The part I bolded is what I always bring up and it points to an even more true statement in my personal opinion. It takes a lot more faith I think to believe something came from nothing...than to believe in a Creator. Dan and some others pointed out the truth though when it comes to these debates, it is so tough if not even impossible for anyone to come into these debates truly with an open mind. I find myself always listening more intently to Nye as my curiosity for the something from nothing idea of the the beginning of time is one which I always am intrigued by a lot. I felt Nye did a decent job, if not a good one, at representing his viewpoint and idea of it all. I do find it interesting that a lot of his mindset and view is based on the accomplishments of man, and the measurements of man, the findings of man, the assumed assumptions of man. I find this interesting because a lot of faith is put on man, when man proves without a doubt can fail and does fail consistently. That all said though I completely agree and understand why non-Creationists find it mind boggling to believe in an entity not able to be observed (in their opinion that is not mine and others)....because I think the same thing about the goo of atoms that "big banged" into creation. It is a debate both sides much acknowledge and respect the fact faith is needed for both sides of the argument.
Hooker without writing a book or being rude...can you elaborate on the bolded statement? I am curious if nothing else why his thoughts or his system of thoughts is so frightening?
But you do believe something came from nothing. You say faith is needed on both sides, I say faith is needed for one, and reason is needed for the other.
Because he wants to kill discovery. He just wants people to accept that God created everything, and anything that happened in the past cannot be proven, so why bother even questioning it or try to understand it. He wants us to stop seeking answers to our questions. That is a frightening belief system.
Carbon dating has been disproven for so many instances it cannot be used as reasoning the age of the earth...not to mention it uses an assumption of a starting point to which no one can prove without a doubt...so it takes faith in science...or the ability of atoms to just "boom" have creation no? I agree faith is needed for the Creation model...I guess my question is how does faith not come into play with the whole "big bang" idea? You too are stating something came from nothing<which I admitted both sides are in a way believing in.
I didn't interpret anything he said in the debate as such, he is backed by a lot of scientists active in the medical, astrology and discovery side of science. Asking why or how something occurs doesn't affect the starting point of everything...it is figuring out how and why something occurs. How our bodies react to certain medicines, infections or bacteria needs to be studied, observed and worked on because it helps mankind. How the stars form, die, effect gravitational pulls to some (myself included) is a field needed because we ourselves rest on a celestial body in orbit of one. It doesn't change how it came to be but it could effect our understandings of it's make up, how it may die or exist into the future. Ham may in another forum or speech have stated otherwise but I understood him as supporting observational science which has resulted in medicine, innovations and research which leads to such things which better human life... Perhaps I overlooked something he said or I interpret him differently or I misunderstood your statement completely...please point that out if so.
I'm not going to argue with you about the accuracy of carbon dating (although it is rarely used anymore). I don't know enough about to debate it. And neither do you, so please spare me. Fine. If you want to say that both are faith based beliefs, I'll give you that. But the difference comes from what you are basing your faith upon. I choose to base my faith upon reason and what we know and understand today. You choose to base your faith upon...whatever you choose, I guess.
That is where a common disagreement probably never mixes well and why the two sides exist in the first place. To a Creation minded person it is logical and easily understood that a Creator was needed for things to be. By your last statement I find it amusing you almost blow off another one's choice to base their faith on something...something many of us would describe as reason or fact based, which just happens to be laid out in a book called the Bible (for some of us, others believe in a Creator but not necessarily the Bible). Thanks for the dialogue Hooker.
Yes, he supports this so-called "observational science", science in which we can see (but apparently ignores tree rings, which we can see form..). But he completely disregards this so-called "historical science". He stated many times in the debate that we didn't know what happened because we weren't there and discredited any and all "historical science". Every answer for any "historical science" question was "God" and that was that. The end. No further debate in Hamm's opinion.
I didn't blow off your choice, I just don't know what you base your faith on, so I couldn't answer it.
So it's more reasonable to believe a speck of sand exploded out of nowhere billions of years ago and has expanded ever since (even though it already has no bounds) and life spontaneously started out of nowhere? Sorry, I'm an extremely intelligent person and that doesn't sound logical at all.
My point exactly...the side which you hold to can state, "So it's more reasonable to believe in a "super being" which we must assume always existed just decided to create life and life occurred." While the other side can say (expanding a little on what TEmbry said) "An atomic sludge or collection of atoms, which we must assume always existed just exploded one day and kept expanding/exploding till life as we know it began to exist." Both require faith, both rely on one's discernment to decide which is more logical...
I'll give you that But the point Nye was trying to make last night is that we should keep trying to find answers to these questions. Keep searching. Keep trying to find more evidence to support our beliefs. Not like Hamm who thinks we should just accept the Bible as fact and that is that.
There are a lot of scientists on the Creation side of things using discoveries and seeking more discoveries to prove "our" Creation beliefs...they're just too busy to debate Nye because they're doing research haha!
My favorite question was the whole "What if anything is there that would change your viewpoint?" I thought Nye and Ham both didn't go in depth at all with this question, but Nye answered in a sense as deep as his side allows. I mean in his eyes absolutely no discoveries have proven the time lines supported by the Bible...until that happens he and others will never be able to change viewpoints...just like until God is disproven to those who believe in Him are not going to switch.
