Print Page | Close Window

Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate

Printed From: Black Hair Media Forum
Category: Lets Talk
Forum Name: Talk, Talk, and More Talk
Forum Description: In this Forum, the talk is about everything that can be talked about.
URL: http://Forum.BlackHairMedia.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=368204
Printed Date: Nov 17 2017 at 3:29pm


Topic: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate
Posted By: Random Thoughts
Subject: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 9:11pm
Anybody checking for it tonight?



Replies:
Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 9:14pm
bill nye the science guy?


Posted By: Random Thoughts
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 9:18pm
Originally posted by noneyons noneyons wrote:

bill nye the science guy?


Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill!

Yeah him. Debating evolution vs creationism vs famed young earth creationist Ken Ham at the Creationism Museum.


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 9:18pm
cool. where can I watch? 


Posted By: Random Thoughts
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 9:28pm
Its streaming live at the answers in genesis website.


Posted By: Sang Froid
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 9:28pm
The creationism museum is hilarious.


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 9:33pm
k cool. will check it out.


Posted By: Random Thoughts
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 9:53pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI#t=9768" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI#t=9768


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 9:56pm
not working for me and every time I go to the site it says 13 minutes and counting before it starts :(


Posted By: Random Thoughts
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 9:57pm
Originally posted by noneyons noneyons wrote:

not working for me and every time I go to the site it says 13 minutes and counting before it starts :(


Click on the youtube link. The debate starts around the 13 minute mark so just fastforward it.


Posted By: carolina cutie
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 10:02pm
I missed it!

I will have to catch it tomorrow.


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 10:03pm
still nothing. I'll keep trying though.need some brain food.





Posted By: Random Thoughts
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 10:08pm
Originally posted by noneyons noneyons wrote:

still nothing. I'll keep trying though.need some brain food.





This link here isn't working?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mAyBwhiAJ8&feature=share" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mAyBwhiAJ8&feature=share


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 10:15pm
got it! thanks


Posted By: ChubbyYeti
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 10:44pm
Is there another link. Neither of those are working? Can someone tell me how long the video is?


Posted By: Marcelo22
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 10:45pm
I was introduced to this Ken Ham dude in Bill Maher's documentary "Religulous". Hilarious doc by the way.


Posted By: noneyons
Date Posted: Feb 04 2014 at 10:56pm
the you youtube vid is about 30 minutes. 


Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 1:40pm
Oh wow I watched this last night at 8pm.  I had no idea it was going to be that long!  Almost started a thread but didn't think anyone would be aroundLOL

So the controversy was ppl being concerned about the beloved science guy participating in this debate.  I was worried he would be too PC.  It was pretty darn good.  I'm going to listen again but Nam didn't really participate IMO.  He spent most of his time giving examples of scientists who agree with him w/o a reason other than the norm.  Bill Nye pretty much did his job. 


Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 1:41pm
http://debatelive.org/" rel="nofollow - http://debatelive.org/

Try this.  I still have it open. 


Posted By: coconess
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 1:46pm
nerd


Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 1:49pm
Creation vs evolution? What's to debate?
Did anyone catch the documentary,Everything and Nothing?


Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 2:00pm
Originally posted by Derri Derri wrote:

Creation vs evolution? What's to debate?
Did anyone catch the documentary,Everything and Nothing?


Nam is the CEO of Answers in Genesis.  He's strict creationist and doesn't accept evolution science.  The earth is only 4-6,000 years old in his opinion. 

Any links for Everything & Nothing?  Whats the topic?


Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 2:05pm
Seems to me like both of those schools of thought are flawed tbh imo ijs
Strict anything usually leads away from the truth. Esp when talking about the universe...hahaha..it's not the nature of God to be strict


It's a doc that aired on tvo that deals with the question, in the universe what is everything and what is nothing?

I'm on my phone so i'm not sure how much I can do in terms of embedding..let me see what I can find


Posted By: PurplePhase
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 2:10pm
I caught them on CNN later.


Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 2:15pm
Here is a link to watch the Everything and Nothing

http://documentaries-plus.blogspot.ca/2011/06/everything-and-nothing-by-jim-al.html?m=1" rel="nofollow - http://documentaries-plus.blogspot.ca/2011/06/everything-and-nothing-by-jim-al.html?m=1


Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:09pm
https://twitter.com/Arumi_kai" rel="nofollow - - Carolyn McDowell - @Arumi_kai

This sums up the https://twitter.com/search?q=%23creationdebate&src=hash" rel="nofollow - #creationdebate pretty well. http://t.co/RLe1BoJTpc" rel="nofollow - pic.twitter.com/RLe1BoJTpc

https://twitter.com/Arumi_kai/status/430896900729241600/photo/1/large" rel="nofollow">
Embedded image permalink


Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:14pm
Originally posted by Derri Derri wrote:

Here is a link to watch the Everything and Nothing

http://documentaries-plus.blogspot.ca/2011/06/everything-and-nothing-by-jim-al.html?m=1" rel="nofollow - http://documentaries-plus.blogspot.ca/2011/06/everything-and-nothing-by-jim-al.html?m=1


I'll check it out.  I did not mean to spend two hours watching last night.  Why did I think it was going to be shortDead


Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:18pm
A scientist without evidence? Or is it his ego is blinding him from seeing evidence?
Everyone is afraid to see God because that would mean they are not God, but if they dug a lil further they would see that things get real interesting.

Same goes for the other guy. Seems like ppl don't understand God AT ALL but they stay prattling.


Posted By: Sang Froid
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:20pm
Please stop.


Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:23pm
Lol you talking to me sang?
Stop what?


Posted By: iliveforbhm
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:28pm
What god are you talking about?


Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:32pm
What God are you not talking about?

Point me to the thing that does not exist.


Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:32pm
They simplified what he said.  Nam answered first and said I'm a Christian so nothing would convince me that the earth wasn't created exactly as described 4,000 yrs ago.  Nye said he would be convinced that the earth was only 4,000 years old if they could find evidence that the earth is not expanding -or- two other things he listed.  He said any evidence of one of the discoveries he mentioned would be enough to convince him that he could possibly take the creation story literally and accept the timeline.  

In Nam we are talking about the guy who believes humans and dinousaurs were created at the same time.  


Posted By: iliveforbhm
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:39pm
I don't talk about gods unless I'm talking about religion/mythology/conceptual thinking


Posted By: iliveforbhm
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:40pm
Originally posted by kfoxx1998 kfoxx1998 wrote:

They simplified what he said.  Nam answered first and said I'm a Christian so nothing would convince me that the earth wasn't created exactly as described 4,000 yrs ago.  Nye said he would be convinced that the earth was only 4,000 years old if they could find evidence that the earth is not expanding -or- two other things he listed.  He said any evidence of one of the discoveries he mentioned would be enough to convince him that he could possibly take the creation story literally and accept the timeline.  

In Nam we are talking about the guy who believes humans and dinousaurs were created at the same time.  




Pointless debate if the man doesn't want evidence and shame on calling himself a scientist. He doesn't want to learn but push an agenda with no evidence.


Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:43pm
The word God has become empty of meaning through thousands of years of misuse. Some use it with such conviction like they know exactly, 100% the vast extent of what it is they speak of....or, they argue against it, as if they knew what it is that they are denying. This misuse gives rise to absurd beliefs, assertions, and egoic delusions, such as "My or our God is the only true God, or 'what God?'

Maybe I should have used the word universe instead.


Posted By: Random Thoughts
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:44pm
I have several thoughts about the debate.

It was successful for Ham. His job wasn't to "win" the debate or disprove evolution or science. It was to make creationism appear to be a legitimate alternative "theory" to casual people. He picked Bill Nye because Bill is well known, but not a biology or evolution expert. Bill has a engineering bachelors degree. Plus Bill is a nice guy and not abrasive so he won't call out lies in the debate, he'll simply say "I find that a bit troubling."

Ham made up terms (to confuse people) and did video interviews with creationist scientist, only because his main goal was to make creationism appear to be on par with any other discipline of science, even though they don't do the work that other scientist do. He wanted the debate to take the place of actually publishing the ideas in peer-reviewed journals. He also got a chance to promote the museum, which is reportedly struggling for funds. Nye presented his info well enough and he was very sincere but you can tell he isn't seasoned to debating someone like Ham.


Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:48pm
Thus the other reason the scientist refuses to debate creationists.  It automatically makes them feel that creationism = science simply for being allowed the platform.

In general though over 60% of Christians reject his thinking.  They feel like its possible to be religious w/o taking that narrow position.  His main argument against evolution was that you cannot observe the past.  The irony was lost on absolutely no oneLOL


Posted By: iliveforbhm
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:50pm
Originally posted by Derri Derri wrote:

The word God has become empty of meaning through thousands of years of misuse. Some use it with such conviction like they know exactly, 100% the vast extent of what it is they speak of....or, they argue against it, as if they knew what it is that they are denying. This misuse gives rise to absurd beliefs, assertions, and egoic delusions, such as "My or our God is the only true God, or 'what God?'

Maybe I should have used the word universe instead.


I can deal with this. I know Thoth is real. He bitter though and post on the ic.


Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:51pm


Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:53pm
When you want to be serious about it we can chat. Because I know you know the universe we live in is real.



Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:56pm
Originally posted by Random Thoughts Random Thoughts wrote:

I have several thoughts about the debate.

It was successful for Ham. His job wasn't to "win" the debate or disprove evolution or science. It was to make creationism appear to be a legitimate alternative "theory" to casual people. He picked Bill Nye because Bill is well known, but not a biology or evolution expert. Bill has a engineering bachelors degree. Plus Bill is a nice guy and not abrasive so he won't call out lies in the debate, he'll simply say "I find that a bit troubling."

Ham made up terms (to confuse people) and did video interviews with creationist scientist, only because his main goal was to make creationism appear to be on par with any other discipline of science, even though they don't do the work that other scientist do. He wanted the debate to take the place of actually publishing the ideas in peer-reviewed journals. He also got a chance to promote the museum, which is reportedly struggling for funds. Nye presented his info well enough and he was very sincere but you can tell he isn't seasoned to debating someone like Ham.



Thanks for this lil break down. Ham seems completely in his own mind, but so everyone the majority of the time. And Bill seems willing to come out of his mind but on his terms..so he let his mind go out the front door and slip through the back door. Which most of us do all the time.


Posted By: iliveforbhm
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:57pm
Lol sorry its a running joke when I created a thread on lemuria/Atlantis on the ic and told this old hating dude he is Thoth/tehuti cause he old and he wrote the emerald tablets but now stuck as a electrician hating life.


Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 5:58pm
I get the impression that Nye agreed to do this because he is concerned about education.   It would be embarrassing as hell if we really did start to teach creation as a science in this world-wide economy.   Its just another form of mis-education our children don't need.   I do believe some communist countries control the message of history in schools like they control the media but I don't know if they are manipulating science teaching the way some would like to do in the US.  I sure hope not but anyway in the US this could devalue our graduates even more than they already are.   He made that point towards the end and I think people actually get it. 


Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 6:07pm
There is a time and place for God, real God not play play God, and the world is not the place, and the time is now.



Posted By: iliveforbhm
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 6:29pm
But the universe is conscious though and physics is keeping it real about it. But its not a god that's a Greek idea and concept.


Posted By: ChubbyYeti
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 7:02pm
Dots represent schools that teach creationism and receive public funding to teach it. Green dots are public schools, orange are private schools and red are charter schools. I'd be pissed living in Louisiana or Tennessee.



Posted By: iliveforbhm
Date Posted: Feb 05 2014 at 7:22pm
Two states I'm not moving too. No wonder their education level is shyt.


Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date Posted: Feb 06 2014 at 8:47am
Originally posted by ChubbyYeti ChubbyYeti wrote:

Dots represent schools that teach creationism and receive public funding to teach it. Green dots are public schools, orange are private schools and red are charter schools. I'd be pissed living in Louisiana or Tennessee.



SMH.  I wonder what other countries look like.  I can't believe there is so much green on this map but I guess thank goodness its only those two states.  At the same time I'm thinking I expected more. 


Posted By: TokyoRose
Date Posted: Feb 06 2014 at 5:26pm
Originally posted by kfoxx1998 kfoxx1998 wrote:

Originally posted by ChubbyYeti ChubbyYeti wrote:

Dots represent schools that teach creationism and receive public funding to teach it. Green dots are public schools, orange are private schools and red are charter schools. I'd be pissed living in Louisiana or Tennessee.



SMH.  I wonder what other countries look like.  I can't believe there is so much green on this map but I guess thank goodness its only those two states.  At the same time I'm thinking I expected more. 


Korea and Japan definitely do not look like this because they feel that what should be taught in school is FACTS, not BELIEFS.  The problem with creationism is that the answer comes before the question.  Everything will always lead to the Christian god.  Evolutionists look for evidence of their theory (which can be TESTED). 

I think believers misunderstand the position of non-believers quite frequently, especially when it is science-related.  When we ask for evidence or proof, it's not to give creationists a hard time.  It's to prevent junk science that kept humans thinking the sun revolved around the earth for thousands of years.  To believe in a young earth is utterly ridiculous and should not be considered an opinion of any value.  Not only has science proven this is not the case, but so hasn't archeology and history.  We also run into the problem of humans having had over 2,000 gods.  Science has removed the idea of an aware creator all together and stuck to what is presently known and expanded on that.  If you believe that an intelligent creator existed to create the earth and the universe, you also have the added burden of proving that it is YOUR deity of choice that created the universe. 


Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 06 2014 at 5:51pm
There is some evidence that support a young earth, 'the winding-up dilemma' for example.

But as long as we try to disprove or prove the intelligent creator of this existence with our minds, we will always end up right where we started.

Consciousness is not meant to be understood with the mind. It is an awareness of Self.

God exists on the very brink of what is and what is not.



Posted By: TokyoRose
Date Posted: Feb 06 2014 at 7:27pm
Originally posted by Derri Derri wrote:

There is some evidence that support a young earth, 'the winding-up dilemma' for example.

But as long as we try to disprove or prove the intelligent creator of this existence with our minds, we will always end up right where we started.

Consciousness is not meant to be understood with the mind. It is an awareness of Self.

God exists on the very brink of what is and what is not.



Where is the evidence?  And most importantly, can it be found in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?




Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 06 2014 at 7:34pm
I gave 1 example. Go research it if you're interested.


Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 06 2014 at 7:57pm
But i'm not too concerned how old the earth is.
We spend a lot of time in the past, and a lot of time wondering about a future that never comes, while there is so much to experience right now.

A belief is comforting, but only through experience does the truth reveal itself. You have to know the truth is the truth in order to say it is, and you have to have been a part of the experience of the truth. The truth is not an emotion, it is a state of being...it's not comprehensible with the mind of polarity.


Posted By: TokyoRose
Date Posted: Feb 06 2014 at 8:09pm
Yes, I have researched it, and again, there is no support for a young Earth.  We do not know exactly when the universe was created, but we can make a pretty good guess.  The Christian timeline for the creation of Earth and the universe simply does not match up with the physical evidence already here.  Ancient Egypt alone proves the Earth is far older than the 4,000-6,000 year time frame young Earth proponents talk about.  We can talk about individual perception all we'd like, but at the end of the day, our perception (opinion) wouldn't measure up to the physical evidence that young earth theory is even remotely possible. 

And once again, we are butting heads here because one side is coming into the discussion with no presumptions toward an ultimate answer.  They are taking pieces of a puzzle and putting it together.  The other side thinks it already has the answer and THEN puts the puzzle together.  The problem with believing you know what the picture is before you put the puzzle together is that you may be proven wrong.  And if that happens, you may very well insist on making those pieces fit or insist your interpretation was the correct one.  That's why the only people who take young earth theories seriously are the ones who have an agenda to preserve outdated answers.


Posted By: melikey
Date Posted: Feb 06 2014 at 8:31pm
Didn't watch the debate but I would not agree with teaching creationism as a science, but i am very interested in the study of this as a philosophical question and I would take it as a class had it been offered to me. i am a space, physics, metaphysics and astronomy nerd, the type that reads articles on black holes and string theory and then read peoples off the wall extrapolation of what could be not just what facts exist today. those things stimulate me more than anything because of the endless possibilities for the nature of our being. 
i will always encourage my children to pursue creative pursuits, or even put confidence before evidence if that is where they are led to from time to time. I plan to raise rationalists, pragmatics, dreamers, and believers all at the same time just like me. 


Posted By: Derri
Date Posted: Feb 06 2014 at 9:08pm
We are all finding out about life. There is no absolute that we know of, and we have to approach the universe less arrogantly.
Currently there are 20 stars roughly the size of our sun that have been ejected out of our galaxy.
Scientist have no idea what caused this, as they did not come from the black hole at the centre of the galaxy and yet they are moving at a speed fast enough to leave it.
No one knows what could have worked these stars up to such velocities because before this discovery, only a star kicked out of a black hole could have such energy to even dream about leaving the galaxy.

In the book of Job, God poke with Job about arrogance and presumption of claiming to know in absolutes all that God is.
The point is to find out and come to awareness by experiencing---by being.




Posted By: TokyoRose
Date Posted: Feb 06 2014 at 9:32pm
Real science is not concerned with absolutes.  Religion is.


Posted By: newdiva1
Date Posted: Feb 07 2014 at 1:47am
I didn't see all but Nye did him a favor by even agreeing to "debate" him.  Nye seems like he'd be willing to re-think his position if presented with proof.  Ham said flat out he don't give a fucc what kind of evidence nobody got.   Why even have the debate then...if you're not interested in what nobody got to say?   Folks want solid evidence when it comes to science but religion...


Posted By: tatee
Date Posted: Feb 07 2014 at 6:43am
im not in this, i just wanted to drop this off. LOL because its PRLOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWAbr-SoMAs" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWAbr-SoMAs




Posted By: tatee
Date Posted: Feb 07 2014 at 6:44am

Archaeologists Carbon-Date Camel Bones, Discover Major Discrepancy In Bible Story

Posted: Updated:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/carbon-dated-camel-bones-bible_n_4737437.html?view=print&comm_ref=false" rel="nofollow - Print Article
Main Entry Image
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/bible-camels/" rel="nofollow - Bible Camels http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/camel-bones-bible/" rel="nofollow - Camel Bones Bible http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/Erez-Ben-Yosef/" rel="nofollow - Erez Ben Yosef http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/Lidar-Sapir-Hen/" rel="nofollow - Lidar Sapir Hen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/camel-bone-carbon-dated/" rel="nofollow - Camel Bone Carbon Dated http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/bible/" rel="nofollow - Bible http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/camel-archaeology/" rel="nofollow - Camel Archaeology http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/camels-bible/" rel="nofollow - Camels Bible http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/biblical-history/" rel="nofollow - Biblical History http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/camel-carbon-dating-bible/" rel="nofollow - Camel Carbon Dating Bible http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/camel-bone-carbon-dating/" rel="nofollow - Camel Bone Carbon Dating http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/Religion/" rel="nofollow - Religion News


Researchers http://archaeology.tau.ac.il/ben-yosef/pub/Pub_PDFs/Sapir-Hen&Ben-Yosef13_CamelAravah_TelAviv.pdf" rel="nofollow - Lidar Sapir-Hen and Erez Ben-Yosef from Tel Aviv University have discovered what may be a discrepancy in the history laid out in the Bible.

Using carbon-dating to determine the age of the http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/05/archaeologists-carbon-dated-camel-bones-contradict-biblical-accounts/" rel="nofollow - oldest-known camel bones , the researchers determined that camels were first introduced to Israel around the 9th century BCE.

The Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament refers to camels as pack animals as early as the story of Abraham. Though there is http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html" rel="nofollow - no archaeological evidence of Abraham's life, many in the religious and scientific communities, including http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112063/jewish/Abrahams-Early-Life.htm" rel="nofollow - Chabad and the https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/08/25/The-Army-of-the-Kings-of-Ur.aspx#Article" rel="nofollow - Associates For Biblical Research , cite the 20th century BCE as his time of birth. If the new evidence is correct, however, this suggests discrepancies between the Bible and human history as explained by science.

The researchers scoured ancient copper production sites in the Aravah Valley, where camel bones were only present in sites active in the last third of the 10 century and the 9th century BCE. Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef write in their report:

"[The camel bones] demonstrate a sudden appearance of camels at the site, following a major change in the organization of production in the entire region."

This suggests that camels were introduced to the region abruptly, http://www.ibtimes.com/oldest-camel-bones-undergo-carbon-dating-direct-proof-bible-was-written-centuries-after-events" rel="nofollow - perhaps by Egyptians along Mediterranean trade routes.

Dr. Robert Harris, an Associate Professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary, says this shouldn't come as a shock to the theological community.

“While these findings may have been published recently, those of us on the inside have known the essential facts for a generation now," Harris conveyed to HuffPost Religion through associates at JTS. "This is just one of many anachronisms in the Bible, but these do not detract from its sanctity, because it is a spiritual source, not a historical one.”

Biblical archaeology is understandably an imperfect science. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html" rel="nofollow - Archaeologist William Dever explained in an interview with PBS several years ago:

"We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean."


Posted By: Random Thoughts
Date Posted: Feb 07 2014 at 6:51am
Originally posted by Derri Derri wrote:

I gave 1 example. Go research it if you're interested.


I researched it. It's not evidence for a young earth.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.1201.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.1201.pdf

I'd like to hear the other examples.




Posted By: Random Thoughts
Date Posted: Feb 07 2014 at 7:02am
Originally posted by Derri Derri wrote:

We are all finding out about life. There is no absolute that we know of, and we have to approach the universe less arrogantly.
Currently there are 20 stars roughly the size of our sun that have been ejected out of our galaxy.
Scientist have no idea what caused this, as they did not come from the black hole at the centre of the galaxy and yet they are moving at a speed fast enough to leave it.
No one knows what could have worked these stars up to such velocities because before this discovery, only a star kicked out of a black hole could have such energy to even dream about leaving the galaxy.

In the book of Job, God poke with Job about arrogance and presumption of claiming to know in absolutes all that God is.
The point is to find out and come to awareness by experiencing---by being.




I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. You present an interesting scientific mystery in one paragraph and then go directly to talking about arrogance and God in the next. My only conclusion is that you're using some sort of god of the gaps argument. "We don't know...therefore God."

I agree that arrogance should be left at the door. I would say that includes using stories from the specific religion one fancies to be the end-all answer for mysteries about the universe.


Posted By: iliveforbhm
Date Posted: Feb 07 2014 at 7:26am
It's because now biblical researchers are now saying that genesis was written in 500 BC, so of course it would have been stories and fables. There is no proof of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob nor the 12 tribes and etc. They just simply didn't exist in the fashion they were described. I don't even think the hebrews were an complete ethnic group coming for the same people but different people and slaves making up a group or nation. So they weren't blood, but they needed these stories to bind the people together and that's where Judaism comes in.


Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date Posted: Feb 07 2014 at 7:42am
Lol.  Pat Roberts said bless your soul Bishop Usher youse wrong.

When I see articles like the camel article and they say stuff like evidence seems to contradict the bible I always wonder if the writer is serious. 

Anyway back to Pat Roberts.   Since faith requires no proof why not just accept the science and recall that one believes YHWH is the creator and has a hand in ALL things.  Why present 'evidence' for a young earth.  Its kind of pointless and even Pat Roberts can see that.   


Posted By: iliveforbhm
Date Posted: Feb 07 2014 at 7:54am
Originally posted by kfoxx1998 kfoxx1998 wrote:

Lol.  Pat Roberts said bless your soul Bishop Usher youse wrong.

When I see articles like the camel article and they say stuff like evidence seems to contradict the bible I always wonder if the writer is serious. 

Anyway back to Pat Roberts.   Since faith requires no proof why not just accept the science and recall that one believes YHWH is the creator and has a hand in ALL things.  Why present 'evidence' for a young earth.  Its kind of pointless and even Pat Roberts can see that.   
 
Twerking on this status!
 
ClapClapClap


Posted By: bunzaveli
Date Posted: Feb 09 2014 at 8:41am
Originally posted by tatee tatee wrote:

im not in this, i just wanted to drop this off. LOL because its PRLOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWAbr-SoMAs" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWAbr-SoMAs








Print Page | Close Window