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

[toon]

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

 

Green Day and Ham.

[Duncan]

Credibility lost.

 

 

were you into Tripping Daisy perhaps?!

[The Nehor]

Debates like this just harden what people already believe.

 

The earth is flat, man is a non-evolved monkey upgraded by the grays from Beta Centauri, and the earth's construction was contracted out by mice to an independent firm on Magrathea who built it to determine the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

 

There, debate closed.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Not so, rameumptom.

Since there is no direct evidence for the spontaneous generation of life, and since it has never been replicated, one is hard put to explain the existence of DNA and biological life.  Except as the product of intelligent design.  That is the way real science proceeds.

 

This is where Prof Dawkins' admission that advanced sentient beings are very likely in our universe comes into play. Just as when we try to explain the origin of an ordinary wristwatch, so with far more advanced biological simulacra, it does no good and makes no sense to attribute them to chance or spontaneous generation.  The wristwatch implies a watchmaker.

 

Indeed, atheist scientists like Fred Hoyle and his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe have used math and astrophysics to show the likelihood that advanced sentient beings created life on Earth.  This is simply common sense and logic to a humanist who rejects miraculous explanations.  Mormons should have no quarrel with this naturalistic approach.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thank you for that, sometimesaint.  I enjoyed the theoretical review which Dr. Szostak provided, along with his mockery of the Creationist position (actually creationist scientists are not so silly, which is why Prof Dawkins fears to debate them), along with his repeated jabs at the supernatural.

 

Szostak ought to have been more honest in making it plain that his theoretical construct of how life might have come about is purely theoretical, and has never been accomplished in a lab.  However, it is quite possible that someday sentient beings here on Earth will employ just such a technique to design and create life, i.e., act as intelligent designers.  It is also very likely that sentient beings far in advance of us have long since designed and created life in various forms throughout the universe.  Mormons should have no problem with such suggestions, nor should they take umbrage at mockery of the supernatural.

[Rob Osborn]

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).

So please answer why these scientists say that the origins of life is part of evolution-

"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/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

Science Channel

"The theory of evolution seeks to explain the origin of life on Earth and the origin of different species. Despite the fact that most of the scientific community has regarded it as fact for more than a century, a large number of people still dispute the theory of evolution, and various public controversies have resulted from this disagreement."

"According to evolutionary theory, life began billions of years ago, when a group of chemicals inadvertently organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This tiny molecule gave rise to everything that has ever lived on the planet. Different and more complex organisms grew from this simple beginning through mutation of DNA and natural selection." http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/what-is-theory-of-evolution

" Franklin Harold ranks the mystery of life's origin as the most consequential facing science today (Harold 2001, 235). Michael Ruse claims that it is essential to incorporate origin of life resarch into Darwinism since it is a necessary condition for a scientifically and philosophically adequate definition of life (Ruse 2008, 101)."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life/

It would be nice if you at least admitted that evolutionary theory is coupled with and part of how life first evolved.

[strappinglad]

I seem to be missing something in the "super evolved humans/creatures bringing life to earth " logic.

Why, once life had been created and evolved to the present diversity, would any intelligent being from then on always start over from the beginning? We current humans are capable of storing seeds of all kinds and soon cells/DNA of most life be it plant or animal. What is the point of all this rehashing of evolution for each creative project and the waiting of billions of years?

At least the Cambrian explosion is better answered by transplantation than serendipity.

[Robert F. Smith]

I seem to be missing something in the "super evolved humans/creatures bringing life to earth " logic.

Why, once life had been created and evolved to the present diversity, would any intelligent being from then on always start over from the beginning? We current humans are capable of storing seeds of all kinds and soon cells/DNA of most life be it plant or animal. What is the point of all this rehashing of evolution for each creative project and the waiting of billions of years?

At least the Cambrian explosion is better answered by transplantation than serendipity.

Yes, and that is precisely what LDS theology contemplates -- transmission from elsewhere.

 

But, if we are to take the purely humanist, atheist POV, life might be invented or designed many times throughout the universe by advanced beings not in contact with one another.

[The Nehor]

But, if we are to take the purely humanist, atheist POV, life might be invented or designed many times throughout the universe by advanced beings not in contact with one another.

 

True but the odds seem low to me. It just pushes the birth of life further back and hits the problem that it is less likely to have occurred in the past. The Universe is not stable in what elements it is made of. As time goes on more heavy elements are formed in Red Giants (still pretty light elements) and supernovae (most of the periodic table). Unless the originating life is VERY different it needs heavier elements to exist making it less likely to form in the earlier universe where those elements were rarer or (if you go back far enough) non-existent.

[Freedom]

" Franklin Harold ranks the mystery of life's origin as the most consequential facing science today (Harold 2001, 235). Michael Ruse claims that it is essential to incorporate origin of life resarch into Darwinism since it is a necessary condition for a scientifically and philosophically adequate definition of life (Ruse 2008, 101)."

 

So you would agree, as Harold pleads, that the origins of life should be coupled with evolution but, as he laments, it is not. Evolution begins with the origins of life, but it does not on any level attempt to explain the origins of life. Evolution is the change of a living organism. 

[teddyaware]

I seem to be missing something in the "super evolved humans/creatures bringing life to earth " logic.

Why, once life had been created and evolved to the present diversity, would any intelligent being from then on always start over from the beginning? We current humans are capable of storing seeds of all kinds and soon cells/DNA of most life be it plant or animal. What is the point of all this rehashing of evolution for each creative project and the waiting of billions of years?

At least the Cambrian explosion is better answered by transplantation than serendipity.

Of all the posts I've read in this vein in the last two weeks or so, this is the only one that's caused me to look up with a start. Very interesting perspective! It causes me to seriously wonder that if the all-powerful, all-knowing God created this world to be a testing place for His spirit children -- a place where His program of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man can be accomplished -- why in the world couldn't He have figured out a quicker and much more efficient way to get His spirit children down here than organic evolution? Why did He opt for this excruciatingly slow process to accomplish His goal? If He has the power to recreate millions upon millions of tabernacled human beings in the twinkling of an eye, in the resurrection, why for heavens sake did He chose snail-paced evolution at the beginning of the process? He's soon going to prove He can make very short work of embodying billions of deceased spirits in seconds, so why the creeping crawl of billons of years before the first embodiment of His spirit child Adam? 

 

The answer to this mystery may have to come from gospel philosophers who might be able to come up with a reasonable rational as to why God will choose to utilize extremely fast processes when creating the new heaven and the new earth, juxtaposed to why He chose to use an extremely slow creative process  (evolution) at the beginning of His creation? 

Edited January 17, 2014 by teddyaware

[Rob Osborn]

So you would agree, as Harold pleads, that the origins of life should be coupled with evolution but, as he laments, it is not. Evolution begins with the origins of life, but it does not on any level attempt to explain the origins of life. Evolution is the change of a living organism.

mu

I see thatyou didn't comment on the other quotes about the origins of life being part of evolution. I can understand why evolutionists want to distance themselves from discussing how life first evolved because of the miracle it would take for it to happen. The problem you face is that the first life-form must be accounted for in your evolutionary tree. And in study or theoretical study of it, it must be accounted for how it came into being- nothing just pops into existence from nothing. This is why every introductory of biology and evolution discuss the evolution of how life first evolved= it must put forth theory on how the first evolved life did just that- evolved.

[Calm]

Of all the posts I've read in this vein in the last two weeks or so, this is the only one that's caused me to look up with a start. Very interesting perspective! It causes me to seriously wonder that if the all-powerful, all-knowing God created this world to be a testing place for His spirit children -- a place where His program of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man can be accomplished -- why in the world couldn't He have figured out a quicker and much more efficient way to get His spirit children down here than organic evolution? Why did He opt for this excruciatingly slow process to accomplish His goal? If He has the power to recreate millions upon millions of tabernacled human beings in the twinkling of an eye, in the resurrection, why for heavens sake did He chose snail-paced evolution at the beginning of the process? 

 

Because those who observed the creation during all that time needed it so as to be able to more fully comprehend what they were getting into.  Watching how something is built, whether mechanically or biologically, gives knowledge about that something whether it is rock or a world, or an worm or a human being.  And watching it develop over time allowed all of us premortals a chance to fully understand how everything was intertwined, how God did his work and the elements obeyed, etc. etc.  It gave us insights into God as he was and into Man as he would be in mortality, preparing us if not to make the most of this world in mortality, at least in the next life.

 

Those involved in cooking from scratch will have a very different appreciation of the experience than if they got their food prepackaged, warmed it up in the microwave and then plated it all...to be consumed in 20 minutes or less.  Imagine if instead of buying the materials at the store, you were involved in growing, harvesting it....or even breeding and developing the food into something more desirable with heavier seed heads and less chaff, more juice and flavour, etc.  Our short lives don't allow us to be involved in the process from the very beginning....but we can be in part involved as observers and maybe even helpers in however the great ones contributed to God's creations.

[Alan]

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. 

 

He doesn't pretend the evidence does not exist at all. He interprets the evidence differently from Dawkins. That doesn't make him wrong.

[teddyaware]

Because those who observed the creation during all that time needed it so as to be able to more fully comprehend what they were getting into.  Watching how something is built, whether mechanically or biologically, gives knowledge about that something whether it is rock or a world, or an worm or a human being.  And watching it develop over time allowed all of us premortals a chance to fully understand how everything was intertwined, how God did his work and the elements obeyed, etc. etc.  It gave us insights into God as he was and into Man as he would be in mortality, preparing us if not to make the most of this world in mortality, at least in the next life.

 

Those involved in cooking from scratch will have a very different appreciation of the experience than if they got their food prepackaged, warmed it up in the microwave and then plated it all...to be consumed in 20 minutes or less.  Imagine if instead of buying the materials at the store, you were involved in growing, harvesting it....or even breeding and developing the food into something more desirable with heavier seed heads and less chaff, more juice and flavour, etc.  Our short lives don't allow us to be involved in the process from the very beginning....but we can be in part involved as observers and maybe even helpers in however the great ones contributed to God's creations.

You've explained the whole process to me in less than 60 seconds and I already get it. Sitting around for a hundred million years watching algae multiply makes watching paint dry seem like watching Godfather ll.

Edited January 17, 2014 by teddyaware

[Calm]

"You've explained the whole process to me in less than 60 seconds"

No, I havent, but it appears you have demonstrated the level of your ignorance about the process if you think so.

Have you ever looked at all the different kinds of algae under a microscope? Could you explain in detail how they multiply, eat, survive, interact with their surroundings, become part of another being when invited to dinner? Do you even know what you have rejected as a waste of your time!

Could you repeat the process of creating the perfect home for the poor maligned algae if called to do so as part of the next world construction group crew? Would you know just the right spin to have on the solar dust so star and planets formed rather than dissipated in space, where you could ensure the right mix of metals and organics to allow for maximum growth while still providing enough resources for civilisations development? Do you understand what is going on in the atom that is leading to different processes, different elements and different componds and types of rock formation. Do you understand why part of the core is molten, why there is a current in the magma and what this means for outside the earth. And much much more even before life can be hosted on your planet (whether placed or 'homegrown').

If one is an eternal being and is not only looking for understanding in how things are created, but to actually experience them in the most intimate details (as well as to give each earth and element its full chance to fulfill its purpose and place with God's Plan) and is capable of perception into the subatomic level where movement never ceases and where unpredictabilty may have reign, I do not see it as impossible that someone with interests shared with God in his creations might be willing to take the time to watch a diamond come into existence. I do not see impatience as a virtue in God'world myself and for those who wish to be creators of worlds and don't even have the patience to wait for bread to rise....somehow I doubt that calling will actuall be extended

Edited January 17, 2014 by calmoriah

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not so, rameumptom.

Since there is no direct evidence for the spontaneous generation of life, and since it has never been replicated, one is hard put to explain the existence of DNA and biological life.  Except as the product of intelligent design.  That is the way real science proceeds.

 

 

This is essentally how I see it, except if they create it in a lab then there is a conundrum of sorts because abiogensis dictates that it started on it own, spontaneously, there was no guiding force. And if done in a lab then it was not spontaneous, but controlled and thus would prove that it was "designed".

 

Note: design might not be the best word but I just can't think of a better word for now.

[Freedom]

He doesn't pretend the evidence does not exist at all. He interprets the evidence differently from Dawkins. That doesn't make him wrong.

No, he interprets the evidence differently from everybody and then fails to provide any evidence to support his interpretation. 

[Freedom]

mu

I see thatyou didn't comment on the other quotes about the origins of life being part of evolution. I can understand why evolutionists want to distance themselves from discussing how life first evolved because of the miracle it would take for it to happen. The problem you face is that the first life-form must be accounted for in your evolutionary tree. And in study or theoretical study of it, it must be accounted for how it came into being- nothing just pops into existence from nothing. This is why every introductory of biology and evolution discuss the evolution of how life first evolved= it must put forth theory on how the first evolved life did just that- evolved.

You will always be able to find quotes that support your point of view, that does not make them right. The fact is that two of your quotes contradict your own argument. Evolution does not address the emergence of life. We have proven this to you over and over again. Some quote from some website does not constitute the officially accepted academic definition of a term or an area of study. You like to mine for quotes and willfully take them out of context.

[Freedom]

You've explained the whole process to me in less than 60 seconds and I already get it. Sitting around for a hundred million years watching algae multiply makes watching paint dry seem like watching Godfather ll.

Then lets all hope that you are never made responsible for the countries agriculture industry. Yikes. 

[Rob Osborn]

You will always be able to find quotes that support your point of view, that does not make them right. The fact is that two of your quotes contradict your own argument. Evolution does not address the emergence of life. We have proven this to you over and over again. Some quote from some website does not constitute the officially accepted academic definition of a term or an area of study. You like to mine for quotes and willfully take them out of context.

Its all part of the lies of evolution. It disgusts me how blatant they are.

[Freedom]

Its all part of the lies of evolution. It disgusts me how blatant they are.

Oh I get it now, you are being sarcastic. I though for a moment you were being serious. 

[thesometimesaint]

Thank you for that, sometimesaint.  I enjoyed the theoretical review which Dr. Szostak provided, along with his mockery of the Creationist position (actually creationist scientists are not so silly, which is why Prof Dawkins fears to debate them), along with his repeated jabs at the supernatural.

 

Szostak ought to have been more honest in making it plain that his theoretical construct of how life might have come about is purely theoretical, and has never been accomplished in a lab.  However, it is quite possible that someday sentient beings here on Earth will employ just such a technique to design and create life, i.e., act as intelligent designers.  It is also very likely that sentient beings far in advance of us have long since designed and created life in various forms throughout the universe.  Mormons should have no problem with such suggestions, nor should they take umbrage at mockery of the supernatural.

 

I don't do mockery of people. Mockery of some of their ideas is fair game. Creation scientist is oxymoronic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

 

In the sense that with a universe of hundreds of billions of stars, in hundreds of billions galaxies it is entirely possible that there are creatures that would appear to us as gods. I agree with Dr. Dawkins that is just simple mathematics of probability. Science as discipline can not impute any God or Godlike force(The Supernatural) onto science. It makes hash of science.

 

You do know what a scientific theory is, don't you? Here is what we actually accomplished in the lab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

 

As a Saint I have no problem with God or with science.

SEE http://media.mormonscientist.org/files/morm-sci-chap-2-faith.pdf

[danielwoods]

why God will choose to utilize extremely fast processes when creating the new heaven and the new earth, juxtaposed to why He chose to use an extremely slow creative process  (evolution) at the beginning of His creation? 

 

There is only one answer. Evolutionary theory. Before the theory was popular, there was no problem understanding the created universe to be in the thousands of years old. Enter the popularity of the Theory, and now it is similar to religious dogma. The Universe and the Earth has to be billions of years old. 

 

The question for theists then is why would an all knowing/all powerful God do it that way, when he could have done it in one day (which is what he said he did)?

[thesometimesaint]

mu

I see thatyou didn't comment on the other quotes about the origins of life being part of evolution. I can understand why evolutionists want to distance themselves from discussing how life first evolved because of the miracle it would take for it to happen. The problem you face is that the first life-form must be accounted for in your evolutionary tree. And in study or theoretical study of it, it must be accounted for how it came into being- nothing just pops into existence from nothing. This is why every introductory of biology and evolution discuss the evolution of how life first evolved= it must put forth theory on how the first evolved life did just that- evolved.

 

So pyromaniacs and arson investigation squads are the same because they both study fire. Got it.