Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 376 of 824 (719294)
02-12-2014 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Coyote
02-12-2014 8:33 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
For Faith, the bible trumps any and all evidence no matter what.
I am a church goer and Bible believer, but I accept the reality of evolution. There are many other Bible believers who do not hold the YEC worldview and are able to reconcile the TOE to their world view. The problem is when you hold an interpretation of the Bible which is inconsistent with science and historical evidence. I am probably one of the few admirers of both Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov and Jesus Christ.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2014 8:33 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(5)
Message 377 of 824 (719296)
02-12-2014 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Faith
02-12-2014 5:23 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
I don't know how hydraulic sorting would work and neither do you ...
Speak for yourself. I know the principals behind how hydraulic sorting would work.
An object will require a certain amount of energy to cause it to be suspended in water. How much energy is needed will depend on the mass of the object, its buoyancy and its "hydraulic drag". So an animal such as an Apatosaurus, which is one of the largest land animals that ever lived, would take a tremendous amount of energy to get it suspended in the flood waters. Let's say it will take 1000 units of energy (uoe) to suspend an Apatosaurus. Let's say a grain of sand will take 10 uoe to get it suspended, gravel takes 100 uoe and a trilobite takes 90 (because it is flat and can easily be carried by currents due to hydraulic drag).
Note these numbers are arbitrary and only used for illustrative purposes, but it should be clear that it would take more energy to suspend an Apatosaurus than it does to suspend gravel or sand.
So now the flood waters come upon the earth with a force never before seen and the energy level quickly rises to 1200 uoe, which means all of our objects are suspended in flood waters and swirling this way and that. The waters reach their peak and begin to subside, which means their energy level begins to fall. When the energy level falls below 1000 uoe the Apatosaurus carcasses begin to fall out of suspension because there is no longer enough energy to keep them suspended. However, everything else is still suspended because energy levels are still high.
As the waters slowly calm, and the energy levels slowly fall, there are places the finally fall below 100 uoe and the gravel begins to fall out of suspension. But sand and trilobites are still suspended until energy levels fall again then the trilobites fall out next and finally the sand. So what we have is Apatosaurus on the bottom, then a layer of gravel, then the trilobites and then finally they are covered by sand.
You can try this yourself by doing the mason jar experiment I suggested way back in Message 85. Swirl the jar to simulate the energy input of currents.
Original location would determine which current the creature got carried along in to which ultimate grave.
But it won't have much to do with where it ends up vertically in the column.
But what I do know is that the strata look like they had to have been laid down in a huge deluge
Only very, very superficially. They follow none of the rules of hydrodynamic sorting that should be expected.
the usual interpretation of them as time periods is ridiculous
What else would they represent. I tried to get this across to you in the other thread. They could have been formed in 5 minutes, 5 days or 5 years, but what they represent is a period of time that that particular sediment was being deposited. I will accept the assumption that they were laid down 4400 years ago in a 40 day flood - no old time frames. Now explain how they follow ANY of the principals of hydrodynamic sorting.
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 5:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 3:10 PM herebedragons has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(4)
Message 378 of 824 (719300)
02-13-2014 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Faith
02-11-2014 9:35 PM


Re: genetics
DWise1 writes:
Why do you emphasize "variation within a kind"? The implication is that that disagrees with evolution. Why do you think that?
Well, let me try to sort this out. You think the KIND keeps changing until it could eventually be called another Kind? No? Isn't that what the ToE implies?
No, that is not what the ToE implies. The kind does not become a different kind, but rather over the generations it can diversify into new sub-kinds, all of which are still of the original kind. The image is that of a branching tree; all the new branches are still part of the original branch. In evolution, every organism reproduces after its own kind, especially among eukaryotes (what protista do can get pretty weird).
The scientific term that describes this is nested clades, cladistics being the discipline of classifying species. You can read "clade" as being a "kind". A clade will have descendent clades. All descendent clades will be nested within the parent clades. An everyday analogy would be a computer's directory tree structure in which each directory could have any number of child subtrees, but each directory (except for the root directory) will have one and only one parent directory. At no time does a directory jump from one directory subtree to another (symbolic links in UNIX/Linux do not count) and at no time does the addition of directory subtrees change what the entire directory structure is.
For more information on clades and cladistics, look at RAZD's Message 363.
I'm trying to say that the genome of any given Kind can't change, that all the change, all the variation we see of cats and dogs and whatnot, is all confined within the limits of the genome for the Kind and it cannot produce anything but what's in that genome.
I think that you're a bit off about genomes. There is not one single genome for all the different species and subspecies within a kind. Each species has its own genome, as does each subspecies. Those genomes are very similar, but still different; the more closely related (ie, more recently split off from its parent species) the more similar those genomes will be. And the more remotely related (ie, split off from a much earlier generation) the less similar they will be. IOW, how similar the genomes of two species are depends on how long ago (AKA "how many generations back", since number of generations equals time) they had shared a common ancestor.
So while the first generation of a kind had its own genome from which all its descendent species derived theirs, there is no such thing as a kind having one single genome. A kind contains a collection of the genomes possessed by all its species.
Even mutations can only change within the structure of the genome, replacing segments of DNA with other sequences, usually to the detriment of the organism, ...
I'll skip asking what you mean by "mutations", since we appear to be talking about the same thing. To many, "mutation" means something that went wrong during the development of an embryo (eg, thalidamide babies), but that would have nothing to do with evolution since that phenotype mutation would not be inheritable. Or something had damaged the DNA drastically causing great physical deformities, which again would have nothing to do with evolution since the individual's chances of survival and reproduction would be very small. Rather, the only mutations that are of any interest are the genetic changes that can be inherited. And those changes are few and well understood (See Mutation).
In the case of a base insertion or deletion within a gene, then that would shift the sequence and code for an entirely different amino acid sequence. I cannot think of how this could not be detrimental. If I'm not mistaken, I think that this is one way that a gene becomes recessive.
In the case of a point mutation, a single codon would have changed. That could or could not code for a different amino acid. The amino acid requirements within a protein's sequence depends on the site within the protein. Some sites require a specific amino acid, so changing that would disable the protein. Some sites require a particular type of amino acid, so changing that amino acid may or may not affect the protein. Many sites will accept any amino acid, so changing the amino acid there will have no effect. Also, a point mutation could cause a different protein to be produced, such as a gene for lysozyme having mutated to instead produce alpha-lactalbumin, which is used in the production of milk. So this type of mutation could be detrimental, but it might be beneficial instead and it's rather likely to be neutral.
If a sequence is duplicated, then that will likely result in the duplication of a gene. This is where those multiple alleles come from. And multiple alleles also allow an organism to continue producing a protein even after some of the alleles have mutated to produce a different protein (eg, we continue to produce lysozyme along with alpha-lactalbumin). Though if the insertion is in the wrong place, then it could cause problems.
In short, mutations of the genome are not always detrimental, but can instead be neutral or even beneficial. The detrimental mutations will be selected against, undoubtedly mostly through spontaneous abortion when the embryo proves to be nonviable -- much more than half of all fertilizations result in spontaneous abortions. Most of the mutations that are inherited would be either neutral or beneficial.
... , but even assuming it sometimes produced something viable it could still only be within the template determined by the genome. That's the genetic boundary of the Kind.
Yes, mutations to the genome will be within the framework of the genome. And the changes to the genome that are more likely to keep the organism viable are the small ones. But that does not prevent the addition or modification of traits in the genome, ones that can change the genetic boundaries of the kind. Remember, those genetic boundaries are the union of all the individual genomes of all the various species and subspecies within that kind.
Or to mix test pilot and post office metaphors, envelopes are meant to be pushed.
And otherwise I argue that the processes of evolution that form new varieties, at least where this comes about by the splitting of populations into daughter populations, tends toward the LOSS of genetic variability or diversity, so that any series of population splits will create interesting new variations or phenotypes BUT at the ssame time with the loss of genetic diversity.
Certainly, natural selection works to diminish the variability of a population as the better adapted individuals tend to survive and propagate while the less well adapted don't. But natural selection is only part of the story, since there are processes that work to increase genetic variability, such that the net effect is a balance between diminishing and increasing variability, a balance that can teeter either way or maintain an equilibrium. Many factors come into play, all of which are analyzed in the highly mathematical science of population genetics.
Since that is the trend brought about BY evolution through these processes, you can see that ultimately there will be a point where no further evolution or variation is possible. Which is the opposite direction from what the ToE postulates and needs.
No, that is the trend brought about by natural selection, which is only one part of evolution. What the ToE postulates and needs is both increased variation and natural selection.
Our different views here are driven mainly by the time frames that we allow. It takes time for genetic variability to accumulate within a population. Because of your YEC beliefs, you only allow a very short period of time, about 1,000 years, for all this evolution to take place (your "variation within kinds"). Because of that, you need to imagine that the original breed pairs representing each basic kind come preloaded up front with all the genetic variability that that kind will need to create all the species that it needs to. Your model does not even begin to allow any time for the processes that will increase variability.
Since I am not constrained by your YEC assumptions, my model allows for the time that is needed for variability to increase, plus natural selection and speciation don't have to proceed at anything approach the break-neck speed that your model demands. In my model, life is allowed to simply do what life does naturally: survive and reproduce. And what life does naturally in the form of populations of organisms is really what evolution is all about.
SO; genetically you can't get variation beyond the limits determined by the genome, and phenotypically you are always going to be spending genetic variability as you develop new breeds, variations, races, or "species."
There is no such thing as "he genome", but rather each individual species and subspecies has its own genome.
Genomes change, which means that their limits change too.
Genetic variability increases as well as decreases. It's dynamic, not static.
No I believe evolutionists think that variation is openended, and that the genome can be altered by mutations, that you can go on getting variations in phenotypes indefinitely.
I feel that I'm seeing a mixing up of genotypes and phenotypes. I'll take a chance and assume that you know their definitions (and that you've not invented some unique new definitions that nobody else has ever heard of). The genotype describes the genetic characteristics of the individual. The phenotype describes the individual's physical characteristics. The genetic information in the genotype is used to create and operate the phenotype. The genotype in eukaryotes is created through recombination and mutation, but is not subject to selection. The phenotype is subject to selection, so it is indirectly through the phenotype that the individual's genotype is selected or not. It is the genotype that is inherited, not the phenotype. Variability is about the genotype, not the phenotype.
It is interesting to note that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the genotype and the phenotype. Small changes in the genotype can translate to large-scale changes in the phenotype, or large-scale changes in the genotype could translate to very small changes in the phenotype, or no change at all. You can't really predict it, though we may be learning to slowly.
"What's to stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution?" is the nave question asked all the time here.
No, that's not at all nave. In fact, your own model not only answers that question, but it absolutely demands that microevolution naturally becomes macroevolution given enough time (ie, enough generations). Without that, your model completely falls apart.
More on that in my reply to your Message 354.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Faith, posted 02-11-2014 9:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 379 of 824 (719301)
02-13-2014 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by Coyote
02-12-2014 8:33 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
quote:
For Faith, the bible trumps any and all evidence no matter what.
More accurately her sect's dogmas trump any and all evidence, usually including the Bible. And even when she chooses the Bible she sometimes has to be reminded of what it actually says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2014 8:33 PM Coyote has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 380 of 824 (719302)
02-13-2014 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Faith
02-12-2014 3:55 AM


Re: genetics
That's helpful actually. I usually try to remember to list all the possible synonyms, variety, race, breed, species, subspecies, but often forget some of them, but I would like to be as clear as possible so I'll stop using "variety" when I'm talking about animals.
There are a few issues here. One has already been covered by HereBeDragons (Message 366), which is that those are not synonyms.
A more important issue, I feel, is one of completeness. We use language and vocabularies to communicate ideas and information. When those ideas and that information require that we mention concepts and things and distinguish one from another, then the words we use must cover the complete range of concepts and things and whatever else is involved. As a person with very little knowledge of a subject tries to invent those words, completeness will invariably suffer and many very important concepts, things, and distinctions will go unnamed. It would be like you inventing your terminology of geology, in which a wide variety of different types of rocks are identified and distinguished between because such distinctions are very important, but you lump them all together as "rock". Not only would you be unable to communicate with others about geology, but you would also be blinding yourself to very important aspects of geology and be unable to understand others who try to draw your attention to those very important aspects of geology.
The best course of action is to use the standard vocabulary, since it has been constructed and developed by people with extensive knowledge of the subject matter. Dreaming up your own vocabulary blocks communication, is counter-productive, and will only end in tears.
DWise1 writes:
Comparing dogs and cats. ...
I've lost track of what this refers to so I'll just skip it.
What I was doing by comparing dogs and cats was to examine the "dog kind" and the "cat kind" and demonstrating that they contain various degrees of reproductive barriers, ranging from interbreeding with fertile offspring (wolves and dogs) to interbreeding with sterile hybrid offspring (lion + tiger -> liger), to the inability to interbreed at all. The last two examples are of separate species having been created within the same "basic kind", meaning that speciation has occurred within the same "basic kind". And since speciation means macroevolution, et voil!
I simply need a way to say clearly that on my model what is called speciation is not macroevolution but just a subspecies that has microevolved to the point that it can no longer interbreed with others of its species. If this is not clear please suggest a clearer way to say what I mean.
Well, since "a subspecies that has microevolved to the point that it can no longer interbreed with others of its species" is a new species, and since the development of a new species is speciation, and since speciation is macroevolution, I don't see any way in which you could truthfully say that it's not.
Now, I know that you reject evolution and I know that just about the last thing you would want would be to admit or even imply that evolution happened. But your problem here is that your model absolutely demands macroevolution. The only way that you could keep your model and also deny macroevolution would be if you were to deny that those members of your "basic kinds" are separate species. The problem with that is that such a denial would be utterly ludicrous and completely indefensible.
The problem is in your choice of a model. As long as you keep that model, it will continue to demand macroevolution as well as demonstrating how microevolution leads inexoribly to macroevolution. You may need to dump the model and adopt a different one, one in which pairs of every single species in existence had to have been on the Ark. Not a good choice, since that was the problem that your model was created to solve.
If you keep your hyper-fast evolution model, then the most that you could do would be to state that you do not believe in its inescapable conclusions. If you were to deny, as you just did, that it has anything to do with macroevolution, then you will taken to task for it and have to argue a completely indefensible position -- and we all know all too well how you respond to that kind of situation. There certainly is no easy choice.
DWise1 writes:
Let's consider two species: humans and dogs.
When were dogs domesticated? We know that wolves were domesticated in prehistoric times, so dogs split off from wolves and stopped breeding with wolves some time before writing was invented. About 5000 to 6000 years ago? Dogs have been reproductively isolated from wolves in all that time and more. According to your reckoning, they should have lost their ability to interbreed with wolves and produce fertile offspring after the first 300 years, maybe 1000 years at the most. And yet, after 6000 years or more dogs and wolves are still interfertile. Why's that?
This is apparently a problem with the word "species" which although I said I meant "variety" by it, to you it obviously implies inability to interbreed, but I didn't mean to imply that." I was saying something quite casual, answering a question: How long to get a clearcut subspecies or race or breed is what I had in mind. A couple hundred years max would be my guess.
The thing is that the "cat kind" did produce species, meaning that what had started out as a subspecies of the original breeding pair diverge to the point of losing its ability to interbreed, which by definition is a species. You had placed all the action in the "cat kind" as having happened within a few hundred years though with an upper bound of about a thousand years. Hence you had set the time in which that should happen to 1000 years at most. The problem that the "dog kind" (and the "human kind" as well) present your model is that even after several thousands of years of isolation that ability to interbreed had not been lost. Furthermore, while dogs and wolves could be considered subspecies, the various human population could not be. So why did speciation happen to the "cat kind" in less than a thousand unwitnessed years, but it didn't happen to dogs and wolves nor to humans after several thousand witnessed years? Why do your scenarios only happen when nobody's looking?
I'm sorry to say that I have NO idea what you are getting at in all the above quoted {about humans}.
I just now told you.
Sure it depends on the number of generations so it could go faster with more frequently breeding creatures.
I agree. With dogs and cats, the generational time should be about the same, so that's a wash. Of course, humans' generational time is longer and so speciation within our kind would need to take longer by about a factor of 15 to 20.
But there's a more fundamental question here and, yes, you are right that the figure we need to determine is number of generations needed; after we have that, the amount of time can be calculated.
First, it is obvious that what is involved is that the subspecie's genome is changing and that it has to change in certain ways and over a number of generations before it no longer is possible to interbreed. That raises an obvious question, which is: What kinds of changes does it take for interfertility to be lost? Or would a better question be what is required for two related genomes to remain interfertile?
is there a more or less set number of generations that are needed for speciation? I would say, no, since it immediately occurs to me that selective pressure would be a factor -- in a more demanding environment that the population has to adapt to, then change will happen more rapidly, whereas in a benign environment that the population is already adapted to then change would be slower. That would just mean that we cannot place an upper bound on the number of generations needed, but there may still be a lower bound, a minimum number of generations needed.
Another monkey-wrench is that question of what changes are needed? Which factor is more important, number of generations or types of changes? And if it's the types of changes, then how do they get introduced? Obviously, mutation would be one source of those changes, but your model denies mutation.
This is undoubtedly a more complex issue than one may think at first, but at the same time it is central to the principal difference between our two models: the rate at which speciation takes place.
We would need help from a biologist who has done research on this question. But in the meantime, it does appear from the evidence that eukaryote speciation requires much more time than that all of recorded history, and certainly much more than a few hundred years. Of course you disagree, but then you are married to YEC and must defend it unswervingly against all evidence.
I was guessing it would take a few hundred years from the ark to establish a welldefined subspecies like lions or bobcats, or coyotes.
Those are not subspecies. Those are species! They do not interbreed. Subspecies can still interbreed; species cannot! Those are species!
Just because you want to call them something that they are not does not eliminate the fact that they are species!
I never meant to imply anything about loss of ability to interbreed, which might or might not occur, and equating "species" with "variety" ought to have been a clue to that.
You mean a clue that you had not idea what you were talking about? Again, just because you want to call them something that they are not does not eliminate the fact that they are species!
You may not have meant to imply anything about ability to interbreed, but your model demands it. Because, according to your model, those kinds produced species that could not interbreed!
To establish a human racial group I suppose I'd guess about the same amount of time, a couple hundred years. So you think you've defeated this guess?
As I've explained, according to your model those isolated human populations had more than enough time to have diverged into separate species. But they didn't. In fact, it took them most of that time just to develop into different races.
Reality shows that evolution works a lot more slowly than your model demands it to work.
Here, let me underline that for you: Reality shows that evolution works a lot more slowly than your model demands it to work.
Do you understand now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 3:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
Jaf
Member (Idle past 3695 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 01-30-2014


Message 381 of 824 (719309)
02-13-2014 4:48 AM


This debate was Mind = Blown for me.
I'm so very very impressed with Ken Ham. I think Bill Nye is a nice guy too but as a Christian I am very proud of Ken Ham what ever that means. His points on the intentional switching of meanings of the word science and the word evolution (which is patently pernicious and intentionally misleading at worst. At best highly dogmatic in the most faith based religious way.)
I think Ken Ham was very, very courageous to point that out and I'm astonished it was left unanswered, in any way, by the evolutionist or the host. Now the truth is out there in this very concise and easy to understand format, I'm very, very certain this devious deceptions days are numbered.
There were over 1 million views of one youtube link of the debate, I didn't expect that.
Kind regards Jaf. PTL
Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.
Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.
Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Percy, posted 02-13-2014 6:50 AM Jaf has replied
 Message 384 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2014 9:30 AM Jaf has replied
 Message 385 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-13-2014 10:20 AM Jaf has replied
 Message 386 by Taq, posted 02-13-2014 11:18 AM Jaf has replied
 Message 387 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2014 11:53 AM Jaf has not replied
 Message 388 by Tangle, posted 02-13-2014 12:24 PM Jaf has not replied
 Message 401 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2014 4:06 PM Jaf has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 382 of 824 (719313)
02-13-2014 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Jaf
02-13-2014 4:48 AM


Re: This debate was Mind = Blown for me.
Jaf writes:
His points on the intentional switching of meanings of the word science and the word evolutio...
If you mean the distinction Ken Ham drew between observational and historical science, in case you're interested there's a thread discussing it over at SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science..
Nice post!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 4:48 AM Jaf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 2:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 383 of 824 (719324)
02-13-2014 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Percy
02-12-2014 7:53 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
The term you really meant to use was "hydrologic sorting,"
Ahh yes, I was thinking something didn't look right about the word "hydraulic", but I couldn't place why.
"Hydrologic sorting" ... oooh ... sounds so sciency ... there must be something to it
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Percy, posted 02-12-2014 7:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 384 of 824 (719328)
02-13-2014 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Jaf
02-13-2014 4:48 AM


Re: This debate was Mind = Blown for me.
I'm so very very impressed with Ken Ham. I think Bill Nye is a nice guy too but as a Christian I am very proud of Ken Ham what ever that means. His points on the intentional switching of meanings of the word science and the word evolution (which is patently pernicious and intentionally misleading at worst. At best highly dogmatic in the most faith based religious way.)
I think Ken Ham was very, very courageous to point that out and I'm astonished it was left unanswered, in any way, by the evolutionist or the host. Now the truth is out there in this very concise and easy to understand format, I'm very, very certain this devious deceptions days are numbered.
Creationists have been dribbling out that sort of thing for, y'know, decades. I think you'll find it was even already on YouTube. If scientifically literate people were going to fall for it, they'd already have done so.
The other strange thing about your post is that you consider reciting creationist piffle to be "very very courageous". What risk did Mr. Ham run? Being eaten by giant owls? No. Spontaneous human combustion? No. Being laughed at by smart people? But that was already happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 4:48 AM Jaf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 2:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 394 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 2:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(5)
Message 385 of 824 (719331)
02-13-2014 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Jaf
02-13-2014 4:48 AM


Re: This debate was Mind = Blown for me.
jaf writes:
I'm so very very impressed with Ken Ham. I think Bill Nye is a nice guy too but as a Christian I am very proud of Ken Ham what ever that means. His points on the intentional switching of meanings of the word science and the word evolution (which is patently pernicious and intentionally misleading at worst. At best highly dogmatic in the most faith based religious way.)
Not exactly sure why you were very impressed with Ken Ham's debating style in this one. He was forced to the position of admitting that he had no evidence but that he trusts the bible, which instantly removes creationism from any discussion of being in the classroom, which was his goal. The only "evidence" he was able to come with was him pointing out that some creationists have done science and if some can then so can everyone. The problem being that these individuals, while they may believe this stuff, did not invent their products based on creationist principles, but on scientific knowledge. In other words, to make their inventions or discoveries they had to rely on things the scientific community had already agreed on. Outside of this, Ken Ham had nothing substantial to add and his entire portion of the debate sounded like a child whining, "But, I want to be included too!"
jaf writes:
I think Ken Ham was very, very courageous to point that out and I'm astonished it was left unanswered, in any way, by the evolutionist or the host. Now the truth is out there in this very concise and easy to understand format, I'm very, very certain this devious deceptions days are numbered.
It was left unanswered because it is a BS excuse that has no bearing on the actual world of science. Bill chose to recite the facts that we know and how they do not align with creationist thinking in any way, in fact they go completely against it. And he made sure to reiterate that this is evidence that anyone can gather and bring their own intellect to witness the evidence that exists. Even many of the creation websites are saying Bill won this debate, which was quite a surprise to me.
jaf writes:
There were over 1 million views of one youtube link of the debate, I didn't expect that.
That's because you are used to little piddling creationist crowds, which are a minority because of their massive lack of evidence. It was not Ken Ham, creationism, the Creation Museum, or any other outside factor that got 1,000,000 people to watch a debate. It was Bill Nye and the massive force that he has become using social media and his place as head of the planetary society to drum up the media hype for this event. Bill has quite a few followers, especially among people like me who grew up watching his show in every science class from 6th grade through early High School. So, there is another thing you can thank Bill Nye, the science defender, for. Giving your's and Ken Ham's theory a chance to be heard and laughed at by a million people.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 4:48 AM Jaf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 2:41 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(3)
Message 386 of 824 (719335)
02-13-2014 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Jaf
02-13-2014 4:48 AM


Re: This debate was Mind = Blown for me.
I'm so very very impressed with Ken Ham. I think Bill Nye is a nice guy too but as a Christian I am very proud of Ken Ham what ever that means.
Can you please tell me why the following argument impresses you?
"I don't care what the evidence shows. The Bible says certain stuff, and no evidence will budge me from that belief."
His points on the intentional switching of meanings of the word science and the word evolution (which is patently pernicious and intentionally misleading at worst. At best highly dogmatic in the most faith based religious way.)
Ken Ham was the one changing the meaning of science and evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 4:48 AM Jaf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 2:37 PM Taq has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 387 of 824 (719338)
02-13-2014 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Jaf
02-13-2014 4:48 AM


Re: This debate was Mind = Blown for me.
His points on the intentional switching of meanings of the word science and the word evolution (which is patently pernicious and intentionally misleading at worst.
But they're not switching meanings. They say that (for example) "Birds evolved from dinosaurs" because they think birds evolved from dinosaurs, and they say "Geology is a science" because they think geology is a science. Even if they were wrong, it's perfectly plain what they mean, it's not their choice of words that would be the problem.
What would you have them do? Should they invent a new word "snevolution" to mean "evolution which we think happened but creationists don't"? And "smience" to mean "things that we think are science but creationists don't"? Are they obliged to say "Snevolution is a smientific fact"?
If so, shouldn't the same sauce be poured out on the gander? Shouldn't creationists have to invent a new word "smesign" to mean "things that we think are design but evolutionists don't"? Are they being pernicious and misleading to use the same word when they say both that Ford designed cars and that God designed animals? Of course not. They may be wrong (they are) but it's a perfectly plain and unambiguous statement of what they think.
And Jaf, if their choice of words was the worst thing one could thing of to charge them with, would that not be tantamount to admitting that creationism was in pretty good shape? Likewise, if you think the most impressive point Ken Ham made was that scientists don't say "snevolution" to mean evolution-that-creationists-deny, then his best point is really not very good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 4:48 AM Jaf has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(5)
Message 388 of 824 (719341)
02-13-2014 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Jaf
02-13-2014 4:48 AM


Re: This debate was Mind = Blown for me.
Jaf writes:
His points on the intentional switching of meanings of the word science and the word evolution (which is patently pernicious and intentionally misleading at worst.
The problem Mr Ham has is that science owns the definitions of what science is and what is not; not Mr Ham. And the definition is pretty clear:
Science
noun
1.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
It makes no distinction about what can be observed and when. In fact it can't do so because science is the study of reality and reality doesn't have a statute of limitations on when it can be studied and when it can't be.
All your Mr Ham is trying to do is prevent science looking at things that he knows will provide answers which contradict his beliefs and therefore jeopardise his business model which is to extract cash from gullible donors to his institute.
This little sidestep by Mr Ham is simply a riff on the older lie that because no-one was there to witness [the big bang/evolution/rocks forming] we can know nothing about them. He's patently wrong.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 4:48 AM Jaf has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 389 of 824 (719345)
02-13-2014 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by saab93f
02-12-2014 4:37 AM


I don't know. Apparently a variation/breed/race can be quite stable without drastic homozygosity.
If one was to assume that the Ark held the genetically superiour animals then why do we not have them among our midst anymore? Where did they vanish?
I don't think of them as genetically superior exactly; they'd simply have a lot more genetic variability. There's no reason why a genetically depleted animal like the cheetah should be thought of as genetically inferior. Of course in the context of death, which wasn't part of the original Creation, it makes a creature vulnerable not to have more genetic variability, but I don't think that should be called inferiority.
Where did they go? Well, as I've been arguing here, the processes of evolution, meaning of course microevolution, that bring about the generations after them, reduce genetic variability in the process of bringing out new phenotypes as populations split off and become reproductively isolated. If death had not entered the world then the original parents would go on living and reproducing too and still be with us today.
Is it not so that YECs claim that speciation is only genetic variation based on degeneration ie. that all modern animals (humans included) are weaker than the "original" ones? That being the reason why Noah lived 900 years and roughly 12 or 22 men were able to build cities...
There are lots of different YEC ideas and I haven't kept up with them all. I certainly agree that what is called speciation, which is the point at which a creature loses its ability to interbreed with other populations of its kind, is only a genetic variation as you put it and certainly not in any sense a new species by the definition that makes it macroevolution, and in relation to that idea I suppose it could be called "degeneration" instead, in order to make the necessary contrast. Because in fact that so-called new "species" would have less genetic variability as I've been arguing, or less "information" as it's usually thought of, rather than more or in some cases even enough to go on evolving. It's an odd article of faith that calls it a "species" and implies that it could be the foundation for further variation. The opposite is the case just in the nature of how population genetics works.
But I don't think in terms of "degeneration" because I think this is the way the original Creation was intended to play out, in the formation of many new and interesting races and breeds that DO lose their genetic variability. That loss is only a problem, a "degeneration" in the context of death. In that context yes the entire Creation is degenerating. We've lost the original immortality, then the great longevity of the early generations, and all creatures are now subject to disease and death and greater weakness than the originals, so I guess I do agree with that basic YEC view and I didn't need to get this wordy about it. Sorry. Just wanted to clarify that it's the Fall that brought all this about. The original Creation was perfect.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by saab93f, posted 02-12-2014 4:37 AM saab93f has not replied

  
Jaf
Member (Idle past 3695 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 01-30-2014


Message 390 of 824 (719346)
02-13-2014 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by Percy
02-13-2014 6:50 AM


Re: This debate was Mind = Blown for me.
Thanks Percy, I appreciate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Percy, posted 02-13-2014 6:50 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024