Ken Ham has charisma and fluidity in his speech, which is often more than enough to create a following. Bill Nye is not the most effective debater I have ever watched, but he made arguments that should have been devastating to the other side.
Following the debate, self-identifying creationists were asked to write messages to non-creationists on a sketch pad. I could not help but write responses.
Bill Nye has won Emmy awards for his educational programs for children. He has presented them with information about the world around them and promoted critical thinking and open-minded questioning. He has not asked them to believe anything that they cannot confirm for themselves. How is that anything but a positive influence?
If we are to believe that the Divine Creator you speak of is benevolent and loves everyone, why should we be scared? To believe that our world is billions of years old and that life evolved over this period of time is based on evidence, not fear. Are you afraid to accept the evidence?
Yes. Everything we observe about trees shows us that they grow with the yearly cycle of the seasons. This creates a new ring every year. Everything we know about people shows us that we are conceived, born, age, and die. Fossil and DNA evidence suggests that we evolved over billions of years from single celled organisms. To believe what you are suggesting would be contrary to established patterns and evidence and is therefore illogical.
The look on your face seems to suggest that you believe you have just caught science in a contradiction, thereby defeating science with its own laws. Unfortunately for you, no, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution. The law states that the entropy of an isolated system not at thermal equilibrium evolves toward a state of maximum entropy. Entropy can be thought of as a measure of statistical randomness. Your argument is that a world full of complex living beings is less random than a lifeless rock. The earth isn't an isolated system. As long as there is energy pouring in from the sun, that energy can be used to decrease the entropy of our earthly system.
I'm not sure if you're taking this seriously, but I suppose I'll respond anyway. The earth revolves on an axis. It also orbits the sun. The revolution on the axis causes an observer on the surface to perceive the sun as though it travels across the sky. If you refer to the beautiful colours of the sunset, small particles of dust in the atmosphere cause blue light to scatter (Raleigh scattering). This gives the blue colour we observe in the sky when the sun's light enters the atmosphere at high angles and we observe mostly scattered light, which is blue. When the sun is near the horizon and the light enters the atmosphere at low angles, we observe mostly direct light. Since much of the blue light is scattered away, the remaining direct light is red coloured (and quite beautiful).
They don't. (see above)
Noetics is the philosophy surrounding the study of mind and intellect. Are you sure you are a creationist?
This is a very personal question that I'm sure may vary from person to person. I assure you that my belief regarding the age of the earth and the evolution of species does not leave me feeling that my life is meaningless. Does believing that the earth was created in 6 days around 6000 years ago impart some special meaning upon your existence?
Exactly. Now you're getting it.
I see what you did there. You should be putting that sharp wit to better use.
First of all, let's not make assumptions about people and start lumping everyone into a single group. There are evolutionists who believe in God etc. Also, I have to point out that humanist is the proper spelling. Rather than sounding it out, realize that it comes from the root word human.
Secondly, you are operating under the misapprehension that these groups of people believe in intelligent design. There is no more evidence to suggest that life was designed by aliens than there is to suggest it was designed by God. These beliefs would result in what is called an infinite regression paradox. If Earth's life were designed by alien life, then who designed the alien life and so on.
Actually, there are a great many species of hominids that have been discovered. Lucy is merely an example of one of the species. When all of the different species are lined up from oldest to youngest, we can see the gradual changes that took place leading from apes to man. The changes are so gradual that sometimes you don't notice many differences between two adjacent species. Proofs generally aren't declared "official." Theories gain strength and are adapted as more evidence is discovered to support them. A few pieces of one Lucy is still more evidence than creationism provides.
Not exactly. Metamorphosis is a term that is a synonym for transformation. Evolution is a type of transformation. Rather than evidence to support evolution, metamorphosis is a term that helps to describe evolution.
Evolution is not a theory like creationism or the bible. Evolution is a scientific theory. This means that an observation was made (different species). A hypothesis was created to explain the observation (that species can change over time due to environmental pressures on survival and breeding). Evidence was collected to test this hypothesis (fossils, DNA, observation of changes in many generations of species with short replication cycles). With support from evidence, a theory was proposed (evolution and natural selection). The theory continues to explain the evidence that is gathered and so it gains strength. A scientific theory is not something that someone just made up willy-nilly. It goes through a process and survives as long as evidence continues to support it. Creationism and the bible have not gone through this process and cannot be called scientific theories. This is why evolution belongs in a science classroom and creationism and the bible belong in a theology classroom.
Science is not a theory by definition. Science is a philosophy or way of thinking. This way of thinking allows us to produce theories based on observation, testing, and repetition. By definition, a scientific theory IS testable, observable, and repeatable. I object to creationism or intelligent design being taught as science because they ARE NOT any of these things.
I assume that you want to point out that mutation accounts for how genes change but fails to account for the fact that different species have different amounts of DNA. How could a species with one amount of DNA evolve into a species with a larger amount of DNA? Bacteria are able to swap portions of DNA. This mechanism could allow for "unfair" swapping, where one organism receives more than it gives. DNA is a self-replicating molecule, meaning it can make copies of itself. If extra copies are made during replication this would result in a larger amount of DNA. An extra chromosome is responsible for Down syndrome.
Again, the answer may vary from person to person but let me point out flaws in the question. Not believing in creationism does not negate believing in salvation. As a person who does believe in salvation, what purpose do you believe you are here for? Is it necessary to operate under the assumption that you are here for a purpose?
I hate stating the obvious, but you have to find one before you can find two, and two before three and so on. Such is the nature of counting. I don't see how having one piece of evidence is a point against evolution nor a point for creationism.
Belief and faith are related words such that you can't believe anything without faith. You need to have faith that your senses don't deceive you. Most of us need to have faith that the scientists collecting the evidence and analyzing it are doing it correctly and not lying about it. If not, we would all be stuck forever collecting our own evidence and doing it ourselves. The real question is, "what and whom are you willing to put your faith in and why?"
I agree that the world is amazing, beautiful, awe-inspiring, and still far beyond full comprehension. I couldn't have thought it up. Maybe nobody could have thought it up, it's just that amazing and complicated. But wait, if it's so amazing that nobody could have thought of something so amazing, is that more or less amazing than something that someone could think of?
You're operating on too little information. The Big Bang was not an exploding star. That would suggest that before the existence of anything a star existed and then exploded. The Big Bang Theory suggests that at the very beginning there was a mathematical "nothing" called a singularity. The universe exploded into existence from the singularity. This theory explains many of the things observed in the universe. Unfortunately, it does not address the issue of what came before the nothingness or how something sprang from nothing. Of course the inclination is to say, "GOD! God is the answer!" If that floats your boat, then great. It just doesn't count as a scientific answer based on support from evidence.
Natural selection operates by allowing individuals that possess traits making them better able to survive and breed to pass on their genes. If changes to the genes occur allowing them to do that better, then the changes get passed on. If you imagine a population in which one individual experiences a mutation that is beneficial, this would get passed on. This does not necessarily mean that all of the other individuals go extinct. A new group can branch off while the original group remains as well. Evolutionary theory suggests that everything evolved from single celled organisms. If everything changed the same way together all at once, we would only have a single species at any given time.