Creationists vs Scientists (Debate)

[Shadowstar1922]

In my opinion on this issue, it is very simple.

You need evidence to back everything you do or say. That is how our society works.

When you're talking to your friends about what another person said, you have to present what they've said in a paraphrased manner, and say so and so saw it happen too to convince who ever you're talking to, that it happened.

In the education system, in papers we write. Whether it's literacy class, or math, or history, you need to cite your sources and you need to give clear, logical, and understanding evidence.

Everything we do, we back with evidence.

But all of a sudden when it comes to the concept of religious deities, we're not suppose to demand evidence? We're suppose to believe what we're told and not question it? That doesn't work.

I don't care if you believe in God or not, do what you want to do in your life it's not my business. But I start having a problem with that concept when people force it down others throats, or it influences/decides politics and how people can and cannot live their life. There are fine lines with how much religion decides what happens, and that line is employment, government, economics, and so on. Religion is not the answer to deny someone rights or certain opportunities because you think your deity wants it so.

So yes, I think Bill Nye won. Why? He provided evidence with his ideas, and Ham didn't. The minute you give evidence to say the Earth was made by God 6-10k years ago, is the minute people like scientists, naturalists, and atheists will believe in God and that theory. But until then, we'll focus on living the life we know we have, instead of worrying about an afterlife we're not so sure we'll get.

[Excalibur]

Ham had some good points, but Nye was just killed it.

[Karamix3]

didn't watch the debate, but creationist often misrepresent the bible, as the bible doesn't teach that the earth was made in 6000 yrs. It says 6 days,meaning six separate periods of time. If people didn't misrepresent the Bible so much, and on such blatantly obvious points, others might see that when it touches on science - though it's not a science textbook- it is accurate.

[Sylvia]

As I'm not as philosophically apt as I should be to attempt to answer this, I've got Amy to put her side of the debate into this instead as she studies Philosophy:

I haven't watched this debate as it's 2 hours and 45 minutes long but I can see how it will play out - you're pitting a young-Earth Creationist against a scientist.

To start this off, Ken Ham is an extreme example of a Christian. He takes Genesis, the biblical account of how the world started, with a literal interpretation. He believes that the world was created in 6 days, and bases his belief on how old the universe is in days on a Bishop who took the bible and counted backwards until he got to Genesis - and reckoned it was about 6,000 years. He also denies evolution, carbon dating, tree rings, polar ice caps and any other empirical (observable) evidence used to date the universe.

For 99% of the population, atheists and theists alike, this is crazy. But this isn't all Christianity and certainly isn't the majority of it, and to generalise religion as being 'this stupid' is quite a sweeping thing to do. Like Karamix said, the Bible doesn't actually mean literal 24 hour days: the Hebrew word that was translated into the English 'day', which is yom, actually has many meanings including periods of time. Most Christians accept this and even if they accept Genesis as true they acknowledge this.

When using the Bible as factual, or evidence for the qualities and distinctions of God, you have to bear in mind that it was written thousands of years ago by many different writers, not necessarily for the reasons you presume. Many consider the account of Genesis to be 'competition' for the Babylonian creation story of Enuma Elish - another creation story floating around at the time.

So for the sake of argument let's scrap Genesis and consider it like most Christians to be a representation of God's power - it shows what he can do in a story we can understand. His omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.

Seeing as this argument has gone on to belief in God itself, there's a heck of a lot to cover here.

But all of a sudden when it comes to the concept of religious deities, we're not suppose to demand evidence?

There is a large amount of evidence for God, whether you choose to accept it or not is a different matter. There is even empirical evidence such as the complexity of the universe (the teleological argument if you want to look further), miracles, regularity in the universe, beauty, a universal understanding of certain values being wrong and right. There is even a logical argument for the existence of God - check out the ontological argument by Anselm for a bit of interest.

You could contribute this to what is known as 'God of the Gaps' - where human understanding isn't developed enough so we attribute God being the reason for things we don't understand. You could also put it down to luck. But then, you can equally say that God is the answer for a lot of scientific things (as most theists do...) - bit of a checkmate we're in here.

In my opinion, is that there is compelling evidence in the existence of a God (not necessarily the Judaeo-Christian God, but more the God of Classical Theism - the God which has properties such as omnipotence, omnipresence, but is nothing to do with the bible). Why do most humans have a sense of murder being wrong? Why does the universe contain such complex creations, and why do some of these creations seem to have no purpose but to benefit us? If we are developed enough to be able to think about a God - a philosophically difficult concept - then why can't he exist? While this isn't cold, hard data, it is indefinitely more compelling to me than quantitative proof.

[Excalibur]

-gives Amy a medal-

[Shadowstar1922]

So let me get this straight, the only "legit" evidence you gave was essentially, "things are constructed too complex, so therefore God."

That doesn't sound right. .-.

You need cold, hard, evidence. When you have that to prove the existence of God, then the concept will be added and adjusted with science and help society move on by giving science another direction or viewpoint. If there was, science would be doing that by now, but they aren't. Because there isn't any obvious evidence. Science will continue to use the knowledge and facts they know are true and work with that, not something that hasn't been proven yet.

[Shadow00]

Look, you can't win an argument against someone who is religious with facts.
For one reason or the other they know deep down you make more points, but they are too afraid of death or I don't know what to accept that hey, life just ends.
I do agree that yes, saying God made everything is the easy way out, but till proven otherwise, you just have to put up with it like most of the serious non religious people.
And even then, even after you get all the solid evidence, you still won't convince a religious person because they NEED religion to go on with their lives.
That's the difference between us and them. You can't just impose your opinion on them, no matter how legit it is, as with most matters. If people want to believe, let them.
THOUGH, in cases of serious debates such as these, then I believe that even patience has limits.
Just accept religion for what it is, don't try to make it sound like a scientifically legit explanation to our world just cause more and more people start to abazdon religion in search of the real truth.
I have no problems with religious people practicing their religion, I accept them for what they are. But when they come and tell me that hey, science is wrong religion is correct then yeah, I consider that going way out of line.

[Sylvia]

So let me get this straight, the only "legit" evidence you gave was essentially, "things are constructed too complex, so therefore God."

Not quite. The evidence I put forward was:

- The complexity of the universe as you said, that doesn't imply God, but an intelligent designer
- Miracles that are unexplained by science
- Complete regularity within the universe
- Universal ideas such as beauty, and an idea of what is wrong and what is right

On your 'things are constructed too complex, so therefore God' argument, it's not quite that simple. I presume when you say God you mean the Judaeo-Christian God of the Bible. I don't believe there is any proof for that particular God. I'm explaining that it is far more logical to believe that the universe came about through a form of intelligent designer rather than accidental chance. I'm working through the idea of fine-tuning, in which the universe is so finely tuned that it is illogical to believe in anything but an intelligent designer.

For cold hard evidence - there are many, many quantitative examples that imply an intelligent designer. For example - the Critical Density of the Universe. If it was off by 1 part in 10^15, then life would not be able to develop as the universe would either expand too rapidly or not quick enough for stars, and life, to develop. The Cosmological Constant goes even further. If it was off by 1 part in 10^120 then the universe would also be unable to develop. That's like taking 100 trillion dollars, in pennies, painting one red, and asking someone blindfolded to pick a penny out - and they pick out the red one. It's 1 part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.

Now this does not prove God (any God) - but it certainly gives strong evidence for more than accidental chance creating the universe. It's best illustrated with Alvin Plantinga's example of a poker game - imagine you are sitting down playing poker with some friends and the dealer has dealt himself 4 aces for the past 20 rounds. You and the rest of your friends call him out on this as you presume he is cheating. However, he tells you that there is the chance that these cards accidentally ended up being dealt to him by chance, that he's just lucky, and that you can't prove he's cheating. Would you sit down and carry on playing, wholly believing in this?

The chances are you wouldn't. It is exceptionally rare for him to have been dealt these cards by accident and it is far more likely he cheated. It's occams razor - the best argument is that which makes the least assumptions, and the argument for an accidental universe makes far more assumptions than the argument for an intelligent designer.

As I said, this doesn't prove God. There is no way that anyone has found to prove God, but there is also no way to disprove God. I am simply explaining that it is far more logical and rational to believe in an intelligent designer than it is to believe in an accidental universe that came about for no particular reason.

As for science not accepting the idea of an intelligent designer - check out the Intelligent Design movement. The idea of an intelligent designer does fit in to many scientific beliefs.

PS. I'm not religious.

[Shadow00]

As for Syl's last comment, allow me to say that the world's coming into being today as we know it is in itself a chance as well, but also scientifically explained.
Let me be More clear on this.
By sexual contact, there is a 1/10^8th chance of one person being born (10^8 sperm cells in total per time). That person giving birth/helping to give birth to his son/daughter is 1/10^64th from the very beginning. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that's 1 generation only, for one person only. Now counting the total generations, and the people currently in the world PLUS the chance of the EXACT father and mother coming together to begin with, its a really really lower chance than the one you presented. And yet its perfectly legit.
So why not for the universe to be as well completely out of chance?

[Sylvia]

Just to clarify, are you saying that the world coming into existence has been scientifically explained? There is the theory of the big bang but it isn't proved, it is only a theory. Just as intelligent design is.

For your example of generations of birth and such - it is perfectly legitimate to put it down to chance. I agree with you in that it is chance that a certain person is born. If I was arguing that chance does not exist you certainly would have a strong argument. However there are two options - there is chance, and there is the option that it was created/designed. In the case of two people meeting, sperm, etc it is obvious and proven it is chance, that's the argument with less assumptions and it makes more sense than the meeting/birth being planned by a 'god'.

You're right in saying the universe could be completely by chance. My argument is simply that it's more logical and rational to believe it is created by an intelligent designer of some sort.