How Many Christians Will Lose Their Faith After Bill Nye Trounces Ken Ham?

[strappinglad]

Does Dawkins consider the idea that these supposed god-like creatures could have easily organized matter and "created" another earth ?

Then again evolution could take a turn and only bacteria would exist on earth in another 100 million years. I personally hope to find out in less than 30 years.....or not.

Edited January 16, 2014 by strappinglad

[Robert F. Smith]

Does Dawkins consider the idea that these supposed god-like creatures could have easily organized matter and "created" another earth ?

.........................................   

I don't know, but why not?

 

Humanists are great believers in life on other planets, and love to talk about exo-planets where sentient life may be well ahead of us because they have been there a million years longer than us.

 

Isaac Asimov even wrote a story about "The Gods Themselves," about just such an advanced civilization.

[rameumptom]

Bill Nye (2nd to left) on the Big Bang Theory.

 

[rameumptom]

I tend to believe that eventually evolutionary theory will fail as more evidence is showing the trend to believe in intelligent design. This debate will be interesting, don't care who wins or whatever there. No Christian will lose faith over this debate.

 

Rob, I understand many people believe in an Intelligent Design hypothesis. The problem is, there is no evidence available for an Intelligent Design hypothesis. We cannot do experiments that can show evidence for it, so it is not a scientific concept. And even IF there was evidence for ID that we could find, that does not mean it would negate evolution. It would only show that God designed life using evolution.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob, I understand many people believe in an Intelligent Design hypothesis. The problem is, there is no evidence available for an Intelligent Design hypothesis. We cannot do experiments that can show evidence for it, so it is not a scientific concept. And even IF there was evidence for ID that we could find, that does not mean it would negate evolution. It would only show that God designed life using evolution.

We can do experiments to find out about intelligent design. They do it in the lab all the time- intelligent designers manipulating genetic code. The big question isn't so much about evolution but rather if there is a God, force, entity, law, etc, of intelligence that designed or guided life into existence. There are scientists who believe in evolution and intelligent design. The problem is where or if this intelligence factor is required for life to exist and be complex.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

BIll Nye couldn't trounce a frosted corn shard. And I am not talking about creationism as I think it is quite flawed.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Freedom]

We can do experiments to find out about intelligent design. They do it in the lab all the time- intelligent designers manipulating genetic code. The big question isn't so much about evolution but rather if there is a God, force, entity, law, etc, of intelligence that designed or guided life into existence. There are scientists who believe in evolution and intelligent design. The problem is where or if this intelligence factor is required for life to exist and be complex.

This is is like saying genetically modified corn proves that plants do not grow naturally in the wild. You have no evidence at all to support your beliefs. Your own links contradict your position.  

[Alan]

I saw a debate some time ago between Australian creation scientist John MacKay and noted evolutionary scientist (and evangelical athiest) Richard Dawkins. MacKay absolutely slaughtered him! Dawkins was made to look ridiculous.

Ever since then, Dawkins has refused to debate creation scientists.

He says he'll only debate the clergy.

[Rob Osborn]

This is is like saying genetically modified corn proves that plants do not grow naturally in the wild. You have no evidence at all to support your beliefs. Your own links contradict your position.

Ridiculous. Show me where life can start without intelligent scientists guiding it in a lab. You have no evidence.

[danielwoods]

I saw a debate some time ago between Australian creation scientist John MacKay and noted evolutionary scientist (and evangelical athiest) Richard Dawkins. MacKay absolutely slaughtered him! Dawkins was made to look ridiculous.

Ever since then, Dawkins has refused to debate creation scientists.

He says he'll only debate the clergy.

 

How can this be? If evolution is so supported by the evidence? 

[Freedom]

I saw a debate some time ago between Australian creation scientist John MacKay and noted evolutionary scientist (and evangelical athiest) Richard Dawkins. MacKay absolutely slaughtered him! Dawkins was made to look ridiculous.

Ever since then, Dawkins has refused to debate creation scientists.

He says he'll only debate the clergy.

I just watched this video again - from my perspective MacKay came of as a complete imbecile. He uses pseudoscience and continually misrepresented Dawkins' position. MacKay requently refers to the science of dating fossils as a philosophy which is complete garbage. Anything that supports his argument is scientific fact, anything that contradicts him (which is 99% of the science) is a 'philosophy' and that is where his arguments rest. It is impossible to debate with someone who just pretends all the evidence does not exist. 

[Freedom]

Ridiculous. Show me where life can start without intelligent scientists guiding it in a lab. You have no evidence.

There you go again confusing the origin of life with evolution. No lab has ever created life. Animals pre-produce all the time without the help of some doctor. 

[strappinglad]

Ken Ham will have Bill Nye for breakfast..... or is that the other way around?

[thesometimesaint]

Ridiculous. Show me where life can start without intelligent scientists guiding it in a lab. You have no evidence.

[Rob Osborn]

You guys keep saying the evolution of life has nothing to do with how life first evolved but this is a lie. Let me post again-

" Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from." http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01

Lets get this fact straight- evolutionary theory includes how life first evolved. I guess until we can agree on this point, of the which every major scientific organization agrees upon, we are not going to get anywhere. Evolutionary theory states all life share a common ancestor. If this is true then that one common ancestor must too have evolved from chemical evolution.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ken Ham will have Bill Nye for breakfast..... or is that the other way around?

If there is breakfast will there be ham? Maybe Forsted Corn Shards?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You guys keep saying the evolution of life has nothing to do with how life first evolved but this is a lie. Let me post again-

" Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from." http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01

Lets get this fact straight- evolutionary theory includes how life first evolved. I guess until we can agree on this point, of the which every major scientific organization agrees upon, we are not going to get anywhere. Evolutionary theory states all life share a common ancestor. If this is true then that one common ancestor must too have evolved from chemical evolution.

Everytime these debates comes up it is funny how we talk of evolution and abiogensis being different things. Which they are, but what ends up happening everytime is that the lines get blurred that it ends up being the same thing.

 

Evolution, I think in all its forms and how it is taught, is porbably what happens. I have no issues with it. At the same time I wouldn't be surpirsed if some of it is wrong and later proven to be so. However Abiogensis is a crock and that is something I reject.

[Avatar4321]

Ill be surprised if anyone watches the debate.

[thesometimesaint]

You guys keep saying the evolution of life has nothing to do with how life first evolved but this is a lie. Let me post again-

" Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from." http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01

Lets get this fact straight- evolutionary theory includes how life first evolved. I guess until we can agree on this point, of the which every major scientific organization agrees upon, we are not going to get anywhere. Evolutionary theory states all life share a common ancestor. If this is true then that one common ancestor must too have evolved from chemical evolution.

 

Abiogenesis and Evolution are not the same thing. They are different but related fields.

http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Evolution_and_Abiogenesis.html

 

That is like saying that pyromaniacs and arson investigation squads are the same because they both study fire.

[Tacenda]

Going to watch a "Bill Nye the Science Guy" today with 5th graders, this day has been horrible.  But luckily during these videos they calm down and listen. 

[Freedom]

You guys keep saying the evolution of life has nothing to do with how life first evolved but this is a lie. Let me post again-

" Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from." http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01

Lets get this fact straight- evolutionary theory includes how life first evolved. I guess until we can agree on this point, of the which every major scientific organization agrees upon, we are not going to get anywhere. Evolutionary theory states all life share a common ancestor. If this is true then that one common ancestor must too have evolved from chemical evolution.

You need to take English lessons, which is perhaps one of your stumbling blocks. Something evolves after it already exists. Here is a way to help you understand how to read your quote: "in the mormon religion, archaeology is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where the Book of Mormon took place'. So this means that the mormon religion includes archaeology? No, it just means that it is of interest. You are either being intentionally ignorant or you are a creationist. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just playing with us and pretending to be dumb. . 

[Rob Osborn]

You need to take English lessons, which is perhaps one of your stumbling blocks. Something evolves after it already exists. Here is a way to help you understand how to read your quote: "in the mormon religion, archaeology is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where the Book of Mormon took place'. So this means that the mormon religion includes archaeology? No, it just means that it is of interest. You are either being intentionally ignorant or you are a creationist. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just playing with us and pretending to be dumb. . 

Well, here is some "english" for you then-

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chemical+evolution

 

Is chemical evolution vital to evolutionary theory? (hint-YES YES YES)

[thesometimesaint]

Well, here is some "english" for you then-

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chemical+evolution

 

Is chemical evolution vital to evolutionary theory? (hint-YES YES YES)

 

Last I looked chemistry in particular organic chemistry is essential to life as we know it. Without chemicals there is nothing of substance. IE; The water that composes some 60% of your body is two chemicals Hydrogen and Oxygen.

 

SEE http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/f/blbodyelements.htm

[Freedom]

Well, here is some "english" for you then-

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chemical+evolution

 

Is chemical evolution vital to evolutionary theory? (hint-YES YES YES)

Ok, I was hoping that you were just pretending to dumb. Concrete is vital to the church because we use it to build buildings. We need concrete before we build a wooden structure as a foundation. Does this mean concrete and wood or concrete and the church are the same thing? (hint - NO NO NO). 

[toon]

looks like the Bill Nye guy was on the in 90's but that's when I discovered Pepsi, girls, meat sticks from 7-11 and Green day

 

Credibility lost.