Bible (Ham) vs. Science (Nye) Debate this Evening

I agree with all those points, except that I would be able to demonstrate that the Creationist could utterly defeat the Evolutionist (assuming they are Atheist) without a single 'half-truth or outright lie'.

In fact, any secular debater that loses because of 'half-truths and outrights lies' sucks so horribly at debate that they should not have decided to take the stage.

 

For goodness sake! All the Pope has to do is to read the Bible, which plainly teaches evolution. The Protestants threw that part in the trash can so they believe in magic.

 

No they not dismiss any knowledge because no such knowledge supports the bible. Having people read it and believe it for thousands of years proves nothing.

In the end the bible has a few locations and events in the backgroud of it's stories which were real. Such as Egypt and Babylon.

Not one shred of evidence or even secular history records supports any of the relevant parts.

Easy to dismiss it when it is a book which can only be believed by a leap of faith.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing resembling evolution of the species is found anywhere in the bible.

Sure if you heavily extrapolate and interpret and invent things not written in the bible you may claim it says anything.

It does not however.

 

Because you claim I have backpedalled does not in any remote way, shape or form mean I did. I don't backpedal. I stand on principle, and I have thought very carefully through every position I hold. You claiming that my statement about 'extrapolation' means what YOU think it means is solely due to your inability to understand what I just wrote. I used the word 'extrapolation'; I determine the purpose for using it in that sentence. It doesn't mean what you said when applied to my statement.

In fact, your rather pithy claim that 'extrapolation' is the failure of religion is not only off-topic, but asinine.

Objection, counselor: the premise of the debate is whether it IS tripe or not. It is adolescent to demand satisfaction of the premise (resolved: belief in God is 'tripe') as part of your argument that belief in God is tripe.

Then this is simple, Soupnazi: you are ill-equipped to debate this with me. There is no circular logic whatsoever. Your response was simply the vacuous vitriol of a committed atheist who doesn't have the intellectual gravitas to swat me with a glove.

 

lol

Your ad hominen proves otherwise.

I did not debate this with you that is correct I destroyed you because you are the one lacking in ability.

Your beliefs are based in circular logic and they cannot stand that is proven.

You backpedaled and you know it.

Sorry counselor but this clown just stepped on hsi crank and he knows it. He is intellectually weak.

 

That's the old Jewish fairy tale of the golem.

 

Maybe english isnt your first language, think we should just forget this little exchange, lol.

 

It is and since you looked very inferior in the exchange I will grant you that request

 

Idont believe you but it matters not. To me, it appears that english is not your first language because you totally misunderstood a very simple opinion. This can mean one of two things; english is not your first language or; you are...how can iput this, dim. Dont for a second think ibelieve you are the latter because as iinitially stated and stand by the assertion that english is not your first language. Its ok, your english is quite good but the problems arise in interpretation i.e understanding english, thats always the hardest part about learning a foreign language. Keep up the good work.

 

I have a degree in physics and your god and science source just doesnt make any sense to anyone with a basic physics understanding.

 

And which verse would that be?

There are various positions among protestants, but the consensus appears to be that there are too many irreducible complexities in our universe to accept the purely naturalist explanation. Many naturalists unfortunately use circular reasoning to expound that naturalism is true therefore all explanations must fit within a naturalist framework, no matter how absurd that explanation may be, otherwise face the jeers and mockings of the naturalist.

 

The basic problem is that we simply don't understand the properties of nothing. The closest we can come to it is quantum foam, which is several levels removed from nothing. Once nothing turnings into quantum foam the process accelerates until hydrogen atoms are created. After that observable elements are formed and we eventually end up with what we have now. That's not to say that we are at the apex of creation. The time spans are so long we have no idea what will come next.

If we had enough time we could see what will form in some of those gigantic voids in space. Some are over 100 million light years in size and they are apparently completely empty at this time. I would expect hydrogen to eventually form there and then stars.

We have no idea how large the universe is or what it is. It could be part of a living organism or just a grain of sand on a beach on a world. Just a few years ago humanity thought that our galaxy was the whole universe.

 

We need to get some poles and nine inch nails so that Nye can nail Ham to the cross.

 

What exactly are they going to debate about?

You don't need Ham, just a write on a piece of paper "God did it" and put it on the seat next to Bill. That's all any argument boils down to.

 

You clearly are unfamiliar with ID theory. There is a good chance that neither God nor the Bible will be allowed within the paramaters of the debate and the parameters of the debate will be strictly within the realm of natural science. But you as a naturalist apparently feel that mocking those with whom you disagree constitutes some form of argument. A good percentage of the most brilliant scientific minds this world has known have held to some form of ID theory.

 

Try this link to the "Scale of the Universe." Move the cursor from left to right and you might get an understanding of how things came to be.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347

 

Proves nothing.

Just as your claims are false.

 

well, just a heads up that in recent decades Zeno's Paradox has "been solved" on a mathematical sense.
i want you to know i use the concept of Zeno's Paradox as it relates to the Universe's age and size

- - - Updated - - -

time, space, matter !

 

Your pipe dreams are hilarious.

 

Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe.

^^ God did it. Sorry, but it is.

 

Sorry Atheist, but do you even understand what you're debating? Do you understand that was I was discussing has nothing to do with what you stuck your nose in to assert? If you consider me intellectually weak, you should probably recuse yourself from every discussion.

You choosing to redefine meanings of words and obtusely denying my meaning is your problem; not mine. That you made this personal by choosing to misrepresent what I said is your shortcoming; not mine. You stuck your nose into what I was discussing with another poster, and immediately got incorrect what I wrote.

If you want to debate me on the legitimacy of choosing to believe in God in the face of what Science has taught you, be my guest and start a thread. We'll see how 'weak' I am; I believe I'll eat your lunch and then make you flush the toilet when I'm thoroughly done with it.

Sounds like you do not even understand why you cannot win such a debate. The debate is a pure failure for you before you ever start. You cannot disprove God. You therefore cannot legitimately disparage anyone who chooses to believe in God. Moreover, Science should have taught you by now that there is a limit to what can be determined by Science, as it is ruled by Laws which - by definition - could not have existed before our own Universe.

 

Ok...so what of it? That doesn't quell the desire of any Christian researcher to determine how, and it also opens up metaphysical and philosophical questions which revolve around the 'why'.

It is not impossible that 'God did it', so why would anyone - secular or otherwise - endeavor to eliminate the possibility before they've proved such? Sounds like narrow-minded oppression to me. How about you?

 

What is your interpretation of Wisdom 19:18-19 (CEB)? =
[SUP]"18 [/SUP]If we are careful to observe events, we can see just how the elements of the universe are transformed. It’s the same transformation that happens when someone changes the sounds that a harp makes by changing the key while continuing to play the same melody.[SUP]19 [/SUP]In this way, land animals were changed into underwater creatures, while animals that swam in the waters now moved onto the land."