Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 174

Thread: Creationism vs. Science, Ham vs. Nye Debate

  1. #1

    Creationism vs. Science, Ham vs. Nye Debate


  2. #2
    Thanks for posting the video I listened to the majority of it. Both were gentlemen to one another, but Nye won the debate big time.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,562
    Wait... Didn't we have a Ham that posted here at some point?

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Thanks for posting the video I listened to the majority of it. Both were gentlemen to one another, but Nye won the debate big time.
    Actually, given the question ("Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era"), Ham won. Nye conceded science does not currently have an effective model of the origin of matter. While Ham is a bit of a hack and Nye certainly handed him his ass on a number of questions, Ham's answer to that question ("yes") stands unrebutted.

  5. #5
    I had Nye and gave the points.

    Did I win?

    This would have been they perfect time for God to come down and put and end to the debate. Just show up and say: "Any question *****es?"

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Actually, given the question ("Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era"), Ham won. Nye conceded science does not currently have an effective model of the origin of matter. While Ham is a bit of a hack and Nye certainly handed him his ass on a number of questions, Ham's answer to that question ("yes") stands unrebutted.
    I disagree with this line of thought.

    Whilst Science lacks a thorough model as yet for the creation of matter (and they certainly have a start, E=mc2), that does not lead to "creationism" as a somehow more valid model either. If we followed that line of reasoning, "creationism" could be used to answer any and all questions we currently lack an adequate model for, or that lacks the abillity to be directly replicated/experiemented in a lab.

    I would argue that it does not require a rebuttal, as it's a "theory" based on no evidence of any kind beyond faith. Nye's "we don't know yet" and Ham's "creationsim" are both answers lacking support, but one follows logical though and process, hence admitting it's limitations. The other just plops in God in every hole of knowledge without anything more to support such a claim than Nye has to back it up any claim he could have tossed out. In point of fact, science can show how matter can be converted to energy, and that energy is always conserved. Thats 2/3's of the way to energy --> matter. Ham certainly has less behind his argument than that.

    As you well know, creationism is on a constant backpedal as science uncovers new things. as our knowledge develops, creationism (which is rigid and inflexable, being faith based) must either deny these new findings, or fall back to an older, less proven time period with which to insert God.

    Asking what came before the Big Bang is a question to which we lack answers. That lack of answer is not carte blanche to presume it was God, anymore than it's carte blance to presume it was a giant Godlike Panda Bear named "Fred".

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I disagree with this line of thought.

    Whilst Science lacks a thorough model as yet for the creation of matter (and they certainly have a start, E=mc2), that does not lead to "creationism" as a somehow more valid model either. If we followed that line of reasoning, "creationism" could be used to answer any and all questions we currently lack an adequate model for, or that lacks the abillity to be directly replicated/experiemented in a lab.

    I would argue that it does not require a rebuttal, as it's a "theory" based on no evidence of any kind beyond faith. Nye's "we don't know yet" and Ham's "creationsim" are both answers lacking support, but one follows logical though and process, hence admitting it's limitations. The other just plops in God in every hole of knowledge without anything more to support such a claim than Nye has to back it up any claim he could have tossed out. In point of fact, science can show how matter can be converted to energy, and that energy is always conserved. Thats 2/3's of the way to energy --> matter. Ham certainly has less behind his argument than that.

    As you well know, creationism is on a constant backpedal as science uncovers new things. as our knowledge develops, creationism (which is rigid and inflexable, being faith based) must either deny these new findings, or fall back to an older, less proven time period with which to insert God.

    Asking what came before the Big Bang is a question to which we lack answers. That lack of answer is not carte blanche to presume it was God, anymore than it's carte blance to presume it was a giant Godlike Panda Bear named "Fred".
    Very nicely put.

  8. #8
    Completely agree.



    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I disagree with this line of thought.

    Whilst Science lacks a thorough model as yet for the creation of matter (and they certainly have a start, E=mc2), that does not lead to "creationism" as a somehow more valid model either. If we followed that line of reasoning, "creationism" could be used to answer any and all questions we currently lack an adequate model for, or that lacks the abillity to be directly replicated/experiemented in a lab.

    I would argue that it does not require a rebuttal, as it's a "theory" based on no evidence of any kind beyond faith. Nye's "we don't know yet" and Ham's "creationsim" are both answers lacking support, but one follows logical though and process, hence admitting it's limitations. The other just plops in God in every hole of knowledge without anything more to support such a claim than Nye has to back it up any claim he could have tossed out. In point of fact, science can show how matter can be converted to energy, and that energy is always conserved. Thats 2/3's of the way to energy --> matter. Ham certainly has less behind his argument than that.

    As you well know, creationism is on a constant backpedal as science uncovers new things. as our knowledge develops, creationism (which is rigid and inflexable, being faith based) must either deny these new findings, or fall back to an older, less proven time period with which to insert God.

    Asking what came before the Big Bang is a question to which we lack answers. That lack of answer is not carte blanche to presume it was God, anymore than it's carte blance to presume it was a giant Godlike Panda Bear named "Fred".

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I disagree with this line of thought.

    Whilst Science lacks a thorough model as yet for the creation of matter (and they certainly have a start, E=mc2),
    Apologies for the lack of precision. I was using "matter" to encompass the concept of "energy/matter" in whatever state. E=mc2 is not a "start", since it is merely an equation for the conversion back and forth between the matter and energy states given the existence of matter/energy, and not directed to or relevant to the origin of that matter/energy in the first instance.
    that does not lead to "creationism" as a somehow more valid model either. If we followed that line of reasoning, "creationism" could be used to answer any and all questions we currently lack an adequate model for, or that lacks the abillity to be directly replicated/experiemented in a lab.
    No. What it does is confirm that science and God are not mutually exclusive, and therefore the viability of creationism as a model stands and falls on its own merits, not based on any argument from science.

    I would argue that it does not require a rebuttal, as it's a "theory" based on no evidence of any kind beyond faith. Nye's "we don't know yet" and Ham's "creationsim" are both answers lacking support, but one follows logical though and process, hence admitting it's limitations. The other just plops in God in every hole of knowledge without anything more to support such a claim than Nye has to back it up any claim he could have tossed out. In point of fact, science can show how matter can be converted to energy, and that energy is always conserved. Thats 2/3's of the way to energy --> matter. Ham certainly has less behind his argument than that.
    As I said, Ham is a bit of a hack. But not all belief in God is driven by Christian theology.

    (again, e=mc2 and conservation of matter/energy don't get you anywhere near a theory of the origin of energy/matter. Those are properties of energy/matter, and as property's of the object in question can't be it's origin.)

    As you well know, creationism is on a constant backpedal as science uncovers new things. as our knowledge develops, creationism (which is rigid and inflexable, being faith based) must either deny these new findings, or fall back to an older, less proven time period with which to insert God.
    And again, not really, no. Frankly, "Creationism" is far more in tune with current scientific thought since Penzias & Wilson proved the Big Bang theory to be true than it was at any point in the prior millenia. For most of human history, "Creationists" asserted that the universe had a beginning, while scientists asserted that the universe was static, eternal, and without beginning. Now, both agree the Universe had a beginning, and the only question is whether God was responsible for that beginning or not.

    Yes, there are biblical literalists who insist that "Creationism" and "belief in God" means that the Universe was created 6,000 years ago or so . . . but the fact that those views are incompatible with science doesn't mean that either Creationism or belief in God is. Arguing as much is akin to saying "since Lamarckian genetics has been disproven, genetics is disproven." (let's ignore for a second Lamarck's minor comeback in certain areas). "Young Earth Creationists" (of both the Jewish and Christian variety) are an embarrassment. But be careful with your assumptions that the noisiest bunch in the group are the group.

    Hell, look at this description of creation from Nachmanides, written in the 13th Century:

    At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this ethereally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed.
    As one skeptic's website acknowledged, that was "Quite suggestive of the big bang and remarkable for the 13th century . . ." [he goes on to say that the details are wrong, without providing information as to which details or whether they are so much "wrong" as couched in the inapt verbiage of the 13th century, and the page generally makes a poor argument about Nachmanides' writings about "sephirot" and Gerald Schroeder's use of them, mainly because he missed the existence of the writings about "sephirot" in the first instance, but those are side points]. It's also quite suggestive of the Einsteinian equation you keep referencing (or at least the concepts behind it, if not the maths). In any event, it is far more consistent with current science than with the science of the time, obviously.

    Asking what came before the Big Bang is a question to which we lack answers. That lack of answer is not carte blanche to presume it was God, anymore than it's carte blance to presume it was a giant Godlike Panda Bear named "Fred".
    True - in that the lack of an answer doesn't in and of itself create the presumption that it was God. But it certainly means that science hasn't excluded God, and I'd argue that logic and physics requires that, no matter how far back you want to push the regression, physical existence must be the effect of an eternal, non-physical, uncaused cause (which is pretty much the baseline definition of "God").

    In other words, the viability of the argument for creation stands and falls on its own logic, not on claims that science has disproved it or rendered it unnecessary.

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,562
    Great stuff, doggin. Kind of inspires me to go back and re-read some of my old quantum physics and string theory books. It's kind of gotten away from me in recent past.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,274
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Apologies for the lack of precision. I was using "matter" to encompass the concept of "energy/matter" in whatever state. E=mc2 is not a "start", since it is merely an equation for the conversion back and forth between the matter and energy states given the existence of matter/energy, and not directed to or relevant to the origin of that matter/energy in the first instance.


    No. What it does is confirm that science and God are not mutually exclusive, and therefore the viability of creationism as a model stands and falls on its own merits, not based on any argument from science.



    As I said, Ham is a bit of a hack. But not all belief in God is driven by Christian theology.

    (again, e=mc2 and conservation of matter/energy don't get you anywhere near a theory of the origin of energy/matter. Those are properties of energy/matter, and as property's of the object in question can't be it's origin.)



    And again, not really, no. Frankly, "Creationism" is far more in tune with current scientific thought since Penzias & Wilson proved the Big Bang theory to be true than it was at any point in the prior millenia. For most of human history, "Creationists" asserted that the universe had a beginning, while scientists asserted that the universe was static, eternal, and without beginning. Now, both agree the Universe had a beginning, and the only question is whether God was responsible for that beginning or not.

    Yes, there are biblical literalists who insist that "Creationism" and "belief in God" means that the Universe was created 6,000 years ago or so . . . but the fact that those views are incompatible with science doesn't mean that either Creationism or belief in God is. Arguing as much is akin to saying "since Lamarckian genetics has been disproven, genetics is disproven." (let's ignore for a second Lamarck's minor comeback in certain areas). "Young Earth Creationists" (of both the Jewish and Christian variety) are an embarrassment. But be careful with your assumptions that the noisiest bunch in the group are the group.

    Hell, look at this description of creation from Nachmanides, written in the 13th Century:



    As one skeptic's website acknowledged, that was "Quite suggestive of the big bang and remarkable for the 13th century . . ." [he goes on to say that the details are wrong, without providing information as to which details or whether they are so much "wrong" as couched in the inapt verbiage of the 13th century, and the page generally makes a poor argument about Nachmanides' writings about "sephirot" and Gerald Schroeder's use of them, mainly because he missed the existence of the writings about "sephirot" in the first instance, but those are side points]. It's also quite suggestive of the Einsteinian equation you keep referencing (or at least the concepts behind it, if not the maths). In any event, it is far more consistent with current science than with the science of the time, obviously.



    True - in that the lack of an answer doesn't in and of itself create the presumption that it was God. But it certainly means that science hasn't excluded God, and I'd argue that logic and physics requires that, no matter how far back you want to push the regression, physical existence must be the effect of an eternal, non-physical, uncaused cause (which is pretty much the baseline definition of "God").

    In other words, the viability of the argument for creation stands and falls on its own logic, not on claims that science has disproved it or rendered it unnecessary.

    We written rebuttal. Good to see some real discussion and ideas. I don't think that the bolded is a fair statement in that "an eternal, non-physical, uncaused cause (which is pretty much the baseline definition of "God" isn't right. If you just name whatever was the cause, "God" then it throws away any and all of the existing definitions of God. Typically God refers to a "supreme being" at its core not "an eternal, non-physical, uncaused cause".

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    We written rebuttal. Good to see some real discussion and ideas. I don't think that the bolded is a fair statement in that "an eternal, non-physical, uncaused cause (which is pretty much the baseline definition of "God" isn't right. If you just name whatever was the cause, "God" then it throws away any and all of the existing definitions of God. Typically God refers to a "supreme being" at its core not "an eternal, non-physical, uncaused cause".
    I'd argue that the baseline definition of "God" is "an eternal, uncaused, non-physical entity responsible for the creation of the Universe." Further "attributes" of God are layered on top of that (i.e. a Deist, Jew and a Christian will all have very different views of God, but all will agree to the baseline definition [with the possible exception of potential Christian argument over "non-physical"]). So if you are talking about a particular conception of God, yes, I agree, there's certainly more to particular conceptions. I'm talking about essential and undisputed/unparticularized "characteristics". (Bearing in mind that those baseline characteristics may inherently imply others - but again, that's a different discussion)

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Apologies for the lack of precision. I was using "matter" to encompass the concept of "energy/matter" in whatever state.
    Science admits is does not yet "know" how the Universe was created, although there are a number of theories.

    Creationism does not have a theory, it has a dogma. A dogma that requires, and asks fo, no evidence of any kind.

    Equating the two is, IMO, intellectually dishonest.

    No. What it does is confirm that science and God are not mutually exclusive, and therefore the viability of creationism as a model stands and falls on its own merits, not based on any argument from science.
    Except for two things:

    1. Evolution (the primary issue debated vs. Creationism) does not touch on the origin of matter/energy. The fact the ball has been rolled back to "the moment of Universe origin" says quite a bit about how creation has been defeated.
    2. Science can, reasonably, postulate via evidence/observation almost back to the moments after the Big Bang, and admits where it currently can go no further.

    Creationism, on the other hand, has no basis in fact anywhere, it's simply a "belief" without any factual basis. It's basis is in 2,000 year old books written by men, based off superstition and intended to be a moral/social control/code, and supported by the prevailing "science" of 2-4,000 BC, i.e. no sciene of any kind.

    I can't really believe this is even a debate today. More evidence that all Nye did was provide grist for the ignorant via validation/recognition.

    As I said, Ham is a bit of a hack. But not all belief in God is driven by Christian theology.
    Belief in God is driven by superstition and indoctrination and tradition, combined with the foibles of human psychology. It can easily be explained via known science (specificly social science and psychology) away without there being a God at all.

    And again, not really, no. Frankly, "Creationism" is far more in tune with current scientific thought
    Really?

    /facepalm

    Ok.

    Have a great day. This is a waste of my time.

    I'm sure God will let me know, personally, when He wants to that I'm wrong.
    Last edited by Warfish; 02-06-2014 at 02:07 PM.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Science admits is does not yet "know" how the Universe was created, although there are a number of theories.

    Creationism does not have a theory, it has a dogma. A dogma that requires, and asks fo, no evidence of any kind.

    Equating the two is, IMO, intellectually dishonest.
    1) That isn't really a response to anything I said

    2) The two are not equivalent in any way, shape or form. (FYI, science doesn't actually have any theories for the origin of matter; the closest thing to one is Hawking-Hartle, which simply waves away the issue by saying there was no origin and returns to an eternal universe - though not a Hoyle-type steady state universe). Science is a method of investigating the physical universe, involving hypotheses and experimentation, that can generate valid knowledge. It is not, however, the only source of valid knowledge.

    Except for two things:

    1. Evolution (the primary issue debated vs. Creationism) does not touch on the origin of matter/energy. The fact the ball has been rolled back to "the moment of Universe origin" says quite a bit about how creation has been defeated.
    I'm not sure how. As R' Hirsch put it just 14 years after Darwin published, and while the validity of his theory was still very much up for debate, evolution and creation were never in conflict:

    Even if this notion were ever to gain complete acceptance by the scientific world, Jewish thought, unlike the reasoning of the high priest of that notion, would nonetheless never summon us to revere a still extant representative of this primal form as the supposed ancestor of us all. Rather, Judaism in that case would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus and one single law of “adaptation and heredity” in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know today, each with its unique characteristics that sets it apart from all other creatures.) This would be nothing else but the actualization of the law of le-mino, the “law of species” with which God began His work of creation.


    2. Science can, reasonably, postulate via evidence/observation almost back to the moments after the Big Bang, and admits where it currently can go no further.

    Creationism, on the other hand, has no basis in fact anywhere, it's simply a "belief" without any factual basis. It's basis is in 2,000 year old books written by men, based off superstition and intended to be a moral/social control/code, and supported by the prevailing "science" of 2-4,000 BC, i.e. no sciene of any kind.
    You do know that simply repeating a statement isn't evidence for it, right?

    How, precisely, do you deal with the cosmological argument? The typical objection ("if God is uncaused, the existence of matter can be too") ignores the distinction between physical and non-physical (and, in any event, if the best rebuttal possible is "it is equally likely that there is no God" then the statement that belief in God is absurd is self-evidently invalid, unless you want to take the position that the denial of God's existence is equally absurd. If both are equally likely - the best possible outcome of the standard rebuttal - then by definition neither position can be more absurd than the other.)

    I can't really believe this is even a debate today. More evidence that all Nye did was provide grist for the ignorant via validation/recognition.
    I doubt that you're as ignorant as your superficial responses on this thread are making you seem, but self-awareness is always a good trait, 'fish

    Belief in God is driven by superstition and indoctrination and tradition, combined with the foibles of human psychology. It can easily be explained via known science (specificly social science and psychology) away without there being a God at all.
    Wow. That's quite the generalization, and the description of "social science and psychology" as "sciences" takes things a bit far for someone professing an allegiance to "Science" (capital S). More, I can "explain the fact that people stay on the ground rather than float into the air away without there being gravity at all"; the fact that I'm capable of coming up with an alternative explanation doesn't mean my alternative explanation is right in reality.

    Really?

    /facepalm

    Ok.

    Have a great day. This is a waste of my time.
    Yes, really.

    But hey, don't listen to me. Listen to agnostic, physicist, and cosmologist Robert Jastrow, who in 1978 had this to say about the impact of the proof of the Big Bang:

    At this moment [as a result of big bang cosmology] it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
    Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, W. W. Norton and Co., New York, 1978.

    Your "/facepalm" is almost as eloquently put, though.


    I'm sure God will let me know, personally, when He wants to that I'm wrong.
    Perhaps. I tend to doubt it, though.

  15. #15

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    Ken Ham is a young earth creationist who deserves every bit of ridicule he gets

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Perhaps. I tend to doubt it, though.
    Whilst I am sure you'd like to have our typical exchange, my "waste of time" comment was on point.

    What we share is that your belief, and my belief, will not change the belief of the other party in this exchange.

    Hence, any time spent arguing about it is time wasted.

    Suffice to say, if you want to continue to extoll the creationist cause, have at it.

    P.S. that Jastrow quote is moronic drivel, worthy of a Doonsbury cartoon.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Whilst I am sure you'd like to have our typical exchange, my "waste of time" comment was on point.

    What we share is that your belief, and my belief, will not change the belief of the other party in this exchange.

    Hence, any time spent arguing about it is time wasted.

    Suffice to say, if you want to continue to extoll the creationist cause, have at it.
    'fish, if you think the only point of discussion (particularly discussion here) is persuasion, I completely disagree. But you're entitled to your viewpoint.

    P.S. that Jastrow quote is moronic drivel, worthy of a Doonsbury cartoon.
    You have a tendency to content-free one-liners. The Jastrow quote is the expression of a non-believing highly qualified specialist in the relevant field, who poetically makes the exact same point I did: the Big Bang is far, far closer to the theologian's position of a created universe than the prior scientific consensus, for the prior nearly 2000 years since Aristotle, that the universe was eternal and without beginning. If you disagree with that, please explain on what basis you think an eternal, static universe (the prior scientific paradigm) is more consistent with a created univers

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    'fish, if you think the only point of discussion (particularly discussion here) is persuasion, I completely disagree. But you're entitled to your viewpoint.
    And if you feel the purpose of rhetoric is simply idle chatter to pass the time, I completely disagree, but as with your views on Creationism and God, you too are entitled to your viewpoint.

    The purpose of rhetoric is to persuade.

    You have a tendency to content-free one-liners.
    Then in a forum with cr and FF and others, I should fit in just fine, I'd say. The one-liner rules this roost.

    Not every thread or point is worthy of rambling, detailed, lawyerly replies Doggin. If you wish to defend Creationism and God belief, as you have here despite your attempt to take both sides at various points, have at it.

    I am comfortable rejecting it out of hand, without spending three hours and forty-three subpoints with 87 references and 14 quotes to "prove" my point to a guy who sees this as idle chatter anyway, and whose position is rooted in his faith.

    ....the Big Bang is far, far closer to the theologian's position of a created universe than the prior scientific consensus, for the prior nearly 2000 years since Aristotle, that the universe was eternal and without beginning. If you disagree with that, please explain on what basis you think an eternal, static universe (the prior scientific paradigm) is more consistent with a created univers
    We don't know what came before (or during the earliest stages).

    There is no evidence that the Big Bang was controlled, created or otherwise managed/overseen/controlled by anyone or anything. So no, it's not "close" to a Theologcal view in any form, without projection of belief, of faith.

    I refuse to fill the void of knowledge with my own projections, superstition, or other foolishness.

    The only legitimate answer to "what came before" is "we don't know".
    Last edited by Warfish; 02-06-2014 at 03:45 PM.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    We written rebuttal. Good to see some real discussion and ideas. I don't think that the bolded is a fair statement in that "an eternal, non-physical, uncaused cause (which is pretty much the baseline definition of "God" isn't right. If you just name whatever was the cause, "God" then it throws away any and all of the existing definitions of God. Typically God refers to a "supreme being" at its core not "an eternal, non-physical, uncaused cause".
    Agreed. These are the sort of failed attempts by creationists to create apologetics that divorce the religion out of their argument to make it sound more like science and less like religious dogma. If you really believe that the cause of the universe is just another force that drives the universe then you have no reason to follow any of the tenets of your religious beliefs, unless you also follow a moral and spiritual code for gravity, heat, etc. But you know you don't really believe that. That's what makes these kind of apologetics so dishonest. The rest of us realize how silly these things sound. Those that advocate creationism are the only ones who think these arguments sound intelligent and just as practical as evidence-based scientific theory.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us