Have you been to a school board meeting? You have a greater chance Ken Ham’s mind.
Trust me. You can ask Creationist tough questions that aren’t easily answered too. But if debating is not your thing, then don’t do it. But don’t assume Creationism will just go away.
So, before we leave this topic, the best thing about Creationist websites… their little APA formatted footnotes referencing articles in renowned journals like Creation and Scientific Creationism… just like real scientists.
A.A. Snelling, “Uluru and Kata Tjuta: Testimony to the Flood;” Creation, 1998, 20(2):36-40.
I got to admit, I don’t understand why they even try. If you say God spoke the universe into existence, then why couldn’t you just say He or She spoke a bunch of water into the sky.
If the fall predates beings capable of moral reasoning, that eliminates nearly all the justifications for the problem of evil I’ve encountered. Suggestions?
Well, most explanations of the ‘fall’ seem to imply one or a few people, at one time, causing a fall for all people, at all times, throughout the entire universe, which hardly helps with the problem of evil. An alternative explanation is that this universe has always been ‘fallen,’ with or without Origen’s suggestion of a previous universe where we could have chosen otherwise.
What you said, is sensible, and something most people wouldn’t disagree with, but you should also realize that you are talking for yourself, its only when people like Mr Ham try to state objective facts about the world for which we already have answers that (Or later learn the answer), well, this is usually when they get in trouble isn’t it?
If Ham says there is a god, and his belief on there being a god is also dependent on the earth being a few thousand years old, well, you can understand why he has to go and attack scientists.
I mean, I’ve always viewed these things as religion (only certain religions of course) attacking science, not the other way around.
Its unfortunate isn’t it? this debate is about how much Ham is offended by what scientists say because his interpretation of the bible is precious, I would like to see him attack Catholicism as well since they accept the evidence for an “old” earth, except he doesn’t because that also weakens his position.
Whether they are compatible, Its hard to say, I mean, one of them is about having the answers and the other one is about trying to find them.
Seems to me that they are more like shields used by more extreme people/organizations.
They are the ones who will usually say that you are throwing away the baby with the bathwater when you argue with an extremist on the matters of faith.
An extremist will force the conversation to be about the truth of religion instead about the truth of any specific claims made by them, which means, you actually end up fighting religion as a whole (which includes so called “moderates”) not just untenable beliefs held by extremists.
Mr Ham provided a textbook example of this, calmly stating that the belief in god comes first and that it comes through the bible, therefore, he could not be wrong.
Seems to me moderates will have to agree with his conclusions no matter what, even if they do not believe his arguments, heck, they’ll believe in Ham’s conclusion even if they do believe in Nye’s arguments!
I’m not an atheist, but my definition of “god” is about as opposite as you can imagine from someone of an Abrahamic belief system. I believe in evolution. I don’t see belief in “god” and evolution as contradictory, in fact I see them as highly compatible. But this is a philosophical discussion. I think Nye did a service here, and Biblical creationists are a bunch of fools.
Its not that, its actually a “god of the gaps”
that which we’re not certain of can still be attributed to “him”, but you can see the problem with that right?
I love how hard Bill Nye tries to avoid saying the words “complete bullshit”. “Your assertion that all the animals were vegetarians before they got on the ark. That’s really remarkable… It’s very reasonable to me that instead of lions being vegetarians on the ark, lions are lions, and the information that you use to, uh, create your world view, is… (struggles to find the right words) is not consistent with what I as a reasonable men would expect,”
Ah no. 'tis an Iso Grifo.
I always found an aspect of Maggie’s point very interesting when I was a YEC (I’d never really heard evolutionist talking points before, just how wrong they were). Why do some honest Christians choose to reject creationism because of what they see as overwhelming evidence, especially when they become more educated in the area? Why don’t people really go the other way? Sure, there are a few who do, but creationism seemed to tie up the world and our place in it in a more comfortable way, so why don’t people become scientifically YEC, but anti-theist because they don’t want to serve a personal god? If God created the world to look old, that makes some sense, but with a record of species and processes that never existed, volcanoes that never happened, a universe that can be studied based on a completely fabricated history where God wrote out the necessity for his own existence? Why would God make a universe that leads large numbers of his own followers to the wrong conclusion?
So it is.
Internet win for the day. Well done, sir/ma’am.
Except he does that in this video:
Tears the silly woman a new one. Warning: You will want to punch your monitor.
The solution is to express abject mockery of such people and their stupid beliefs. I tell people that they’re welcome to believe what they want, but part of the deal is me being able to believe what I want and to express that freely. Accepting people’s beliefs does not mean respecting them.
Religion has been assholes to pretty much everyone but their own clique for thousands of years. In my opinion it’s unashamed payback time.
When religious people stop persecuting homosexuals and promote sense over idiocy (e.g. Catholicism & condoms in Africa) I will think about leaving them be. While religious people continue to expect the world be shaped to reflect their (minority) beliefs, I will continue to ridicule them and their beliefs.
These “debates” all come down to faith in the end. Faith in the belief that there is something bigger than us and a faith that is expected to be unquestioningly held. Proof or STFU is how I roll.
Expect when push comes to shove, they’ll still all tell you that if you don’t believe their bullshit story you’ll go to bad places in the afterlife. Some might not say it, but their belief system says it is so.
All of them? Every religion? Everywhere? You must’ve really done your homework…
Abrahamic religions, which are dominant, yes. Ham man is a YEC fundamentalist christian.
Name a religion that you feel doesn’t prescribe disadvantages to non-believers, I challenge you.
Judaism doesn’t require adherence to the faith to get into heaven. Admittedly, Judaism’s whole concept of an afterlife is a bit hazy.
You chose Judaism???
Firstly, this site both confirms and refutes what you claim, since only the “righteous” get there - and since I’m not cruising around performing mitzvahs I’d say that excludes me in the eyes of many:
http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm
Secondly, there are few religions that exclude people for supposed transgressions more than Judaism. I have a number of jewish friends and the familial pressure to fit in by marrying inside the religion is out of fucking control. I had a 1.5 hour phone conversation (and I hate phone calls) with a friend who was lamenting that he’d found an amazing girl that ticked all the boxes, but just not the jew one. He broke up with her on that basis and the sad thing was he didn’t care - his family did. Another jewish friend had a child with a non-jewish woman. Their daughter will never be accepted in the community like my friend’s sibling’s children.
