Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate - Nye Vs Ham

[jammies]

If time was "relative" to the insane degree required to have a 6000 year old earth, we would see visible evidence of it. Changing the rate of time would also change the speed of light, so our observations of the universe past 6000 light-years away would be radically different. Since there is no such disjunction in our observations, this never happened.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by jammies

If time was "relative" to the insane degree required to have a 6000 year old earth, we would see visible evidence of it. Changing the rate of time would also change the speed of light, so our observations of the universe past 6000 light-years away would be radically different. Since there is no such disjunction in our observations, this never happened.

Nope, that's why the speed of light is C in gold ol' E=MC^2,
C=Constant

Time is realtive depending on your velocity and the effect of gravity in your vicinity, but no matter your frame of reference you'll always measure the speed of light as the same value.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

You're assuming they'd have the same debate as Nye had with Ham, which isn't necessarily the case.

I didn't assume, I asked the question of what would they debate

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

They could debate the existence of God, as Collins is a former atheist turned theist. That's the debate I was thinking they should have that would be exceedingly interesting.

Maybe, though debating the existence of "a" God would be like debating about "stuff", it's so poorly defined as to be useless. They'd have to agree on a more specific definition of God.

I don't know if it would be an interesting debate, I've read parts of Collins' book and I would say it's about as good as Dawkins' book is going the other direction. Both are interesting reads but I don't think either are particularly strong in making convincing arguments that the other side would find compelling. I didn't find anything in Collins' book that wasn't a form of long hashed over poor arguments, and I don't know if you've read The God Delusion but if you have I assume it didn't do much to change your mind about anything.

Though maybe Nye would make such a debate interesting, no idea about his chops in other areas.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Yeah, I have no idea how the theory of relativity works.

My hypothesis was if time is relative could how the earth experience time have shifted since the creation of the earth?


I fully expect the answer to the "no".

My thought was "if time is relative, it's relative to what? And therefore could that what change?"

But I want to reiterate I do fall on the evolution side of the debate, but want a better understanding of this theory and why it debunks creationism.

Time is realtive to an observer in a different frame of reference. Depending on your frame of reference you might may have observed the earth as only exising for what you precieve to be 6000 years (for example if you were in a very strong gravititational field), though at that point it wouldn't just be the earth you observe differntly, but the whole universe. However that doesn't change the fact that from our point of view/frame of reference, the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

My hypothesis was if time is relative could how the earth experience time have shifted since the creation of the earth?


I fully expect the answer to the "no".

My thought was "if time is relative, it's relative to what? And therefore could that what change?"

But I want to reiterate I do fall on the evolution side of the debate, but want a better understanding of this theory and why it debunks creationism.

As you say when we say time is relative, relative implies something to be relative to.

Time, passes at one second per second relative to itself, and I don't see how that would help much in terms of the earth's apparent age, since the "clocks" you are using to measure the passage of time are subject to the relative stuff you speak of.

At best you could use that to explain the apparent age of the visible universe vs. a 6000 year old earth, put the earth in a magic bubble that experiences 1 day for every 100 million years outside the bubble, or something like that.

But inside the bubble time is moving at 1 second per second still, so things like radioactive decay or tree rings or coral reefs would still appear the same rate for those watching those "clocks".

At that point it boils down to just invoking "magic" to explain a host of inconsistencies.

Better to just say the earth was created to look old (i.e. Adam was created a man and was given a belly button, God got used trees from Value Village, etc). That opens a different can of worms about God intentionally being deceptive and not saying anything about it though.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by CubicleGeek

I typically stray from having these kind of debates with creationists.

The last conversation I had the entire premise supporting that someone must have created the universe was that it couldn't have just existed out of nothing. By that logic, I asked who then created the creator as he/she/it cannot exist out of nothing. Apparently, that is the exception to the rule.

It's a fruitless, frustrating endeavour.

Both sides believe at some point in the distant past that the universe was 'started' Creationists call this force 'God' Evolutionists don't know what it was, and say it was from nothing. Something from nothing is not a plausible scientific theory so they need a better answer than that. I am calling it 'God' you can insist it was nothing that made everything, but I can't understand how that is a satisfactory answer. You should at least say some unknwn force, energy etc. (this of course would just point to the start of the universe and imply there is something else there before the 'universe'

I guess I am saying both arguements take a leap of faith on how things got rolling.

[troutman]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...i_science.html

Evolution takes no stand on the existence or lack thereof of a god or gods. Whether you think life originated out of ever-more complex chemical reactions occurring on an ancient Earth, or was breathed into existence by God, evolution would take over after that moment. It’s a bit like the Big Bang; we don’t know how the Universe came into existence at that moment, but starting a tiny fraction of a second after that event our science does a pretty fair job of explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis[2] is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

Abiogenesis, or what came before the Big Bang, are independent lines of inquiry from Evolution.

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/sep...t#.UvKmx_tg-W8

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

To a), I have to point out that a lot of atheists were born into religious upbringings and might have been fundamentalist believers before later becoming atheists. There are definitely people who can and will listen to reason and - with enough exposure to the evidence - may re-evaluate their position.

I understand what you are getting at, but just to clarify- are you suggesting that being religious and being a creationist go hand in hand?

As Bill Nye points out in his intro, a majority of religious people reject the new earth viewpoint of Ken Ham, and accept the incredible evidence pointing to an old earth and the natural processes that brought about life on earth.

The revelation that evolutionary science has the most accurate explanation of origins should not change one's view of religion. That should be an entirely different area of personal study and reflection.

The goal of a proper scientist in a debate or conversation on origins isn't to make people atheists- it is to show them that science clearly proves the biblical account of creation to be false and the modern scientific explanation of origins to be the most valid.

[photon]

Originally Posted by jonesy

Both sides believe at some point in the distant past that the universe was 'started'

Not necessarily, 'started' implies time and time is part of the universe, so when describing the universe as a whole from an "outside perspective" the word 'started' might not even be meaningful. We don't even know if the question 'what started the universe' isn't a nonsensical one, like asking what the smell of purple is.

Originally Posted by jonesy

Creationists call this force 'God' Evolutionists don't know what it was, and say it was from nothing.

So much in so small a sentence...

First you say "Evolutionists" don't know but then say it was from nothing, you can't claim they say they don't know and also claim they say they know.

Second evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, so "Evolutionists" don't say anything about it.

Third, tons of "Evolutionists" are religious and would attribute the origin of the universe to their chosen god(s).

Fourth, people (like cosmologists) who would care to comment on the origin of the universe don't say with certainty it was nothing, nothing is only one hypothesis (and one most probably wouldn't spend much time on, and their definition of nothing is probably different than what you have in mind). Currently there isn't enough knowledge to say anything much beyond a hypothesis.

Originally Posted by jonesy

Something from nothing is not a plausible scientific theory so they need a better answer than that.

Hence science!

EDIT: And depending on what one means by nothing, something from nothing happens ALL the time, it just has to make sure to eventually go back to nothing.

At one point lightning was attributed to the activity of supernatural beings as well, but since then we've learned.

So attributing this universe to a direct act of creation of a god just because the current answer in science is "Don't know yet" is somewhat risky and flawed reasoning. Maybe God created the multiverse and this universe is part of a natural process of universe creation, just like God created gravity instead of having angels push planets around.

Originally Posted by jonesy

I am calling it 'God' you can insist it was nothing that made everything, but I can't understand how that is a satisfactory answer.

Who says answers have to be satisfactory? They just need to be correct. Not knowing isn't satisfactory, but needing to be satisfied doesn't make an idea true or not.

Besides, saying the universe was created by God just moves the unsatisfying part up a level. Just as easy to say the universe was created by the multiverse. Who or what created god or the multiverse? Still run into the infinite regress problem.

Originally Posted by jonesy

I guess I am saying both arguements take a leap of faith on how things got rolling.

The argument from science though doesn't take a leap of faith though, because "I don't know yet" doesn't require faith.

[Ace]

I've never heard this argument made, this is just my own thought: But given the Biblical account of the flood, assuming that it occurred, this would fundamentally alter Science's dating techniques wouldn't it? That volume of water being unleashed on the earth would date the topography of the land/fossils, etc. Therefore science itself cannot disprove some particular Christian interpretations of the age of the planet, because science does not take into account the impact of the flood on it's dating calculations?

You also can't prove or disprove Biblical Faith with science, because at the very core of the Christian Faith is that it requires "Faith" (these are fundamental principles in the Biblical accounts). Basically if you believe in the God of the Bible, it states clearly that it requires "Faith", and therefore cannot be figured out through analysis.

Personally I don't understand why those on the "Science" side or the "Creationist" side would even care to debate. The creationist side is supposed to believe in the requirement of Faith, therefore it cannot ever be unconditionally proven to anyone, and on the Science side they believe everything can be proven from analysis (requires no faith). These are just different methodologies for how to explain life, to me they don't seem possible to debate because of the core assumptions.

[JonDuke]

[WhiteTiger]

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Ace

I've never heard this argument made, this is just my own thought: But given the Biblical account of the flood, assuming that it occurred, this would fundamentally alter Science's dating techniques wouldn't it? That volume of water being unleashed on the earth would date the topography of the land/fossils, etc. Therefore science itself cannot disprove some particular Christian interpretations of the age of the planet, because science does not take into account the impact of the flood on it's dating calculations?

Topography has little to do with estimates of fossil ages and such. Radio-carbon dating is the far more effective technique, and after these techniques have established the age of a particular layer of strata, then all fossils within that strata are taken to be the same age. So, unless large volumes of water can somehow affect the way that carbon decays (and I'd sure we'd know about this if it were possible), dating calculations would be unaffected by massive global floods.

Here's a good primer on fossil dating methods:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowl...hods-107924044

[photon]

Originally Posted by Ace

I've never heard this argument made, this is just my own thought: But given the Biblical account of the flood, assuming that it occurred, this would fundamentally alter Science's dating techniques wouldn't it? That volume of water being unleashed on the earth would date the topography of the land/fossils, etc. Therefore science itself cannot disprove some particular Christian interpretations of the age of the planet, because science does not take into account the impact of the flood on it's dating calculations?

I don't think the dating techniques work in such a way that a global flood would alter them to make every single different dating technique (which all rely on different kinds of observations and physical processes) all look older in exactly the same amount. The power of consilience should not be underestimated.

Plus a global flood wouldn't impact many dating mathods like rate of radioactive decay, and would be clearly visible in the geological record.

Originally Posted by Ace

You also can't prove or disprove Biblical Faith with science, because at the very core of the Christian Faith is that it requires "Faith" (these are fundamental principles in the Biblical accounts). Basically if you believe in the God of the Bible, it states clearly that it requires "Faith", and therefore cannot be figured out through analysis.

That's generally true, though there are Christians and other religious people who would disagree, seeing as they spend a LOT of effort to try and prove their beliefs.

Of course you can say this about every religious faith, so that means they are either all equally valid, all equally invalid, or if one is valid and the rest aren't then it's a random crapshoot and such a god is unjust (which may be, people are born into dictatorships sometimes).

Faith as an epistemology fails, because it boils down to believing what one wants to believe, which clearly doesn't work in the physical world.

Originally Posted by Ace

Personally I don't understand why those on the "Science" side or the "Creationist" side would even care to debate. The creationist side is supposed to believe in the requirement of Faith, therefore it cannot ever be unconditionally proven to anyone, and on the Science side they believe everything can be proven from analysis (requires no faith). These are just different methodologies for how to explain life, to me they don't seem possible to debate because of the core assumptions.

Sounds like Non-overlapping magisteria.

In one way I agree, I think once a believer tries to enter into apologetics they've already admitted defeat in a way, better to simply believe.

But then we're back to all beliefs being equal, and we know that that isn't the universe we live in. No matter how much one believes a coffee enema is going to cure autism, it's not.

[GGG]

What I really appreciated about Nyes arguement is that he madethe point that nany Christians and other religions fully support the theory of evolution and science. To often all Christians are painted with the anti science brush. I think that this debate over evolution vs creation is to often confused with the God vs No-God debate.

God vs no God is a useless debate to have. But convincing people that science works is very important. I really think that science needs to get better at advertising. Whetther it is anti-vaxxers, climate change, or creationism being pushed into science class, science needs to better advocate its position in a manner the masses can understand and believe.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by photon

Not necessarily, 'started' implies time and time is part of the universe, so when describing the universe as a whole from an "outside perspective" the word 'started' might not even be meaningful. We don't even know if the question 'what started the universe' isn't a nonsensical one, like asking what the smell of purple is.

I think it is reasonable to use terms we are familiar with in these discussions. Saying 'Start', and 'time' may not be meaningful is too simple a way to try to discredit something. These are terms and framworks of a discussion that we can all understand. However, If in fact 'time' and 'start' have no meaning as you say then I would argue that gives more credance to the idea that God has no start and no end and always was, because he exists outside the constraint of 'time' He is looking from an 'outside perspective' as you say.

Originally Posted by photon

So much in so small a sentence...

First you say "Evolutionists" don't know but then say it was from nothing, you can't claim they say they don't know and also claim they say they know.

This really makes no sense and sounds like smug semantics to me.

Originally Posted by photon

Second evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, so "Evolutionists" don't say anything about it.

Again semantics, evolution surely has some ideas on what started the universe, typically referred to as the big bang i believe. I am just asking what banged and who caused it to bang. I have never heard a good response. I choose to call that 'force' God. You can leave it unnamed or unknown if you wish.

Originally Posted by photon

Third, tons of "Evolutionists" are religious and would attribute the origin of the universe to their chosen god(s).

I was not aware of too many religious evolutionists. I suppose the Catholic church is now that i think of it. I usually associate evolutionist as denying the existance of God. If you say that is not the case, I won't argue.

Originally Posted by photon

Fourth, people (like cosmologists) who would care to comment on the origin of the universe don't say with certainty it was nothing, nothing is only one hypothesis (and one most probably wouldn't spend much time on, and their definition of nothing is probably different than what you have in mind). Currently there isn't enough knowledge to say anything much beyond a hypothesis.

I can agree with this and it makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by photon

EDIT: And depending on what one means by nothing, something from nothing happens ALL the time, it just has to make sure to eventually go back to nothing.

I am sorry this does not make sense to me and appears to violate laws of physics, thermodynamics or science in general. I believe this means you think that if the universe started x billion years ago, flourished for many billions of years with countless life forms, planets, solar systems, energy, chemical reactions etc, then died out and somehow and all dissappeared (going back to nothing) then it is ok to say it started from nothing.

skipped some, sorry

Originally Posted by photon

Besides, saying the universe was created by God just moves the unsatisfying part up a level. Just as easy to say the universe was created by the multiverse. Who or what created god or the multiverse? Still run into the infinite regress problem.

Here i whole heartedly agree.

[Regulator75]

[jonesy]

If people believe in an infinite God, I don't know why they have to say the world is only 6000 years old.
I think you can believe God created everything and have no concerns with the existance of dinosaurs and an earth that is millions of years old. Obviously the fossil record supports the existance of dinosaurs.
One thing that troubles me is that I have yet to see any conclusive fossil records that would support evolution. You would think they would abound. There seems to be lots of fossils of many species but not any of 'partial' species or ones that are in transition. That would be amazing.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

I understand what you are getting at, but just to clarify- are you suggesting that being religious and being a creationist go hand in hand?

Depends on how you phrase it. Ken Ham's brand of young Earth creationism which runs rampant in the United States necessarily hinges upon fundamental Christian belief. The opposite is not true.

To put it another way, all German Shepherds are dogs, but not all dogs are German Shepherds. Hence Bill Nye's assertion that plenty of people are believers in various religious faiths and do not buy into YEC.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by photon

But then we're back to all beliefs being equal, and we know that that isn't the universe we live in. No matter how much one believes a coffee enema is going to cure autism, it's not.

You've got the right point, but it doesn't make all beliefs the same, it's ultimately the responsibility of each person of Faith to have the correct Faith (once again you can't prove this to someone through debate.) This is different from believing what you "want" to believe. I might want to Believe that I have a God who just wants to give me a bunch of nice things, but this is far different than having Faith in God and following His principles. For instance Faith possibly means sacrifice and abolishing of personal wants and desires to live out as directed. This is where I think the debate gets lost, there are just too many people that claim Faith, but are really living out of a mentality of receiving. In my mind Faith is about giving and belief tends to be about getting, and I think a significant portion of the "Faith" group may not really be focused on the giving part. [not talking about money, more like giving yourself to your faith]

I guess I'm trying to say: Faith is not the same as Belief.