Bill Nye the Science Guy and Creationism

[Hoghead1]

Many Christians, such as myself, do believe in evolution, Tiglath. We have no trouble reconciling God with evolution at all. Also, I noticed in your posts that you tend to demonize your opponents, casting dispersion on their characters, viewing them as lost souls, etc. That kind of nonsense has no place in a serious theological discussion group such as this.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Point 1. I have heard this said so many times that it has become boring. My experience is that most atheists say that God does not exist.

I'm skeptical of what other atheists have said to you. Is it possible that you heard them wrong? I think you'll find that most atheist identify as agnostic-atheist. This means I do not know if God exists or not but I find it highly unlikely and reject the claim unless evidence suggests otherwise. The claim is "God exists". The burden of proof belongs to the one making the claim.

Until you can prove that is not the case, my argument stands. Asking someone to disprove God is not a fallacy. It is a valid question and has nothing at all to do with fairies because I have yet to meet ANYONE who believes they exist except little children.

Yes, it is a fallacy and it's intellectually dishonest to shift the burden of proof after making a positive claim.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

It very much has to do with fairies and any other positive claim someone makes. Has anyone proven to you that Krishna doesn't exist? I'm sure you've heard of the 1 billion Hindus right? So do you believe in Krishna as well just because nobody has disproved Krishna?

Point 2. Berkeley is a university that is dedicated to pushing the evolution wheelbarrow so it is not an independent source of information and therefore worthless.

People who take biology courses at Berkeley are likely to be in an undergrad or graduate program in integrated biology and the course material isn't being "pushed" on them.

What other independent information would you like? Here is a link to google scholar that brings you to academic peer reviewed research. Keyword search: Evolution. 4,570,000 results.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution&btnG=&as_sdt=1,24&as_sdtp=

Point 3. That is right. Evolution denied the existence of God.

What I meant was, evolutionary biology and every other scientific discipline has nothing to say about the existence of God. It only investigates the natural world. It has nothing to say on the supernatural because it cannot be observed. There are many scientists who are also Christian. Kenneth Miller is the author of biology textbooks and Francis Collins lead the human genome project (Which by the way, a test that could have falsified evolution was run but instead it demonstrated that common ancestry is an overwhelming fact).

The MAJORITY of christians accept the theory of evolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you have the gift of exaggeration?

First of all, shouting it won't make your claims true. Second of all, it's not exaggeration. It's a fact. It's called theistic evolution and you'll find many members on this board subscribe to it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I do not understand what you point is. For the saved and the redeemed God will cause all things to work out for the best. For the unsaved and those who live in rebellion then life for them goes from bad to worse. I can gave my life with God simply based on if my life is getting better or worse. If my life is getting better then I know I am living a life that is well pleasing to God. If life is getting worst then I know that I am living in rebellion and need to bring my life into obedience to God.

That just doesn't fit with reality in the slightest. Sweden is one of a very small number of countries with an atheist majority, and it has one of the lowest rates of depression.

 

[bhsmte]

The fact that you ask that question shows that you have been blinded by satan. A christian does not need to ask that question. The fact that you have been blinded means that even if I explained it to you, you still would not see it as your blindness is total.

Does this mean, you won't be supporting your claim?

 

[DogmaHunter]

God waits for people to cry out to Him for help.

Right, right..... because the millions upon millions of polio victims and their loved ones, didn't cry out for help in prayer.......

Remember that science created ways to destroy all those people

Science didn't create polio. But it did create the vaccine for it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not a fan of the Catholic church which Galileo was part of himself. Galileo was warned not to be dogmatic about heliocentric since the science at the time went against it.

No, the science at the time very much was with him. The doctrine of the church was what was against him.

The inquisition didn't do rulings based on evidence, reason and science. They did it based on the "official" stance of the church concerning biblical interpretations.

But don't let the facts get in your way...

He made the pope, who like his idea, look like a fool in his book which got him into trouble.

That was in 1632. He was already forced to silence in 1616.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, that is why atheists do it all the time as they live in a fallacious world.

No. Theists are the ones that make claims concerning supernatural deities.

Atheists are just people not buying into those claims.

The burden of proof is on the theist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Point one. Thankyou for confirming that guesstimates are the content of evidence for atheists.

Point two. The issue is that you said he wasn't an atheist, not whether he understood science.

Point three. No one has said that his "evidence for deities" would be satisfactory to everyone, nor does it mean his standards are without flaws. No one has claimed that except you to cover your back on your mistakes.

Point four. Until you can prove that he doesn't I suggest you desist in making vague generalisations about him. I have heard him give talks about atheism, evolution and christianity and to date no one has said he doesn't understand his subject matter probably because he had a brilliant mind.

Point five. I never said it was a reason to become a Christian and to suggest Derek was even close to dumb makes the mind boggle. It says to me that Cambridge University employs dumb people to head up their faculties. And I am not promoting anything or anyone. I am telling the truth which you have made patently clear that you can't handle it as you reject the most obvious of truths.

Point five. Is that the world according to Garp when you claim "according to me..." I think anyone who is an atheist is a fool so that is one all.

Point six. You may think Dawkins is a fool but thousands believe him to be their saviour and the mouthpiece for atheism so you may be out on your own on that one.

One final point. When I am sitting down and watching TV, I don't sit there with a notepad and pen to detail every aspect of the programme to keep atheists like you happy and to use it as a cop out if you don't get every detail. I watch TV to enjoy the programme and that doesn't include keeping atheists happy. If that is not to your liking, stiff cheddar.

Cover my mistakes? I do no such thing, not intentionally.

For example: Every name you brought up was, at one point, an atheist, and they later converted to Christianity (and one to Deism) for various but relatively similar reasons. You clearly put in some effort in gathering those names, and I can appreciate that just in and of itself, because it demonstrates that you don't purely regurgitate the arguments of others, and you are thinking for yourself. I, in being shocked at such a rare demonstration of effort, jumped the gun, and being familiar with C. S. Lewis's work, I was uncertain about your claim that he was an atheist at some point in his life. I stated "I do not recall him being an atheist at some point in his life", which means I didn't know that he was, but also that I wasn't just going to take your word for it. A quick google search proved you right on that one. Sorry about being overly skeptical about it; it's a consequence of being constantly exposed to bad arguments on here, but that doesn't excuse the bad debate behavior.

I am not covering my mistakes when I made my statement on satisfactory evidence for deities. One of the bad parts about having a social disorder is that I often misinterpret the intended meanings behind what people say. It seems that, for whatever reason, I have a particularly hard time understanding you quite right. I hope we can move past this issue; having to constantly be corrected for interpreting intent incorrectly is not fun, and I imagine you don't enjoy having to correct me on that matter.

I do have to ask why you brought up all of these people, if it wasn't to try to use their brilliance as a promotion for their religious beliefs. I don't get it. I reread what you wrote multiple times, and it still is not quite clicking.

I'm not an atheist by choice, and I don't think it is fair to generalize an entire group of people as fools. Especially not after berating me for making generalizations. I can live with you claiming that being an atheist is foolish, though, because that doesn't attack the entirety of every atheist's intellect. For example, I think smoking is foolish, but that doesn't mean I think every smoker is a fool. Smart people can make foolish choices or have foolish traits.

From the words of other atheists on this site, most seem to acknowledge that Dawkins is a bit lacking in tact, though I have yet to meet another atheist that dislikes him as much as I do.

I was just asking for a link to the discussion. It's fine if you don't have it, but do you remember what it was called? I just want to see it for myself.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Or, how about the 9 million children who die each year before the age of five?

I bet there are a whole bunch of prayers to save those children.

"the lord works in mysterious ways"

 

[DogmaHunter]

And it seems that atheists and evolutionists don't understand it as they keep resorting to the "God does not exist" baloney without any evidence. When your faith is based on non evidential claims it only goes to show that you know very little about what you are claiming so you resort to a fallacy.

Who here, actually makes the claim that gods don't exist?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The fact that you ask that question shows that you have been blinded by satan. A christian does not need to ask that question. The fact that you have been blinded means that even if I explained it to you, you still would not see it as your blindness is total.

Can you just answer the question, or will you continue speaking in riddles with claims to "special" knowledge that you don't want to share?

 

[PsychoSarah]

The fact that you ask that question shows that you have been blinded by satan. A christian does not need to ask that question. The fact that you have been blinded means that even if I explained it to you, you still would not see it as your blindness is total.

Humor us and explain it anyways, if it isn't too much to ask. Assuming we won't understand isn't fair to us, and who knows, we might surprise you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Point three. Of course evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence, most of which has been debunked as the invention of the anti God brigade and in most cases it is invented by those who have turned it into a philosophical argument by those who insist that God does not exist as Christopher Hitchens admitted at the International Atheists conference in my home town.

Even the secular media were at a loss why most of the conference was devoted to discussing God. They were hoping to learn a bit more about atheism.

1. more christians accept evolution theory then there are christian that reject it. This includes the pope and the rest of the vatican

2. seeing as how "atheism" is no more or less then a position concerning the theological claim that a god exists, why would you expect the subject of discussion on an atheist conference to be anything else then religion and god beliefs?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Who here, actually makes the claim that gods don't exist?

The only person I am aware of that ever said that was consol. Nobody likes consol, for speaking to him is as unpleasant as stepping in a pile of doggy doo, and his arguments were as bad as the most ignorant and stereotypical creationist, and contained 50% more angst than the average 13 year old going through a goth phase.

 

[tiglathpileser]

1. more christians accept evolution theory then there are christian that reject it. This includes the pope and the rest of the vatican

2. seeing as how "atheism" is no more or less then a position concerning the theological claim that a god exists, why would you expect the subject of discussion on an atheist conference to be anything else then religion and god beliefs?

Dogma hunter, you do your atheist friends a disservice. Obviously you have a gift of exaggeration when you claim more christians accept evolution theory than those that reject it. Can you tell us how many of the 2.3 billion christians on the earth accept evolutionary theory? Just a small pointer. I would hazard a guess that over 50% of those christians have never heard of evolutionary theory bearing in mind that not every country has the same level of education that America has.That being the case you are going to be hard pressed to prove that 1.2 billion christians accept evolutionary theory.

The second problem, not so long ago in this thread we were told that atheism has nothing at all to do with whether God exists or not. Apart from that the secular media, not me, expected to be hearing a discussion about atheism and science, not does God exist and religion. Just as a matter of interest, I did not expect anything at the conference. It was the secular media that raised that issue so stick to the topic and stop inventing accusations that are not relevant.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Humor us and explain it anyways, if it isn't too much to ask. Assuming we won't understand isn't fair to us, and who knows, we might surprise you.

No, you won't surprise me. I have been dialoguing with atheist for about 10 years now and to date, not one of them have understood the spiritual.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Can you just answer the question, or will you continue speaking in riddles with claims to "special" knowledge that you don't want to share?

I have answered the question and the fact that you are still going on about it only shows how much you have been blinded. It is no riddle to me and it is not special knowledge as far as I am concerned because the scripture says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. If that is what it says, that is what happens. Truth is not some special knowledge, it is the promise of the Holy Spirit to all who believe in God so it is far from special bearing in mind that there are 2.3 billion christians on earth.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Who here, actually makes the claim that gods don't exist?

Every second atheist.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Cover my mistakes? I do no such thing, not intentionally.

For example: Every name you brought up was, at one point, an atheist, and they later converted to Christianity (and one to Deism) for various but relatively similar reasons. You clearly put in some effort in gathering those names, and I can appreciate that just in and of itself, because it demonstrates that you don't purely regurgitate the arguments of others, and you are thinking for yourself. I, in being shocked at such a rare demonstration of effort, jumped the gun, and being familiar with C. S. Lewis's work, I was uncertain about your claim that he was an atheist at some point in his life. I stated "I do not recall him being an atheist at some point in his life", which means I didn't know that he was, but also that I wasn't just going to take your word for it. A quick google search proved you right on that one. Sorry about being overly skeptical about it; it's a consequence of being constantly exposed to bad arguments on here, but that doesn't excuse the bad debate behavior.

I am not covering my mistakes when I made my statement on satisfactory evidence for deities. One of the bad parts about having a social disorder is that I often misinterpret the intended meanings behind what people say. It seems that, for whatever reason, I have a particularly hard time understanding you quite right. I hope we can move past this issue; having to constantly be corrected for interpreting intent incorrectly is not fun, and I imagine you don't enjoy having to correct me on that matter.

I do have to ask why you brought up all of these people, if it wasn't to try to use their brilliance as a promotion for their religious beliefs. I don't get it. I reread what you wrote multiple times, and it still is not quite clicking.

I'm not an atheist by choice, and I don't think it is fair to generalize an entire group of people as fools. Especially not after berating me for making generalizations. I can live with you claiming that being an atheist is foolish, though, because that doesn't attack the entirety of every atheist's intellect. For example, I think smoking is foolish, but that doesn't mean I think every smoker is a fool. Smart people can make foolish choices or have foolish traits.

From the words of other atheists on this site, most seem to acknowledge that Dawkins is a bit lacking in tact, though I have yet to meet another atheist that dislikes him as much as I do.

I was just asking for a link to the discussion. It's fine if you don't have it, but do you remember what it was called? I just want to see it for myself.

Everyone is what they are by choice because we all have a free will. I realise that there are many who are forced into prostitution and sex slavery especially in countries in the Middle East and Africa but in Western Civilisation that is not the norm. I am a christian because I chose to believe the Word of God. You are an atheist because you chose to believe what they say. If that is not the case then one can correctly claim that they forced you to become an atheist.

if my memory serves me correctly but it may not at my age, you rubbished christians as being dumb. I used these people which I have some knowledge of to point out that they are far from dumb. I could have picked up a load of names off the internet but chose not to. These are men that I either knew personally or had studied so I was confident about my choices. You will note that I don't make supercilious claims like atheists do that "most christians..." which is patently unprovable. There is no doubt that when you read such claims from atheists, we are definitely being exposed to very bad arguments. it doesn't worry me too much because I put down to the fact that they have no evidence for their position so they have to use the gift of exaggeration and generalisation and hope no one notices.

No, as I said I don't record everything in case I am asked by atheists for a link. My life is not lived for the benefit of atheists. It is lived for the glory of God. That means he is the only one that I want to please. What others think is irrelevant to me that is why when atheists try and put the guilt trip on me it falls on deaf ears.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Dogma hunter, you do your atheist friends a disservice. Obviously you have a gift of exaggeration when you claim more christians accept evolution theory than those that reject it.

No.
Assuming catholics follow catholic doctrine established by the vatican, that alone already accounts for more then 1 billion christians who follow the vatican's stance that evolution theory is the best explanation for the development of species on this planet.

I would hazard a guess that over 50% of those christians have never heard of evolutionary theory bearing in mind that not every country has the same level of education that America has.

lol

America has the worst level of education in the western world dude...

The second problem, not so long ago in this thread we were told that atheism has nothing at all to do with whether God exists or not.

Where was that said?
Whoever said that, was wrong.

Atheism is literally a position on the claim that gods exist. That is, in fact, ALL it is.

Apart from that the secular media, not me, expected to be hearing a discussion about atheism and science, not does God exist and religion.

Atheism is not science and science is not atheism.

Just as a matter of interest, I did not expect anything at the conference. It was the secular media that raised that issue so stick to the topic and stop inventing accusations that are not relevant.

I don't care about "atheist conferences" nore about the opinion of "the media" concerning it. I was just commenting on the nonsense you were posting.