Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham Debate

[steven lloyd]

There is evidence to support the theory of the ever expanding universe and there is evidence to support the Big Bang theory...enough that most of the scientific world believe it to be true...but no, there is no solid proof of it.

And more recent evidence to suggest the universe is not expanding ...

http://phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologist-universe.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/roge ... r-all.html

and may, in fact, be shrinking ...

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... osmos.html

[steven lloyd]

... , a scientific theory can't be proven per se, but so much evidence can accumulate in its favor that we get really confident in it. For example, There have been large numbers of experimental and observational tests of Einstein's theory of relativity. These tests have all agreed with the predictions of the theory.

Another example would be the scientific theory of evolution. There is certainly enough evidence available for most people, including myself, to be quite comfortable with the theory as an explanation of how life and diverse species evolved (not started), but correctly referring to the explanation as a theory certainly puts some people’s knickers in a knot.

[JLives]

Because the general population is scientifically illiterate and believes theory means guess. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson says "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

[janalta]

On another note, I also think you may have missed the fact that Bill Nye reiterated several times that religion and evolution are not opposites. They are different subjects. Many people are both religious and evolutionists. Most atheists, though not all, subscribe to evolution, but that is mostly because the most dominant counter-argument involves a creator.

That fact is not lost on me. I am well aware that science and religion are completely different subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

To truly call one's self a Christian evolutionist however is hypocrisy at it's best. Your bible excludes the possibility.

Many Atheists and Agnostics subscribe to the theory of evolution simply because of the mass quantities of evidence available to support it.
There is no other dominant counter-argument. There is no other theory with any viable evidence to back it up.

[

[janalta]

In the true spirit of Christianity, according to the teachings of Jesus....instead of helping the poor, the needy, the hungry - instead of building schools, assisting third world countries, fighting disease....go forth and spend more than $100 million on a Christian themed Creation amusement park.

Disgusting.

http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-cultu ... n-kentucky

[Glacier]

That fact is not lost on me. I am well aware that science and religion are completely different subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

To truly call one's self a Christian evolutionist however is hypocrisy at it's best. Your bible excludes the possibility.

You radical leftists don't seem to understand that the bible is not a science book. No where in the Bible does it offer any sort of scientific insight that doesn't fit within the context for which each passage was written. It only makes broad statements such as "god created the heavens and the earth" but it does not get into the science of exactly how this was accomplished.

[janalta]

You radical leftists don't seem to understand that the bible is not a science book. No where in the Bible does it offer any sort of scientific insight that doesn't fit within the context for which each passage was written. It only makes broad statements such as "god created the heavens and the earth" but it does not get into the science of exactly how this was accomplished.

Radical leftists ?? Hahaha. Wow.
Of course anyone who disagrees with your religious views must be a radical leftist.
( even though the term is defined as a politic view, and this has nothing to do with politics )

I understand very well that the Bible is not a science book.
The bible is not a history book.
The bible is not the written word of God.
The bible is simply a collection of stories, second hand accounts and tales which tried to explain events and circumstances that society did not yet understand, retold for centuries, passed on from one generation to the next, just as any other religion in history.

[fluffy]

The bible is simply a collection of stories, second hand accounts and tales which tried to explain events and circumstances that society did not yet understand, retold for centuries, passed on from one generation to the next, just as any other religion in history.

There is also a school of thought that says the bible is neither an account or an explanation of any type, nor was it ever meant to be. It is suggested that the bible is a collection of metaphorical and fictitious parables meant to convey a moral message, nothing more.

Either way, the question of what happened at the very beginning has yet to be answered with any degree of surety by anyone and so, as such, there can be no right or wrong answers at this point in time. The best we have is theory and guesswork, and any arguments either way can be reduced to "my guess is better than your guess", but in the end it's still all guesses.

[Hmmm]

The bible is simply a collection of stories, second hand accounts and tales which tried to explain events and circumstances that society did not yet understand, retold for centuries, passed on from one generation to the next, just as any other religion in history.

Spoken like a person who has never read, studied it or tried to understand it. You're great at repeating what many others had said. The problem is, they too have never read it either.

At the very least the Bible is far more than you said, but it would take someone time to read and study it before YOU would know that. Carry on

[janalta]

Spoken like a person who has never read, studied it or tried to understand it. You're great at repeating what many others had said. The problem is, they too have never read it either.

At the very least the Bible is far more than you said, but it would take someone time to read and study it before YOU would know that. Carry on

Sorry for messing with your generalized assumptions, but I have read the bible.
I understand perfectly what it says and why it was written.
It contains many decent moral lessons and many primitive superstitions that attempt to explain natural phenomenon in a period of time when scientific discovery was unheard of.
It contains many of the same line of stories as every other ancient culture throughout history - Romans, Greeks, Vikings, Africans, Native Americans, Mayans, Muslims....all cultures have had their gods and their myths to explain a world that they did not understand.
The bible is no different. No better. No worse. No more factual or accurate.

Just because someone does not believe in your religion does not make them either ignorant nor uneducated.
I am not repeating what anyone has said - which is a rather ironic statement when it comes from someone of any religious faith - I am perfectly capable of reading, analyzing and understanding on my own, and thus coming up with my own conclusions.

[fluffy]

At the very least the Bible is far more than you said, but it would take someone time to read and study it before YOU would know that. Carry on

Despite the depth of thought and intention that went into its authorship, I am of the "it's just a book" camp. The idea of other-than-human authorship is a little to far out-there for me to get on board with, an view borne out by the inconsistency of the moral messages it seeks to convey. That's not to say that there aren't some good messages in the bible, but to use it as any sort of proof of a divine creation theory just doesn't wash.

[Hmmm]

I

Just because someone does not believe in your religion does not make them either ignorant nor uneducated.
I am not repeating what anyone has said - which is a rather ironic statement when it comes from someone of any religious faith - I am perfectly capable of reading, analyzing and understanding on my own, and thus coming up with my own conclusions.

You may have read some of it but your generalization is way off so what else am I to think? I know for a fact most people criticize the bible and never have read it and you give an overview that is completely incorrect. What you said is exactly what others say.

[steven lloyd]

One would think that anyone who has read and “studied” the Bible would have noted the acknowledgement in the preface that the Book does, indeed, contain a collection of stories originally handed down from generation to generation by oral tradition.

[1nick]

So...does anyone here believe god moulded human men out of dirt and a woman out of a rib?

[janalta]

You may have read some of it but your generalization is way off so what else am I to think? I know for a fact most people criticize the bible and never have read it and you give an overview that is completely incorrect. What you said is exactly what others say.

Really ?
I give an overview of MY opinion of the bible and that is completely incorrect because....it differs from what you believe it says and stands for.
Ironically, what YOU say is also exactly what most other Christians say, so one must then conclude that your interpretation is based not on a true understanding of the bible, but more so on what every other Christians has said before you and what you've been taught to think and believe.
After all, what else am I to think ?