Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Davros of Skaro

2/4/14 Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

110 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

redhen

I really don't see the need for a debate, the fundamentalists will just ignore threatening scientific facts, like chromosome 2.

[media=]

[/media]
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ambelamba

If a recent explanation of origin of life is real, life seems to happen NO MATTER WHAT, in any form. Yeah, it doesn't sound scientific enough but...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

I really don't see the need for a debate, the fundamentalists will just ignore threatening scientific facts, like chromosome 2.

The tickets for the event sold out within first half hour (I heard within 10 minutes), and it's advertisment for Ham.If the debate makes a fraction of Ham followers think? Then that's a good thing.

Edited by davros of skaro
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

Abiogenesis (How life could have formed on our planet through natural processes.)

Abiogenesis Refuted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

I thought the banana was the Atheist's nightmare?

If God wasn't around bananas would shoot loads in our faces.

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Here's the real kicker: Evolution neither supports or refutes the concept of God.

Sure, evolution can tell us how life has evolved, abiogenensis can give us an idea of how life started...but as for the question of why life began, why consciousness arose, why we're even here thinking about all this...not so much.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Here's the real kicker: Evolution neither supports or refutes the concept of God.

Sure, evolution can tell us how life has evolved, abiogenensis can give us an idea of how life started...but as for the question of why life began, why consciousness arose, why we're even here thinking about all this...not so much.

Exactly right. Science tells us the how. Why, assuming there is a why, is the domain of religion and philosophy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

I thought the banana was the Atheist's nightmare?

If God wasn't around bananas would shoot loads in our faces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS_dBla3PqM

Apparently, atheists have a lot of nightmares.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

I thought the banana was the Atheist's nightmare?

If God wasn't around bananas would shoot loads in our faces.

Youtube search "Penis Christ" if you dare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

Here's the real kicker: Evolution neither supports or refutes the concept of God.

Sure, evolution can tell us how life has evolved, abiogenensis can give us an idea of how life started...but as for the question of why life began, why consciousness arose, why we're even here thinking about all this...not so much.

Exactly.It does put Man's concept of God, and the very scripture held up as words from God into question.

Some people do not like to question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

A Presuppositional Apologetic Christian explains his postition in the 1st 5 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

Creation Museum video response to Bill Nye's original video.

Lawrence Krauss: Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
name='Realm' timestamp='1391302675' post='5064465']

Gen 1:28

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Sounds like something happened so that he had to create man, fowls, beast etc.. to replenish the earth.

Seems creationism and evolution can coexist.

The idea that bothers me about people who take the Bible Literally, is.... Where did those wives of Cain, and Able, and Seth come from? Where did the nations of people that supposedly quickly sprung up come from?

To me clearly there were people already there, just not "Gods" people. Perhaps they were considered Souless, like animals?

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I agree. It's funny because, as you say, the evidence for evolution was overwhelming before genetics, and now, with what we know in genetics, even if we had no fossils at all to look at, genetics alone proves evolution. As far as the idea that God created the world in such a way to look like evolution happened, this makes creationism completely unfalsifiable and is the best argument for keeping creationism out of school science classes.

You do know what a hard core Creationist will say, right? That God put those dinosaur bones in the ground for us to find, and set up our DNA and that of all animals to appear to reach back into history, but they were actually created that way. Or, maybe that God created the animals and kept playing with them to get them "Right", and threw away the ones that were earlier models in the form of fossils. Unshaking Faith will allow all kinds of work arounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

When I was a Christian, I used to listen to Greg Laurie's sermons religiously.He claimed that you have to accept the whole Bible as one without compromise.

Well, he had a point. Problem is that the editors of teh Scripture didn't expect future people to read through it.

That is crazy talk. It is clear to todays scholars that the Christian Bible was constructed of texts from many, many sources. And that some of them even contradict each other. Which should be fine, because they are all personnal recollections or oral traditions from specific individuals, and so we really can't expect every word to be exactly the same. Those who compiled the Bible did so because they recognized this and wanted to set the traditions down before they changed any more, which was very wise to do.

The Bible is NOT the word of God. It is the teachings of Jesus as remembered and passed down by the Apostles, and the actions and wisdom of those who followed after the Apostles. It is the God INSPIRED writings of individual men.

Those who claim the Bible is infallible and the perfect word of God are idiots.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Job 40:15-24

15 “Look at Behemoth,

which I made along with you

and which feeds on grass like an ox.

I always thought that the Behemoth was referencing the Hippopotomus, since Behemoth lives in the water and grazed on grass.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

You do know what a hard core Creationist will say, right? That God put those dinosaur bones in the ground for us to find, and set up our DNA and that of all animals to appear to reach back into history, but they were actually created that way. Or, maybe that God created the animals and kept playing with them to get them "Right", and threw away the ones that were earlier models in the form of fossils. Unshaking Faith will allow all kinds of work arounds.

No doubt you're right about that. But the catch-22 for those who want creationism taught in science class is that science must be falsifiable. So either we can ignore the evidence making creationism unfalsifable and not science or we use evidence which clearly shows the earth is more than 6000 year old and wasn't created in 6 days. Either way it doesn't belong in science class. Now they might have a better case for intelligent design but I think the arguments for natural selection are much stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I agree it does not belong in science class. If anything it belongs in Comparitive Religions, or some such class. I've heard that the Public High Schools try to cover all (major) religions equally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

I always thought that the Behemoth was referencing the Hippopotomus, since Behemoth lives in the water and grazed on grass.

At least we agree it's not a Dinosaur.

17 Its tail sways like a cedar;

21 Under the lotus plants it lies,

hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

post-142153-0-28588700-1391393874_thumb.

post-142153-0-86146800-1391393887_thumb.

post-142153-0-51359700-1391394631_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Almagest

Creation Museum video response to Bill Nye's original video.

A nicely packaged version of the intellectual dishonesty involved in creationism. What particularly gets me is this notion that "no one was around to see it," when it has been observed countless times in the laboratory with viruses and bacteria. Not to mention if we take that line of thought to it's logical conclusion we could never convict a murderer without a witness to the murder.

Lawrence Krauss: Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse

[media=]

"The purpose of education isn't to validate ignorance, it's to overcome it."

I love Lawrence Krauss, he sure has zero tolerance for BS.

Edited by Almagest
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

I agree it does not belong in science class. If anything it belongs in Comparitive Religions, or some such class. I've heard that the Public High Schools try to cover all (major) religions equally.

Yeah I think a comparitive religions class is a fine idea. Give the kids some perspective on various schools of thought and how they came to be. But I think science should be about science. Some are saying this debate is a bad idea as it makes Ham and his ideas look legit but I think it's a good thing to debunk his claims. Edited by spacecowboy342
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sundew

At least we agree it's not a Dinosaur.

17 Its tail sways like a cedar;

21 Under the lotus plants it lies,

hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

I would say that neither the elephant nor the hippo has a tail that, "sways like a cedar" because when the cedar is referenced in Scripture it usually means the Cedar of Lebanon, Cedrus libani, a gigantic tree that would impress anyone who has seen a mature specimen. I have seen several mature specimens and they are notable in having very large, often horizontal branches many feet thick. By contrast, the tails of these two animals are little more that a rope and a brush and the last thing I would describe either of them as would be a Cedar of Lebanon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I would say that neither the elephant nor the hippo has a tail that, "sways like a cedar" because when the cedar is referenced in Scripture it usually means the Cedar of Lebanon, Cedrus libani, a gigantic tree that would impress anyone who has seen a mature specimen. I have seen several mature specimens and they are notable in having very large, often horizontal branches many feet thick. By contrast, the tails of these two animals are little more that a rope and a brush and the last thing I would describe either of them as would be a Cedar of Lebanon.

Yeah, but if it had a cedar for a tail, it wouldn't be able to hide under the lotuses and in the reeds....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

I would say that neither the elephant nor the hippo has a tail that, "sways like a cedar" because when the cedar is referenced in Scripture it usually means the Cedar of Lebanon, Cedrus libani, a gigantic tree that would impress anyone who has seen a mature specimen. I have seen several mature specimens and they are notable in having very large, often horizontal branches many feet thick. By contrast, the tails of these two animals are little more that a rope and a brush and the last thing I would describe either of them as would be a Cedar of Lebanon.

Sways like a cedar, not the size of a cedar. The behemoth is described as having bones like tubes of bronze and legs like bars of iron, does that make it a robot?
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Sways like a cedar, not the size of a cedar. The behemoth is described as having bones like tubes of bronze and legs like bars of iron, does that make it a robot?

It also talks about smoke coming out his nostrils and fire coming out his mouth which sounds like a dragon to me. But the tail that sways like a cedar and the fact that he has scales (Job 41 : 15), has terrible teeth ( 41 :14) makes the deep boil like a pot (41 :31) and he is made without fear (41 :33), this just screams crocodile to me. The behemoth in chapter 40 is obviously a hippo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

I would say that neither the elephant nor the hippo has a tail that, "sways like a cedar" because when the cedar is referenced in Scripture it usually means the Cedar of Lebanon, Cedrus libani, a gigantic tree that would impress anyone who has seen a mature specimen. I have seen several mature specimens and they are notable in having very large, often horizontal branches many feet thick. By contrast, the tails of these two animals are little more that a rope and a brush and the last thing I would describe either of them as would be a Cedar of Lebanon.

17 Its tail sways like a cedar; and makes the cedar look like a toothpick.

Do you think "The Flintstones" is based on prehistoric events?

Flintstones Archaeology

Aronra The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism -- Complete Series

[media=]

flintstone-yabba-dabba-doo.jpg

Edited by davros of skaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.