(Closed) Follow-Up to Creationism/Evolution Bill Nye debate

posted 6 years ago in The Lounge
Post # 137
Member
1639 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: November 2013

@mrsSonthebeach:  Why thank you! 🙂

Also, to add another point about my historical pointings-out from last night: Jesus was the son of a carpenter. That means he was a tradesman. That means Joseph was a tradesman. That means there would have been a record of Joseph, Jesus, and the taxes they would have had to pay to BE tradesmen within the Roman Empire.

THE MORE YOU KNOW!

Post # 138
Member
1120 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: March 2014

A really large picture, but one that puts science’s incompleteness in simple terms. It’s certainly POSSIBLE from a scientific standpoint that there COULD be an infinitely complex creator being. But that would be assuming a lot. Meanwhile there is plenty of evidence for things such as evolution (note: evolution is different from Abiogenesis, which I think is something that a lot of people forget about) and comparitively we have a lot more actual, physical, observable, TESTABLE evidence to support evolution than we do a creator being.

Post # 139
Member
1077 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: October 2014 - Greenbrier Country Club

@the_newlymintedmrs-s17:  

“… essentially what I’m getting from this statement is that education is invalid and doesn’t make you more learned in a subject.”
Well, then you would be inaccurately interpreting my words. In context, your interpretation does not correlate with the entirety of what I wrote. This is why cherry-picking is so precarious. Perhaps I was not clear.  However, my statement was not made to say that education is irrelevant; rather it was to emphasis that the actual arguments are more important than the accomplishment of the arguer. This was followed up by mentioning that people, who are equally learned, disagree.  
So, I do value the medical community, but when the medical community disagrees, I have to choose sides. Their arguments are going to sway me, not their credentials.

“If science makes you feel like your faith is being challenged, then I question how strong your faith is.”
Science has never challenged my faith…

“The human endevour is to advance our lives and make it better, and frankly if all you think we are on this world to do is live, believe in God and then go to heaven, then why bother to live, or explore our world at all?”
I don’t believe the first or later are accurate ways to live life. I believe this life is all about relationships: loving people. I believe the human endeavor should be to love others.

“I think you think that this scientific theory does nothing to advance us in society.”

 “These bacteria are evolving to beat our drugs.”
Makes it sound like you think the bacteria are purposely growing mutations in order to survive. Lol. That’s not how it works. It’s like this. Let’s say you have blue bacteria which is predominate. Then you have red bacteria which are significantly less. Lastly you have yellow bacteria and you only have a hand full. So maybe you develop a drug to kill the blue bacteria. It works. Wahoo. however, now the red bacteria reproduces more since it no longer has to compete with the blue bacteria. So now you have to develop a new anti-bacteria that kills red bacteria. If you do, then they yellow are going to grow. That’s a very basic idea… But you get the point. It’s certainly not the bacteria making a conscious effort to “evolve.”  
 
“Our greater understanding of science and how these bacteria are evolving give us a better understanding on how to BEAT these infections…”
I have no issues with this type of “evolution.” Bacteria into other forms of bacteria have no conflict with the Genesis creation account anyway.

“Aren’t you so grateful to have experts out there that understand the theory of evolution and use it to save lives???” I am grateful for scientists who find cures; Yes. I am also grateful for teachers, fire fighters, engineers… etc.

Post # 140
Member
761 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: August 2012

@Anna10-05-2014:  Makes it sound like you think the bacteria are purposely growing mutations in order to survive. Lol.
Umm. Yes? “Lol.”

Your blue red yellow bacteria claim isn’t what’s happening with superbugs like C. Diff. which was what I was refering to. They are changing, mutating to combat the anitbiotics, antibiotics that not several decades ago were the perfect cure for simple infections, which is essentially what the theory of evolution is all about: life forms changing in order to survive their environment. It’s what the AIDS virus does as well which makes it ridiculously hard to cure. All living creatures have one purpose: survive long enough to pass on their genes in order to secure the next generation. So it may not be the bacteria saying out loud to themselves “Oh no! They’ve made antibiotics! Let’s mutate to piss them off,” but they are adapting for their survival, as all life continues to do.

I have no issues with this type of “evolution.” Bacteria into other forms of bacteria have no conflict with the Genesis creation account anyway. Science has never challenged my faith…

These two statements, although not responding to the same statement I made are in direct contrast with one another. Essentially you are agreeing with “evolution” in bacteria but thats ok because it doesn’t challenge Genesis? Again this is where I think you fear the theory of evolution as a challenge to your faith. You accept this type of “evolution” ONLY because it does not conflict with your literal interpretation of Genesis. Anyone whose faith is challenged by a scientific discovery is, in my mind, weak in faith. People who take science as a threat and dismiss their credibility based on the Bible lack the ability to see science as a way to not only discover ways to make our world better so that we can take care of one another, but also as a way to discover God and understand his creation so we can maintain our planet, our species, and the many other species on this planet for generations to come.

But its pretty clear that you think I’m wrong and I don’t necessarily agree with you. And you know what, that’s fine. So by all means have your faith, but science will continue to march on to continue to benefit us and bring us closer to an understanding of the world around us. And I will look forward to those discoveries as they will continue to pioneer advancements in the arts, literature, engineering, even how we teach our children, or govern our society, and save lives through the medical community. I hope you will appreciate those things that science and the advancement of our knowledge continues to bring you and the generations to come.

Post # 141
Member
1077 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: October 2014 - Greenbrier Country Club

@the_newlymintedmrs-s17:  

“They are changing, mutating to combat the anitbiotics, antibiotics that not several decades ago were the perfect cure for simple infections, which is essentially what the theory of evolution is all about: life forms changing in order to survive their environment.”

Woah… I was just making light of your statemnet, I didn’t realize this was really what you thought about evolution.
I would encourage you to do some research on evolution. Actually, I know a great video that does a great job explaining how evolution works. Look on YouTube for “Khan Academy Evolution.” It is false that change happens based on the organisms will to survive.  There is no control over evolution. (well, I suppose you could argue that humans manipulate the system…)

“Essentially you are agreeing with “evolution” in bacteria but that’s ok because it doesn’t challenge Genesis?”
No. This is not an accurate summery of my statements.
Yes, I do agree with the concept of natural selection due to variation within a species (bacteria to variations of bacteria… cat to variations of cat…) This is observable and grounded in science. However, my reference to Genesis was just a statement and not a reason for my accepting or not accepting science. It is just true that natural selection does not conflict with the creation account. I have not encountered any science that has conflicted with the bible.
My statements do not affirm that a) I would not believe in natural selection if it conflicted with the Genesis account. b) I automatically reject any scientific discovery if I feel it conflicts with my interpretation of scripture. c) I believe that the creation account in Genesis should be taken literal.

Perhaps some, all, or none of those statements are true, but you can not conclusively say they are based on this: “I have no issues with this type of “evolution.” Bacteria into other forms of bacteria have no conflict with the Genesis creation account anyway. Science has never challenged my faith…”

I have no fear of evolution nor does evolution challenge my faith. Depending on how you interpret the bible, and what is meant by evolution (because “evolution” has many social definitions) there may be a conflict between the two. However, evolution and the Genesis account are not necessarily conflicting. That is simply a statement of truth, and not an implication that if they conflicted I would reject science.

“You accept this type of “evolution” ONLY because it does not conflict with your literal interpretation of Genesis.”
False. You have made this conclusion based on assumptions, as shown above.

I am not sure why you feel the need to continue to assert that I have no appreciation for science. Science is great and fascinating. Just because I don’t believe that common ancestry (for example) is true, doesn’t mean I hate science. This is a false, illogical conclusion. In fact many scientist share my feelings on certain scientific theories.

The topic ‘Follow-Up to Creationism/Evolution Bill Nye debate’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors