Evolution v. Creationism Debate

riotgrl

We've discussed the Creation Museum in Kentucky before so I thought some of you might be interested in listening to this debate that is happening this evening. Here is a link where you can listen live:

wfpl.org/post/watch-ken-ham-bill-nye-creationismevolution-debate-here

Bill Nye the Science Guy vs. Ken Ham the founder (creator ) of the Creation museum.

hedonist

I heard about this! Should be interesting, if not mildly entertaining.

Hope to read a transcript of it afterward.

Cosmo

I hope Creationism has dropped that whole 'Intelligent Design' thing. It is not science.
And if you believe in Creationism... great. Just don't tell me that I have to believe it, too.

brianlux

In light of the science I've read, to me it seems pretty darned reasonable to believe that life evolves. There's nothing written in stone that says there isn't some creative comic being that set life and the universe into motion but my feeling is that if someone says they understand that and can define it as created by something they believe to be God or a god or gods then their God/god/Gods is/are too small. (If that makes sense.)

Cosmo

brianlux said:

In light of the science I've read, to me it seems pretty darned reasonable to believe that life evolves. There's nothing written in stone that says there isn't some creative comic being that set life and the universe into motion but my feeling is that if someone says they understand that and can define it as created by something they believe to be God or a god or gods then their God/god/Gods is/are too small. (If that makes sense.)

...
The thing is... Life exists on this planet... at this time. Life wasn't always here... and life will be gone long before the planet is consumed by the dying Sun.
Maybe the pieces of life will remain... in a dormant state to be resurrected millions or billions of years from then... at another space in time. And if it does, it will probably evolve... just like it did, here.

riotgrl

Plenty of ideas to shake your head about in this debate. But Ham's notion that there is no way to prove the age of the earth is ludicrous. Not even being able to entertain the idea that the earth is older than 10,000 years old says a lot about this guy.

Idris

Started listening (15 mins ago, so missed a lot of the 'debate' so far)

Gotta say, not impressed by any of em (yet), but I'll keep listening for a bit.

the wolf

Both of them being so blinded by their beliefs makes for a lousy "debate". When you have no room to budge on a belief, all the debating in the world is for nothing.
I know plenty of pro creationist, and pro science (evolutionists) that can have this discussion and find a common ground.

if you ask me, someone trying to disprove God to the masses is just as annoying as someone trying to prove God to the masses.

In short, I find people who talk and deal in absolutes, boring.

Cosmo

Is the absence of proof... proof?

hedonist

brianlux said:

In light of the science I've read, to me it seems pretty darned reasonable to believe that life evolves. There's nothing written in stone that says there isn't some creative comic being that set life and the universe into motion but my feeling is that if someone says they understand that and can define it as created by something they believe to be God or a god or gods then their God/god/Gods is/are too small. (If that makes sense.)

"creative comic being"?

This might be one of my favorite and most perfect Freudian slips ever

Yeah, I think when it comes to intangibles - faith? - never proof. But it's ok.

I don't need it, because I don't know...and doubt I ever will.

Cos, you said "just don't tell me that I have to believe it, too" Agreed, friend.

(though if some NEED to tell me? Have at it, I say! I am mine).

bootlegger10

I liked that they both spoke when it was their turn and didn't talk over each other. Refreshing for cable tv news stations

brianlux

hedonist said:

brianlux said:

In light of the science I've read, to me it seems pretty darned reasonable to believe that life evolves. There's nothing written in stone that says there isn't some creative comic being that set life and the universe into motion but my feeling is that if someone says they understand that and can define it as created by something they believe to be God or a god or gods then their God/god/Gods is/are too small. (If that makes sense.)

"creative comic being"?

This might be one of my favorite and most perfect Freudian slips ever

Yeah, I think when it comes to intangibles - faith? - never proof. But it's ok.

I don't need it, because I don't know...and doubt I ever will.

Cos, you said "just don't tell me that I have to believe it, too" Agreed, friend.

(though if some NEED to tell me? Have at it, I say! I am mine).

That is funny! Thanks for pointing it out.

)

Last-12-Exit

I've spoke with Christians that believe in evolution. Some of them convince themselves by saying "god created everything, including evolution." Whatever floats your boat buddy. Ed says it pretty good, mine is mine and yours won't take it's place.

know1

I believe in both. Not sure why anyone wouldn't.

riotgrl

I've always taken issue with Christianity having "the" explanation of the creation of the earth since it is one of the youngest religions and each religion has its own explanation for the creation of the earth. Understandable that, in earlier times before rational thought/scientific method, people would develop ideas about how/why we are here but for me it is time to let science explain creation/evolution.

know1

riotgrl said:

Understandable that, in earlier times before rational thought/scientific method, people would develop ideas about how/why we are here but for me it is time to let science explain creation/evolution.

So does anyone else beside me think that in 2000 years or so from now we might look back at 2014 as a time before "rational thought/scientific method" and that we had to "develop ideas about how/why we are here"?

I definitely think that way. That's a long time from now and progress continually happens at faster and faster rates.

backseatLover12

the wolf said:

Both of them being so blinded by their beliefs makes for a lousy "debate". When you have no room to budge on a belief, all the debating in the world is for nothing.
I know plenty of pro creationist, and pro science (evolutionists) that can have this discussion and find a common ground.

if you ask me, someone trying to disprove God to the masses is just as annoying as someone trying to prove God to the masses.

In short, I find people who talk and deal in absolutes, boring.

I totally agree with this.

dignin

backseatLover12 said:

the wolf said:

Both of them being so blinded by their beliefs makes for a lousy "debate". When you have no room to budge on a belief, all the debating in the world is for nothing.
I know plenty of pro creationist, and pro science (evolutionists) that can have this discussion and find a common ground.

if you ask me, someone trying to disprove God to the masses is just as annoying as someone trying to prove God to the masses.

In short, I find people who talk and deal in absolutes, boring.

I totally agree with this.

But that was not what the debate was about. It was not about the existence of God. The debate was essentially about the age of the planet and the evidence for or against evolution.

Source, I watched the whole thing last night.

By the way, it was not boring. A little sad maybe, that this is even a "debate".

dignin

brianlux

know1 said:

riotgrl said:

Understandable that, in earlier times before rational thought/scientific method, people would develop ideas about how/why we are here but for me it is time to let science explain creation/evolution.

So does anyone else beside me think that in 2000 years or so from now we might look back at 2014 as a time before "rational thought/scientific method" and that we had to "develop ideas about how/why we are here"?

I definitely think that way. That's a long time from now and progress continually happens at faster and faster rates.

I don't think so. I think in 2000 years (if, by great fortune and much effort we're still here) we will have a better scientific understanding of life and the cosmos (not to mention the comic) and and even deeper appreciation for the myths (which will be taught in classes called "Creation Myths 101") that humans have created throughout the millennia.

riotgrl

brianlux said:

know1 said:

riotgrl said:

Understandable that, in earlier times before rational thought/scientific method, people would develop ideas about how/why we are here but for me it is time to let science explain creation/evolution.

So does anyone else beside me think that in 2000 years or so from now we might look back at 2014 as a time before "rational thought/scientific method" and that we had to "develop ideas about how/why we are here"?

I definitely think that way. That's a long time from now and progress continually happens at faster and faster rates.

I don't think so. I think in 2000 years (if, by great fortune and much effort we're still here) we will have a better scientific understanding of life and the cosmos (not to mention the comic) and and even deeper appreciation for the myths (which will be taught in classes called "Creation Myths 101") that humans have created throughout the millennia.

Have either of you read anything from Joseph Campbell about human mythology? The Power of Myth is a great documentary/book about the universality of myths and how these myths are integrated into our culture and how humans then use these myths to recognize universal truths. Sounds very similar to the metaphors/parables/life lessons/etc. that are common amongst all the world's religions. The following quote is from Campbell:

"God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought, even the categories of being and non-being. Those are categories of thought. I mean it's as simple as that. So it depends on how much you want to think about it. Whether it's doing you any good. Whether it is putting you in touch with the mystery that's the ground of your own being. If it isn't, well, it's a lie. So half the people in the world are religious people who think that their metaphors are facts. Those are what we call theists. The other half are people who know that the metaphors are not facts. And so, they're lies. Those are the atheists."

Campbell then goes on to say that the function of mythology is to educate our young and define their path/journey in that particular society so we are able to make sense of our world. He has a pretty interesting take on the role of mythology and religion.