Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's going to be at Ken Ham's Creation Museum with an audience of Young Earth Creationists. Having watched videos of Ken Ham, I doubt that it will be a "formal moderated" real debate.
I really don't think it's possible to have an actual debate on science with a Young Earth Creationist like Ken Ham. How can a rational educated person debate evolution seriously with someone who thinks the earth is only 6000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time?
I don't think Mr Nye needs to be concerned about the locale of the debate or the mindset of the audience. He will present facts that support evolutionary theory, and it will be interesting to see how Mr Ham responds. Hopefully Mr Ham will present his side with something more solid than "the Bible says so," so that Nye will have some real substance to address. I was assuming this will be an actual formal, moderated debate. I hope I'm not wrong on that, or it will be senseless blather like this thread has largely been.
I think people on both sides of the issue would do well to recognize their fallibility and open their minds. I will never be arrogant enough to proclaim there is absolutely no god who may have created the universe, nor will I shut my mind to what nature and science shows us to be possibilities.
I don't think Mr Nye needs to be concerned about the locale of the debate or the mindset of the audience. He will present facts that support evolutionary theory, and it will be interesting to see how Mr Ham responds. Hopefully Mr Ham will present his side with something more solid than "the Bible says so," so that Nye will have some real substance to address. I was assuming this will be an actual formal, moderated debate. I hope I'm not wrong on that, or it will be senseless blather like this thread has largely been.
I think people on both sides of the issue would do well to recognize their fallibility and open their minds. I will never be arrogant enough to proclaim there is absolutely no god who may have created the universe, nor will I shut my mind to what nature and science shows us to be possibilities.
I want to watch the debate to learn what lies and/or linguistic trickery Ken Ham uses to try to wheedle his to victory (and how Mr. Nye attempts to thwart those tactics). The man thinks that before the fall of man, the Tyrannosaurus Rex was a vegetarian.
I like how you guys have one retort...DISPROVE my religion, while forgetting that since you're postulating this "God hypothesis," it's up to you guys to prove it...not for Darwin to disprove it.
Of course, your answer will be that believing it is a matter of "faith," which is really talking in circles.
So please....don't waste my time.
First of all, i've read many of your posts covering a wide range of topics, and your "time" is not that valuable! Secondly, if you have ever read any of my posts on this subject, you would know better than to make such false assumptions. This only demonstrates how emmerced in your own demogoguery you are ... it's an either or thing with most of the Darwinists ... either you accept that evolution has the big answer, or you are a young earth creationist who believes in a grandfatherly like figure floating in the clouds, waving a magic wand. There seems to be no room in such narrowmindedness to consider other possibilities, which defines your belief as no less pure faith, than the fundamentalist religious position.
I merely pointed out a fact ... and that fact is, Darwinian Evolution Theory (and all of it's nuanced versions, for which there are many) DOES NOT explain the origin of living matter, and only deals with processes occurring AFTER THE FACT ! For evolution to function as it is said to function, a living, self replicating cell must first exist in order for the "evolutionary" processes to take place.
The question I have for YOU, is why are you unaware of this basic fact? If you are aware, then why are you ignoring it, by insisting that evolution somehow "disproves" something that it has no explanation for?
The bottom line is neither side can prove the origin of living matter, while religion chooses a supernatural explanation, evolution doesn't even offer one. So it seems that while evolutionists have no clue how life came into existence, you are certain how it could not have?
And you have the ignorant arrogance to cite scientific proof for someting you refuse to even address? The only evidence I see is evidence of insanity or dishonesty.
So will you FINALLY just address the all important point of the origin of living matter or not? I'm not even asking for evidence to support your theory ... I'm still waiting for one of you "monkey's uncles" to just offer one! Because until you offer a theory of your own, you cannot claim to disprove someone else's theory about a matter you refuse to address.
So just address it ... that's the first step ... then we can discuss all of that evidence that you don't have, which I believe is the root cause of your deliberate avoidance of the question!
So stop dancing and dodging ... and tell us, in evolutionary terms, how living matter came into existence? If you can't ... at least be honest enough to say so.
If you think one species directly evolves into another entirely new species, then you have a basic misunderstanding of what evolution is. Which seems to be why Creationists expect to see a duck giving birth to a crocodile or something equally silly.
Here's a video that explains the basics of evolution so even a child could understand it.
It reminds me of another recent thread where one poster was demanding to see a transitional fossil of a dinosaur/human combo. It's like trying to teach advanced calculus to someone who has yet to grasp the basics of simple addition.
So stop dancing and dodging ... and tell us, in evolutionary terms, how living matter came into existence? If you can't ... at least be honest enough to say so.
I was under the impression that what you are asking doesn't have to do with evolutionary theory, so much as abiogenesis. Abiogenesis, I believe, is the idea of life forming from nonliving matter. I think how that happened (if it even happened on our planet rather than on another planet first, and then that material falling here somehow) is still up for debate.
The bottom line is neither side can prove the origin of living matter, while religion chooses a supernatural explanation, evolution doesn't even offer one. So it seems that while evolutionists have no clue how life came into existence, you are certain how it could not have?
The young earth creationist variety of Christianity doesn't offer an explanation. If it does, explain how God built a woman from a rib.
This is just linguistic trickery. You seem to be tricking yourself, and you don't realize it, and I do not know why.
First of all, i've read many of your posts covering a wide range of topics, and your "time" is not that valuable! Secondly, if you have ever read any of my posts on this subject, you would know better than to make such false assumptions. This only demonstrates how emmerced in your own demogoguery you are ... it's an either or thing with most of the Darwinists ... either you accept that evolution has the big answer, or you are a young earth creationist who believes in a grandfatherly like figure floating in the clouds, waving a magic wand. There seems to be no room in such narrowmindedness to consider other possibilities, which defines your belief as no less pure faith, than the fundamentalist religious position.
I merely pointed out a fact ... and that fact is, Darwinian Evolution Theory (and all of it's nuanced versions, for which there are many) DOES NOT explain the origin of living matter, and only deals with processes occurring AFTER THE FACT ! For evolution to function as it is said to function, a living, self replicating cell must first exist in order for the "evolutionary" processes to take place.
The question I have for YOU, is why are you unaware of this basic fact? If you are aware, then why are you ignoring it, by insisting that evolution somehow "disproves" something that it has no explanation for?
The bottom line is neither side can prove the origin of living matter, while religion chooses a supernatural explanation, evolution doesn't even offer one. So it seems that while evolutionists have no clue how life came into existence, you are certain how it could not have?
And you have the ignorant arrogance to cite scientific proof for someting you refuse to even address? The only evidence I see is evidence of insanity or dishonesty.
So will you FINALLY just address the all important point of the origin of living matter or not? I'm not even asking for evidence to support your theory ... I'm still waiting for one of you "monkey's uncles" to just offer one! Because until you offer a theory of your own, you cannot claim to disprove someone else's theory about a matter you refuse to address.
So just address it ... that's the first step ... then we can discuss all of that evidence that you don't have, which I believe is the root cause of your deliberate avoidance of the question!
So stop dancing and dodging ... and tell us, in evolutionary terms, how living matter came into existence? If you can't ... at least be honest enough to say so.
I don't know why you keep posting the same thing over and over again and keep claiming no-one has answered you or that there aren't scientific explanations for the origin of life on earth. You keep claiming the Theory of Evolution must explain the origin of life rather than the evolution of life which it is meant to explain. Do you also expect the Theory of Gravitation to explain the origin of the Universe or would you look at the Big Bang Theory? It's like saying that the Theory of Gravitation is crap because it doesn't attempt to explain the origins of the Universe.
Here are the scientific explanations for the origins of life on earth:
I don't know why you keep posting the same thing over and over again and keep claiming no-one has answered you or that there aren't scientific explanations for the origin of life on earth. You keep claiming the Theory of Evolution must explain the origin of life rather than the evolution of life which it is meant to explain.
I keep bringing it up, because you and your ilk refuse to address the point.
Now, save the youtube videos ... I want YOUR explanation ... the constant rhetoric about how evolution disproves creation MUST offer the scientifically supported theory of how living matter came into existence, in order to disprove the idea that living matter was created supernaturally.
If, as the arrogant attitude might suggest, evolution so thoroughly disproves creation with scientifically sound evidence, you ought to be able to give me a straight answer to this very fundamental question.
And, please don't continue to misrepresent my position by assuming. I am not promoting "creation" .... I'm just asking you, the evolutionist, your alternative explanation for what you continue to insist disproves creation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
