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.
For Ken Ham, the truth of (his interpretation of) the Bible is axiomatic. The Bible isn't evidence, it's an axiom. It would be like asking a mathematician, "What would it take to convince you that a triangle has four sides?" Ken Ham's position is, in its own goofy way, logically consistent and irrefutable.
I do agree with this actually. Although I would compare it to a child believing his dad can do no wrong. It's logical only to the child, and from his perspective.
As I have PLAINLY pointed out, I am not saying that what I or others have seen were alien craft. If I WERE saying that, it would be a perfectly reasonable position because the observed disks were performing maneuvers 50 years ago that no known technology can perform today and that, by the known laws of physics, would generate forces that no human being could survive. I happen to be open to a variety of explanations. But the explanation that "they are all secret military craft" is essentially the Young Earth Creationism of ufology.
I'm at a loss of words for this, as this could only be argued with some illogical, I don't see the point. Maybe someone else will.
Creationism doesn't posit that humans got here magically. It posits that we were created by a higher intelligence. The thinking of creationists is no more "magical" (talk about an over-used buzz word!) than that of non-creationists. I wouldn't accuse the High Priests of Scientism who regard the Theory of Evolution as gospel of engaging in "magical" thinking, but I would certainly characterize their thinking as being in large measure "wishful" thinking motivated by a strong animus toward religion in general and the notion of a creator in particular.
You are correct that in the realm of mythology scientific inquiry is useless. You can't test it, you can't see it, hear it or touch it. I also agree that the term magic was misused by me, seeing magic today consist of tricks that can be explained. I also agree that wishful thinking falls into said category.
I find your reference to "you people" somewhat telling.
Somewhat telling of what? That I feel at odds? That I feel like constantly smacking my forehead in my attempts to explain anything logical? I actually corrected this in my posts, but you are very quick. I changed it because I can not gather by your posts who you are representing here, and why. Why don't you tell us? Do you believe in creation, or are you just picking a side for entertainment?
Last edited by PoppySead; 02-06-2014 at 08:37 AM..
So basically, you still have no evidence, and still just a lot of rhetoric with some added wishful thinking thrown in. Got it.
I'm laughing at you using the (Christian Creationist) Discovery Institute to try to deflect away from their own Wedge Strategy document. At least the earlier version of "Creation Scientists" had the courage of their religious convictions. These cowardly IDers deny and hide their faith so they can pretend what they are selling is "science". All ID is, is Creationism with a very thin veneer of a few 'sciency sounding' nonsense ideas like irreducible complexity.
I also see him doing a poor job of representing if he doesn't hold their view of creationism because without this he is representing creationism with semi - logic when conviction is all they really have.
It's best left to either side, which this debate with Ham and Nye was based on. Science or Creation. If you aren't on either side, you have no need for argument. IMO. This debate wasn't "We are the world, let's join and make a better place" it's pick a side. We can't do both. Science and creation don't go hand in hand as much as Ham would like it to.
Our society has largely picked science, and based all importance on proof. The only left over God based theory is personal belief. I'll agree to that, keep your beliefs personal. People have the freedom to do this. If they want to personally believe God helped them win the super bowl, that's their choice. I don't have to believe it, nor do I have to teach it to my children. Thankfully.
What is your society? The substantial majority of Americans are Christians and thus creationists, and the vast majority of people worldwide are theists. If you're living on another planet, I'd love to hear about it.
Quote:
and based all importance on proof.
No, based on evidence -- just as creationists base their position on evidence. There is no "proof" of creationism or non-creationism and likely never will be.
Quote:
The only left over God based theory is personal belief. I'll agree to that, keep your beliefs personal. People have the freedom to do this. If they want to personally believe God helped them win the super bowl, that's their choice. I don't have to believe it, nor do I have to teach it to my children.
No, many folks' "God theory," including mine, is quite substantially evidence-based. You are either not familiar with that evidence or (hopefully) have seriously examined it and found it insufficient, which is certainly your right. You simply don't like Christian proselytizing, which unfortunately is mandated by the Great Commission and is seen by many Christians as their only mission in life. I'm not a fan of in-your-face proselytizing either, but neither am I a fan of attempts to stifle it in the name of Science -- which, as I have said, is really a political agenda parading under the banner of "Science" (the quotation marks signifying "having little or nothing to do with real Science").
What is your society? The substantial majority of Americans are Christians and thus creationists, and the vast majority of people worldwide are theists. If you're living on another planet, I'd love to hear about it.
Don't lump all Theist into creationists. I have quite a few Theists friends and they don't believe the earth was created 6000 years ago. They have their own theories, and realize that guessing is the best we all can do at this point. You are apples and oranges.
No, based on evidence -- just as creationists base their position on evidence. There is no "proof" of creationism or non-creationism and likely never will be. We only differ on the latter. As I am free to think and pursue the "will be"
No, many folks' "God theory," including mine, is quite substantially evidence-based. You are either not familiar with that evidence or (hopefully) have seriously examined it and found it insufficient, which is certainly your right. You simply don't like Christian proselytizing, which unfortunately is mandated by the Great Commission and is seen by many Christians as their only mission in life. I'm not a fan of in-your-face proselytizing either, but neither am I a fan of attempts to stifle it in the name of Science -- which, as I have said, is really a political agenda parading under the banner of "Science" (the quotation marks signifying "having little or nothing to do with real Science").
Conspiracy theories aside, evidence would have the ability to be proven by anyone. It would have to be held by everyone. There is no gray there, it's black or white. We use science to fly planes, predict weather, operate on people, build buildings, put on make up, drink coffee, heat our homes, cool our homes, etc, etc, obviously the list is to long to state.
It's not that some do not like the story of creationism, it's dreamy, what's not to like. But, we can't apply it. So we don't! Period, no mystery about it. There is no argument here. There is no political agenda. It's just what people trust, and as you've stated, it's what Theists trust as well. There are to many Theists here on earth that back science as their choice daily to assume they would pick Gods word over science. Just to many. They've had that choice for a long time and haven't taken it.
I missed the debate. Question: Did Bill Nye just dispute "young earth" creationism, or did he argue against the existence of any creator?
He just disputed Ken Ham's Young Earth Creationism. In fact, as part of his argument, he said that there are billions of people who are religious who don't believe in a 6000 year old earth and a global flood.
Like I was saying earlier, Nye won the debate. I believe everyone including creationists knew he would simply because Ham wasn't going to introduce evidence for the creation model. Answers in Genesis isn't about providing evidence, but trying to convince christians of the literal interpretation of Genesis. Nye challenges us creationists that if we have evidence, that he would love for us to share it, and that is really what should matter in the long run. The only point that Nye rejects, but shouldn't, are the statements Ham make concerning science in relation to the distant past. There is a great chance that there are things which were observable at one point, but are no longer observable. I mentioned a couple of examples using astronomy.
Now here at home (on the earth), we can examine things to a much better extent. All the lines of data does point to theories like evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life. Of course evolution definitely happens. Yet is it to the point of common ancestry? Different lines of study may point in that direction, but there could be another explanation as well. Yet some problems with common ancestry is the emergence of complex life only hundreds of millions of years ago. There are no fossils of the stages between single cell organisms and the fossils we find in cambrian rock. (Assuming the dating methods are correct) Listen, if bacteria or other single cell organisms can be fossilized, then whatever is between the single-cell organism and complex life could be fossilized as well. I don't believe we have those kind of fossils. Also concerning transitional fossils between complex life, the truth is I perhaps could find a living animal today, that could appear as a transitional creature between two more creatures living today. So when Bill Nye talked about finding Tiktaalik, it may not be as convincing as it might seem. Perhaps I can find an animal today that has similar features as Tiktaalik, in that I could say it was a transitional form between fish and frogs. By the way, we don't necessarily know how Tiktaalik functioned. How it used it's body. In other words the idea of it being transitional, would imply perhaps it can do a little bit of both of what today's creatures do individually. Also secondly, if I were to discover Tiktaalik living today, I'm told that wouldn't disprove common descent evolution. (Just like if I were to find a living dinosaur)
Ultimately, all evidence we have does point toward common descent, but there are gaps there. (The Cambrian Explosion, assuming how extinct animals lived by their fossils, and the fossil record being incomplete itself) The main evidence we have for common descent is genetics. Yet like that old quote goes, "The night is still young"! Our knowledge of genetics is still increasing, and we may stumble across something in DNA that could separate life into distinct classes of different common ancestors. We are still mapping out genomes of creatures across the board, and still studying the genomes we have mapped out. Which includes us.
If you want a real young earth view, I have a very intelligent friend who asks how we can know that we and the universe didn't spring into existence .001 nanoseconds ago, with all of our "memories" implanted by the creator of the software that comprises the universe? Well, we can't know, and thus I guess Really Young Earth Creationism is in some sense a rational belief system.
I'm not sure how rational a belief it is if it requires you to ditch rationality to believe it. If one is claiming that the universe changes from instant to instant at the whims of an undetectable all-powerful arbitrary being, then you're giving up any hope of being able to understand anything. All you can reasonably say is "things are as they are, or at least I've been tricked into believing they are as I believe they are". That's not a particularly strong grounding for making "rational" claims.
It is amazing the lengths some people will go to in order to keep comfortable feeling but obviously wrong beliefs intact.
Here's a Christian disowning Ham, who he clearly believes lost the debate. He goes on about how he's tired of what he sees as a false choice between Nye's materialism and what he calls Ham's "selective literalism", but never clearly says what the third alternative is. Some sort of less literal, more liberal approach to scriptures, apparently. Interesting, though, because Ham was this guy's childhood hero.
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.
I changed it because I can not gather by your posts who you are representing here, and why. Why don't you tell us? Do you believe in creation, or are you just picking a side for entertainment?
