Creation Debate 2014

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by The Butterfly, Feb 4, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bill Nye and Ken Ham are slated to debate in about three hours. Is anyone interested in it? Here's the link:


    http://debatelive.org/
     
    • Love Love x 1
  2. I'm all for this event and everything, and I may watch it if I can tonight, but calling it a debate is a huge misnomer. There is not debate. There's no supposed controversy either. You don't have to believe in, or understand, something for it to be true or accurate.

    And as much as I adore Bill Nye, I think I'd prefer an actual evolutionary scientist to do this instead. Not that I don't understand why it's him in this instance.
     
  3. I'm excited to watch this, too!

    But a warning for this thread: if we're going to debate Evolution vs Creation here, then please be respectful! Someone believing something different from you does not make them stupid, and we never condone harassment of any kind here.

    So if you want to continue the debate onto this thread, please remember to keep an open mind, be respectful, and enter with the intention of explaining your view, and NOT changing people's minds
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  4. I do hold issue with the fact that the website that's hosting the debate belongs to Answers in Genesis, which would be biased for obvious reasons.

    They also believe that the mere concept of evolution "will inevitably lead to a magnification of the effects of sin," and somehow contributes to things like immorality and abortion. And while they hold a belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis, they don't ascribe to a literal interpretation of the rest of the Old Testament. They're also pro-life but support the death penalty, but that's another topic.

    The moderator tonight, Tom Foreman, does seem like an unbiased type, so fingers crossed so far as that goes.

    I hope I haven't gone over the line here.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  5. I'm getting a bit annoyed with Ham's defining evolution/naturalism as a religion; we need to agree on a definition of religion:

    My Oxford English Dictionary defines Religion as "1: The belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. In a god or gods. 2: A particular system of faith and worship"

    Evolution/Naturalism neither incorporates any belief in a supernatural power, nor does it require faith (OED: 1: A complete trust or confidence 2: Strong religious belief 3: a particular religion) in anything (unless you count trusting what is observed and tested to be true as an element of faith, but the use of the word 'faith' typically is used from the biblical definition 'Now faith is the assurance (the confirmation,the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see'. In other words, believing something regardless of proof.

    He uses the idea of evolution/naturalism being a religion to attack schools who do not allow religion to be taught in them (saying that they only allow one; the religion of evolution/naturalism, making schools religiously biased) when he is using a flawed definition of the term 'religion'

    I guess this could come down to interpretation of the term, but in general, when the word 'religion' is used, it's typically in reference to something supernatural that we cannot see or test. This does not apply to evolution/naturalism, therefore I'm a bit irked that he refers to evolution/naturalism as a religion.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. I don't have a problem with the fact that he is defining modern science as a religion. In a way it is. It is simply a different type of religion, I guess. And there is a form of indoctrination in it. It is just an indoctrination by logic.

    What mostly bothers me about what he is saying was his argument about dogs starting from a single pair. I'm a little behind what's going on, so I don't know how Nye has countered, but we all know that inbreeding is a thing, and it worries me that he didn't even bring up the most basic of counters for that. I'm honestly trying to approach this with an open mind, but it is a bit difficult to accept. Some of his points make sense. But he skates over some obvious things to which I would really like to hear his answer.
     
  7. Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill! I'm going to watch, I got dentition all day tomorrow. I want to see who starts yelling or gets mad first.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Prior to the debate, Buzzfeed posted an article that showed several questions from self-proclaimed creationists for Bill Nye. The whole article is gone now for some reason, but a whole lot of people decided to answer it for themselves, including myself, so, I dunno, here's my responses.

     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Love Love x 1
  9. Thank you.
     
  10. I hate this question; it's literally the most ignorant argument you can make against evolution; it shows you have done zero research on the subject you are trying to disprove.
     
    • Love Love x 2
  11. [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Thank Thank x 1
  12. @Grumpy lol! Indeed; people need to stop defining the word 'theory' as meaning 'unproven/just an idea'
     
  13. What if this is just a dream...*Minds Blown*
     
  14. I watched the debate a few days ago and unfortunately, I was not there for the live event. Fortunately, it was archived on the net and I even grabbed it for future reference so that I can watch it again when I am feeling like it. However, if there was a problem with this debate, I think it was that Bill Nye either was not in top shape or that he forgot to address some points that Ken Ham brought up. Or maybe it is only I that feel like that. But the thing is, I think that he failed to answer Ken Ham's theory that everything comes from "Christian Logic" and belief as well as the claim that the past can not be observed just as the future. Or maybe he did address that later point?

    Hmm. Now that I think about it, Bill Nye probably did address it in the form of saying that the "Ken Ham model" is incapable of prediction in the sense that it assumes the same laws will not necessarily exist in the future. Which has a grain of truth in it, because the universe is changing and we are only observing the universe as it is now. But still, I do not think he ever addressed the fact that Ken Ham thought that the scientific model was based on belief. Maybe I should rewatch the whole thing again.

    As for the questionairre, let me see how I can answer it. Note that these answers may enrage actual scientists in the field:

    1. Bill Nye, Are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?

    Yes. He is teaching critical thinking, an examination of facts, logic and creativity. He is not afraid to admit when he does not have the answer to a question and he encourages the exploration of scientific topics.

    2. Are you scared of a Divine Creator?

    If the Divine Creator really is all-loving as they are described, why would I have to be afraid of them? And what influence does a divine creator have on my life that should make me afraid of them?

    3. Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature? i.e., trees created with rings... Adam created as an adult...

    Not necessarily, but why would someone plant all that false evidence just to go through the trouble of making us believe in evolution? It is certainly possible, but highly unlikely.

    4. Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution?

    No. The thing about all physical laws that are about a "conversation of something" is that they always say "within a closed system". We do not know if the universe is a closed system.

    5. How do you explain a sunset if their [sic] is no God?

    The Earth rotates around the Sun and it is rotating around its axis as well, making the appearent position of the Sun shift in the sky.

    6. If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?

    The laws of thermodynamics do not debunk evolution and if the Big Bang Theory is true, it would be sensible to assume that all the energy present within the universe existed in the first place.

    7. What about noetics?

    I have no idea what noetics is.

    8. Where do you derive _objective_ meaning in life?

    I think that the objective meaning is to "leave something behind" for the future. There is nothing more or less than that.

    9. If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?

    Most likely.

    10. I believe in the Big Bang Theory... _God_ said it and BANG it happened!

    There is no need to assume that God exists just because the Big Bang Theory is not well understood or unclear. That would be saying that there are no chairs without tables.

    11. Why do evolutionists/secularists/humanists/non-God believing people reject the idea of their [sic] being a creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?

    I do not reject the idea of God nor the idea of intelligent design. These ideas are still possible, but they are unlikely scenarios.

    12. There is no in between... the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for an "official proof."

    There exist probably hundreds of skeletons that show evolution or adaption on other animals, for example, a study on the T-rex showed that its thigh bone got progressively bigger as time went on. There is no reason why something that is true for another species that is not true for humans, as humans are governed by the same natural laws as they are.

    13. Does metamorphosis help support evolution?

    I do not think so. Metamorphosis, or full transformation has nothing to do with evolution and it is a completely different biological process.

    14. If Evolution is a Theory (like creationism or the Bible), why then is Evolution taught as fact?

    Evolution is not a theory, it has been proven to be true.

    15. Because science by defintion is a "theory" -- not testable, observable, nor repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?

    Science is based on observations and the conclusions that come from these observations. It is currently the most reliable method of describing scenarios that occur in the real world, even if it is not completely accurate. As for the creationism and intelligent design being taught, I personally have nothing against that, but they should not be taught as "the only possible way" of interpreting the universe.

    16. What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an _increase_ of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?

    I am not aware of a process that increases genetic information, however, the amount of genetic information does not mean that a species is more complex than the other. Besides, genetic information, at its base level, is a group of chemical markers organised into a system, which means one only needs an appropriate chemical reaction to "increase" the amount of genetic information.

    17. What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in Salvation?

    I already answered this question; "to leave something behind".

    18. Why have we found only 1 "Lucy" when we have found more than 1 of everything else?

    No idea. I am not educated enough in this field to answer that.

    19. Can you believe in "the big bang" without "faith?"

    Yes.

    20. How can you look at the world and not believe that someone created/thought of it? It's _Amazing_!!!

    It is amazing exactly because there was no creative intelligence behind it. This current world is one that was made possible by what is essentially a cosmic miracle, or if one prefers to use a term with less religious connotations, an extremely unlikely situation. I think that is much more amazing than having someone create it for us.

    21. Relating to the big bang theory... Where did the exploding star come from?

    Certain interpretations of the Big Bang Theory say that each "Big Bang" is eventually followed by a "Big Crunch" that effectively destroys the universe as it is known. It is possible that the universe is a never-ending cycle.

    22. If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

    Just because there is a less complex species with the same ancestry, it does not mean that it should go extinct. By this logic, all life except humans on Earth should be dead, because everything evolved, ultimately, from a single-celled organism.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.