Skip to comments.Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (full video of last night's debate)
Posted on 02/05/2014 9:40:42 AM PST by EveningStar
click here to read article
Intelligent design is irrefutable and Darwinism is unsupportable. That’s not much of a debate.
Creationists are like liberals. They desperately want to hold on to their “beliefs” while reality suggests otherwise.
Creationists Darwinists are like liberals. They desperately want to hold on to their beliefs while reality suggests otherwise.
As if "science" is somehow above the political, or pure and perfect. Your sentence is not only wrong, but frankly, quite naive........
No, not if one party simply refuses to accept the facts. When one side simply says, "I don't accept that," (in this case radiocarbon dating) there isn't much more room for intelligence to play a role. I don't think you can defend "intelligent design" with impenetrable denseness.
It was a great debate and Ken Ham stayed on subject as Bill Nye kept trying to change subject and acted like an a** in my opinion!
I dropped at countdown of 2 minutes of music. Lost my interest right away.
So radiocarbon dating is infallible in your world view?
I tried being a Darwinist, but just didn’t have the faith required to believe that religion.
Pray America is Waking
I agree. They're embarrasing and dangerous to conservatism. This anti-science attitude that is co-opting conservatism is going to cost us a lot of educated suburban voters. Just wait until every guy running with an (R) after his name has to field questions from the media on how old they think the earth is.
Evidence of ID is overwhelming and undeniable, beginning with the purposeful makeup your own body, its DNA and the many intricate parts that work individually and together for a functioning body. Proof of purposeful and intricate design is proof of a Designer.
Darwinism requires transference from one major animal group to another of which there is no evidence.
It is young earth creationists that make Christianity look bad in these debates. Nye should have rather debated someone like Hugh Ross.
Science is free to operate from a set of assumptions. In fact science cannot happen without them.
There is no harm in a scientist beginning with the assumption that intelligent design is operative and/or implicit wherever order exists. Order, arrangement, and art are hallmarks of intelligence. There is also no harm in a scientist assuming this order to be the result, or evidence, of a higher being, even the One of Whom the biblical texts have testified from the beginning. In fact that makes sense, because it lends credence to, or is not unduly surprised by anomalies such as studies in quantum mechanics are beginning to yield.
Concerning matter as studied at absolute zero, Rob Thompson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, recently said, “It is a wonderland where nothing is certain, where objects behave both as particles and as waves, and where matter can be in two places at once.” Kind of makes “walking on water” or “turning water into wine” a less-than-remarkable possibility. It also undermines the paradigm (fairly recent) of an ancient universe.
If the presence of intelligence is rejected as operative behind the order we see, then it stands to reason the evidence will lead elsewhere, as it does for those who adopt the materialist point of view.
I happen to hold the former point of view, but do appreciate the great amount of legwork others do in unearthing the universe. The antagonism that exists between the two points of view is to be expected, for they cannot both be true in their assumptions and conclusions. Both may be science, but neither is able wholly to divest itself of faith.
So it’s irrefutable that it was designed, but impossible for it to have been designed with the ability to evolve?
How old was Adam when he was created?
2.5 hours - any clue as to MBs?
Evidence of ID is everywhere, beginning with the purposeful makeup your own body, its DNA and all the intricate parts that work individually and together that make up a multi-functioning body. Proof of purposeful and intricate design is proof of a Designer.
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.