Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 446,960 views
I finally got time to watch the debate. My first reaction was:
Damn! Bill Nye is so much older since the last time I saw him!

Anyways, I think there are a few flaws in Ken Ham's argument. The fact that he says nothing can change his mind deserves x10 👎
 
I would pay to see that.
I would too, BUT, only if everyone on stage blew up at the end. How about that for a big bang?


While I commend Bill Nye on his performance in the above debate, I'm one of those who don't think that debating Ken Ham is wise. Ken Ham cannot be reasoned with. As you can see/hear above, he openly admits to this, and fully endorses such an attitude. With any luck, Bill Nye may have succeeded in convincing some skeptics that creationism is not a valid explanation for the origins of our species, but I fear that the purpose of the debate lay elsewhere i.e. to give Ken Ham as wide an audience as possible. Losing a few supporters is totally worth it if in the process you massively grow your own audience.

I consider Ken Ham's behaviour - in deliberately disseminating known falsehoods and advocating a position of staunch opposition to reason and evidence - to be immoral, and he deserves to be ignored completely.
I don't find fault with this logic. As much as I would like it to have shown just how wrong Ham is, just how big of a fool he sounds like. Unfortunately history, as much as Ham may think its unprovable, has shown just how idiotic and gullable the masses can be, and how quick some people are to gobble up crap like that. Do you suppose people flock to religion to save themselves from critical thinking?

The debate though, was a good one. Bill Nye did well for what I believe was his first debate. I wonder if Ham would have agreed to the debate if it was Sam Harris or Hitch. I honestly doubt Hitchens would have debated this guy though.

As for creationism. Leave that crap to the churches. Leave all of that religious crap in the churches. If its theologically based, it doesn't belong in public schools.
 
Last edited:
Do you suppose people flock to religion to save themselves from critical thinking?

I doubt anybody thinks of it in those words, but I doubt it's terribly far from the mark. I'm sure it's quite comforting to be told the answers, rather than attempt to figure them out for yourself not knowing if you'll ever find them (or if there are even any answers out there). For those people that have the need to know stuff, anyway.
 
Over the last week I've been in Shropshire(ish) and we decided to go visit Darwin's birthplace at The Mount House in Shrewsbury.

Incredibly, The Mount isn't a visitor attraction. In fact it's not even accessible to visitors at all - it's a local government building that deals with property valuation for taxation purposes. There's a sign on the gate to explain the significance of the building other than that function, but you can't go in (unless by appointment with the District Valuer) and there's not even a blue plaque on the building that Charles Darwin, the effective founder of evolutionary sciences, was born in and owned until he was fifty-seven years old.


I'm actually tempted to set up a kickstarter fund to buy the property and turn it into a proper museum.
 
Charles Darwin's house is now used for basically the English equivalent of my job? That's interesting to know.
 
Over the last week I've been in Shropshire(ish) and we decided to go visit Darwin's birthplace at The Mount House in Shrewsbury.

Incredibly, The Mount isn't a visitor attraction. In fact it's not even accessible to visitors at all - it's a local government building that deals with property valuation for taxation purposes. There's a sign on the gate to explain the significance of the building other than that function, but you can't go in (unless by appointment with the District Valuer) and there's not even a blue plaque on the building that Charles Darwin, the effective founder of evolutionary sciences, was born in and owned until he was fifty-seven years old.

I'm actually tempted to set up a kickstarter fund to buy the property and turn it into a proper museum.

You know you're not going to kid them on the value though, right?

If you're up for this as a serious proposition at any time then I'd love to help out in some way. In fact I'd consider it my duty :D
 
Now that right there is a gem! Unfortunately, these people are in positions of political power. Which, when you look at the requirements to actually get into politics, doesn't surprise me. There's not many jobs above the poverty line that doesn't require a degree or special certification/license. Somehow, the one that affects the most peoples lives doesn't either.
Sadly, I fear we are too steps away from living in a real life idiocracy. Maybe it's just the way we interact with one another through the internet, but people on both sides of this debate can to easily make themselves look ignorant, callus, and fanatical.
For example, there was a post put up on another site quoting a message where a mother, obviously a creationist, was asking questions about letting her son play with dinosaur toys, even though they didn't exist within the context of her world views given from the bible. Now, the way what she had wrote read, made it obvious that she was completely ignorant of evolution. What I mean is, she was probably raised in a strictly religious household, in a strongly religious community, probably in a religious school, that taught only the bible as science. All of the reading and writing assignments would be religious in context. Unlike the buffoon quoted above, she doesn't seem to have been taught anything otherwise.
Now what I found more disturbing, after all, you don't pick your parents or the type of community you are born into. What bothered me more was the responses to the post. There were some seriously viscous attacks that made people sound as fanatical and tyrannical as any zealot can be. There needs to certainly be a staunch push against religion, but it needs to be aimed at the perpetrators such as Mr. Brattin, Ken Ham, and any others who claim themselves learned, yet use religion to try and disguise their arrogance and ignorance, and no doubt to gain wealth and power.
 
Over the last week I've been in Shropshire(ish) and we decided to go visit Darwin's birthplace at The Mount House in Shrewsbury.

Incredibly, The Mount isn't a visitor attraction. In fact it's not even accessible to visitors at all - it's a local government building that deals with property valuation for taxation purposes. There's a sign on the gate to explain the significance of the building other than that function, but you can't go in (unless by appointment with the District Valuer) and there's not even a blue plaque on the building that Charles Darwin, the effective founder of evolutionary sciences, was born in and owned until he was fifty-seven years old.

I'm actually tempted to set up a kickstarter fund to buy the property and turn it into a proper museum.

It does seem odd that Darwin's home is preserved yet closed to the public. Is there a rationale for this? Could authorities fear that if the home were made into a public museum that it could be interpreted as a sort of shrine which could be a focus for both veneration as well as protest, vandalism or arson?
 
A team of scientists have discovered residual gravitational waves from less than a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.

As a result, Stephen Hawking has claimed victory in his bet with Neil Turok.

post-8766-YEAH-SCIENCE-Breaking-Bad-gif-og7N.gif
 
Twinkies aren't made. They are eternal. They always have been, and always will be. Forever.

(Except for that one unfortunate hiatus.)
 
It still doesn't explain where the Big Bang came from.

One Nobel prize worthy achievement at a time, please... boy, some people are hard to please!!

Figuring out how the Big Bang occurred starts with figuring out that the Big Bang occurred. This discovery is very strong evidence of the latter, and as such, it very well may provide invaluable (if not unique) insight into the former.
 
One Nobel prize worthy achievement at a time, please... boy, some people are hard to please!!

Figuring out how the Big Bang occurred starts with figuring out that the Big Bang occurred. This discovery is very strong evidence of the latter, and as such, it very well may provide invaluable (if not unique) insight into the former.

How do we know that the Big Bang wasn't created by a sentient being? I mean if all life started from a space the size of an atom, are we to just think it popped out of nowhere?
 
How do we know that the Big Bang wasn't created by a sentient being? I mean if all life started from a space the size of an atom, are we to just think it popped out of nowhere?
We don't.

However to date no evidence exists to support that hypothasis either (and it certainly doesn't fit with any of the texts), it also doesn't address which deity (why the Christian god, why not Thor, etc.).

Why could it not have pop'd out of nowhere? After all stuff does:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
 
How do we know that the Big Bang wasn't created by a sentient being?
We don't - though a natural question that would lead on from that is where the sentient being originated. But, to reiterate, this particular experiment had nothing to do with working out where the Big Bang came from.

What it does is effectively (if not completely) rule out the concept of cyclical universes, Banging and Crunching for multiple cycles. It more or less says that this is either the only universe there's been or the very first.
I mean if all life started from a space the size of an atom
It's actually quite a complex sentence, that. If you're to take the Big Bang itself as fact (and you ought) then the origin is both a space the size of the universe and of no size whatsoever, not even an atom. The Big Bang is the origin of space-time, so whatever happened at the Planck Time age of the universe (it's for the same reason - the origin of space-time being the Big Bang - that the concept of "before" the Big Bang has no meaning) that lead to expansion happened in a region no greater in diameter than a Planck Length.

If that bakes your noodle a bit too much, consider that what's at the middle of a black hole also has no actual size (because it fractures space-time). It's what's termed a "singularity" - a point that has physical properties but no dimensions.
 
How do we know that the Big Bang wasn't created by a sentient being? I mean if all life started from a space the size of an atom, are we to just think it popped out of nowhere?
Well, we have two options - either we admit that we don't know and seek to answer the question in a manner that might actually provide the truth, or we simply believe what we want to believe.

As has already been said, this new discovery doesn't say anything about the existence or non-existence of God. It does, however, provide a key piece of observation evidence that the Big Bang actually happened. As I said before - one thing at a time. There are still very many questions that need answering, but claiming to know the answers to the most profound questions irrespective of a lack of any evidence (or even in the presence of contradictory evidence) is not the way forward IMO.
 
We don't - though a natural question that would lead on from that is where the sentient being originated. But, to reiterate, this particular experiment had nothing to do with working out where the Big Bang came from.

What it does is effectively (if not completely) rule out the concept of cyclical universes, Banging and Crunching for multiple cycles. It more or less says that this is either the only universe there's been or the very first.It's actually quite a complex sentence, that. If you're to take the Big Bang itself as fact (and you ought) then the origin is both a space the size of the universe and of no size whatsoever, not even an atom. The Big Bang is the origin of space-time, so whatever happened at the Planck Time age of the universe (it's for the same reason - the origin of space-time being the Big Bang - that the concept of "before" the Big Bang has no meaning) that lead to expansion happened in a region no greater in diameter than a Planck Length.

If that bakes your noodle a bit too much, consider that what's at the middle of a black hole also has no actual size (because it fractures space-time). It's what's termed a "singularity" - a point that has physical properties but no dimensions.

I honestly just don't know and I think at this point it's impossible for anybody to sit here and say "this is how it happened," whether it be the Big Bang or Intelligent Design. No one can be sure. I don't know of any evidence for the Intelligent Design theory. All I can go on is faith and a gut feeling. There is lots to support the Big Bang. But look at it this way. I could tell you I have a red Skyline parked outside. You don't know for sure, and you don't have to believe it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. I don't see why the God theory and the Big Bang can't be tied in together either. Maybe Intelligent Design created the Big Bang.

 
I'll just drop in and notify that "intelligent design" doesn't qualify as a theory because it's based on bias from the start...
 
I don't know of any evidence for the Intelligent Design theory.
Which is an innate problem.

"Theory" is a very specific term that means "An explanation of all known evidence". If there's no evidence for a theory, the theory doesn't explain the evidence...


At present, sentient-being-based creation is an hypothesis that has yielded zero evidential results. These hypotheses are also fundamentally flawed or self-referential, because solving the problem of the formation of the universe with a sentient being would then require solving the problem of where the sentient being came from.
 
I honestly just don't know and I think at this point it's impossible for anybody to sit here and say "this is how it happened," whether it be the Big Bang or Intelligent Design. No one can be sure. I don't know of any evidence for the Intelligent Design theory. All I can go on is faith and a gut feeling. There is lots to support the Big Bang. But look at it this way. I could tell you I have a red Skyline parked outside. You don't know for sure, and you don't have to believe it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. I don't see why the God theory and the Big Bang can't be tied in together either. Maybe Intelligent Design created the Big Bang.

And you see no difference between saying 'take my word for it, I own a red Skyline' and turning up at a GTPlanet get-together in a red Skyline with your name on all the appropriate paperwork that proves you own that Skyline (with the credit card bill to match!)?

The point is, if evidence can be presented that something is real or is really there, then belief becomes unnecessary. It doesn't matter if you believe the Big Bang, evolution, the Jurassic period, or the moon landings really happened - they did - your belief is not required for these things to be considered as fact, because there is mountains of evidence that prove that they did.

Maybe the Big Bang was the result of some intelligent agency - but there's no evidence for that. None at all. It doesn't mean that it didn't happen the way you may say it did - but until there is evidence to support the claim, it simply cannot be considered as a fact - it will remain an unsubstantiated claim, or a hypothesis. Without any evidence to back up the claim, and going on nothing more than gut feelings and beliefs based on (*insert belief system here), you have as much chance of actually being correct as someone who says that the Big Bang was the result of a unicorn fart.
 
Let us suppose just for the sake of argument that the universe was indeed created as a deliberate act by some intelligent agency. There would be no rational reason whatsoever to believe that intelligent agency were still in existence today. Or believe it doesn't; it works both ways.
 
And you see no difference between saying 'take my word for it, I own a red Skyline' and turning up at a GTPlanet get-together in a red Skyline with your name on all the appropriate paperwork that proves you own that Skyline (with the credit card bill to match!)?

The point is, if evidence can be presented that something is real or is really there, then belief becomes unnecessary. It doesn't matter if you believe the Big Bang, evolution, the Jurassic period, or the moon landings really happened - they did - your belief is not required for these things to be considered as fact, because there is mountains of evidence that prove that they did.

Maybe the Big Bang was the result of some intelligent agency - but there's no evidence for that. None at all. It doesn't mean that it didn't happen the way you may say it did - but until there is evidence to support the claim, it simply cannot be considered as a fact - it will remain an unsubstantiated claim, or a hypothesis. Without any evidence to back up the claim, and going on nothing more than gut feelings and beliefs based on (*insert belief system here), you have as much chance of actually being correct as someone who says that the Big Bang was the result of a unicorn fart.

Yup agree entirely. Until some proof surfaces, it's merely a hypothesis. That's all I'm saying it is, nothing more.
 
Back