Bill Nye the Science guy to debate a creationist Fed 4th

This is a false argument because if God does exist it is upon the premise that he knows more than you do. Therefore, your human interpretation of faulty engineering on the part of God is practically guaranteed to be mistaken.

 

This is the first time in my memory I could actually like one of your posts.

 

true, but that means there is no need to take any command from God seeing as how his definition of morality and order is different from ours

 

Does. Not. Follow.

 

It is essential to keep in mind that "non-random" does not mean "strictly deterministic." We clearly see this distinction in the highly targeted NGE processes that generate virtually endless antibody diversity. -- James Shapiro

 

Why did you qualify that statement with "practically" then?

 

OK, let's say we look at the Universe and the resulting Earth, humanity, and everything as a C- project at best.
But according to the argument put fourth by Quantumhead he says,

"if God does exist it is upon the premise that he knows more than you do. Therefore, your human interpretation of faulty engineering on the part of God is practically guaranteed to be mistaken."

If this is the case, that means what we deem as engineering failure either is not or is not considered failure by God.
And similarly, what we deem as moral either may not be, or may not be considered moral by God.

Therefore, it would hold we completely disregard any order or command from God since it is obvious it is beyond our ability to fathom or justify.

 

They are not disproving each other. Science does not need to disprove creationism in order to prove evolution.

Proving evolution does not necessarily disprove creationism either. Evolution does not attempt to describe how life began, only how organisms change over time in reaction to their environment.

The God described in the Bible cannot exist without introducing magic. If a God evolved within an infinite system, it would mean that such evolution had already occurred before...so he would never be the "real" God. There would always be a previous God.

Why are you asking me? You can end the discussion whenever you want by simply not responding.

LOL

I wonder if Ken will simply declare victory and go home as well. That would be disappointing.

Yes how dare we introduce such exotic concepts when trying to debate the existence of a magic invisible superbeing that controls everything. Whats wrong with us?

When did I declare that there is no God? Quote please. You need to understand the opposing argument before you can defeat it.

 

Great argument.

 

I think it sometimes hurts the credibility of someone like Bill Nye when he agrees to "debate" someone like the creationism idiot. It's like debating whether it's better to get to work via car or flying broom. Why bother? A debate can make it appear that both sides have an actual argument and are equally credible when that is clearly not the case. And what makes the Christian creation myth any more worthy of debate than the large number of other creation myths out there? The fact more people believe it hardly makes it more credible.

 

I'd like to point out that Nye's doctorate is HONORARY. I'd rather see Ham debate Neil Degrasse Tyson.

 

That is true, but it's also true that he has a strong base of scientific knowledge. My degrees are in econ and finance, but I have pretty strong historical knowledge. You can learn a great amount without ever stepping foot in a classroom.

 

It might as well be Brtblutwo vs. Wehrwolfen in that "debate".

Or maybe Lloyd Christmas vs. Harry Dunne.

 

According to his website, Nye's next debate is on March 5th against Miss Cleo

 

Well then are we going to teach the world was created through a sex act between gods as some cultures do?
What about that we are floating on the back of turtle?

Science should be taught in science class.

 

is that a joke?

 

yeah, but what's the difference between Cleo and the creationist hack that Nye is going to debate ?

 

Indeed. If they deem it some benefit to teach a course in comparative religion and want to teach the 50 main creation myths or whatever, that's cool. But there seems little reason to teach myth and magic in a science class. If they did that you could easily end up teaching very little science. And given how bad American teenagers score on tests of science knowledge it's best to stick with just science.

 

not a lot, but I'd actually watch the Cleo debate since that would be a real hoot.

 

i would too !
in 2013 i believe there is no need or room to debate creationism. it is a failed theory.

 

It actually does not even qualify as a theory. It's a myth, not a theory.

 

Yeah, they'll get some "love offerings" from the folks who believe that Noah's Ark is "buried" upon on a mountain on the Turkish-Iranian border.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually Creationists (or Creatiionist-Lites) almost NEVER offer up their own theory....just try to poke holes in Evolution.

If they did, it would collapse under all the weight of biology, geology, cosmology, astronomiy, or even logic. Like the fact the Bible says God created plants BEFORE He created the Sun.

 

That is brilliant design, running the food through twice, it cuts the weight of the digestive mechanism in half......

 

Try it out. Let me know how it works for you.

 

if efficiency equates intelligence, why are there humans born deaf and blind ? why create a person with ears who can't hear ? why give a person eyes that can't see ?