Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
I only watched the debate

From Bill Nye's opening statement in the debate:

Bill Nye wrote:And here's my concern. What keeps the United States ahead, what makes the United States a world leader, is our technology, our new ideas, our innovations. If we continue to eschew science, eschew the process and try to divide science into observational science and historic science, we are not going to move forward; we will not embace natural laws, we will not make discoveries, we will not invent and innovate and stay ahead.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
I don't think Nye is advocating not passing on your religious teachings insofar as they don't result in a closed mind.

That seems true. One argument Nye makes is that there are billions of religious people who do not believe any of the claims that Ham et al. make.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
We've had tons of hugely important scientists who were clearly scientifically literate AND creationists. The key was that they didn't close their mind off.

Ham shows a video of the inventor of the MRI stating that he invented the MRI "by the grace of God." He doesn't give any explanation of what he means by that but it sounds dubious in light of him also confirming that he is a young earth creationist.

Now, I hope that if we have established anything ITT, it's that the only way you can be a young earth creationist is by closing off at least part of your mind.

Y'know... I've been wondering something. All the young-Earth creationists I know or hear about are conservative Christians. Not surprising, when you consider that the story of Genesis is in the Bible.

But... it's in the Old Testament part of the Bible. You know, the part Christians inherited from the Jews?

So why is it I never seem to hear Jewish people decry evolution or proclaiming a 6000 year old Earth? Why is it that all of the creationists I see and hear are Christian? The Jews have the EXACT SAME CREATION MYTH in their book.

Why aren't they running around trying to disprove science?

What do they understand about Genesis that Ham and his followers don't?

squidhills wrote:
Y'know... I've been wondering something. All the young-Earth creationists I know or hear about are conservative Christians. Not surprising, when you consider that the story of Genesis is in the Bible.

But... it's in the Old Testament part of the Bible. You know, the part Christians inherited from the Jews?

So why is it I never seem to hear Jewish people decry evolution or proclaiming a 6000 year old Earth? Why is it that all of the creationists I see and hear are Christian? The Jews have the EXACT SAME CREATION MYTH in their book.

Why aren't they running around trying to disprove science?

What do they understand about Genesis that Ham and his followers don't?

Funnily enough, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all rooted in the same religion. Jews are still waiting for the messiah, Christains think jesus was the messiah, and Muslims are waiting for the messiah, and base their beliefs of later writings by Mohamed. I know a rabbi who believes that Jesus was a prophet, just not the messiah. All three religions have the Torah/old testament. They all have the same creation myth, and all three religions pray to the same god (when you actually think about, I do not mean to offend). The three religions have more in common than different.

It's probably the same reason you don't have Jews knocking on your door trying to convert you to Judaism... They don't seem to feel the need to proselytise as much as Christians do.

There's a proportion of Jews who follow the young-earth theory (particularly amongst Orthodox Jews) but in general (as I understand it - any Jews in the room, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong ) Judaism tends to treat the stories in the bible more as allegories than as literal fact, and those who do take it more literally just don't feel the need to tell everybody about it.

 insaniak wrote:
It's probably the same reason you don't have Jews knocking on your door trying to convert you to Judaism... They don't seem to feel the need to proselytise as much as Christians do.

There's a proportion of Jews who follow the young-earth theory (particularly amongst Orthodox Jews) but in general (as I understand it - any Jews in the room, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong ) Judaism tends to treat the stories in the bible more as allegories than as literal fact.

It's actually really hard to become Jewish. What I like about Judaism (or at least the sect I learned about) is that it's actually harder to go to heaven if you are Jewish. If you're Jewish you have lots of rules to follow, but if you're not all you really have to do is be a good person.

squidhills wrote:
What do they understand about Genesis that Ham and his followers don't?

Maybe a batter question is, why are Christian fundamentalists so much more visible (at least in the US) than Jewish ones? To begin with, there are far, far fewer Jews than Christians. And of that relatively tiny Jewish population, only a subset of it what we might call "fundamentalist."

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Funnily enough, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all rooted in the same religion. Jews are still waiting for the messiah, Christains think jesus was the messiah, and Muslims are waiting for the messiah, and base their beliefs of later writings by Mohamed. I know a rabbi who believes that Jesus was a prophet, just not the messiah. All three religions have the Torah/old testament. They all have the same creation myth, and all three religions pray to the same god (when you actually think about, I do not mean to offend). The three religions have more in common than different.

Muslims also believe Jesus was a prophet, just not the last prophet.. I think you don't hear of Jews advocating earth creation because Jews seem (from what i've heard) have a large amount of discussion in synagogues about religion , morals ect so perhaps they don't feel the need to discuss these things outside their religion. Sounds like a sensible way to run a religion to me .

 Manchu wrote:

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
I only watched the debate

From Bill Nye's opening statement in the debate:

Bill Nye wrote:And here's my concern. What keeps the United States ahead, what makes the United States a world leader, is our technology, our new ideas, our innovations. If we continue to eschew science, eschew the process and try to divide science into observational science and historic science, we are not going to move forward; we will not embace natural laws, we will not make discoveries, we will not invent and innovate and stay ahead.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
I don't think Nye is advocating not passing on your religious teachings insofar as they don't result in a closed mind.

That seems true. One argument Nye makes is that there are billions of religious people who do not believe any of the claims that Ham et al. make.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
We've had tons of hugely important scientists who were clearly scientifically literate AND creationists. The key was that they didn't close their mind off.

Ham shows a video of the inventor of the MRI stating that he invented the MRI "by the grace of God." He doesn't give any explanation of what he means by that but it sounds dubious in light of him also confirming that he is a young earth creationist.

Now, I hope that if we have established anything ITT, it's that the only way you can be a young earth creationist is by closing off at least part of your mind.

No..the only thing that you have established ITT is that you have an extremely strong opinion on the matter.. so strong in fact that you are ok with slinging insulting language. But thats kind of par the course for you.

Insults and perjoritive is one thing you are very clear about, unlike your overly obfuscated theological statements.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
Insults and perjoritive is one thing you are very clear about, unlike your overly obfuscated theological statements.

I couldn't make you understand even if you weren't refusing to even try; but you are refusing. God and science are both topics that take a bit more thinking than you seem willing to do. And you're being a touch hypocritical going on about insults while slinging them.

Out of interest, where does this '6000 years' figure come from in the first place?

It's derived from a literal reading of the Bible.

 Pacific wrote:
Out of interest, where does this '6000 years' figure come from in the first place?

The bible is very, very good at keeping track of how long everyone lived and when they begat each other. Add it all up and cross reference to known historical figures and you get 6000 years.

 Pacific wrote:
Out of interest, where does this '6000 years' figure come from in the first place?

AFAIK, it's been developed over years of "study" of the Bible, and is assuming that Adam and Eve were the first humans, were built fully developed and recognizable by today's people (as in, not neanderthals or other "in between" phases of evolution). Their offspring lead directly to civilization within a few generations, etc. Basically, the Earth was as formed as possible, and humans were smart enough to begin civilizing and colonizing new areas and constantly expanding.

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Insults and perjoritive is one thing you are very clear about, unlike your overly obfuscated theological statements.

I can't make you understand even if you weren't refusing to even try; but you are refusing. God and science are both topics that take a bit more thinking than you seem willing to do. And you're being a touch hypocritical going on about insults while slinging them.

It's really not that complicated Manchu..but for you, it seems taking simple concepts and turning them into deep religiously sounding phrases to make yourself look all "Deep" and doctrinally literate, is your thing. Maybe that's why you choose the Roman Catholic Church, because I have seen RC priests that do the same thing. I can't get you to even state what you believe without you resorting to make some religiously veiled philosophical comment.

I don't think I've put a MOD on ignore yet, but you may be the first.

GG

 Pacific wrote:
Out of interest, where does this '6000 years' figure come from in the first place?

Non-religious person here, but I believe there's a description of the lineage from Adam to Abraham or something like that somewhere in Genesis that also mentions how long each person lived, and so they figure out the time between Adam and Abraham and then the time between Abraham and Jesus and TA DA! 6,000 Year old world.

 RatBot wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Out of interest, where does this '6000 years' figure come from in the first place?

Non-religious person here, but I believe there's a description of the lineage from Adam to Abraham or something like that somewhere in Genesis that also mentions how long each person lived, and so they figure out the time between Adam and Abraham and then the time between Abraham and Jesus and TA DA! 6,000 Year old world.

Pretty much.

 generalgrog wrote:
It's really not that complicated Manchu..but for you, it seems taking simple concepts and turning them into deep religiously sounding phrases to make yourself look all "Deep" and doctrinally literate, is your thing. Maybe that's why you choose the Roman Catholic Church, because I have seen RC priests that do the same thing. I can't get you to even state what you believe without you resorting to make some religiously veiled philosophical comment.

How God interacts with Creation is not a matter of some "simple concept." I stated exactly what I believe. These are complicated issues and they require precise language. If you are having trouble understanding it, why not ask an actual question rather than showing off your prejudice against Catholics?

For your ease of reference:

 Manchu wrote:
Catholicism acknowledges that there are aspects of God's being -- such as in the Incarnation -- that are vera et proprie dicta mysteria; that is, not available to unaided reason. We cannot know these things except that God reveals himself to us. To put it another way, we only know these things through faith. The gospel accounts of miracles are not stories about what we can scientifically know about nature; they are stories about what we know through faith about God.

Even there, I explained the same principle to you in FIVE different ways:

(1) the formal doctrine vera et proprie dicta mysteria (which admittedly will be of no help to you by itself)
(2) some aspects of revelation are not available to unaided reason
(3) we cannot know some things about God except that God reveals them to us
(4) we only know some things about God through faith (which means we cannot know them through science)
(5) gospel accounts of miracles are stories about what we know through faith about God; not scientific accounts of the natural world

 Manchu wrote:
How God interacts with Creation is not a matter of some "simple concept." I stated exactly what I believe. These are complicated issues and they require precise language. If you are having trouble understanding it, why not ask an actual question rather than showing off your prejudice against Catholics?

Again with your attack. I have dear friends and family members that are Roman Catholic. I have never been treated by them the way that you have treated my beliefs on this forum. I had in fact come to respect the Roman Catholic faith, but disagree with many aspects therein. In fact I have mentioned to them that I have "debated" with a Roman Catholic online, and when I mention some of the things you have said, and they are ashamed of you.

Quite frankly as Christian I am ashamed of you, because you seem to take pleasure in belittling other peoples belief system. It's one thing to have a spirited debate, and agree to disagree, and even get heated. But you take it a step further and call people stupid and illiterate.(Admittedly not in so many words)



GG

A little late to the game here - sorry! - Is there a transcript of the debate available?

 generalgrog wrote:
Again with your attack.

Everything you just posted was nothing but an attack. And it is clear that you posted it without the faintest shred of irony.

I just demonstrated how when I answered your question, I explained my answer in five different ways. Your responses:

 generalgrog wrote:
stop with the Roman Catholic philosophic psychobabble

 generalgrog wrote:
overly obfuscated theological statements

 generalgrog wrote:
taking simple concepts and turning them into deep religiously sounding phrases to make yourself look all "Deep" and doctrinally literate

 generalgrog wrote:
religiously veiled philosophical comment

 generalgrog wrote:
I am ashamed of you

For the record, I take no pleasure at all in ignorance.

I also notice that every time I answer one of your questions, you do one of the following:
(a) ignore the answer altogether
(b) pretend it means something else and then ignore further clarification
(c) self-righteously claim to be insulted as cover for responding with insults

 RatBot wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Out of interest, where does this '6000 years' figure come from in the first place?

Non-religious person here, but I believe there's a description of the lineage from Adam to Abraham or something like that somewhere in Genesis that also mentions how long each person lived, and so they figure out the time between Adam and Abraham and then the time between Abraham and Jesus and TA DA! 6,000 Year old world.

Yup, Ham mentioned it during the debate, it's supposed to be 2K years from Adam to Abraham, 2K years from Abraham to Jesus, and then 2014 years to now. So somewhere around 6,000 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
A little late to the game here - sorry! - Is there a transcript of the debate available?

Not sure about a transcript, but the full debate is here on the Answers in Genesis youtube page.

I see why the majority of you said that Ham was pretty rubbish, and why I can't imagine finding many positive reviews of his performance apart from on hardcore creationist sites.

Also, Nye is like a cute grandpa in his bow tie.

 motyak wrote:


Also, Nye is like a cute grandpa in his bow tie.

Bow ties are cool.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

 RatBot wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Out of interest, where does this '6000 years' figure come from in the first place?

Non-religious person here, but I believe there's a description of the lineage from Adam to Abraham or something like that somewhere in Genesis that also mentions how long each person lived, and so they figure out the time between Adam and Abraham and then the time between Abraham and Jesus and TA DA! 6,000 Year old world.

Yup, Ham mentioned it during the debate, it's supposed to be 2K years from Adam to Abraham, 2K years from Abraham to Jesus, and then 2014 years to now. So somewhere around 6,000 years.

OK thanks, right that's pretty amusing that anyone could genuinely think that.

Where do things such as dinosaurs, or any other part of the fossil record for that matter, come into it?

 Pacific wrote:
Where do things such as dinosaurs, or any other part of the fossil record for that matter, come into it?

The two main 'explanations' that I've come across are that our method of carbon dating is flawed (Ham touched on this with his 'natural laws may have worked differently in the past' claim) or that God put them there to test the faith of his people.

 insaniak wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Where do things such as dinosaurs, or any other part of the fossil record for that matter, come into it?

The two main 'explanations' that I've come across are that our method of carbon dating is flawed (Ham touched on this with his 'natural laws may have worked differently in the past' claim) or that God put them there to test the faith of his people.

It's not just carbon dating which he claims is wrong, but also Potassium/Argon (and Ar/Ar), uranium series, trapped charges, ice cores, etc.

 prime12357 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Where do things such as dinosaurs, or any other part of the fossil record for that matter, come into it?

The two main 'explanations' that I've come across are that our method of carbon dating is flawed (Ham touched on this with his 'natural laws may have worked differently in the past' claim) or that God put them there to test the faith of his people.

It's not just carbon dating which he claims is wrong, but also Potassium/Argon (and Ar/Ar), uranium series, trapped charges, ice cores, etc.

Basically if something does not fit in with his world view its wrong, evidence be damned.

Including human civilization even going back further than 6000 years.

 prime12357 wrote:
It's not just carbon dating which he claims is wrong, but also Potassium/Argon (and Ar/Ar), uranium series, trapped charges, ice cores, etc.

Not just those things, but the entire premise of natural law.

I just love 6000 year old earth theory. A few people lived to over 500 years of age in genesis , how can you possibly believe that is possible with what we see now about peoples bodies not really lasting too well over 90 years.

I have heard that dinosaur bones were placed their by Satan to mislead people and lead them away from God.

From these two statements I do believe that literal creationists have brains made of tripe. I have faith in this belief too