Posted on 02/05/2014 9:40:42 AM PST by EveningStar
Could have been six 24-hour days, or it could have been 6 1-million year eras. To me, it doesn't matter either way. Nature is filled with examples that point to an intelligent designer (ice is less dense than water, carbon-based life, the consistency of form from atoms to galaxies to name just a few simple examples), and more to the point, matter does not and cannot create itself. No matter how He chose to do it, God was clearly at the helm of creation. Anyone who claims that a watch can exist without a watchmaker is a liar or an ignoramus. In the long run, it takes a great deal more FAITH to believe in a universe without an intelligent creator, than to believe in one God created.
Define “Darwinism”. I’m familiar with the theory of evolution. “Darwinism” seems a slippery term that defies formal definition, other than being a general perjorative.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/darwinism
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/151986/Darwinism
Debating kooks only lends them credibility and tends to further kookify them.
God wrote it, so yes I trust it. I wish I could give you a more philosophical answer. Others could and I’m sure you’ve read them.
On paper, he no more qualified to discuss this stuff than Ken Ham, you, or me.
IMHO, Ham lends Nye more credibility by this debate than Nye lends Ham.
Not at all. The only thing you know is that living things whose parts are intricate and work individually and together as a unit with a purpose are evidence of a Designer who is intangible and otherwise unknown to you. You go outside the scope of the discussion when you try to prove the non-existence of an intangible Designer by things you don't understand about the intangible Designer. That is entirely another discussion. By definition, the Designer is not necessarily limited by the limitations of the design (you and I).
Nye calls into question the accuracy of translating the Bible into English over thousands of years.
He displays a serious lack of knowledge in the translation of the Bible and the accuracy of those translations.
I’m currently in the process of studying Biblical Greek and it’s amazing how accurate the texts from antiquity are.
Can’t wait to study the Hebrew.
Once mucus has exploded, the body has to break it down. Mucus is sticky and it accumulates. If the body doesn’t break it down, it will eventually clog the lungs and other organs. Cystic fibrosis is a genetic condition where the ability lacks the ability to break down mucus. The ability to create mucus without the ability to break down mucus results in early death. Prior to modern medicine, cystic fibrosis patients died before reaching 18.
So what are the chances that the human race evolved the ability to create mucus, and break down mucus, at the same time? Statistically, it’s off the charts. If the ability to create mucus evolved first, the human race would have died out from cystic fibrosis. Under the evolutionary construct, there would be no physical need to evolve the break down ability prior to the mucus creation ability. These separate human systems had to be created together, or the body fails.
Nye asserts the reasonable man hypothesis to justify his beliefs.
I can say the same thing that a reasonable man would look at DNA and draw the same conclusion you did. It just didn’t happen by itself.
But like every historical entity, theories undergo change through time. Indeed a scientific theory might undergo such significant changes that the only point of continuing to name it after its source is to identify its lineage and ancestry. This is decidedly not the case with Darwinism.
From this description, the term "Darwinism" seems to have been arbitrarily and unnecessarily assigned, since the basic theory admittedly has not undergone any significant revision or divergence to make it necessary to designate or group the theories by lineage.
As a philosophical designation, it appears to be indistinguishable from philosophical naturalism, which again seems unnecessary, and potentially confusing and ambiguous.
None of that counts as probative evidence of transference between those animal groups. Concurrence is not the same as causal.
Watched the whole thing and calling this a debate on evolution vs creationism is a joke, this was at best a debate on young earth proposition which is a non starter.
Then none of it counts as evidence of a common designer.
Nye asserts that it is very improbable that Noah could have built the Ark.
Why? Because that was a long time ago and we’re much smarter today than Noah was. He also asserts that Noah was not a ship builder.
The Genesis account doesn’t give us the background of Noah.
It is a presumption of modern man that we are smarter than the ancients. Hogwash. Take a look at the pyramids. Pretty good engineering for a bunch of ancients!
But Nye’s biggest question, and it’s a good one....how do Christians know for sure?
I believe the Bible gives us the answer on this.
It is by faith and faith alone. He gives us insights into His kingdom in Romans by telling us that “that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.”
That’s what Nye is missing. He wants a mathematical formula to prove God. That’s not how salvation works.
It is by faith in Christ and Christ alone.
Nope. You cannot apply the physical limitations of a creation to a spiritual, metaphysical being.
An analogy; as a programmer, I can make a game with limitations of my choosing. I can program sprites that will be subject to an animation-loop for a set period of time. None of these limitations apply to me. The very concept of an animation-loop does not apply to me.
“And none of that counts as evidence?”
Sure, it can be evidence, but it can be evidence for either position. Evolutionists would say: “common features = evidence for common descent”, while creationists would say: “common features = evidence for common designer”.
I presume you define Christianity as believing Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was crucified on a Cross, buried and resurrected after three days for our sins.
If you believe this, then believing creation, as outlined in Genesis, shouldn’t be a problem.
Jesus believed in Creation. He should, as He as there in the beginning.
Is there anything other than theological doctrine preventing them from both being right? As near as I can tell, the only thing standing in the way of finding common descent from common design is insistence on assuming the literal phrasing of the Book of Genesis is scientifically accurate description of events.
Written / spoken language has proven to be a notoriously unreliable and limited means of conveying an idea.
I used to be pretty noncommittal about it, myself, but I did some reading, and a couple of very simple things stand out for me.
Jesus says in Matthew 19 that in the beginning God created them male and female, which of course reinforces Genesis and the story of creation. Evolution teaches that humans are a recent arrival on the stage. Either Jesus is lying, or evolution is wrong.
Also, according to the Bible, the world was without sin, suffering, or death until the fall of man. But evolution teaches eons of bloodshed and death before man ever showed up.
“Could have been six 24-hour days, or it could have been 6 1-million year eras.”
Perhaps, if we didn’t have contextual clues to settle the matter, it could be a “grey area”, however, the text is quite plain, when it says, for each day of creation, that there was evening, then morning, then the next day. If you want to ignore that and believe it is talking about ages, then you are not trying to interpret what the text says, you are trying to fit the text to what you want it to say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.