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

[Mr. Know-It-All]

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.

Oh yeah, well if we evolved from sea sponges why are there still sea sponges, Mr. Smartypants.

 

[Doug B]

I wonder how much the number goes down by if they exclude the South.

Not much use for us, eh?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

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.

Oh yeah, well if we evolved from sea sponges why are there still sea sponges, Mr. Smartypants.

No way am I going to wash my dishes with my grandpa's corpse.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

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.

Oh yeah, well if we evolved from sea sponges why are there still sea sponges, Mr. Smartypants.

No way am I going to wash my dishes with my grandpa's corpse.

Exactly. That is just sick.

 

[babydemon90]

Thing is - even Ken Ham, On The Rocks, whoever - no one believed 100% of the Bible is literally true. They don't even believe 100% of Genesis is literally true. They, like everyone use, use experience and reason to decide what parts are literal and what parts are figurative. When the Bible said Joshua told the sun to stand still, and it did - did the sun literally stand still? Pretty sure they would say no. Maybe they'd say the earth stood still (although I can't even imagine the implications of that) - but the Bible does not say the earth stood still - it says the sun did. Not literal.
The problem is, they have arbitrarily decided what they want to interpret literally, and then bend science and reason to accommodate that. They're not trying to interpret the Bible with an open mind, looks for the message it is trying to say, they have decided what they think it is saying, and everything else must fit that.

 

[NCCommish]

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.

Oh yeah, well if we evolved from sea sponges why are there still sea sponges, Mr. Smartypants.

No way am I going to wash my dishes with my grandpa's corpse.

Exactly. That is just sick.

They leave less spots.

 

[SacramentoBob]

There's no way you can prove Adam and Eve had belly buttons. Check and mate.

 

[Scoresman]

I wonder how much the number goes down by if they exclude the South.

Not much use for us, eh?

Well I do like BBQ and Cajun food. So there's that.

 

[urbanhack]

Thing is - even Ken Ham, On The Rocks, whoever - no one believed 100% of the Bible is literally true. They don't even believe 100% of Genesis is literally true. They, like everyone use, use experience and reason to decide what parts are literal and what parts are figurative. When the Bible said Joshua told the sun to stand still, and it did - did the sun literally stand still? Pretty sure they would say no. Maybe they'd say the earth stood still (although I can't even imagine the implications of that) - but the Bible does not say the earth stood still - it says the sun did. Not literal.

The problem is, they have arbitrarily decided what they want to interpret literally, and then bend science and reason to accommodate that. They're not trying to interpret the Bible with an open mind, looks for the message it is trying to say, they have decided what they think it is saying, and everything else must fit that.

So why believe any of it?

 

[fatness]

Embarrassing that this is still a 'debate'.

There's a lot of money to be made, and a lot of candidates to elect, by stoking the creationist fire..

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Thing is - even Ken Ham, On The Rocks, whoever - no one believed 100% of the Bible is literally true. They don't even believe 100% of Genesis is literally true. They, like everyone use, use experience and reason to decide what parts are literal and what parts are figurative. When the Bible said Joshua told the sun to stand still, and it did - did the sun literally stand still? Pretty sure they would say no. Maybe they'd say the earth stood still (although I can't even imagine the implications of that) - but the Bible does not say the earth stood still - it says the sun did. Not literal.

The problem is, they have arbitrarily decided what they want to interpret literally, and then bend science and reason to accommodate that. They're not trying to interpret the Bible with an open mind, looks for the message it is trying to say, they have decided what they think it is saying, and everything else must fit that.

So why believe any of it?

Because some of it is true?

It seems perfectly reasonable to believe the true parts and to disbelieve the false parts.

 

[On The Rocks]

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.

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.

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?

You will never catch me wading into a debate arguing one way or another regarding "sceintific" anything.

You can show me what you call evidence about 100-million year old this or that and you might as well be trying to describe color to a blind man. It doesn't mean anything to me. I have no idea how the idea of aging something "millions of years" was ever developed. I've never taken the time to try and understand it, because it basically doesn't matter to me. I don't care how old the earth is. The earh may very well be millions of years old. However I have always held to a young earth - Biblical account of a 6 day creation - and only thought it was an interesting position to consider that the earth may have been crearted "mature".

I'm not here to defend my beliefs.

 

[On The Rocks]

Thing is - even Ken Ham, On The Rocks, whoever - no one believed 100% of the Bible is literally true. They don't even believe 100% of Genesis is literally true. They, like everyone use, use experience and reason to decide what parts are literal and what parts are figurative. When the Bible said Joshua told the sun to stand still, and it did - did the sun literally stand still? Pretty sure they would say no. Maybe they'd say the earth stood still (although I can't even imagine the implications of that) - but the Bible does not say the earth stood still - it says the sun did. Not literal.

The problem is, they have arbitrarily decided what they want to interpret literally, and then bend science and reason to accommodate that. They're not trying to interpret the Bible with an open mind, looks for the message it is trying to say, they have decided what they think it is saying, and everything else must fit that.

I do.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I am having this debate on going in my house and likely will be for some time. I recently had a very long talk with my son about science, faith, the Bible, the big bang, everything. He is enamoured with science and astronomy and the planets and the universe and watches more universe science shows than kid shows.

So, from one of those awful evangellical Christians who probably gets lumped into Hamm's group, but who loves Bill Nye (as does my son) here was my basic talk to my son in a nutshell.

We watched how the earth was formed. It took it from the big bang to humans living here. And without writing a billion paragraphs the gist was it took something close to millions of one in a billion chances for everything to happen just right to get the planet we have. I told my son that is God. Or that could be God. He could have used the Big Bang just like science explains it. He could have molded the planets just like science explains it. Science wouldn't be able to confirm or deny it anyway and that is where faith comes in. Let there be light sounds and looks to me an awful lot like the Big Bang. And it's hard for me as someone of faith to sit there and hear how many millions of billion to one chances had to happen and just say, eh, we were lucky. I believe there was more to it.

But for my son, I want him to question. I hate Christians that attack science. To me, science is our tool to learn about and explain to ourselves God's creation. I welcome all of it. I just have a different point of reference for it than some and I obviously dispute with the people that think science can disprove God, because it can't. And it shouldn't bother. Science and faith are two different things. And they can and shold coexist and we should nurture scientific inquiry every chance we get.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

There's no way you can prove Adam and Eve had belly buttons. Check and mate.

Eau contrair

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

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.

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.

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?

You will never catch me wading into a debate arguing one way or another regarding "sceintific" anything.

You can show me what you call evidence about 100-million year old this or that and you might as well be trying to describe color to a blind man. It doesn't mean anything to me. I have no idea how the idea of aging something "millions of years" was ever developed. I've never taken the time to try and understand it, because it basically doesn't matter to me. I don't care how old the earth is. The earh may very well be millions of years old. However I have always held to a young earth - Biblical account of a 6 day creation - and only thought it was an interesting position to consider that the earth may have been crearted "mature".

I'm not here to defend my beliefs.

That is actually very sad.

 

[cstu]

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.

Watch this:

What Darwin Never Knew

I'd honestly love to hear a creationist's opinion of this program.

 

[Rayderr]

Thing is - even Ken Ham, On The Rocks, whoever - no one believed 100% of the Bible is literally true. They don't even believe 100% of Genesis is literally true. They, like everyone use, use experience and reason to decide what parts are literal and what parts are figurative. When the Bible said Joshua told the sun to stand still, and it did - did the sun literally stand still? Pretty sure they would say no. Maybe they'd say the earth stood still (although I can't even imagine the implications of that) - but the Bible does not say the earth stood still - it says the sun did. Not literal.

The problem is, they have arbitrarily decided what they want to interpret literally, and then bend science and reason to accommodate that. They're not trying to interpret the Bible with an open mind, looks for the message it is trying to say, they have decided what they think it is saying, and everything else must fit that.

I do.

Bought any foreigners lately?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

 

[Eephus]

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.

Oh yeah, well if we evolved from sea sponges why are there still sea sponges, Mr. Smartypants.

to mop up what's left of Ken Ham after Bill Nye finished with him

 

[SacramentoBob]

Thing is - even Ken Ham, On The Rocks, whoever - no one believed 100% of the Bible is literally true. They don't even believe 100% of Genesis is literally true. They, like everyone use, use experience and reason to decide what parts are literal and what parts are figurative. When the Bible said Joshua told the sun to stand still, and it did - did the sun literally stand still? Pretty sure they would say no. Maybe they'd say the earth stood still (although I can't even imagine the implications of that) - but the Bible does not say the earth stood still - it says the sun did. Not literal.

The problem is, they have arbitrarily decided what they want to interpret literally, and then bend science and reason to accommodate that. They're not trying to interpret the Bible with an open mind, looks for the message it is trying to say, they have decided what they think it is saying, and everything else must fit that.

I do.

Bought any foreigners lately?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

I like the fact you can beat your servant with a stick and you can avoid punishment if the beating isn't severe enough to kill them until after 2 days.

[SIZE=.75em]20 “When a man hits his male or female servant with a stick so that he or she dies, he will be punished. [/SIZE][SIZE=.75em]21 But if he or she lives a day or two, he will not be punished, for his servant belongs to him.[/SIZE]

 

[On The Rocks]

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.

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.

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?

You will never catch me wading into a debate arguing one way or another regarding "sceintific" anything.

You can show me what you call evidence about 100-million year old this or that and you might as well be trying to describe color to a blind man. It doesn't mean anything to me. I have no idea how the idea of aging something "millions of years" was ever developed. I've never taken the time to try and understand it, because it basically doesn't matter to me. I don't care how old the earth is. The earh may very well be millions of years old. However I have always held to a young earth - Biblical account of a 6 day creation - and only thought it was an interesting position to consider that the earth may have been crearted "mature".

I'm not here to defend my beliefs.

That is actually very sad.

This is why the last time I posted in a "religious" thread three years ago, I swore I wouldn't do it again.

hahahaha

Listen...I used to be a dogmatic Christian,...debating and arguing with people all the time about what I believe to be true and what non-believers thought - but it no longer matters to me. I understand that different people believe different things.

As much as believe the Bible and the creation story, I am also a big fan of science and have enjoyed wathing Bill Nye in the past and will continue watching him.

 

[Worm]

Arguing about the right/wrongness and relevancy of old testament laws doesn't seem very germane to the old vs new earth, creation vs. evolution topic.

 

[joffer]

Never understood the "one chance in billions" argument. 100 billion galaxies. 100 billion stars each. Seems to me there were plenty of chances.

 

[timschochet]

Thing is - even Ken Ham, On The Rocks, whoever - no one believed 100% of the Bible is literally true. They don't even believe 100% of Genesis is literally true. They, like everyone use, use experience and reason to decide what parts are literal and what parts are figurative. When the Bible said Joshua told the sun to stand still, and it did - did the sun literally stand still? Pretty sure they would say no. Maybe they'd say the earth stood still (although I can't even imagine the implications of that) - but the Bible does not say the earth stood still - it says the sun did. Not literal.

The problem is, they have arbitrarily decided what they want to interpret literally, and then bend science and reason to accommodate that. They're not trying to interpret the Bible with an open mind, looks for the message it is trying to say, they have decided what they think it is saying, and everything else must fit that.

On the contrary, Ken Ham does believe the Bible is literally true, as do many others.

Regarding the sun standing still: once I asked a Lubavitch rabbi that question. (Lubavitchers are very close to Hasidism, and believe the Torah- first 5 books of Moses- to be literally true. I had just watched the film Inherit The Wind, in which Spencer Tracy explains what would happen if the sun stood still. This rabbi gave me basically the same answer that Frederick March in the film did: that yes, the sun stood still, because God made it so. And no, nothing else happened, because God made it so.

The point is that to this rabbi, and to most ultra religious people, God is a being outside of science. God can bend science to His whim- that would be the very definition of a "miracle." So therefore there is no contradiction between what God does and what science tells us. For example, God could have created the Earth 6,000 years ago but created it billions of years old already, in the same manner that He created Adam as an adult man. (CrossEyed made this exact argument in this forum once months ago.)

 

[EYLive]

The thing is, the Bible isn't meant to explain geology or astronomy or nature.

These debates have been going on for years. Neither side will "win" since niether side has all the answers.

 

[glock]

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.

Do be "fair", we don't really know that they did.

 

[(HULK)]

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.

Lol, these are great.

My responses to a few:

And no #4, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution as the earth is not a closed system. Good try for that guy.

#5 needs a lesson on there/their before she can handle remedial science.

#9. If God originated the first single celled organism, how did God originate, by chance?

#10: Looking at you, I'd bet you don't know a lot about banging

#13: Do dentists help support your face?

#14: Its not taught as fact, its taught as theory.

#17: The slaughter of gingers

#22: If you came from your parents why are there still your parents?

 

[JAMES!]

The thing is, the Bible isn't meant to explain geology or astronomy or nature.

These debates have been going on for years. Neither side will "win" since niether side has all the answers.

One side has some of the answers and is actively trying to find the rest.

 

[glock]

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.

Oh yeah, well if we evolved from sea sponges why are there still sea sponges, Mr. Smartypants.

And what of Sponge Bob??

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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.

Lol, these are great.

My responses to a few:

And no #4, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution as the earth is not a closed system. Good try for that guy.

#5 needs a lesson on there/their before she can handle remedial science.

#9. If God originated the first single celled organism, how did God originate, by chance?

#10: Looking at you, I'd bet you don't know a lot about banging

#13: Do dentists help support your face?

#14: Its not taught as fact, its taught as theory.

#17: The slaughter of gingers

#22: If you came from your parents why are there still your parents?

The bolded ones aren't particularly great responses. You have an IQ of nearly 170. Why applaud name-calling?

On an unrelated note, #9 misunderstands how Christians conceive of God. God never originated. He was always just there. That's what the word "eternal" means, and it's why God describes himself in Exodus as I AM.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The thing is, the Bible isn't meant to explain geology or astronomy or nature.

These debates have been going on for years. Neither side will "win" since niether side has all the answers.

I don't understand your point. On the specific points of debate between Nye and Ham, one side had the answers (or at the very least, the far more credible argument).

We'd never apply this level of agnosticism to a debate about whether the Browns are better than the Seahawks. Not all opinions are equally credible.

 

[(HULK)]

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.

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.

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 did God measure the time unit of a day prior to creating the sun and planet earth?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

The thing is, the Bible isn't meant to explain geology or astronomy or nature.

These debates have been going on for years. Neither side will "win" since niether side has all the answers.

I don't understand your point. On the specific points of debate between Nye and Ham, one side had the answers (or at the very least, the far more credible argument).

We'd never apply this level of agnosticism to a debate about whether the Browns are better than the Seahawks. Not all opinions are equally credible.

I always love people that get angry and say things like "you need to respect my opinion/beliefs!". No, no I don't.

I need to respect your right to hold such beliefs but that doesn't mean I can ridicule the #### out of you for having such stupid beliefs.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Thing is - even Ken Ham, On The Rocks, whoever - no one believed 100% of the Bible is literally true.

I do.

In some places, it's pretty obvious that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. The New Testament refers to Jesus as a "rock," for example. That's figurative, not literal. In other places, like Genesis 1-3, it's obvious to some (including me) that it's meant to be taken figuratively as an allegory, while it's obvious to others that it's meant to be taken literally as history.

But I don't think anyone believes that everything is meant to be taken literally, including all the parables and stuff.

 

[(HULK)]

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.

Lol, these are great.

My responses to a few:

And no #4, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution as the earth is not a closed system. Good try for that guy.

#5 needs a lesson on there/their before she can handle remedial science.

#9. If God originated the first single celled organism, how did God originate, by chance?

#10: Looking at you, I'd bet you don't know a lot about banging

#13: Do dentists help support your face?

#14: Its not taught as fact, its taught as theory.

#17: The slaughter of gingers

#22: If you came from your parents why are there still your parents?

The bolded ones aren't particularly great responses. You have an IQ of nearly 170. Why applaud name-calling?

On an unrelated note, #9 misunderstands how Christians conceive of God. God never originated. He was always just there. That's what the word "eternal" means, and it's why God describes himself in Exodus as I AM.

Lol. Just poking some fun at people who will never see this.

So, expanding on #9, why is it possible for God to have no orgin but its not possible for other things, like say the universe/system that led to the creation of life via random chance?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Thing is - even Ken Ham, On The Rocks, whoever - no one believed 100% of the Bible is literally true.

I do.

In some places, it's pretty obvious that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. The New Testament refers to Jesus as a "rock," for example. That's figurative, not literal. In other places, like Genesis 1-3, it's obvious to some (including me) that it's meant to be taken figuratively as an allegory, while it's obvious to others that it's meant to be taken literally as history.

But I don't think anyone believes that everything is meant to be taken literally, including all the parables and stuff.

Did you see what you typed there?

 

[On The Rocks]

Thing is - even Ken Ham, On The Rocks, whoever - no one believed 100% of the Bible is literally true.

I do.

In some places, it's pretty obvious that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. The New Testament refers to Jesus as a "rock," for example. That's figurative, not literal. In other places, like Genesis 1-3, it's obvious to some (including me) that it's meant to be taken figuratively as an allegory, while it's obvious to others that it's meant to be taken literally as history.

But I don't think anyone believes that everything is meant to be taken literally, including all the parables and stuff.

well...ok - I truly intended to exclude anything "figurative" and the example you provide is perfect.

And I get why people don't take the Genesis account literally. It doesn't make any sense. It is something that requires faith.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So, expanding on #9, why is it possible for God to have no orgin but its not possible for other things, like say the universe/system that led to the creation of life via random chance?

I thought the idea behind the big bang is that the universe wasn't always "just there."

But I agree that logically that could have been the case. I also think "just by chance" is a perfectly fine explanation of where the first single-celled organism from.

 

[(HULK)]

So, expanding on #9, why is it possible for God to have no orgin but its not possible for other things, like say the universe/system that led to the creation of life via random chance?

I thought the idea behind the big bang is that the universe wasn't always "just there."

But I agree that logically that could have been the case. I also think "just by chance" is a perfectly fine explanation of where the first single-celled organism from.

I have no idea if the big bang theory is accurate. Could be a big bounce. Could be something else. Kinda irrelevant.

I just find it logically broken to say X requires being created but more complex powerful creator of X does not require being created.

 

[jdoggydogg]

These debates have been going on for years. Neither side will "win" since niether side has all the answers.

No. Science won years ago.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Science and religion should not be at odds.

If you believe that god created man, then god created scientists.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Science answers more and more questions as the years go by, and the mythology in the bible is easily discredited. So progressive Christians have simply stuck to the teachings of Jesus rather than interpret the bible literally. We can easily disprove the creation myth, but the notion that humans should feed the poor is eternal.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Science and religion should not be at odds.

If you believe that god created man, then god created scientists.

Right. If you think that God created the universe, then you ought to note that He created an intelligible universe. He obviously doesn't have any problems with us understanding how it works.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So, expanding on #9, why is it possible for God to have no orgin but its not possible for other things, like say the universe/system that led to the creation of life via random chance?

I thought the idea behind the big bang is that the universe wasn't always "just there."

But I agree that logically that could have been the case. I also think "just by chance" is a perfectly fine explanation of where the first single-celled organism from.

We don't know what was/wasn't there.

 

[zoonation]

"debating" with a creationist is like debating with a child.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Science and religion should not be at odds.

If you believe that god created man, then god created scientists.

Right. If you think that God created the universe, then you ought to note that He created an intelligible universe. He obviously doesn't have any problems with us understanding how it works.

Some aspects of the universe, such as quantum mechanics, may be intelligible to the best human minds. Other aspects, such as the popularity of Mylie Cyrus, remain an impossible mystery.

 

[(HULK)]

"debating" with a creationist is like debating with a child.

I do that daily

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So, expanding on #9, why is it possible for God to have no orgin but its not possible for other things, like say the universe/system that led to the creation of life via random chance?

I thought the idea behind the big bang is that the universe wasn't always "just there."

But I agree that logically that could have been the case. I also think "just by chance" is a perfectly fine explanation of where the first single-celled organism from.

We don't know what was/wasn't there.

That's not true. If the big bang theory is correct, then we know that our universe, as we understand it today, did not exist at that moment. Any theory that involves an expanding or shrinking universe is putting that universe (not eternal) into a fundamentally different category that Christians assign to God (eternal). That's why it's a non sequitur to ask why the universe required a creator but God didn't.

A much better response to Person #9 would be to show why a single-celled organism might have popped into existence by chance (or some other process). Trying to turn it into an argument about how a God required a creator isn't going to go anywhere since eternal existence is one of the qualities that #9 presumably ascribes to God in the first place.

 

[Scoresman]

The most upsetting part of Creationism is that it still gets taught in some schools as fact. The brainwashing is continuing with the next generation, turning more kids away from science. When the world runs out of oil, or when a meteor the size of Texas is detected as heading straight for the earth, or when the the Yellowstone caldera finally blows, it's science that's going to have a chance to save your ###, not Jesus.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The most upsetting part of Creationism is that it still gets taught in some schools as fact. The brainwashing is continuing with the next generation, turning more kids away from science. When the world runs out of oil, or when a meteor the size of Texas is detected as heading straight for the earth, or when the the Yellowstone caldera finally blows, it's science that's going to have a chance to save your ###, not Jesus.

The meteor the size of Texas is pretty much what Revelation says is going to happen in the end times.

The Yellowstone caldera could be the mountain of fire that rises from the ground in Revelation as well.

The world running out of oil could be seen as the continued prophecies of the Old Testament prophets of the end times as well, not to mention Christ's Olivet Discource relating to the lost oil (for lamps, not cars).

I know you are being both annoyed at Christians and trying to funny just a little mixed with a whole hell of a lot of scorn and ridicule with some sarcasm, but you can lighten up a little. Most of us are just trying to understand the world He gave us to live in for a short time. I really don't care what you do with your life or how you go about doing it, nor do I judge whatever choices you make (from a faith standpoint, I do judge Red Sox and Phillie fans, most Eagles fans, people that like Barbara Streisand and Barry Manilow and most people that don't have a sense of humor... those people suck.)