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

today | Me

[Zeneta]

Watch it live.

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

[exDemMom]

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.

[gettinolder]

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.

[gettinolder]

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.

[exDemMom]

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.

[Heartlander]

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.

[gettinolder]

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?

[Arlis]

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

[exDemMom]

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.

[exDemMom]

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.

[MarDav]

“From the Big Bang until now...”

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

[tacticalogic]

We should just replace it with methodological realism and not keep science in a box.

What is this "methodoligical realism"?

[tjd1454]

If I claimed to be an Atheist, and yet said I believed in the Holy Trinity, I could rightly be called out for holding to beliefs that are incompatible with Atheism. Similarly, those who consider themselves to be Christian are obligated to give assent to certain fundamental doctrines. One of those theological understandings, amply attested to in the Creeds, is that the heavens and the Earth were created by God.

Please note that I am not arguing for a particular "date" of creation. It appears that time as we know it (i.e. twenty-four hour days) only came into being on the 4th day of creation. I believe there is a great deal of mystery regarding how God actually created the heavens and the Earth, and the subject should be approached with a great measure of humility.

Unfortunately, many Christians are afraid to affirm God as Creator because the price they will have to pay is more than they wish to bear. So they bow the knee to Darwin, and relegate God to Francis Schaeffer's "Ghost in the Machine" - the belief of superstitious people that mysterious forces actually were behind, e.g., the mechanism in the clock tower. Educated people, of course, look upon such folk beliefs with bemused toleration, knowing that the operation of the mechanism is perfectly explained by mechanics.

Similarly, atheists and secularists - and evolutionists - look with bemusement upon people of Faith who belief in a Creator God, because the theory of evolution is a perfectly satisfactory explanation that does not require any supernatural component.

I fear that those who deny this aspect of their Faith out of the fear of man will one day answer for their refusal to confess God as Creator.

Regards.

[gettinolder]

Articulately stated.