as Christian belief. For me every science book makes me awe even more at God. Creationism is like a bad childrens book. Missing pages and any sound plot. If creationism is true then God is boring.
"If creationism is true then God is boring". That's a great way to put it. The universe is staggeringly vast – "vast" as in if the universe were depicted on a piece of notebook paper, individual SUPERCLUSTERSof galaxies wouldn't be visible – and the simplistic BS that creationism tries to pass off as "science" doesn't come remotely close to explaining the formation of the earth, let alone the entire universe. I'm not a believer, but really... if there is a God, then using creationism as an explanation as to how he/she/it created the cosmos would be a complete insult to such a staggeringly powerful deity. I'm an atheist, and even I have more respect for God than that! lol.
Regarding the "Great Debate" one thing we can take to the bank: that NOBODY'S mind will be changed as a result, definitely not those of the "christians". In fact, putting both "arguments" on the same platform only serves to weaken the one supported by logic.
Why elevate stupidity?
My feelings exactly. Science is tarnished every time a scientist debates a creationist. Many creationists are actually very slick debaters, and science-literate people are often not – as they're busy with, you know, actual science. It's easy for many creationist debaters to overwhelm a debate with Gish-galloping and other devious techniques. To put it more succinctly – debates are not about anything but who's the better debater, and the facts really don't matter. And no matter what the "outcome" of the debate is, the creationist debater somehow always claims complete victory to his followers. Debates like this are a farce, and Nye should tell Ham to shove it and refuse to debate – although at this point if that happened that con man Ham would just crow that Nye was "too scared" to debate him because "God's Truth" etc. Bad move, Nye.
I guess none of you can figure out that you've never proven the Theory of evolution and you still refuse to look at the facts presented by the opposing views. Hatred for YHWH does not make Him go away.
Hatred for creationism won't make it go away either. Neither will mocking it. If you want it to go away then you have to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is not real.
A good start would be to actually research the opposing viewpoint just as all creationists have read up on evolution. Most of us heard that crap in school. We know both sides of the argument whereas evolutionists have no clue what they are arguing against. They've never researched it.
In the Pawluxy River in Texas there are fossilized human footprints alongside fossilized dinosaur footprints. Dr. Don Patton has extended an invitation to any evolutionist who wants to come examine the evidence for himself. Would you believe that not once in the ten years the offer has stood has anyone taken him up on said offer. They refuse to look at opposing views. This is not science.
Science looks at all the information presented then comes to a conclusion. Evolutionists skipped that step and just came to the conclusion without doing all the research. When one of them takes a trip to Texas I might find them credible. Until then they have no credibility whatsoever.
This is why they are all afraid of a public debate. They haven't done the proper research and it will show tonight.
Anomalies do not a representative sample make - but they're great for "proving" faith-based nonsense, aren't they!
See, this proves my point right here. Idiot sounding off that it's an anomaly if you haven't even seen it. Mocking something you've not researched does not make it go away. That's what a first grader would do.
A professional scientist would go look and make some scientific observations so as to prove it an anomaly. A fool will simply mock just as you have done. Thank you for the example.
Scientists have examined them and debunked you claims.
It has now been conclusively and scientifically demonstrated that the supposed man tracks are not those of humans. Both sets of tracks are highly weathered, so it's impossible to draw too many precise conclusions. The "man" tracks appear to be not human in origin but seem to have a few different features collaborating to form the illusion of human tracks, including excessive weathering of the details and some carved features that may have been doctored at a later date. There are numerous other tracks attributed to humans, but none stand up to any scientific scrutiny. The Burdick Print[1] seems to show a well defined human foot preserved in stone, but given the 15 inch length and the hilariously over defined toes (for something that would have been imprinted in soft mud) only an idiot would suggest they were anything but a forgery. Nevertherless, close scrutiny has been done and confirmed most tracks like these are forged carvings being passed off as genuine fossilised human footprints. The State Park Ledge tracks, small indentations found in a rock formation in Dinosaur Valley, Somervell County, Texas, have been jumped on by track enthusiasts but are just later erosion features with only a superficial resemblance to anything actually man-made.[2]
1. Glen J. Kuban and Gregg Wilkerson, The "Burdick Print"
2. Glen J. Kuban, A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy
I've personally examined a cross section of the human footprints and they have compression below the balls and heel. This can only occur if a human stepped in wet mud compressing the mud to make such patterns.
Are you referring the the Same Glen Kuban who was found destroying the evidence? He was caught smashing them with an iron pick pole. See, no credibility in the ranks of the evolutionists. As I said, no true scientist has been there yet.
Citation please.
Further info on Kuban's research:
Kuban and geologist Gregg Wilkerson described anatomical errors in the "footprint", and remains of algae which indicate that is was carved into the bottom of a limestone slab, similar to other tracks that were carved in the Dinosaur Valley State Park area.
The fact that all you have are lies and things that have been proven false doesn't bode well for your side.
The proof that you are lying.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/rebutt.html
SMN, why are you debating Deacon when it is clear he hates the actual facts? If he ACTUALLY cared about the truth, it's all over the place, proved in thousands of labs across the globe in every minute of every day, it's in mountains of genetic research and accurate modeling of speciation in conjunction with genetic facts. Only someone who despises the truth would state the pure bvllsh!t Deacon is spouting here.
Let him wallow in his filthy lies. He deserves them.
Since you are going to keep lying about it:
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.
Not considered credible by people who have never seen them in person. This is what I am talking about. Y'all mock and mock and mock and never look at the evidence. This is not science, it's a joke. When someone credible examines the actual evidence in their own hands under a microscope so as to see the compression pattern in the mud I will listen to what y'all have to say. Until then, you've been proven wrong and that's why you mock the evidence instead of examining it. Mock all you want, it is there and it is fact. Oh, there's another set in the Ukraine too. Kind of hard for multiple finds to be hoaxes. How many will it take for you to realize the evidence does not support your claim? That's how science works. You make your conclusion based on the evidence, you don't define the evidence by your own preconceived notions. The evidence is there but ignored. Y'all know nothing of science.
They aren't considered credible by anyone, not even creationists consider them credible, and they will grasp for anything.
Asked and answered.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
Wow, how remedial. Another article by someone who's never been to the site.
The human footprints are at a 90 degree angle to the dinosaur tracks and are obviously human. Five toes can be identified in several of the prints. And they are travelling in a different direction than the dinosaur. If the writer had been there he would know that.
Anciano
Why do so many of you believers keep getting the name of your god wrong?
YHWH...uses the W which was not used until the 1400's. Why would your god be named with a letter that didn't even exist? The translation from the hebrew would be YHVH...most closely pronounced Yea-vah.
Oh and by the way...he was made up by men.
Why are you correcting something you have no knowledge of? Oh yeah, you're an evolutionist, you're used to it.
YHWH is the name He spoke on the top of Mt. Sinai. In those days they spoke Paleo-Hebrew and it had a Wod not a Vod. The only time a human ever heard the Father speak His own name it was in Paleo-Hebrew and it was YHWH pronounced YaHoWaH. I know the name of my G-d and the rest of the world will too as soon as He decides to act.
How did it get spelled with a w then?
The w wsn't a letter until the 1400's. YOU clearly do not know the name of your god.
He was made up by men so it really doesn't matter what you call our imaginary friend.
"I guess none of you can figure out that you've never proven the Theory of evolution"
LOL.
You have absolutely no idea how science works.
You mean I've no idea how pseudo science works. Real science works like this.
Hypothesis to Theory. At the theory stage you examine all the evidence for yes, and all the evidence for no. ALL THE EVIDENCE NOT SOME OF IT. Mocking new finds without proper research is not proving anything.
Once the evidence is presented for both sides, then a conclusion is made based upon the stronger evidence. You have to research both sides, not just the one you favor.
As I said, do all the work not just some of it. Lets look at history shall we?
For thousands of years we hear accounts of the flood. Then modern science is able to discern that every last square inch of planet earth is covered in sedimentary rock. That's rock that forms under water for you evolutionists. Support for the flood.
Mt. Everest has marine mammals on it. Marine mammals supports the flood account which supports the creation account.
Two witnesses confirm the flood account. But somewhere along the line some godless person sought to try to explain away YHWH, blessed be He. So he foolishly tried to explain away the evidence and make a story up about it taking millions of years to form. Though no one can ever live for millions of years to confirm it. It is unprovable science. Yet shouted as fact by every evolutionist out there.
Real science would say, we have the flood account first. Then the evidence we found supports the account.
Oh, and at it's current height, Mt. Everest is only 95,040 years old at the very most. Do the math. It grows 4 inches a year. At that rate it would take it 95.040 to grow from sea level to it's current height. And, if the geology is correct, the better part of the mountain formed in a single collision event, such as we would have seen during the flood. This means Everest could easily be no more than 6,000 years old.
I meant to say marine fossils on Mt. Everest.
Anciano
The sea fossils on the top of Everest are from the period when that area was under water, but it has nothing to do with any flood. That area was under the oceans, then due to the shift in techtonic plates, everest waspushed up, while the edge of the other plate was pushed down. The fossils at the top of everest are from MILLIONS of years before your noah was around. Those fossils do not bolster your flood calim, since they can be tied to a time on the earth that you don't even think the earth was around for.
It really amazes me that people still believe these ridicuous myths that have been proven false. Hopefully you will wake from your made up fantasy.
Creationists claim to have research evolution, but so many of their ideas about it are wrong
Yes .. try looking up those fossils on Wikipedia before accusing others of not doing their research. - Scientists HAVE examined them and largely found them to be hoaxs or NOT in fact human footprints.
They've looked at pictures, they've not been to the site. That's not science.
You read a non-science book, that's not science.
Actually they have been there. Where do you get the idea that they haven't.
Okay in satan we trust and Pete, you've not allowed replies?
When did I claim to be a scientist? It's not wrong to look at all points of view. I'm a member of MENSA, I have four Master's degrees and an IQ of 170, and I wholeheartedly know YHWH is the Creator of all that is. He revealed Himself to me, as He has a habit of doing, and I know He is not just real, but very powerful and about to make that power known to all the world. Of course most will learn this as they perish. It will be too late then.
Pete, the only people to go there have all be caught vandalizing the evidence. That's because it is real and they are too proud to admit the are wrong. So they attempt to destroy it and discredit it. Too many people have seen them and proven they are real.
Dr. Patton took a cross section of one of the prints and examined it in a lab under a microscope. They found the compression pattern under the print is that of a human. It cannot be anything else. It's this compression pattern that tells the tale.
Glen Kuban was caught in the act of vandalizing the prints. Why would he bother? If they are fake why would he do this? Pride, He's afraid to admit he's wrong, like all modern people, scientists or otherwise.
"The more we learn about the nature of the physical universe, the less it looks like a great machine and the more it looks like a great thought."
–Sir Arthur Eddington. OM, FRS
Where is the problem with embracing both science and God? To each his or her own, but I fail to see the contradiction or how God and science are mutually exclusive of one another?
I know few actual "scientists" who also happen to hold Ph.D. degrees or their equivalents (unlike the "Science Guy") who truly believe there is an actual controversy here. For most real scientists, personal belief or disbelief is merely an individual preference, nothing more. Moreover, personal belief (or disbelief) is generally not only accepted, but respected as well.
There are many leaders in any and every field of observation today and throughout history who "believe," and many others who do not.
With few exceptions, it is generally the less educated and researched variety who insist upon the existence of an actual conflict between one's spirituality and the natural universe as we have observed thus far in human history. I think the hallmark of any scientist worth his or her salt is the one who keeps an open mind to any possibility, rather than declare his or her own personal views as absolute and conclusive "proof."
That said, I think most real scientists would agree that this "debate" is really nothing more than an exercise in absolute futility and irrelevancy. Best.
Toddler dances...cute!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG43HlFz3-I&feature=player_detailpage
Bill Nye dances... hmm...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zEcph0q24g&feature=player_detailpage
Hey atheists, have you witnessed evolution happen right before your eyes? Do you believe everything you're told?
We have faith in what other people have told us.
Hey troll. Have you ever witnessed a talking burning bush, talking snake, a person turn into a pillar of salt, a person dead for 3 days come back to life, or any evidence whatsoever of your god?
BTW – not an atheist, but thought I'd help you out with your own question.
How do you know what I believe? Do you always assume every non-atheist is a Christian? You know what they say when you assume...
OK -assumption removed. What is your belief?
Thought as much. Buh bye, troll.
i cant pretend believe in something i dont, and i dont. dont tell me we all have our doubts, this isnt doubt. i believe in science, i believe in evolution, i believe in nate silver, neil degrasse tyson and Christopher Hitchens although i do admit he can be kinda an ass hole. i cant stand behind a supreme being who weights in on the tony awards, but sits back while millions are cut down by machetes. i dont believe a billion indians are going to hell. i dont think we get cancer to learn life lessons and i dont beileve people die young because god needs another angel. i think its all bull crap and on some level we all know that, dont you?
Here is one current example of evolution, happening right before our eyes: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/shorter-winged-swallows-evolve-around-highways
YES!!!! EVOLUTION HAS BEEN OBSERVED!!!! The issue most religious people have is the theory of common descent. That still has a mountain of evidence in its favor though.
Everyone believes things they're told. A science student can't be expected to discover germs for himself. Nor can he discover the law of gravity on his own. Education is the process by which knowledge people had in the past is passed on to future generations.
Are you trying to say this is wrong?
And if you're a person "of faith," aren't you, too, believing what you've been told? You didn't talk directly with the people who wrote those scriptures, have you? You don't even know the names of the people who put the scriptures in writing. Nowhere do those scriptures claim to be the words of God, yet you believe that, without having to discover it for yourself from scratch. You're as "guilty" of believing what you're told as those you accuse.
Whether to believe what we're told should have a basis in reliability. What we're told should be subject to analysis of its fact content, its derivations, etc. A person who really DID believe everything he was told would go nutz. There'd be too many contradictions for him to find any basis in rationality, let alone any balance, since he'd have to believe them ALL.
What people are told is dependent on who is doing the telling – and what their motives might be. When it's a "believe it, or else" kind of thing, there's good reason NOT to believe it.
So your comment is revealing – about YOU.
Well, all I can say is that Bill Nye uses the word "create" several times: "Without scientists and engineers to create"... You CAN NOT have a created without a creator – my computer didn't appear out of nothing and everything that is did not appear out of nothing..
I am a born again Christian and if what the atheists believe is correct then I have nothing to worry about, but if what I believe is correct – the atheists have everything to worry about and I still have nothing to worry about.
That's called Pascal's wager and it's fundamentally flawed.
Maybe you should look it up.
What John said.
Next.
"You CAN NOT have a created without a creator"
Got a paradox here. How then does a Creator exist if the creator is not created?
Russ
"you CAN NOT have a created without a creator"
Then explain your god. How could he exist with out a creator, or the one who created the one who created your god........
See the HUGE problem with your statement?
That's only if you're right about your god. Wanna see what I more legitimate "Pascal's Wager" would look like? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/09/23/pascals-wager-expanded-edition/
Post by 'Russ' contains both a form of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy, and the flawed argument known as Pascal's Wager.
http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
Better add Strawman Argument to that list. Russ popped in at least one of those too.
Pascal's wager is no more flawed than atheism is flawed. Or any opinion you hold.
If god created us in his image, why are there black people and white people?
Two explanations;
1. He isn't real.
2. God is a panda.
Black and white people are both people. Created in God's image doesn't mean we simply look like God. Like, God doesn't have 2 ears and 2 legs like most of us. It means we know things other creatures don't. Like the difference between good and evil.
I bet our entire universe is just in a tiny glass jar placed neatly on a shelf in an alien child's room as a science project he got a C- on
"Like the difference between good and evil." According to the popular story, we were not created with that capcity. Just sayin'.
Or we could both be wrong and end up in some other god's version of hell.
A just god judges people for who they are, not for what their minds tell them is likely to be true or not. Therefore a just god would still save atheists if they were good people. The christian god is supposed to be omnipotent. If so, he will know who are the true believers and who worship him only to be on the safe side. Therefore it is not likely that a person who worships God because of Pascal's wager will go to heaven. This is sometimes called the Atheist version of Pasca'sl wager, since it says atheists will be better rewarded than theist hypocrites, and thus if you do not believe in god, you shouldn't lie and say you do.
Just goes to prove that what God says is correct.....
Psalms 14:1, 3
The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
"They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
More negativity from the Christians. This is what is so wrong with this religion and why it's so bad for our society.
It's not a religion – it's a relationship. God said it and that settles it.
God doesn't judge the individual, He judges the sin. That is why Jesus Christ came and had the sin of the world laid on Him – for sin to be judged. He took our place, our punishment, the punishment that we (myself included) deserve. We all deserve the eternal torment that sin brings, but Glory to God, He sent His only begotten Son to die in our place and suffer the punishment we deserve. If we don't accept the payment that Jesus offered on the Cross then we are telling God that we will pay for our own sin ourselves and that we don't need His or anyone else's help. We are telling Him that we choose to pay the sin debt ourselves via any measure He sees fit to give to us. So, it's not a religion – Jesus Himself spoke against religion – calling them hypocrites. He calls us into a relationship. He says for us to come to Him for forgiveness – for He paid it all.
As well it should be since life without YHWH is as negative as can be. The consequences of standing against Him will be brutal. A little negativity to save your soul is well worth it. We cannot control your acceptance of it. We were charged with preaching so we will preach as commanded. If we didn't have to correct the corruption of the world so often we could be more positive and uplifting. We won't uplift the damned. We will show them the negativity in store for them if they don't repent.
Russ for you to post that snippet of scripture out of context proves your mind is corrupted in negativity and you Christianity is a religion and is a very negative influence on society because if someone doesn't believe as you do, you think they are no good. Well guess what people who don't believe in your god have done good things regardless of what your fantasy is telling you.
When God looks at us He sees the sin. The sin is what must be destroyed and when we die in our sin, God destroys that sin that is attached to us and thus we are destroyed also.
It's a personal choice and a personal question: am I 100% capable of settling this sin debt with God on my terms? or do I need His help? I myself, choose His help via Jesus because I know the things I have done. I know the thoughts that flow through my mind. I know what kind of vile person I am and I also know that now when God looks at me, He sees His Son and what He did, not what I did.
"If we didn't have to correct the corruption of the world so often we could be more positive and uplifting. We won't uplift the damned. We will show them the negativity in store for them if they don't repent."
The negativity continues to prove my point about your religion. Give examples of what you find corrupt or have you been watching to much TV again and blame the world for the faults of a few.
"When God looks at us He sees the sin. The sin is what must be destroyed and when we die in our sin, God destroys that sin that is attached to us and thus we are destroyed also."
Thanks for proving my point on your negative outlook on life and why your religion is so bad for our society.
@Pete.. I have never said that a non-believer isn't capable of doing good things – as a matter of fact, I have known several non-believers that have been "better" people than some Christians that I know (I'll never deny that).... But what I am saying is like the Bible says in Jer 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:" and I agree with that. Regardless of who you are or what you believe.... You have thoughts and feelings just like I do.. That don't make me any better than anyone else, but it does mean that I acknowledge what I do is wrong in the eyes of a Holy & Righteous God.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:" "
Again with the negativity and why your religion is founded on it. There are millions of people who don't believe in your god that have done tremendous things for others and they don't have a wicked bone in their body.
On God's standards we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. That is why He so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not parish but will have everlasting life... John 3:16
Pete, I can say that I believe that you are a good man and an honest man and for that I do say thank you for our own debate. May God bless you and your family. May He keep you safe and secure.
Maybe evolution was the tool God used to create life, maybe?
@Steve from Texas
nope.
Which god are you referring to Steve?
The God you spend all day arguing against.
That'd be all of them...care to be more specific?
I don't believe in any gods, so please tell me which god.
The God that you don't beleive in.
Let's try this...everyone has a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong.
Let's start with those who beleive in God, if they are wrong and there is no God then nothing gain nothing lost, but if they're right and there is a God and they live a good life they earn a place in heaven.
Those who don't beleive in God, like you truthprevails1, if you are right and there is no God then nothing gain nothing lost, but if you're wrong and there is a God, then you're f***ed.
The only time we'll know the "truth" is after we're dead, so good luck with your thoughts on whatever you think the truth is.
Steve From Texas. Resorting to Pascals Wager does nothing for you.
So I live a good life, I keep an open-mind but yet due to not accepting your bible due to the lack of evidence to support it and thus in turn accepting your god...I am automatically doomed for hell.
Yet many a murderer/rapist/etc who have repented will get a free pass to heaven.
This somehow makes sense to you??? Wow, even IF you are right and I am wrong, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near most of you. I can't imagine supporting harm to another person-what a horrible thing.
All you have done by making the claim you have is proven exactly what your belief system does-instills fear and plays on the gullible!
Steve,
This is known as Pascal's Wager, and it is one of the worst arguments for your God.
First of all, I disagree with your premises. Not all ideas have an even chance of being true. Those with more evidence have a much greater chance of being true. It's not like anything and everything people have claimed has an even chance of being correct.
Second, I disagree with your premise that if you believe, but are wrong, that you have lost nothing. I would say you have lost a great deal. You have spent your whole life believing a lie, and organizing your whole life, your way of thinking, everything around this lie. Furthermore, if you are going by this logic, you have done this out of fear. Fear of being wrong and being condemned for it. Basically, you have accepted intellectual shackles, and surrendered your intellectual freedom and any purpose you might have come up with for yourself not bound to this phantasm.
Third, any sort of God who would send people to eternal torture for the thought crime of skepticism is putting naivete a virtue to the exclusion of any other moral. Such a being is NOT good! Such a being is capricious, shallow, and malevolent. In which case, all the believers who ascend to Heaven are forced to worship and love a being capable of torturing people for all eternity purely for non-belief–some people may be ones you know and love, since you cannot know a person's true heart yourself (question–would it still be Heaven to you? Knowing that your mother and father are being tortured forever for a secret doubt they hid from you? Would Heaven still be Heaven as you watch your parents writhe in agony in Hell below?). If such a monster exists, you have as much to fear as I, because this being is capricious and malevolent, and in the vastness of eternity, sooner or later they will find a reason to torture you too.
Fourth, the whole Wager assumes only the existence/non-existence of a single religion's god. But there are thousands of God beliefs. If one grants the premise of condemnation for choosing the wrong god, then one should expect condemnation simply as a matter of probability.
Fifth, we do not simply "choose" to believe. It's not like you're just choosing the Beer you want for the Superbowl. These are heavy duty questions about existence, and we believe because we are either persuaded or indoctrinated. And I CAN be persuaded. I've been persuaded many times, and I would love to believe that my dead father is still alive and I'll join him when I die–so I'm not unmotivated to believe. I'm just not persuaded of religion's claims, because you have no evidence. Why is that? If God is all-knowing, he KNOWS what would persuade me and any other doubter or follower of another religion. If God is all-powerful, it would be extremely easy to do so. Why doesn't he? The most likely explanation is that he doesn't exist.
Which god?
Yes! Science is the study of God's creation.
That is a very fair statement.
That is " Science is the study of God's creation."
paul
No reason to think there are any gods, and no evidence of same. science is the study of what is...we do not know if your god, or any gods for that matter, are.
Sure. No reason for you to believe in God. But there are reasons for other people to believe in God. Very good reasons. And very intelligent people believe in God, too. There are probably people smarter and more logical than you that believe in God.
Thanks for sharing your personal opinion.
Good call Paul D. I am a member of MENSA, I have four master's, and an IQ of 170. I know for a fact YHWH exists. We are surrounded by the evidence.
170 IQ – Then you should be well aware that intelligence is no gaurantee against illogical beliefs. Indeed, intelligent people are often much better at rationalizing their beliefs than other believers.
That being said, I'm always open to new evidence. What have you got?
Here is one problem with that:
For Evolution to be valid, it requires "the presence of the ancestral fossils prior to the emergence of the first forms of animal life," which are completely missing from Charles Darwin's research and from Evolutionary Biology to date! Meaning, life DID NOT evolve!
Furthermore, "there exists no evidence in the fossil record that any species has ever evolved from another species since no undisputed transitional forms have ever been discovered."
[
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, (why) do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”
Charles Darwin
]
Every form is, by definition, a transitional form. You're a transitional form between what your ancestors were and what your offspring in the distant future will be.
However, if you want to see, for example, the halfway point between a fish and a reptile look up Tiktaalik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
Massive Hoax as has been every single other supposed missing link. Never once has there been an honest find. Shame on you liars.
http://harunyahya.com/en/Articles/28445/how-was-tiktaalik-roseae-turned
Do you not think that science has advanced since Darwin died in 1882, or do you just think evolution just stopped dead when he died?
Vic, you were caught out using those very same falsehoods just the other day, weren't you! And now that you should know better, you apparently just pasted in the same lies again. You know they are false. Shame on you, LIAR!!!
The problem in our understanding is in how we go about understanding anything. We think in a linear fashion of cause and effect. 1 comes before 2 and so on. We find a need to use mechanical thinking because that's how logic works and we're comfortable with that. We're stuck in a box we need to get out of. We seem to be uncomfortable with concepts of timelessness in science. Perhaps energy in all its forms has always existed unbounded by time and space or any other human imposed conceptual limitation. Calling it God only reveals our profound ignorance of understanding what it is and what it isn't. God is our most profound expression of human ignorance. Whenever we find ourselves faced with the unknown, we call in God to fill in the blanks. Very ignorant people are calling in God quite often throughout their day.
Maybe. I mean there's not really way to prove or disprove that hypothesis unless the Lord would be so kind as to Come on Down in the vernacular. Ken Ham does not espouse that view though. His view is that around 6000 years ago god created man. Bill Nye does not believe your position either he believes that evolution is controlled entirely by natural processes without the need for God to assist in anyway.
The important part of this debate is that both sides want their view to be taught to children as fact. This has implications for how we as a nation address the intersection of scientific knowledge and religious belief. If we choose to go with Mr. Ham then we do so knowing that we are teaching children that faith is more important than fact. If we choose to go with Mr. Nye we do so knowing that fact is more important than faith. either way we as a society are in some way diminished and in some ways made better, but that's the great part of debate at the end you get to choose.
Seems the most sensible idea to me.
His name is YHWH. It is by this name that all men shall be saved. Not another name, only the name of YHWH. Blessed be His name in all the earth.
Never argue with an idiot, Bill, they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
There is only one reason to give Mr. Ham an opportunity to debate the "scientific" validity of creationism: to get media attention for Nye. That's it. Otherwise, it's just a high profile argument between an adult and a child. It's an attempt to represent as serious, a discussion over the existence of unicorns and trolls (okay, the internet does favor THAT particular creature's existence).
Yes, I hate these stupid debates between "scientists" and "creationists" because they only serve to demean and mock both technical AND spiritual people. This debate is no more than a freak show aimed at getting the attention of some rubber neckers.
I don't fault Ham for doing this debate as he's a demented fool. But Nye, really? You feel the need to do this shtick? If you think it's informing anyone, no it's not. It's insulting as it gives foolishness a "legitimate" looking platform.
Bill has been raging for years about the ignorance that circles creationism, so it's in no way a surprise that he'd do this.
"Technological innovations absolutely cannot be created without fundamental understanding of science..." What about life?
Science is much better at teaching about life. There's no talking snakes and donkeys and magic spells and flying horses and chariots and other nonsense in science.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."
Any other quotes you want to pull out of context?
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."- Albert Einstein
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." – Albert E.
We done here?
As Einstein clearly stated, the god in which he believed did not have anything to do with humans, nor judge them or any humans actions at all, nor grant any humans any afterlife whatsoever.
What's the difference between believing in Einstein's god and being an atheist, exactly? Please do tell.
Q "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
Albert: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
Einstein was not an atheist.
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attatude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
that quote is bs. Einstein said "I don't believe in a personal god".
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
Opinion (though I do feel the same about some of Frank Herbert's books). I'll not deny that much of the gospels are fairly well written, but based on my studies, we are looking at historical fiction in my opinion. I don't doubt their sincerity. I just no longer believe that the bible is anything more than a very human book about a people trying to reconcile themselves with the world they found themselves in.
@Aldo,
Is life a technological innovation?