Evolution-Creationism Debates

Thing is the debate is pointless because the two sides frame the debate differently. The evoltion side sees it as a matter of evidence. The creation side sees it as a matter of threat to their belief system which is balanced on a very fragile base. To them anything that shows the Bible as anything less than 100% factual invalidates the whole of Christianity. The real debate shouldn't have been between Ham and Nye but between Ham and a scientist who is also a practicing Christian and the subject shouldn't have been whether or not evolution is a fact but whether you can believe in evolution and still be a Christian.

Trump delenda est

As Bill nye pointed out, the answer is "yes, you can."

The problem is that the only people who want these debates are the rabid nutballs. Actual scientists who are also Christian are too busy, yanno, doing actual science to waste time on pointless debates when they could be publishing for peer review instead.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

I would watch a debate like that. Heck, I would participate in a debate like that.

I would watch a debate between a Creationist and a Pastafarian if it was judged/mediated by either Discord or Mike Nelson.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Would you accept John De Lancie channelling both Q and Discord?

Only if Q comes on the stage supported by a mariachi band.

"You can reply to this Message!"

@Blue Ninja 0, Given how roundly Bill Nye destroyed a lot of YEC claims, it would seem to me that given how many people don't believe in the earth being old. More debates would be useful.

Reading about the possibility of life on mars. I wonder what evolutionist would say if it appeared that mars life was descended from earth life.

edited 12th Feb '14 6:30:28 AM by soban

I would not agree that more debates are needed. Ham's points were either fallacies or plain ignorant, maybe even maliciously so.

I can definitely see conferences given by smart guys like Bill Nye being more widespread, with YEC folks invited to question the speaker, but more debates with creationists feels to me like it would be an exercise in futility.

Just look at my friend Ben (Benedict, former pope), stated that the clash between creationism and evolution was an absurdity, due to the overwhelming evidence of the latter. The (former) pope was convinced FFS, and he still is faithful regardless. What argument is there to be had at this point? Based on Ham and Ben, my guess is "little to none".

Silly person, Q is Discord.

Camels weren't domesticated early enough for the first Biblical people, shows new research.

edited 12th Feb '14 6:42:07 AM by BlueNinja0

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

First of all, "evolutionist" is a silly word.

To answer the question: it is plausible that life on one planet could be carried by a fragment (of a meteor or the planet itself) launched by an impact to a nearby planet. This hypothesis is known as "panspermia". There's a somewhat common misconception that "panspermia" refers to the notion that intelligent aliens designed life on Earth. Actually, the word refers to the impact scenario I mentioned above.

If there is life on Mars, it would not be all that surprising that it was related to us. It could be that Mars was the actual origin of life on our star system. If there's life on Mars and it's not related to us we'll have to conclude that there were two instances of abiogenesis on the same star system, but not on the same planet. This seems less plausible than that the products of a single abiogenesis event spread to another, nearby planet.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Well, this shits all over the "You weren't there" argument, because evidently neither were they.

Not that you can really tell, because it was a cowpat to begin with.

Happy Darwin Day to one and all!

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Ken Ham Fires Back at Pat Robertson: ‘Really Sad’ He’s ‘So Misinformed’ About Creationism.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Maybe he's Satan, as well.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

While the bolded statement is technically true, I don't think Ham got the point.

That depends on how literal you are about the things said in the Bible. If you're willing to take lots and lots of the text as figurative you can take it and accept all the science out there - just keep pushing the degree of literalism back all the way.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

And of course, the Bible never actually says that everything in it is literally true.

Not Three Laws compliant.

Jesus always spoke in parables. If there was no fig tree, why should there have been a Garden of Eden? But that's going off-topic.

Christianity is perfectly compatible with evolution.

I would dispute that, but from the "other side", as it were.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

Please, have at it.

Simply put, I feel that the emergence of humanity through random mutation over an enormous timescale with a smorgasbord of design problems doesn't really fit well into a theological framework. "God-guided" theistic evolution is the norm amongst Christians who accept evolution as fact, but I just don't see the point of it, and see it as vulnerable to Occam's razor as the ancient aliens who created the pyramids. Humanity as created by God as-is makes much more sense within the context of a small, young universe than it does within a large, old one.

Does that make sense? I'm never happy with how I express this kind of thing.

Yep, that's basically how I feel. I think that Young Earth Creationism fits Christianity - and, indeed, the other Abrahamics - a lot more comfortably than, well, reality.

edited 15th Feb '14 7:30:05 AM by pagad

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

Yeah, I think the argument could at the very least be made that the model of the universe presented by young Earth creationists is the one that would be true if God actually existed. It just seems neater.