Bill Nye To Debate Creationist At Creation Museum February 4th (1 Viewer)

[DrJ]

BTW with Adam and Eve people.........how about the incest issue?

What's the issue?

Incest...bible is against that right?

Not at that point. I guess God figures that once speciation occurs there needs to be a period where some interbreeding happens. Other times this might be required is after a giant flood. Once you have enough of a population to sustain itself without that, it's preferable to eliminate this for more genetic diversity. God did create DNA, so he understands how it works.

 

[IC FBGCav]

BTW with Adam and Eve people.........how about the incest issue?

What's the issue?

Incest...bible is against that right?

Not at that point. I guess God figures that once speciation occurs there needs to be a period where some interbreeding happens. Once you have enough of a population to sustain itself without that, it's preferable to eliminate this for more genetic diversity. God did create DNA, so he understands how it works.

I would like to see God's dissertation on this.

 

[IC FBGCav]

BTW with Adam and Eve people.........how about the incest issue?

What's the issue?

Incest...bible is against that right?

Not at that point. I guess God figures that once speciation occurs there needs to be a period where some interbreeding happens. Other times this might be required is after a giant flood. Once you have enough of a population to sustain itself without that, it's preferable to eliminate this for more genetic diversity. God did create DNA, so he understands how it works.

BTW there is no genetic diversity from two people and only the kin create.

 

[DrJ]

BTW with Adam and Eve people.........how about the incest issue?

What's the issue?

Incest...bible is against that right?

Not at that point. I guess God figures that once speciation occurs there needs to be a period where some interbreeding happens. Other times this might be required is after a giant flood. Once you have enough of a population to sustain itself without that, it's preferable to eliminate this for more genetic diversity. God did create DNA, so he understands how it works.

BTW there is no genetic diversity from two people and only the kin create.

Well then how does the genetic diversity within a species actually happen? There has to be a point where you only have a couple of something, right?

 

[IC FBGCav]

BTW with Adam and Eve people.........how about the incest issue?

What's the issue?

Incest...bible is against that right?

Not at that point. I guess God figures that once speciation occurs there needs to be a period where some interbreeding happens. Other times this might be required is after a giant flood. Once you have enough of a population to sustain itself without that, it's preferable to eliminate this for more genetic diversity. God did create DNA, so he understands how it works.

BTW there is no genetic diversity from two people and only the kin create.

Well then how does the genetic diversity within a species actually happen? There has to be a point where you only have a couple of something, right?

A lot of incest and some of that moving to a different environment.

 

[IC FBGCav]

BTW with Adam and Eve people.........how about the incest issue?

What's the issue?

Incest...bible is against that right?

Not at that point. I guess God figures that once speciation occurs there needs to be a period where some interbreeding happens. Other times this might be required is after a giant flood. Once you have enough of a population to sustain itself without that, it's preferable to eliminate this for more genetic diversity. God did create DNA, so he understands how it works.

BTW there is no genetic diversity from two people and only the kin create.

Well then how does the genetic diversity within a species actually happen? There has to be a point where you only have a couple of something, right?

But Adam and Eve lived hundreds of years and still only had Cain, Able and Seth.........so one must of went back home to keep things going or not.

 

[DrJ]

BTW with Adam and Eve people.........how about the incest issue?

What's the issue?

Incest...bible is against that right?

Not at that point. I guess God figures that once speciation occurs there needs to be a period where some interbreeding happens. Other times this might be required is after a giant flood. Once you have enough of a population to sustain itself without that, it's preferable to eliminate this for more genetic diversity. God did create DNA, so he understands how it works.

BTW there is no genetic diversity from two people and only the kin create.

Well then how does the genetic diversity within a species actually happen? There has to be a point where you only have a couple of something, right?

A lot of incest and some of that moving to a different environment.

So that's what happens here. Eventually when you have enough of a population they move apart and start mutating off in different directions a little.

 

[Mario Kart]

Pretty bad fishing here.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Pretty bad fishing here.

Not fishing, put to simple terms. Bible says incest is wrong but Adam and Eve or their kids had to participate in incest.

 

[Mario Kart]

Pretty bad fishing here.

Not fishing, put to simple terms. Bible says incest is wrong but Adam and Eve or their kids had to participate in incest.

Not directed at you.

 

[Eephus]

I would like to see God's dissertation on this.

The Bible consisted of one word in the era of Adam & Eve

 

[jwp]

Genetics were very pure back then and incest didn't matter. My bible thumper colleague gave me the lowdown on that not too long ago.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

You hate to fall into their trap and dismiss them without listening to anything they(Creationists) have to say but GD I just can't argue with someone who uses a 2,000 year old book as the end all be all, it's like it isn't even possible to allow for human progression. It's like teaching medicine out of a book 200 years old, you simply would not go see that doctor.

And yet we have a lot of people roaming around that believe the bible and everything in it. I guess we need to differentiate between bible thumpers and Creationists because I have known a lot of Christians over the years who spin it as 1 Day could have been a million years in the Old Testament…it just is something you mostly want to avoid. I credit Nye for even doing it BUT he is an attention seeker let's be honest. It's done with the upmost respectfulness but Bill Nye wants his face on TV.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm just wondering how people determine one supernatural claim from another. Until someone can prove to me otherwise, the idea that we all came from a cosmic, golden egg is just as good as any other idea.

Nonsense. It was the cosmic golden chicken that got things started.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Well then how does the genetic diversity within a species actually happen? There has to be a point where you only have a couple of something, right?

No.

Let's say there are 200 chickens. A hundred stay where they've always been, but the other hundred venture east beyond the mountains into an entirely new environment, where they and their descendants face strong new selection pressures. A few thousand generations hence, the descendants in the east can no longer mate with the descendants of the original chickens.

That's speciation, but there were never just two of anything.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

I would like to see God's dissertation on this.

The Bible consisted of one word in the era of Adam & Eve

I like their phallic replacement and assorted sex toy and accoutrement stores. It is their legacy.

 

[ummich10]

Let's say for the sake of argument that all scientific/naturalistic explanations are off the table. How are we to determine which supernatural explanation is the correct explanation for how the world and humans were created? Simply having faith in one or another is not enough, I want to objectively know, as much as possible, how we arrived at where we are.

By and large Christians have won decisively in battle. This clearly demonstrates that God is on their side.

Which battle are you referring to?

The vast majority of them since Christianity came to be and shed light on the truth. That's why they control most of the fertile land, most of the world's wealth, etc. Because God chose them.

I don't care if you're fishing or not, or whether you personally believe in creationism or not. You're arguing the side of the creationists, so answer the question asked please.

 

[DrJ]

Well then how does the genetic diversity within a species actually happen? There has to be a point where you only have a couple of something, right?

No.

Let's say there are 200 chickens. A hundred stay where they've always been, but the other hundred venture east beyond the mountains into an entirely new environment, where they and their descendants face strong new selection pressures. A few thousand generations hence, the descendants in the east can no longer mate with the descendants of the original chickens.

That's speciation, but there were never just two of anything.

Or so the story goes.

 

[DrJ]

Let's say for the sake of argument that all scientific/naturalistic explanations are off the table. How are we to determine which supernatural explanation is the correct explanation for how the world and humans were created? Simply having faith in one or another is not enough, I want to objectively know, as much as possible, how we arrived at where we are.

By and large Christians have won decisively in battle. This clearly demonstrates that God is on their side.

Which battle are you referring to?

The vast majority of them since Christianity came to be and shed light on the truth. That's why they control most of the fertile land, most of the world's wealth, etc. Because God chose them.

I don't care if you're fishing or not, or whether you personally believe in creationism or not. You're arguing the side of the creationists, so answer the question asked please.

I am answering the question.

 

[matuski]

He is not even doing a good job of fishing, yet you guys keep jumping in the boat.

 

[DrJ]

He is not even doing a good job of fishing, yet you guys keep jumping in the boat.

Not sure why you keep suggesting this. Last night I read Berkeley.edu's version of evolution and the confirm pretty much everything I've said here.

 

[fatness]

He is not even doing a good job of fishing, yet you guys keep jumping in the boat.

Yeah, he's not even putting any effort into it now. Last night I read Berkeley.edu's version of evolution and they confirm that some people pretty much evolve that way.

 

[DrJ]

He is not even doing a good job of fishing, yet you guys keep jumping in the boat.

Yeah, he's not even putting any effort into it now. Last night I read Berkeley.edu's version of evolution and they confirm that some people pretty much evolve that way.

I don't see how that's possible since they couldn't confirm evolution actually happened.

 

[ummich10]

He is not even doing a good job of fishing, yet you guys keep jumping in the boat.

Good point, I'm jumping this sinking ship. I hate it when people can't even answer what should be a simple question.

 

[DrJ]

He is not even doing a good job of fishing, yet you guys keep jumping in the boat.

Good point, I'm jumping this sinking ship. I hate it when people can't even answer what should be a simple question.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean your question hasn't been answered.

 

[ummich10]

I didn't ask who won the battle, my intent is to ask an objective question. Put yourself in ancient times, before Christianity developed. You're presented with 3 different creation explanations, from the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Israelis. By which investigative method or process do you determine which one is correct?

 

[DrJ]

I didn't ask who won the battle, my intent is to ask an objective question. Put yourself in ancient times, before Christianity developed. You're presented with 3 different creation explanations, from the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Israelis. By which investigative method or process do you determine which one is correct?

The same method holds up. The people holding the wealth and power are the ones that are most correct, which is why God has chosen them.

 

[eurotrashman]

 

[ummich10]

I didn't ask who won the battle, my intent is to ask an objective question. Put yourself in ancient times, before Christianity developed. You're presented with 3 different creation explanations, from the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Israelis. By which investigative method or process do you determine which one is correct?

The same method holds up. The people holding the wealth and power are the ones that are most correct, which is why God has chosen them.

For some strange reason I feel like I'm starting to get a better feel for the intent behind your posts. Must be a divine revelation.Answer accepted.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

He is not even doing a good job of fishing, yet you guys keep jumping in the boat.

Not sure why you keep suggesting this.

It seems pretty obvious that you're fishing, IMO.

 

[proninja]

I thought this was funny

http://imgur.com/gallery/PbBTk

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

I thought this was funny

http://imgur.com/gallery/PbBTk

lol...extra funny because of the pictures for some reason.

 

[cstu]

I thought this was funny

http://imgur.com/gallery/PbBTk

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I thought this was funny

http://imgur.com/gallery/PbBTk

lol...extra funny because of the pictures for some reason.

Some of the comments are great. "It's like dog shaming, except for dumb people."

 

[fatness]

I thought this was funny

http://imgur.com/gallery/PbBTk

lol...extra funny because of the pictures for some reason.

Some of the comments are great. "It's like dog shaming, except for dumb people."

"if we came from British people, then why are there still British people"

 

[Zow]

I thought this was funny

http://imgur.com/gallery/PbBTk

 

[IC FBGCav]

For all the Adam and Eve people. God gave them free will. Let's just say God never decided to do give free will. Then everyone would be perfect. But God did not do that, he gave free will. So there is only one place to go from perfect.....not be perfect. In free will terms it is a lose/lose.

 

[Ballstein]

To be fair, parasitic wasp larva that eat their hosts are pretty amazing. Scary as ####, but amazing.

 

[joffer]

For all the Adam and Eve people. God gave them free will. Let's just say God never decided to do give free will. Then everyone would be perfect. But God did not do that, he gave free will. So there is only one place to go from perfect.....not be perfect. In free will terms it is a lose/lose.

Yeah, because that's where it breaks down

 

[SacramentoBob]

200 years ago: if we give an infinite amount of scientists an infinite amount of time, one of them should be able to discover a mechanism to create over 20 million species of life from one. Otherwise it's pretty likely God did it.

YOU'RE FISHING.

We're still waiting on this one. Unless they managed to create some new species in a lab...

We didn't need a lab and we have done it - it's called Canis familiaris (or as you might know it, the domestic dog). Dogs were originally a different species - the gray wolf (Canis lupus) - which we domesticated and turned into a new species.

No, they're a subspecies. They're no more a different species than white and black people are a different species. You'd think you guys would have examples that aren't horrible and wrong if this is so evident.

Animals can be different species even if they can interbreed.

Human DNA is 99.99% similar while wolves and dogs are 99.80% similar. However, humans are also about 99% similar to chimps and bonobos.

None of that changes the fact that dogs are a subspecies of wolf, not a separate species.

They are different species, Darwin.

Red x.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

I stand corrected.

Literally posted the first link that came up...I guess I should have done some research. Perhaps others (ahem) could learn from my mistake.

Weird, Yahoo answers is usually so reliable.

 

[SacramentoBob]

To be honest, I find the Christians with a pat easy answer to this to be the most unauthentic. It's not an easy question. I'm a Christian, and I find the fact that 2 year old suffer with leukemia to be incredibly devastating, and I don't have an easy answer for it.

A friend of my family has a not quite 2 year old with leukemia who has been told to go home and enjoy the last two weeks to two month of his life. While I can theologize an answer to it, it doesn't feel very honest.

"It's all part of God's plan" has to be one of the most insensitive things you can say to someone in that situation.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I thought this was funny

http://imgur.com/gallery/PbBTk

maximize 198 points : 3 days ago reply

if we came from British people, then why are there still British people

 

[DrJ]

To be honest, I find the Christians with a pat easy answer to this to be the most unauthentic. It's not an easy question. I'm a Christian, and I find the fact that 2 year old suffer with leukemia to be incredibly devastating, and I don't have an easy answer for it.

A friend of my family has a not quite 2 year old with leukemia who has been told to go home and enjoy the last two weeks to two month of his life. While I can theologize an answer to it, it doesn't feel very honest.

"It's all part of God's plan" has to be one of the most insensitive things you can say to someone in that situation.

Depends on the audience.

 

[Zow]

BTW with Adam and Eve people.........how about the incest issue?

What's the issue?

Incest...bible is against that right?

Not at that point. I guess God figures that once speciation occurs there needs to be a period where some interbreeding happens. Other times this might be required is after a giant flood. Once you have enough of a population to sustain itself without that, it's preferable to eliminate this for more genetic diversity. God did create DNA, so he understands how it works.

A truly great fisherman would know to capitalize the bolded.

 

[Jayrok]

I think that, for the most part, people seem to think that YEC = Christianity, and they simply don't know enough about it to know that it's not only ridiculous, but not remotely required by Christianity.

Are there other parts of Genesis where belief might be required by Christianity? Some mention the gap theory where the first couple of verses of Genesis could span millions of years accounting for the likely older age of the earth. The Bible tracks the years of "man" from Adam, the first man, to Jesus. It isn't thousands of years. Does that say anything about the discovery of human remains that are dated several thousands of years old, plenty of years beyond the measure of time between Jesus and Adam?

Do you feel like the belief in Adam and Eve is required by Christianity? Or do you allow room for people existing before Adam? Do you think that would create any problems in terms of defending the validity/accuracy/inerrency of the Bible? Or do you believe Christianity allows for the entire book of Genesis to be symbolic in nature (at least in terms of creation and the flood, etc.)?

 

[Joe Summer]

BTW with Adam and Eve people.........how about the incest issue?

What's the issue?

Incest...bible is against that right?

Not at that point. I guess God figures that once speciation occurs there needs to be a period where some interbreeding happens. Other times this might be required is after a giant flood. Once you have enough of a population to sustain itself without that, it's preferable to eliminate this for more genetic diversity. God did create DNA, so he understands how it works.

You'd think there would be a point in the Bible where God says "Incest is approved until you get to the Xth generation, at which point it becomes a sin."

 

[Dexter]

I'm going to put this right here: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/

“We find they are getting less fit in the ancestral niche over time,” Lenski said. “I would argue that citrate users are — or are becoming — a new species.”

 

[tonydead]

I'm going to put this right here: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/

“We find they are getting less fit in the ancestral niche over time,” Lenski said. “I would argue that citrate users are — or are becoming — a new species.”

I thought about posting that, but, it's way over the Dr's head.

We're still waiting on this one. Unless they managed to create some new species in a lab...

They already have. And we can clone stuff too. Its almost like were playing god. O

 

[proninja]

I think that, for the most part, people seem to think that YEC = Christianity, and they simply don't know enough about it to know that it's not only ridiculous, but not remotely required by Christianity.

Are there other parts of Genesis where belief might be required by Christianity? Some mention the gap theory where the first couple of verses of Genesis could span millions of years accounting for the likely older age of the earth. The Bible tracks the years of "man" from Adam, the first man, to Jesus. It isn't thousands of years. Does that say anything about the discovery of human remains that are dated several thousands of years old, plenty of years beyond the measure of time between Jesus and Adam?

Do you feel like the belief in Adam and Eve is required by Christianity? Or do you allow room for people existing before Adam? Do you think that would create any problems in terms of defending the validity/accuracy/inerrency of the Bible? Or do you believe Christianity allows for the entire book of Genesis to be symbolic in nature (at least in terms of creation and the flood, etc.)?

Those are some big questions. I don’t feel completely qualified to answer all of them, but I’ll briefly explain where I land on some of these issues.

There are two main issues at play here - inerrancy and literalism. If you try to defend inerrancy with a literal reading of the bible all the way through, you’re going to have a really bad time, or else you’re going to end up checking your brain at the door, talking in circles without making much sense, then strutting around like you accomplished something like we see Ken Ham do. That’s bad. I can’t do that. The bible is composed of different types of literature, not all of which are meant to be taken literally.

As far as inerrancy, I’ve been reading some Barth lately, and while I’m not ready to affirm his doctrine of inerrancy, I’m a lot closer to that than I am affirming the CSBI, or to say the general view of modern evangelicalism. Briefly (though I assume you know this), Barth states that the bible is a book written by man, inspired by God to be used by the HS to reveal Jesus to the reader. Absent the holy spirit present to reveal Christ to the reader, it is simply a book written by some guys a long time ago.

The literal Adam is something I’m open to one way or another. I have always affirmed a literal Adam, mainly because it’s what I’ve been taught in my sort of evangelical sort of reformed church. Scriptures outside of Genesis stating that sin entered the world through one man seem to point to a literal Adam. But, if I am to take Genesis as an overall creation narrative rather than a point by point detail, it’s hard for me to then in the same work state that a literal Adam is absolutely necessary - I do strive to be consistent. So I'll answer this a solid "I don't know enough to have an opinion."

This big ball we sit on is part of general revelation. The reformed doctrine of election points to God revealing himself in creation so that no man is without excuse. Most Christians who are reformed in their soteriology will affirm this. However, when science reveals something about creation, they don’t consider this to be man exploring revelation in a different manner. To me that is completely in conflict. If we are to affirm creation as revelation, don’t we have to then point to what science is doing and consider that on some level to be exploring God’s revelation to man?

Now, general revelation (or science, imo) shouldn’t trump special revelation (bible). But, they shouldn’t be in conflict. If God has revealed himself to us in multiple ways, these two cannot be at odds, or else God is in conflict with himself, which we can’t have. What I do think science can do to faith is to shape how we read particular portions of the bible. If God has revealed something like evolution to us very clearly through general revelation, then it seems silly to try to force a literal reading of Genesis, as this is in my opinion forcing God to be in conflict with himself. The worst mistake we can make with scripture is to try to assume we can easily figure out what it means when it isn’t clear on a particular subject, because then we put our own opinions over the text. Fortunately, scripture is crystal clear on the important part - the gospel narrative - but in matters of things like law, morality, and creation it does not always speak clearly, and if we exegete in a dogmatic way and aren’t open to where we are wrong, all we are doing is superimposing our own beliefs on the bible. Barth said “The Fundamentalists says he knows the Bible, but he must have become master over the Bible, which means master over revelation... I consider it just another kind of natural theology: a view of the modern man who wants to control revelation.” I don’t want to consider myself master over revelation, so I must constantly consider the fact that my interpretation of any particular scripture or doctrine may be wrong.

Now, I know this has problems too, and I’m a small step away from making the bible depend on what men dig out of the dirt, which is a pretty big issue. I think that, however (again I’ll echo Barth here), the bible’s primary purpose is to speak to the life and work of Christ, and his life, death, and resurrection is the central point around which the entire book rotates. The bible’s goal is not to tell us how old the earth is. The bible’s goal is to witness to Christ. Christ and his work is the one thing that I will be dogmatic about. The rest? Man, there’s so much I don’t know. I’m not near confident enough in my knowledge to start answering the tough questions you asked with any authority.

Thoughts?

 

[DrJ]

BTW with Adam and Eve people.........how about the incest issue?

What's the issue?

Incest...bible is against that right?

Not at that point. I guess God figures that once speciation occurs there needs to be a period where some interbreeding happens. Other times this might be required is after a giant flood. Once you have enough of a population to sustain itself without that, it's preferable to eliminate this for more genetic diversity. God did create DNA, so he understands how it works.

You'd think there would be a point in the Bible where God says "Incest is approved until you get to the Xth generation, at which point it becomes a sin."

You have to read between the lines a bit.