Ken Ham & Bill Nye Creationism vs Evolution debate

[thehobbster]

You guys know it's turtles all the way down, right?

And up.

 

[Jared Jammer]

You guys know it's turtles all the way down, right?

"Turtles all the way down" is currently in vogue in the scientific community, they've simply rebranded it as the multiverse.

"How do explain our universe?"
"The multiverse!"
"Well, then, how do you explain the multiverse?"
"It's multiverses all the way down!"

 

[Jared Jammer]

Here's my question, though:

Even if creationists could prove - without a doubt - that a higher power somehow sculpted the fabric of reality in the most arbitrary way possible, how would that lend any credibility to Christianity, specifically?

You're really not much of a thinker, are you?

The foundation of Christianity is the existence of God.

The primary objection to Christianity is denial of the possibility of God. God cannot exist, therefor, Christianity, which relies on the existence of God, cannot be true.

If it can be demonstrated that at least a God exists, then two things happen:

1. If it's proven that a God exists, then the Christian God has proof of concept. It proves that a being with similar attributes does exist. This is clearly evidence, but not proof, in support of the Christian God.

2. The primary objection to Christianity will have been eviscerated. A God does exist, therefor, Christianity could be true.​

 

[Jared Jammer]

this whole trend of "intelligence shaming" is just neat

you don't believe in god? you must be pseudo-intellectual, and fat :^)

Their combination of incoherence, ignorance, and arrogance makes atheist shaming a worthwhile activity.

 

[Jared Jammer]

hard hitting questions like, "if the universe is natural, where did logic come from?"

Actually, that's a damn interesting question which delves into the nature of nature.

Why does something, rather than nothing, exist, and -- perhaps more crucial -- why does this something have the properties it does?

Is it by design, or by chance?

If you don't think these are fascinating, hard-hitting questions, then perhaps this isn't the debate for you.

 

[jryan21]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_RvOTEIsPY[/ame]

 

[Jared Jammer]

The creationist way of thinking is a dead end. There is literally nowhere left to go if God is your starting point. Nothing left to discover and no new paths to take. "It was God, and that's pretty much all you need to know."

With physics as your starting point, the entire universe is open for discovery.

I'm sorry, but this ranks as perhaps the single dumbest thing written on this forum. It shows that you're both ignorant of the history of science, and of proximity

Science was built on the backs of theists. Nearly every branch of science was founded by a theist. The scientific methods (yes, there's more than one) were developed by theists. History's greatest scientists were not only theists, many of them explicitly credited God for their science.

I'll state this as politely as possible: If your hypothesis says believing in God is a science stopper, yet history overwhelmingly shows believing in God to be the science starter, then it's time to flush your hypothesis down the toilet, because it's shit. (I apologize for the run-on sentence)

Science is, in essence, the reverse engineering of existence. Such a process makes far more sense in light of a cosmic engineer -- God -- than it does in the light of "it just happened."

Theism provides for vastly superior science heuristics than does atheism.

Belief in God complements science, whereas, atheism undermines it.