Bill Nye Inadvertently Rescued Creationist Noah’s Ark

The Science Guy’s debate with Creation Museum founder Ken Ham may have provided the needed boost to revive the stalled construction project

  • Share
  • Read Later

Like TIME on Facebook for more breaking news and current events from around the globe!

Bill Nye “The Science Guy” may have inadvertently helped revive a $73 million project to build a replica Noah’s Ark in Kentucky by publicly debating creationist Ken Ham this month.

The Noah’s Ark Encounter project was launched in 2010 as a part of a larger theme park built by Answers in Genesis, the ministry run by Creation Museum founder Ham. When private donations proved insufficient to complete the project construction stalled. But Ham announced Thursday that the Ark project was back on track and is expected to be finished by the summer of 2016, after a bond issue raised an undisclosed amount of money to complete the project, the Central Kentucky News reports. Ham said a flurry of media attention stemming from his Feb. 4 debate with Nye helped nudge support for the project over the edge.

On hearing news that the ark project has been given new life, Nye said he was “heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky.”

[Central Kentucky News]

50 comments
dcarlisle
dcarlisle

Bill Nye is heartbroken and sickened that people might be drawn closer to God.  Really?  Shows where his heart is........

enchntdfrogpond
enchntdfrogpond

Here's an even better nugget of hypocrisy: in 2009, Grant County ordered a no-kill shelter in Williamstown, KY to euthanize its animals due to overcrowding. Williamstown is, of course the same town that put forth the bond offering to support Ham's stupid Ark Park, which of course is meant to glorify a mythical boat designed to save animals. Well played, Christians. I'm sure Noah would be proud.   http://www.examiner.com/article/pet-shelter-ordered-to-euthanize-dogs-due-to-overcrowding

Candromeda
Candromeda

Nye may have inadvertently helped fund the park, but he did America a great service by exposing Young Earth Creationism.  I have been an atheist for over 40 years, but like many non-believers I had a vague idea that most creationists in America just believed that a deity set evolution into motion.  Growing up in the south I of course knew there were crazy fundamentalist evangelicals out there – but I thought their numbers were small.  These people account for roughly half the country!  The Nye/Ham debate (as well as the recent HBO documentary “Questioning Darwin”) spelled out for the other half of America exactly what these people actually believe – and it’s not pretty.  


I know many secularists and religious moderates who found Ken Ham’s views deeply disturbing and alarming.  If nothing else maybe the non-delusional half of America will realize that we need to stop treating supernatural nonsense as sacred and speak up when we hear our friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors employing this destructive way of thinking.

Lon
Lon

Here is another view.  We are learning that the physical laws seem to be universal.  That is, our probes, telescopes, spectroscopes, and planetary landers work no matter where they look or where they go.  Those laws and physical constants are conducive to life here on Earth, and presumably everywhere we can see in the universe (except of course, inside stars, black holes, etc.


What if, just suppose, that GOD has made all of these life-possible parameters for beings on some OTHER PLANET in some other galaxy!   We know that the Earth and our solar system are mere specks in the vast void of space and that our self-declared, exalted position as center of the universe has been steadily eroding since the time of Galileo.  Maybe GOD is in constant and open physical communication with his truly chosen people and that all of the holy books of all religions on Earth are the result of man's desperate need to be subject to some higher power.  Perhaps man is an unintended result of these wonderfully life-possible conditions in our universe.  Perhaps GOD does not even know we exist!


Just a thought.

TrueCreation
TrueCreation

Like the creation story, the account of Noah is a subject of many misunderstandings within the Christian community. I believe God’s Word that Noah existed, and that he built and used an ark as God commanded, bringing aboard animals from the surrounding countryside. This was the entire world, as far as Noah was concerned. The flood was not global, and it was not particularly deep; the Hebrew word harim can be translated as either mountains or hills, and the King James Bible uses this translation: And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered (Genesis 7:19). From Noah’s viewpoint, this is exactly what he would have seen. Prior to the rise of Seventh Day Adventist-inspired “flood geology”, a local flood interpretation was not uncommon among Christian scholars. In his Systematic Theology, first published in 1886 and now in its 33rd printing, A. H. Strong wrote,

“Hence Scripture uses the phrases of common life rather than scientific terminology. Thus the language of appearance is probably used in Genesis 7:19 “all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered” such would be the appearance, even if the deluge were local instead of universal; in Joshua 10:12,13 “and the sun stood still” such would be the appearance, even if the sun’s rays were merely refracted so as preternaturally to lengthen the day; in Psalm 93:1 “The world also is established, that it cannot be moved” such is the appearance, even though the earth turns on its axis and moves round the sun.”


Genesis is the truth, but the indoctrination into a global flood interpretation by evangelical churches for nearly the past 100 years has been a powerful lie propagated by an unfortunate cascade of pseudoscientific teaching originating ultimately from a teenage “prophet” during the 1800s. The Genesis description of creation was never intended to be a textbook on Advanced Studies in Universe Construction 310 or on Sedimentary Geology 401. God created the Earth, and He saw that it was good. If our study of the Earth clearly, undeniably reveals that there was no global catastrophic flood, we have to either accept that a worldwide flood interpretation is incorrect, or accept that God created the global floodwaters ex nihilo, buried the entire planet in water, and then later destroyed the water and whisked away all evidence that it ever existed outside of Mesopotamia, meanwhile restoring life to the entirety of the Earth just as it existed before the flood. If He did so, wouldn’t the Bible mention this? God is not a deceiver. It is far more likely that the flood was local, which is in agreement with the geological record; understanding this does nothing to dilute the integrity of the message. God destroyed the sinful civilizations surrounding Noah, Noah passed along this lesson verbally to his descendants, and Moses recorded the entire account as the inspired Word of God.


- See more at: http://truecreation.info/

Dr_GS_Hurd
Dr_GS_Hurd

The castigation of Bill Nye for "saving" the Answers in Genesis theme park is undeserved. (On a legal technicality, the "Ark Park" is supposedly independent).

My first observation is that Ken Ham and the truth are rarely found together. There is no evidence other than his say-so that the project is funded. He also mentioned that his corporation,  Answers in Genesis Ministries, had purchased bonds. He refused to reveal how much of the "surge" in fund raising was a sham "robbing Peter to pay Paul."

profjj
profjj

This is a great example of what happens when a person tries to just question their evolution theory, the evolutionists are like the Spanish inquisition, or like the Nazis, or even like the McCarthy Hearings. They will not have a open minded discussion. Once again, thank you all reasonable people, for reading my post and considering other options for life.


BTW,  just to show everyone that these adverse attacking responses from the evolutionary guard are not the geniuses they pretend , for example, Emac126 retorts that "all cells are living". You see his view is that any cell is life and thus can become spontaneous life (poof magic). I have foam cells in my couch for example and I assure you that they are not living cells.   

I can only refer Emac126 to the dictionary definition:


CELL

noun

1. a small room, as in a convent or prison.

2. any of various small compartments or bounded areas forming part of a whole.

3. a small group acting as a unit within a larger organization: a local cell of the Communist party. 

4. Biology . a usually microscopic structure containing nuclear and cytoplasmic material enclosed by a semipermeable membrane and, in plants, a cell wall; the basic structural unit of all organisms.

5. Entomology . one of the areas into which the wing of an insect is divided by the veins.


from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cell 

profjj
profjj

Ah, you see people, I knew the evolutionists would attack this way. Its a religion with them so they make personal attacks. They avoid considering other theories.  They are dogmatic about their own belief.  You can see I've touch their emotional nerves, they love their evolution theory and it cuts them deeply to have their faith shaken. To all reasonable people out there thank you for being open minded and considering logically what I have presented.

profjj
profjj

We are just carbon based machines that were made by some super intelligence, what's so hard to believe about that?


I find the astronomical odds of evolution impossible, thus impossible to believe. Thus to "believe" in evolution you have to have more faith in your impossible theory than a much more plausible super intelligence.


Why are you soooo resistant to having an open mind to other ideals?


OKay, if you don't want to consider some super intelligence then there are also other theories to our existence. For example, the Universe and life has no beginning and no end, it always existed and always will. How does that grab you?


How about this theory?  Life is all an illusion, we don't really exist.  Wow, what do you think of that?  And there are many other theories but the point I'm trying to make is why are you so stuck on your belief in evolutionism ?  Let it go and open your mind.

profjj
profjj

?? Where did the first living cell, with all it functions (self replicating, self healing, DNA instruction codes, complex structures, etc) come from?  Evolutionists believe in the first cell "magic".  They say, "The first cell just magically went poof into existence"   The creationist say there was an intelligent designer.  Hey, I don't believe in the magic of evolution so I have to go with the later explanation. Think about this.


BTW, I am a senior scientist with over 20 patents.  If you have a cell phone then you are probably using one of my patents. My GPA (4.0) was higher than yours so don't start calling me names.

kulaniu2010
kulaniu2010

Yup, now that more people are throwing money at the project, it definitely makes the bible real, yup. This will show that kookie scientist or whatever he calls himself, that true faith will always prevail over scientific fact- you just have to keep piling the money on. The more money- the more real. That's what my pastor tells me so it's true

admrobster
admrobster

Let the dumb dumbs build their ark. Then we can see if they can fit two of each living thing on it. When they can't, maybe they'll open a science book instead of their late bronze/early iron age book-o-fairytales.

tyrone.m.jackson
tyrone.m.jackson

Apparently in Kentucky, they take stupid pills by the car load.

BabuG.Ranganathan
BabuG.Ranganathan

CREATIONIST DEPRESSED OVER KEN HAM DEBATE

by Babu G. Ranganathan*

As a creationist, I must say that the recent debate between Ken Ham and  Bill Nye was very disappointing and depressing. I'm one very sad and depressed creationist.

Ham argued philosophically, not scientifically. There is positive scientific evidence that we're here by intelligent design or creation. That should have been presented.

Information in any form is positive evidence for intelligent origin. DNA is information. Even Carl Sagan said that sequential radio signals from space would be evidence of intelligent origin. What about the sequence of molecules in the genetic code?

Richard Dawkins feared that Nye wouldn't win the debate if it revolved around biology, but Ham never got around to the biological evidence, especially regarding DNA and how the sequence of molecules in DNA, making it a code, is powerful prima facie evidence for intelligent origin and cause.

There were many scientific arguments Ham could have made to support creationism, but he never did.

Ham has a great creation ministry through his website and the Creation Museum, but he's a poor debater. I pray he'll never debate again. 

What really is science? There are two types of science. Empirical science is the knowledge of an event or a thing witnessed through our senses. You know that the moon exists. You can see it! You know that the chair exists because you can see it or feel its support.

The other type of science is forensic science. Forensic science is not direct knowledge but indirect knowledge of something. You didn’t witness the person’s death and you didn’t see how he died, but through careful collection and analysis of evidence you are able to determine how the death occurred.

The scientific method is used every day in forensic science to determine whether an event in a crime scene was an accident or by design and intention. Mathematical probability is a scientific argument and is frequently used in determining many issues of scientific inquiry.

The scientific method cannot be used to prove events that occurred outside of human observation. No one observed the origin of the universe by either chance or design (so neither can be proved by science), but scientific evidence via mathematical probability can be used to support either a chance or design origins for the universe.

Some things don’t need experiment or scientific proof. In law there is a dictum called prima facie evidence. It means “evidence that speaks for itself.” 

An example of prima facie evidence is if you discovered a message written in the sand.   You naturally assume that an intelligent and rational being was responsible for the message and not because a stick randomly carried by the wind sketched it there.

Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.

The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance are 10 to the 65th power. That’s just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them.

The late great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated that the odds of the simplest cell forming by chance are 10 to the 40,000th power! How big is this? Consider that the number of atoms in the whole known universe is only 10 to the 23rd power.

It has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, amino acids, can come into existence by chance, but it has never been shown that these basic building blocks can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

Information, in any form, is evidence for intelligent origin. That’s what DNA is, information. Even Carl Sagan said that sequential radio signals from space would be evidence of intelligent origin. The sequence of molecules in DNA, making it a code, is prima facie evidence for its intelligent origin.

What about “Junk DNA”? It isn’t junk! Recent research published in scientific journals such as Nature and RNA has revealed that the “non-coding” segments of DNA are essential in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed in the body).

Explaining how an airplane works doesn’t mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order.

Of course, once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature?

Time is of no help to chance. For every good accident there will be thousands of bad ones with the net result, over time, being deleterious, not beneficial. A partially evolved cell (an oxymoron) that is unprotected by a fully functioning cell membrane would disintegrate in the open environment long before it could evolve into a complete and living cell.

Visit my popular Internet sites: NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION and THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)

Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I've been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East" for my writings on religion and science.

billzumwalt54
billzumwalt54

Having watched this debate , even though Nye was a bit all over the map, he crushed Ham. I actually wanted Ham to put on a better showing but sadly did not. There are obviously problems with both sides, perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle.

BabuG.Ranganathan
BabuG.Ranganathan

NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only micro-evolution, or evolution within biological "kinds," is genetically possible (such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not macro-evolution, or evolution across biological "kinds," (such as from sea sponge to human). All real evolution in nature is simply the expression, over time, of already existing genes or variations of already existing genes. For example, we have breeds of dogs today that we didn’t have a few hundred years ago. The genes for these breeds had always existed in the dog population but never had opportunity before to be expressed. Only limited evolution or adaptation, variations of already existing genes and traits, is possible.

The genes (chemical instructions or code) must first exist or otherwise the evolution cannot occur. Genes instruct the body to build our tissues and organs.  Nature is mindless and has no ability to design and program entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Nature can only work with the genetic ability already existing in species. Nature cannot perform the genetic engineering necessary to increase that genetic ability.

Many people have wrong ideas of how evolution is supposed to work. Physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes - not by what happens to our body parts. For example, if a woman were to lose her finger this wouldn't affect how many fingers her baby will have. Changing the color and texture of your hair will not affect the color and texture of your children's hair. So, even if through physical exercise an ape's muscles and bones changed so that it could walk upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Only changes or mutations for traits that occur in the genetic code of reproductive cells (i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring. Read the author's popular Internet article, HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME? Apes, by the way, are quite comfortable in how they walk, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival.

Modern evolutionists believe and hope that over, supposedly, millions of years random genetic mutations in the genes of reproductive cells caused by environmental radiation will generate entirely new genes. This is total blind and irrational faith on the part of evolutionists. It's much like believing that randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel, over millions of years, will turn it into a book on astronomy! That's the kind of blind faith macro-evolutionists have.

When evolutionary scientists teach that random genetic mutations in species over, supposedly, millions of years caused by random environmental agents such as radiation, produced entirely new genes (i.e. genetic code or genetic information) leading to entirely new forms of life, they are not teaching science but simply a faith, a belief!

What about natural selection? Natural selection doesn't produce biological traits or variations. It can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. The term "natural selection" is a figure of speech. Nature doesn't do any conscious selecting. If a variation occurs in a species (i.e. change in skin color) that helps the species survive then that survival is called being “selected." That's all it is. Natural selection is a passive process in nature, not a creative process.

How could species have survived if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems, etc. were still evolving? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not complete and fully functioning from the start would be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. Plants and animals in the process of macro-evolution would be unfit for survival. For example, “if a leg of a reptile were to evolve (over supposedly millions of years) into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing” (Dr. Walt Brown, scientist and creationist). Survival of the fittest actually would have prevented evolution across biological kinds! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! (2nd Edition).

All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are found complete, fully-formed, and fully functional. This is powerful evidence that species did not come into existence gradually by any macro-evolutionary process but, rather, came into existence as complete and ready-to-go from the very beginning, which is possible only by special creation.

All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not non-human and human (i.e. Neanderthal Man was discovered later to be fully human). Textbooks and museums still continue to display examples and illustrations supporting human evolution which most evolutionists have rejected and no longer support. Many diagrams of ape-man creatures over the years were reconstructed according to evolutionary interpretations from disputable bones that have now been discredited but still being taught in school textbooks.

What about genetic and biological similarities between species? Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Only within a true species can similarities be used as evidence for relationship because only within a true species can individuals be capable of mating and producing offspring.

Also, so-called "Junk DNA" isn't junk. Although these "non-coding" segments of DNA don't code for proteins, they have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed, so they're not "junk"). Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

The real issue is what biological variations are possible, not natural selection.

Visit my latest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION .

I discuss: Punctuated Equilibria, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, dinosaur “feathers,” the genetic and biological similarities between various species, etc., etc.

Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. theology/biology)

Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

*I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East" for my writings on religion and science. I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterward) before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges/universities.

jerryomullane
jerryomullane

@dcarlisle

@dcarlisle His heart is exactly where it should be in the right place trying to save the ignorant from themselves and the world from those extremely dangerous selfish people undermining science..my question to you is where is your brain? The only reason creationists get away with their nonsense is their numbers and power, most evident by far in America by the obscenity of intellectual retardation and regression they are perpetuatng. Were watching America in Europe with something far far beyond embarrasment and disbelief. Were looking with real horror!


Creationism is a classic example of the perverting, deluding and devissive nature of religion when it moves away completley from its spiritiual roots and centre as a vehicle to know God and truth and instead becomes dogmatic ,unthinking ,childish and a cruel form of real evil..
Creationissim worships the golden calf while Moses is on the mountain.
Its all about itself and certainly not God ! Its about a flight from the reality of a world that is feared because it has the education to think for itself at last. Creationism and fundementalism is a descent into darkness and madness under the hyopcritical banner of seeking truth.

Creationism draws people to HELL..The hell of self serving ignornance
It one of a series of last ditch movements from flat earthers heading into extinction like the dinasours..
Truth draws people to God..
Dont take my word for it..you dont need too!
I f you have the courage i can guarantee you can find that out for yourself.
Truth is truth...its not my opinion or yours.

RandyAbell
RandyAbell

You seem not to trust the word of God. How Sad. Noah building an ark only makes sence if it is global. Only if you put mans ideas into the account can you come to a local flood.

eliyahu.jones
eliyahu.jones

I like what you're trying to do but I feel like you might be spending too much energy trying to justify something unredeemable.

gearwonk
gearwonk

@TrueCreation  The Bible is fiction intertwined with wisdom. There is very little truth in it, and not an ounce of science.

Dr_GS_Hurd
Dr_GS_Hurd

@profjj,

All I can tell from your posts is that you are an anonymous clown with internet access. I would not be surprised if you post from a public library somewhere.  

Lon
Lon

@profjj That s interesting.  You cannot believe the magic of evolution so you choose the magic of religion?  That is a very convincing argument!

MatthewJ.Fazio
MatthewJ.Fazio

@profjj I hold 5 PHDs in various studies and am a self-made millionaire.  I believe everything I read on the internet.

masterblasterofdisaster
masterblasterofdisaster

@profjj  It's a mistake to assume there was a "first cell", complete in structure and function.   To do so is to resurrect the soundly refuted watchmaker analogy (Paley, who originally made the argument, was in fact refuted by Hume before Paley was even born...)  



Emac126
Emac126

@profjj: Are you sure? You seem extremely insecure about your intelligence, and other peoples estimation of your intelligence. Also, the quality of your writing doesn't reflect a high level of education. Also, a 'senior scientist'? What discipline? Senior at what lab, company, or university?  I assume that when you say 'scientist' you obviously don't mean 'biologist' because if you understood biology at all, you wouldn't feel the need to say "living cell", as all cells are living. Also, a professional in a scientific discipline probably wouldn't feel the need to brandish their GPA as any sort of justification for their authority, that is something that immature high school and first year college students do to make themselves feel superior. Finally, if you actually understood biology, evolution, or the advent of life on this planet, you would know that there are plenty of perfectly valid, scientifically sound, empirically provable theories for how and when life initially arose on this planet.

SonOfTroy
SonOfTroy

@profjj  Nice try.  If you truly had the credentials you claim then you would realize how irrelevant they are to commenting on a discipline that you are so supremely unqualified to do.  You come across like just another engineer that is too full of themselves to think they understand cosmology or genetics to the point of being an authority.  I know that I certainly don't have the necessary background but I sure do understand enough of the history of religion to, if not believe, to want no part of it. 

EdwardBurke
EdwardBurke

@profjjSo if John Crapper (the inventor to the toilet ) makes the same argument as you have, than we should believe him more than you, because certainly his invention is far more successful than yours will ever be. Arguing GPA to quiet people´s comments down is than sophomoric, wouldn't you agree?

Lon
Lon

@admrobster Many of the best known stories in the Old Testament, The 7 Days of Creation, The Flood, Moses, etc., were modified from Babylonian stories incorporated into the Jewish culture.  The Babylonians have a story describing the creation of the universe except for days, each of the 7 "steps of creation" refer to 7 different groups of gods.  The 6th group of gods created man, and the 7th group of gods rested, etc.  Moses appears to have been styled on Hammurabi (the lawgiver), The "flood covered all the high hills" seems to reference a local flooding of the Tigris-Euphrates RIver system that washed away the people and their villages from the valley.  During this period of time, religious zealots made their "god" more powerful and more fantastic than the competing "gods" so they could gain status.  The Old Testament contains many verses contrasting God to the other gods in the land and extolling his greatness; there is no other, He is changeless, He is eternal, He is incomprehensible, etc. 


All of these things preempt anyone from debating any aspect of God.  This is the ultimate dogmatism and this is the reason for the futility in arguing with a fundamentalist.  They cannot, they WILL NOT be convinced.  Their salvation relies on them NEVER BEING SWAYED.  For these reasons, it is impossible to ever have a DEBATE between someone who accepts the mountains (literally and figuratively) of evidence for scientifically viewing the world versus blind acceptance of the biblical stories.  This seems to be one of the persuasive points presented by religious people of many varieties; science changes as it discovers new information, therefore it cannot be trusted.  Religion NEVER changes, therefore it is much more comforting.  This sounds like SHEEP mentality.  "Give me a shepherd who will take care of me because I do not want to take care of myself."  The shepherds keep the sheep because he wants to have a long-term, meaningful relationship with the sheep.  He takes care of them so they can be shorn and slaughtered.  Nice image! 

ThomasZell
ThomasZell

@admrobster  It was more like late stone age, probably chacolithic or neolithic that the myth originated, it did not become a coherent religion until the early bronze age, and it was first written in early iron age Babylon.  

EdwardBurke
EdwardBurke

@BabuG.Ranganathan  I believe the number of atoms in the universe to be on the order of 10 to the 78 to 10 to the 82th power. 

kulaniu2010
kulaniu2010

This is a comment section, not section to demo your fantasy novel

GrownAdult
GrownAdult

@BabuG.RanganathanThat's not the reason Ham can't defend creation against a scientist. The reason his argument falls flat on its face is the same reason yours does. It is because you are trying to argue in favor of magic and there are too many grown adults who recognize the uselessness of that viewpoint. And even more importantly, too many people see through the transparancy of your motive for doing so. The motive for arguing in favor of a creator is not to advance technology in any way shape or form, it is not to provide solutions for the homeless or the hungry, it is not to cure disease or poverty. It is yet another attempt to wedge a bronze age mentality in society, where it has no place, in order to justify the atrocities that it is well known for, such as denying equal rights, (or even basic human rights for that matter), subjegation of women, and an entire host of other things that are just downright degrading to the human race.
If you really want to live in a country that where these creationist ideas are taught in schools, and preside over it's citizens, there are plenty of them, but the US is not, nor will it ever become one, no matter how creativly you try to word your bull***t.

JohnParanoiaSmith
JohnParanoiaSmith

@billzumwalt54



Haha! This is an absurd comment. It’s like arguing if a train engine driver has to steer the locomotive or not. And then settle for the compromise that he has to steer “a little bit”. Seems like billzumwalt54 really doesn’t get it! Either way! Haha!


MatthewJ.Fazio
MatthewJ.Fazio

@BabuG.Ranganathan Like most of these internet loonies, all I see is a huge wall of rambling text instead of a short, concise answer.  Thank you for perpetuating the stereotype.

Malevolence93
Malevolence93

So if "micro-evolution" is real, as you say it is, and it is recognizable even in the past few hundred years. What happens when "micro-evolution" goes on for billions of years?

GrownAdult
GrownAdult

@BabuG.Ranganathan Once again, all you are saying is that you can't really explain it, so there must be a "divine being", and there really is no evidence to support that. If there were, science would be all over it like white on rice and you know it. Science would welcome it with open arms and say "Bring on the evidence!"
That is all it took for Bill to invalidate Ken's side of the discussion.

MoeVember
MoeVember

@BabuG.Ranganathan Babu the bafoon. what an idiot, if you had proved evolution is false you would be a household name right now.  Fool.

eliyahu.jones
eliyahu.jones

How d'ya think he got that way folks? In fact, just last week I learned that my aunt's neice is making $gazillion hr/wk/mo at home...

profjj
profjj

@masterblasterofdisaster @profjj  You say that  "Paley...was...refuted by Hume before Paley was even born", that is absolutely amazing,  Hume sees into the future and knows what some one was going to say before they were born!?!  amazing !!!!


Hey just keep these retorts coming, this is making you evolutionists look crazy, heheheh


BTW, so you say there was no first cell, that's a relief, I thought that life was made up of living cells.  Great how you so easily just threw out that silly notion.   hhehehhehehahhahahah   this is getting so funny !!!


I gotta go , its been fun though.  Just keep repeating to yourself, "evolution is true, evolution is true,.....

admrobster
admrobster

@ThomasZell @admrobster Oh I understand that the oral tradition was passed down probably well before the first proto-writing or cuneiform tablets were made. But the written work they reference to prove all is from the periods mentioned. 

admrobster
admrobster

@Malevolence93 How can we possibly know that when the earth is only ~6,000 years old? (*snicker*) ;)


Oh wait, if we listen to Ham we can't know anything (except what's written in his holy books) unless we personally observe it, so there's no way to know what happens over "billions of years" ever.

masterblasterofdisaster
masterblasterofdisaster

@profjj @masterblasterofdisaster  


With respect to "first cells", again, protocells needn't have been perfect ( ie "complete in structure and function", as I wrote earlier).   Look up "protocell" to get the idea.


You can call me an "crazy" and laugh or whatever if you want, but it doesn't do much to further the conversation.




masterblasterofdisaster
masterblasterofdisaster

@profjj @masterblasterofdisaster  


Yes, Hume refuted Paley's analogy before the analogy was voiced by Paley.  Look it up yourself.

The point is -- if it wasn't clear enough -- that Paley's analogy was foreseen and soundly addressed.   Paley's analogy was DOA.

Likewise, the Watchmaker Analogy was addressed by Darwin and others such as Dawkins most recently as popular science in "The Blind Watchmaker". 


Creationists, however, do not recognize this fact and continue to present ideas equivalent to the watchmaker analogy, such as "intelligent design".






Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,104 other followers