"Science Guy’ Bill Nye vs. Creationist Ken Ham: Who Will Win the Big Debate?

SuperFrog

sean
Is there evolution? Yes. Is there creation? Yes. Going by Logic...something cannot evolve unless it first exists. So creation comes before evolution. However, there is a paradox....Can you Create something from nothing? No. Can you evolve from nothingness? No.

Real paradox is actually that you believe that you can't create something from nothing, meaning that there should be 'creator', but forgot that something had to create even your 'creator'.

We have good grasp at what happened, there are some experiments that show it possible, and people are working to prove that abiogenesis is full theory, rather then hypothesis.

Once abiogenesis is proven theory, what I really wonder, as you don't question evolution - will this mean that you will stop believing in 'creator' / 'creation'? If no - why not?

edit on 7-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

If the creator was a one person that was ALL physical then yes, it would be another paradox. What if the creator is not only physical, but also belongs to other higher planes of existence and therefore the physical creation of something is nothing more than child's play? What if the physical universe was created somewhere else and brought here? Like moving one fish from a tank to another. What if YOU are your own creator, but from a different realm? Something to think about.

From my experience I can tell you that there are different parallel universes or planes of existence. Having a NDE tends to give you a different perspective of things.

I am a christian and believe that God created everything. How he done it, I have no idea. But here is an idea. Who says the 6 days of creation were consecutive days? Is it not possible that he waited for a time between days? Just a thought.

Edit: I also watched the debate and I thought Hamm said something profound about the debate. He talked about how the discussion really is about the starting point. Where you choose to start from. He chooses as a christian to start from the biblical account and Nye was using science as his starting point. The starting point for each was based on a core belief by each individual. Because truthfully no one knows because no one was there. The theories for evolution or abiogensis have some ideas but is unable to tie everything together. The idea of creationism is based on faith in the bible and it being God's word. As a christian, i put my faith in God's word because he has made a difference in my life.

reply to post by Another_Nut


If life gets created under conditions that are equal to earth T-3.5 billion of years (or any other time after that) then we have a proof not only about our origin, but how life on earth most likely is not unique.

sean

 

If the creator was a one person that was ALL physical then yes, it would be another paradox. What if the creator is not only physical, but also belongs to other higher planes of existence and therefore the physical creation of something is nothing more than child's play? What if the physical universe was created somewhere else and brought here? Like moving one fish from a tank to another. What if YOU are your own creator, but from a different realm? Something to think about.

From my experience I can tell you that there are different parallel universes or planes of existence. Having a NDE tends to give you a different perspective of things.

I believe whole debate is about those that believe we are created in creator's image. If that is wrong, question is - is there anything else in Bible we can trust?! (in my opinion - NO, but that is just my opinion )

Sure, you can make many different assumptions about universe, but there is that thing called evidence... Somehow science insist on that thing... thankfully...

Boog911
I am a christian and believe that God created everything. How he done it, I have no idea. But here is an idea. Who says the 6 days of creation were consecutive days? Is it not possible that he waited for a time between days? Just a thought.

First of all, why are you christian? Because you were born in belief or because you choose to believe? How can you be christian if you don't believe in Bible and its account on world creation? It clearly said that God took day off after first 6 days when he created Bible. Most people pray on Sunday, his day off?! (I know, does not make a sense at all )

If day was different at that time, it is not mentioned anywhere in book. If day meant Earth started revolving around sun, that was not mentioned in book either. But it was mentioned that God created 2 great lights, and we today know that one of those great lights is just reflection from sun. (I know, very strange)

Another thing that biblical points to 2 different account in beginning of bible is story of creation of first man mentioned twice with 2 rather different stories.

Boog911
Edit: I also watched the debate and I thought Hamm said something profound about the debate. He talked about how the discussion really is about the starting point. Where you choose to start from. He chooses as a christian to start from the biblical account and Nye was using science as his starting point. The starting point for each was based on a core belief by each individual. Because truthfully no one knows because no one was there. The theories for evolution or abiogensis have some ideas but is unable to tie everything together. The idea of creationism is based on faith in the bible and it being God's word. As a christian, i put my faith in God's word because he has made a difference in my life.

Science is not based on core belief, but on evidence that support your argument. Because you were not there, you can believe that stork has bring you to this world, just as kids story will confirm. That argument is fail, as there is evidence and science works on analyzing evidence. Religion... well, you have to believe something what someone wrote 2,000 years ago and we know for sure it was more then once edited and translated since then.

I have nothing against people believing in what I think is non-sense. What bothers me is when people claim that science (the same thing that changed our life dramatically in past few hundred years) is 'belief' just as their religion. Those things don't have much in common... sorry.

reply to post by MarsIsRed


Nope.

In order for a complex system to exist in a singular universe you need a creator

Creator does not equal god

I can create

Eta god as in allknowing omipotent biblical sort of god

Boog911
I am a christian and believe that God created everything. How he done it, I have no idea. But here is an idea. Who says the 6 days of creation were consecutive days? Is it not possible that he waited for a time between days? Just a thought.

Edit: I also watched the debate and I thought Hamm said something profound about the debate. He talked about how the discussion really is about the starting point. Where you choose to start from. He chooses as a christian to start from the biblical account and Nye was using science as his starting point. The starting point for each was based on a core belief by each individual. Because truthfully no one knows because no one was there. The theories for evolution or abiogensis have some ideas but is unable to tie everything together. The idea of creationism is based on faith in the bible and it being God's word. As a christian, i put my faith in God's word because he has made a difference in my life.

edit on 7-2-2014 by Boog911 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2014 by Boog911 because: addition

It would be better to read the scripture as it's written.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

"...and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

What we have here is a plain statement that God created the universe and the earth and that they existed before the second part of that statement. The interpretation of the second is this,

"...and the earth was lifeless and desolate and darkness covered the ocean (water).

It could read like this, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth but the earth was without life and desolate and clouds shrouded the planet with darkness."

Next we start the Genesis.

"And God said, let there be light and there was light, and God separated the darkness from the light... and there was an evening and morning and a first day."

It could read like this. "And God said let there be light, and the clouds faded and there was light upon the earth and the earth rotated once making a first day." That is, the first day that light shone again on the planet. This would be repeated with Noah, for God tells Noah the same things he told Adam. And with Noah, the earth was covered with water and shrouded in clouds of darkness so that no sunlight shone upon it.

What people don't understand is that the Bible does not say the Earth is 6,000 years old. It just doesn't tell us how old it really is. And God could have had many life forms, some intelligent before the Genesis of Man came along. In fact, mankind almost met his end at the great flood where God said he would wipe out man which he had made, and all the lifeforms that breathed the air. God is not limited in what He can do.

At the start of the Genesis moments before "God said..." the earth was already here. It was covered by water and under thick clouds of darkness, and there was no living thing on it. The Genesis statements begin with the declaration that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This means that they existed before anything else is said to have happened.

My opinion is that the earth is many billions of years old and has been populated with many forms of life prior to the Genesis of Man.

why do i often feel like i am the only sane person on this planet

besides maybe grim

you people pick and choose which things you want to believe and what you dont but it is all still belief

the problem is you wont accept the logical outcomes of your beliefs

starting at the beginning

you have two choices

both of which are belief

pick one and go with it

but dont ignore the logic that flows from it

please

those two choices are really the only choice you get

ElohimJD
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

To add to some of the posters points. The "Young Earth Creationist" and "Creationist" are two different things.

Not only do "Young Earth Creationists" disregard scientific evidence, they also disregard scripture.

Gen 1:1
"In the beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth (spiritual realm and physical realm). And over time the Earth was rendered void (lifeless) and full of chaos; and darkness covered the face of the deep (no light reached Earth's surface).

Then God said "let there be light"..."

Here, scripture indicates an original creation of both realms an untold amount of years in the past (could be billions of years, God did not disclose the original creation time). Life existed on the Earth prior to "re-creation" week, for there must be life for something to be rendered lifeless. We see that the surface of the Earth existed prior to "re-creation" week as well as waters upon the surface; we see life used to exist before "re-creation" week as well (dinosaurs etc.).

After the original creation of the Earth unknown billions of years ago (according to scripture) something happened in the angelic realm, and a spiritual war took place with 1/3rd of the angels following Lucifer in rebellion against God's faithful angels led by Michael. The results of this war spilled over into the physical realm and the Earth was made "void of life and full of chaos" in the aftermath of this event.

This is where "re-creation" scripture begins. After these events God said "let there be light"... and over the course of 6 days He "re-created" the Earth and all life therein; so that it would be suitable for mankind to dwell upon. The Earth prior to this "re-creation" would not have been able to support human life like it is today.

According to the Word of the Eternal creator God. He created the physical realm some untold billions of years ago (think big bang). Then after a long time, rebellion occurred in the spiritual realm, which had an impact on the physical realm. The war which resulted destroyed all physical life on Earth (ELE, Dinosaurs died off) as a result. The Earth was rendered "void of life and full of chaos". Then after that event God began to "re-create" (mold and fashion) the Earth in preparation for the creation of mankind upon it 6000 years ago.

Mankind upon the Earth is 6000 years old according to scripture, but the physical Earth itself and non-human life upon it began unknown billions of year ago in spirit and in truth; according to scripture.

God Bless,

NICE

MarsIsRed
The argument boils down to this: creationists claim that a finitely complex system (the universe) cannot 'just exist' - it requires an infinitely complex system to 'just exist' in order to create the finitely complex system. It's arse-about-face logic, driven by a need to insert 'god did it' into everything they see.

Oh just throw us all in the same group huh? How ignorant.

sean

 

If the creator was a one person that was ALL physical then yes, it would be another paradox. What if the creator is not only physical, but also belongs to other higher planes of existence and therefore the physical creation of something is nothing more than child's play? What if the physical universe was created somewhere else and brought here? Like moving one fish from a tank to another. What if YOU are your own creator, but from a different realm? Something to think about.

From my experience I can tell you that there are different parallel universes or planes of existence. Having a NDE tends to give you a different perspective of things.

SuperFrog
I believe whole debate is about those that believe we are created in creator's image. If that is wrong, question is - is there anything else in Bible we can trust?! (in my opinion - NO, but that is just my opinion
)

Sure, you can make many different assumptions about universe, but there is that thing called evidence... Somehow science insist on that thing... thankfully...

You are created in the creators image because YOU are your creator. Everyone has their own thoughts, perspective, experience, goals. Yes, everyone generally shares the same time line, but each to his own experience, perception, and enlightenment. The thought of evil/good is nothing more than tools. People do horrible evil things to get what they want, people do wonderful good things to get what they want. It's two sides of a coin, but both are headed the same direction. Time heads one direction in the physical plane.

It is not an assumption it is my experience and perspective. Science is a product of the physical plane and therefore it is bound by physical laws. Physical Science doesn't apply to non-physical planes. If you was to experience what I have experience then you would have a different perspective. YOU are the one that is assuming not I, because you haven't experienced what I have experience. I carry on and do what I do that makes me happy. You carry on to do what you do that makes you happy. It's all good as both are heading in the right direction regardless.

I thought Bill Nye conducted himself well.

Ken Ham's best moment was his opening 30 min statement. Bill Nye just destroyed most of what he said in his response and Ham never quite recovered for the rest of the night. It was all downhill from there. Ham brought up the previously debunked dating of Mt St Helens arguments and sounded like a broken record with his "there is a book" meme and reliance on the bible.

By contrast Bill Nye seemed better prepared than I thought he would have been and pretty much laid waste to Ken Ham's YEC model.

Another_Nut
reply to post by MarsIsRed

 

Nope.

In order for a complex system to exist in a singular universe you need a creator

Creator does not equal god

I can create

Eta god as in allknowing omipotent biblical sort of god

edit on am220142810America/ChicagoFri, 07 Feb 2014 10:08:01 -0600_2000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

So... in order for a finitely complex universe you need an infinitely complex creator! your logic is flawed!

If you really think about it, the Bible is an interesting, inspired book. But is it THE BOOK? I don't think it is.

However, I am continuously amazed when I reflect on what I've learned about the bible (studying Hebrew, historical analysis, literary analysis) and then comparing that knowledge with what we today know about the brain.

If anything, there was definitely a strong element of inspiration and intuition in some core biblical stories. The garden of eden narrative, for example, discusses the psychological genesis of man, rather than the physiological origin of man. To understand it in this sense requires a deep attunement to the ancients use of symbols to convey (and conceal) archetypal concepts about how they imagined the minds unfoldment.

I'll skip over the "7 days of creation" that the Bible begins with - as this is obviously derivative since the concept of 7 days belongs to the older Babylonian/Sumerian culture that the Biblical Hebrews were heavily influenced by - and focus in on the so-called "2nd creation" story, where Adam is built from the earth and breath of God is blown into him. But first, it's important to reflect upon the two tiered structure that the Bible starts from: first, the impersonal, "physical" universe/earth is built, and then in Genesis 2, the "story" of mankind unfolds. This structure reflects an inherent dynamic and polarity in reality: nonlinearity and linearity. The way the right brain sees things, and the way the left brain sees things. Things just are - but they also have a reason. We are immersed in a world of paradox, and it's by delicately and sensitively intuiting the relationship between nonlinear, affective, and non-verbal reality with the linear, logical, and verbal reality, that human "wisdom" is born.

The cardinal enemy within the genesis narrative is the snake. I find this incredibly interesting, because today we know that our lowest brain stem area - the so-called "reptilian" brain, because it is homologous to the brains of reptiles - handles parasympathetic and autonomic information processing within our nervous systems. In other words, our HABITS, our INSTINCTS, and our APATHY is mediated by this fundamental brain network.

Truly, the "devil within us" works via the reptilian brain, and yet, it is through this brain that we are able to breathe, to move, and to live in bodies: death in some countries (such as the UK) is defined as the death of the brain stem.

It's interesting that the Bible would choose to frame the human situation in poetic terms of man being "duped" by the snake who offers us knowledge of good and evil. Indeed, it is via the brain stem - the evolutionarily oldest part of our brain - that man begins to contend with the body. The brain stem makes all of life's ills felt: when were hungry, when we feel sick, when we have to go to the washroom - this and more happens through the reptilian brain.

And yet, it is through knowledge OF this organ, in particular, how the bodies autonomic processes subvert conscious/cortical autonomy, that "WISDOM" is attained - or, as the snake put it in his wily way: to become "as God" (not to become God). Yogis show just how tremendous the prowess of the neocortex is: they regularly take over autonomic functions - which are not ordinarily conscious in human beings - and are able to regulate and control processes in accord with cognitive directives, granting them abilities like going without sleep, without food, tolerating intense cold or intense heat, and much more.

This narrative, in other words, is deceptively deeper than people are willing to admit.

That said, people have really lost their way, in particular "fundamentalist" Christians, Muslims, and Jews, who find it difficult to assess reality from beyond the mental models of their respective belief systems: they struggle with objectivity. That all 3 of these religions, for example, believe the same thing about one another (in regards to theological and revelational primacy) should logically negate all three from being true. Instead of viewing this phenomena (my religion is right, yours is wrong) as a sociological phenomena that emerged in a complex environment, which has been repeated (by Christianity) again and again (Islam, etc), they are ideologically and psychologically restrained in their development.

I really do try to stay patient and compassionate with other people, to be mindful of their particular circumstances and to speak of them without causing offense, and I hope I am doing a decent job of that now. However, I have my own opinion, and my opinion is, making life work with other people - the "how" of relationships - should take precedence to whatever theological or metaphysical beliefs we have about the world. When we think in terms of "how", were following a deeper wisdom than "why". The how guides us towards a more kind, compassionate and attuned awareness of one another, and when such a context is fully elaborated, when were all in tune with one another, know when to approach and when to withdraw, the question of why can be personally explored by everyone - by collectives - but done in a way where it does not infringe on the unity and harmony of the collective.

reply to post by MarsIsRed


Nope again

You really should read up on the fine tuned universe

And why infinite universes came about

Some of the best quotes from the debate and really the starting points in a good discussion.

From Nye: “There’s a famous tree in Sweden — Old Tjikko — that’s [over 9,000] years old. How could these trees be there if there was an enormous flood just 4,000 years ago? You can try this yourself, everybody — and I don’t mean to be mean to trees – get a sapling, and put it under water for a year. It will not survive.”

From Nye: “This giant boat — this very large wooden ship — [allegedly] went aground safely on a mountain in what we now call the Middle East, and so places like Australia now are populated by animals that somehow managed to get from the Middle East all the way to Australia in the last 4,000 years. Now that, to me, is an extraordinary claim. Somewhere between the middle East and Australia, we would expect to find evidence of kangaroos!”

From Nye: “Your assertion that all the animals were vegetarians before they got on the arc, that’s remarkable. I haven’t spent a lot of time with lions, but I can tell you that they’ve got teeth that aren’t set up for broccoli.

From Ham: "The Bible says God created in six days ... From Adam to Abraham -- you've got 2,000 years from Abraham to Christ, 2,000 years from Christ to the present, 2,000 years. That's how we reach 6,000 years."

From Nye: "And by the way, if this great flood drained through the Grand Canyon, wouldn't there have been a Grand Canyon on every continent?"

From Ham: "The Bible is the word of God. I admit that's where I start from."

I don't know but...Nye nailed it despite being a little less Charismatic and on it at times. Ken Ham was more Charismatic and was on fire in the beginning but then seemed to get flustered and confused a little. Just my view. I though Bill Nye brought up the key points and good questions as in the quotes above. I didn't think Ham had any...um Ham I mean Meat in his arguments. All fluff. He's basing all his stuff on a text that has been interpreted, translated, taken apart and put together by men for many different reasons. And much of the Genesis story was stolen from the Sumerians. so....There you have it.

reply to post by SuperFrog


Since science can't find evidence of other universes

And we must stick with evidence

Then our universe is an infinite fine tuned place

Since the chances of all those dice being 6' s ten to the Nth power

On the first and only try ( you only get one try as this is the only universe we have evidence of)

Then you must concluded it was not an accident

Therefore created

Another_Nut

Since science can't find evidence of other universes

And we must stick with evidence

You may have heard the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"...

Then our universe is an infinite fine tuned place

That doesn't follow.

Since the chances of all those dice being 6' s ten to the Nth power

Could you show how you arrived at those figures?

On the first and only try ( you only get one try as this is the only universe we have evidence of)

Then you must concluded it was not an accident

Therefore created

Non sequitur much?

reply to post by Prezbo369


Deny ignorance

Please define your position

Do some research

Then come back

You may have heard the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"...

yes ive heard that its the same position those who believe in that onmipotent god use

That doesn't follow.

if we are only sticking with the evidence it does

you cannot provide evidence of any universe other than the one we inhabit

Could you show how you arrived at those figures?

doing your reaserch for you

please read

Non sequitur much?

i will amend my statement

i will give you 10 dice . you may roll each one only once. all rolls after the first mush match that first number

if you get all ten (of any number) i will give you everything i own

if you dont i get everything you own

i am serious

think of it as a yatzee game with one huge cup and trillions of dice

you get one roll and must get a yatzee

if you think either of those (the ten dice or the yatzee) is possible then lets do it

if you think that it is impossible

then you must conclude that this universe is not random

if something is not random then it is

Antonyms for random
essential methodical planned systematic definite particular specific

The problem with the; "what does it hurt if some people believe the strict creationist dogma in the Bible? Let people think what they want, it is a free country" contributes to adults who believe in mythology as fact and America runs the risk of becoming a laughing stock in the Scientific community.

A brain-drain away from a scientific community that allows known falsehoods of theocracy will shift cutting edge scientific research away from America, giving other countries a growing advantage.

It will preside over the "dumbing down" of America.

Leave science alone.

reply to post by Leonidas


Well said. The dumbing down of America is a deeply frightening prospect.

Another_Nut
Deny ignorance

Please define your position

Do some research

Then come back

Lol how about I'll come back after youve finished editing your post?

yes ive heard that its the same position those who believe in that onmipotent god use

But do you actually understand it?

if we are only sticking with the evidence it does

you cannot provide evidence of any universe other than the one we inhabit

Oh......never mind.

your reaserch for you

please read

Haha! my reasearch? did you even read that page? or did you just read "fine tuned" and hoped that would be enough?

I asked you where you got your figures from....and it seems you just pulled them out of thin air.....there's nothing on that wiki page that mentions anything similar to the numbers you keep spurting out....why would you think that this was a convincing argument?

i will amend my statement

i will give you 10 dice . you may roll each one only once. all rolls after the first mush match that first number

LoL Says who? how did you arrive at this figures? why only one roll?

if you get all ten (of any number) i will give you everything i own

if you dont i get everything you own

How about I get to roll those dice thousands of times every second for billions of years?

I am serious

How unfortunate..

if you think that it is impossible

then you must conclude that this universe is not random

No just because I find your example to be impossible does not in any way lead me to consider this universe to be designed.

Probably the worst attempt at an argument for fine-tuning/I.D. I've come across on ATS.....(and that's saying something).