Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 101 to 112 of 112

Thread: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

  1. #101
    Can see thru wooden doors dal9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,887

    Default Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    ^I'm still busy trying to write up an explanation of why these guys are wrong:


  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
    ― Albert Einstein

    I think Mr. Einstein had a point. Either all of existence is a miracle (a divine act by an uncreated First Cause), or it's all just happenstance; matter, natural laws, etc., which exist for no reason or purpose, behaving in ways they just so happen to behave. Everything just exists, and in a way which just so happens to make our own existence an inevitability.

    I know which side I find more credible, but I understand some people have a deep-rooted, irrational disdain for it.

  3. #103
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    Default Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    Quote Originally Posted by dal9 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ^I'm still busy trying to write up an explanation of why these guys are wrong:

    So you don't have a real, on-point response, then?

  4. #104
    Can see thru wooden doors dal9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,887

    Default Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So you don't have a real, on-point response, then?
    Fine.

    1st and 2nd "Big Bangs:" OK, scientists don't know everything about this yet. At some point they probably will.
    "3rd Big Bang:" There is a widely accepted explanation that a few people ignore. It's not a "big bang."
    "4th Big Bang:" This is an update of the "animals don't have souls" idea. In fact, self-consciousness, introspection, "the pressing existential drive to ask why" is a function of intelligence, and:
    a) people vary w/r/t the extent they possess these features
    b) some animals may well possess rudimentary versions of these features
    It's not a "big bang."

  5. #105
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    Default Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    Regarding the 1st and 2nd ones, is the assumption then that it can't be a creator? Would you agree that if by some miracle it is a creator, science will eventually learn more about It?

  6. #106
    Indiana Pacers Forever Pacer Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    ya
    Posts
    3,742

    Default Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    "Aliens"
    .

    Frank Vogel says "Killer instinct, start strong, build a lead and then step on their throats."

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    In a nutshell...

    Evidence For God: The intelligibility, rationality, and comprehensibility of existence, the life-permitting fine-tuned structure of our universe, the existence of logic and mathematics, the existence of human beings, the existence of consciousness and emotions, the existence of beauty, the existence of good and evil, the genetic code, the cellular machinery which decodes and processes the genetic code, the big bang.

    "Evidence" For Atheism: Ignoring all of the above and repeating the phrase, "there's no evidence for God" until you've deluded yourself into believing it.


    Atheism remains a silly belief that's somehow become intellectually fashionable. Decades from now society will look back on the Richard Dawkins of the world and laugh at their irrational stupidity. Hell, I'm doing it now.

  8. #108
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    14,975

    Default Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    Regardless of your faith or unbelief, there has to be intelligence of some kind beyond our own. It's probably beyond our own understanding.

    As a fly knows calculus, man knows the origin of the universe. IOW, good luck.

  9. #109
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    14,975

    Default Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Lance George View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
    ― Albert Einstein

    I think Mr. Einstein had a point. Either all of existence is a miracle (a divine act by an uncreated First Cause), or it's all just happenstance; matter, natural laws, etc., which exist for no reason or purpose, behaving in ways they just so happen to behave. Everything just exists, and in a way which just so happens to make our own existence an inevitability.

    I know which side I find more credible, but I understand some people have a deep-rooted, irrational disdain for it.
    Yes, it is more about opposing religions that some humans follow than it is about thinking about whether intelligence is the most likely reason the universe exists.

  10. #110
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    Cambridge-educated high genius Stephen C. Meyer completely mops the floor with theistic evolutionists Karl Giberson.



    People like Meyer are the reason Darwinists are scared you-know-whatless. He's absolutely brilliant, highly logical, and argues solely from the physical evidence.

  11. #111

    Default Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    there is a strange tendency in this thread to re-position this debate as it it were about

    1) people who believe in God and are against evolution
    vs.
    2) people who are atheists and support the contention that evolution is established science

    when in reality,

    A) The vast majority of people who believe in God, worldwide, strongly support the contention that evolution is established science. These would include Catholics, non-fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Christians who don't live in North America, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, most Muslims, etc.

    B) The vast majority of people who strongly support the contention that evolution is established science are NOT atheists. They are often Catholic, non-fundamentalist Christian, fundamentalist Christian who doesn't live in North America, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc. or, yes, agnostic. I have certainly read online blogs by atheists who strongly support the contention that evolution is established science, but of the literally hundreds of people I know personally who are very comfortable with evolutionary theory, I know just one self-described atheist, a Russian immigrant co-worker.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  12. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    Stephen C. Meyer gave excellent, evidential reasons for why Christians should not embrace Darwin. Notice that he doesn't argue about the age of the Earth, Noah's Ark, common descent, or the (intentionally) broadly-defined term "evolution," but the simple, straightforward blind watchmaker thesis of random mutation, natural selection, and their derivatives.

    This is something I've pointed out from the beginning of this topic, yet some unfortunately dishonest people have continued to muddle the debate by using loaded words like "creationist."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •