Creationist denies Bill Nye’s joy
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/05/creationist-denies-bill-nyes-joy-in-scientific-discovery-because-hitler-ate-jews-for-lunch/

in scientific discovery because Hitler ate Jews for lunch

JUDAS GOATS?

Creationist author Terry Mortenson doesn’t understand how an atheist like Bill Nye “the Science Guy” can find joy in scientific discoveries.

Following the debate between Nye and Creation Museum founder Ken Ham on Tuesday night, Mortenson sat down with Creation Today co-hosts Eric Hovind and Paul Taylor to discuss the event.

“I was kind of intrigued by one of Bill’s last comments about the joy of discovery, but I thought, what is the joy of realizing that I came from pond scum as a result of an explosion and that eventually I’m going to die and I won’t be here, I won’t remember that I ever lived, nobody else will ever remember,”

Mortenson said. “What is the joy of that? It is purposeless, as Richard Dawkins and William Provine and others have said.”

Webmaster's
http://whatreallyhappened.com/
Commentary:

As a Christian who also rejoices in science,and the incredible discoveries humankind has made through its time on earth, I disagree profoundly with the views of Terry Mortenson and Ken Ham.

As a Christian, my job this lifetime is to be kind to everyone I encounter, and try to leave this world a little better than I found it. My job is being loving, and where I can, to make that loving practical, in terms of donating what I can to people in need. When we love, we touch the future in incredible ways.

Was it not Jesus himself who said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged"?!?!

As he has expressed many times, Mike is not a "faith guy"; but in having the courage to express his opinions in a logical, forthright manner, he is one of the most moral people I have ever encountered this lifetime: this is one of the many reasons I love him with all my heart.

The God I understand is not a bigot, but loving to all of its creations, even to people who may not believe.

DITTO..get well..soon mike*

'Runner, we care all waiting for your proof that evolution is a myth. '

actually GlenC I am waiting for explantion 5003 as to why the idiotic fantasy that order came from chaos is not faith. Something that not even the 'true' believers can give anywhere close to rational answer. Your irrational faith defies logic.

Hi AJ

There was no “Clumsy” attribution - I’ve read much of Richard Dawkins’s book, and all of the relevant chapters that deal with these issues. Dawkins worships at the alter of science without taking a moment to reflect on what science actually is. He talks about science and faith as if they are competing explanations but I see no good reasons to follow him there. At most, there are small areas of conflict within specific areas of science. At most. But on the whole, there is deep concord between the Christian idea of God and the ordered natural universe that science has the ability to discover. Many of the great early scientists saw this clearly.

Re: How God’s will interacts with ours. This is a very complex issue for a reason. We’re talking about an infinite being who is beyond time. So why would I, a being confined within the constraints of time, expect to reach a full and exact comprehension of how this infinite being relates to time? On the contrary, I’m now very sceptical of any attempt to fully explain this, because I don’t expect that we should be able to explain it fully given the attributes of God.

Mac, since this is going into many different topics, I need to clarify some things before jumping ahead. (Things that are central to the issues and questions you‘ve raised): What’s your definition of evidence? And second, what kind of world would you expect to exist if a God(s) did exist?

Thirdly, you seem to be indirectly criticising "belief" without scientific evidence, but you do understand the issue I raised initially in this thread, right? ie: Your belief that science is the only valid way of "knowing" is also a belief that cannot be proven by science.

YOU MAY HAVE HEARD THE proof wenT POOF
but here is an example..of evolutions proofs
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0088329``
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088329.g006

It is therefore argued that the shape of the footprints suggests that they were most likely to have been formed by hominins and none of the prints are consistent with those formed by other mammals [18]. In some cases, left or right and front or back of the foot were also apparent, including one instance of toes, provided information about direction of movement (Figure 7–8).

SO GO TAke a look..[at 7 and 8]
the only ones with toes..[lol..all 3 of em][ie 3 toes/only]
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088329.g007/largerimage

The depth of the imprints is consistent with formation in a soft-stiff muddy substrate, as firm mud does not retain footprint impressions and semi-liquid mud has insufficient strength to retain a clear, undeformed impression [18].

The less elongated features might also be hominin footprints, where impressions from just heels or the front of feet have been preserved, or overprinting has obscured original features. The time elapsed from initial exposure to recording will also have led to some erosion of the surface, which will have affected the shape and clarity of the prints.

ANYHOW..THE ORIGINAL NOW GONE
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088329.g007/largerimage

AND LOOK..at the skulls..[all plaster casts]..the origonals lost trying to 'keep em safe]
but hey the plaster cast..IS YA PROOF

THE real stuff allways goes poof.

sorry half the post self deleted
here is the SEARCH term..

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Footprints+washed+away

watching the vidio'S IS A WASTE of time[but heck i watched..eM..for you]

and the other deleted but..THIS RECORDS THE ORIGONAL..'huh-man?..skull'S LOST IN TRANSPORTATION.
http://www.wicwiki.org.uk/mediawiki/index.php/Java_Man_%26_Peking_Man

Trav,

"What’s your definition of evidence?"

The standard dictionary definitions--"an indication, sign....that which tends to prove or disprove something"

I'm sure the difficulty is not the definition of "evidence", but what actually constitutes evidence, and remember the onus of proof is on the believer, not the sceptic. The existence of the Universe is simply evidence that the Universe exists, not that it was created by some agency beyond space and time.

The work of science is subjected to continuous review and any theory, at any time, can be demonstrated to be in error, if religion could be subjected to the same degree of scrutiny if would have my respect. There is no scientific evidence that "belief" has any validity, humans have believed in thousands of religions and gods over the millennia, where are they now? Again the onus of proof is on the believer to demonstrate that belief is a 'way of knowing', not science. Science has even investigated the evolutionary reasons as to why humans believe in the supernatural.

"....what kind of world would you expect to exist if a God(s) did exist?"

The answer is really dependent on the nature of the God/gods, who created the Universe, isn't it, so how many kinds of gods could there be? Some religions are relatively more successful at reconciling the reality of existence and human experience than Christianity, the key term is "relatively".