Okay. So I've been watching the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate in evolution and creationism. Essentially what Ken Ham is insinuating, is that it is OK, to accept the biblical account of creation derived from literature that has been rewritten numerous times, but that it is ludicrous to assume our account of evolution is accurate even though it is based on fossil record evidence and countless methods of dating that tell us with out a doubt, we are at least 4 billion years old. We can confidently postulate that our account of evolution is correct because we have these copious amounts of evidence. We can provide mathematical theory that coincides with observable evidence that our universe IS expanding. There IS billions of stars. It is likely every star has a planetary body orbiting around it. There is absolutely no way that this all took place in a mere 4,000 years. As I have said before and will stand by today, the biblical account of creation is relevant to it's own time, when people had no more than an rudimentary understanding of things and often composed of these events in attempt to answer questions they had no answers too. It is no longer relevant.
What is your take?
Few of the ideologues on either 'side' are very bright. I'll write a hub about this one of these days. And it will probably anger some of the extremists on both sides. The crux of the issue is tautology., and its ramifications.
Well, it's funny actually. I believe in God. I believe that implementing the idea of a creator helps to make sense of how things began. But I will continue to pursue my answer through science regardless of the eventual outcome, whether my assumption is right or wrong.
The problem I have with creationism, is that it is adamant on the biblical account of creation and intentionally oblivious to the evidence we have that contradicts it. For instance we have many methods of proving the Earths actual age. If I were to ask the question, what evidence aside from biblical literature do you have to support your theory, the typical response would be to first avoid the question with a redundancy and eventually produce an answer that is diluted and still not supported by actual evidence.
I respect that other people will have an entirely different opinion than my own, this is just my own bias.
Did you really mean Evolution VS Science? Because I think you're really onto something there.
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
Spirituality "The term spirituality lacks a definitive definition, although social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for "the sacred," where "the sacred" is broadly defined as...
by God shet2 years ago
Start it - let everyone know that God exists and that you love God - tell the atheists do whatever you want to do ( * yourself, specifically speaking) - and leave - and never respond.
by Curtis O Neill3 years ago
With the ever increasing overwhelming amount of Scientific knowledge that we humans now possess, I personally think it's only a matter of time before Religion is almost completley gone, forgotten if you will. What do I...
by lizzieBoo6 years ago
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind, " according to Einstein. The new fundamentalist secularism, as lead by the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins and and Hawking, is...
by jacobkuttyta4 years ago
No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution...
by Sean Thomas Gartland5 years ago
If you have any evidence please present it.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.