Posted on 02/06/2014 1:58:22 PM PST by celmak
On many mornings, I wake up and think, “You know what this country needs? More culture war.” As I scramble up a couple eggs, I find myself wishing—fervently wishing—that we could spend more time reducing substantive issues to mere spectacle. Later, as I scrub the pan, I’ll fantasize about how those very spectacles might even funnel money toward some of the country’s most politicized religious groups.
Fortunately, Bill “the Science Guy” Nye has heard my wish—which, really, is the wish of a nation. Why else would he have traveled to Kentucky this week in order to debate Ken Ham, the young-earth creationist founder of Answers in Genesis, about the origins of the world?
Actually, there are two other reasons that Nye might have done so, and I’ve given both possibilities a great deal of thought in the past few days. The first is that Nye, for all his bow-tied charm, is at heart a publicity-hungry cynic, eager to reestablish the national reputation he once had as the host of a PBS show. When his stint on Dancing With the Stars ended quickly, Nye turned to the only other channel that could launch him back to national attention: a sensationalized debate, replete with the media buzz that he craves.
Possibility number two is that Nye is clueless—that, for all his skill as a science communicator, Nye has less political acumen than your average wombat.
After watching the debate, I’m leaning toward that second possibility. Last night, it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Read my post again. I was giving a general statement; not specific to you.
only has a presence with government schools and liberal philosophy
I point out to you that the official position of the Church of Rome, adhered to by 1.2 Billion Christians, is a non-trivial counterexample to your risibly sweeping pronouncement -- and you reply that "you can't quote catechism, because you're not in our camp."
Precisely because the Pope and nearly all other mainstream Christians overwhelmingly share the tenets of Mere Christianity, with you and do not support your silly claims that Genesis is a literal account of the creation of the world, are not secular, are not scientists, are not running government schools, and are not liberals is why YOUR point is baloney.
It has nothing to do with what I believe.
You made a "point." It was demonstrated to be nonsense within the context of your own belief system. Keep digging.
OK. See post 99, which is a reply to 93. Reading off the reply number at the bottom of a post instead of the number of the post is a trivial error. It’s not analogous to believing that a myth made by an insignificant tribe of Bronze Age semi-savages is a faithful account of the creation of the world.
Maybe because evangelism really counts, as in it doesn’t matter the messenger, just the message. I do believe that in the end it is God that changes a person’s heart through proclamation of the truth of the gospel, not even the best arguments of men@!
Oh, and here’s a protip, just for you: The etiquette on FR is that when you reply to a poster, you are, strangely, actually replying to the poster. To make a general observation — which you weren’t — you reply to #1.
I take it when you state "Scientists won't debate you", you mean debate ID or Creation science. Obviously, ID and Creation science has made great inroads outside academia because it has not been outlawed here. There's only one reason debate is closed in academia, and that is this so called "SOCAS", and liberals love to hide behind it. Not that I believe that the earth is flat, but I don't mind it being debated. After all, school should be open to debating even this so as to bring the evidence against it. Now I will assume that you believe the religion of Darwin and ask you this - Do you hide behind SOCAS, or do you believe your Darwinist "science" can hold up in debating it in government schools?
Where?
Debate is closed in academia because Creationism isn't science. It's a supernatural theory, and science deals with nature.
I don't mind the flat earth being debated either; by immortals who have nothing better to do. But we teach science to our children poorly enough already without wasting time on a) discredited theories and b) nonscience. The Earth is not flat, and it is not 6000 years old. There is no scientific evidence that either of these things are true.
LOL, ‘your mythology is better than my mythology?’ Is that all you’ve got, skippy? You still have not refuted what Dr Schroeder explained. Likely you haven’t even read it! That would be typical of your ilk, mind so tightly shut that the little gray cells are dying by the millions from oxygen deprivation.. Yeah, your entire suit is nothing more than ‘my mythology is superior to your mythology’. And yet you really really think you’re so intelligent to be a scoffer. What a maroon you’re exposing yourself to be! And please, continue the dullardry.
Here’s one where the recently departed Duane Gish, Biochemist and former Assistant Prof. at Cornell University, of the Institute for Creation Research debated Ian Plimer, Geologist, and Professor at the University of Melbourne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx6UKslLPso
So teach the controversy, right? Teach flat earth and spherical Earth, Heliocentrism and Geocentrism, Alchemy and Chemistry, Astrology and Astronomy, side by side.
No thanks. You can teach your kids that crap; the world needs ditch diggers too.
What about a linguistic/logical point of view?
We know that 'day', while generally 24 hours, refers to the time it takes sun to return to the same apparent position in the sky; this is supported by Joshua's "long day" (Josh 10) being referred to as a 'day'. (So, one must accept that 'day' needn't refer to a 24 hour period.)
Yes, the chapter says that there was no day like it before, or since, but that is for the sun [and moon] staying fixed in the sky — something that could not happen prior to the creation of the sun… or Earth (note that Gen 1:2 says the Earth was "without form, and void"). And, still before the sun [or Earth] was formed the first day ends with God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
So, how would you measure a 'day' by the "evening and morning" when the Sun doesn't yet exist?
Saying that the 'Day' in the Creation have to be 24-hours, is the same sort of worldview-centrism bias as those who claim that the language Adam (and the rest of humanity) spoke before Babel was Hebrew… utterly unsupported assumption tainted by one's own experiential [or philosophical] suppositions.
A criticism of Nye.. How dare the truthful science guy lose to the obviously crazy-extremist religious guy.
Cause the crazy religious guy couldn’t possible actually make sense!!
Yeppers, them government schools teaching Evo religion sure enough create no ditch diggers!
I’m not worried. Jesus will reveal the truth when he returns to claim his throne. Are you?
They obviously are doing a crappy job since at least a third of the country believes in creationism. I guess you think the answer is more field trips to the Creation Museum so they can ride a dinosaur. Yeeeeehaw!!
Simple question: What supports why you think the world is the age it is?
The entire field of geology. The main methods are radiometric dating. There is no disagreement about an Earth billions of years old except for the subset of evangelicals who follow Price’s long debunked “flood geology”. Even many creationists understand the Earth is billions of years old. The rest are working off of a Bronze Age supposition.
So what does radiometric dating base it’s standard on? Sooner or later you will take a leap of faith. Keep going;)
Testify!! I'm going to take another leap of faith and call my plumber tomorrow to fix a clogged sink.
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.