What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

If you visit the Christianity subreddit, you'd find a lot of people who disagree with Ken Ham.
A headcount of all self-identified Christians worldwide (including non-practicing "cultural" Christians, "cafeteria Catholics", etc.) woudl reveal that among this set, hardcore Creationists** would be outnumbered several hundred to one. At best.

** this excludes those that believe in the "watchmaker God" that initiated the Big Bang, then sat back and watched the universe unfold.
While you excluded them they have the best argument. No one can say what happened before the Big Bang. No one can say how it started. We reach a point where an omnipotent being is as good an answer as anything science has. Now I don't believe it but it's at least in line with scientific evidence to some degree.
I'd disagree here, and I bet you would too upon re-evaluating this statement.
I have evaluated that statement for some time. The reality is an omnipotent being has as much potential as say our universe really being like a sheet paper that touched another universe thus causing the Big Bang. Until we get a few nanoseconds out and the laws of the universe kicked in we got nothing. Now I don't believe in God or gods. But I have absolutely no basis in science to say beyond an absolute doubt that an omnipotent being couldn't have started the Big Bang. Of course there are reasons to reject the God theory but that is true of every theory out there. And if we believe where science is leading us with quantum theory we really have to allow for an infinitesimally small chance of it happening that way.
Not being able to say it "absolutely" does not mean it is an equally likely explanation. Just another variable on top of an already mind boggling level complexity.

Put another way, which is more complex (less likely)?:

The Big Bang by itself

or

The Big Bang + supernatural omnipotent god

:shrug:

Why add a god to the mix? Which god or gods are you adding? You just made an the problem infinitely harder.
Every theory given so far for the Big Bang is incredibly complex and has a very small chance of being right. I don't think an omnipotent being makes it that much more complex at that point in time. Of course added complexity is one of those reasons I mentioned for rejecting the God theory. But again you can't name a Big Bang theory that hasn't been worked over pretty good on multiple fronts or one that has even come close to being accepted as the one, especially given all the new work on the theoretical existence of a multiverse.
I am not nor ever will be an expert on the Big Bang, but I recognize the complexity and inherent room for improvement.

I guess we are splitting hairs, but adding an infinite amount of complexity (a god) to an incredibly complex equation (Big Bang) certainly affects it's likelyhood.
I think the complexity really kicks in after the Bang. The universe gets much more complex if some being is running it on a daily basis than if they just started it rolling and let chips fall where they may. But yeah we are splitting hairs a bit. However that's half the fun.

 
Are there really adults who take stories like Adam and Eve and Noah's ark literally?
No one ever spoke to Noah

They all laughed at him instead

Working on his ark, working all by himself

Only Noah saw it coming

Forty days and forty nights

Took his sons and daughters with him

Yeah they were the Israelites

All you zombies hide your faces

All you people in the street

All you sittin' in high places

The rain's gonna fall on you

 
Nye can never change Ham's mind or "win" the debate but he can open the eyes for a lot of people watching. Nobody who doesn't already share Ham's belief's will be swayed his way. The more of these the better.

 
Are there really adults who take stories like Adam and Eve and Noah's ark literally?
No one ever spoke to Noah

They all laughed at him instead

Working on his ark, working all by himself

Only Noah saw it coming

Forty days and forty nights

Took his sons and daughters with him

Yeah they were the Israelites

All you zombies hide your faces

All you people in the street

All you sittin' in high places

The rain's gonna fall on you
Nice Hooters reference

 
Are there really adults who take stories like Adam and Eve and Noah's ark literally?
Of course. I used to, in fact. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, and they preached the Bible as literal truth, young earth, Jonah and the whale and the whole nine yards. In college I began to really question those things and it caused me great heartache because, although I absolutely believe in God and accept Christ as my savior, how can I be a true Christian if I don't believe Noah literally fit all those animals on the ark? Come to find out there are millions and millions of Christians like myself who view the OT as allegory, and accept traditional evolutionary views as scientific truth.

"YEC" (young earth creationists) are not as numerous as Americans think, though. There are a lot in America, which probably explains why atheists/agnostics think every christian believes in a 6,000 year old Earth, but it is not the majority.

 
Are there really adults who take stories like Adam and Eve and Noah's ark literally?
Of course. I used to, in fact. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, and they preached the Bible as literal truth, young earth, Jonah and the whale and the whole nine yards. In college I began to really question those things and it caused me great heartache because, although I absolutely believe in God and accept Christ as my savior, how can I be a true Christian if I don't believe Noah literally fit all those animals on the ark? Come to find out there are millions and millions of Christians like myself who view the OT as allegory, and accept traditional evolutionary views as scientific truth.

"YEC" (young earth creationists) are not as numerous as Americans think, though. There are a lot in America, which probably explains why atheists/agnostics think every christian believes in a 6,000 year old Earth, but it is not the majority.
So you think the polls that say 40% are wrong? Granted, results vary on how you word the question, but not that much.
 
Are there really adults who take stories like Adam and Eve and Noah's ark literally?
Of course. I used to, in fact. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, and they preached the Bible as literal truth, young earth, Jonah and the whale and the whole nine yards. In college I began to really question those things and it caused me great heartache because, although I absolutely believe in God and accept Christ as my savior, how can I be a true Christian if I don't believe Noah literally fit all those animals on the ark? Come to find out there are millions and millions of Christians like myself who view the OT as allegory, and accept traditional evolutionary views as scientific truth.

"YEC" (young earth creationists) are not as numerous as Americans think, though. There are a lot in America, which probably explains why atheists/agnostics think every christian believes in a 6,000 year old Earth, but it is not the majority.
So you think the polls that say 40% are wrong? Granted, results vary on how you word the question, but not that much.
Just curious, which polls? And yes, I doubt 40% of Christians (including Catholics) are "YEC".

 
Embarrassing that this is still a 'debate'.
No ####. Do we even live in a first world country? I mean look at all the stupidity in the link below. Buzzfeed sent a reporter to have creationists write a message to people who believe in evolution.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolution

My favorite has to be "If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?" Unreal that people seemingly capable of logical thought believe in this stuff.
I would like to learn about Noetics with #7.

 
Embarrassing that this is still a 'debate'.
No ####. Do we even live in a first world country? I mean look at all the stupidity in the link below. Buzzfeed sent a reporter to have creationists write a message to people who believe in evolution.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolution

My favorite has to be "If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?" Unreal that people seemingly capable of logical thought believe in this stuff.
I would like to learn about Noetics with #7.
Strong cross-section of America there.

 
Embarrassing that this is still a 'debate'.
No ####. Do we even live in a first world country? I mean look at all the stupidity in the link below. Buzzfeed sent a reporter to have creationists write a message to people who believe in evolution.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolution

My favorite has to be "If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?" Unreal that people seemingly capable of logical thought believe in this stuff.
I would like to learn about Noetics with #7.
I'd #### the stupid out of her for sure.

 
Embarrassing that this is still a 'debate'.
No ####. Do we even live in a first world country? I mean look at all the stupidity in the link below. Buzzfeed sent a reporter to have creationists write a message to people who believe in evolution.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolution

My favorite has to be "If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?" Unreal that people seemingly capable of logical thought believe in this stuff.
I would like to learn about Noetics with #7.
I'd #### the stupid out of her for sure.
Best one:

How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?
 
Embarrassing that this is still a 'debate'.
No ####. Do we even live in a first world country? I mean look at all the stupidity in the link below. Buzzfeed sent a reporter to have creationists write a message to people who believe in evolution.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolution

My favorite has to be "If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?" Unreal that people seemingly capable of logical thought believe in this stuff.
I would like to learn about Noetics with #7.
I'd #### the stupid out of her for sure.
Best one:

How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?
I like "if we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys". This guys really has a great understanding of Evolution.

I also like the people that don't understand what a scientific theory is.

 
Embarrassing that this is still a 'debate'.
No ####. Do we even live in a first world country? I mean look at all the stupidity in the link below. Buzzfeed sent a reporter to have creationists write a message to people who believe in evolution.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolution

My favorite has to be "If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?" Unreal that people seemingly capable of logical thought believe in this stuff.
The sad part is those questions are easily answered with a few minutes of research.

 
And this is why I have a fit when I see someone who believes Evolution saying we came from monkeys. We shared a common ancestor with the other great apes, we didn't come from them.
We do come from monkeys.

Humans, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, are great apes. Great apes split with Old World Monkeys after Old World Monkeys split from New World Monkeys. That means that the most recent common ancestor between Old World Monkeys and New World Monkeys -- which would be categorized as a monkey were it alive today -- was also an ancestor of humans.

We also come from fish.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
While you excluded them they have the best argument. No one can say what happened before the Big Bang. No one can say how it started. We reach a point where an omnipotent being is as good an answer as anything science has. Now I don't believe it but it's at least in line with scientific evidence to some degree.
I'd disagree here, and I bet you would too upon re-evaluating this statement.
I agree with NCCommish that an omnipotent being is as good an answer as anything science has, but that's because, when it comes to "before the Big Bang," science doesn't have any answers at all.

But that doesn't mean that an omnipotent being is as good an answer as anything my twelve-year-old cousin has. My twelve-year-old cousin can conceive of a very powerful, but not quite omnipotent, being. That seems more likely because omnipotence is not strictly required for universe-creation, and there are many more ways to be not-quite-omnipotent than there are to be omnipotent.

 
And this is why I have a fit when I see someone who believes Evolution saying we came from monkeys. We shared a common ancestor with the other great apes, we didn't come from them.
We do come from monkeys.

Humans, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, are great apes. Great apes split with Old World Monkeys after Old World Monkeys split from New World Monkeys. That means that the most recent common ancestor between Old World Monkeys and New World Monkeys -- which would be categorized as a monkey were it alive today -- was also an ancestor of humans.

We also come from fish.
Well to be technical we originally evolved from Sea Sponges. Just like every other multi-cellular animal did. So I mean where ever you want to draw the line. But these people are referring to modern apes. We definitely didn't evolve from them. Maybe Pan Prior but not modern chimps or bonobos.

 
While you excluded them they have the best argument. No one can say what happened before the Big Bang. No one can say how it started. We reach a point where an omnipotent being is as good an answer as anything science has. Now I don't believe it but it's at least in line with scientific evidence to some degree.
I'd disagree here, and I bet you would too upon re-evaluating this statement.
I agree with NCCommish that an omnipotent being is as good an answer as anything science has, but that's because, when it comes to "before the Big Bang," science doesn't have any answers at all.

But that doesn't mean that an omnipotent being is as good an answer as anything my twelve-year-old cousin has. My twelve-year-old cousin can conceive of a very powerful, but not quite omnipotent, being. That seems more likely because omnipotence is not strictly required for universe-creation, and there are many more ways to be not-quite-omnipotent than there are to be omnipotent.
Yep. I think we agree almost entirely.

Any imaginary creature could be suggested and be "as good an answer". I have no idea why anyone would want to throw this can of worms into the mix.

 
Are there really adults who take stories like Adam and Eve and Noah's ark literally?
Yes. Lots.
Do they know how many ant species there are? The ant population alone disproves the Noah myth.
I think a lot of them just believe there were two ants. Total. Aka two of each "kind" of animal/insect. Instead of the however many thousand species of ants there are.

That doesn't really help when there are probably a million different kinds of insects in the world, but :shrug: .

 
While you excluded them they have the best argument. No one can say what happened before the Big Bang. No one can say how it started. We reach a point where an omnipotent being is as good an answer as anything science has. Now I don't believe it but it's at least in line with scientific evidence to some degree.
I'd disagree here, and I bet you would too upon re-evaluating this statement.
I agree with NCCommish that an omnipotent being is as good an answer as anything science has, but that's because, when it comes to "before the Big Bang," science doesn't have any answers at all.

But that doesn't mean that an omnipotent being is as good an answer as anything my twelve-year-old cousin has. My twelve-year-old cousin can conceive of a very powerful, but not quite omnipotent, being. That seems more likely because omnipotence is not strictly required for universe-creation, and there are many more ways to be not-quite-omnipotent than there are to be omnipotent.
Yep. On the semi omnipotent God that would fit with the Old Testament:

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
 
And this is why I have a fit when I see someone who believes Evolution saying we came from monkeys. We shared a common ancestor with the other great apes, we didn't come from them.
We do come from monkeys.

Humans, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, are great apes. Great apes split with Old World Monkeys after Old World Monkeys split from New World Monkeys. That means that the most recent common ancestor between Old World Monkeys and New World Monkeys -- which would be categorized as a monkey were it alive today -- was also an ancestor of humans.

We also come from fish.
Great, now conspiracy theorists are gonna start worrying about a New World Monkey Order.

 
From what I gather, his trump card is that the bible is the literal word of God and thus everything in it is true. I'm not sure how you argue around that.
You can't. It's a non-starter.
Therein lies the problem. People actually believe the bible is god's word, that it was written by god. It's not. I was written by men. men with agendas, men with biases, men with bills to pay, etc.

 
I guess I'll put this on right now as I'm falling asleep. Then tomorrow I can try to figure out how far I got by looking for the break between stuff I remember and stuff I don't.
I made it through both five-minute intros, and through maybe a third of Mr. Ham's 30-minute argument. I'll try to pick it up again tonight.

I was pleasantly surprised with Nye's preparedness. In his five-minute intro, it was clear that he was already familiar with Mr. Ham's goofy distinction between historical science and observational science.

Mr. Ham is slick. Almost everything he says is completely wrong, but it's all plausible-sounding enough at first blush that, to people who lack expertise on the subject, it can be persuasive. It's difficult to refute all of Mr. Ham's nonsense upon hearing it for the first time, but what little I've seen from Nye so far suggests that he had done enough research that he wasn't hearing it for the first time. I'll find out more when I watch the rest...

 
I'm a "young earther" - but I recall someone here on this board at some point opening my mind to the possibility that the earh was created as an "old or mature" earth - similar to Adam being created as a mature adult.

I'm going to watch the debate today, if it's still available for watching onlne.

:blackdot:
As a young earth creationist, why even pretend that you need "evidence" for your beliefs? If you're gonna go with it, man, just go with it.
:goodposting: Nobody likes a guy who buries his head in the sand then keeps peeking out
Not burying my head or looking for any additional evidence at all. I hold to the Biblical position of a six day creation. I have no idea why you would think that entertaining the idea that earth may have been created as an "aged" creation is a compromise of beliefs - but whatever.

 
And this is why I have a fit when I see someone who believes Evolution saying we came from monkeys. We shared a common ancestor with the other great apes, we didn't come from them.
While what you say is accurate ... to an unscientific mind, the "come from monkeys" thing holds up in a oblique way. Consider that if a hypothetical Pan prior specimen were ever time-travelled to the present day, pretty much anybody would point to it and call it "a monkey" :D

 
I'm a "young earther" - but I recall someone here on this board at some point opening my mind to the possibility that the earh was created as an "old or mature" earth - similar to Adam being created as a mature adult.

I'm going to watch the debate today, if it's still available for watching onlne.

:blackdot:
As a young earth creationist, why even pretend that you need "evidence" for your beliefs? If you're gonna go with it, man, just go with it.
:goodposting: Nobody likes a guy who buries his head in the sand then keeps peeking out
Not burying my head or looking for any additional evidence at all. I hold to the Biblical position of a six day creation. I have no idea why you would think that entertaining the idea that earth may have been created as an "aged" creation is a compromise of beliefs - but whatever.
Holding to a literal view of the human/animal creation story, how are there animal fossils in a layer of "aged" earth that dates to millions of years ago?

 
I'm a "young earther" - but I recall someone here on this board at some point opening my mind to the possibility that the earh was created as an "old or mature" earth - similar to Adam being created as a mature adult.

I'm going to watch the debate today, if it's still available for watching onlne.

:blackdot:
As a young earth creationist, why even pretend that you need "evidence" for your beliefs? If you're gonna go with it, man, just go with it.
:goodposting: Nobody likes a guy who buries his head in the sand then keeps peeking out
Not burying my head or looking for any additional evidence at all. I hold to the Biblical position of a six day creation. I have no idea why you would think that entertaining the idea that earth may have been created as an "aged" creation is a compromise of beliefs - but whatever.
How does this work? Did god create the earth with dinosaur bones deep in the earth to fool us? So we would think it's aged? Like as a prank? What day did he do that on? His schedule that week seems kind of busy although he may have been able to squeeze it in by COB on that Thursday.

 
I'm a "young earther" - but I recall someone here on this board at some point opening my mind to the possibility that the earh was created as an "old or mature" earth - similar to Adam being created as a mature adult.

I'm going to watch the debate today, if it's still available for watching onlne.

:blackdot:
As a young earth creationist, why even pretend that you need "evidence" for your beliefs? If you're gonna go with it, man, just go with it.
:goodposting: Nobody likes a guy who buries his head in the sand then keeps peeking out
Not burying my head or looking for any additional evidence at all. I hold to the Biblical position of a six day creation. I have no idea why you would think that entertaining the idea that earth may have been created as an "aged" creation is a compromise of beliefs - but whatever.
Holding to a literal view of the human/animal creation story, how are there animal fossils in a layer of "aged" earth that dates to millions of years ago?
That's Gods way of testing you. Are you going to believe him or your lying eyes?

 
I'm a "young earther" - but I recall someone here on this board at some point opening my mind to the possibility that the earh was created as an "old or mature" earth - similar to Adam being created as a mature adult.

I'm going to watch the debate today, if it's still available for watching onlne.

:blackdot:
As a young earth creationist, why even pretend that you need "evidence" for your beliefs? If you're gonna go with it, man, just go with it.
:goodposting: Nobody likes a guy who buries his head in the sand then keeps peeking out
I hold to the Biblical position of a six day creation.
This is you

 
Not burying my head or looking for any additional evidence at all. I hold to the Biblical position of a six day creation. I have no idea why you would think that entertaining the idea that earth may have been created as an "aged" creation is a compromise of beliefs - but whatever.
Holding to a literal view of the human/animal creation story, how are there animal fossils in a layer of "aged" earth that dates to millions of years ago?
Not to answer for On the Rocks, but some might say that God put those faux fossils there to create the false appearance of an old earth, the same way that he created light from distant stars already on its way, or the same way that he created Adam and Eve with belly-buttons.

 
I wouldn't say that ... the methodology presented at the bottom says it's based on polling 1,024 people.

And I understand polling statistics and such ... but I gotta think that the kinds of people that have time to answer surveys really biases the results. Statistics be dammed -- if they could somehow ask all Americans, they wouldn't sniff 40+%.

Can't prove it, of course. I take it on faith :D

 
Not burying my head or looking for any additional evidence at all. I hold to the Biblical position of a six day creation. I have no idea why you would think that entertaining the idea that earth may have been created as an "aged" creation is a compromise of beliefs - but whatever.
Holding to a literal view of the human/animal creation story, how are there animal fossils in a layer of "aged" earth that dates to millions of years ago?
Not to answer for On the Rocks, but some might say that God put those faux fossils there to create the false appearance of an old earth, the same way that he created light from distant stars already on its way, or the same way that he created Adam and Eve with belly-buttons.
That god sure is a wacky guy. He should get a sitcom.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top