Feb. 4, 2014 in Petersburg, KY

Is creation a viable model of origins? Creation Museum Founder and AiG President/CEO Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye at the Creation Museum on Tuesday, February 4, at 7 PM. Bill Nye is the former host of the popular Bill Nye the Science Guy TV program for children, current Executive Director of the Planetary Society, and frequent pro-evolution guest on TV interview programs.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/event/Nye-Ham-Debate/

William Sanford "Bill" Nye (born November 27, 1955), popularly known as Bill Nye the Science Guy, is an American science educator, comedian, television host, actor, writer, and scientist who began his career as a mechanical engineer at Boeing. He is best known as the host of the Disney/PBS children's science show Bill Nye the Science Guy (199398) and for his many subsequent appearances in popular media as a science educator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

Kenneth Alfred Ham (born 20 October 1951) is an Australian young-Earth creationist[1][2] who advocates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.[3] He is the president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Creation Museum.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham

I think it is a mistake but here is what a few other people think.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/AronRa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpk7gijch9o

I was hoping to provide others but they have been taken down using false DMCA claims by guess who, AiG.

It is interesting that this news came out today...

Scientists have finally managed to describe the back end of one of the key fossil finds of the past 10 years.

Known as Tiktaalik, the 375-million-year-old creature is considered pivotal because it has many features that look half-way between fish and land animals.

As such, it provides insight into life's evolutionary move from water into the terrestrial environment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25713538

Creationist's such as Ken Ham have repeatedly denied that transitional fossils exist if one were to nail them to their head. A great example is this video of Richard Dawkins talking to Wendy Wright. I will admit that even after repeated attempts I have never been able to watch it to the end.

It should also be noted that Islam is a Creationist ideology so they believe the same thing. Don't believe me? Go study it as I have for 30 years.

I think all religions that believe in a god or group of gods must set out a creationist agenda, as the purpose of one facet of the religion must be to explain how we got here. The other main plank is a set of rules so that people can live together in relative harmony, with rewards and punishments.

These religions were developed as people settled in groups and started agricultural living, rather than the hunter/gatherer system that preceded it and held more animist religions. These accept that the world is there, but regard each small area of the known world as having both beneficial and malign influences in the sky, the rivers, the hills, plants and so on. These would govern the success or failure of each hunt or other important matter.

Both sets of religions have good points, in that they show ways of living within the environment. The scientists develop ways of making life easier and more comfortable, but they seldom propose sensible ways of using their inventions. This they leave to the community leaders who have most of the qualities of religious 'priests'.

We do need both, but we do not need the extremists on either aspect of our life.

I never debate with creationists. I once did; in response to my assertion that carbon dating alone is enough to rule out a 'young Earth' a creationist responded that the speed of light has varied throughout the Earth's history, thus meaning radioactive decay also occurred at varying rates through time.

Well you can't argue with anyone who rewrites the laws of physics so as not to contradict an ancient fairy story - it's a sealed system impermeable to reason.

I think all religions that believe in a god or group of gods must set out a creationist agenda, as the purpose of one facet of the religion must be to explain how we got here.

Reasonable summation. Within the context of this I would have to agree with the Creationist view and therefore deny evolution. In every respect other than what is true they are indeed correct in what they are saying.

These religions were developed as people settled in groups and started agricultural living, rather than the hunter/gatherer system that preceded it and held more animist religions.

Pure speculation as there is nothing to suggest that what you have said is in any way true.

I never debate with creationists. I once did; in response to my assertion that carbon dating alone is enough to rule out a 'young Earth' a creationist responded that the speed of light has varied throughout the Earth's history, thus meaning radioactive decay also occurred at varying rates through time.

Well you can't argue with anyone who rewrites the laws of physics so as not to contradict an ancient fairy story - it's a sealed system impermeable to reason.

Carbon dating specifically or do you mean radiometric dating?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Have you tried glacial layering? Not heard any Creationist argument against there being at least 60,000 summers and winters for it to happen.

There are two kinds of believers in creation.

The ones generally called creationists go with Archbishop Ussher's 4004 B.C., or something like it.

The thinking kind (like myself, of course) believe that the whole shooting match must have begun somehow, and, in the absence of any other viable argument, attribute this to a deity. All the scientific arguments for a first beginning simply push the creator one step further away.

The scientists currently cleave to a 'Big Bang' theory of the start of the ever-expanding universe (which now seems to be contracting, according to some recent publications).

I accept the theory, as far as it goes - but what was there before the big bang? Something must have been there to go 'Bang!'

And where does this ever-expanding universe expand into? More universe?

And we now come to dark matter - what is this? It is apparently detectable, but not yet detected. What does it consist of? I reckon it is probably the souls of the dead, from the billions of inhabited planets in our universe. But beyond the universe are an infinite number of other universes, all forming parts of a universal whole, a vast all-knowing form that existed before the 'big bang' and will exist long after all the universes have collapsed back into themselves and repeated their big bangs an infinite number of times.

Thank you, HB. I was hoping somebody else would point out that the Big Bang is no beginning.

"Nothing will come of nothing". King Lear was right about that, if about practically nothing else!

If the dead have souls, why would they be swirling around in the universe not being detected? It doesn't seem a very good use for them.

By the way, have you ever noticed how the creation myth in Genesis is actually not a bad stab at the truth (as revealed by science)? Every race and religion has some kind of creation myth; I don't think you will find one any nearer the revealed truth.

Being a simple civil engineer, digging holes in the ground and filling them with concrete, I do not claim to understand the universe in all it's complexity - and certainly I cannot hope to understand any other universes out there that may, or may not, exist in time and space as yet unknown to humankind.

My bit about souls is just a passing thought - do they need to have a purpose in (after-)life? It may be that they are really neutrinos, released when our bodies decay. It may be that there is nothing. It may be that we are living in a Matrix-like computer world. We know very little as yet, although we know much more than our ancestors of a hundred years ago, who in turn knew much more than their ancestors of a thousand years ago, who knew ...

Our knowledge base is expanding as fast as our population base, both seemingly on an exponential curve. Both these curves are (to me) very worrying - the knowledge base because our sociological thinking is being left behind by the developments offered to the world in general, the population base because our sociological thinking is still geared to a world population of less than two billion.

Our technical development allows for instant communication from all, to all. This allows for philosophical theories to be published and disseminated before any peer review has contested the basic premis(s) of that philosophical proposal. Thus cults that were previously limited to small neighbourhoods now become world-wide, before being swallowed in the sea of derision when the flaws are exposed. But with a greatly expanded population there may be substantial pockets of such flawed doctrines surviving to the detriment of the idea of a universal peace.

To my mind we need to slow down the dissemination of technical progress until social progress can catch up - but I cannot think of any method of doing so.

There are two kinds of believers in creation.

The ones generally called creationists go with Archbishop Ussher's 4004 B.C., or something like it.

You have YEC and OEC.

Old Earth creationism is an umbrella term for a number of types of creationism, including gap creationism, progressive creationism, and evolutionary creationism.[1] Old Earth creationism is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to young Earth creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism

The thinking kind (like myself, of course) believe that the whole shooting match must have begun somehow, and, in the absence of any other viable argument, attribute this to a deity.

Goddidit is one of the masterstrokes and trump-cards that creationists or other biblical literalists have at their disposal when debating points with naturalists and rationalists.[1] It proposes that anything is and was possible because of the omnipotence of God - specifically the ability to bend the laws of time, logic and physics. This means that arguments that focus on the feasibility of a global flood, for instance - complicated analyses of how much water would be required, if food could be provided for Noah's animals and the construction of his ark - can be swept away and ignored.

The concept of 'God did it' can be used to create unfalsifiable theories. A creationist need never doubt creation because God could have made anything. It may also be used as a euphemism to indicate something that cannot yet be explained by natural laws, most likely due to lack of information or knowledge.

If it cannot be explained then a god must have done it. Earthquakes, volcanos and disease which were attributed to a god have all been shown to have a natural cause.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY8iPJwztys

The scientists currently cleave to a 'Big Bang' theory of the start of the ever-expanding universe (which now seems to be contracting, according to some recent publications).

Recent... read 30 years ago at least.

Edwin Powell Hubble (November 20, 1889 September 28, 1953)[1] was an American astronomer who played a crucial role in establishing the field of extragalactic astronomy and is generally regarded as one of the most important observational cosmologists of the 20th century. Hubble is known for showing that the recessional velocity of a galaxy increases with its distance from the earth, implying the universe is expanding.[2] Known as "Hubble's law", this relation had been discovered previously by Georges Lemaître; a Belgian priest/astronomer who published his work in a less visible journal. There is still much controversy surrounding the issue [3] and some argue that it should be referred to as "Lemaître's law" although this change has not taken hold in the astronomy community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total massenergy of the universe contains 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy (for a total of 95.1%) and 4.9% ordinary matter.[2][3][4][5] Its density (1.67 × 10-27 kg/m3) is very low: in the solar system, there are only 6 tons of dark energy within the radius of Pluto's orbit. However, it comes to dominate the mass-energy of the universe because it is uniform across space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Our universe IS expanding and expanding at an accelerating rate, dark energy has been postulated as a cause for people to work with. You, on the other hand, would just say your god did it and stifle research into it because the cause is already known.

but what was there before the big bang?

In physics, spacetime (also spacetime, space time or spacetime continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. The spacetime of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension (often termed Minkowski space or the fourth dimension). By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

In non-relativistic classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time.

You have a choice between Einstein's relativistic model or a god did it.

And where does this ever-expanding universe expand into? More universe?

I figure I'll video myself when you reply to this thread and send it in to Seth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfN2lGQ8dqs

Well creationists like to say life etc could not just have started, and god must be responsible. I ask, who made god?

Well creationists like to say life etc could not just have started, and god must be responsible. I ask, who made god?

Yet another of these people who say that everything must be explicable by reason!

You and I are infinitesimal bits of a vast universe. Is it necessary, or even likely, that we should be able to explain it all? More and more of it as time passes, yes, but that does not mean that we shall ever reach completion.

God is the inexplicable bit, and you cannot, by definition, prove or disprove his existence.

Yet another of these people who say that everything must be explicable by reason!

Yet you use reason to suggest we shouldn't use reason.

All 3 Abrahamic religions in the creation story say almost exactly the same thing.

"Let us create man in our image". As Judaism and Islam don't believe in a holy trinity. Who are us and our?

Yet another of these people who say that everything must be explicable by reason!

Yet you use reason to suggest we shouldn't use reason.

Of course.

All 3 Abrahamic religions in the creation story say almost exactly the same thing.

"Let us create man in our image". As Judaism and Islam don't believe in a holy trinity. Who are us and our?

Ever heard of the royal we? I suspect this is a similar usage.

Or giving the authors the benefit of the doubt. They really do mean us and our.

Or giving the authors the benefit of the doubt. They really do mean us and our.

Since when? I haven't noticed this happening very often in disputes about religion!

Do you accept that Ezekial could be describing a UFO? We assume people could not describe what they saw to fit an agenda. I think he saw what he saw but lacked a modern way to explain it and we is we and our is our, without a royal connection.

Yet another of these people who say that everything must be explicable by reason!

Yet you use reason to suggest we shouldn't use reason.

Of course.

Do you not see an issue with that?

Unrelated to you IB......

I was a bit worried about posting one of the vids contained in the OP because it could have been considered solicitation which is against T&Cs. However....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrPlkWuIqK0

I'll be watching but then it's my field.

Do you accept that Ezekial could be describing a UFO? We assume people could not describe what they saw to fit an agenda. I think he saw what he saw but lacked a modern way to explain it and we is we and our is our, without a royal connection.

You must have had some fun digging that one out, Mosha! I have no idea what "Ezekiel" saw!

I've tried to check the 'royal plural'.... and I think that's what it is, but I don't know Hebrew, so I really can't say what the original was.

Is this a lesson in how to find the most trivial points you can?

To notmyself, no.

To notmyself, no.

It's a bit circular in its nature don't you think?

To notmyself, no.

It's a bit circular in its nature don't you think?

No.

Do you accept that Ezekial could be describing a UFO? We assume people could not describe what they saw to fit an agenda. I think he saw what he saw but lacked a modern way to explain it and we is we and our is our, without a royal connection.

You must have had some fun digging that one out, Mosha! I have no idea what "Ezekiel" saw!

I've tried to check the 'royal plural'.... and I think that's what it is, but I don't know Hebrew, so I really can't say what the original was.

Is this a lesson in how to find the most trivial points you can?

To notmyself, no.

Ezekial 1:1-28

In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the Chebar canal, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. On the fifth day of the month (it was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin), the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the Chebar canal, and the hand of the Lord was upon him there. As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness around it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming metal. And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had a human likeness,

I said, I have no idea what Ezekiel saw, Mosha. I didn't really need it quoted!

Why not look at the big picture, and mainly the New Testament, instead of cherry-picking odd bits of the Old Testament?

To notmyself, no.

It's a bit circular in its nature don't you think?

No.

It is self referring IB. The very thing you say should not be used, is used within the claim. Using reason to suggest reason should not be used is intellectual ping pong because the result negates the premise.

Not really a debate but then it never was going to be was it?

It was always going to be Gish Gallop

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."

The formal debating term for this is spreading.[1][2] It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bullshit on the practice (like the Internet) such techniques are remarkably common.

Well done Mr Nye, good job Sir.

You can watch the debate [sic] here. Perfectly legal as it's on the AiG channel

Even the sad old goat Pat Robertson is getting in on the act...

How do we know that Bill Nye won the creationism debate with Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis earlier this month? Simple: The Christian Right is now airing its grievances over the outcome publicly, with one of its top leaders saying the debate made Christians look completely out of touch.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/pat-robertson-ken-ham-dinosaurs