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

[Scoresman]

I'm curious about something that Ham raised, as sort of a side issue, in the debate: several times he attempted to produce scientists who accept young earth creationism. His main example was that guy in England who apparently helped worked on a satellite for NASA. Ham's point is that there are, according to him, reasonable and smart people who live their daily lives in a rational, even scientific manner, yet who believe in YEC. Dennis Prager has made this same point many times on his radio program.

Does this contradiction bother anyone here? For example, if you learned that your doctor was a Young earth Creationist, would that make you quit going to that doctor? How about if it was your mechanic? How about your child's geometry teacher? In what fields would YEC make you uncomfortable?

I don't care what my mechanic believes. I absolutely would not want my doctor or child's teacher believing in YEC. The doctor because who knows if he's really going to use medicine to help me or my family members or if he's going to just trust that God will take care of me and give me a different diagnosis. If he's dumb enough to think that YEC is fact, then I wouldn't put that sort of thing past him/her. The teacher for obvious reasons. Don't want my kid potentially being taught false info as fact.

Are you going to ask every doctor you see and every one of your kid's teachers if they are a YEC? Because I guarantee you that you will be treated by a YEC doctor or your kid will be taught by a YEC teacher if you don't ask.

In the case of my doctor, I'm playing the odds that there probably aren't many YEC doctors. In the case of my kid's teacher, I absolutely would do research.

God created feet and the creeps that slobber over pictures of them.

A perfect 10 foot on a women is the closest I'll probably get to believing in god.

 

[dgreen]

There are businesses that advertise as being a "Christian" business and some people will only do business with those companies. Is what Scoresman is saying any different than what those people doing?

A little different. Most people I know who do things like that do it more out of support for a fellow Christian. Many Christians don't go to Chick-Fil-A because they think non-Christians would have no idea how to make a chicken sandwich; it's because they like the idea of financially supporting a Christian organization.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

I'm with Clavin here. Big Bang theory is not inconsistent with a universe that has always been expanding. If the universe has always been expanding, then we can say, from the perspective of running it in reverse, that it has always been shrinking. But that doesn't mean there had to have been an endpoint (or a beginning point, when running it forward). Think of the series 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 .... The elements are always shrinking, but the series is literally infinite. The sum of the series is finite, but the series has no last element: it just keeps going and going and going, forever.

Similarly, the universe, running backwards, constantly shrinking, need not have had a "first cause." It may consist of an infinite series of causes and effects, always approaching, but never quite reaching, singularity. (This is true even if the universe has a finite age. You can fit an infinite number of causes and effects within a universe of finite age, just like you can fit an infinite series of elements within a finite sum. You just need the elements, or the causes and effects, to keep getting progressively closer to one another. And that makes sense in terms of physics. As the backward-running universe shrinks in size, particles will be progressively closer to one another, so their interactions -- the causes and effects -- may occur more and more frequently in time.)

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

There are businesses that advertise as being a "Christian" business and some people will only do business with those companies. Is what Scoresman is saying any different than what those people doing?

A little different. Most people I know who do things like that do it more out of support for a fellow Christian. Many Christians don't go to Chick-Fil-A because they think non-Christians would have no idea how to make a chicken sandwich; it's because they like the idea of financially supporting a Christian organization.

Luckily, I don't think it takes much intellectual firepower to make a decent chicken sandwich. But if I were to enter a Chick Fil A and ask "what food safety programs do you implement to try to prevent food-borne disease?" and the manager were to answer "we just PRAY a lot!", I'd probably find another chicken joint.

I believe strongly in evidence-based medicine. If my medical professional showed the propensity to ignore inconvenient evidence (and that could be in many ways, but being a YEC is certainly among them), then yes, I'd find another doctor.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

For example, if you learned that your doctor was a Young earth Creationist, would that make you quit going to that doctor? How about if it was your mechanic? How about your child's geometry teacher? In what fields would YEC make you uncomfortable?

I'd be uncomfortable with a physician who didn't understand evolutionary theory.* Evolutionary theory has quite a bit to contribute to medicine. Failing to understand how the body's functions were shaped by evolution may be quite a handicap when trying to repair it.

Mechanic, fine. Geometry, fine.

____

*Pretty much no YECs understand evolutionary theory. Kurt Wise, mentioned earlier in the thread, is a rare exception.

 

[tonydead]

Are you going to ask every doctor you see and every one of your kid's teachers if they are a YEC? Because I guarantee you that you will be treated by a YEC doctor or your kid will be taught by a YEC teacher if you don't ask.

It's really not that many people that you'd have to talk to.

 

[dgreen]

There are businesses that advertise as being a "Christian" business and some people will only do business with those companies. Is what Scoresman is saying any different than what those people doing?

A little different. Most people I know who do things like that do it more out of support for a fellow Christian. Many Christians don't go to Chick-Fil-A because they think non-Christians would have no idea how to make a chicken sandwich; it's because they like the idea of financially supporting a Christian organization.

Luckily, I don't think it takes much intellectual firepower to make a decent chicken sandwich. But if I were to enter a Chick Fil A and ask "what food safety programs do you implement to try to prevent food-borne disease?" and the manager were to answer "we just PRAY a lot!", I'd probably find another chicken joint.

Sure, that's judging an action as either being sound or not. What if you found out that the manager of your local chicken joint believes in the power of prayer (whatever that means)? Do you then assume he doesn't follow proper food safety procedures? That seems like a stretch.

I believe strongly in evidence-based medicine. If my medical professional showed the propensity to ignore inconvenient evidence (and that could be in many ways, but being a YEC is certainly among them), then yes, I'd find another doctor.

I see no problem with making a doctor decision if the only thing you knew was whether they were a YEC or not. If that's all the info you have, then it makes sense to take it into account. But, you are going to know more about this doctor. You know he is licensed, which means he's accomplished everything needed to reach that milestone. He has a practice with customers, so you can conclude that people think he treats their illnesses/injuries well and everyone who comes through his door doesn't die because of his failures.

Yes, I'll admit that it's more relevant to picking a doctor than it is to picking a chicken restaurant. But, I'd be totally shocked if YEC doctors mis-diagnose or mis-prescribe more often than non YEC doctors. In other words, I'd guess it is mostly irrelevant to actual results.

 

[proninja]

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.

Or, as Karl Barth put it"The Fundamentalist 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."

The fundamentalist who superimposes what he wants the Bible to say over scripture, which is a witness to Christ, is in that way no different than a liberal (theological, not political) who contextualizes scripture to modern social thought.

 

[Scoresman]

what if I had a condition that stem cells have shown to help cure? What if the doctor is against stem cell therapy because of his religion? I'd like to think that all doctors would present all options regardless, but if I knew a doctor was YEC, there would be enough doubt in my mind to probably get another opinion.

 

[dgreen]

*Pretty much no YECs understand evolutionary theory.

What do you mean by this? They fail to understand the basic premis of the theory? They fail to understand individual aspects of the theory? They attribute things to it that aren't really part of the theory?

 

[tonydead]

Sure, that's judging an action as either being sound or not. What if you found out that the manager of your local chicken joint believes in the power of prayer (whatever that means)? Do you then assume he doesn't follow proper food safety procedures? That seems like a stretch.

Not really, if he believes the power of prayer can cure disease why would he bother washing his hands?

I see no problem with making a doctor decision if the only thing you knew was whether they were a YEC or not. If that's all the info you have, then it makes sense to take it into account. But, you are going to know more about this doctor. You know he is licensed, which means he's accomplished everything needed to reach that milestone. He has a practice with customers, so you can conclude that people think he treats their illnesses/injuries well and everyone who comes through his door doesn't die because of his failures.

I'd also know that he has chosen to ignore certain scientific certainties, maybe just not on exam days.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What do you mean by this? They fail to understand the basic premis of the theory? They fail to understand individual aspects of the theory? They attribute things to it that aren't really part of the theory?

If you listen to a Young Earth Creationist talk about the theory of evolutionary biology, or "Darwinism," as he'll likely call it, he'll almost unfailingly say something that mistakes cosmology for evolution (e.g., "evolutionary theory says that something must have been created from nothing"), or that exhibits no concept of speciation ("if humans come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"), or that creates completely false dichotomies that aren't theoretically cogent (such as between "microevolution" and "macroevolution,"* or between "observational science" and "historical science"), or that completely misrepresents how evolution works (e.g., "You can't cross-breed a dog and a cat and get a dat!", as if that's an argument against evolution; or "Mutations can't create new information, they can only subtract from the information that's already there," as if gene duplication doesn't increase genetic material, point mutations don't introduce novelty, and their combination haven't been shown to increase genetic variation in a population).

And so on. Obviously, I can't point out every mistake that YECs tend to make that betray a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. But in my experience, if you wind a YEC up and let him go, when he talks about evolution, he is bound to say something that shows a lack of understanding of some basics.

____

*There are contexts where it makes sense to distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, as appropriately defined, just as there are contexts where it makes sense to distinguish between inches and feet. But it makes no sense to say that you believe in inches but not in feet: they're fundamentally the same thing, just in different units.

 

[joffer]

Another one: evolution is just "random chance". See also the analogy of a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a 747.

 

[jdoggydogg]

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.

 

[jdoggydogg]

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.

I'm not very concerned with the origin of the universe and whether it was God or some random event that caused it. What I fail to see is God's involvement in the universe after its creation. Creationists (who I classify as people who take the creation story in the Bible literally) can't explain everything that science has discovered other than making some ridiculous argument about God playing tricks on people.

I'm in an atheist club at the college where I'm employed, and one of our charters is to promote positive communication with religious groups. So we'll often stop and chat with the Christians handing out bibles on campus. I was talking with one Christian, and I quoted Epicurus' fantastic rebuttal of an interventionist god. I asked him, "If god loves us, then why does he allow children to experience immense suffering and death?" He didn't have an answer.

 

[Sabertooth]

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.

I'm not very concerned with the origin of the universe and whether it was God or some random event that caused it. What I fail to see is God's involvement in the universe after its creation. Creationists (who I classify as people who take the creation story in the Bible literally) can't explain everything that science has discovered other than making some ridiculous argument about God playing tricks on people.

I'm in an atheist club at the college where I'm employed, and one of our charters is to promote positive communication with religious groups. So we'll often stop and chat with the Christians handing out bibles on campus. I was talking with one Christian, and I quoted Epicurus' fantastic rebuttal of an interventionist god. I asked him, "If god loves us, then why does he allow children to experience immense suffering and death?" He didn't have an answer.

Boy you showed him. Nice outreach.

 

[Scoresman]

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.

I'm not very concerned with the origin of the universe and whether it was God or some random event that caused it. What I fail to see is God's involvement in the universe after its creation. Creationists (who I classify as people who take the creation story in the Bible literally) can't explain everything that science has discovered other than making some ridiculous argument about God playing tricks on people.

I'm in an atheist club at the college where I'm employed, and one of our charters is to promote positive communication with religious groups. So we'll often stop and chat with the Christians handing out bibles on campus. I was talking with one Christian, and I quoted Epicurus' fantastic rebuttal of an interventionist god. I asked him, "If god loves us, then why does he allow children to experience immense suffering and death?" He didn't have an answer.

Boy you showed him. Nice outreach.

It's a valid question.

 

[jdoggydogg]

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.

I'm not very concerned with the origin of the universe and whether it was God or some random event that caused it. What I fail to see is God's involvement in the universe after its creation. Creationists (who I classify as people who take the creation story in the Bible literally) can't explain everything that science has discovered other than making some ridiculous argument about God playing tricks on people.

I'm in an atheist club at the college where I'm employed, and one of our charters is to promote positive communication with religious groups. So we'll often stop and chat with the Christians handing out bibles on campus. I was talking with one Christian, and I quoted Epicurus' fantastic rebuttal of an interventionist god. I asked him, "If god loves us, then why does he allow children to experience immense suffering and death?" He didn't have an answer.

Boy you showed him. Nice outreach.

I know it sounds rude in print, but it was a very polite, earnest conversation.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Pat Robertson implores creationist Ken Ham to shut up: "Let’s not make a joke of ourselves"“Let’s face it,” Robertson said, “there was a Bishop [ussher] who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years.” “There ain’t no way that’s possible,” he continued. “To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible. Let’s be real, let’s not make a joke of ourselves.” “We’ve got to be realistic,” he concluded, and admit “that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that is found in science and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.”

The guy who told us that gays caused hurricane Katrina is worried that another Christian will make them look bad? Guffaw.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

He wasn't a kid, he's in his 40s.

 

[JZilla]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

No they're just hijacking school curricula and making the planet dumber

 

[matuski]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

No they're just hijacking school curricula and making the planet dumber

My Link

 

[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.

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.

You are then claiming to know that there was nothing before the Big Bang and I'd have to ask you to prove that. While it may not be the universe as we now it, that does not mean there was nothing.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

To be fair, his group's goal is to promote positive communication. Actually participating in such conversation is outside the scope of the charter. That's someone else's job.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

No they're just hijacking school curricula and making the planet dumber

Bam!

 

[proninja]

Pat Robertson implores creationist Ken Ham to shut up: "Let’s not make a joke of ourselves"“Let’s face it,” Robertson said, “there was a Bishop [ussher] who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years.” “There ain’t no way that’s possible,” he continued. “To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible. Let’s be real, let’s not make a joke of ourselves.” “We’ve got to be realistic,” he concluded, and admit “that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that is found in science and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.”

The guy who told us that gays caused hurricane Katrina is worried that another Christian will make them look bad? Guffaw.

When Pat Robertson has become the voice of reason telling you you're making Christians look bad, it's time to take a long hard look at what you're doing with your life.

 

[ummich10]

This pretty much sums it up. Why bother debating someone who claims they will never change their mind or even consider the fact that they might be wrong?

Yikes, only the last sentence from Ham made any sense at all.

 

[ummich10]

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.

This is my problem with the bible. What you consider to be "pretty obvious", is not to many. The bible is so full of seemingly impossible, vague, and open to interpretation, stories that it cannot possibly be used as an explanation for anything. What is fact, what is allegorical, which parts matter, which parts don't... it all is interpreted differently from religion to religion, and from person to person. Then you have to factor in the multiple translations, the amount of influence that has been exacted on them by the powers that be over time, the material that was left out, the material that was edited.... it's insane. That alone should tell you that it probably isn't the best source for determining where we came from, or why we are here.

I've tried, I truly and honestly have, to see the bible from the perspective of those who have faith. Unfortunately, none of them can agree on it either. It's always struck me as something that is bent and twisted to fit whatever your view or perspective is. I am close friends with 2 people who give sermons regularly for their respective churches, and I've listened to both of them try to explain the factual aspects of the bible. They can't even agree, they both interpret things very differently. Then they stand in front of hundreds of people on Sunday and tell those people what that particular part of the bible means.

So, when someone tries to tell me they know or understand our origins, and that understanding comes from the bible... all I can do is shake my head.

I like this summary.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Pretty much no YECs understand evolutionary theory. Kurt Wise, mentioned earlier in the thread, is a rare exception.

Troll.

/MasterofOrion

 

[SacramentoBob]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

No they're just hijacking school curricula and making the planet dumber

My Link

Handing out bibles on a college campus isn't the same as trying to force creationism into science classes.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

No they're just hijacking school curricula and making the planet dumber

My Link

Handing out bibles on a college campus isn't the same as trying to force creationism into science classes.

Well yes. Then again pointing out the problem of evil hardly seems to be a "d-bag" move. Surely it's no more objectionable to spread criticism of religious dogma than it is to spread religious dogma, right?

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

No they're just hijacking school curricula and making the planet dumber

My Link

Handing out bibles on a college campus isn't the same as trying to force creationism into science classes.

That the club's charter stresses tolerance and interesting conversation - not negativity. Americans see the atheist movement as being nasty and condescending. So we always strive for politeness and positive interaction with religious groups. We routinely invite the religious clubs to meetings to discuss metaphysical philosophy.

 

[hagmania]

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.

I'm not very concerned with the origin of the universe and whether it was God or some random event that caused it. What I fail to see is God's involvement in the universe after its creation. Creationists (who I classify as people who take the creation story in the Bible literally) can't explain everything that science has discovered other than making some ridiculous argument about God playing tricks on people.

I'm in an atheist club at the college where I'm employed, and one of our charters is to promote positive communication with religious groups. So we'll often stop and chat with the Christians handing out bibles on campus. I was talking with one Christian, and I quoted Epicurus' fantastic rebuttal of an interventionist god. I asked him, "If god loves us, then why does he allow children to experience immense suffering and death?" He didn't have an answer.

If he had no answer he wasn't a very well "studied" Christian.

 

[LinusMarr]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

No they're just hijacking school curricula and making the planet dumber

My Link

Handing out bibles on a college campus isn't the same as trying to force creationism into science classes.

That the club's charter stresses tolerance and interesting conversation - not negativity. Americans see the atheist movement as being nasty and condescending.

I see them as bitter, arrogant, know it alls that like to force their non beliefs down everyones throat.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

No they're just hijacking school curricula and making the planet dumber

My Link

Handing out bibles on a college campus isn't the same as trying to force creationism into science classes.

That the club's charter stresses tolerance and interesting conversation - not negativity. Americans see the atheist movement as being nasty and condescending.

I see them as bitter, arrogant, know it alls that like to force their non beliefs down everyones throat.

No one group has a monopoly on bitterness and arrogance.

 

[LinusMarr]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

No they're just hijacking school curricula and making the planet dumber

My Link

Handing out bibles on a college campus isn't the same as trying to force creationism into science classes.

That the club's charter stresses tolerance and interesting conversation - not negativity. Americans see the atheist movement as being nasty and condescending.

I see them as bitter, arrogant, know it alls that like to force their non beliefs down everyones throat.

No one group has a monopoly on bitterness and arrogance.

They seem to in the lead...

 

[proninja]

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.

I'm not very concerned with the origin of the universe and whether it was God or some random event that caused it. What I fail to see is God's involvement in the universe after its creation. Creationists (who I classify as people who take the creation story in the Bible literally) can't explain everything that science has discovered other than making some ridiculous argument about God playing tricks on people.

I'm in an atheist club at the college where I'm employed, and one of our charters is to promote positive communication with religious groups. So we'll often stop and chat with the Christians handing out bibles on campus. I was talking with one Christian, and I quoted Epicurus' fantastic rebuttal of an interventionist god. I asked him, "If god loves us, then why does he allow children to experience immense suffering and death?" He didn't have an answer.

If he had no answer he wasn't a very well "studied" Christian.

I readily admit I'm not the most studied Christian, but Louis Berkhof is, and in his systematic he readily admitted that there were tough questions surrounding the existence of evil that we don't have good answers for. I appreciated him for that.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

No they're just hijacking school curricula and making the planet dumber

My Link

Handing out bibles on a college campus isn't the same as trying to force creationism into science classes.

That the club's charter stresses tolerance and interesting conversation - not negativity. Americans see the atheist movement as being nasty and condescending.

I see them as bitter, arrogant, know it alls that like to force their non beliefs down everyones throat.

 

[joffer]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

No they're just hijacking school curricula and making the planet dumber

My Link

Handing out bibles on a college campus isn't the same as trying to force creationism into science classes.

That the club's charter stresses tolerance and interesting conversation - not negativity. Americans see the atheist movement as being nasty and condescending.

I see them as bitter, arrogant, know it alls that like to force their non beliefs down everyones throat.

Linus has been underrated for a while, unless it's just a TPW alias

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm sure most of you have seen this, but it's an excellent thought on the notion of an interventionist god:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

~ Epicurus

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I'm as atheist as anyone in here, but going around starting debates with kids who are handing out bibles seems like a pretty dbag move. It's not like they're picketing someone's funeral.

No they're just hijacking school curricula and making the planet dumber

My Link

Handing out bibles on a college campus isn't the same as trying to force creationism into science classes.

That the club's charter stresses tolerance and interesting conversation - not negativity. Americans see the atheist movement as being nasty and condescending.

I see them as bitter, arrogant, know it alls that like to force their non beliefs down everyones throat.

Linus has been underrated for a while, unless it's just a TPW alias

It's Peens.

 

[proninja]

This pretty much sums it up. Why bother debating someone who claims they will never change their mind or even consider the fact that they might be wrong?

This makes me wonder why we ever argue about anything in here

 

[babydemon90]

I'm curious about something that Ham raised, as sort of a side issue, in the debate: several times he attempted to produce scientists who accept young earth creationism. His main example was that guy in England who apparently helped worked on a satellite for NASA. Ham's point is that there are, according to him, reasonable and smart people who live their daily lives in a rational, even scientific manner, yet who believe in YEC. Dennis Prager has made this same point many times on his radio program.

Does this contradiction bother anyone here? For example, if you learned that your doctor was a Young earth Creationist, would that make you quit going to that doctor? How about if it was your mechanic? How about your child's geometry teacher? In what fields would YEC make you uncomfortable?

So... i know many YEC. Used to be one myself (Still a Christian, not a YEC anymore).

Typically - this is simply compartmentalized. They're bright, successful individuals. The YEC stuff is in a little bubble that doesn't impact job performance (I'll grant you. I don't know any biologist or archaeologist YEC, but I don't know any non-YEC ones either.) Most of the ones I know are accountants, programmers, lawyers, etc.., where there every day job has no impact on the fact they decide YEC is the way to go. Every other facet of their life they will accept scientific research and fact (ok, there's the occasional 'we won't immunize our kids crazies). But, 90% of the time, everything else is lock step with scientific fact and research - except where this is concerned. They've decided their interpretation of the Bible is correct, and anyone or anything that says otherwise be damned.

 

[proninja]

I'm curious about something that Ham raised, as sort of a side issue, in the debate: several times he attempted to produce scientists who accept young earth creationism. His main example was that guy in England who apparently helped worked on a satellite for NASA. Ham's point is that there are, according to him, reasonable and smart people who live their daily lives in a rational, even scientific manner, yet who believe in YEC. Dennis Prager has made this same point many times on his radio program.

Does this contradiction bother anyone here? For example, if you learned that your doctor was a Young earth Creationist, would that make you quit going to that doctor? How about if it was your mechanic? How about your child's geometry teacher? In what fields would YEC make you uncomfortable?

So... i know many YEC. Used to be one myself (Still a Christian, not a YEC anymore).

Typically - this is simply compartmentalized. They're bright, successful individuals. The YEC stuff is in a little bubble that doesn't impact job performance (I'll grant you. I don't know any biologist or archaeologist YEC, but I don't know any non-YEC ones either.) Most of the ones I know are accountants, programmers, lawyers, etc.., where there every day job has no impact on the fact they decide YEC is the way to go. Every other facet of their life they will accept scientific research and fact (ok, there's the occasional 'we won't immunize our kids crazies). But, 90% of the time, everything else is lock step with scientific fact and research - except where this is concerned. They've decided their interpretation of the Bible is correct, and anyone or anything that says otherwise be damned.

I know more than a few, being a Christian who is pretty involved in his church. 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. Most Christians don't know very much about what they believe other than that they believe it, and YEC seems to get lumped into what is taught (along with conservative political beliefs) and not questioned by a lot of people.

I'd worry if it were a biologist, but not in too much else.

 

[babydemon90]

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.

I'm not very concerned with the origin of the universe and whether it was God or some random event that caused it. What I fail to see is God's involvement in the universe after its creation. Creationists (who I classify as people who take the creation story in the Bible literally) can't explain everything that science has discovered other than making some ridiculous argument about God playing tricks on people.

I'm in an atheist club at the college where I'm employed, and one of our charters is to promote positive communication with religious groups. So we'll often stop and chat with the Christians handing out bibles on campus. I was talking with one Christian, and I quoted Epicurus' fantastic rebuttal of an interventionist god. I asked him, "If god loves us, then why does he allow children to experience immense suffering and death?" He didn't have an answer.

If he had no answer he wasn't a very well "studied" Christian.

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.

 

[joffer]

I've read (no link), that if you sort creationists by occupation, engineers come in unusually high. No idea why.

 

[proninja]

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.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

I've read (no link), that if you sort creationists by occupation, engineers come in unusually high. No idea why.

Sort each profession by "Number Of Commandments Violated"...

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Some reviews of the debate:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/05/the-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-was-a-nightmare-for-science.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/02/ken_ham_bill_nye_debate_science_and_fact_versus_fiction_and_fantasy.html

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/bill-nye-ken-ham-evolution-creationism-refuted

http://www.livescience.com/43127-nye-creationism-debate-response.html