It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"Science Guy’ Bill Nye vs. Creationist Ken Ham: Who Will Win the Big Debate?

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by SuperFrog

Einstein has never said such a thing.

Yes he did.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein, and his famous aphorism has been the source of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own.

A little known letter written by him, however, may help to settle the argument - or at least provoke further controversy about his views.

Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".

Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.


< br />

But, he didn't believe in God or religion at all, according to the letter. Oh well!

edit on 5-2-2014 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 03:04 PM
reply to post by mekhanics

I rather be Lame than Blind.

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 03:06 PM
reply to post by mekhanics

Do you understand that given latter actually disprove that Einstein ever said given quote and that he was not religious? Did you even read your link?
edit on 5-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 03:17 PM
Bill Nye won, since Ken Ham had no real arguments.
Most of the time he argued, that creationists can be scientists too... while there is nothing wrong with that statement, it just isn't arguement WHY creationism can be a valid point of view.
It is just a fact that people who are scientist can still believe in it.
Hard for me to explain it in English.

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 03:50 PM
reply to post by SuperFrog

What are you talking about?

Here's what the letter says, from the first link of mekhanics'':

n the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

I don't see how that letter denies the earlier 'quote' that you are 'debunking' - ?????

I guess I'm lost here.....

But, here's what I read in the link:

His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject.

"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him," said Brooke. "It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion."

Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."

I think it shows he was not religious, but was influenced by both Judaism and Christianity...kind of like Mark Twain.

Maybe I don't understand what the exchange between you and mekhanics is about. Sorry.
edit on 2/5/14 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 04:22 PM
reply to post by SuperFrog

This article appears in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49. The first section is taken from an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950. The second section is from Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.

If you go to the second segment you find the quote in context.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God.

I don't know the accuracy of this site nor the person shown as editing at the bottom

Edited by Arnold V. Lesikar, Professor Emeritus Dept. of Physics, Astronomy, and Engineering Science, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498

I just wanna stir the pot with the info I found lol.

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by SuperFrog

I've got news for anyone that thinks a few anti-evolutionists will hamper our progression.. we are doomed and have no future and it's the fault of scientists.

Unless we move past nuclear power we are doomed. We are already looking at a boom of cancer in the next few years.

The problem is we are using radioactive material that lasts for thousands of years after it's useful and we have no real endgame for it.
There is nothing you can do. We really need it off the planet, but it's too dangerous to try.

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by SuperFrog

Interesting is that even educated priests agree to that.

more interesting is

it was an educated priest who was the first to champion the ..

big bang

and the atheists just co-opted it

then claimed it as their own

religion and science do mix

its christians and atheists that cant seem to be in the same room

because they are both way to fanatical to see the truth

that they are both wrong

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:00 PM
reply to post by wildtimes

OK, let's move step back and move step at the time.

First mechanics posted this quote:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

This was debunked here on ATS before, and Dr. Tyson (my reply with this video) started with - let's fix this ONCE AND FOR ALL.

Letter from Einstein to Joseph Dispentiere, who was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

― Albert Einstein

After that mechanics posts link that actually disapproves his previous quote, and posts another letter that shows Einstein being not religious person.

I see that you made it clear that you did not read whole discussion and did not see this. I hope this helps.

reply to post by drivers1492

Seriously? Read my reply to wildtimes. Get some books on Einstein.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

I still have hope in humans. Some powerful and smart people are helping a lot, one of them being Bill Gates. I suggest you take a look at his Ted Talk - Innovating to Zero. I have high hope that this works, as this would fix 2 problems - radioactive waste and energy for whole planet.

reply to post by Another_Nut

No, you got it wrong. Just as Father George has said, there is no Science in Scriptures, and him being scientist, means that he is going beyond what Scripture states. Even late Pope acknowledged that Evolution is not hypothesis anymore long time ago, but last night we had Ken show Bible as historical scientific book?!

Here is video from first post, shorter version:

I respect reasonable religious people like that, people who believe in God, but are not blind not to recognize importance of science. People like that are rare, at least I have not met many of them.
edit on 5-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by SuperFrog

Seriously? Read my reply to wildtimes. Get some books on Einstein.

There is zero reason to be mildly rude to me and tell me to get some books on Einstein. Did you happen to read my post in full or just get upset and add me to a reply in which your already irritated? My response specified the following

I don't know the accuracy of this site nor the person shown as editing at the bottom

Things like that above mean that I have no idea if what I presented is factual and I'm not claiming that it is. I was not rude to you nor did I suggest you or anyone else was deficient in their knowledge and needed more books. I would appreciate in the future being addressed with the same respect that I addressed you and leave the extra comments out of our correspondence as it does nothing but derail the conversation as it has in this post.

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:32 PM
reply to post by Another_Nut

Wait where am i wrong?

It was a priest that first championed the big bang

And i have yet to see a Christian and an atheist that mix

Well even in this thread an atheist makes fun of his girl

Lets not confuse religion with christianity

Or atheist with science

But Ham is an idiot.

Eta or even evolution with creation
edit on pm220142807America/ChicagoWed, 05 Feb 2014 19:37:08 -0600_2u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:23 PM
reply to post by drivers1492

I am sorry, it is not my intention to be rude. It is true, every time discussion moves in this direction, it is like repeating of the story all over. If you have seen my video, Dr. Tyson has best explained why religious people wanted 'Einstein' on their side - and there is more then 2 letters from Einstein that point to him being not only non-religious, but also to some extent mocking religious beliefs.

Again, I am sorry if in any way I offended you.

reply to post by Another_Nut

Is Christianity religion or not? You are confusing me there.

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by SuperFrog

Christianity is A religion

Not religion

There are many (better) religions besides fundaMENTAL (Ham) christianity


edit on pm220142808America/ChicagoWed, 05 Feb 2014 20:54:49 -0600_2000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 09:36 PM
I dont think evolution is 100 % right, however creationism? ... really?? I cant believe some people think that a fairy tale book like the bible means anything.

The most telling point was in the Q&A:
'What if anything would make you change your mind?"
Hom: nothing
Nye: evidence

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 10:14 PM
reply to post by foofighter00

By equating evolution and creation you show your true colors

Its apples and oranges my friend


Abiogenisis/spontaneous generation vs creation

That is a different subject

Read up a little

Eta creation has nothing to do with some fairy tale book
edit on pm220142810America/ChicagoWed, 05 Feb 2014 22:16:02 -0600_2u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 10:31 PM
reply to post by Another_Nut

I did not get the impression that poster was saying that evolution and creationism was at all equal.

However evolution does explain the diversity of life on earth where creationism says diversity was talked into existence Ham went on to say that each kind diversified trying to say there was one breed of dog and from there on they became other breeds. The numbers still do not add up to be able to fit on a boat.

I am surprised Nye didn't bring up the fact that if such a flood happened then the change in salinity and temperature drop would have killed almost every know species of marine life on earth just in case Ham had tried to say the animals would have eaten fish once they got off the Ark. Hye could have gone on to present fossilised evidence where animals died with full stomachs of meat.

Still the craziest thing I heard Ham claim was all the meat eaters of the world were vegetarians before the flood.

The Southpark theme went through my head at that point. The one about Mormonism.

Dum Dum Dum Dum

(spelling as it sounds to make less....err....well....)
edit on 5-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 11:43 PM
reply to post by Grimpachi

Ham will make all sorts of nonsensical claims

Because he is an idiot

That though has nothing to do with creation

I thought i had madey my views known in this thread

Most important is

Creation does not equal god

I will not debate the biblical creation story

If you have any questions on my position please read my posts in this thread again

And i will try and clarify my position for you
edit on pm220142811America/ChicagoWed, 05 Feb 2014 23:44:53 -0600_2000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by Another_Nut

Look I know there many creation stories and each one should be examined for their merits however I think it is pretty clear when debating the topic in this thread it is based on the Christian creation narrative that was debated between Ham and Nye at the creation museum, and we should at least acknowledge that.

BTW yeah he did make a lot of nonsensical claims. Here is an article about the debate.

Ham said no evidence could possibly sway him from his literal interpretation of Genesis — including a six-day creation that occurred 6,000 years ago, and a global flood that killed off all but eight members of the human race 4,400 years ago.

"I'm only too willing to admit my historical science is based on the Bible," Ham said during the debate.

In contrast, Nye said one solid piece of evidence would be enough to change his view of cosmic origins. "If you could show that somehow the microwave background radiation is not the result of the Big Bang, bring it on!" he said. "Write a paper! Tear it up!"

Nye repeatedly challenged Ham to cite a prediction made by creationism that could be verified or falsified by experiment. In reply, Ham challenged Nye to cite a technology that could only have been developed because of "molecules-to-man" evolution.

Nye got in some additional zingers during the back-and-forth. When Ham said that fish didn't suffer from disease until Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, Nye replied, "Are the fish sinners? Have they done something wrong to get diseases? That's sort of an extraordinary claim."

Nye also marveled over Ham's claim that all animals were vegetarians before the Fall. "I have not spent a lot of time with lions," Nye said, "but I can tell they have teeth that really aren't set up for broccoli." nbc

Some people felt Ham one because he spread the word. I agree yes he did do that.
edit on 5-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 12:00 AM
reply to post by Grimpachi

Naw in here to make sure that creation is not defined by Ham and his nonsense

So when some says creation they don't get blown apart by people trying to link the word

Creationist to people like Ham

Which many do unfortunately

It is just wrong

Just like i wouldn't want Buddhist to be lumped into Christianity using the word religion

There are differences

I just here to make sure creation isn't lumped in the same way

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 12:09 AM
reply to post by Another_Nut

That is fair enough but as you said many will lump it together that is just how people are.

Look people still try and lump abiogenesis, evolution, and big bang together as one theory. I see it at least 10 times a week on these boards. All you can do is patiently explain the realty of such information and hope they don't have their mind closed.

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in