 |
|
|
|
 Creationist Ken Ham makes a point in Tuesday's debate with Bill Nye, the "science guy."
February 5th, 2014
08:49 AM ET
What I learned moderating the creation/evolution debateBy Tom Foreman, CNN CNN's Tom Foreman moderated the "creation debate" Tuesday night in Petersburg, Kentucky, between Bill "the Science Guy" Nye and creationist Ken Ham. (CNN) - It says something when a person shows up at the Creation Museum wearing a top that says, "This is my atheist T-shirt." At least that's what I think it said. I saw it in a blur as she passed in the parking lot; a thirtysomething with a young boy in tow, striding through the bitter winds of Kentucky to visit a place that proclaims those who deny the existence of God are dead wrong. I thought about chasing her down to ask her what had compelled her to come, but it would have been a foolish question. She was here to see a fight. And I was here to play the referee, to moderate a debate on a question that has raged for well over a century: Was humankind created by God in a rush of divine power, or did we evolve over time with only nature to take the credit? Or as the organizers put it: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" About 900 people snapped up tickets to this event just a few minutes after they went on sale, and I was told they expected at least "hundreds of thousands ... maybe a million or more" to watch as it streamed online. It was not just the topic drawing the throngs. For this crowd, the debaters really mattered.
On the left (literally for the audience, and figuratively in every other way) was the champion for the evolutionary side. Bill Nye, "the Science Guy," made fundamentalist Christian heads snap recently when he declared it was flat-out wrong for children to be taught creationism. I met him in a room behind the stage as the audience milled around, waiting for the event to begin. Having just spoken to an adoring crowd of science fans at a university the night before, he feared he was in hostile territory. MORE ON CNN: 'Creation debate' recap: Science, religion and terrible jokes "I think my agent is the only one on my side," he said, only half-joking. "I think the other 899 people in here don't really see it my way." It was hard to tell. Aside from the woman with the T-shirt, there were others wearing pro-Nye gear, but no good way to count them. Still, it looked like his supporters were probably in the minority, and I mentioned to him that some scientists were grousing online he was validating the creationist argument by even showing up. "So why are you here?" I asked. "I'm here for the U.S. economy," he said. "See, what keeps the United States in the game for the world economy is our ability to innovate, to have new ideas, and those inventions come from science." "And you see creationism as sort of poisoning the well for science?" "Yes. I mean, I'm all for (creationism) in philosophy class, history of religion class, human psychology class," but bring it into science class, and Nye gets upset. And that is what disturbs Nye's debate opponent. Ken Ham is a rock star in the creationist community who is quick to point out his own educational credentials and those of other scientists who support creationist views. He is one of the founders of the Creation Museum, where dinosaurs are depicted as living alongside humans and the Great Flood of Noah is an indisputable fact. He believes it is fundamentally unfair of folks like Nye to push creationism further into the educational shadows and to deny what Ham sees as its scientific components. (Ham concedes, though, that the great number of scientists and citizens agree with Nye: evolution is real.) I first met Ham back when the museum was being built, and he greeted me Tuesday night in his affable, Australian manner just outside the room where Nye was waiting. "I must admit I'm a little nervous," Ham told me looking out at the audience. "I want to passionately present my case and defend what I believe, but we never imagined it would become this big. It's amazing. Just shocked all of us." It was impressive to see how much interest the event generated. A riser with a phalanx of production cameras sat in the middle of the room, 70 or so journalists were clustered to one side of the stage, and security officers seemed to be all over the place. I was told that metal detectors were being used to screen the audience, and I saw what I presume were explosive-sniffing dogs quietly working the hallways. Both sides in this debate know the subject matter can spur extreme feelings, and they did all they could to make sure extreme actions didn't follow. Just the same, one organizer pointed out a corner some 30 feet behind my spot on the stage. A door there opens to the parking lot, he said, "just in case, for any reason, you need to get out fast." The advice was appreciated but unnecessary. The crowd proved to be polite, attentive and admirably restrained through the entire 2½-hour debate. So were the debaters. Although they were firmly on opposite sides of the fence, Ham and Nye presented their arguments calmly and respectfully. Neither tried to shout the other down. I spent my time listening to what they had to say, watching the clock to make sure they got equal time and trying to ensure people in each camp felt their man was treated fairly. Both debaters shook hands at the end to rousing applause. It was not a fight after all. MORE ON CNN: Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism Considering the depth of feelings people have about this issue, I asked both men before we began if they expected to change anyone's opinion. Ham said, "I will present (my information) trying to change people's minds, but knowing as a Christian it is God who changes people's minds, not me." Nye said, "Here is my hope: I will remind Kentucky voters that this is a serious issue and that it is inappropriate to include creationism as an alternative to ... the body of knowledge and the process called science." MORE ON CNN: Bill Nye: Why I'm debating creationist Ken Ham By the time the debate was done, a fierce winter storm had settled in. I waded through the Creation Museum parking lot ankle deep in snow, with sleet pelting down. And I think it was a worthwhile evening - a debate humankind was created to have, or to which we evolved.
Next entry »Obama: religious freedom 'under threat'
« Previous entryCreation debate recap: Science, religion and terrible jokes
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
I elect for Ken Ham to be granted an Honorary PhD in Science, the University of Cincinnati sounds wonderful.
Earlier Post:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/04/creation-debate-recap-science-religion-and-terrible-jokes/comment-page-8/#comment-2921689
Also, there is a post-debate answers by Ken Ham & Georgia Purdom 8:00 PM ET tonight LIVE at:
http://debatelive.org/answers/
Too funny...a PHD in fantasy maybe but he's no scientist that deserves to be taken seriously. Provide us links to his peer-reviewed papers that show he isn't a fraud.
Bill Nye doesn't have those either.
And no one is suggesting that Nye be granted a PhD either.
I gave him an honorary PHD from my Internet Atheist Class.
In 2008, Bill Nye was awarded an honorary doctorate from Johns Hopkins University. He also holds an honorary doctorate from Williamette University.
Bill Nye is a scientist, Ham is far from it!
Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering. And a bunch of honorary science degrees.
lol: Nye could have a degree in lego building and still be smarter than Ham.
What is Ham's degree in?
Ham isn't dumb. He would probably score higher on an IQ test than you, no?
Do you don't know what his degree is in, lol? All I could find was:
Ken Ham Education
University of Queensland
Queensland University of Technology
I never heard of Ham until recently.
Wikipedia says "Ken Ham earned a Bachelor of Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology, at Queensland Insttute of Technology and a diploma in Education from the University of Queensland"
D'oh! I don't know how I missed that section! I read the other sections...double d'oh!
Thanks, lol.
"I elect for Ken Ham to be granted an Honorary PhD in Science"
Wow. With that kind of scrutiny of qualifications, I would think they could save time and just let people order them from Amazon.
Mickey Mouse will grant him his PhD!
Ken did extremely well last night, Will be watching the post debate interview tonight.
Seems to me that Ham had his ass handed to him by someone who probably wasn't best suited to debate him.
Not to forget, both Ken and Nye were courteous which made the debate that much more interesting.
Vic: Thanks for posting the link to the post debate answers event.
You bet.
What is courteous mean?
It means to be polite to someone you know are scum and inferior.
Only a fellow atheist would say something that crass. Welcome, brother.
Vic cran-ky ?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Insti-tute_for_Creation_Research
Kinda a slap in the face for actual PhD Scientists...
Nominate me. I'm just as "qualified"...
Oh great, now we get the intellectual acrobatic of a multi-million dollar organization bent on subvert science to their interpretation of the Bible.
Always remember:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. " – AIG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith)
How about a state ?
Tennessee's Monkey Bill
http://ncse.com/taking-action/take-action-tennessees-monkey-bill
I am a Christian and I believe that God created the universe. How He did it seems to be some of the issue here, and I don't personally believe that He did is 6,000 years ago. Mr. Ham is something of an extremist in his views, and advocating a form of creationism that, if true, would seem to mean that God has deceived us by creating a universe that doesn't align with at least some of the causal relationships science has identified. There are many possibilities in the "how", and The Bible is not a scientific explantion of how the universe was created. That is not to say that Mr. Ham is wrong, maybe that is exactly what God did and just made it look like the universe was billions of years old. If so, He has His reasons. I would probably agree with Mr. Nye that creationism in any form shouldn't be taught in a science class, but evolutionary theory should be taught as a theory and not as fact. To paraphrase Stephen Hawkins, we never really know anything. All we have is theory, and (relativistically speaking) partial theory.
So you wouldn't teach for example gravity?
Religion is a waste of time.
Everything that is 'good' from the bible is pure common sense.
if you didn't learn how to be a good person in kindergarden, then you're a drain on society.
Science is the only answer, as it's self correcting and ACCURATE
Broad generalizations about "religion" are a waste of time.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."
-MLK, JR
There are many important questions about which natural science has nothing to say. Can science say whether murder is wrong? Or whether human beings have free will? Or whom a person should marry? Or whether a nation should go to war? Or what a man should live for or be ready to die for? And yet these are questions that not only can be answered but must be.
"Can science say whether murder is wrong?"
Science can demonstrate that harming others causes suffering.
"Or whether human beings have free will?"
God is not necessary for humans to do what they want to do.
"Or whom a person should marry?"
Science can show that love is very real, regardless of the gender of the other person.
"Or whether a nation should go to war?"
That's decided by the economy and technology.
"Or what a man should live for or be ready to die for?"
Science can show how a person can stay alive.
None of those questions have anything to do with science vs god. There is no science vs god unless you're a fundamentalist.
Evolution is taught as a scientific theory, as it should be. The reason it is a theory is because the process is proven. The only actual debates are on certain time frames and locations where we have severe lack of fossils, or figuring out where a partial fragment belongs.
"evolutionary theory should be taught as a theory and not as fact"
To make such a statement only says one thing to most...that you have not bothered to look up the definition of a scientific theory.
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."
(http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html)
One of the things that may make Mr. Ham's arguments convincing for some is his use of other qualified scientists. But are they ethically honest in their support of Mr. Ham's view? Consider Andrew Snelling, a biologist that Mr. Ham referenced a few times in the debate. Dr. Snelling obtained his credentials dating rocks billions of years old, and still is a consultant as a qualified biologist. However, he has also been employed as a "Creationist Assistant Professor of Geology" by the Institute for Creation Research.
As Dr Alex Ritchie wrote in his article Flood geology: a house built on sand:
"If any geologist were to be caught salting a deposit, falsifying results or engaging in other forms of behaviour likely to bring his/her discipline into disrepute, they would be promptly dealt with by their peers.
In my opinion it is equally abhorrent for anyone claiming to be a professional geoscientist to indulge in deliberately misleading and deceptive conduct aimed directly at lay audiences and especially at young people."
I don't see how Snelling can even reconcile what he does.
correction "...and still is a consultant as a qualified geologist.."
and "..a geologist that Mr. Ham referenced.."
My brother, through his work on disposal of our country's nerve agent stockpile years ago got to know a geologist on the same project, a product of the Colorado School of Mines no less. She had no doubts that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.
Appeal to authority argument. Just because he hired a geologist does not indicate that he is telling the truth or stating facts. Don't be fooled into thinking that any quote from a scientist's opinion is absolute truth. Scientists have opinions just like we all do. Do not confuse that with science itself. Everybody has a price.
Does anybody have any examples of how the Church held back science? If you do please let me know and provide a reference. I just debunked the claim that medieval people thought that the Earth was flat, and could use a new challenge.
Simple: at Jericho, the bible says the sun stayed up for three days. If the science was proving that the earth was rotating on itself, the text would be wrong ( as it is)
How does that interfere with the study of science? Most would say it was an act of God, not a natural occurrence.
Because people would see one error in this book, therefore there might be other errors in it. The powers that be would have lost their moral authority over people. Sheep are more manageable than lions.
Also, most of the science that came in Europe at the Renaissance came from Constantinople when they fled from the arab invasion in the 15th century.
But that didn't happen. And science flourished in predominately Christian nations.
Yep, it happened. Because there were kings and emperors strong enough to confront the church, they could protect scientists. Read your history books.
I have. The idea of Church being anti-science is a myth. What kings or emperors liberated scientists? That is a new one.
Church was censoring new ideas and science when it did not follow their preachings. Many scientists fled from the Mediterranean regions and went to London, Paris, Vienna where protection was offered, in exchange of their knowledges (mostly for warfare, but also medicine, engineering, etc.).
In Spain and italian peninsula, the inquisition had a significant power. Remember, the church was mostly powerful in these regions.
They fled to Christian countries?
W. Falls,
Jesus should have been the smartest person to ever live.
Please list ONE NEW FACT from SCIENCE that he told us.
Careful, it sounds like you are using fallacious logic.
W. Falls,
Stumped?
No. I think you are about to make an absurd logical fallacy.
W.Falls
absurd logical fallacy?
Please tell me why you don't think Jesus, the son of God, was all that bright..
I never said that Jesus, the son of God, was not bright. You are silly.
W.Falls,
You're just STALLING.
SO what is the FALLACY? Is it that Jesus was the smartest person ever or that he would actually ADVANCE SCIENCE with ONE NEW FACT?
Still waiting. Your DODGING the question just embarrasses you.
I never said Jesus was the smartest man ever or that his purpopse was to advance science.
You just jumped into the middle of a conversation with an off-topic and strange comment/question.
Jesus was definitely more concerned about our spiritual side. Things that exist and are real, but are not explained by science.
I think it is evident that followers of Jesus do advance science. Have you ever advanced science with new facts? Followers of Jesus have.
Why don't you just make a claim or tell me your point about Jesus and science? Instead of asking loaded questions that have assumptions attached to them?
W. Falls,
The OBVIOUS POINT is that the Bible did NOTHING to push science. It actually encouraged people to think that all the laws of science (especially physics) are OPTIONAL.
The Bible spreads nonsense about science. Look at the Noah's Ark fantasy. Look at ridiculous claims that the moon and sun suddenly stopped in orbit.
The Bible is AT ODDS with science.
No, The Bible is not at odds with science.
The Bible describes miracles, things that scientifically can not happen. Things that can only happen if there is a God.
Why have Christians contributed so many new facts to our scientific knowledge?
Most likely more than you ever have or ever will.
And why do so many Christians continue to appreciate and support science? And why do so many scientists claim their religion is not at odds with science?
Google the phrase, "dark ages". Pay particular attention to the methods of torture they used on heretics.
Personally I miss those days. Today we have science dictating our Lives when it is the tool of the devil and leads to more Sin, than ancient torture methods ever did. Nobody questioned our faith back then without facing consequences. Don't worry though, they were only prolonging the inevitable when they will be Tortured in the fire pits below. Why not give them a taste while they are still here? After all, Eternity is quite a long time.
http://www.cracked.com/article_20186_6-ridiculous-myths-about-middle-ages-everyone-believes.html
🙁
Wow, that site is like totally scientific and stuff!
Googling the phrase, "dark ages" is so much more scientific.
Yeah I forgot, nobody was tortured and executed during those days for heresy! That never happened!
"...the church wasn't responsible for killing science - to the contrary, it was largely responsible for saving it."
Yeah, the church totally wasn't responsible for killing science, they only heavily suppressed it and tortured / executed people who spoke against it. The totally kept science alive by going along with all scientific discovery that agreed with the church. 😆
I want my iron maiden!
I always enjoyed the one where you sit on the triangle with weights on your hands, until you slowly split in half. Those middle ages Christians were swell fellows.
Giordano Bruno
Galilleo
It makes you wonder how many others there might have been who were afraid to come forward.
Galileo was a Catholic. The Catholic Church was a supporter of Galileo throughout his career. They provided funding for Galileo's research.
his writing went against the status quo. Some in the church were with him but not enough to make sure he is free to tell the world. However, there were some powerful enough to prevent him the inquisition's fury. He was put in "house-arrest".
Jesus Christ goes against the status quo.
"Galileo was a Catholic"
You specified "the Church". There is no distinction in a Western sense between the Latin Christian Church (Roman Catholic) and "The Church" until the reformation was well underway.Even though Luther precedes Galileo, I don't see any confusion between "The Church" and the Latin Christian Church in Galileo's time.
Galileo was a member of The Church. Most of The Church supported Galileo.
Look up the Roman Inquisition of 1615.
Romans tried to use Christianity as a means to govern and failed. Jesus didn't suggest anything close to what the Romans were doing.
That's funny, Christianity was originally spread by the sword of Rome and people still fall for it.
Christianity was originally spread by disciples of Christ who served others. And it still is today.
Look up geocentric.
Most Christians accepted and supported Galileo and his heliocentric view of our galaxy. As they overwhelmingly still do today.
You liars for Jesus are the most disgusting of all.
The disposal of unsound religious beliefs and practices through the resolute application of knowledge leading to common acceptance of their fatal flaws is a well-established and time-honored tradition whose constructive value is populated with hundreds of noteworthy precedents that serve as benchmarks in the continuing enlightenment of the human race.
“As we conquer peak after peak we see in front of us regions full of interest and beauty, but we do not see our goal, we do not see the horizon; in the distance tower still higher peaks, which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects, and deepen the feeling, the truth of which is emphasized by every advance in science, that ‘Great are the Works of the Lord’.”
–Sir Joseph J. Thomson
Science was my most favorite subject in college, especially the Old Testament!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIpuKY88MFc
I have a PHD in creationism from Kentucky Mountain Bible College.
"Do you want to supersize that?"
god: I created science
After a few thousand years...
science: I am god
God: I left no evidence to suggest I am real
after a few thousand years
God: While I could update my holy books and clarify my existence to stop people from blindly killing each other, I'll just do nothing and hope people keep faith. If they guess wrong, I'll just purify their soul in my torture chamber.
And I have a Sacred Theology Doctorate from the University of Baptist Scripture.
I'm very proud of the STD I got at the U of BS.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
There is no account as to when the water was created.
Let there be light! (Switch on....nothing)
Let there be light! (Switch on, off, on, off, on)
Lucy, did you pay the bill?
Lucifer: oops
Damn you! You are going to hell!
How exactly was there day and light before the sun moon and stars were created?
ooops "day and night"
Until recently, we knew light only as an emanation from a light source. We now know that light exists in the dual form of electromagnetic waves/particles (photons). Such knowledge has allowed us mere mortals to create light from new sources, such as LEDs. A supernatural being with the ability to command the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, and even all the stars and galaxies in the universe into existence would certainly be able to create an ongoing supply of photons first.
You can happily conflate "light" with the background radiation from the big bang, but there is no terrestrial day and night without prior solar ignition. It is the sun that makes day and night. This does not show up until day 4 in Genesis.
Planetary accretion (and the earth) comes after solar ignition. The water comes way later.
Genesis and science are not congruent here.
The water was included as part of the original creation of Earth. Part of its being "without form and void" was that the continents (or continent, as it may have originally been one land mass) had not been formed (raised up above water level) yet.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Yeah, totally. He also separated the waters in space from earth with a firmament. Oops! It's not water!
The unfortunate reality of it all is that controversy sells more than facts. If CNN streamed a REAL evolution debate between 2 scientists about a certain fossil and its classification, nobody would tune in because they wouldn't understand half the things they are referring to. Ham made quite a bit of money selling tickets to the debate, plus DVDs afterwards. I mean he even sold the "Digital download + DVD copy" bundle as if it was a great deal. "Here, folks! By it twice for this cheap rate so you can watch it right now, AND a week from now when the DVD arrives". Too hilarious. I'm sure CNN's getting a cut of the sales as well.
You have scientists explaining fossils on natgeo and other channel alike, but I agree with you, it does not sell well.
Very true. I love those shows personally, but CNN would never pick up a debate like that as news and they couldn't sell tickets to it for sure.
Ham needs the money to save his museum, they were on the verge of going bankrupt. Just like the typical con-man he is, he is taking advantage of more sheep.
Please provide empirical evidence for this.
Why should he provide evidence when faith works just as well?
Oh, the fact he is charging for a DVD you can watch online for free?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/302725_Kentuckys_Creation_Museum_in_F
Have you always make infantile statements that cause you to appear idiotic, or is this a recent development?
rumple: I stated a fact and have since backed it. Religion is one of the greatest con games ever and if you fail to see that, just look at the Catholic church-they're not rich without reason...since religion began the leaders have seen dollar signs.
Now I get that you may not agree but that does not merit name calling and child like behavior, so before calling me infantile look in the mirror.
How is saying that a museum is failing infantile? Do you even know what the word infantile MEANS, or are you just parroting something you heard your mommy say concerning your own behavior?
Infantile and idiotic are not at all name calling when they are factual.
There is a second sentence. Depending on your reading level, you may be able to figure it out.
Yet, you weren't being factual. I stated a fact and then backed it with a source...you resorted to name calling, making you look like the one who is infantile.
rumpled,
Your insults are not factual, did you read the provided link:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/302725_Kentuckys_Creation_Museum_in_F
Actually you don't have a second sentence.
@rumpkestiltskin: ohhhh. You're a troll who is here just to be condescending. Why didn't you say so?
Santa: I think he might mean my second sentence where I called Ham a con-man and referred to his followers as sheep.
Somebody posted a link to purchase the DVD, and the page jumped directly to AIG's site. Uh huh.
I think it's on youtube now. Hopefully nobody pays for this.
To any creationist out there, at what point during his seven days of creating the Universe did God make hell? And why?
They all have their ministers on speed dial for these 'tough' questions...I just wonder which one will get an answer first and respond the quickest.
What makes you assume He created it within the 7 day time frame? As to why, I would think the creator of the universe had his reasons.
I think Colin may have been wanting to know what believers feel is the reason god would make hell. I think it's a good question. I could never respect or hang around a being who would allow a place of eternal torture to exist. My morals don't allow me to hang out with such disgusting terrorist azzhole creeps who would do such a thing.
You're in luck. Hanging around with the creator will probably not be an option for you.
As I said, my morals wouldn't allow me to hang out with such a disgusting azzhole terrorist that would allow any such place to exist at all. I'll leave that to people with horrible morals like Christians who believe in might makes right and subjective morality that allows god to do what they would otherwise NEVER consider to be moral for another being. Hypocrites, I mean.
"My morals". Somehow I get the feeling that statement is laughable.
one would need an open mind to discuss this. seems as though you deny God because you think the world sucks. it would also be determined by your perception of hell. -trying to address a couple of your statements. first you need to have a good long discussion on the concept of freedom of choice and how that relates to man and God's relationship. on hell well...that which can not exist within God's presence is separated from it. for a believer in God, hell is what IS when you have an absence of God's presence. For a believer this concept is unfathomable because all existence as we define it is within God's presence. Hell is not intended to be a specific place to point out on a map or something but rather the embodiment of an absence of God. again being as this is unfathomable, people throughout the ages have had lots of fun trying to portray the concept.
Goodness. Actually, 6 days. He rested on the 7th. The Bible says so.
Miller time!
Hello Colin,
Your question regarding the purpose of hell and the timing of its creation is a good question.
My answers come from what I know of Scripture. There may be further indication in Scripture than I am aware of, but this much I have gleaned. I am willing to send you references if you would like.
First, the purpose of hell is that it be, obviously, an extremely uncomfortable holding place for those who rebelled against God, until the final judgment at the last Day when they will be cast into the Lake of Fire, which is the second death.
Why would God demand such a punishment for rebellion against Him? Let me give you an example: If I were to take a ride in a taxi, and during the ride, reach up and slap my cab driver in the face, what do you think my cab driver would do? Probably kick me out of the taxi...at least. What if I slapped my boss? I'd probably be fired. But what if I slapped a police officer, or a Judge, or the president of the United States? The point is, the offense of the crime depends on the sovereignty of the one offended. If I were to slap God in the face (which is basically what any act of rebellion against Him is); God who is infinitely Sovereign, infinitely Holy, and infinitely Just; my crime would be infinitely worthy of death. In fact, it is.
Since God is infinitely Holy and Sovereign, and since we have rebelled against Him so that we infinitely deserve death, He has created a holding place (Hell) and a place of infinite death (The Lake of Fire). When did He create them? As far as I can ascertain, it would not have been in the first six days, for at the end of the creation week, God proclaimed that all of creation was very good. Everything was perfect and holy at that point. Lucifer was His right hand angel; and man, the pinnacle of His creation, was holy and obedient. There originally was no need for such places of punishment for sin, because there was no sin. But Genesis records man's rebellion against God after the creation was complete. His wife was tempted by Lucifer, therefore man's rebellion came after Lucifer's rebellion. Since Hell's purpose is to hold those who have rebelled against God-to separate them from God's Holy presence, it would follow that it would have been created only as a consequence of those rebellions.
As a further consideration: God did create everything in a perfectly holy state. Yet He also did not make either His angels or men as robots to obey Him without thought. By their own choosing both Lucifer and Adam rebelled. And since Adam was the representative of the human race, as the father of us all, we all bear the consequence and sin nature he chose. That's the bad news that makes the good news make sense: The good news is that even at the time that Adam and Eve sinned against God, He desired that they not be separated from Him forever, yet knew that their sins demanded that payment. So He provided a replacement for them: Himself. He Himself would live a human life in the person of Jesus Christ, yet a completely sinless life, and take all the wrath of God upon Himself, dying the death that those who believe in Him and confess Him as Lord and Savior would have had to die. In so doing, he has appeased His Holiness, Justice, and Wrath; He has conquered the enemy that we brought into the world by our rebellion, which is death itself, by rising from the dead and living and reigning as victorious King and Savior; and He has reconciled those who believe in Him to Himself that they may live life eternal with Him at the consummation of all perfection, for perfection will be restored as He has promised!
"I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but through Me." ~ Christ
'If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.' From the book of Romans
deborah: quotes from the bible are only relevant to those who accept the authority of the bible.
outside of the bible, or any other religious texts (which, again, are only relevant to those accept the claimed authority) do you see any evidence of heaven, hell, sin, or redemption?
Hello Sam,
Quoting the Bible as my highest authority is not wrong. Everyone has standards which are their highest authority, determining how they view the world and interpret what they experience. The fact that I know what mine is and that I stand by it unashamedly is not bad. Do you know what yours is? The question is, do we have a rational justification for what our highest standard is?
That the God of the Bible is the only true God and that He must indeed exist in the nature He has described and demonstrated in His Word, is proved in that without Him, there is no rational basis for anything (really)-yet as specific examples: such things as the laws of logic, moral laws, the uniformity of nature and many, many more things.
Other religions may have bits and pieces of explanations for these things, but none of them truly provide a rational answer to all of them. I suggest to you that only the God of the Bible has the Character to produce and govern all these things, since they spring from His very nature. How do we know what His nature is and that these laws do come from Him? One way, and a major one at that, is that He has written a Book that tells us very clearly and consistently.
By using the laws of logic (which stem from God's right thinking), we can realize that those laws MUST come from Him, or else there is no rational explanation for their existence.
All people, whether they realize it or not, who rely on the laws of logic, must borrow from the truths founded only in the God of the Bible. Why, if the universe exploded into existence by some mysterious chance, would we expect that the universe would run in an orderly, logical fashion? Why, if humans evolved by some chance random processes, would we expect that they can rely on their senses? If thoughts and actions ultimately stem from chemical interactions in the brain, why would there be laws of logic extending beyond one brain , governing them all, as when we correct bad reasoning or use good reasoning?
Can you account for the laws of logic without the God of the Bible?
I can account for them from my worldview, with God's Word as my ultimate standard of authority. God's character is the source of good reasoning: He cannot lie, and He cannot contradict Himself. By extension, we cannot have contradictions that are true.
Similarly, can you give account of the existence of moral laws? Is it wrong to kill someone? By what standard do you judge that?
My Standard is from God's Word: That God created us in His Own image and commanded that we not kill each other.
In my worldview with the Bible as my ultimate authority, I can account for these things. What other worldview can do so? I suggest to you that there is no other worldview that can. The biblical God MUST be who He says He says He is, for without Him being so, there is no rational answer: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
Therefore, since I have such justification for my standard of authority, there is nothing wrong with referring to it when it comes to understanding heaven and hell.
"God who is infinitely Sovereign, infinitely Holy, and infinitely Just"
If god is omniscient, there is no free wll
If god punishes people who lack free will, he is not just
"my crime would be infinitely worthy of death. In fact, it is."
you, like other True Believers (TM) seem to have an issue confusing opinion for fact
also, in order to rebel against "god", someone would have to believe "god" exists, no?
are you rebelling against zeus, or ra, or manik?
how about against homer simpson, bugs bunny, or jessica rabbit?
Sam: "If god punishes people who lack free will, he is not just"
Deb: Sam, by what standard do you judge whether God is just?
Sam: "you, like other True Believers (TM) seem to have an issue confusing opinion for fact"
Deb: I almost removed the phrase 'In fact it is' before I posted, because, while I do believe it is a fact, my saying it at that moment didn't prove it. However, that doesn't mean it is incorrect. In my previous response to you, I offered a proof of the necessity for the biblical God and the truth of His Word. If that proof stands un-refuted, then I have justification to hold to the Bible as true, and therefore, since I was quoting from it when I previously said 'in fact', I also have justification for my confidence in that as a fact.
Sam: "also, in order to rebel against "god", someone would have to believe "god" exists, no?
Deb: No. One can be mistaken in one's beliefs. If the God of the Bible does exist and you choose to say you don't believe it, that doesn't make Him non-existent, nor does it make His laws non-existent or non-applicable to anyone who does not believe.
That you choose to compare Him to other gods etc. that you apparently don't believe are real either, does not excuse you. I'm not offering you proof for any of those you mentioned. Rather, I have offered you proof of the necessity of the God of the Bible. And I have suggested that even in order for you to reason, you must be using laws that come from Him, whether you believe He exists or not. Have you any rational answer to this?
Not all christians are anti-science. Some believe in a God that set something amazing in motion that is elegant in its ability to respond to changes and provide diversity. If you believe in that elegant, sophisticated God then science is our human endeavor to understand our universe and our creator. If reading the bible informs us about how God thinks and feels then science too and we shouldn't fear it or resist it. And, if the amazing, sophisticated God cares about me personally and asks me to "act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly" then I don't see how that is bad for humanity.
You are correct. It's only the irrational fundamentalists that have issues with science. The majority of Christians are not like that.
Atheism is total Stupidity
Boring troll is boring.
And TRULY stupid.
Can't prove me wrong either! 😀
Can't prove me wrong huh!!
Prove you're not an idiot.
How is asking for evidence of claims stupidity?
The worldwide pressure on Israel increases. It is even no more certain that America is on Israel's side for ever. What about an alliance of many contries against Israel?
I guess if Israel would convert to Jesus, and start to love their Muslim neighbours for Christ's sake, that would be rather a reason for a worldwide alliamce to attack it, than its current state. The antichristian world hates Jesus and his followers. But one day the world will realize that Jesus is not only a lamb but also a mighty man of war for God's sake.
Yet, if they would be attacked after conversion, Jesus would return, and rescue them, and destroy their enemies.
Don't let us discuss about the origin of the world but who we can appease with its Creator Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
You are one delusional man, Rainy
We can discuss whatever we want
The Running Twit
Alex...Stupidity for $200... the IQ numerical number for a moron.
I wouldn't know the answer to that, but it ranks just above creationist on the chart.
Rainman
You have a pair of Aces and the dealer has an Ace up the card count is +11, no insurance available at this table, how do you play the hand?
Buy a vowel?
(sorry)
I'll take Stupidity for $200, please Alex?
Note from Caesars Palaces around the world
Play by the house rules, you are not expected to win at blackjack or anything else come to think of it!!!
The Running Twit
Alex....Stupidity for $200.. The IQ numerical value for a moron.
I find it necessary to repeat myself...I find it necessary
Split the aces. Duh.
Maybe "free" America will submit to the man who pays her debts. This man will not be a friend of Israel.
Read the book "The Superclass" by David Rothkopf. There are already single people on this damned planet which have as much money as whole states. It is only a matter of time when they start to rule the world, not considering national interests.
Don't you know that we are run by the illuminati, the club of Rome, the lizards, the borgs, etc
Resistance is futile!
The Running Twit
You missed the Trinity of Rome...The Mafia, The Masons and the College of Cardinals.
The God-given gifts of science and technology should be used only as a means to respect and promote communities, life and human dignity.
Technology results from science. Science seems to dispute the Bible. I don't see how religion and science can be friends.
The Bible is not a science manual, and shouldn't be read like one. It is a spiritual manual. And nothing in it discourages Christians or others from being expert scientists.
Nothing "spiritual" can measured or tested and it might as well be nonexistent.
You can measure your spirituality in serenity and peace. I know many spiritually unfit people. They seem miserable.
Dionysus,
"And nothing in it discourages Christians or others from being expert scientists."
The Noah's ark fantasy and the stopping of the moon and sun in orbit could go a long way towards believing "science" from the Bible.
No, you can't. You can measure serenity and "peace" using certain medical equipment, but there is nothing testing or measuring "spirituality" in such a measurement that records brain functions.
Again, you have no way to measure or test "spirituality." There is no way to measure any claim by "spirituality."
Captain my captain...consider the yawn: " A number of hypotheses exist to explain why we yawn, but scientists have yet to come to a consensus about the phenomenon.
One of the most often-repeated explanations states that a yawn helps draw in large amounts of air to increase blood pressure, heart rate and blood oxygen levels. These physiological changes improve our motor function and alertness, helping to wake us up when we're tired or bored. However, experiments have shown that yawning doesn't induce these changes."
Science can't tell us why we yawn–under your theory, yawning does not exist. Well played sir.
Observer
Some of our top scientists are Christian.
Cpt. Obvious
Right. Spirituality is not materialistic, and thus can't be studied using a physical study science. Life is more than just physical and material. Art. music and love can't be measured scientifically, but I know for a fact those things exist.
I can personally measure how spiritually fit I am in how I treat others and live my life. I don't need some guy in a lab coat to confirm everything I know.
"Delusion" can account for any feeling of being "correct," which is why there is no practical difference in believing god exists but offers no measurable mechanism by which to prove it, and in believing that he doesn't exist.
God is invisible, undetectable, and irrelevant---as far as anyone can determine, which isn't much difference than nonexistence.
I tend to yawn when discussing yawns......*yawn*
Ok......I'm bored, anyway...... yawn.........
Facial movements can be measured. The instance of similar facial movements among a species or group of species can be measured. We can label facial movements and often do............yawn...........so.........ohmygoshhowsleepy!!!!.......yawn..........therefore........ohmy!......yawns "exist.".............YAWN
Ok, naptime is over
But when the science contridicts the Bible, then what? Example being, the age of Earth...
what do we do when our 'god-given' brains are driven crazy by what the Bible says, and what we see as reality?
AverageJoe...how old does the Bible say the earth is? Find me the contradiction between scientific thought about the age of the Earth and what the Bible says. We'll all wait with baited breath.
The Bible doesn't tell me to disbelieve what science has taught us about the age of the Earth.
Responding to the Pride and Dionysus – I think there's something about making the Heavens and Earth in 6 days, then resting on the seventh. I don't know, call me crazy, but that's a pretty small time frame for creation.
And don't tell me we shouldn't take it literally...... because then we shouldn't take anything literally that it says, hmm?
Aw...the old switcheroo! Your original comment dealt with the age of the Earth, but your new argument deals with the number of days to create the earth. Stick to one topic old boy–try showing us something other than "average" intelligence.
There are lots of things in the Bible I don't take literally. Jesus used parables, which was pretty evident were not meant to be taken literally. He seems to be speaking to our hearts, not just our minds.
@ Responding to the Pride – How can the creation story in Genesis, and the age of the Earth not be on the same topic? I think you're avoiding my question, actually.
Dionysus – Can you see how that might not be enough for everyone? Especially if we're dealing with saving eternal souls? Not giving specifics, when some of us need that, is not looking out for us all.
@Responding to the Pride
Excellent answer. I have to agree.
It would be just like that terrorist azzhole god of yours to describe a creation process that equates to a big invisible and undetectable sky wizard chanting magic spells for six days to make things in an impossible order.........and then leave out 13 billion years or whatever to trick us. Yeah, he's that much of an azzhole to make nature appear a certain way that is at complete odds with the evidence he provides.
You're just absolutely right. What a d!ck you worship.
@ AverageJoe76
Sure. I have that problem sometimes, too. I try not to worry what other people think about eternal souls or allegorical references in literature.
God gave us brains that can critically think, only to make it easier to give in to the temptation that is empirical science. Just like he planted those fossils and changed the decay rate of isotopes intentionally to mess with us! Don't be fooled by smart scientists and their repeated experiments! Blind faith is way more logical!!!
Tell that to all the "Christian" leaders of this country that have sent us to war numerous times where we use this technology for the wrong purposes.
God was a T&A man so when he created Eve from that rib it was a curvy voluptuous blonde, of course, but short on the clues department. Probably took her awhile to tell the difference between a talking snake/serpent and a flaccid and erect penis. After all it wasn't untill she bit into the apple that she had kids. For reference see the movie Blue Lagoon.
And to think that we all started with an in-breeding family! Creepy!
Mrs. Noah was my beetch grandma to the 1000 power or so. I wonder what race of boys she produced? All different I presume, Noah may have been a cuckold what with those strange looking sons?
Mrs. Noah was my b!tch grandma to the 1000 power or so. I wonder what race of boys she produced? All different I presume, Noah may have been a cuckold what with those strange looking sons?
Also, what I found disturbing with Ham´s presentation is how he compared non-deity based system as pushing for abortion and euthanasia.
Wow! With all the deaths that occured in the name of christianity et al, the other system is less bloody, dońt you think?
Ham is an idiot.
Scientific fact!
So based on an earlier conversation, I tried re-reading Genesis 1 and interpreting it as literal as possible. I got as far as
"And God said, "
Did He literally have vocal chords?
Was there already a medium present to transmit the sound waves of His voice?
If so who was He talking too?
This could take a while.
The most sense you can possibly make of the stupid sh!t is: Big invisible and undetectable sky wizard chanted magic spells for six days to make the entire universe "perfect," yet fragile enough that one twist of one woman's wrist threw the entire thing into nuclear meltdown (sin/corruption)--–oh yeah, and throw a talking snake in there, somewhere.
Cult stories should be kept to cult gatherings on sundays. Go wild. Speak in tongues. Writhe around on the floor. Be healed. Sing loud. Do all your voodoo rituals. But keep it in its proper place.
Actual science should be taught in schools during the week. That'll give children perspective on the real world.
simple.
It is awesome that science can apply to almost all spheres of human activities, as with religion, they would come in conflict with some.
I am a christian but still find balance between my religion and science. Do I think God is capable of "poofing everything into existence?" yes. But do I also think science may have a more accurate portrayal of how God did it. yes Each speaker said things i didn't like such as: Nye said there is no evidence of "The Flood." this is far from factual as there is evidence of major floods all over the world. look it up. the other guy stated Genesis is written in a traditional historical text format. this is far from true as well. Genesis has much symbolism and is still being studied today for the patterns that emerge as in the number of specific words that appear a certain number of times and the spacing of the "paragraphs". look it up it is very interesting. i also feel Ham doesn't realize it but is only making an argument that Adam appeared 6000 years ago and not the "age of the earth." To me, if one must take the 6 days of creation as meant to be fact then one must also consider Moses was writing from what was revealed to him by God. It could then be interpreted that Moses witnessed creation though God which took 6-7 days to witness. Was God's intent to show him HOW he did it or THAT he did it? If you are trying to get a child to understand Math, do you start with advanced equations or 1+1?
@rob,
"... Nye said there is no evidence of "The Flood." this is far from factual as there is evidence of major floods all over the world."
Nye was referring to a global flood for which there is no evidence. There is evidence in most parts of the world of flooding, yes, but not of a single world wide flood as described in Genesis.
Yeah, I stopped reading this guys comment at that part and just skipped down to see how many people balked. Wow...people never cease to amaze me.
I did exactly the same thing. Didn't stop my redundant comment though.
many people feel flooding of the world was flooding of the known world and there is plenty of evidence for major floods in the right period in the right area. again people use literal translation when it suits there purpose.
@rob,
Nye was debating a Young Earth Creationist who has said repeatedly that he thinks the flood was as described, literally, i.e. global.
That is what he was arguing against, not some va.gue metaphorical interpretation of Genesis where a rain drop fossil are evidence of an ancient flood somewhere.
And he is right, there is no evidence for the YEC version.
there is geological evidence that has been building for years to support a global flood. take a quick look into current geology on the subject. the more we learn in geology the more it points to rapid flooding. some formations we thought took 40 million years now have evidence to show could have been a few hours. In Science you use evidence to prove or dis an idea but what is always necessary is the idea itself. religion doesn't hold back science and science doesn't hold back religion only the refusal to question.
rob,
There is nothing in science that explains all of the unscientific NONSENSE in the Noah's ark fantasy. It basically says that most of the laws of science are OPTIONAL.
Moses was writing from what was revealed to him by God – LOLOLOL
Moses witnessed creation though God which took 6-7 days to witness - LOLOLOL
you Christians really do just make this stuff up as you go along don't you?
make what "stuff" up? you are obviously a troll. Most christians do not think the Bible is a text book and much of it is left to interpret. It's meant for spiritual guidance. All I am saying if ham wants to read into a certain phrase and interpret it as he sees fit then other just a valid interpretations would apply. As far as making stuff up as we go. same could be said for Science as it is constantly changing and evolving and what is considered the constant today may not apply thousands of years from now just as what was Fact a few thousand years ago is not today.
Isn't that what you'd expect when your goal is to learn. Totally different from believing verbatim the imaginings of Bronze Age nomads.
Oh yeah, Moses definitely wrote all 5 books of the Torah, including the one about his own death! 😆
there is evidence of major floods all over the world
There's a serious flood every other month in some part of the world somewhere. Of course there is evidence of 'floods'.
The "biblical" flood covered the whole world including all the mountaintops – there is no evidence of this. There does appear to be very little dry land and very shallow seas in the Cambrian, but I suspect that is not what you mean by "global flood".
"...but I suspect that is not what you mean by "global flood"."
... and certainly not since humans have been around to experience it.
It's amazing how many flood apologists there are, yet relatively put forward the tower of Babel myth.
It is obviously metaphorical and even the fundies don't seem to want to go there. I guess they love the Noah's ark motif too much to let it go.
The ark is a cute story and makes great childrens toys and decorations. The Tower of Babel is so obviously idiotic that only someone who'd never studied liguistics or even a foreign language could buy it. But then you really have to hide out from linguistics, psychology, biology, sociology, physics, astronomy and archaeology to buy all the weird bible claims, so I guess they should be well practiced.
Yes, you've expressed exactly what I was thinking there.
Here's the absurdity of this whole debate. Science actually can prove what it claims. It admits it doesn't have all the answers, but is pretty sure it can one day give them. Religion can prove none of what it claims, and if you disagree with them, you're going to hell.
I'm not saying which side to pick, but Science did give us a really big bomb....
There is no conflict with science and religion in my case. I definitely don't belong to a religion that tells me if I disagree with it I'm going to hell. My Christian church allows and encourages us to ask tough questions.
So, like science, my religion doesn't claim to have all the answers.
Are you sure of that? I hear over and over how ALL the answers are somewhere in the Bible from Christians. I could be wrong. Christians are divided by at least 30,000 denominations, so some may say otherwise.
Most Christians admit they don't have all the answers. I think all people, not Christians, are guilty of sometimes being arrogant and thinking they know it all. Yes, there are lots of different types of Christians. And lots of different types of agnostics. And Jews. And atheists. And non-religious.
You're right, Dionysus. I shouldn't generalize. My apologies. But I thought most Christians believed all the answers were in the book. So to hear different, is...well..... different.
A lot of denominations don't declare the Bible as infallible (doing so actually is idolatry and UnChristian).
Dionysus, I am grossly confused, now. 'Not infallible'? Then why even rely on it? Why should it be read? How can it tie into God at all?
Is God infallable? If not, then the Bible is a false representation. And we haven't heard the TRUE word, right?
Dionysus
While your here, what do you think about jesus and the water into wine thingy and you being an expert was it plonk or a very fine wine, as the song goes? About the blood into wine thingy that is just to gross to contemplate. Thanks for your opinion.
AverageJoe76
God is infallable.
The Bible is a collection of books by a variety of authors. It is fallable.
Charm Quark
I think the turning water into wine must have been a miracle. It is hard to believe and seems impossible for humans to do such things.
Dionysus, if God is not infallable, and the Bible IS fallable – how'd you learn about God, and how do you know if that teaching is NOT fallable?
How can fallable beings speak so confidently about the unseen, unheard, all-knowing, super-Being nmed 'God'? Haven't we (mankind) placed the cart WAAAAAY before the horse?
I certainly don't know God from just reading a book. God is real and available. The Bible points to God. Other things point to God to me, too, like science and nature. And I learn about God from those and other things. I probably learn the most about God from other people. And doing things that Jesus suggests we do. Like serving other people, especially the poor and those in need.
So you learned God from people, right? Not all from the Bible? And people filled in the holes of knowledge about God? I don't trust imperfect beings to teach me about what's supposedly perfect (actually – what's 'perfect' look like? – no one knows)
Ok, so here's where we have an issue: You're education about God equals that of any child around the world being taught about another 'god'. Whether that's Allah, Buddah, or a Fairy Queen. It all comes from the mouths of people. Their interpretations. Their understandings. Not what could be truth, but what is perception. And that's not the 'truth' I'm looking for.
The truth I need works something like this; "Fire is hot"
I place my hand over a flame (or throw someone else in the flame and asks how it feels), then agree. I accept what is 'true'
I never said I haven't learned from the Bible. And I learn about God from other people, yes.
The Bible says God's chosen the people are the poor. I find the more I help people in need, the more I understand God. The story of Jesus is basically God coming to Earth to serve others, not be served. You want to get to know God? Go to a church in one of the poorest neighborhoods in your town and watch how they are helping others. I learned more serving than any class or education you imagine I took.
Atheists perform the same type of charity. It brings them no closer to god. People of religion are not the only charitable people. That feeling you have may be more of a HUMAN feeling than any insight into God. Means you sympathize with their plight. It's not from god, that's just being a good human (in my eyes), and THANKS or being that.
I belong to a religion that asks me serve others. And most of what I know about God has actually come from serving others.
I know atheists are charitable, too. It wasn't that long ago that I was an atheist.
I don't see how an atheist can become a theist. Unless you were really a theist and just claimed you were atheist. I'm sorry, D – I'm assuming. But I'm always skeptical of those that claimed to have been atheist, then are theist
What is there to be skeptical about? I didn't believe in God for a significant portion of my life. Now I do.
SIN. A rather confusing dilemna. God dislikes it, but it happens to exsist in God's reality. How did that happen? If I'm making everything – and I AM GOD – shouldn't everything be as I specify?
Ok – 2nd part; How can I possibly be upset with my creations and their involvement with sin, when I MADE everything. (therefore – I made sin).
God can't make everything, and then NOT make sin. So why does God have a crusade against sin, when he's directly responsible for sin. Or better yet, please give me the biblical BS-version of why God's not responsible for creating sin.
Because to me, 'making everything', is quite literally EVERYTHING.