Creation vs Evolution

[acehighinfinity]

Hey yall,

I watched the debate video on Ken Ham vs Bill Nye. Observational Science vs The Holy Bible - creationist. Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_04S0fYU7FI

I have numbered some of them for Science (evolution) a. and b. for Creation/Holy Bible. I do have a lot of questions here, and if you don't mind answering them that would be great:

1.a - How did consciousness(mind) come from 'Matter'? Bill Nye and many scientist are unable to answer this.
1.b - Genesis 1:27 "So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them." and Genesis 3:21-24 "The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.� - Man was cursed with the knowledge of Good and Evil (consciousness/mind).

2.a - What scientific evidence support do you have for the Age Of Earth? 4.5 Billion years old (Earth/Universe).
2.b - The holy bible works out to 6000-10000yrs for the age of Earth.

3. - How did the Atom before the Big Bang get there? We know the Big Bang is only a theory.

4.a - How were dinosaurs killed? There are two theories for Science; meteorite and disease.
4.b - Genesis 6:7-8 " So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them..." - A global flood is the very cause.

5. If Science believes homo-sapiens existed an estimate of 200,000yrs ago and Earth is around 4.5 Billions years old. - Why is there a long period (massive gap) of years between Earth and homo-sapiens?

6. Is the moon in its correct place as we see it today if 4.5 Billion years was true? According to the moon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon. "The Moon's linear distance from Earth is currently increasing at a rate of 3.82±0.07 cm per year, but this rate is not constant" - Why do they say the moon is moving away from Earth but its not constant? Does the moon have a start and stop button? The calculation does not add up.

[acehighinfinity]

[Replying to post 27 by NoisForm]

...it says nothing about HOW consciousness arose. It merely says that God did it - that's it.
Where does the scripture speak of 'how' this occurred? Where is the explanation of how? There isn't one... So, neither of us know how, we simply claim two different sources.

Genesis 1:26-27...
Genesis 2:8-9...
If GOD had no mind (consciousness - thinking) to begin with then mankind wouldn't have one either.

I appreciate the attempt, but you don't seem to have read what I wrote (?) - at least, you didn't respond to what you quoted.

I'm familiar with the Christian Bible, and with Genesis in particular, and have not come across any explanation within it as to how this deity did anything at all. It claims that (he) did do a lot of things, but never a hint as to how. That is - no explanation, no explanatory power. 'He' just did. I'm afraid 'God did it' doesn't actually explain anything - no more than 'the brain did it'.

As I mentioned, an explanation is needed to explain how something occurs (obviously). Since you're original question was, "How did consciousness(mind) come from 'Matter'?", I presume you were looking to answer how, not where did it originate or from whom (since neither of those explain how). In the Bible, no explanation of how is attempted. I have to conclude therefor that no Christian knows how consciousness came about - same as with everyone else.

If everything was written on HOW GOD created the universe, MAN, etc, right from the beginning, do you think it would made it this far in 2014? We are talking about preserving the origin documents, and every details there is. There wouldn't be enough material/paper/books to contain it. That is why the Holy Bible makes it simple enough to understand. The holy bible claims:
- Creation of (Heaven and Earth), MAN, cursed knowledge (Good and Evil), suffering, etc.

But some will find it hard because Science can only test on physical subjects and can easily rule out an INVISIBLE GOD.

John 21:24-25 "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

Now if that was only for Christ in John 21:25, do you think there would be enough books to record every detail of GOD's creation?

[Bust Nak]

Now if that was only for Christ in John 21:25, do you think there would be enough books to record every detail of GOD's creation?

The point is, your answer is no better than our answer, and is infact worse, despite the posturing in the OP re: Bill Nye and many scientist are unable to answer this.

[NoisForm]

There wouldn't be enough material/paper/books to contain it.

Then you do understand that the Bible doesn't explain this. That's the only point I was trying to make. No one knows how as of yet, and the Christian Bible does not attempt to explain. Whether that's because it's 'too complicated' or some other reason, the fact is it doesn't.

When you wrote "How did consciousness(mind) come from 'Matter'? Bill Nye and many scientist are unable to answer this.", it seemed to imply that '...many scientists are unable...but the Bible is able'.

So long as we both understand that the Bible claims that God did something, but never even attempts to explain how, then we are in agreement.

...do you think there would be enough books to record every detail of GOD's creation?

No idea since I have no idea what would be involved. It may have pain incredibly simple (it did purportedly only take a handful of days to accomplish). Certainly an all powerful god would be able to explain even the most complicated process to a newborn. Nothing would be beyond (his) power. Just an opinion though.

But, it isn't so much a problem that it doesn't "record every detail" of how these things were done, it's that it doesn't include a single explanation as to how. Not one. It has zero explanatory power and therefor can never be even roughly compared to what we discover in science - which is really kinda all about 'how'.

Hopefully it's a bit clearer now. Claiming a thing happened, and explaining how a thing happened are very different. Science looks to explain how, religion does not. This is largely why creationism has no place in a science classroom - it doesn't even pretend to explore 'how'. The Bible makes a lot of claims about who did some thing, and sometimes why they did it...but never how. And again, science is all about how.

[Danmark]

....
But some will find it hard because Science can only test on physical subjects and can easily rule out an INVISIBLE GOD.

[preaching redacted]

This statement is an excellent example of the second half of the problem.
[The first half is the misguided belief that "God did it" is an answer]
2d half:

Ignorance of science. Science tests and examines many things that are 'invisible.'
Do I really need to make a long list?

Most of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation is invisible to us.
Only a tiny fraction of it is in the form of visible light.
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/ligh ... intro.html

In fact, the visible spectrum of EM is only about 1/1,000,000 (one millionth) of 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum.
http://www.varian.com/dyna/comp/2002/el ... netic.html

It may not be absolutely 100% definitive that there is no god, but no evidence of him has been found in the 99.999999% of the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum.

"God did it" is a satisfying answer to some, but the result is lack of curiosity about what really goes on in our world.

This 'god' supposedly interacts with the physical world, yet he is not part of it. His nature is 'spiritual,' in other words magical. He is like a ghost, the Holy Ghost, that passes thru rocks without disturbing them, yet somehow he can lift or throw that rock - Magic!

It is this same scientific lack of curiosity that is the cause of silly questions like, 'How can consciousness come from matter?" The question betrays ignorance on a vast scale, as if the universe consisted merely of rock like blocks of the sort of inert matter that was imagined thousands of years before we understood anything of atoms and sub atomic particles, the forces that bind them together, and drive them apart, and the waves and fields of energy all around us, invisible, but real.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 2 by Jashwell]

[1a]
Consciousness/mind isn't fully understood, but in my understanding it's emergent from complex information processes. There's no more reason to find it weird that a brain can think than that a calculator can calculate.

Why do you respond there is no reason to find it weird? We are talking about the existence/origin of a human being? Did the human mind appear in thin-air??

[1b] Was neither Adam nor Eve consciouss before they ate from the fruit of the tree of life? If so, did they choose to eat it?

Yes they were, the only difference was the freedom of nakedness was not shameful to them until after they disobeyed GOD in the garden of Eden - then receiving the knowledge of Good and Evil.

[2b]Things that are dramatically against a 10k year old Earth:
All forms of radiometric dating
Tree rings
Archeology
Paleontology
Biology
Geology
Astrophysics
etc

Forgot to mention, I'm no scientist to find out

[3] There wasn't 'an atom' before the big bang. We don't understand what there was, but it certainly wasn't an atom. Why would the 'atom' have to get there? Couldn't it have always been there?

I'm glad you said that. That has always been the problem with Observational Science especially when "No one was there???". So how do you support all those theories?

"Big Bang is only a theory" just like the Theory of Gravity, Atomic Theory, Theory of Bacteria, Molecular Theory, Evolutionary Theory. Just because Big Bang theory, doesn't mean gravity, etc, theory are ru

[4a] Asteroid, pretty conclusive, we've found the crater too.

You need to reference and date them exactly how they relate. Oh wait didn't you say "No one was there???"
[4b]Global flood is not found in the geological or biological record - yea we get that part(science)

You said the dinosaurs were killed, you are aware they lived 65 MILLION years ago, right?

Did I forgot to mention I believe in the Holy Bible? Come on now do I need to remind you "No one was there???" That's what observational science is. I studied science at school and I aware of its history.

[6] It's not constant because the moon is slowly spiralling away from the Earth. The moon isn't just going back and forth towards Earth.

So 4.5 Billion Years the moon is spiraling away from Earth?

IMO, anyone making this claim does not understand that all science is historical science to a degree. We make observations about past events, based on everything from data gathered in the laboratory yesterday to remnants of phenomena, like meteor impacts or stellar explosions, which may have happened billions of years ago. We then use them to make predictions about the future, about experiments or observations that have not yet taken place.

Predictions about the future, rather than a focus on the past, is what gives science its ultimate explanatory and technological power.

What predictions has Creationism succeeded at? That is what this comes down to, not "you weren't there now were you". Nah nah nah boo boo.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 12 by smalltownatheist]

Even if science couldn't explain the Moon -- or any of the other topics you brought up -- that doesn't mean creationism wins by default. Explanations have to stand on their own two feet. You can't answer a mystery with a mystery.

Where science doesn't know something, it looks. It keeps looking. Saying, "God did it!" doesn't offer the chance to look any further.

Keep looking, acehighinfinity.

Look, your comment is no difference to the rest here.
No need for me to keep looking, I already found it (Jesus Christ).
And when Science finally bridge all the holes maybe in the year 9999999999, hopefully by then someone would of built a time machine for them to travel back in time and tell you so!

Your argument is just as convincing as me saying to you that I found the answers in Allah.
If Jesus is good enough for you, than Allah should be good enough for a Muslim.

However, we both know that they can't both be right. For this reason, empty claims like "I know "X" because of Jesus Christ is a ridiculous justification.

However, me being a prophet of the one true god, I predict that you will continue to use your lack of logic to justify things you can only claim to know. I'm going to go walk on water now (it's cold here after all).

Be well.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 12 by smalltownatheist]

Yes, Bill was right. We don't know, but science is working on the question. Simply saying, "God did it" isn't an answer that facilitates looking for facts.

When you do find out then I'm all ears. Other then that you have no answer and the holy bible does.

When you find out, then I'm all ears. Other than that, you have no answer and the Holy Qu'ran does.

You really do seem to like the nah nah nah boo boo arguments.

See mine above. Is it convincing? If not, do you now understand why you should not use it (again, I prophecy that you will continue to do so).

[acehighinfinity]

[Replying to post 47 by Clownboat]

When you find out, then I'm all ears. Other than that, you have no answer and the Holy Qu'ran does.

Look here Clown, I'm not interested in the Qu'ran!
Stop repeating what I just said! Makes you more childish ("I prophesied that you will continue to do so" - lol now that's funny...do you have any more Clown Jokes?)

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 47 by Clownboat]

When you find out, then I'm all ears. Other than that, you have no answer and the Holy Qu'ran does.

Look here Clown, I'm not interested in the Qu'ran!
Stop repeating what I just said! Makes you more childish ("I prophesied that you will continue to do so" - lol now that's funny...do you have any more Clown Jokes?)

My point was so simple, yet you seem to have failed to grasp it. If it weren't for this being an online forum, I would hold your hand and perhaps use crayons and perhaps the results would have been better.

You see ace. I am repeating what you say to show others (maybe even you) how ridiculous and biased your words are. There was no nefarity involved like you would like to believe. Just simply displaying the ridiculousness of your approach by using your very words and successfully applying them to a competing religious notion.

Ironically, you react with "I'm not interested in the Qu'ran". It's almost as if you were on the verge of understanding the point being made. So close... I assume the point was understood by the viewers and I'm sorry I failed to convey it to you in a way you could understand.

Perhaps one more time:
You said: "When you do find out then I'm all ears. Other then that you have no answer and the holy bible does."

I said: "When you find out, then I'm all ears. Other than that, you have no answer and the Holy Qu'ran does."

It is absurd to find the statement reasonable for the Bible and unreasonable when people make the exact same claim about a competing holy book.

This is not a joke!