Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Debate

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:23 am

Jeff250 wrote:I don't think that science and naturalism are the same thing either. But how is that a problem for the theory of evolution?

If you carefully read my previous posts, you can understand that I do not deny the theory of evolution. Evolution is scientifically proven indisputable. I mean, that evolution would have been impossible without the intervention of the Supreme Intelligence that created the Earth and life on it. I repeat, this is not the God in whom we believe because of the nature of our psyche , but it is our Creator , in whom I believe , based on current scientific knowledge and progress of mankind . Of course, science today is much more flexible religion than medieval religion . Just do not confuse the spiritual and scientific religion . Infuriates me that scientific religion sometimes stubbornly deny the obvious facts that can not be explained . For example, the paranormal. Although I personally do not once witnessed paranormal phenomena that can not be explained from the point of view of modern science , but I am 100 % sure that such phenomena exist .

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 1:24 pm

Don't you deny parts of evolution though? For instance, don't you deny that variation occurred through random mutation and recombination?

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 1:44 pm

I don't see it as random, more as potential. It's code. If, and, or.

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 1:59 pm

Jeff250 wrote:Don't you deny parts of evolution though? For instance, don't you deny that variation occurred through random mutation and recombination?

In my opinion, products of random mutations are always doomed to extinction . For example, a two-headed cow has no chance of survival in the wild. Just as in melanosomes , such as albinism , or blue . Healthy individuals of any species do not want to continue to race with these representatives with such disabilities. I have a dog that I love very much. He plays with ★■◆●, but is always trying to f*ck males dogs . Apparently he is gay. I do not want him to be put to sleep for it. In the end, this is my living toy. Perhaps in the wild it would have survived , but most likely he would not have had a chance to continue their family .

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:05 pm

The idea that we are the product of random mutations is a part of the theory of evolution though. So you don't really believe in *all* of the theory of evolution.

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:18 pm

Jeff250 wrote:The idea that we are the product of random mutations is a part of the theory of evolution though. So you don't really believe in *all* of the theory of evolution.

In my opinion I have made myself clear. Random mutations species - is ugly abnormalities doomed to extinction. While new types created by our Creator, are surprisingly harmonious, beautiful and perfect creatures.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:24 pm

Random mutations can be beneficial, or disastrous, to any organism. Not all mutations are bad either. Some can turn out to be quite advantageous.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:44 pm

sigma wrote:
Jeff250 wrote:The idea that we are the product of random mutations is a part of the theory of evolution though. So you don't really believe in *all* of the theory of evolution.
In my opinion I have made myself clear. Random mutations species - is ugly abnormalities doomed to extinction. While new types created by our Creator, are surprisingly harmonious, beautiful and perfect creatures.

what you are missing is, once again, the matter of sheer numbers of occurances. Yes, you are somewhat correct: on average, MOST random mutations are not good for one's chance of survival, BUT, once in a great while, a mutation confers an advantage. And that is the crux of evolutionary progress: the strong mutations go forward, the rest die off. Over time, the stronger mutations take hold and become the dominant strain. Radical mutations result in whole new species.

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:47 pm

However, any kind of positive mutations are only mutations. They are not the dominant factors for the creation of a new kind, as we can see for many centuries. We can only observe the destructive impact of civilization on the human body. And in general, the mere fact that today there is a huge variety of both primates and humans, it only says that man was created as a separate species.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:49 pm

sorry, Sigma, but you clearly don't get it. What you assert is flat out wrong, and the science shows it.

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:58 pm

With all due respect, when I see macro photography the variety of wildlife of our planet, my tongue does not turn to call it all a product of random mutations. I see the hand and mind of the Creator. This is just my opinion.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:09 pm

that's fine, Sigma, but to assert that man did not come from primates, and cite the diversity of primates today sort of misses the whole idea.

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:09 pm

Firstly , I do not approve. Secondly , I did not say that primates were not the basis for the creation of man . Thirdly , let us not here to play Dale Carnegie against Anton Makarenko , okay? Fourth, Flip rightly said that the development of life can be sewn only in the genetic code of life. We can see at least one stage of development of living beings from the embryo and ending with adult individuals , which may also vary as a Alien from a butterfly. And change depending on external conditions . But in this case , the code was still someone created. Perfection of the genetic code , which can be fraught with such unfathomable diversity of species and such an amazing adaptability to changes in external conditions , it becomes even more amazing . In general, it's dark history

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:13 pm

there is no proof, Sigma, that 'someone' created the genetic code. NONE. That it could occur via millenia of mutational events, channeled by environmental pressure there IS ample supporting evidence for. Why? Because we have seen significant changes in speciation over the short time we've been able to study in extreme accuracy. As for Dale Carnegie, I have no clue where you're going for that one.....perhaps a translational thing.

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:54 pm

There is much evidence of at least a higher intelligence, even all your hero's of science, who without you would know nothing, assent to that much.

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:15 pm

flip wrote:There is much evidence of at least a higher intelligence, even all your hero's of science, who without you would know nothing, assent to that much.

No evidence as of yet, and most scientists are atheists (at least all my science heroes are).

Show me one proven experiment that shows higher intelligence.

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:25 pm

You can lead a horse to water!

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:35 pm

I'd say "show me one that doesn't", but I'm certain the point is lost.

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:48 pm

What do you expect Thorne, I posted a quote from their reigning king just a few days ago, and they can't even remember that!

vision · Post by **vision** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:44 pm

Maybe I'll rephrase it since you didn't understand. Show me one successful, peer reviewed experiment designed to prove the existence of divine intelligence. If you can, I'll be a beleiver for life. Think about how proud your God will be if you can convert me! Really, all I need is evidence that meets scientific criteria. If you can't come up with that, I'm sorry, you have no firmer argument than one claiming fairies and unicorns are real.

Good luck.

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:50 pm

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[e] just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”[f]

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

I guarantee this includes you Vision, sleep well

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:34 pm

vision wrote:Maybe I'll rephrase it since you didn't understand. Show me one successful, peer reviewed experiment designed to prove the existence of divine intelligence. If you can, I'll be a beleiver for life. Think about how proud your God will be if you can convert me! Really, all I need is evidence that meets scientific criteria. If you can't come up with that, I'm sorry, you have no firmer argument than one claiming fairies and unicorns are real.

Remember that experiments (especially a single experiment) can't prove a theory. Experiments can only disprove a theory (if its predictions were wrong) or fail to disprove a theory (if its predictions were right). If a theory continually makes a lot of risky but true predictions, then we really like it, but even this is short of a mathematical proof of its correctness.

Now if you asked them to show how the theory that we are the product of divine intelligence makes a number of surprisingly true predictions, then that seems like a fair request to me.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:19 am

That is also a very thought out and intelligent request, I'll give it some thought Jeff.

EDIT: I will not be hasty about this, so give me some time to organize it and submit it here.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:56 am

vision wrote:
flip wrote:There is much evidence of at least a higher intelligence, even all your hero's of science, who without you would know nothing, assent to that much.
No evidence as of yet, and most scientists are atheists (at least all my science heroes are).

Show me one proven experiment that shows higher intelligence.

Evidence in this case is subjective, there is just no proof.

So it’s not really fair to say there is no evidence.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:03 am

Spidey wrote:Evidence in this case is subjective, there is just no proof.

Exactly. And that is one of the reasons we focus on objectivity. I can subjectively say the reason it rained today is because of dragons.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:15 am

You could but if the evidence didn’t look like dragons made it rain, then it would just be dishonesty.

Are you accusing people of faith with being dishonest? (not withstanding the obvious offenders)

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:34 am

vision wrote:
Spidey wrote:Evidence in this case is subjective, there is just no proof.
Exactly. And that is one of the reasons we focus on objectivity. I can subjectively say the reason it rained today is because of dragons.

This is beginning to resemble the communication is very intelligent chimpanzees at the zoo. One monkey pointing at a person and say, "Guys, I suspect that we run the Higher Mind." Another monkey replies, "I sense it for a long time. But prove to me it experimentally!".
We begin with you have to argue about the possibilities of knowledge objectification of one species to another reason reason within the capabilities of their brains.

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:40 am

So how many of you people denouncing God with your science believe you are christian?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:52 am

So how many of you people denouncing science with your God believe you are scientists?

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:11 pm

I for one am no scientist. I do how ever do not dismiss the idea that a higher level being might have seeded life on this planet especially since it has been agreed by others here that man will be able to do it in the future.

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:37 pm

Krom wrote:So how many of you people denouncing science with your God believe you are scientists?

So you can not say categorically too. In my opinion, you can not deprive people of belief in God. People are different. I admire people who put their entire lives on the altar of science. But I would never condemn people who consciously made sense of involvement in the life of God.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:51 pm

Heretic wrote:I for one am no scientist. I do how ever do not dismiss the idea that a higher level being might have seeded life on this planet especially since it has been agreed by others here that man will be able to do it in the future.

I agree. This is a possibility. So far, we have good explanations that don't require such a thing to take place. You know, Occam's razor. If we ever found evidence a higher being seeded life on Earth I would totally accept it. Of course, people more often use the term "higher being" as a placeholder for God and not alien forefathers, so I suspect this is just wordplay.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:49 pm

I see them co-existing perfectly. The problem that exists here is superficial.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:25 pm

From what I can gather religion has made far more room for science then science has made for religion. (not that it’s obligated, or anything, except for the sake of civility)

And I must wonder why someone who gave a multi page lecture on how words can harm people can deliberately use hurtful terms like “fairy tale” and “work of fiction”?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:41 am

Spidey wrote:From what I can gather religion has made far more room for science then science has made for religion. (not that it’s obligated, or anything, except for the sake of civility)

And I must wonder why someone who gave a multi page lecture on how words can harm people can deliberately use hurtful terms like “fairy tale” and “work of fiction”?

I gave no such lecture, but used the words 'fairy tale'. And, I chose those words carefully, not to hurt anyone, but to illustrate the difference between a biblical account and ideas based on the development of a factual base.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:17 am

Feeling guilty?

I was referring to vision.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:52 am

Spidey wrote:Feeling guilty?

nope, I am on solid intellectual ground here.

I was referring to vision.

I just wanted credit for the Fairy Tale reference.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:05 am

callmeslick wrote:what you are missing is, once again, the matter of sheer numbers of occurances. Yes, you are somewhat correct: on average, MOST random mutations are not good for one's chance of survival, BUT, once in a great while, a mutation confers an advantage. And that is the crux of evolutionary progress: the strong mutations go forward, the rest die off. Over time, the stronger mutations take hold and become the dominant strain. Radical mutations result in whole new species.

Borrowing from the whole intelligent design argument: the question is: if you're bounded by the size/age of the universe that we can scientifically measure (I.E. exclude faith-based assertions that something extends to infinity) do you really have enough mutation occurrences to statistically justify the diversity and complexity of the species that we find? ID proponents would say no, not even close. The best counter-arguments I've seen (and mind you I may be wrong) amount to either hand waving, or extending some variable beyond what we can scientifically measure with a "trust us, we'll verify that later."

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:15 am

snoopy wrote:
callmeslick wrote:what you are missing is, once again, the matter of sheer numbers of occurances. Yes, you are somewhat correct: on average, MOST random mutations are not good for one's chance of survival, BUT, once in a great while, a mutation confers an advantage. And that is the crux of evolutionary progress: the strong mutations go forward, the rest die off. Over time, the stronger mutations take hold and become the dominant strain. Radical mutations result in whole new species.
Borrowing from the whole intelligent design argument: the question is: if you're bounded by the size/age of the universe that we can scientifically measure (I.E. exclude faith-based assertions that something extends to infinity) do you really have enough mutation occurrences to statistically justify the diversity and complexity of the species that we find? ID proponents would say no, not even close. The best counter-arguments I've seen (and mind you I may be wrong) amount to either hand waving, or extending some variable beyond what we can scientifically measure with a "trust us, we'll verify that later."

the answer is clearly yes, and if ID proponents choose to remain ignorant, that is their choice. Just keep their ignorance out of public school science education.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:55 am

callmeslick wrote:
Spidey wrote:Feeling guilty?
nope, I am on solid intellectual ground here.

I was referring to vision.
I just wanted credit for the Fairy Tale reference.

Too Bad.

vision wrote:... universe originated but it does absolutely nothing to stop me from living a full life of purpose, helping other lead better lives. If believing in fairy tales helps you get through life then fine, but don't expect others to believe it is necessary. Scientists are machines of exploration fueled ...