National Geographic News

Dan Vergano

National Geographic

Published February 5, 2014

There is nothing new under the sun, the Bible tells us. And we all know that there's no business like show business.

The Bible and showbiz came together Tuesday night in Kentucky, where the Creation Museum played host to a debate between Bill Nye, "the Science Guy," and Australian evangelist Ken Ham over whether creationism is scientific.

Such debates have a storied history, kicked off by the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, which advanced the idea that new species evolve through the process of natural selection.

While such faceoffs continue to make news, what may be most remarkable about them is how little the two sides have moved in the last 150 years.

"They don't seem to change anything, do they?" says philosophy of science expert Michael Weisberg of the University of Pennsylvania, who studies how the public understands science.

And it turns out that we have some pretty good ideas about why.

Older Than the Civil War

One year after Darwin's Origin, Thomas "Darwin's Bulldog" Huxley faced off with Archbishop Samuel "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce, in a cage match held in Oxford at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

The "debate" between science and biblical literalism famously flared up again in 1925, with the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Made famous by the movie Inherit the Wind, the trial pitted defense attorney Clarence Darrow against the "Prairie Populist" Williams Jennings Bryan, a congressman and former presidential candidate, to determine whether a state could prevent students from learning about evolution. (A teacher, John Scopes, was found guilty of teaching evolution, but the verdict was dismissed a year later on a technicality by a perhaps-embarrassed Tennessee Supreme Court.)

More recently, the evolution debate played out to a national audience through a 2005 trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, when the school district sought to teach "intelligent design." The trial pitted world-class evolution experts Kenneth Miller and Kevin Padian against intelligent design advocate Michael Behe.

When the federal judge ruled that intelligent design was a thinly disguised form of creationism, the case wound up keeping creationism out of Pennsylvania schoolrooms, so it had a real effect.

Tuesday's "Ham-on-Nye" debate is a different story. Says Weisberg: "I very much doubt this is going to change anything."

Religion's Role, Big and Small

U.S. Gallup surveys have shown that as many as half of the country's residents hold creationist views.

In recent decades, the polls have bounced between 40 percent and 47 percent of respondents agreeing that "God created humans pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

National Science Foundation polls have shown similar responses. Yale's Dan Kahan has pointed to the numbers as the one major outlier in ratings of the U.S. public's understanding of science, compared with other industrialized nations.

"If you look at how steady the numbers are—compared to gay marriage, for example—U.S. opinions look remarkably stable," Weisberg says.

Kahan's research suggests that's because people aren't really answering whether they literally believe in Genesis when they answer questions about creationism and evolution.

Rather, Kahan says, they are telling the pollsters what they think their friends and neighbors believe. If you're a car dealer in a conservative Christian town, for example, you don't want your customers to think you aren't one of them or else you aren't going to sell a lot of pickup trucks.

Likewise, a coffee-shop owner in much more secular Boston isn't going to make customers comfortable selling Bible stories alongside the soy lattes.

"Evolution is a special kind of issue," Kahan has written on his Cultural Cognition Project blog. "The position you take on it is an expression of who you are in a world  in which there are many diverse sorts of people and in which there is a sad tendency of one sort to ridicule and hold in contempt those of another."

Essentially, he suggests, when people are asked about their views on human evolution, they are really being asked if they live in Republican or Democratic communities. Such questions are loaded with social pressure.

The resulting divide is one that won't be bridged by any amount of research on how creatures evolve into new species.

"Something deeper is going on with people's thinking when they are asked about science," Weisberg says.

His own public opinion research suggests that understanding the scientific method, particularly the part about being comfortable with sometimes being wrong despite the evidence, makes people more amenable to saying they accept human evolution.

For a century, astronomers thought the universe was likely stable or contracting, for example, but in 1998, new evidence actually showed it was expanding at an accelerating rate, a finding that won its discoverers the Nobel Prize in 2011. In contrast, the Bible may offer more comfort to folks looking for unchanging truths.

Weisberg and others see science education failing by teaching science as textbook stuff, presented as its own kind of inerrant testament.

As for the Nye vs. Ham debate, the reviews on Twitter were mixed:

Slate:

Climate scientist Michael Mann:

CNN Belief Blog:

Eric Berger:

 

Some scientists have echoed Slate's criticism of Nye, saying he legitimized a false debate about the Bible's scientific veracity just by showing up.

Weisberg disagrees.

"There are good arguments for not debating creationists and good arguments for engaging with them," he says. "Just ignoring them doesn't seem to make them go away."

The show must go on, after all, so we can be sure there will always be another round.

100 comments
Darlene Simmons
Darlene Simmons

I'm concerned that there is no problem with believing that ALL living things came from one cell - plants and animals. I think a great point was made showing that 6 day creation belief requires faith, as well as, molecule to man belief requires faith. Neither is reproducible. Man to molecule "evolution" doesn't get to take credit for scientific innovation. The beginning /origin of life has nothing to do with what humans are capable of accomplishing.


Last thing, where are all the people that should be here if humans appeared 200,000 or more years ago? If 2 people appeared 200,000 years ago, and each generation is about 30-40 years, do the math..... where are the people, fossils? 

John Torsello
John Torsello

It's true that, in most cases, it can be damaging to debate people who's opinions don't matter but in this case Nye sufficiently destroyed Ham and avoided any real ill effects I think. Ham did a brilliant job of ridiculing his own stance by sounding like a blithering idiot. Many creationists will watch this debate and, maybe for the first time in their blinkered lives, hear rational, logical arguments that expose the preposterous and ridiculous claims that their faith command them to believe. Ken Ham may well have truly done science a greater service than anyone in the secular world could have dreamed of! Thanks Ken!

john doe
john doe

BIBLE AND SCIENCE AGREE...EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY EQUATION SAYS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AND 6 DAYS ARE BOTH TRUE DEPENDING ON SPACE-TIME COORDINATES; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.999999999999999999999999999­­99999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000­­500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119­­988e-12; PLACING YHWH 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.

distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,19­­2,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000­­,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999­­999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,0­­00,000,000,000 - 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photons

space time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light survived, hence time kicks in), this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years; 6 OF OUR DAYS ARE STRETCHED OUT AND CONTAIN 14 BILLION EARLY YEARS OF THE UNIVERSE.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

the expanse was not made in 1:2 where YHWH is hovering above the waters....therefore since he was above the waters above that were above those below and there was no expanse therefore only one face... he was above the universe...the hebrew words for heaven are mayim (waters)...and shamayimn(fire and waters)

Robert Aguilar
Robert Aguilar

So let me get this straight (it’s about time someone debunks the source), you are telling me that this is true because it is written in the Bible.  A book that was not written during Jesus’s time since most in the world were illiterate during that time.  Therefore the stories had to be passed down by word of mouth (we all know how accurate that is) and not written down until 70 years after Jesus died (that’s when the Gospel of Mark was first composed).  By the way, Mark never met Jesus but rather only knew Paul and Barnabas so the words you are so adamant about supporting are what modern religious scholars refer to as pseudepigrapha which literally means “writing that is inscribed with a lie.  ”God did not write these words and neither did Jesus but you don’t have to take my word for it, look it up yourself in a neutral site (I’m sure you won’t, though).  You are nothing more than another person entangled in the same fundamentalist monological belief system.  Open your eyes!Question everything!Even what I am typing here!  Don’t go to sources that fit in with your belief system (that’s too comfortable).  Instead, break away and investigate!

Robert Aguilar
Robert Aguilar

Hey creationists, then isn't it also possible that evolution is God's work?  Maybe all this time you thought you were arguing against scientists you were actually arguing against God?  Maybe we are the ones in line with God and you've been led astray by man (HAM)?  Maybe all we are trying to do is explain God's work which you choose to ignore and disbelieve just like the Christ you crucified (not that I think we are Christ)?

Douglas Miller
Douglas Miller

What I really disliked is Mr. Nye's off-topic assertions that rapid progress in technology (cell phones and airplanes) depends on a population that believes in evolution.  What baloney!  That's a belief he promotes without evidence and despite real evidence to the contrary (e.g. a 6 day creationist developed the technology behind Magnetic Resonance Imaging).  If Bill's as evidence driven as he says he is why does he promote such nonsensical conjecture? 

Jim F.
Jim F.

Both debaters did a good job.   Ken Ham's presentation was more credible and stayed on topic.    Bill Nye tended to use un-researched facts to make his case.  These would have played out to those ignorant of the subject to be hard facts against creation.  However, they are better described as statements coming from someone who is popular and therefore often trusted, although misrepresented.   Once investigated those statements of fact would be exposed.    For example Nye more than once referenced the ice rings in ice cores would represent an enormous amount of years (I think he said 685,000 years).     What he either didn't know or was misrepresenting is that 100's of rings layers can be produced in just a short period of time, 10-20 years depending on the number of melts and refreezing occurring in a single year.

john doe
john doe

Rest Frame Time Elapsed

per Day on Ship 

v/c Days Years

0.0 1.00 0.003 

0.1 1.01 0.003 

0.2 1.02 0.003 

0.3 1.05 0.003 

0.4 1.09 0.003 

0.5 1.15 0.003 

0.6 1.25 0.003 

0.7 1.40 0.004 

0.8 1.67 0.005 

0.9 2.29 0.006 

0.95 3.20 0.009 

0.97 4.11 0.011 

0.99 7.09 0.019 

0.995 10.01 0.027 

0.999 22.37 0.061 

0.9999 70.71 0.194 

0.99999 223.61 0.613 

0.999999 707.11 1.937 

0.9999999 2236.07 6.126 

0.99999999 7071.07 19.373 

0.999999999 22360.68 61.262 

0.9999999999 70710.68 193.728 

0.99999999999 223606.79 612.621 

0.999999999999 707114.60 1937.300 

0.9999999999999 2235720.41 6125.261 

0.99999999999999 7073895.38 19380.535 

0.999999999999999 22369621.33 61286.634


.99999999999999999999999999999999 speed of light x 6 days near farthest photons= 13.7 billion years





john doe
john doe

Bible is true...EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY EQUATION SAYS 13.7 BILLION YEARS AND 6 DAYS ARE BOTH TRUE DEPENDING ON SPACE-TIME COORDINATES; T1=T2/(1- (v^2)/c^2) ½;13,700,000,000 x365 = 5000500000000 days;5000500000000 = 6/sqrt 1-.999999999999999999999999999­­99999% velocity of photons (farthest photons);5000500000000 = 6/sqrt .000000000000000000000001;5000­­500000000 = 6/1.19988001199880011998800119­­988e-12; PLACING YHWH 1/2 a millimeter from the farthest photons YHWH is in all reference frames.

distance of YHWH from farthest photon inthe estimated size of the universe=46500000000 LY radius; 299792458 m / s x60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 46500000000=439,622,855,430,19­­2,000,000,000,000 meters;439,622,855,430,192,000­­,000,000,000 meters x .99999999999999999999999999999­­999= 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 meters distance;439,622,855,430,192,0­­00,000,000,000 - 439,622,855,430,191,999,999,99­­9,999.99956 = .0005 meters difference, YHWH half a millimeter from farthest photons

space time stretched 1000,000,000,000 times since first matter (something slower than light survived, hence time kicks in), this means time has slowed 1000,000,000,000 times, 5.1 days genesis x 1000,000,000,000/365=13.9 billion years, YHWH looking into the universe would experience 6 days while the universe experiences 13.9 billion years; 6 OF OUR DAYS ARE STRETCHED OUT AND CONTAIN 14 BILLION EARLY YEARS OF THE UNIVERSE

ami suutari
ami suutari

@Darlene Simmons  

WOW. You've totally raised questions that no scientist has ever asked!
That was sarcasm. People have of course raised these questions as part of the rigour of the peer review process, and where bodies of knowledge overlap with one another show there to be no conflict. If there were conflicting results then the theory of evolution would not be a useful of functional means by which to understand how the biological world works. Whether or not plants and animals evolved of thousands of years and continue to evolve does not hang precariously upon the answers to these questions.
You can find the answers to your questions by doing some reading, or enrolling yourself in a community where people share scientific knowledge.

Robert Aguilar
Robert Aguilar

@john doe  You are a funny and busy man/woman John.  If this is so true then why aren't you using your actual name?  Anyway, I Googled your formula (if it even is yours) and saw that you've reposted this in several different sites with no real explanation or references.  If you'd like to get a point across to your audience, then the first thing you must do is think about who your audience is.  Take a look at my previous posts, I'm not saying that they are the best but certainly better understood than what you've copied and pasted.  Here is a link to a paper that clearly explains how misinformed you are http://csharp.com/starlight.html.  He is an astrophysicist and the paper even has references which you can check yourself.  This is how true science is done.   

Redrick Davis
Redrick Davis

@Robert Aguilar  Mr. Aguilar, for as long as I can remember I have always believed in Jesus Christ and his works and creation and always will; therefore I never had a chance to experience what it would be like to live in a world with no God and the only way we can save ourselves is through ourselves. I'm just curious as to knowing what exactly you evolutionists see as the purpose in life. The reason we are here. The purpose in life, if you all see any reason to live. Is it to get rich, have fun, be happy and die? I don't mean to seem critical or anything I'm just wondering.

Tiffinay Compiano
Tiffinay Compiano

@Robert Aguilar  

Seems to me that arrogance and condescension are the M.O. of subscriber to the molecule to man theory.  Both theories ask you to take a leap of faith in order to believe them. The answer is in perspective. Thats all.

Tiffinay Compiano
Tiffinay Compiano

@Robert Aguilar  Yes. Many Christians believe that evolution is orchestrated at the hand of God. And not arguing 'against' science but against any theory that would preclude Gods role. And I agree that you may be the ones in line with God. Haven't you ever heard, "Jesus, friend of sinners,,,"JK

I believe Christ is in ALL of us.


Todd Brown
Todd Brown

@Robert Aguilar No evolution is not God's work.  The Bible explicitly says God Create Heaven and the Earth.  On the sixth day God created Adam, there is mention of evolution.  Remember creationists take the Bible literally, no room for interpretation, God dictated the Bible to man.  There was a flood that caused extinction of species that were not loaded on the Ark.  And two of each animal was enough genetic diversity to repopulate the world.

Just presenting scientific facts is not enough, people believe what they want.  

Personally I wonder what Ken Ham gets out of this.  He is smart enough to see the flaws in his interpretation of the data.  What he gets out knowingly spewing bullcrap to his followers is beyond me.

Jason Siemens
Jason Siemens

@Douglas Miller  Hi. I realize most are being rude, but please here sincerity in my tone and not disrespect. Mr. Nye's point about the lack of Universities in Kentucky was his evidence for his claim. The trend is that when a population is so hostile to ideas like evolution (and we see it in climate change science as well), the tendency is to mistrust scientists and to avoid learning. I don't believe he is trying to make the point that no creationist could make an advancement. We can see this is not true. He was talking about the cultural shift in the large scale. There's a political side and a financial side to this as well and when a population (not individual) trend is to mistrust science, we see misinformation all over the place about even little things like vaccinations and genetically modified organisms. Again, my comment has been respectful and sincere. Please read it with that tone in mind.

Todd Brown
Todd Brown

@Douglas Miller If you know someone that does not believe in evolution please ask them to let their doctor know to only prescribe penicillin when they need an antibiotic.  Because if there is no evolution there is no way penicillin resistant bacteria could evolve.

I do not know of any reference to either Edward Mills Purcell or Felix Bolch being a 6 day creationist.  They shared the 1952 Nobel Prize in Physics for independently coming up with Nuclear Magnetic Resonance.  Or are you talking about someone else that took the science and just turned it into the Magnetic Resonance Imaging machines used in hospitals?

Todd Brown
Todd Brown

@Jim F. Both sides were preaching to the choir.  Until scientists can find someone charismatic to explain the data I am afraid that more and more people will choose to put their faith in creationist dogma and not believe in science and the all collected observations that support evolution and other models of how the universe works.

Carbon dating can go back 45,000 years, well beyond the time given for the creation.  Potassium Argon dating doesn't start to get to be reliable until a sample is over 100,000 years old.  Red shifted light from distant objects tends to support the age of the universe is on the order of 14 billion years

Of course you could believe that God created all these dating methods and planted false data to make the world appear older than it is.  But that leads to the question of why would God want to make up a complete system of reasonable observations that preclude the need for his existence.


Bob Sniflacker
Bob Sniflacker

@Tiffinay Compiano @Robert Aguilar  Way to insult the character of the opposition instead of addressing their argument in a logical fashion. Also, the leap of "faith" involved in the molecule to man theory is firmly grounded in what has been proven to be possible in the laboratory. 

Robert Aguilar
Robert Aguilar

@Tiffinay Compiano, I would have to disagree Tiffany and attitude has nothing to do with it.  Evolution does not take a leap of faith, it is based on the best evidence we have.  This wasn't our invention (evolution) just simply an interpretation of life’s natural process.  Furthermore, the fact that you use the word theory as though it means the same in both cases (in science and religion) implies that you have not done your homework.  By the way, did you accept my challenge?  You don’t have to look very far to see evolution in all its glory, just take a look at HIV.  HIV mutates so often that the HART (Highly Active Retroviral Therapy) cocktail needs to be routinely altered, sometimes in just a matter of weeks.  This IS evolution; selective pressure results in drug resistant viruses.  Now, if this is a Creator’s work then he is changing this virus on purpose in order to kill the patient.  If this is evolution at work, then it is just another natural process, a particle replicating by highjacking cells.  If my posts seem crass, then so be it.  I cannot apologize just simply because it is taboo to challenge the bible or religion.  Having said that, I’m glad there is religion.  Many people feel they need it in order to keep them in check.  Whether it’s through fear (“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards) or through love.  In either case the conundrum still remains and will continue as long as Creationists refuse to think for themselves.  Don’t forget, question everything!

Tiffinay Compiano
Tiffinay Compiano

@Todd Brown @Robert Aguilar  Again I'll say that most Christians believe in evolution orchestrated at the hand of God.


So in the bible, as you say, how long is a day? Does it say 24 hours? Who is taking it literal here? I submit that you are.


And how about the miracle of childbirth. How did the molecules that were bouncing around to create the human species take credit for that? 

Esther MacDonald
Esther MacDonald

@Jason Siemens @Douglas MillerI rather agree with Douglas about Mr.Nye's points not being well supported, especially the one about the universities.  That was really stretching it.  There could be many, many reasons why there are not more universities in Kentucky.  It's absurd to suggest that it's a result of people not loving or "trusting" science anymore because they have been "brainwashed" into believing God created the world.  I can name many universities that were started by religious orders who definitely did believe that God created (including the one in my town).

Esther MacDonald
Esther MacDonald

@Todd Brown @Douglas MillerBacteria developing a resistance to antibiotics is not evolution, but adaptation.  The bacteria remain bacteria.  Evolution, in the sense of one species evolving into another, has never been observed. 

Tiffinay Compiano
Tiffinay Compiano

@Todd Brown @Jim F.  As far as the 45,000 years back for carbon dating... I'd like to point out that most Christians do believe the world is billions of years old. Pat Robertson does not share the same exact beliefs as Mr. Ham, and in fact asks him to stop discrediting us.  However most of what Ham says is accurate.

Bob Sniflacker
Bob Sniflacker

@Marco Entraigues @Jim F.  Just to preface this post, I believe in evolution. Going around insulting Creationists is a good way to prove their point wrong, right? Right? Wrong. Just find some actual evidence to disprove them. Watch: I do not believe that Ken Ham did as good of a job as Bill Nye because the majority of his argument was based on the postulation that the Bible was true. If he wants to disprove evolution on a logical level as he should be able to do if creationism was real, he should present logical, scientific evidence.

Bob Sniflacker
Bob Sniflacker

@Esther MacDonald @Robert Aguilar  We can observe different organic particles created in conditions made to mimic earth four billion years ago (earth "possibly" being four thousand years old is a separate question). It is feasible that organisms arose from said coacervates, ribozymes, microspheres, polypeptides, etc. I have "faith" that over millions of years those molecules could have combined in a way to create a self feeding, reproducing, genetic molecular structure.

Bob Sniflacker
Bob Sniflacker

@Tiffinay Compiano @Robert Aguilar  I believe that scientists who do this for a living are more accurate than the words of a book written 70 years after the subject passed away. Scientists are meticulously accurate in their record keeping, as they need to be to be credible in the scientific community. Of course there are exceptions, but I doubt that every scientist who ever verified this theory had some kind of personal vendetta against creationism.

Bob Sniflacker
Bob Sniflacker

@Lee Ryuu @Robert Aguilar  Are you denying that these changes in HIV are capable of leading to the genesis of a new species? The fact remains that new species can be created through natural selection, or whatever gradually mutagenic natural process you subscribe to. Whether that selection is the will of a god or not is up to you. I, personally, do not believe so. As a side note, I would like to point out the pointlessness of this entire discussion. It is nigh-impossible to convince a dedicated christian that his god is false through mere logical argument. It is likewise unlikely to change a scientist into a believer in creationism by saying that they need to have faith. I am aware of my hypocrisy in saying this. I am merely participating in this discussion for the enjoyment of intellectual sparring. 

Esther MacDonald
Esther MacDonald

@Robert Aguilar The HIV virus mutating is not evidence for evolution in the sense that you are making it out to be.  It remains the HIV virus.  It does not become the flu virus.  Natural selection is observed all the time.  Beneficial mutations help a species to survive better in their surroundings and those without these beneficial mutations die off.  But the fact remains that we have never observed one species becoming another.  Evolution does require a leap of faith, just as Creationism does.  The latter believes God did it.  The former believes that lifeless dust and atoms and whatever else was floating around out there came together and produced life (though this has never been observed happening and indeed, cannot seem to happen at all...don't most scientists agree life cannot arise from non-life?).  And as Bill Nye pointed out, it's a "mystery" as to where all that stuff came from in the first place.  So that is where faith steps in for the evolutionist.  To call it anything else is to be disingenuous.  As for your assertion that creationists need to think for themselves, most people I know who believe in Creation come from a background of believing in evolution.  They thought for themselves and chose to look beyond what we are blindly taught in biology class.

Robert Aguilar
Robert Aguilar

I am a practicing scientist with over 10 years of graduate education and earned degrees in biology. I have been Catholic all my life although not always practiced it. I have also had formal training in religion. I understand what I read, the work that went into it, how science works, and how to look at different sources to see how credible these investigations are. As I stated in a previous post, science is a self correcting process and this is one of its great advantages. Just think, Darwin's idea has stood pretty much true since the mid 1800s. I'm not saying that science hasn't had its problems because there have been a few but each time it was wrong it was another scientist that corrected it. This is the best explanation we have and I will stand by it until we have a better one. That is another beautiful thing about science, it is very dynamic! If I am wrong, then please prove me wrong.

Robert Aguilar
Robert Aguilar

@Lee Ryuu Adaptation to the environment is one of the basic principles of natural selection which is the basic cause of evolutionary change.  This is one of the basic principles of HIV's evolution (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/biology/Pages/evolves.aspx).  The difference here is that the selective pressure is coming from the drugs.  HIV is very poor at replicating itself and so the mutations that occur are at the RNA level itself not control mechanisms which act upon it (which is where we get epigenetics; epi means upon).  I know that there are no specific repressors encoded by the virus; can you be more specific as to what control mechanisms bring about this adaptation you are referencing?   I agree that science is a self-correcting process and that scientists do not always go along with dogma.  If anything, scientists are their own worst critics.  My point is not that everyone should subscribe to this, you may think what you want.  I am simply here to discuss Nye's and Ham's debate (I am assuming that this is why you are here).  One of Ham's biggest arguments was "because it says it in the bible" and so that is where I started. 

Tiffinay Compiano
Tiffinay Compiano

@Robert Aguilar  Alright. You say that you don't have to take a leap of faith to believe in your molecule to man theory. Do you do all the research yourself Robert, or do have "FAITH" and trust what has been reported? 

Robert Aguilar
Robert Aguilar

@Tiffinay I believe you need to scroll back up and take a look at what this debate is about.  HIV is just another example.  What you believe, there is no evidence for which you would come to realize if you truly were not only a critical thinker but an independent one.  Still, more to the point, you have failed to counter any of my arguments. 

Lee Ryuu
Lee Ryuu

@Tiffinay Compiano @Robert Aguilar@Robert AguilarYou don't seem to question yourself either, and the mutation of the HIV genome is not a sign of evolution but of adaptation, and adaption produces variation among species, so that even among humans you see a variation among us depending on our ancestral climate zones (which mind you, is only a result of epigenetics, meaning the information is already encoded, it only needs reason to be turned on and off). It was for this reason that a much more ''pervasive'' term was coined, microevolution. Either way, there are many scientists out there who do not share this view of Darwinian evolution, it doesn't make them any less credible. They also have strong convictions regarding what they have observed in their scientific work. We all do not need to conform to a theory just because it is popular, science has come this far because fellow scientists in the past were willing and brave enough to challenge the conventional knowledge of their time, and even they still met with staunch resistance from members of the scientific community too.

Lee Ryuu
Lee Ryuu

@Robert Aguilar You don't seem to question yourself either, and the mutation of the HIV genome is not a sign of evolution but of adaptation, and adaption produces variation among species, so that even among humans you see a variation among us depending on our ancestral climate zones (which mind you, is only a result of epigenetics, meaning the information is already encoded, it only needs reason to be turned on and off). It was for this reason that a much more ''pervasive'' term was coined, microevolution. Either way, there are many scientists out there who do not share this view of Darwinian evolution, it doesn't make them any less credible. They also have strong convictions regarding what they have observed in their scientific work. We all don't need to conform to a theory just because it is popular, science has come this far because fellow scientists in the past were willing and brave enough to challenge the conventional knowledge of their time, and even they still met with staunch resistance from members of the scientific community too.

Tiffinay Compiano
Tiffinay Compiano

@Robert Aguilar  I'm sorry but what does HIV have to do with who made the world? I agree it is evolving as is everything.And I believe, on my own, that EVERYTHING that transpires in this world is at the hand of God. That doesn't mean I can explain everything,nor would I be so pompous as to think I could. But Christ knows the plan, and it is only to help you- never to harm you. I submit that those who subscribe to the molecule to man theory are the ones afraid to think for themselves. 

Robert Aguilar
Robert Aguilar

@Tiffinay Compiano How can I answer that if I just argued that the bible has no credibility here?  Especially when Ham argued over and over again that it's true because it says so in the bible.  It doesn't matter what it says a 24 hour period is or if it even tries to define it.  My initial argument was stated in such a way as to debunk the source (the bible).  Please scroll back up to see. 

Tiffinay Compiano
Tiffinay Compiano

@Robert Aguilar @Tiffinay Compiano  Are you a politician? Because you craftily didn't answer the question. You simply berated me and tried to prove your superiority. Again I ask, how long is a day in the bible? Does it say 24 hours? Simple question. Debunk that.

Robert Aguilar
Robert Aguilar

@Pete W  I challenged the source, presented well studied and published evidence, and you once again come back to the argument of faith.  Even worse, now you are attacking my faith which is not what my posts have been about.  I have not once claimed to have won the argument but instead have challenged the Creationists' views.  So far no one has countered any of my arguments, not even you.  You are nothing different; you too (like other creationists) have chosen to ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution and focus on what suits you (missing links).  Stick to the topic and instead of wasting peoples' time worrying about my faith, I challenge you to debunk what I have written.  What I "adhere" to is bolstered by investigations conducted by many different professionals whose work I have read.  By the way, I have investigated your side as well and have decided that blind faith does not suit me.  You should be happy that someone is making you think.  Sorry if I hurt your feelings brother.  

Pete W
Pete W

Robert, It would seem that being condescending makes you feel like your winning the argument, based on your posts. Since none of the thousands of missing links to show macroevolution ever occurred have been found in the last "4.55 billion" years, I would say you have a belief system of your own that you adhere to - a world view based on faith you will find something you have not seen. And no doubt you will believe in your own mind you have crushed my argument when you reply (though I doubt I'll log back in to see it), but I will say as my final remark - I think faith is a good thing, but I just hope you're prepared to bet your life on being right regarding your faith. Very Sincerely.

Robert Aguilar
Robert Aguilar

@Tiffinay Compiano, Again, please accept my challenge and investigate for yourself.  Asking more questions does not make you right but rather confirms your ignorance just like like claiming molecules bounce around to create a species.  Please, take my advice and educate yourself a little more (actually a lot more).  How can I be the one taking the Bible literally if I just presented evidence to debunk it?  But like I said, don't take my word for it, look up what I've posted.  If you need some advice on what credible sources are, let me know.    

Share

Feed the World

See blogs, stories, photos, and news »

Latest From Nat Geo

See more photos »