On February 4, Billy Nye “the science guy” will visit the Creation Museum in Kentucky to debate Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis. Ham invited Nye mostly because of Nye’s controversial YouTube video in which he claimed that teaching creationism was bad for kids. In his blog, Ham said:
Because our ministry theme for 2013 and for 2014 is “Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids,” our staff thought that a debate on creation vs. evolution with a man who has influenced so many children to believe in evolution would be a good idea.
Up to this point, there hasn’t been much debate. There are question-begging epithets (“flat-earthers”) and preclusive definitions (“That’s not science…”) on one side, while creationists continue to pursue their own definitions and metaphysical underpinnings. I am actually surprised and pleased that Nye is at least willing to involve himself in a debate. He must know that debating Ken Ham will bring attention to what Ham believes, and in some senses, it gives creationism legitimacy. If creationism is worthy of response, then it must be gaining ground. Evolutionists have traditionally just ignored it or forced it into public silence.
Who knows what will go down on February 4. I don’t believe either debater will give up his foundational beliefs. I hope that Ham makes that the central point of the debate. Arguing about evidence and science is fruitless. Creationists and evolutionists are looking at the same evidence. And they are utilizing the same tools. To argue any differently is ignorant and unfair. Though there has been some tampering with the evidence on both sides, that is not the norm. And that is not the problem. The problem is not a difference of evidence or a difference of method. It’s a difference of interpretation, which means a difference of presuppositions. I look forward to the debate, and I hope, whatever the outcome, that the real issues at the heart of this conflict are addressed.
Obviously Nye will need to rely heavily on the many unproven assumptions of Evolution.
Clear and startling evidence of Creation is all around us, one just needs to look.
The evidence is clear!
This idiotic cartoon illustrates nothing except that you, Bob, have a problem. And just as the left frames their ‘arguments’ you use namecalling, deflecting, and ….nothing to prove and argument. Just illustrates what’s between your ears.
There is no argument! Evolution is a scientific fact & creationism is religion.
Then why, Bob, do they continue to refer to it as the “Theory of Evolution”? Before you say anything, I am very aware that the so-called scientists use different terms than “evolution”, but that effort is only for the purpose of deception. Use different words and descriptions to mislead.
Bob, you really should consider changing your vulgar avatar, especially when talking about the advancement of the species (evolution). I guess that in some cases the changes are so tiny as to be imperceptible.
Clint…he’s a TROLL so don’t spend valuable time to throw down a rabbit hole. Remember the scumbbag liberal homo TROLL, Blob actually believes EVERYTHING obamao does and says so how could you possibly reason with that stupidity?
You don’t even understand what the word theory means in scientific terms. Perhaps you should look it up so you don’t seem to be such an idiot
Webster’s #1 definition for theory; “A speculative plan”. Speculation is nothing more than the thoughts of a theorist’s head. It certainly is not based on science.
Is their ANY limit to the ignorance of you people??? A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon
Er, sort o’ like the “Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming”, oops, um, they meant to say, “Anthropogenic Climate Change” you feel is irrefutably proven? Note: The reason you can’t bend over to kiss it goodbye is because that “Hockey Stick” has been “Graph”[ted] straight up your nether regions.
Like ANY scientific theory it’s there for ANYONE to prove wrong.
Please enlighten me as to the origination and formation of mitochondrial DNA synthesis. How did it all begin?
That’s the clincher for single-minded folks like “Bob”. Call everything “evolution”. Everybody with a modicum of reason and imagination can go to he!! in a hand basket because “evolution” is a “fact” to them. But they can’t or refuse to fathom the enormous and wonderful complexity of the existence we live in, from sub-atomic particles to “where is the end of the universe? and what’s on the other side of that?” Of course, you nor I have the answer, but we freely admit it and humble our selves to something much larger than we can comprehend. Simpletons like Bob prefer a puddle of primordial chemicals struck by lightning that suddenly changes into DNA. Keebler elves have more credibility than the happenstance “process” they find so comforting.
You do understand that the Scientific method was creative/developed by Priest in the Roman Catholic church. The church is a great place to find very high level scientists, doctors and other educated fields. As
these priest do not have family’s nor mortgage payments therefore they have a lot of free time for high level of eduction and advanced studies.
The reason you, me and other common people have an education is because of Christians. The priest and leaders of the church saw it a good thingto pass their education along to the poor and common people: 1) good
way to teach the Bible, 2) helped the people help themselves. Before this really only the wealthy were educated. additionally, I am not aware of any Ivy league school that does not have a Christian or Hebrew
foundation. So, when you act as if religious people are lower educated or uneducated, its like biting the hand that fed and raised you.
Science has proven that the length of a day grows longer everyday… though grows at a very, very, very so rate of course. To God time is meaningless. So, if you clear your head of time being an important issue (because its not: none of us were alive 130 years ago let alone
6,000 plus years ago to know what was around), then read Genesis and then read a creditable scientific papers on how we believe the world wascreated, you will find it a match. From “Let there be light” / Big Bang (explosions creates a lot of light), to God saying he had Adam
named every animal and plant… mankind is often referred to as Adam, we as children of Adam are still naming the different animals and plants. The Bible even covers cloning: God removed one of Adams ribs to make
Eva (surgery – goes into how God put Adam into a deep sleep cuts him open). Current science tells us the best source for cloning is to use material from the bone. Of course God is a little more advance than man, so he can change the sex of a clone…. (maybe we can too, i have
not looked into cloning in that much detail). It goes on and on…
You just have to open your mind so that you can learn and grow. You think you know more then everyone, when it is you that does not understand as much as the others you chat with. Your hate for God has given you blinders. Stop hating and try understand what people are saying. I’m not asking you to believe, just try to understand and maybe
you will in time see your mistakes or misunderstandings. Until then you will be limited to you small thinking world. Of course saying that, I do not think anyone else on this page will state they are without issues and mistakes. Meaning no one is perfect or all understanding.
An education conversation with someone that believes the planet is 6,000 years old? That’s impossible
I guess we are assuming that everything that needs to be known is known and that Creationism, for example, is fully known and therefore will not evolve into something fuller. By the same hand do we assume that evolution accounts for everything and that there are no other forces in operation at, say, the quantum level? I’m not convinced wholly by either school of thought. I look at the way species evolve and adapt and my scientific mind always sees something else, something more.
When I was a kid I was told God is within us – which I still believe today, and that all the knowledge of the the universe is within us. What else is in us and in other living things?
I seriously doubt that you’re an educated person but do seriously believe that the brightest most educated people all over the planet that have spent their life studying have somehow got it all wrong
Nothing you’ve spewed out here is unknown to me. My degree is in both the Arts and Sciences. Apart from the usual Sci courses I’ve studied geology, anthropology, oceanography, read Darwin and a book or two about him.
I’ve also studied several religions.
Your problem is you are blinded by your own assumptions and that high horse, or is it an ass, you are on.
We do not know everything there is to be known. Sorry if your soap box just got shorter.
If you’re so bright, step up to the plate & prove all science wrong! A Nobel prize, fame & fortune await you!
YOUR science is your own religion, Bob. You’ve bought into it so thoroughly that nothing anyone can say will make you even concede a point. You make assumptions in your attempt to educate us knuckledragging idiots, assumptions that are fundamentally flawed. I still want to know where your transitional species are, haven’t found one have you Bob.
Science is NOT a religion. Science is what kills religion (that & common sense) the fact that you “still want to know where your transitional species are” indicates you lack even the most basic understanding of evolution.
Sorry Bob, like most leftists you use deflection to change the subject. I think it is actually you who lack ‘the most basic understanding of evolution.’
If you don’t believe in evolution because of any of the following reasons
evolution states that something comes from nothing.
Evolution says that man just came from dirt
Evolution can’t be true because there’s no evidence of a monkey giving birth to a human.
Evolution states that all the monkeys became humans and monkeys exist today.
Evolution can’t be true because there are no catdogs, birdfrogs, salmon-bucks, crockoducks, etc!
You really need to understand what the theory of evolution actually states before you attempt to argue against it.
If you choose to argue against a scientifically established claim, it’s your responsibility to understand
what conclusion science has actually drawn on a matter and what evidence lead to it. Otherwise, you will be genuinely committing the first of the two fallacies (1) A straw man is committed when you argue a fabrication of what your opposition’s position, rather than
addressing your opposition’s actual arguments. Now whether or not you do this
because you don’t know any better, or because you know that’s not the actual claim of your opposition and you’re being deliberately dishonest doesn’t matter in terms of how fallacious the argument is. Again, you are responsible for
knowing your opposition’s actual argument, claim, or general position on a topic before you argue against it. & (2)
the argument from ignorance. When you concluded that
any solution you propose must be true because it presents an alternative to fill a knowledge gap does not make it true.
Having had a scientific education, likely greater than your own, I don’t need ‘schooling’. My criticism of you is your vehement attacks (which also seem to indicate that you don’t work and have nothing better to do) on persons you know nothing about. I’m not attacking you, just your manners and your condescension toward those who disagree with you..
I can only assume your “scientific education” came from some fake “bible college”. If not, get your money back ASAP!
It’s been good enough to take me to a professional career. I would assume that you are sitting in mom’s basement in your underwear.
If I actually believed that the tooth fairy was real & had tangible proof (a missing tooth & $5 bill I found under my pillow) & tried to convince you of my beliefs how would you react to that?
OK Bob, rather than a plagiarized comment from a book, I believe this is your attempt at original thought. You’re taking up my time with foolishness. Bye.
One characteristic of science is that it must be falsifiable. It is not possible to “prove” that any scientific model is absolutely true and correct. It is, however, quite possible to prove that any given scientific model is not correct. that is, it can be conclusively shown to be false. The evolution model could be falsified in any number of ways, a new species could be reliably observed to suddenly POOF! into existence from nowhere. the evolution model would be conclusively falsified if any of the three basics (variation, heritability or selection) were shown by experiment to be invalid (i.e., if some genetic mechanism were to be found which made it chemically impossible for mutations to occur in the DNA, or for any such mutations to be passed down from one generation to the next). The evolutionary model would also be falsified if the fossil remains of a fully modern human being or a flowering plant were to be reliably found in strata that have been dated to the Cambrian period of earth’s history, or the Devonian, or the Permian, or if it were to be conclusively shown that all fossils found to date are elaborate fakes, planted by an international conspiracy of evolution scientists to impose secular humanism upon the earth. So far, however, no evidence has been reliably presented, by the creationists or by anyone else, which falsifies the evolution model. Every experiment that has been performed and every bit of data which has been collected has confirm its validity.
Good cutting and pasting from Google Books, Bob. In school you would be charged with plagiarism.
You’re losing me here, why would I try to prove wrong that which I know is right?
You remind me of the early Church. Your dogma is being challenged and it upsets you. We move along and learn more and some things which seemed so rock solid get questioned or shown to be only a part of the picture. Einstein, who over turned Newton’s apple cart on an issue or two, may be wrong about the speed of light, there may be something faster. We’ve learned that bleeding and leeching are useless. And so it goes. All that is knowable is not yet known. I simply leave the door open to many things. Try it, it’s fun. One of my past times is considering the nature of the universe – not this local big bang cosmos we’re experiencing but the endless space beyond. You cannot do that with a closed mind that believes science has discovered or knows all there is to know.
There are literally thousands of creation myths Genesis just being one. an Egyptian creation myth whose roots are in the Old Kingdom (2575-2134 BCE).In the “Hymn to Atum,” claims Atum “Then I copulated with my own fist. I masturbated with my own hand. I ejaculated into my own mouth.I sneezed to create Shu the wind, I spat to create Tefnut the rain.
Old Man Nun reared them. So, should we consider that myth as being true as well? NOBODY is saying science knows all there is to know but it’s different then EVERY other creation story simply because it has evidence to back it up.
Good for Atum. Wonder if he had a hot statue to fantasize over?
Well you know you cannot take any of this literally. However, peel away the layers of a myth and down there is that grain of truth. We can now be reasonably sure the Garden of Eden was a real place somewhere in what is now the Persian Gulf before it flooded and our stories, told over the millennium via word of mouth descend directly from the people who found it a good place to live. Let’s face something here, the early Hebrews lifted some Genesis stuff from the Babs. But in an over all sense there are things and for some of these things and personal experience tell us there is something and beyond science.
We can be reasonably sure that the Sumerians were one of the 1st to create a complex society (characterized by the process of state formation, the practice of agriculture and settlement in cities, writing, etc) & that they did so near the Persian Gulf & that most the biblical stories (including Adam & Eve & the great flood) were taken directly from Sumerian myths. Their may very well have been a “garden of eden” near there but to suggest it had talking snakes is absurd.
OK Bob, please take this opportunity to educate us and name a few of these so-called ‘facts’ you keep mentioning.
Thanks for the reply (this will be fun).
Pick up a 3rd grade science book & see for yourself.
Thanks for trying to address some actual points, which you list below.
If (as creationists believe) there was a world wide flood within the last 6,000 years We would expect to observe a uniform, worldwide blanket of randomly sorted boulders, cobbles, sand, and silt overlain by a layer of clay. But this worldwide blanket does not exist.
We would expect to see no sorting in regard to sediment type and size. No creationist has ever explained how the Flood could have deposited layers of heavy sediment on top of layers of lighter sediment.
There would be mega-ripples everywhere such as are seen along the Columbia River formed by the rapid movement of the waters off the land surface. No mega-ripples evident.
There would be no segregation of fossils. If all organisms lived at the same time, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, ammonites, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket described in point #1. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with creationism).
There are at least five major extinction events, a situation where fossils are abundant below a certain line within the geological layers, but totally absent above that line. There is no way to explain these geological features with a global flood.
Igneous (volcanic) rocks, if they existed at all in flood sediments, would all be in the form of pillow lava, which are extruded underwater. In reality, there are very clearly defined volcanic layers, from which radiometric dates are obtained. So how can we have flat layers of vocanic rock, compressed between other layers, occuring during an “ultramassive flood”?
Metamorphic rocks, as they are formed from previously existing rocks, would not exist in the post-Flood geological layers because the necessary heating and cooling require millions of years for large bodies. All radioactive isotopes which would not have completely decayed away in, say 10,000 years, would exist in nature because those with a moderately short half-life would not have had time to decay.
No varves, ice cores, tree ring ensembles, coral cores, or other examples of periodically accumulated accretion should not be found to extend back beyond the time of the Flood. But they do. Ice cores, drilled from stable ice plains, show 40,000 years of annual layers. Varves, which are mineral deposits, show millions of years of annual layers.
Because of the catastrophic force of the marine environment and the lack of exposure of the land during the flood, we would expect to find no examples at all in the geologic record of the following delicate fossils or evidence for land deposition
>>fossilized dinosaur nests ant nests termite nests bird nests (of a relative of the flamingo in the Green River Formation in Wyoming)
>>fragile wasp nests
>>complex rodent burrows
>>animal dung left in its original position of deposition as it hardened on dry, solid ground trackways of land animals
>>raindrop imprints fossilized mudcracks
>>fragile things preserved as fossils, such as bird feathers (Confuciusornis) ferns (adjacent to coal beds) insects (Oligocene lake beds near Florrisant, CO), oxidized rocks layers (redbeds) because there is insufficient oxygen in the water to oxidize (bring up) the iron present. All these fragile features are found deep in the geological record.
A catastrophic flood would have destroyed them. I would especially like you to consider how raindrop imprints and mudcracks could have become fossilized in a sudden, massive flood.
We would expect to find no thick subsurface evaporites (halite, sylvite, and gypsum). It would be impossible to precipitate them from a marine environment. There would be genetic evidence of a recent population bottleneck in all extant species. There is no such genetic bottleneck, dating from 6-10 thousand years ago.
There would be some remnant evidence of pre-Flood civilization(s) and obviously pre-Flood humans. The Institute for Creation Research has not established any criteria for what a pre-Flood human might be like (instead consigning all “degenerate” fossils like erectus and neanderthal to post-Flood).
There would just be one age from the top to the bottom of the geological column. In other words, whether you pick a rock from the top of the Grand Canyon or the very bottom, they both should be dated at 10,000 years old.In fact there are very real increases in age as one digs deeper down in the column. If the flood DID happen, then all the geological stratum were laid down in just one year, containing all those pesky bones. That evidence supports evolution.
We should expect that all mountain ranges (being all formed during or immediately after the Flood) should show similar, near equal amounts of erosion. They don’t. If the flood occurred about 10,000 years ago, the polar ice caps should have no more than 5000 annual layers. Or, at the very least, there should be massive evidence of melting and salt water intrusion at that time. There is no evidence of massive melting.
Had a flood occurred, all plants alive today should have seeds which could remain viable in hot, humid conditions for a year, or which can survive prolonged submersion in sea water. All plants should be able to grow with little or no topsoil. In reality, most can’t.
In regard to fossils, there are three very important predictions if the Global Flood really occurred, and is responsible for depositing fossils within the strata:
A) None of the marine fossils would be encrusted by other fossils, or show any sign of boring by organisms after death.
B) None of the vertebrate fossils should show signs of scavenging or prolonged weathering by exposure on the ground.
C) None of the vertebrate fossils should be encrusted by pedogenic carbonate, such as the fossils in the Karoo of South Africa and the Badlands of South Dakota are.
In other words, if the Flood happened, fossil vertebrates should consist only of freshly broken bone exhibiting no sign of scavenging or of having lain on the ground or sea bottom for a long period of time.
Zoogeography should show a dispersal pattern demonstrating that the point of origin of all species is in the Middle East (the disembarking point for Noah’s ark). It doesn’t. It shows different points of origins for different species.
The Hawaiian Islands and associated coral structures should all be found to be more recent than the Flood. They aren’t.
There should be isotopes with half lives of less than 80 million years in the biosphere. The fact that there are none argues very strongly for an earth with an age far older than 10,000 years. (This point is not so much about the flood in particular, but presents an irrefutable argument in favor of an ancient earth. . This evidence has never been refuted by any creationist
Fossilized plants should be represented equally throughout all the geological layers, with no sorting from ‘primitive’ to ‘modern’. This is not the case– there is clearly segregation of plant fossils from primitive to modern represented in the geological column. Plants have no means by which to “run to higher ground”, the infantile method that creationists suggest was used by animals to sort themselves in order of intelligence.
Hi (again) Bob,
The assumptions you have to make to come up with the supposed ‘truths’ you allude to here are embarrassing. Embarrassing for me because I thought we were having an educated exchange and I all we have from you is something you posted from another website, or perhaps one of your college ‘professors’ helped you put this together? I have to guess that’s where you got your ‘information’ from, because it is completely out of character for you to have anything semi-rational to say without devolving (de-evolution??) into a child-like rant. These assumptions should also be embarrassing to you, except that it appears you actually believe the half-truths you point to. That is most unfortunate.
The real problem is that you enter the card game with only half a deck (pun only partially intended – please forgive me but I couldn’t resist). Some of the things you point out are definitely factual, and I appreciate your attempt to introduce facts into the discussion. However, you seem to leave the path of reason because of one major fault – you don’t believe the truth. You don’t seem to believe in God, which is the sum total of foolish thinking (not my words, but His – look up Psalm 14:1). Because you do not acknowledge Him you approach this subject, as well as life in general, without wisdom. You might have a limited amount of knowledge, but without wisdom all you have left is arrogance and vanity. That is not to say you can’t escape that corruption, but you have to be willing to put aside your own presuppositions and listen to reason. The name calling and irrational blubbering don’t do anything except prove you to be incapable of logical, rational discourse.
You’re correct that I do not believe in God & I would say the sum total of your foolish thinking is that you do. people who view the world as a supernatural place ruled over by an eternal god, they use the word belief to imply that they have an unconditional, unquestioning acceptance of certain specific sources of information (mainly the bible, but also what is told to them by their church leaders). To have strong faith to accept what you are told without questioning or doubt is hailed as virtuous. To doubt or question is derided as sinful, and believers are told that skepticism harms their chances of salvation. They are also taught that they have a constant eavesdropper, their Heavenly Father, not only listening to their conversations and watching their actions, but even knowing their innermost thoughts. It’s no wonder that believers are terrified to doubt or question, and won’t even allow themselves freedom of thought.
You are mistaken, and again you have proved my point about your character.
I don’t deny any of the things you mention in your posts, but there are educated, rational explanations for each of them. YOU, on the other hand, don’t want to know the truth. You continue to deny or ignore the things that have been brought up in this conversation. This is convenient for you, because they CAN’T be answered to show anything other than the truth of creation and the foolishness of evolution. Instead you rely on childish name-calling and insults because the truth frightens and offends you. And that is too bad.
I will continue to pray for you.
I don’t mean to insult you & apologize if I did. I think it’s as simple as this. Christians MUST reject evolution because evolution destroys their faith. No Adam & Eve, no original sin, no reason for Jesus to visit earth, no Jesus, no Christianity. So arguing science or facts with a Christian will NEVER go anywhere because their isn’t ANY evidence possible that will get a Christian to reject their faith
Bob, as I stated earlier I don’t dislike you. Actually, I appreciate the debate because it brings out the TRUTH. That is what I stand for, whether it is comfortable for me or not. I did not take anything you state as an insult, and even if you meant it that way I don’t hold it against you (Matthew 5:44; 2 Timothy 2:24, 25). In any event, apology accepted. 🙂
I hope you understand that the reason I believe in Creation is because I believe the preponderance of evidence. The fact that the Bible makes reference to numerous things that only recently have been ‘found out’ by modern science just cements that preponderance of truth. And, as I stated earlier, I can’t think of ANYONE I have ever talked to about this subject but that – once ALL the information is presented – continues to deny the validity of Creation.
Truth is a very liberating thing, sir.
Perhaps you should speak with someone that knows something about science?
Thanks for the laugh, I had a hard day at work and needed to get a chuckle from this guy.
Who is he anyway? I’ve never heard of him.
Sam Harris is his name & I would highly recommend you read one of his books.
The central tenet of creation “science” is that God created the universe out of nothing, by Divine fiat. This “model” is completely unfalsifiable. There is no test or experiment which can conclusively show that God does not exist, or that creation did not occur. Since, by definition, God is capable of doing or accomplishing anything, there is nothing that can be pointed to that God cannot have done, and therefore the hypothesis itself is unfalsifiable. Any potential problem with the “creation model” can be (and very many times has been) explained away with a wave of the hand, with the simple assertion, “God did it that way.” Because the tenets of scientific creationism cannot be tested, investigated or falsified, and because they invoke supernatural entities as explanatory mechanisms, they cannot be considered to be a scientific model.
Bob, because you don’t know what you’re talking about you sound more and more foolish with every word you type.
1. Creationists DO believe God created everything from nothing. So do evolutionists. What do you think atoms become molecules – become amino acids – become proteins – become amoebas – become fish – become men is?
2. You obviously got your definition of God from the same lame source as the rest of your ‘proof.’ God CANNOT do or accomplish anything. He can’t sin. He can’t lie. He can’t permit rebellion to go unpunished.
3. I never claimed to know everything, and never will. If I am unaware of the answer to a question then of course I say ‘God did it that way,’ because that is the truth. I understand that there is PLENTY out there I don’t understand. People like you, however, are puffed up with pride and arrogance, and discount anything that falls outside your preconceived world.
4. The tenets of creation HAVE been tested, investigated and falsified. They have also been widely reported. The problem, as I have said a multitude of times, is that people like you are either ignorant of them or reject them. NO ONE HAS YET TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER FOR JUST ONE OR TWO OF THE BASIC QUESTIONS I HAVE POSED SHOWING THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF CREATION. Not just in this thread, but in the past nearly four decades I have asked the same questions. Why have I not gotten any answers? Because they contradict evolution in the most basic functions of that belief system. By acknowledging the answers evolution is shown to be the false religion that it is.
Sir, I hate to rain on your religious viewpoint, but let us see facts for what they are. All “Holy Books” (Bible, Qur’an, Torah and others), were compiled and edited by groups of “mere mortals”—most quite some time after the deaths of Christ and Muhammad Each group had persons in charge (also mere mortals) that dictated what would and would not be included in the final product’s. Logic, deductive reason and plain common sense, dictates those processes clearly refute the concept that those documents are the actual “spoken word” of a God. I am far from being an expert on the Bible, but I see well-documented books and articles that cast grave doubt on at least one of the Bible’s “Letters” as being a confirmed “forgery”. And, the Qur’an, since it refers to prior data in older Holy Books, also has credibility problems. Now, let us address the issues of “miracles”. In the olden days many such miracles were reported and there were but about 5 million people on the planet. Now, with the earths population approaching 10 billion, the law of large numbers would dictate, there should be miracles, by the dozens, being reported every day—-or do not any of the masses today deserve a miracle? We surely do have our fair share of catastrophic and cataclysmic events occurring all of the time and many completely innocent people are killed. Problems of the Qur’an require a separate, carefully worded post, to avoid “hate” issues.
We have NO idea who wrote the gospels or when they were written nor do we even have an original copy of ANY of them. All we know for certain is they weren’t written by those that claim to have written them (making them forgeries) & that NONE of the oldest copies are alike so we don’t even know what the originals even said!!!
Please see the above post.
Thanks for the intro, but you are mistaken about a great many things;
1. The Torah is part of the Old Testament, which is part of the Bible. They are the same book dealing with two distinct dispensations in how God is dealing with mankind.
2. The first documents written about Christ were completed well within 15-20 years of His death, so I’m not sure where you get that from.
3. I am well acquainted with the tired old story about how one/most/all of the Scriptures were forgeries, etc. THAT is truly funny, except that it has a significantly damaging effect on how someone approaches the Word. This attack has been going on since the day after Christ died (Matthew 27:62-66). It is no surprise the enemy continually tries to trick people with it, because it is (unfortunately) very easy to trick unread, unlearned and ignorant people.
4. I know it is an inflammatory statement, but I will make it anyway – as far as I am concerned there is only one Holy Book, and that is the Bible (for a plethora of reasons). If someone thinks that is offensive enough to boot me from this site, then so be it.
5. Were you aware that Jesus did not heal most of the people He spoke to? Out of the thousands upon thousands of people who heard His voice, only a small percentage of them actually got their miracle. Why is that? Because those who approach God with their minds receive nothing; only those with faith will receive from Him, because He is not a Mind. Only those who approach Him with an open heart can expect to receive anything (Hebrews 11:6).
6. Jesus could not do many works in His own home town, because people did not approach Him the way that they should have (Mark 6:4-6).
I admire your willingness to admit to not knowing the Bible, and I applaud you for that honesty. I DO know the Bible at least in part (with credentialing in Divinity), and have made it my life’s mission to researching, understanding and applying the truths contained in it. The more I search, the more I find. The same process will apply to you as well if you honestly seek Him, because He does not show partiality with anyone (Romans 2:11).
If the Bible (especially the Old Testament) were fake, how can someone predict the future with that kind of accuracy several hundred years in advance? Do you know there are multitudes of prophesies concerning the first coming of Christ, and that He has fulfilled them? Do you know there are prophesies about the age we are living in? Do you know there are prophesies concerning the future, which have yet to be fulfilled? There are so many ways to show people the infallibility of Scripture that it would take volumes of books to contain them. Oh, wait – they are already available!
You should do yourself a favor and try to find some real Bible scholars and hear what they have to say, and not the wanna-be kind.
15 to 20 years? Do you just make this stuff up?
So then, does their God = NSA?
God forbid!
This is painful, but I will try to hold back my laughter and at least TRY to redirect your wayward thinking (at least on just a couple points anyway – I don’t have time for much more than that);
1. Um, I may be wrong but boulders don’t float. I’m not sure what in the world you’re alluding to with that.
2. Sedimentation layers ARE everywhere, some people call them geologic strata. Since A significant amount of time has passed from the Flood to the present day there are numerous reasons why the layering you describe is not as obvious as you think it should be.
3. Pangaea is a geologic fact, and was recorded in the Bible THOUSANDS of years before your so-called scientists found out about it (look up Genesis 10:25). If these ‘scientists’ actually read and believed the Word of God for what it is (the Truth), they would have realized this fact a long time ago.This has a large part to play in some of your confusion.
4. Much of the ‘evidences’ you cite are from a false understanding dependent on the assumptions you make. For instance, you assume that environmental circumstances then are similar to present day, which is (at least in the ante-deluvian world) radically wrong thinking. You can’t possibly know what it was like before the flood, because you discount the Bible (the Truth). Because you discount the Bible you are ignorant of the instruction and wisdom it gives, leaving you to assume everything. You DO know what happens when you ass-u-me, don’t you?
Thanks for the fun, but I gotta go for now.
Ciao!
Where did the water go? Of course if the entire planet was under water the air couldn’t be breathed. You failed to answer
I have many points to make, but will confine my post to basically one. If there was a world-wide flood, where pray tell, did all of that water go? We know that there is but an extremely small amount of water that “escapes” into the atmosphere. If the flood waters just disappeared, there has to be a valid reason, and we would have to be worrying about the remainder also disappearing. At this particular point, is appears that with the ice caps and glaciers still melting, the ocean levels are rising a little, with forecasts of much more in the future. I sense that most people have no concept or appreciation of the continual but extremely minute changes in evolutionary issues that have occurred over billions of years. Many such changes have been so small that they are imperceptible to human visual detection and perhaps even science. We know, just by looking at the high mountains and equally deep “trenches” in the oceans that cataclysmic events occurred eons in the past. Perhaps the earth originally had a relatively level surface, covered with “X” feet of water and when the eruptions occurred, about a third of the land mass rose above the water level and the remainder remained below. I personally have seen evidence of prior sea life in the Rocky Mountains at about the 10,000 foot level. I believe the Hubble Telescope and others are going to add much undeniable information to support the evolution theory.
In order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many believers are willing to do. there is not enough water in Earth’s atmosphere to raise the ocean’s levels over an inch, much less to cover Mt. Ararat with water over. The big problem that remains is the water. The Bible states quite plainly that: “[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.”
No ambiguity here. And there is no reason for God to lie about it. Mt. Everest was 20 feet underwater.
The peak of Mount Everest rises about 29,000 feet above sea level nearly five and a half miles high. That means that the earth was covered, in its entirety, with water 5.5 miles deep. This creates several important problems:
Where did all this water (approximately 10 times more water than there is on earth today) come from, and where did it all go?
If you assume that God magically imported the water from somewhere and then took it away again, you still have a problem with the fish. If God imported 5.5 miles of fresh water, the fresh water would have killed all of the salt water fish species. Then there is the immense water pressure. Five miles of water creates more than 12,000 PSI of water pressure at sea level.
Finally there’s the problem with Egypt and other ancient cultures. The Great Pyramid, for example, was built between 2600 BCE and 2500 BCE. Noah’s flood occurred 200 years after that. It is obvious that the Great Pyramid never was flooded underneath five miles of water. And so on…
Now Bob, you know that facts, logic and common sense don’t fly here.
Some short responses – not because I am being rude, but I have spent a lot of time in this thread and duty calls, so I will probably not spend a lot of time here in the future (at least in this thread);
1. You need to understand that the pre-deluvian world was vastly different than the one we live in today. Equating what goes on with nature and phenomena now with what you think supposedly happened then is assuming (be care about assuming things).
2. There was no precipitation before the Flood. After the Flood the atmosphere was radically different allowing for the accumulation of added moisture in the atmosphere, as well as snow at the polar caps (also non-existent before the Flood).
3. When the earth split into continents (are you familiar with the term Pangaea?) it effectively multiplied the coastline so that the volume of above-ground water was reduced greatly. You can replicate the effect using a kiddie pool and solid objects like bricks and stone blocks to prove the point. Although the shifting of tectonic plates happened after the Flood the number of humans on the planet at that time was minimal, so it was not readily apparent – meaning there were no large Oceanside cities at the time to report it. The concentration of civilization was inland, on the plains.
4. There are whole bodies of water located under and within the earth (some of the ones we know about are called aquifers, as well as other water deposits). When it rains in the desert and the water ‘disappears’ then where does it go? I’ll let you answer that one yourself.
5. Every major civilization has a Flood ‘legend’ dating from antiquity (before they even knew of each other) This indicates a shared experience at some point in the past.
6. Please don’t play the ‘Perhaps Game’ again. Perhaps we are all descendants of little green men? Perhaps pigs really DO fly? Perhaps I will hit the lotto three times in a row? Come on man, don’t embarrass yourself. that way.
The tectonic plates happened in t he last 3,000 years (after the flood)?? WOW!
Being the genius that you apparently think you are, answer me this. How did Noah get all of those marsupials on his Ark in the first place? And … How did he get them back to Australia after the flood waters receded? FedEx?
If you somehow believe that the continental drift happened in the last 3,000 years (after the flood) I suppose you could believe they walked!
Well then, I don’t. They would have to of had the ability to walk, or swim, for many thousands of miles. They would have left a fossil record of their travels. And that doesn’t explain how they got “back home”, does it?
To even have a discussion that a single family of 8 people built a 450 foot wooden boat, rounded up two of EVERY species on the planet, cared for them for over 40 days while the planet was covered in water & then somehow let the animals out & they somehow made it back to their natural habitat (without being eaten & with no plants to eat) is absurd!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
No facts will be accepted here that are not found “In The Book”. Circular logic, and blind, brainwashed faith are the cornerstones of Creationism.
As does his offensive icon. People who can’t refute logical argument always have to resort to saying “F#%k You” to those with an alternative viewpoint. It’s the first resort of a feeble mind.
That’s not the bird he’s flipping – it’s his IQ.
You sir are an uneducated, brainwashed dolt.
And you sir, are the brainwashed dolt, and I can assure you I have more education than you. From secular institutions I might add. You simply have a closed, self-important mind. My respect for the Corps doesn’t include the egomaniacal such as you.
Maybe he will produce a transitional species?
Makes one question what results from a relationship of a stunted liberal and a stray dog.
Found it!!!
Perfect.
Is this what you idiots are looking for?
Yeah, one fossil of a true transitional species would go a long way to improve the evidence that the evolutionists are right. Instead they stick to crackpot science. Like their assertion that fossils of sea life at every elevation prove that all the mountain rages were on the Ocean floor millions of years ago, while ignoring completely the plausible idea that it proves the Biblical story of God flooding the whole Earth.
Here’s that famous diagram…
You may wanna look up “tectonic plates”. The biblical story of a flood that covered the planet is NOT plausible at sooooo many levels that it’s ridiculous to even consider it anything but a myth! Science deniers simply do not understand how evolution works but EVEN is science were to find a “crocoduck” or “birddog” it would NOT change the mind of a single creationist. creationists can NEVER accept evolution because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very
reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the remains of the son of god
You forgot to capitalize the C in your sentence up there.
There isn’t any evidence theoretically possible to convince a creationist they are wrong otherwise there wouldn’t be any creationist
God is the real creationist and He will be around and available for you to explain how wrong you were. He will listen. It will be too late, but He will listen.
Well, if all the evidence for a natural origin of life and humanity has been misinterpreted by all the scientific and educational institutions of the world, and my godless view of the universe is invalid after I would tell god to beg me to forgive him for ALL his crimes against humanity I would simply say “”Do unto others as you would that others should do unto you.”
Bob, you must be a very troubled soul. I really feel sorry for you. I can’t imagine going through life with that level of anger. This will be my last post.
I’m not angry. I cannot imagine going through life with the amount of ignorance you poses
Bob is an example of how deception can completely blind a person with even a accepted level of worldly working intelligence. The Word is very clear that this would be prevalent situation at this time. Those who are of the family of faith I commend for you efforts to sway Bob but you must realize how improbable it is at this point. Two primary obstacles are hindering Bob. First is his pride which is the root of all short comings (sin) and was the original sin traced back to Lucifer, very powerful. The second one is the whole argument here is a mix of worldly understanding of spiritual truth in which Bob, already at a disadvantage cannot possibly fathom since he and those like him cannot participate in understanding basic spiritual truth. The best thing to do if you want to help him is to just state the truth simply and pray for him and let the Holy Spirit do His job.
Well, one thing is perfectly clear & that is if evolution is true then there was no Adam & Eve, no original sin, no reason for Jesus’s earthly visit & no god as described in the bible. THAT is the reason Christians will deny evolution till the bitter end.
People have informed me that there’s no way I can properly
understand the bible, because I’m unsaved and don’t have the discernment of the Holy Spirit. So apparently, with eternity in the balance, God has placed his instructions for living into a book that cannot be properly understood by anyone who actually needs the information to avoid Hell. Nice!
Don’t blame you Clint. This Bob character has a mental problem and needs treatment.
You honestly believe believe that the earth was created in six literal days; women come from a man’s rib; a snake, a donkey, and a burning bush spoke human language; the entire world was flooded, covering the mountains to drown evil; all animal species, millions of them, rode on one boat; language variations stem from the tower of Babel; Moses had a magic wand; the Nile turned to blood; a stick turned into a snake; witches, wizards, and sorcerers really exist; food rained from the sky for 40 years; people were cured by the sight of a brass serpent; the sun stood still to help Joshua win a battle, and it went backward for King Hezekiah; men survived unaided in a fiery furnace; a detached hand floated in the air and wrote on a wall; men followed a star which directed them to a particular house; Jesus walked on water unaided; fish and bread magically multiplied to feed the hungry; water instantly turned into wine; mental illness is caused by demons; a “devil” with wings exists who causes evil; people were healed by stepping into a pool agitated by angels; disembodied voiced spoke from the sky; Jesus vanished and later materialized from thin air; people were healed by Peter’s shadow; angels broke people out of jail; a fiery lake of eternal torment awaits unbelievers under the earth … while there is life-after-death in a city which is 1,500 miles cubed, with mansions and food, for Christians only & think I am the one with the mental problem?????
There is a complete lack of transitional fossils. The Evolutionists have held a couple up over the years, but none are real.
With just a couple of examples, real science would readily identify these so-called “transitional Fossils” examples nothing more than anomalies.
Failed Evolutionist Quickies:
Piltdown Man
Coelacanth
JavaMan
“Hopeful Monsters” (WTF?)
“Punctuated equilibria
Archaeopteryx
Yeah I’m sure the Science guy is scared of some religious kook!! NOT!! You flat-earthers are NUTS to believe that somehow a religion will win against hard evidence, fact, logic, and the scientific method.And teaching religion in school IS BAD FOR KIDS.
Bob- That’s all you have, outrageously retarded statements. Well, there is the flaming hemorrhoids too, but that’s it.
Talk about a limited skill set. . . my neighbors dog has more intellectual moxy than you.
If you people hate education and science so much, you shouldn’t live in this country. Theirs lots of other countries that would love to have you.
why would you pretend to be me?
Wow, you are losing it pal.
Are those Velcro??
(hey!! I’ve got some velcro shoes but I’m old too)
I’m telling you there’s an imposter pretending to be me!
Here’s pretending for you…
That’s the key Bob, education and science, neither of which you seem to be familiar with. Of course, here, we have the right to disagree don’t we? Or would you prefer a dictatorship? I think the answer is obvious.
You may very well believe the earth is flat & have some book written by bronze age goat hearders as proof but don’t ever confuse that as science. To even debate the subject is absurd
For someone who believes everything his god obamao says like the scumbag homo TROLL, Blob is “ABSURD”! He somehow thinks that makes him more credible than some “bronze age goathersders”
Poor little lonely scumbag liberal homo TROLL, Blobbie try to make converts to the RELIGEON of Athiesm and Darwinism..
Continued name calling on either side of the discussion is not helpful. It simply makes the one using crude language look uneducated and immature. I guess I’m not sure how ranting repeatedly makes you or anyone else look or sound intelligent?? It’s sad that you appear so insecure about your own beliefs that you are only able to deflect others questions with poor language and silly words. Please don’t think you’ll change anyone else’s ideas with such a rant. You only fuel the fire and give credence to the belief that anyone who is a believer in creationism is a raving lunatic. I choose to no longer participate in rants. My faith is in a Creator who is far above needing the approval of Bill Nye for His existence.
I will forgive you for being an ignorant newcomer here because the TROLL is a problem with all of Last resistance and not just this thread. Lookup “liberal troll”.
Blobbie the scourge here deserves no respect or courtesy.
(thanks Flite)
That’s an imposter pretending to be me!
OR??
creationists are the laughing stock of the world!
——————
LMAOROTF!!!!!! GOOD ONE!!!
Do you know what bob calls hemorrhoids??
SPEED BUMPS!!!!!
Bob’s really gone off his meds. He not only votes for himself, he talks to himself.
Someone’s pretending to be me!
If the universe is less than 10,000 years old, then: all of geology and biology are wrong; the speed of light has been wrongly calculated, so Einsteinian physics is wrong; the distance and speed of other galaxies has been wrongly calculated, meaning that all of astronomy and therefore Newtonian physics are also wrong. to debunk the whole of science on the back of a story passed down by some Iron Age goat-herders is just self-delusion
The sad sorry little scumbag liberal homo TROLL, Blobbiee. Since it’s well known he actually believes everything his god obamao says thinks anyone here is going to “convert” to atheism and even cares what he says.
He goes so ape$hit when you bring up one of the religion of atheism’s splinter theologies…CLIMATOLOGY. (check the choir out LOL)
. Arguing about evidence and science is fruitless.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4252/bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-creationism/#DZ5Sk6iKgpPKULiW.99
Evolution is a faith system Bob. There is no conclusive proof of the assumptions of the hypothesis called evolution. Carbon dating you say? Carbon dating can’t be proven to be accurate nor can guesses by geologists as to the age of deposition of silts. Nor can Mr. Nye furnish one photograph of a fossil of a transitional species, period. If you had any knowledge of the scientific method you wouldn’t reveal your gross ignorance.
Exactly WTF difference does “evidence” make to people like you? What evidence would convince you that you were wrong?
Poor little lonely scumbag homo TROLL, blob. He has all the “evidence” in the world because he actually believes everything his god and master says. “What evidence would ever convince” him otherwise since obumba and gorsby said it…ITS SETTLED!!! (in spite of the actual data which was determined by committee “warming alarmist church committee” and applied with feelings, personal agenda and lies.
proof of ID!!!
Poor sad lonely little scumbag liberal homo TROLL, blobbie is so boring and predictable…
Your statements are good, but I disagree about this point; it has actually been demonstrated that carbon dating is not consistently accurate, and therefore should not be used as a method of ‘proving’ the age of objects.
It is convenient for evolutionists to hid/ignore/deny the fact that carbon dating has ‘proven’ a living mollusk to be several million years old, among other incorrect dating errors.
The sad sorry little scumbag liberal homo TROLL, Blobbiee. Since it’s well known he actually believes everything his god obamao says thinks anyone here is going to “convert” to atheism and even cares what he says.
He goes so ape$hit when you bring up one of the religion of atheism’s splinter theologies…CLIMATOLOGY. (yes there is an established “church” of global warming with 503C status)
Howdy – where DO you come up with the graphics?? 🙂
Sounds like your belief in Liberal/Progressivism Boob. You cling to your belief that liberalism will save us all even though history provides proof that it never has worked and never will lead to anything but economic colla[pse. You do not seek truth, only confirmation of your own political/economic mythology. By the way Boob, why are you the designated religious bigot?
Just to refresh your memory, the economic collapse happened under the watch of Dubya & the GOP. Do you actually believe you seek the truth? If so, tell me what evidence would convince you that evolution was in fact true?
Oh I see Boob, history began in 2009 with George Bush. Show me in history where progressivism led to anything but failure, misery for the people, slaughter, and imprisonment. By the way, the collapse happened under a Democrap Congress and Democrap policies. Fannie and Freddie are sound Bawney Fwank stated defiantly. You are and always will be a lying liberal bitch Boob.
Well, there’s these…
1. The 40-hour work week.
2. Weekends
3. Vacations
4. Women’s Voting Rights
5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
6. The right of people of all colors to use schools and facilities.
7. Public schools.
8. Child-labor laws.
9. The right to unionize
10. Health care benefits
11. National Parks
12. National Forests
13. Interstate Highway System
14. GI Bill
15. Labor Laws/Worker’s Rights
16. Marshall Plan
17. FDA
18. Direct election of Senators by the people.
19. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Workplace safety laws
20. Social Security
21. NASA
22. The Office of Congressional Ethics. Created in 2008.
23. The Internet
24. National Weather Service
25. Product Labeling/Truth in Advertising Laws
26. Rural Electrification/Tennessee Valley Authority
27. Morrill Land Grant Act
28. Public Universities
29. Bank Deposit Insurance
30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
31. Consumer Product Safety Commission
32. Public Broadcasting/Educational Television
33. Americans With Disabilities Act
34. Family and Medical Leave Act
35. Environmental Protection Agency
36. Clean Air Act
37. Clean Water Act
38. USDA
39. Public Libraries
40. Transcontinental Railroad and the rail system in general
41. Civilian Conservation Corps
42. Panama Canal
43. Hoover Dam
44. The Federal Reserve
45. Medicare
46. The United States Military
47. FBI
48. CIA
49. Local and state police departments
50. Fire Departments
51. Veterans Medical Care
52. Food Stamps
53. Federal Housing Administration
54. Extending Voting Rights to 18 year olds
55. Freedom of Speech
56. Freedom of Religion/Separation of Church and State
57. Right to Due Process
58. Freedom of The Press
59. Right to Organize and Protest
60. Pell Grants and other financial aid to students
61. Federal Aviation Administration/Airline safety regulations
62. The 13th Amendment
63. The 14th Amendment
64. The 15th Amendment
65. Unemployment benefits
66. Women’s Health Services
67. Smithsonian Institute
68. Head Start
69. Americorps
70. Mine Safety And Health Administration (This has been weakened by conservatives, resulting in recent mining disasters.)
71. Food Labeling
72. WIC
73. Peace Corps
74. United Nations
75. World Health Organization
76. Nuclear Treaties
77. Lincoln Tunnel
78. Sulfur emissions cap and trade to eliminate acid rain
79. Earned Income Tax Credit
80. The banning of lead in consumer products
81. National Institute of Health
82. Garbage pickup/clean streets
83. Banning of CFCs.
84. Erie Canal
85. Medicaid
86. TARP
87. Bail Out of the American Auto Industry
88. Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
89. Wildlife Protection
90. End of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
91. Established the basis for Universal Human Rights by writing the Declaration of Independence
92. Miranda Rights
93. Banning of torture
94. The right to a proper defense in court
95. An independent judiciary
96. The right to vote
97. Fair, open, and honest elections
98. The right to bear arms (Do you really think extreme right wingers would allow anybody besides themselves to have firearms if in power?)
99. Health care for children and pregnant women
100. A stable and strong government established by a Constitution
101. The founding of The United States of America
102. The defeat of the Nazis and victory in World War II
103. Paramedics
104. The Brady Handgun Act
105. The Glass-Steagall Act (It has since been repealed and we’ve been paying the price for it.)
106. Oil industry regulations (The Gulf paid the price after conservatives tore many of these regulations down.)
107. The Affordable Care Act which makes insurance companies more honest and fair.
108. Woman’s Right to Choose
109. Title IX
110. Affirmative Action
111. A National Currency
112. National Science Foundation
113. Weights and measures standards
114. Vehicle Safety Standards
115. NATO
116. The income tax and power to tax in general, which have been used to pay for much of this list.
117. 911 Emergency system
118. Tsunami, hurricane, tornado, and earthquake warning systems
119. Public Transportation
120. The Freedom of Information Act
121. Emancipation Proclamation, which ended slavery
122. Antitrust legislation which prevents corporate monopolies (These laws have been savaged by conservatives, which is why corporations are getting huger and competition is disappearing leading to less jobs and high prices.)
123. Water Treatment Centers and sewage systems
124. The Meat Inspection Act
125. The Pure Food And Drug Act
126. The Bretton Woods system
127. International Monetary Fund
128. SEC, which regulates Wall Street. (Conservatives have weakened this regulatory body, resulting in the current recession.)
129. National Endowment for the Arts
130. Campaign finance laws (Conservatives have gutted these laws, leading to corporate takeovers of elections.)
131. Federal Crop Insurance
132. United States Housing Authority
133. Soil Conservation
134. School Lunch Act
135. Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act
136. Vaccination Assistance Act
137. Over the course of nearly 50 years, liberals contributed greatly to the eventual end of the Cold War.
138. The creation of counterinsurgency forces such as the Navy Seals and Green Berets.
139. Voting Rights Act, which ended poll taxes, literacy tests, and other voter qualification tests.
140. Civil Rights Act of 1968
141. Job Corps
142. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
143. Teacher Corps
144. National Endowment for the Humanities
145. Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966
146. National Trails System Act of 1968
147. U.S. Postal Service
148. Title X
149. Kept the Union together through Civil War and rebuilt the South afterwards.
150. Modern Civilization
Impressive list Boob. First, many of theses were very bad ideas and continue to be and secondl, they are not all Progressive/Liberal policies or ideas. Nice try though.
151. TERM or NEAR TERM ABORTION!!
And don’t forget this liberal legacy………..
I hope you stick around Bob, because some of the things you say are so ridiculous they make me laugh out loud – you know, the blowing-milk-out-my-nose-because-it’s-so-funny kind of laughing.
Thank you for a great start to my day! 😀
To people from the flat earth society science must seem funny!
Interesting that you should make the very comments I was thinking, only they applied to you.
I believe that the comments posted prior to mine indicate the problem with ANY debate between people who are convinced of their personal beliefs.
Neither of the debaters mentioned here will change their viewpoints on the topic. I personally dislike confrontations of almost any kind. I think that it basically boils down to the question: What do you put your faith in? Mr. Nye has faith in an evolutionary history of the world. He believes only what can be “proven” by science.
Creationists, however, accept that science is part of God’s created world. They see the world as being divinely made, and no amount of scientific “proof” will change that. Both sides of the debate are simply arguing their points to individuals who have already made up their minds as to what is true and false. I choose to believe the Bible’s view of creation coming into life by the hand of an Almighty God. Mr. Nye’s explanations will not change my mind. It is a matter of personal faith. Even Mr. Nye and others who believe that evolution is the acceptable view of how life came to be have to have faith in their beliefs.
I simply choose to believe that my basis of faith – yes, it’s the Bible – is more reliable than other foundations. Creationists and Evolutionists all have faith. Their faith is simply placed in different truths.
Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the remains of the son of god
It has not been done yet, Bob, and there are none, count em’, none of us Christians who are the least bit worried.
Saying you don’t believe in Evolution is like saying you don’t believe in ice. You can only “believe”in something for which there is no proof. Once there is proof, you are either
ignorant about that proof or you are not. Your opinion has no baring whatsoever on existence.
blobbie, the poor little lonely scumbag homo TROLL, “STILL FIGHTS” to find someone who would listen to him. How could you listen to someone who is so STUPID as to believe everything obamao says like blob do?
And to think blob loves the sound of his (obumblebutt) voice and is aroused by it…….
Uh, you mean people like Sir Isaac Newton?
Suggested reading;
Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell.
I have actually read his book.it’s a joke written for a Christian’s & the only. Hevidence he uses in his circular reasoning. Is the Bible which we have no idea who wrote or when each story was written & of course is no evidence. At all
Pray that if their is a God he make himself known to you and then you can argue against believers. We’ve studied evolution in school and see the errors, for instance how did the magnificence of all creation start???
Love you Bob 🙂
Martha, the scientists form suppositions about what they call evolution. They do not prove anything. Proof of something being true does not change. When their suppositions are found to be “incomplete”, their proof (suppositions) are then changed to account for this new scientific truth. Even their greatest proof, DNA, has been shown to contain much more information than the scientists ever dreamed. Information, I might add, that from the very conception of the living being in question, must be present or the living being will not live. The one question that an evolutionist avoids like the plague is, where did all of that vast information evolve from? The evolutionist says something like, the information has always been. In a universe that had a beginning, how can that be true? The creationist says something like, God said…… and it was. I’ll stick with God and His Word.
Good points, Clint. However, in fairness to evolutionists they do make some observations based on facts. That’s what make true science so compelling for creationists. The problem with evolutionists is that they only want to consider the facts that support their ‘argument’ and will not accept anything contradictory to those views (like most other non-believers). To accept the other facts available to them would then actually PROVE that evolution is impossible, which they simply refuse to consent to. TRUE science is the gathering and evaluation of obtainable, measureable and consistent facts and/or series of events which can then be evaluated, and therefore lead to a conclusion. I don’t know of anyone who – once shown ALL the facts – remains an evolutionist. Those who refuse the ‘inconvenient truths’ are not real scientists.
1 Tim 6:20-21
O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge — 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.
Grace be with you. Amen.
New King James Version
Are you insane???? When considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one isn’t. Religion is one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.Religious people
begin with the premise that they are right and that any evidence to the contrary must be faulty in some way. They do not seek truth, only confirmation of their own mythology
Is Blobbie the scumbag liberal homo TROLL “insane” to think that anyone would listen to someone who believes EVERYTHING his god obamao says the way he does????
Did you cum out of the closet yet???
Poor widdle butthurt TROLL. will spend all this time on a conservative blog which he has since this is his life. That’s all he’s got what he can scrape off his favorite gay porn site.
No bob, you are the one who is blinded to the truth. Scriptures detail this process in many locations, man going his own way and discarding ‘mythology’. Except this is the truth and it will set you free and make all things new.
Scriptures???
Here I am doing something I shouldn’t be, casting pearls before swine.
Gods word???? Since we don’t have ANY original copies of ANY of the gospels & ALL of the oldest copies are different how can we have ANY idea what “gods word” even was???
You are perfectly right in your viewpoint but, unlike you, Bob gets his entertainment out of endless rounds of futile argument.
How do you argue with people who choose to ignore rational
thinking, common sense and scientific research? These people are blissfully ignorant of recent findings in linguistics and in historical and archaeological research, and they instead choose to believe some 2000-year-old fairytales written by anonymous writers, with their own political and religious agendas, as if they are actual, unbiased, established historical facts. This in spite of archaeological, linguistic and historical evidence that most of the biblical stories are simply myths?
How do you “argue” with people in a “rational” way who actually believe everything their god obamao says like the little scumbag homo TROLL, blobbie?
I don’t argue with those types of people, because they make sense. You would make sense too, if it weren’t for your rabid rejection of the complete facts available to you. Because you limit the discussion to the things you deem ‘appropriate’ to include you handicap yourself. I pray for you to finally get understanding.
Has it ever occurred to you that your scientists have a vested interest in confirming their hypotheses? If you actually looked at the discoveries in archaeology that conform to Scripture, you might begin to see things differently.
scientists have a vested interest in DISPROVING their hypotheses! That is what science is ALL about! The discoveries in archaeology DISPROVE the bible! Global flood never happened, the exodus never happen, etc, etc, etc
Oh, so a scientist will approach a hypothesis as false unless proven otherwise? Nah, don’t buy it. So your contention that the discoveries in archaeology disprove the flood actually is an effort to disprove the scientists ideas? If you even had a grain of knowledge about the geological discoveries and corroboration of Biblical events you would keep your uneducated mouth shut. Why don’t you take that finger and stick it.
What you simply do not understand is that EVERY scientific hypothesis or theory can be tested. IF new information proves a theory or hypothesis wrong science runs with the new hypothesis and/or theory. the actual fossil record firmly supports the gradual evolution of life over time as described by science, and it represents some of the most damaging evidence against creationism (the idea that all species of organisms on earth were created instantly and fully-formed). Therefore, it is of critical importance to creationists to provide an alternate explanation for the presence of fossils and the geological column. The story of Noah and the Ark gives them an opportunity to explain away the embarrassment of a fossil record that documents life’s increasing complexity and diversity over the millennia, and ancient creatures that no human eyes have ever seen.While the biblical flood story is almost certainly derived from the earlier Babylonian flood mythology, modern creationists are under the misapprehension that such an event is an historical certainty. What is the evidence for their conclusion? Do they provide geological evidence that the whole planet was at one time, everywhere at once, covered to it’s highest peaks in water? No. Their only “evidence” comes from biblical scripture
Well then can you explain the presence of evidence of marine life on mountains that would have to be flooded in order to have had them deposited? You must not get around much Bob. Oh and once again would you kindly stick that finger where the sun don’t shine?
Indeed I can! You obviously flunked science. Plate tectonics & Continental Drift is the answer
What a joke. And how convenient. No I didn’t flunk any of the many science courses I’ve taken to reach a professional career. Sorry.
Well stated.
The sad sorry lonely little scumbag liberal homo TROLL, Blobbieee perks up on an article like this. Since he has no life outside of this conservative blog he spends his time trying to recruit people to his homo lifestyle and atheism. Sad also is him thinking anyone would care what he says since it is well known that he actually believes EVERYTHING his god and master obamao says and that is REALLY STUPID.
Does anyone know if this will be a televised debate we can watch online?
That would be nice but my sense is that this is an experiment in eternity and they are seeing just how far into it they can go.
Have faith in creationism. That’s fine. Just don’t call it science. For science, “God Did It” is a dead end. Belief in evolution should be subject to change for the scientist. It doesn’t involve faith. For the believer, creation is something to believe and have faith in; It’s not subject to the scientific method. We have two different fields here: religion and science. Why mix them?
It’s belief by “consensus” as the “scientific method” these days and making the data fit to reflect your political system. That’s how the one world religion and political system engineers of whom obamao and Goresby are pawns operate. (The Bush’s and the Clintons share Complicity in that area as well.)
Right now we have obamao as the high priest and gorsby as the prophet!!!
Because science is predicated on the basis of faith. If you fail to acknowledge all sides of a study it ceases to be a study and morphs into an exercise in futility and fake science.
scientists do not BELIEVE in evolution. They ACCEPT it because
of the enormous pile of data supporting it. Just like we accept that gravity follows an inverse square law, matter is composed of atoms, germs cause disease, and moving electrons constitute electricity. Scientific theories are not a faith. You can test them yourself and falsify them. Do you have faith your computer runs on electrons or do you accept it?
the scumbag homo TROLL, Blob does not believe in his homosexuality…he accepts it.
Belief in ANYTHING is subject to change, determined by a multitude of factors. People can see the same evidence and come up with completely different conclusions, because people are individuals and subject to their own beliefs, life experiences, etc.
Many people who claim to be evolutionists often hide behind the mantra of “it’s the science” without having all the components of the equation. When you limit the consideration of ALL the evidence you will have skewed results.
That, sir, is junk science.
A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it
is a superstition
Y’mean like “Global Whatever” or “Evolution”?
There is “NO DOUBT” in believing that the scumbag liberal homo troll blobbie is a queer…
Then you are one very superstitious individual, Bob.
To state that you “believe in creationism” is not science, It is a religious belief and should be in a study of religion and other beliefs and has no place in true science.
The purpose of science is to provide a systematic approach to the study of any natural topic and attempts to organize that study into a single compressive body of facts (observations both personal and with the aid of tools and equipment), laws (generalizations of patterns and trends in those observations) and theories (hypotheses to explain why those observations and laws occur). Every theory needs to be as simple as possible to explain the observations and laws but it must also provide suggestions for new experiments that have not been done. The theory must predict the results for these new experiments. When these further experiments are preformed, the theory is strengthen by the new observations that agree with the predictions. If the observations do not agree with the theory’s predictions, the theory is disproved and must be replaced by modifying the theory or replacing it. Any theory that is not testable by experiment is of no scientific value.
Please describe in detail, an experiment that can test the theory of Creation and state the results that Creation predicts for this experiment.
Abracadabra is the creationism answer
“Abbracadabra” Let’s doctor up some numbers and make some money…
Chuck, please read my post referencing the book “The Creation-Evolution Controversy.”
Simple math will prove that evolution/Big Bang/whateverelseyouwannacall is impossible. If one of the two ‘arguments’ is false, then the other must be true.
What math can reconcile the Creation assumption of a young earth (6000-7000 years) and the earth geological record of millions of years of sediments and layers. Radioactive carbon-14 dating can reliably estimate carbon containing substances to a few tens of thousands of years which exceed the young earth of your Creation model. Other radioactive nuclides which have half-lives of millions of years or even billions can be used for the dating of other materials. By looking at the electromagnetic spectrum (which includes visible light, radio waves, microwaves, ultraviolet, x-rays and gamma rays) from both near stars and distant galaxies the composition of the Universe appears to be rather consistent in composition. Since some of these instruments are outside of the earth’s atmosphere, any argument of that the earth’s atmosphere is contaminating the observation is like those that accused Galileo’s lenses only made the moon appear to be potted with creators and that Jupiter did not really have moons.
Carbon dating is not entirely reliable. They have ‘dated’ living organisms to be millions of years old, Plus, there are several other factors that go into the way we approach reviewing geologic evidence. I’m running out of time today to go into much more detail, but would love to revisit this sometime soon with you.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts – very interesting! 🙂
There is NO amount of evidence even theoretically possible that would EVER convince a creationist they were wrong. Otherwise their wouldn’t be any creationist.
There is NO amount of evidence even theoretically possible that would EVER convince Bob that he isn’t a homo. otherwise there would be no homo’s.
(transitional species found below)
If the two arguments are exclusive then they both can NOT be true. However, I disagree with your assumption that if one of two arguments is false that the other must be true. It could be that they are BOTH FALSE.
Um, even though I went to a public school I know that something either was or wasn’t done (a 50-50% chance). If something WAS created then evolution (in the everything-came-from-nothing way of thinking) is impossible. If evolution is true (in the same way of thinking), then creation is impossible.
An example of what I mean is this; the weatherman gives a 50% prediction of rain. Regardless of what happens he will be correct. Why? Because he gives a yes/no prediction. If it rains he is correct, because he said there was a 50% chance. If it doesn’t rain he is correct, because it didn’t rain and he gave a 50% chance.
The 50-50 only applies when there are only 2 possible outcomes which are equally likely. The most used example is the flipping of a coin and that may be true depending on the coin. Gender of children gives a slight advantage to boys (106:100). When there are more than 2 outcomes, those bets are off. A cubic die has 6 faces
so the odds are 1 in 6 and more complicated for a pair. Considering a normal deck of of cards is 52, I’ll let you do the math. So your weather analogy is nonsense.
A stopped 12-hr clock is right twice a day.
I was trying to point out that there may actually be alternatives to creation and evolution. Just because we haven’t thought of them already does NOT mean they don’t exist. What if this universe as we know it is not real. We are characters in a story or just images on a hologram or fragments of someones imagination?
Just like falling is a fact and gravity is a theory that describes why you fall, organisms evolving and speciating are facts and the theory of evolution explains why. If you are willing to deny evolution, why not gravity, germs, atoms, electricity, etc. They are all theories too. it’s the equivalent of denying the sky is blue yet refusing to look up.
Not only does the scumbag liberal homo TROLL, Blob practice the religion of atheism and Darwinism he also worships at the church of climatology. Where obamao is his god and master gore is the prophet,,,
Remember blobbie counts every word uttered by obomba and goresby as “fact”.
Science has proven that two witnesses can observe the same accident and make two different conclusions. I see science as looking at evidence around the world and supports the theory of Creation while disproving the theory of evolution. I see this raging debate answered 2,000 ish
years ago when the following words were penned,
Romans 1:
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Seems to me Bob, that your ranting only proves to me that you are simply a godless man. On that I think all can agree. No debate can change that, only the God you deny can melt a frozen heart. The truth is that He did send His Son, Jesus Christ to die for you, Bob. Only you can accept or reject that. I chose to accept, and that is an undeniable fact.
“The Creation-Evolution Controversy” by R. L. Wysong Read it for the education, believe it for the science. Some excerpts;
Do the math – evolution is a mathematical impossibility.
Do the science – evolution is a contradiction to the law of Thermodynamics.
Do the Archeology – human signature in ’65M year old’ geologic strata??
People believe in evolution because (for them) the alternative – a real and Living God – is anathema and incomprehensible. They are willingly ignorant;
Rom 1:18-23
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
New King James Version
A comment like yours is proof of how ignorant you really are.
someone who believes everything obamao says calling someone ignorant?
Any attempt to use the second law of thermodynamics to contradict evolution either biological evolution or cosmological evolution shows the author’s ignorance of that law. There is much confusion about the second law of thermodynamics because it can be stated multiple ways. Some of these may seem to disagree without careful study. “No engine can work at 100% efficiency” and a closed system naturally goes to maximum entropy (randomness) are two statements. Maxwell’s demon thought experiment shows that this also a statistical law. One part of a closed system can become more ordered (less random, less entropy) when the rest of the system become more random (higher entropy). Additionally, a system (not closed) can become less random (lower entropy) when work is done on the system. For example, my desk become very cluttered with time (more random, higher entropy) but it becomes less random (lower entropy) when I take the time and energy do to the WORK of organizing my desk. That results in some of those materials being spread around to more distance places. So their randomness (entropy) is increased.
When applied to any theory like evolution, if part of the system becomes more ordered (less random, less entropy), other parts of the system become less ordered (more random and more entropy).
Thanks for the response, and thank you as well for proving my point!
The fact that a system ‘can’ do this or that is not proof of anything, other than the opportunity to function in the mathematical law of probability. Statistically speaking, the random chance of simple proteins forming spontaneously is measured greater than 1×10 (to the 20,000 power – sorry but I can’t seem to get superscript to work). The statistical chance of further ‘evolutionary’ changes gets much more unlikely from there, hence the statistic impossibility of evolution.
The fact that you desk becomes less cluttered is due to the fact that you make a point to unclutter it, indicating a rational and systematic activity by an outside force in solving the issue. Your desk will no more get uncluttered on it’s own than it would get cluttered on it’s own. The fact it gets cluttered in the first place – again – points to the fact of a rational and systematic activity by an outside force in solving (an) issue. Either result indicates outside force and not random events.
Thanks for sharing.
Where did you get your education, some stupid bible college?
Poor little lonely scumbag liberal homo TROLL, Blob. Thinks that someone like he who is stupid enough to believe everything his god and master obamao says could criticize someone’s education?
The easiest way to represent 10 to the 20,000 power without superscripts is 10^20000.
You claim that the chance of making a simple protein is 1:10^20000. What is your starting material to form this molecule – atoms of the needed elements, a collection of atoms as they occur in nature or the amino acids that are the building blocks for proteins. This appears to be another case of “figures don’t lie but liars do figure”.
To claim that something is statistically impossible is an incorrect statement. An event may be statistically improbable but that does not say that that event is impossible.
You are correct that I periodically make the decision to de-clutter my desk. If the the second law of thermodynamics were an absolute law, I could not make my desk more organized no matter how much energy I expended. In fact there is a finite possibility that my desk could achieve a similar state of order and the rest of my office to a state of disorder when a similar amount of energy is applied regardless of the source of that energy. Further more, I would contend that the existence your intelligent creator fundamentally violates the creation you are trying to justify. What is the origin of this eternal, almighty, omnipotent and omni-present creator?
In the world I’ve created, the second law of thermodynamics IS immutable. A simple cursory glance at my desk at any point in time will prove it.
I think you are missing something. I’m not trying to be offensive, just making an observation. But lets try to agree on one definition, shall we? Let’s use the term ENTROPY.
Entropy means that the state of matter is always trying to reach equilibrium (I know this is the Reader’s Digest version, but let’s go with it, shall we?). Can we agree on that? [For those of you following this convo, please wiki the term and go to the intro page – it should get you up to speed pretty quickly.]
So then, if entropy is an immutable factor of the second law of Thermodynamics (which it is), then by definition things can’t ‘work their way up’ in an evolutionary fashion. This is ‘statistically improbable’ because – at best – everything, EVERYTHING, migrates to thermodynamic equilibrium. I guess another term we could use would be stasis. Do you agree with that? And the best case scenario is that we use a closed system. However, in the broad sense of the word we do not live in a closed system but an open one (I think your eye is twitching with that last statement, but humor me won’t you?). I say it is an open system because of the natural degradation of matter that is experienced in the universe, affected by a plethora of factors. All these factors lead toward the restructuring and eventual migration of all substances toward base functional elements.
The logical conclusion, then, is that evolutionary processes are contrary to the laws of thermodynamics (among other physical laws). They are then, by definition, impossible (or since you prefer the term, ‘statistically improbable).
I can not accept your above definition of entropy. You provide a vague definition that suggests that matter is trying to reach a state of equilibrium. If you would limit your matter sample to an “isolated” (closed) system and the equilibrium is specifically thermodynamic equilibrium, you are somewhat correct. That system would be in a state referred at “Heat Death”. Maxwell’s demon thought experiment provides an insight that it is a condition that would continually changing because of the interaction of atoms and molecules at any temperature above absolute zero.
Since the rest of your position is based on that flawed definition, your argument is also flawed.
The site http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entropy defines entropy as “a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed
thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of
the system’s disorder, that is a property of the system’s state, and
that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system
and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system”
change in entropy = change is energy/absolute temperature for a closed system.
I believe the Universe could be considered a closed system as long as you included all of the dark matter and dark energy. However the Universe is far from a isothermal system with stars radiating large amounts of high temperature gases and energy as the transformation of smaller nuclei into larger and the fission of larger nuclei into smaller.
It’s sad that you are missing the forest for the trees. The definition I gave was intentionally simple, in order to help you understand the true meaning of entropy. This is an observable process throughout the sciences (e.g. Fick’s Law and in physiologic homeostasis). Verbiage is given by men (defining entropy) trying to explain it.
In your attempt to ‘prove’ me wrong you have just reinforced my point. If the universe IS a closed system then my postulation is correct (due to the application of the processes just listed). If the universe is NOT a closed system then my postulation is correct (due to the complete random nature of variable, which would then negate any possible application of assumed ‘laws’ because of unknown factors. It would serve you well to understand that today’s ‘laws’ are tomorrow’s disproved theories. You also seem to have ignored the fact that I approached both open AND closed systems in my postulation, but I’ll let that go.
You might want to take the time to read some of my other posts in this string to get a better understanding of the total gist of what is being said. That might help you follow the conversation a bit better.
Thanks for the reply.
I guess
You mean “universe as you know it.” In twenty years, the scientists will find something amazing that makes them change their doctrine, and all the sycophants of science will accept it as gospel… until the next amazing find that changes everything. To speak of the universe in absolutes shows you are not being scientific, only dogmatic about known science.
Despite the insult, I will attempt to help you understand;
1. Proteins are a collection of the things you mention in the first part of your response.
See, the way it works is that atoms kinda ‘stick together’ to form molecules. Then these molecules kinda ‘stick together’ to form amino acids. Then these amino acids kinda ‘stick together’ to form proteins. Now, wasn’t that a fun way to learn about protein synthesis?
It is not the statistical improbability which is the barrier, it is the statistical improbability so many times in a row which is the barrier. You don’t “get” evolution because static is a possibility also. But it’s not, is it? Evolution is movement. What is the first cause of movement? An outside force.
You said, “What is the origin of this eternal, almighty, omnipotent and omni-present creator?” Not relevant. We posit preexistence and eternity, as does Hawking for his multiple dimension theory. Who made the multiple dimensions? Besides, when the answers to “who made who?” ends, that is God. YOU are certainly not God, but the invisible God of Law and laws, including your precious thermodynamics, is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
I’ve seen this for years already. The takeaway: You have to extort the probability that the same life-form had exponential numbers of lucky breaks all in a row (mind you!) in order to get to your destination. It’s not like these amino acids are working on an encryption code and as soon as one gets it, they all do. It’s a needle in a haystack to the power of a needle in a haystack, and this goes on for quite awhile. After two or three exponents, you are at odds with reality. Face it.
As for me, I believe I hold the better odds, 50/50 in fact. Either God exists or He doesn’t. If He does, all is explained. If He doesn’t, then it still doesn’t explain lack of first cause. Static universes don’t cut it, mister! And moving universes need an outside force. Everything else is metaphysical or mystical, which points to God. At least that is the “easy” answer. Occam’s Razor, my boy. Your way takes wayyyyy more assumptions than mine.
I suppose the odds are 50/50 that the tooth fairy, easter bunny, jolly green giant, santa claus, unicorns, leprechauns or god exists (either they do or don’t) but the problem with god is that there’s thousands to choose from, so the odds that any one god in particular exists are remote.
Irrelevant nonsense. We’re talking about who created the Universe. By adding in multiplicities of beings, you simply muddy the water with cynicism. Only ONE can create all. If you name God the Easter Bunny, that’s your issue with God.
Even bringing in “other gods” is an irrelevant argument. Take out all the actual idols, polytheism, pantheons, and so forth, and you are left with one Abrahamic God who stands over three religions which make up the greatest proportion of believers on this planet. Worship of Buddha doesn’t count because he said not to worship him. The rest is philosophy. Even by your own standards of “thousands of gods,” only the God of monotheism, self-contained, a marvel of efficiency in a chaotic system of humanity, stands. It’s inescapable.
Back to 50/50, I will tell you that the odds of each being you named is different. God is of course the most probable of those. Unicorns, in my opinion, next probable. However, still DEAD LAST in probabilities are your ideas that exponential lucky breaks can be invented by saying “Maybe!” All of your twisting and turning cannot relieve you of the responsibility to explain an inordinate number of statistical improbabilities IN A ROW, necessary to create even the universe, never mind mechanical systems, natural laws, life, and human thought, each of which MUST follow the other in order to get to where we are. Occam’s Razor, I repeat.
The fact that more people believe in the god of Abraham has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING! Everyone can believe something to be true & STILL be wrong (as was the case when people thought the world was flat) there are always a fantastically huge number of evolutionary paths that might be taken by an organism (or a process) over time but there is only one that actually will be taken. So if, after the fact, we observe the particular evolutionary path actually taken and then calculate the a priori probability of its being taken, we will get the minuscule probability that creationists mistakenly attach to the process as a whole. Misunderstanding this tiny probability, they reject outright the evolutionary process. We have a deck of cards before us. There are almost 10 to the 68th power orderings of the 52 cards in the deck. Any of the 52 cards might be first, any of the remaining 51 second, any of the remaining 50 third, and so on. Now if we shuffle this deck of cards for a long time and then examine the particular ordering of the cards that happens to result, we would be justified in concluding that the probability of this particular ordering of the cards having occurred is approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 68th power. This certainly qualifies as minuscule. Still, we would not be justified in concluding that the shuffles could not have possibly resulted in this particular ordering because its a priori probability is so very tiny. Some ordering had to result from the shuffling, and this one did.
Nor, of course, would we be justified in concluding that the whole process of moving from one ordering to another via shuffles is so wildly improbable as to be practically impossible.The actual result of the shufflings will always have a minuscule probability of occurring, but, unless you’re a creationist, that doesn’t mean the process of obtaining the result is at all dubious
I don’t disagree with you. And you don’t disagree with me. It IS wildly improbable that this universe of ours was created by chaotic random shufflings which by the way, is even MORE improbable to reach our plateau by accident, because.. they are interconnected. What you fail to integrate into your thought process is that there are NOT 52 cards in this deck but rather an untold number of paths at any given moment, and each path, every moment, MUST follow a certain path in order to reach where we are today. This is PROVEN because we are where we are today. You can maintain, without any proof, mystically, that there are many parallel paths which have identical outcomes, but you are merely playing parlor tricks with your mind to convince yourself that the odds of getting to any given moment of stasis is not nearly 1:infinity. Now, take those odds, multiply them in a nearly-infinite number of moments, and make a case for probability. You can’t. It is simply this: the same person over and over again winning a lottery of very high odds, every drawing in a row, without fail, until what comes out is us.
You also must recognize the finite nature of the timeline, which science gives the universe ~15 billion years, the Earth ~6 billion years, life ~3 billion years, and so forth, not to mention the number of catastrophes on Earth which “they” say wiped out all life, even down to the microbes. But it didn’t, did it? Life did not have an infinite amount of time to develop, and it did not do so in any case without great setbacks, such as a meteor laying a cloud over the entire Earth for centuries. Are you telling me the microbes just went back to work again, without the benefit of those same incredible odds against them, and just HAPPENED to make the variety of life we see today? Of course, I’m generalizing, using anecdotes, and being flip, but these are the types of myths being perpetrated every day onto eager minds, such as your own, that seek knowledge but which instead receive nonsense.
You can say I spew the same nonsense but not true. MY nonsense has a 50/50 chance, your nonsense is 1-in-kazillion.
The Abrahamic God is from the same deck of cards you posited. You cannot simply exclude data because it clashes with your ideology. Just because humans are involved in the choosing does not make the reality any less real.
The ONLY reason to say God isn’t in it is because you have something against accepting God.
(1) If you’re young and impressionable, or just old and immature, it’s likely you mourn the blood spilled in holy wars, and you think a world without religion puts an end to misery. It doesn’t. Having no religion is as bad. And the admittance of misery under religion does not negate the existence of God, it only posits a greater awareness that you know little of how things work. And don’t ask me, because I’m just an observer, I’m not God.
(2) If you’ve been abused by someone who believed greatly in religion, or used religion as an excuse to abuse you, you’re soured on the whole thing. But again, this doesn’t negate the existence of God, it only gives you troubles to overcome. Sorry. That’s the way it is. But a chaotic universe is even less forgiving.
(3) If you’ve seen war, and/or are disgusted with humanity in general, it will be difficult for you to believe that a good God makes such wicked creatures. I totally understand. I have that background as well. But my experiences and shocking reality checks don’t negate God, only my naive understanding of God. He is great and good, but there is a price to pay for free will.
(4) If you’ve experienced a great loss, you maybe don’t believe in God. Sorry you’ve had it rough, sincerely I am. But it doesn’t negate God’s existence.
(5) Perhaps you’ll tell me you just love science. The laws of nature are not pre-existent. They are created. It’s not possible for you to create physics, only enjoy it. It’s not possible for you to create gravity, only mimic it. You would love to be the Creator but you’re not.
You’ve got me ALL wrong! I can tell you why I don’t believe in God or an afterlife, and can even tell you what evidence would persuade me that I was mistaken. Can you do the same? A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition
So tell me. But remember, according to scientific protocol, if you can’t present empirical evidence that something doesn’t exist, it has the slimmest possibility to exist. I don’t have to prove God exists, I only have to create a great doubt that He does NOT exist. And I don’t have to do that by disproving any competing theories. But since it appears that chaos and evolution is the competing theory, I believe my “odds-on” bet is correct. Nothing else comes close to explaining it all.
So you have evidence for a universe without God and I have evidence for a universe with God, and likewise, we both don’t have any evidence at all.
You: “A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition.” Who said I had no room for doubt? My doubts don’t cause to cease existing. Do your doubts in your theories cause your ideas to cease existing? No. However, do you possibly mean that if someone doesn’t doubt their own theories because you produce your theories, they are arrogant? If so, isn’t that arrogant of you to expect someone to stop believing what they believe?
So the question becomes: What skin off your apple if people believe God created energy, the mechanical laws, matter, the universe, life, and my existence?
http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/
you got it. that’s exactly why the lonely little TROLL, Blob with severe shame from his homoerotic behaiviors is coming from. Probably from a hyperlegalistic adult who probably sexually abused him in the name of god or religion. THIS is EXACTLY why the TROLL HATES Christians and people of faith and tradfitional American values.
No he didn’t see war as he’s an antisocial coward who hangs out on a conservative blog sometimes 24/7 even replying to himself which would also suggest that he is grotesquely fat or ugly or too ashamed to look others in the eye or ALL OF THE PREVIOUS.
Forgive my “random” query, but do they have to pay you overtime to clean up your work desk, or are you salaried?
You just destroyed your own argument with your point about doing the WORK of organizing your desk. Your desk does not randomly become more ordered. It becomes more ordered through the WORK of an outside force (in this case, you.) The Universe, in the same way, can only become more ordered through the WORK of an outside force (GOD.)
You missed the point of my desk. When a system is allowed to operate freely, it moved naturally to a condition of higher entropy and more randomness. So the only way that my desk become less random, lower entropy is that work or energy must be applied. I can be the source or that energy or something else. Another statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the heat of its own accord moves from a hot body to cold. An air conditioner, refrigerator or freezer moves heat from the inside cooler location to the hotter surroundings. They work because of the energy needed to operate them. The propane refrigerators is campers seem to be the most radical example of those.
Biological evolution surrounds us all the time. There are research studies that show the use of anti-bacterial soaps are resulting in some super bacterias that have become resistant to those anti-bacterials. Farmers must plant refuse corps alone side GMO crops so the weeds and insects do not become resistant to those GMO traits as quickly. Each year the flu shots are formulated for different viruses because of mutations. Man has manipulated the traits of dogs by selective breeding for centuries. Do you like the appearance of a “golden-doodle”?
These are all examples of micro-evolution, which I do not dispute happens every day. However there is no evidence ever found anywhere to prove macro-evolution (the transformation of one species into another.) I’m no physicist either, but I still don’t think you know much about thermodynamics.
Do the math-Creationism is a mathematical impossiblity
Do the math-Creationism is a contradiction of the law of Thermodynamics.
Believing in God and evolution is the only consistent idea. The “Story” of creationism is only words. There is a message and the creationists are ignoring it as well as the evolutionists.
I find it amazing that uneducated idiots would have the audacity to think that ALL the scientists on the planet have somehow overlooked the law of Thermodynamics OR the mathematics involved in the theory of evolution.
I find it “amazing” that someone like the scumbag liberal homo TROLL, Blobbie who actually believes EVERYTHING his god and master obamao says, would have the “audacity” to call someone an idiot.
This is what libtards like blobbie believe in…..
Well, I have a bachelor’s degree in Mathematics and Chemistry. Perhaps you can show me the mathematics (if it is as you say).
This, in the image bellow, is known as an “Unviable Tissue Mass.” It seems that around “Progressives”, pregnancy is an inconvenient and potentially fatal disease, curable by abortion. There’s no “Mathematics” involved, simple arithmetic will do – X [number of abortions] x Y [number of dollars] = Z [zero number of babies lives saved.] I’m pro informed decision; it’s your right to terminate the life within you, but only if you’re full informed as to what you’re doing. If we can show teenagers the diseased lungs of smokers; if we can take them to emergency rooms to show them the results of drinking and driving, don’t tell me their sensibilities are too tender to handle this. You cannot have it both ways. You’re good with numbers? Follow the “Jack”, Jack.
Why did you address that to me?
You don’t need mathematics to prove things, simply to disprove. As Holmes says, whatever left is the truth, no matter how improbable. The invisible God is real. Those who disbelieve are simply squirming to their own ideas of morality, humility, and existence.
“Do the math – evolution is a mathematical impossibility”. Those are your words. Show me the math you did. Are you changing your story because the facts don’t fit it and you can’t substantiate it?
Not my words. Wrong person.
The chances that one particular structure, with striking near-perfect 6-way symmetry, can form “at random” can be calculated as roughly one part in 10^(2500). Does this astoundingly small probability figure constitute proof that individual snowflakes have been intelligently designed?
Not sure which side of the argument you are trying to make. But, following your snowflake analogy (which is suspect). Snowflakes are not made at random. The shape of the H2O molecule forces the six way perfect symmetry. To some extent the amino acids are similar. They don’t have unlimited means of covalent connections. Just as snowflakes aren’t individually “created” by the Creator, but are a result of physical forces on the molecules, the individual amino acids and their follow on compounds are not individually created, but result from the chemical and physical world He created out of the Big Bang.
I believe in science & evolution & reject the notion that math has proved evolution impossible.
OK, yes, you have it. Thanks.
How do you arrive at those conclusions?
Actually, that is the question I just posed to you. You made some radical assertions about thermodynamics (can you define the difference between enthalpy and entropy?) and mathematics. I am skeptical that you know what you are talking about. I’m not from Missouri, but am willing to be shown. Calculus and statistics are not unknown to me. Send me your analysis (if in fact there is one).
Hi Jack,
Thanks for the discussion, but it is late, I am tired and have much to do tomorrow. I will leave your questions with a question, OK?
Thermodynamics (specifically the topic of entropy/natural equilibration – versus enthalpy/energy measurement) in the basic form means things try to equalize. It is a hard concept to grasp in such a condensed form but you seem to be a sharp individual so we’ll let that definition suffice. If this is the case then the action of evolution is ‘statistically improbable’ given that the basic building blocks of life (like amino acids and protein structures) would not naturally ‘upgrade’ from a lesser state to a more complex state. Statistics comes into play because of the HUGE number of random chance couplings of molecules required to form successive pairings/chains and subsequently leading to amino acid synthesis in a natural setting (proteins and other high-level organic structures like DNA, etc., are impressively more complex). If this is true, then even MORE advanced forms of organization would be even further (if possible) down the ‘statistically improbable’ road.
What do you think the odds of this type of successful pairing would be for the production of both D- and L-form acids? If you get a number for that, then how about L-form ONLY acid production?
If you can figure that out, then you’ll know what I’m talking about.
Thanks for the input.
The probabilities are small. But it is much like the lottery; Each occurrence has a tiny probability, but when there are millions of occurrences (tickets in this case) there is eventually a winner. Note that external energy (from the sun, surrounding heat in the water, etc.) influences the outcome. Adding energy to any state changes it. There were millions of atoms with charged energy states colliding trillions of times a second for millions of years eventually forming amino acids. Then there were millions of amino acids acquiring energy and colliding millions of times a second for millions of years. The statistical outcome was unavoidable and some evidence suggests it probably even happened on Mars for a while but a change in environment wiped it out there.
The “lottery ticket” theory is bullcrap. Lottery tickets are unique sequences in which only one ticket is supposedly the winner. In reality, many times NO ONE wins because that sequence wasn’t purchased. In life, there are many roads not taken, both by choice and by nature. To simply say “each occurrence has a tiny probability” does not make that probability the usual but the OUTLIER. Now, take each outlier and sequence them in a row to make chaos into order, or perceived order, as you like. That is the same as ONE PERSON winning the lottery UMPTEEN times in a row.
When you say energy changes states, where does energy come from? What is first cause?
You said, “There were millions of atoms with charged energy states colliding
trillions of times a second for millions of years eventually forming
amino acids. Then there were millions of amino acids acquiring energy
and colliding millions of times a second for millions of years.”
Who made atoms? Who made energy? Who made the possibility of the amino acid? Why do amino acids form proteins? Why is protein important to life? Where did life find its food? Where did it learn to reproduce before dying?
You say, “The statistical outcome was unavoidable and some evidence suggests it
probably even happened on Mars for a while but a change in environment
wiped it out there.”
No, it is NOT unavoidable that the one-in-a-kazillion chance that human life exists HAS to come about. We are not an accident, and your ability to observe your own ego in thinking you’re smart enough to disprove the ACTUAL 50/50 chance that either God exists or He doesn’t means that, in juxtaposition, God is the better bet BY FAR. That all of these improbabilities could exponentially IN A ROW, IN A FREAKING ROW, I’m repeating for you, IN A ROW, not without intelligence to stop repeating failure over and over again, which the law of thermodynamics DEMANDS. So our existence is AGAINST the law of thermodynamics, and the probability of a creator is SOOOOOOO much more mathematically expedient.
Mars? What does that prove? God did that too.
You are right, God did the evolution on Mars too. He is the source of all the evolution and is the energy source that caused it.
As long as we agree that no matter which way you turn, creation or evolution, God is the originator, purposeful, intentional, ordered. As far as the Earth being 5000 or 5 billion years old, it doesn’t matter to me. Five billion years doesn’t disprove the Bible any more than 5000 disproves the existence of dinosaurs. Just small details to me, but apparently big bux for a lot of people.
Thanks for the attempt but you are leaving out a couple things. But, for the sake of argument let’s assume you are correct. OK then, so it took MULTIPLE millions of years for simple amino acids to ‘appear’ and in sufficient quantities to continuously reposition themselves into complex chains. Let’s take it just three steps further;
1. What is the probability that these randomly acquired amino acids would then, randomly, assemble themselves into protein chains?
2. If, by some miracle (?!), these protein chains were then available in sufficient quantity and in the right arrangement to join together into self-replicating strands, what is the probability these strands would then form more complex substances?
3. What is the statistical jump needed to leap from the spontaneous formation of the required number of amino acids (in the correct form, which is L) to a much more complex arrangement, say a single molecule of hemoglobin (a significant component in human blood, used here strictly as a point of reference)?
There are over 570 amino acids contained in a single molecule of hemoglobin, all arranged in proper sequence and in the correct form (L-form). It would take billions of chance pairing over billions of years to yield just a few of the required amino acids used in that hemoglobin molecule. THAT is just to get to a single molecule. How much time would you need to allow for ALL the other components that are included in human blood, such as plasma proteins? Trillions upon trillions of years, just to get to a single drop of blood. But it gets even better than that! Once you have a single drop of blood what would be the purpose? How would it be preserved? What would have to happen to formulate the tissues responsible for containing and carrying that blood? The list goes on and on and on, ad nausea, ad infinitum.
What about mitochondria? How do you explain THAT conundrum? Why are there no D-form amino acid-based life forms? What are the odds of strictly L-form amino acid collections made available (and equally important PRESERVED IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY, QUALITY AND IN THAT STATE OF COLLECTION LONG ENOUGH) to allow for all this arranging to take place?
You say that I jumped ahead of the game and started talking right away about humans, which is unfair. OK then, lets back down to the microscopic level and go with that. How about an amoeba? The questions still apply. You can’t answer them, because it is a ‘statistical improbability’ – even for the most BASIC of evolutionary steps – of such enormous magnitude that it is in reality impossible. It would be more ‘statistically probable’ for you to get struck by lightening, at the same time you won the lottery. at the same time a plane fell out of the sky and landed directly on you, than it would for even a single DNA formation from ‘spontaneous’ circumstances.
Surely you must be thinking about the absurdity of how this all sounds from a scientific, rational, logical and mathematical standpoint? If not, then you are beyond reason and this conversation is finished.
Thanks for your time, and I pray the merciful God of heaven and Earth will open your eyes to the truth contained in His Word. Knowledge, apart from wisdom, is a very dangerous thing. Just ask Lucifer.
Well, there’s the snowflake problem… By employing a reckoning based on six-way symmetry, one can calculate the chances that one of these structures can form “at random” as roughly one part in 10^2500. This probability figure is even more extreme (far more extreme, in fact) than those that have appeared in the creationist-intelligent design literature. So is this proof that each individual snowflake has been designed by a supernatural intelligent entity?
That would be the creationist position. The evolutionists would believe that these random events can statistically occur.
snowflakes, like biological organisms, are formed as the product of a series of steps, acting under natural laws with some element of chance.
I think we are saying the same thing.
I don’t believe either debater will give up his foundational beliefs.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4252/bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-creationism/#rPmjwLlp8bHb7lPx.99
The story of creation was written 5000 years ago. It was a message written for the people of the time in words they could understand. There were no words in the Aramaic language for space-time continuum, or big bang, or relativity. Even if there were, the people wouldn’t understand it, and didn’t need to. The MESSAGE is the important part. The MESSAGE is monotheism. Polytheism was the center of all religions of the time. Most of the Old Testament, starting with Genesis, is God trying to convince people the He is the only God. The MESSAGE of Genesis is that there is no god of the sea, no god of the moon, no god of the sun. There is only one God and He made all of it. That is all the people of the time needed to know about creation. The rest is just a story used to transmit the MESSAGE from God to the people. Don’t get caught up in the little words. Christ pointed out several errors in the Old Testament. The messages of God were filtered through the minds of men. It was inevitable that some of their personal ideas were added to those that God put in their heads.
Agreed. If you read what I wrote above [in “Newest” format] you’d read something I’ve noticed that has been studiously avoided by both sides since, apparently, before any of us were born: “What Is God?” In other words, what does God consist of? Why does He have to have a corporeal physicality to be “Believed” in? If there is no God, why did things happen the way they did, how did something come from nothing and when was before time? And so forth.
Excellent comments. I personally don’t think there is a conflict between religion and science. I remember a discussion of the Big Bang theory on the Sunday Morning show about thirty years ago. A physicist noted the following: We know that all the galaxies are moving away from each other. That means they were closer together yesterday and even closer the day before that. In fact, 14.7 billion years ago they were formed in one place from a huge energy source. A hydrogen bomb produces the energy of a few grams of mass. Given the enormous mass of the universe, the amount of energy at the big bang was effectively infinite. Science can show that with strong reliability. What science cannot answer is “Where did the energy come from?” Perhaps God is the energy of the entire universe and we are really made from and part of Him.
It is also possible that He has revealed Himself and his workings in small parts. The story of creation was a parable (much as Christ used parables) showing that ONE GOD made the entire universe, but the language and understanding of the day made the transmission of that message through the story of creation necessary. As we got more sophisticated, we were able to understand more and Galileo discovered that the solar system is Sun-centered, not Earth-centered. Perhaps God gave him that insight. Einstein was a poorly educated physicist who created a theory that was so outside the realm of current understanding that his colleagues made fun of him. However everything he predicted that we can measure has been proved accurate–WAY beyond human likelihood and smacks of divine inspiration. Perhaps God is using science and His inspiration to reveal more and more of what He created. Science might be His tool, not ours. In the future we might learn lots more about what He created.
Some thoughts I’ve pondered.
It’s the “god of the gaps” you speak of.
O.k., you’ve given a “Name” to something; now kindly explain the “Who, What, Where, Why, How and When” of that name.
Doesn’t make sense.
I thought that when you had a debate, you needed some sort of definitional common ground. LIke: “What Is Creationism”, and “What Is Scientific Proof”? It seems that both sides should be discovering: “What Is God?”
I have said the following before and then, in reply to several, severely tolerance-challenged, intellectual atheist’s, I had to post a reply. Both follow:
Just so the “Self Anointed Purveyors of ‘Truth”, don’t get their jammies in a wrinkle:
So many divisive questions, so many divisive answers. When I was 17, having been raised to understand that “You don’t have to be in a building, to believe in God”, I decided that “God is Energy, after all, It’s everywhere”. Now, some five plus decades later, scientists in the field of “Quantum Physics/Mechanics”, with “String Theory”, have postulated that there indeed may be vibrating “Strings” of energy everywhere. Not only in interstellar, but intergalactic space as well. The other half of my postulation rests on the question: “What is thought?”. In it’s purest form, it is merely an inexplicable bit of energy. If that is also true, then that, I believe, coupled with string theory, is the mind of God. How presumptuous is mankind to believe he can truly understand the mind, let alone interpret the will of God. If I may quote Puck: “What fools these mortals be”. Beyond that, you may ask: “Does he believe there is a God?” Yes, I do. Well then, “Does he believe Jesus (of Nazareth) is the Son of God?” Again. Yes, I do, as is every (hu)man a child of God. Well. How then does he explain all the different names of God and ways of worshiping Him? As Tom Sullivan (when he was still broadcasting on the radio from Sacramento) once related, he has an Egyptian friend who noted: “There is only One God, but many different ways of worshiping Him”. “Intelligent Design” came up and how silly it is (for believing in unprovable precepts such as “Gods Hand Created the Heavens and the Earth”, which is based on unprovable, blind Faith). And this from the same crowd who believe (as do I) that the universe was created from a “Cosmic Egg” that came from they know not where, yet just was (but wasn’t for very long), that suddenly went (”Big) Bang!” and voila! We are (eventually) born. No “Leaps of Faith” there. Nope, none at all. Oh yes, their “Resurrection Theology?” “Entropy!” That’s where the energy of the “Big Bang” eventually “runs out of steam”, if you will, and everything collapses back in on itself and, “Guess What?”, it starts all over again – maybe. And they talk about “A Leap of Faith?” indeed. “What Fools We Mortals Be?” “You Betcha!”
[The Reply to the “Tolerance-Challenged” Atheists follows]: It is strange to me that so many pass through this mortal coil with blinders on. What is as plain as the nose on my face (and a proud proboscis it is indeed) is that I’m merely trying to point out that because I was raised to believe that “You don’t have to be in a building to believe in God” (even though my middle name comes from the French for Christmas because my parents met singing carols on a Christmas Eve), “The only thing I have against ‘Organized Religion’ is that it’s so ‘Organized’ ” (and you can quote me on that). Because my father had a beautiful baritone and was always in great demand to sing at various congregations, I would sometimes go with him to rehearsals and got to see the good church folk without their “Sunday”, or “Church Face” on. Which means I came to the realization that almost all overtly religious people were all coming from the viewpoint that only their particular interpretations were the “One, True Way” regardless of what those otherwise perfectly good “Church Folk” down the street, and around the corner believed. (Sort o’ like Northern Ireland, or, and more immediately, the “Religion of Peace” vs. the rest of humanity today.)
As to the science and cosmology of discovering not only the “how”, but, and to me the equally important of “why” the universe works: In my late adolescence and early teens, I was reading Bertrand Russell and Fred Hoyle amongst several others and was opening a wider view of man’s place in the universe in myself. It was a time when discoveries seemed to be coming at a furious pace: “Big Bang, “No Bang”, “Steady State”, oops, “Big Bang” again, “Entropy”, et cetera … . Then came Sputnik and the Space Race was on. Then came the questions: “What is God?”, followed by, “Where is Heaven?”; then: “How big and how old is the universe and how long will it last?”. To me, it was a logical conclusion to meld the two. Everyone praises Einstein’s genius (especially for his era), yet gloss over his spirituality. Especially in his later years.* It strikes me odd that so many, the “Learned” of our day pooh, pooh the very concept of something greater than themselves. Usually they pause for the briefest of moments, drawing a deep breath of of something they cannot see (yes, yes, yes, I know it can be felt, measured, etc.), letting out the weariest of sighs, and then proceed to talk down to the rest of we mere mortals, explaining how what they cannot prove nor explain fully and completely is “The One True Way” to look at the universe.
We of today look back several centuries and chuckle at the learned fools of the day who were fervently arguing about “How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?”. Who indeed can predict how the learned of a few centuries hence will view us? In other words, everyone has blinders. It’s up to each individual to open his own eyes and see. Curiosity, after all, is in Man’s Nature. Whether it’s the scientist or the hunter, we all want to know “What’s on the other side”. We should never stop asking. We should never stop searching. Most importantly, we should realize that we will never find all the answers because there’ll always be another question to answer, another hill to climb and another river to cross.
* Well, since I wrote the forgoing, it appears that the “Big Bang” is once again relegated to the trash bin of formerly iron clad “Scientific Consensus”. [Or has it been resurrected again? I’m going to start calling it the “Chuckie of the Universe.”]
** Sir Fredrick Hoyle’s “Steady State Theory”, by the way, postulated that stars (and, by extension, galaxies) simply “Appeared” to fill the void left between them by a steadily expanding universe. I.e.: “Think of a balloon’s surface with dots on it. As it expands, the distance between the dots grows further and further apart. I believe that new ones simply appear to fill the void between them”; (May I suggest Googling: [BBC Universe – Steady State theory challenged the Big Bang]).
By the way: “Intelligent Design” doesn’t challenge the “How” of the universe, just the “Why”.
*** At the time of writing these words, I was not aware of the exact quotes. Here is an excerpt from a Time Magazine article dated: Thursday, April 05, 2007. Quote: ” … Einstein did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase a profound faith in, and reverence for, the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws. Around the time he turned 50, he began to articulate more clearly–in various essays, interviews and letters–his deepening appreciation of his belief in God, although a rather impersonal version of one. One particular evening in 1929, the year he turned 50, captures Einstein’s middle-age deistic faith. He and his wife were at a dinner party in Berlin when a guest expressed a belief in astrology. Einstein ridiculed the notion as pure superstition. Another guest stepped in and similarly disparaged religion. Belief in God, he insisted, was likewise a superstition.”
“At this point the host tried to silence him by invoking the fact that even Einstein harbored religious beliefs. “It isn’t possible!” the skeptical guest said, turning to Einstein to ask if he was, in fact, religious. “Yes, you can call it that,” Einstein replied calmly. “Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious. … .”
As a dear, but now departed, friend used to say: “Great minds travel in the same rut”. (Even yours and mine.)
Bill Nye is an idiot. I’ve caught his act. He won’t debate, he’ll resort to making stupid and ridiculous statements. I’ve caught his act before, he’s a buffoon.
The question of the invisible God is not about God, it’s about who makes the Law men will follow. Science-folk are only dupes for statists who desire to disempower the Law of God, Torah. But they get help from religions and/or denominations which dilute Torah, who claim to love God’s Law but don’t follow certain commandments, for whatever reason. They also get help from religions which claim to be administrators of God’s Law when the Law itself names the administrators.
The reason the Jewish people have been persecuted for centuries is not their involvement in money, power, entertainment, or media, or any particular attitude or behavior they exhibit, but rather because they are chosen keepers of Torah. The incorrect thinking has been that if you get rid of the Jews, you can control the people with your own Law. This has not proven true. Yet they keep trying.
Bill Nye is not sane if he believes that to debate creationism disproves God, any more than to debate the scientific relevance of genetics makes the male homosexual act lawful or moral.
Creationists
and evolutionists are looking at the same evidence. And they are
utilizing the same tools. To argue any differently is ignorant and
unfair. Though there has been some tampering with the evidence on both
sides, that is not the norm. And that is not the problem. The problem is
not a difference of evidence or a difference of method. It’s a
difference of interpretation,
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4252/bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-creationism/#p1cZc8VCaoRqtCim.99
Creationists
and evolutionists are looking at the same evidence. And they are
utilizing the same tools. To argue any differently is ignorant and
unfair. Though there has been some tampering with the evidence on both
sides, that is not the norm. And that is not the problem. The problem is
not a difference of evidence or a difference of method. It’s a
difference of interpretation
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4252/bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-creationism/#p1cZc8VCaoRqtCim.99
Repeating yourself, and not realizing that you are doing it, is a symptom of early onset dementia,
a symptom of what?
What was the question? I forgot.
By the way, seeing yourself in the mirror and asking the reflection “Who the hell are you, and what are you doing in my house” is also a pretty good indication of dementia OR you’re “The Dear Leader” ☭omrade Øbama.
Now then, what was your question?
Creationists and evolutionists are looking at the same evidence.
And they are utilizing the same tools. To argue any differently is
ignorant and unfair. Though there has been some tampering with the
evidence on both sides, that is not the norm. And that is not the
problem. The problem is not a difference of evidence or a difference of
method. It’s a difference of interpretation
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4252/bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-creationism/#p1cZc8VCaoRqtCim.99
1st of all creationism is NOT science, it’s religion. The difference between the two is simple. Science is certain of nothing and requires proof of everything..religion is certain of everything and requires proof of nothing
Are you certain of that?
He certainly is.
Bill Nye is being FOOLISH since Evolution is based on a LIE. That LIE is a direct Violation of the first rule of Science and that being You cannot get something from Nothing. See the First theory is that Nothing blew up and created everything well since you CANNOT get anything from Nothing but Nothing they changed the theory to claim a Black Hole blew up but fail to declare the source of the Black hole is. So either nothing blew up and created everything or a black hole formed from Nothing then blew up to make everything. Both are a LIE since the first rule of Science says you CANNOT get anything from Nothing. So what is Bill going to debate which LIE is true????
600 year old Noah after parking the ship planted a vineyard. He makes wine, gets drunk and passes out. His son Ham sees him naked. You would think after a flood that killed countless men, women and children that seeing Noah’s naughty bits wouldn’t be a headliner. But it is. Ham wasn’t supposed to look. He should have walked backwards to cover things up. He didn’t do this. So what happens? Canaan becomes a slave. Who’s Canaan? He’s Ham’s son. Did he see Noah naked? No! And this is the kind of madness we’re supposed to embrace while abandoning science and reason?
You fools never learn (casting pearls before swine)You all have some great discussions here and then you get suckered in by the resident TROLL blobbiee and waste your time and energy. The value of replying to the TROLL BLOB is the same as creating a document, typing for a couple of hours on a concept THEN DELETING IT!! Blobbie has no life outside of this conservative blog in which he has a sick addiction to it. He gets kicked out, all his comments deleted, then comes back and does it all over. Remember, that’s where your efforts go. Make your comments count and ignore the TROLL Blobbiee.(click on image to enlarge)