Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Watch live !!! Bill Nye, the science guy debate Ken Ham from answers in genesis.
today | Me

Posted on 02/04/2014 4:00:56 PM PST by Zeneta

Watch it live.

http://debatelive.org/?utm_source=creation-museum-creation-evolution&utm_medium=Banner&utm_campaign=bill-nye-ken-ham-debate


TOPICS: Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: billnye; crevolist; kenham
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 02/04/2014 4:00:56 PM PST by Zeneta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

http://debatelive.org/?utm_source=creation-museum-creation-evolution&utm_medium=Banner&utm_campaign=bill-nye-ken-ham-debate


2 posted on 02/04/2014 4:01:51 PM PST by Zeneta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

Thanks.


3 posted on 02/04/2014 4:03:26 PM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

Just clicked on! Shared on my facebook


4 posted on 02/04/2014 4:10:52 PM PST by happyhomemaker (Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Rom 12:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

Thus far the evolutionist has based his “superior” claim....by stating that creationism will stall US progress in Science...

thats a BIT off the wall.


5 posted on 02/04/2014 4:15:39 PM PST by MeshugeMikey ("When you meet the unbelievers, strike at their necks..." -- Qur'an 47:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

Bill Nye’s position is that we somehow can’t have scientific advancements without evolution.


6 posted on 02/04/2014 4:19:06 PM PST by Zeneta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
technical evolution...is one thing...biological evolution another.

perhaps he's so mechanistic...that he cant tell one from the other.
7 posted on 02/04/2014 4:24:54 PM PST by MeshugeMikey ("When you meet the unbelievers, strike at their necks..." -- Qur'an 47:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

I predict that Bill Nye will offer an appeal to uncertainty.

An appeal to science as an authority and it’s very nature of uncertainty, to convince people that the authority of their method is certain.


8 posted on 02/04/2014 4:30:53 PM PST by Zeneta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

Bad, bad idea.

Unless Bill Nye has set some strict preconditions, he’s likely to become a victim of the infamous “Gish Gallop” and walk away looking like a fool. Creationists are experts at snowing people and tossing out lie after lie faster than they can be rebutted. Also, Bill Nye is not a life scientist, so is probably NOT an expert on the many many ways that we use evolutionary theory in every aspect of our daily work.

I just hope Bill does his homework very thoroughly first, and watches some of those “debates” ahead of time so that he is prepared for the deluge of lies and misrepresentations he is about to receive.


9 posted on 02/04/2014 5:14:35 PM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

Very interesting thus far. Thanks for the link. Thus far, I see your prediction is correct. Bill Nye is most definitely "filling in the blanks" with theories and doing a soft sell claiming it as fact.


10 posted on 02/04/2014 5:15:59 PM PST by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: so_real

Using the “telephone” argument for why the Bible is unreliable.


11 posted on 02/04/2014 5:25:00 PM PST by LukeL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

Battle of the Fake Scientists!


12 posted on 02/04/2014 5:31:55 PM PST by Mr. Blond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LukeL


The Nye family was better at building ships than Noah ... according to Nye. I'm just not impressed with that kind of "science". Ham was honest in that we don't know Noah's level of expertise. Point to Ham.


13 posted on 02/04/2014 5:34:49 PM PST by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

In other words...invented logic?


14 posted on 02/04/2014 5:47:16 PM PST by MeshugeMikey ("When you meet the unbelievers, strike at their necks..." -- Qur'an 47:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

I saw a video of whom I think is the creationist debating here some time ago.

I looked at it just for a laugh, but I had to admit that the dude was a sharp presenter. Very rapid-fire, and would easily convince a person that didnt know better. He definitely brings his A-game to stuff like this.


15 posted on 02/04/2014 5:47:18 PM PST by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

Ah, the “Ham-on-Nye debate”: philosophically naive over-extension of the reach of science and of the importance of biological evolution within science versus hermeneutically naive exegesis of the Holy Scriptures! What an event!

I think I’ll pass on watching it, maybe read the low-lights sometime.

I might investigate the event just long enough to find contact information for the participants to send them both copies of Alexander Kalomiros’s “The Six Dawns”, but then again maybe I won’t.


16 posted on 02/04/2014 5:57:05 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
Bill advanced the 1 inch of ice takes 100 years theory. Ken will counter with the 1940’s planes found under many feet of ice fact.
17 posted on 02/04/2014 5:59:13 PM PST by cotton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

Did Nye just say he could "prove the age" of the Earth ... ? Seriously ?


18 posted on 02/04/2014 6:08:33 PM PST by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: so_real

Nye is a perfect example of 1 Corinthians 1:18-25

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.


19 posted on 02/04/2014 6:42:36 PM PST by happyhomemaker (Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Rom 12:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"Creationists are experts at snowing people and tossing out lie after lie faster than they can be rebutted."

Gee.

I didn't realize I was an expert at snowing people and tossing out lie after lie.

Yes, I'm a creationist. Don't expect to change anybody's mind about it. Just decided for myself when I believed that Christ was born of a virgin, died for my sins, and read the account of creation in Genesis and Matthew that he must be God alright. It's my choice and I see no reason to get in somebody's face about it.

Still, it's strange to be on FR and have somebody categorize me as a liar for believing in creation.

20 posted on 02/04/2014 7:20:13 PM PST by gettinolder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

What is called “science” today behaves exactly like the church did before the Rennaissance.

It is even more hypocritical, for it takes positions of theory and presents them as absolute, incontrovertible fact. It stands that its understanding is unassailable.

And yet, every year, science itself discovers that hundreds of its positions on fact - are, in fact - wrong! It continually, with new information, discovers where it has been totally wrong in its positions and views.

And yet - it is never humbled by its new discoveries that disprove previous “truths”. It never “repents” of having taught that which it learns is not true. It forever maintains its arrogance that its current views are absolute.

True science is always admitting it may be wrong. It is not like math, where 2 + 2 always = 4. It tests, retests, and retests - and is open to new discovery.

That today’s science is absolute on its current understandings proves that it is far more like a cultic religion than true science. It condemns, criticizes and condemns opponents to its views in no less a degree than the church of the Inquisition.

Former public shool science teacher......


21 posted on 02/04/2014 7:31:44 PM PST by Arlis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

You mean the science lies such as Global Warming, Acid Rain, DDT scare, Ozone Hole growing, Spotted Owl and Evolution. Which side spends its entire time lying?

Pray America is Waking


22 posted on 02/04/2014 7:50:42 PM PST by bray (http://www.braylog.com/id47.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

Bill Nye - “Noah was a simple man.”

He’s obviously never heard of Archimedes.


23 posted on 02/04/2014 8:00:15 PM PST by agrarianlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I just hope Bill does his homework very thoroughly first, and watches some of those “debates” ahead of time so that he is prepared for the deluge of lies and misrepresentations he is about to receive.

It was recently pointed out that only about 3% of the biological cell, which has been likened to the almost unending complexity of a vast city, is currently understood by scientists. Do you seriously believe that this almost incomprehensible level of complexity - and purposeful design - is wholly the product of blind chance?

If we were walking in a forest and came across a wristwatch lying on the ground, and if I exclaimed that here arose a most marvelous confluence of natural forces, i.e, lightning, combining with and just the right proportion of minerals, etc., to produce such an artifact, you would consider me to be insane.

To assert that infinite complexity and design arises totally spontaneously is contrary to reason. I challenge you to have the courage to resist the atheistic attack on the Divine act of Creation.

24 posted on 02/04/2014 10:20:30 PM PST by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: happyhomemaker
Nye is a perfect example of 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” 20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Amen!

25 posted on 02/04/2014 10:25:37 PM PST by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Arlis
What is called “science” today behaves exactly like the church did before the Rennaissance. It is even more hypocritical, for it takes positions of theory and presents them as absolute, incontrovertible fact. It stands that its understanding is unassailable. And yet, every year, science itself discovers that hundreds of its positions on fact - are, in fact - wrong! It continually, with new information, discovers where it has been totally wrong in its positions and views. And yet - it is never humbled by its new discoveries that disprove previous “truths”. It never “repents” of having taught that which it learns is not true. It forever maintains its arrogance that its current views are absolute. True science is always admitting it may be wrong. It is not like math, where 2 + 2 always = 4. It tests, retests, and retests - and is open to new discovery. That today’s science is absolute on its current understandings proves that it is far more like a cultic religion than true science. It condemns, criticizes and condemns opponents to its views in no less a degree than the church of the Inquisition. Former public shool science teacher......

Excellent post - especially the part about how dogmatic "science" is never humbled...

26 posted on 02/04/2014 10:27:24 PM PST by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
Bill Nye’s position is that we somehow can’t have scientific advancements without evolution.

He should have been more specific. We can't have scientific advancement in the biological sciences without using the theory of evolution. Probably, there are areas of physics where understanding evolution is not necessary for discovery.

27 posted on 02/05/2014 4:06:49 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
I looked at it just for a laugh, but I had to admit that the dude was a sharp presenter. Very rapid-fire, and would easily convince a person that didnt know better. He definitely brings his A-game to stuff like this.

Creationist con men are very slick, and very good at what they do.

I read an opinion piece a while back discussing why scientists should never engage creationists on the creationists' terms. The scientists enter these debates thinking that since they have facts and logic on their side, the debate should be a cake walk. They are unprepared for the fact that the creationist cares nothing for facts, evidence, and logic--he is there to make the scientist look like a bumbling fool in front of an audience that is utterly (and willfully) scientifically illiterate.

This opinion piece did point out that there are ways to make the debate less one-sided, but no creationist has ever agreed to a debate with fair terms and conditions.

My opinion, as an educated scientist, is that creationists do more harm to Christianity than any atheist could ever do. To be absolutely clear: Creationism is separate from Christianity. The Christian tradition actually embraces the advancement of human knowledge.

28 posted on 02/05/2014 4:20:39 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gettinolder
I didn't realize I was an expert at snowing people and tossing out lie after lie.

Yes, I'm a creationist. Don't expect to change anybody's mind about it. Just decided for myself when I believed that Christ was born of a virgin, died for my sins, and read the account of creation in Genesis and Matthew that he must be God alright. It's my choice and I see no reason to get in somebody's face about it.

I'm sorry I forgot to include the qualifier "conman" after "creationist." People like Ken Ham, Duane Gish, Kent Hovind, Michael Behe, etc., are absolute conmen who manipulate and lie to people. They are scum. They make Christians look stupid, and are more damaging to Christianity than any atheist could ever be.

To be clear: I consider "Creationism" as a separate religion from "Christianity." It may have a few superficial similarities to Christianity, but it is *NOT* the same thing.

29 posted on 02/05/2014 4:29:44 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Arlis
It is even more hypocritical, for it takes positions of theory and presents them as absolute, incontrovertible fact. It stands that its understanding is unassailable.

For someone who claims to have been a public school science teacher, you show absolutely no understanding of what a scientific theory is. In science, a theory is the framework that provides the logical framework for the observed data. It both explains existing data and provides a framework in which to devise testable hypotheses. Theories are always being refined over time as new evidence is revealed by hypothesis testing--that is how science works. The fact that a theory is constantly being updated does not mean it is wrong.

30 posted on 02/05/2014 4:36:31 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tjd1454
It was recently pointed out that only about 3% of the biological cell, which has been likened to the almost unending complexity of a vast city, is currently understood by scientists. Do you seriously believe that this almost incomprehensible level of complexity - and purposeful design - is wholly the product of blind chance?

Recently pointed out by whom? Did you read that in the scientific literature, or was that one of the untruths constantly invented by some creationist conman at Answers in Genesis or similar website?

Hint: no matter how scientific the words they use look, you will not find any true science discussed by The Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research (which does no scientific research), etc. If you are truly interested in science, there is a plethora of resources that provide real scientific information.

Despite what any of those con websites claim, we actually do understand quite well how cells work.

31 posted on 02/05/2014 4:45:54 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Come on. Ken Ham a con man? Dinosaurs were once vegetarians and peacefully frolicked with humans 6,000 years ago before “sin” and the “flood”. Heck there were even dinosaurs on the Ark. Ken Ham says so therefore it must be true. / s


32 posted on 02/05/2014 4:56:23 AM PST by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Hint: no matter how scientific the words they use look, you will not find any true science discussed by The Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research (which does no scientific research), etc. If you are truly interested in science, there is a plethora of resources that provide real scientific information.

I am not a creationist (though I am a Christian) and thought the debate was painful to watch. That being said, the Discovery Institute is not a Creationist organization or even specific to Christianity. Intelligent design is not creationism, nor is it a religious position. It is the application of design theory to the natural and living world.

As for science or research - from the new intelligent design research lab, there was discussion of two technical articles published in the Journal of Molecular Biology by protein scientist Doug Axe (for abstracts, see here and here). As the New Scientist acknowledged, funding for the research underlying these peer-reviewed articles was provided by Discovery Institute's research fellowship program--thus disproving the twin canards that Discovery Institute does not support scientific research, and that pro-ID scientists do not publish peer-reviewed research.
For more ID papers see HERE or HERE

Excerpt from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1844, p. 464:

As this chapter is written in the early twenty-first century, the hypothesis that the universe reflect intelligent design has provoked a bitter debate in the United States. How very different was the intellectual world of the early nineteenth century! Then, virtually everyone believed in intelligent design. Faith in the rational design of the universe underlay the world-view of the Enlightenment, shared by Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the American Founding Fathers. Even the outspoke critics of Christianity embraced not atheism but deism, that is, belief in an impersonal, remote deity who had created the universe and designed it so perfectly that it ran along of its own accord, following natural laws without need for further divine intervention. The common used expression “the book of nature” referred to the universal practice of viewing nature as a revelation of God’s power and wisdom. Christians were fond of saying that they accepted two divine revelations: the Bible and the book of nature. For desists like Thomas Paine, the book of nature alone sufficed, rendering what he called the “fables” of the Bible superfluous. The desire to demonstrate the glory of God, whether deist or – more commonly – Christian, constituted one of the principal motivations for scientific activity in the early republic, along with national pride, the hope for useful applications, and, of course, the joy of science itself.

33 posted on 02/05/2014 6:04:50 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

I stand by my statement that not only are theories fine-tuned as you say - they are also proven totally wrong.

I do understand the whole theory thing, but didn’t want to spend the time & trouble detailing all of it....


34 posted on 02/05/2014 7:20:58 AM PST by Arlis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; All
I note that you quote Bible verses on your "about" page, which indicates that you consider yourself to be Christian? If so, do you affirm the Christian understanding of God as Creator, as stated in the ancient creeds: "I believe in God the Father, Maker of heaven and earth..."?

Your religion appears to be closer to Gaia worship of the Earth rather than Christianity. While seemingly unwilling to attribute Creation to the divine act of God, you have no problem attributing direct creative acts to "Mother Nature". You write elsewhere (yeah, I like to know a little about the person I am addressing): "She should be irate with Mother Nature for making us this way. For making men big and strong ... for making women smaller ... so that nature can compel them into caring for (children). Nature does not care what we do with our lives..."

Really? You attribute creative acts to "Mother Nature" as if "she" possessed intelligence and has "designed" men and women, etc. Sounds very much like the "Intelligent design" that you ridicule. So Intelligent Design makes perfect sense after all - so long as it is not Biblical?

You would do well to, as the old fishermen used to say, "fish or cut bait." Either stop being ashamed of, and denying, the central understanding of God as Creator, or quit pretending you are Christian.

You quote Bible verses on your "about" page, apparently in an authoritative sense, yet you deny a fundamental understanding of God that is taught very clearly throughout the Scriptures. Jesus spoke of those who "choke on a gnat but swallow a camel..."

Your Ph.D. is obviously not in cell biology, because if it were, you would be aware that our understanding of cell morphology has exploded in recent years, and we now realize the almost infinite complexity of the cell - and how much more there is yet to learn. (No, I did not read this on any - what you sneeringly call "con artist" - Creationist site). Full disclosure: I also have an earned Ph.D. - in theology.

I am not interested, and have no time for, pointless argumentation. I have spoken my peace, and you will forgive me if I do not respond further. I wish you the best - but we can only expect God's blessings if we stand for His truth:

We read in Genesis: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

Our Lord states: "“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’?"

Note that Jesus affirms God as Creator. Jesus also warned: "Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels."

35 posted on 02/05/2014 9:39:32 AM PST by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"To be clear: I consider "Creationism" as a separate religion from "Christianity." It may have a few superficial similarities to Christianity, but it is *NOT* the same thing."

Thank you for the reply.

How would an evolutionist define "Christianity"? I think I gather you are a Christian and an evolutionist, and maybe could answer my question.

Thanks in advance if you are able to respond.

36 posted on 02/05/2014 6:00:36 PM PST by gettinolder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tjd1454; exDemMom
Everything in your post exemplifies exactly why YEC creationism should not be taught as science in public primary, secondary and post secondary schools.

I don’t care if you believe in your view of Biblical Literalism and YEC; in a 6,000 year old Earth; that all dinosaurs were once vegetarians and peacefully co-existed with humans and were present on the Ark; that starlight was created by God so that it became visible to us under some sort of trick of time and so as to bend the known laws of physics to allow for the fact that such light is coming from a very long distance, 13 billion light years away; that there is no such thing as plate tectonics, that all the continents were in their present position since the creation of the Earth; that the Grand Canyon proves YEC; that radiometric dating is a lie (and if you live anywhere near a nuclear facility, you better hope that it isn’t); and other such complete and utter nonsense that Ken Ham and other creationists claim and push on their websites.

I don’t care if that is what you “believe”, what you want to preach from your pulpit, what you choose to teach your children in your Sunday schools, in your church run parochial schools, home schools or at home. Be my guest. And FWIW, I fully support and defend your right to believe whatever you want. You can also believe that vaccinations cause autism, that all disease is the result of sin and the cure is to just pray harder, that organic foods are better for you, that GMO foods are harmful, in homeopathy, in demonic possession as the cause of mental illness …..and on and on and on. I am not saying that you believe in all these things BTW but I’ve seen enough over the years to know that people who don’t believe in an old earth, those who believe in young Earth Creationism, also buy into a lot of other unscientific nonsense.

And I won’t get into all the reasons why creationist claims are bad scientifically - there is already much to prove that it is. My problem is that these arguments always boil down to the Christian Biblical interpretations of the YEC’ers, their particular and rather small but very vocal subset of Evangelical Christianity and that they hold the position that if “you don’t believe what we believe, then you are a “bad Christian” a “false” or “lapsed” Christian, a “Gia Worshipper” or a closet Atheist”. Those are religious arguments, not scientific arguments.

Teaching creationism in public schools will allow some teachers who are YEC’s to not only teach bad science but then also call into question the religious beliefs of their students and their families and evangelize their faith over the faith of others. And yes, I absolutely get that teaching actual science to students threatens the beliefs of the YEC’s and that public schools also teach a lot of PC crap now days, but that doesn’t make that any more right than what the YEC’ers are pushing. But teaching Biblical literal creationism in the science classroom is teaching religion, and a small subset of religion at that and it has nothing to do with science. I am all for teaching religion in schools in say “comparative religion” classes, in letting students and teachers with similar POV to have their clubs and discussion groups outside of the classroom if they choose but teaching YEC in the classroom is the same IMO as outwardly teaching Hinduism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islamism, Wiccanism, Catholicism, Zoroastrianism in the science classroom. If the Judeo-Christian creation story should get equal time in the name of “fairness” in the science classroom then shouldn’t the creation stories of Norse religion also be given equal time?

You question exDemMom’s credentials as a working scientist, someone working daily in the field of cell biology, you even question her Ph.D. while proudly proclaiming your Ph.D. – “in theology”. If you can question hers, then why shouldn’t I be able to question your credentials?

I am not interested, and have no time for, pointless argumentation. I have spoken my peace, and you will forgive me if I do not respond further.

That sums it up pretty well: “I am not interested”.

37 posted on 02/06/2014 4:29:37 AM PST by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Intelligent design is not creationism, nor is it a religious position.

Courts have ruled that ID is a form of creationism, and have thus disallowed its being taught in school science classes. Without getting into too much detail, I'll just say that ID was invented to put a scientific veneer on creationism. In reality, neither ID nor creationism have any scientific basis, and their resemblance to anything in the Bible is fairly thin, as well.

The articles you linked by Doug Axe are only available for a price from ScienceDirect. I found him as an author of 9 articles indexed in PubMed, of which 2 are free access. One of them predates his association with the Discovery Institute, but with the other, I was able to see that he is funded by Discovery Institute, through their "Biologic Institute." The research done at the Biologic Institute seems limited (very few researchers and limited labspace is my impression), but, as far as I can tell, is pretty standard research which fits into everything we know about evolution.

38 posted on 02/06/2014 6:35:20 PM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tjd1454
I note that you quote Bible verses on your "about" page, which indicates that you consider yourself to be Christian? If so, do you affirm the Christian understanding of God as Creator, as stated in the ancient creeds: "I believe in God the Father, Maker of heaven and earth..."?

I am a Christian, and I am familiar with the various creeds. As a rule, I do not discuss religion in public places.

Your religion appears to be closer to Gaia worship of the Earth rather than Christianity. While seemingly unwilling to attribute Creation to the divine act of God, you have no problem attributing direct creative acts to "Mother Nature". You write elsewhere (yeah, I like to know a little about the person I am addressing): "She should be irate with Mother Nature for making us this way. For making men big and strong ... for making women smaller ... so that nature can compel them into caring for (children). Nature does not care what we do with our lives..."

Really? You attribute creative acts to "Mother Nature" as if "she" possessed intelligence and has "designed" men and women, etc. Sounds very much like the "Intelligent design" that you ridicule. So Intelligent Design makes perfect sense after all - so long as it is not Biblical?

I have nothing but contempt for those who elevate the earth--an inanimate object--to the level of a deity and worship it. Nature has been personified for as long as humans have recorded history (and probably before then, although we cannot know that); using the personified term to refer to the physical forces that shaped human evolution to make us what we are is hardly a religious statement. Especially in the context of that particular thread, where I was commenting about some young man-hating "feminist" who was blaming all of her personal problems on men, when her real issue is with the biological characteristics of our species.

Your Ph.D. is obviously not in cell biology, because if it were, you would be aware that our understanding of cell morphology has exploded in recent years, and we now realize the almost infinite complexity of the cell - and how much more there is yet to learn. (No, I did not read this on any - what you sneeringly call "con artist" - Creationist site). Full disclosure: I also have an earned Ph.D. - in theology.

You would be wrong about my PhD. As a biochemist, I am very aware of how cells function--how they make biomolecules, how they make energy, how they grow and eat and crawl around, etc., etc. It is a lot of knowledge, all packed away in my head. I have grown millions, if not billions, of cells for research. And, interestingly, I talk about those cells as if they were aware, sentient beings--much in the same way that I referred to "Mother Nature"--even though I am very aware that those cells have absolutely no awareness and only respond to chemical signals. My personification of inanimate objects stems from the human desire to personify everything--to see human faces wherever we look.

If I will be honest, I see creationism as being little different than Gaia worship. Like Gaia worship (or Paganism), Creationism elevates the physical world to divine status.

39 posted on 02/06/2014 7:26:02 PM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Courts have ruled that ID is a form of creationism

Well that settles it then... The courts get everything correct. But seriously, don't ignore the other links provided for many other peer-reviewed articles and research. Do you subscribe to the alternative to ID?

stupid

/ˈstu·pɪd/ adj
lacking thought or intelligence:

Consider this, to remove any ‘creator’ from our very existence including the beginning of our universe is to remove any ‘thought or intelligence’ from the equation. By definition, you are ultimately left with an existence from stupidity.

…that if we would maintain the value of our highest beliefs and emotions, we must find for them a congruous origin. Beauty must be more than accident. The source of morality must be moral. The source of knowledge must be rational.
- Sir Arthur Balfour
How do you explain mindlessness ultimately creating human consciousness?

40 posted on 02/06/2014 7:27:16 PM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: gettinolder
How would an evolutionist define "Christianity"? I think I gather you are a Christian and an evolutionist, and maybe could answer my question.

First of all, I am not an "evolutionist." I am a scientist whose calling in life is to study and describe the physical world as well as I can. And to explain my observations to others.

A Christian is one who has accepted the lord Jesus, who died on the cross for our sins. Yes, it is a little more complicated than that, but I don't care to get into all of the finer points of what that statement means. No one has to deny that the physical world has the characteristics it has, or to claim that scientists are lying when they describe their observations (which is bearing false witness, an act specifically forbidden in the Ten Commandments) to accept Jesus into one's heart. Recognizing that the creation story told in Genesis is a metaphor meant to teach about morality and is not a literal account does not (or should not) damage one's faith any more than recognizing other metaphors would weaken one's faith.

41 posted on 02/06/2014 7:41:23 PM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta

Thanks for the post. Debates like these seem to bring people who are passionate in their belief of evolution out, along with those of us who believe the biblical account of creation.

While I can understand someone who does not believe in God or someone who does not claim to be a Christian thinking that creationism is a joke, what I have a hard time understanding is someone who would believe that Christ was born of a virgin birth, believe that He is the only atonement for our sins, but not believe that He created the heavens and the earth, along with man and the creatures that fill it.


42 posted on 02/06/2014 7:48:43 PM PST by gettinolder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

OK.

I guess somewhere between the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the present those of us who still believe we are God’s created are fewer in number.

I know you won’t judge me or think less of me because I disagree with you.

Thanks for the comeback.


43 posted on 02/06/2014 7:53:41 PM PST by gettinolder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

Thank you for your long and well-thought out reply.

It is my experience that most creationists care little for real knowledge, and have no compunction about spreading lies about scientists. Lying about people, aka bearing false witness, is a sin.

Ironically, the ridiculous stories that creationism mongers (like Ken Ham) concoct to try to give a scientific veneer to the creation story of Genesis are as unbiblical as they are unscientific. Yet they try to pass themselves off as experts in both Christianity and science.

I try to understand what motivates people who fall for pseudoscience (of any type, not just creationism), but I fail.


44 posted on 02/06/2014 7:58:33 PM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

A preemptive apology after reading this post - I am not questioning your faith in Christ - I also love science and I enjoy studying God’s creation. That being said, don’t believe the propaganda put forth against ID - or at least try to keep an open mind - after all, look at Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, et al...and how they have discredited science. We were all told that science was agnostic but now it is blatantly atheistic. It is a tool for atheism as long as methodological materialism is only allowed. We should just replace it with methodological realism and not keep science in a box.


45 posted on 02/06/2014 8:03:31 PM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
exDemMom, I really appreciate you responding to my last question regarding what you thought a Christian was, thank you.

Another one I have, as I am not an expert in neither science nor theology, is this;

If the biblical account of creation is a metaphor, why would Jesus Christ in scripture refer to it as if it were fact?

I would use Mark 10:6, and I quote the words of Christ "But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female"

Am I to believe that Christ was speaking metaphorically here and indeed did not Himself create the earth and all in it as described in Colossians 1:16,17?

46 posted on 02/06/2014 9:01:30 PM PST by gettinolder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3120170/posts


47 posted on 02/06/2014 10:47:29 PM PST by Arlis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Be careful.

Genuine science has no ideology. Scientists who remain dedicated to their art are impartial observers who do their best to observe, report their observations as accurately and precisely as they can, and provide interpretations of those observations consistent with the known physical laws and body of knowledge amassed by previous observers.

However, science is very prone to misuse. Those who try to use science to “prove” there is no God are just as dishonest as the creationist conmen who cherry-pick isolated phrases said by scientists, put words into scientists’ mouths, and misinterpret scientific findings to try to make science and the scientific method look bad. There are many examples of science being misused to advance agendas, not just by creationist conmen, but by environmental activists, vegetarian zealots, anti-vaccination nutcases, and many others.


48 posted on 02/07/2014 3:15:32 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: gettinolder

The passage from Colossians 1:16,17 does not preclude the Genesis creation story from being a metaphor.

From the Big Bang until now, the universe has functioned within a very strict set of parameters known as physical laws. Those physical laws cause matter to behave the way we have observed—heavenly bodies coalesce from clouds of dust because of the law of gravity, atoms interact with each other in very specific ways to form molecules, evolution proceeds because biological molecules exhibit very specific physical behaviors.

You can attribute the existence of matter and the fact that it operates according to very rigid and precise parameters—which allow for life to evolve—to the hand of God.

Also, the concept of maleness and femaleness is almost universal among living things. Anything more advanced than a virus is male or female, because survival depends upon being able to mix up DNA (in a very specific manner, of course). That, too, is a consequence of the physical parameters of the universe that God designed.


49 posted on 02/07/2014 3:32:03 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“From the Big Bang until now...”

An idea one can only cite from a faith-based text.


50 posted on 02/07/2014 3:52:45 AM PST by MarDav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson