Started By
Message

re: Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:06 am to
Posted by BigEdLSU
All around the south
Member since Sep 2010
20396 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:06 am to
I think his argument is not that none of that exists. It is that life, as we see it now, was guided along this course by God as opposed to random chance.
Posted by SomeTigerFan
Over there
Member since Oct 2012
3232 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:09 am to
Damn, 26 pages; legit game thread
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
29103 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:12 am to
quote:

Why can't it be D?

D - God created and enlightened man so that in this day and age science and creation may merge.

The Hebrew doesn't equate time to the "days" of creation. I don't believe that was a human 6 day period.

It's not about time, it's about generations of species. We have fossils of the precursors to modern man. Were they prototypes? Surely God didn't screw up the first few models.

quote:

Just take the 20 minutes to watch the Schroeder "science of God" lecture.
If this guy is anything like the "miracle of sevens" guy, I'd rather not.
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
29103 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:15 am to
quote:

I think his argument is not that none of that exists. It is that life, as we see it now, was guided along this course by God as opposed to random chance.

He says that there is no evidence of macroevolution at all. None. Zero. Nada.
Posted by BigEdLSU
All around the south
Member since Sep 2010
20396 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:16 am to
Who are you or I to question how it was done? It WAS done.

Surely we do not debate whether or not life was sparked.

Genesis described periods of chaos and restored order as opposed to evening and morning for the period of creation.

A lot of debate goes on over the English translation. Sometimes the true meaning is much better understood in Hebrew.

He is an American and Israeli citizen who lectures about the true root meaning of the words.
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
29103 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:19 am to
quote:

Who are you or I to question how it was done?
Well, I am a human being who questions his own existence and origins. And we have many of the answers.
Posted by BigEdLSU
All around the south
Member since Sep 2010
20396 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:21 am to
Maybe I could have worded that better.

Who are we to say what Gods method of creation would have been? It could easily have been a 14 billion year process.
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
29103 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:38 am to
quote:

Who are we to say what Gods method of creation would have been? It could easily have been a 14 billion year process.

And that's fine if you believe that, as long as you understand that there is no evidence to support it. If you believe that he created all, including the evidence we have, then it is a pretty messed up situation that he gave us intelligence and truckloads of evidence that says he does not exist, and only a book of stories written by men as evidence that he does.
Posted by BigEdLSU
All around the south
Member since Sep 2010
20396 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:44 am to
Au contraire

God is supernatural. He does things beyond the physical realm that we can observe with our five senses.

He does unobservable things.

It doesn't change my faith one bit and honestly it doesn't matter to me how long creation lasted.

God gave us free will. That's the difference between us an angels. But at the same time, we are incapable or grasping the entire picture.

It's like a toddler trying to outsmart their father. Good luck with that.
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
29103 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 10:58 am to
quote:

It's like a toddler trying to outsmart their father.

Or, more accurately, it's like a toddler desperately wanting his father to come and play with him, but instead all he does is send letters telling him things that are contrary to what the world he lives in says.
Posted by BigEdLSU
All around the south
Member since Sep 2010
20396 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 11:04 am to
Is that really how you feel bro? I felt that way for a long time too.

God will interact with you daily but only in response to faith. Took me a long time to give it a legit chance and was blown away once I did.
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
29103 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 11:26 am to
quote:

Is that really how you feel bro? I felt that way for a long time too.

God will interact with you daily but only in response to faith. Took me a long time to give it a legit chance and was blown away once I did.

I wasn't describing how I feel, I was describing the impression I get from various religions.

I'm not upset about the way the world works. When I die, I'm dead. If there is a god and an afterlife, then I would hope that being a good person while I'm alive is all that matters. It is impossible for me to accept that having faith that is contrary to any and all perceived reality is really all that matters. That is not just. That is a twisted game in which the rules are stacked against you.
Posted by GeauxTigerTM
Member since Sep 2006
30596 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 11:40 am to
quote:

God is supernatural. He does things beyond the physical realm that we can observe with our five senses.

He does unobservable things.


Any time someone plays this card, I'm reminded of this piece from Carl Sagan. He wrote it specifically about alien abduction, but it works perfectly ell here.

quote:

The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
Posted by BigEdLSU
All around the south
Member since Sep 2010
20396 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 11:40 am to
The rules are definately stacked against us because we are born with sin.

I've seen a lot of people criticize a cruel God in the old testament but one must consider sin and punishment.

One does not face the scales of judgement one day where good deeds are weighed against the bad.

God rewards faith. Both in this life and the next.

Life isn't fair on this world.
Posted by prince of fools
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2009
1130 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 11:51 am to
BUT BUT IF GOD'S WORD ISNT TRU HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN SUNSETS??
Posted by DestrehanTiger
Houston, TX by way of Louisiana
Member since Nov 2005
13397 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 11:51 am to
quote:


One does not face the scales of judgement one day where good deeds are weighed against the bad.

God rewards faith. Both in this life and the next.

Life isn't fair on this world.


How can you go from one post claiming we can't question how or why god does things to stating in such a confident way that you know how god judges? This is one of my huge problems with the argument for faith. Believers will preach about how god wants humans to behave, but when their faith is questioned by logical questions, they respond that god is not bound by lowly human logic.
Posted by chunk
UNDER YOUR BED
Member since Jan 2007
5126 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:01 pm to
Precambrian explosion in relation to evolution is interesting
Posted by GeauxTigerTM
Member since Sep 2006
30596 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:07 pm to
quote:

Precambrian explosion in relation to evolution is interesting


It's all interesting...but what are you suggesting here?
Posted by BigEdLSU
All around the south
Member since Sep 2010
20396 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:08 pm to
What I meant, and did my best to convey, is that if creation took 14 billion years or two nanoseconds, who cares?

Who are we as humans to say which of those two options were correct.

Sometimes I don't do a great job articulating myself.
This post was edited on 2/5/14 at 12:09 pm
Posted by GeauxTigerTM
Member since Sep 2006
30596 posts
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:14 pm to
quote:

What I meant, and did my best to convey, is that if creation took 14 billion years or two nanoseconds, who cares?


It actually does matter if you care at all about our ability to deal with the natural world. If our techniques of determining the age of the earth, for instance, can be off by as much as 4.6 billion years (4.6 billion versus the Young Earth suggestion of 10,000 or so), then there is literally no point at all doing science of any kind. If we understand chemistry and physics that poorly, we could not have made even some of the simplest advances we have over the past 100 years.

It actually does matter...a great deal.

quote:

Who are we as humans to say which of those two options were correct.


Who else would?

quote:


Sometimes I don't do a great job articulating myself.



It's not your fault...you're simply arguing a terrible case.
Jump to page
Page First 24 25 26 27 28 ... 31
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 26 of 31Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram