|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, are you talking about saltation or not?
A pair of ur-cats come off the Ark, yes? Some time later, we have lions which are descended from them, yes? This would suggest that in between you have things which look less like ur-cats and more like lions. These would be intermediate forms. The alternative is that you have things which aren't more like lions than they are like ur-cats suddenly giving birth to lions. This would be saltation, the production of Panthera leo at a single bound. You have to have one or the other: if you want lions to evolve from non-lions they can either do it gradually or suddenly, there isn't a third option.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Hey, Faith? Remember how you don't know anything about genetics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Why do you NEED to mention the person's knowledge? Did you know that a lunatic in an asylum can state a correct thing about genetics? Did you know an expert in genetics can state an incorrect thing about genetics? As long as a person states something sound, that is all that counts, which means that in debate, you actually have to address what was said, rather than saying something about the person's character, which is either ad hominem or an ad hominem allusion. In debate, to appeal to scientific knowledge indirectly, is an appeal to authority. This is ultimately your argument, though it is not stated explicitly. You state her lack of knowledge in order to prove your own, as though this settles something. Please be aware, I have not read her argument, nor yours, I have only highlighted your extremely basic logical error. Go back and ACTUALLY ADDRESS something she said or do not speak at all. When I pointed out that she doesn't know anything about genetics, it was obviously implied that the specific things she'd just been saying about genetics were wrong. I am surprised that it is necessary to explain this to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I can say you're wrong too. You have an obligation to say what I'm wrong about. How long have you got? But in this instance, genetics. Once more I urge you to get a basic book on it and read it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Ken Ham dealt exceedingly well with the so called "creationist are scientifically illiterate" argument too. LOL. I suppose there are some scientists who are creationists in their spare time. For example, he mentioned Snelling ...
Will the real Dr. Snelling please stand up? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yes, this is the theory, that it "can create an entirely new allele (trait)," but in actual fact what usually happens is that it makes no difference at all in the trait, OR it changes in the direction of a genetic disease, OR it simply kills the gene altogether. It's pure theory or faith that says it creates a new viable allele or trait as you are declaring. No, that would be observation. As in, geneticists watch it happen. You remember how you don't know anything about genetics? This would be a case in point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I suppose you are going to try and convince me that the debate was on youtube before the debate actually took place. And you are completely wrong in this supposition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Ken Ham wasn't forced into admit anything, he was brave and courageous ... Yeah, I particularly admired the bit where he unicycled across that pit of fire on that tightrope. You gotta hand it to him, the man has balls.
... but sadly he didn't get your crowd to admit your so called sciences is really religion. Or that monkeys fly out of our butts. Incidentally, why is it that the more religious people are, the more likely they are to use "religion" as a term of abuse? When I wish to derogate creationism, I don't call it "science".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Faith writes: You have become the master of the unsupported assertion Faith writes: Yes, this is the theory, that it "can create an entirely new allele (trait)," but in actual fact what usually happens is that it makes no difference at all in the trait, OR it changes in the direction of a genetic disease, OR it simply kills the gene altogether. It's pure theory or faith that says it creates a new viable allele or trait as you are declaring. According to the theory it SHOULD do that, it MUST do that, but in reality it doesn't do that. Master? No. I am but your humble apprentice.
ike maybe PROVE that mutations produce viable alleles. I showed you lots of examples. Remember all those cat breeds we talked about? All new alleles, which is why, despite being dominant, the associated phenotypes were unknown. All viable, which is why they didn't kill the cats. You may remember, but won't, that this also debunked your nonsense about how varieties form. But if you'd ever taken an interest in genetics, you'd know this sort of thing yourself already. Which is why I have repeatedly advised you to take an interest. Learn first, prate --- if at all --- later. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I see you have provided a very lengthy treatise here RADZ but I disagree with you so very entirely after the first few sentences and I don't read the rest. I do bite sized chunks better Good for you. If it wasn't for people with short attention spans, there wouldn't be any creationism.
I have already expressed what impressed me, the creation model was defended as a more than viable model and it was defended scientifically and the saving grace of salvation through Christ was preached to millions ... It was a great day for creationism when biblethumpology was officially declared a science.
... by a brave and courageous man who aught to be leading the free world in my opinion. OK, it was impressive when he wrestled with the lion. And when he saved that girl from the shark-infested waters? Well, the man's got guts. The whole thing where he fought with the masked supervillian on the wing of the airplane as it plummeted into the Pacific? Balls of steel, I'll grant you that. But does courage alone qualify one to be leader of the free world? We have to ask.
Not only that he exposed evolution science for the manipulative AND DANGEROUS thuggery that "evolution science" actually really is. Thuggery. Ah yes, that would be the bit of the debate where Bill Nye put on his brass knuckles and started punching Ken Ham in the face. Fortunately Ham disabled him with his judo skills. I mean, what did Nye think he was doing, the guy wrestles with lions, he can take a nerd in a bow tie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well then what on earth did you mean by stating "the debate was already on youtube" for? I didn't. You made that up.
You could hear a pin drop in that room when he was exposing the haox. It's busted, it's been blown wide open, it's all over bar the shouting and this is the shouting. You're adorable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The ultimate rub is actually much of the general public's conclusion about who is being more honest. Just because Nye "indicated" that something can change his view doesn't automatically mean it's the truth. Evidence indicates that evolutionists are just as closed-minded as Christians about their beliefs, despite their assertions about their open-mindedness. But the evidence actually shows that scientists do change their minds when presented with evidence, and that this includes evolutionary biologists. When, for example, Piltdown Man was proved a fake, the paleontologists bowed to the evidence. When Ostrom (IIRC) showed that birds were descended from dinosaurs, he was able to win over the scientific community to a position they'd previously rejected. And so on. Now, what would it take to convince a Biblical literalist to change even a small detail --- say a seven-day creation instead of six? Eve being made out of a vertebra instead of a rib? Well, we have Ken Ham's answer ...
Bill Nye's honesty further comes into question because of one his main assertions, his main recap about the whole science versus creationism debate - that young people's secular scientific education in the U.S. is so very important in keeping the U.S. from falling behind other countries when it comes to new innovations and discoveries. History should tell him that when new innovations and discoveries are made anywhere in the world, the entire world benefits. They benefit in that they can buy the new invention. But the inventors also benefit in that they can sell it. If all the new drugs (for example) were to be discovered in China from now on, would our pharmaceutical industry remain as profitable? Is it more honest to take into account obvious considerations such as this, or to ignore them, as you have done? --- ETA: I knew this reminded me of something. After Carl Sagan wrote an article about poor standards in American schools, he got letters from schoolchildren one of whom made this awesomely sophisticated point:
Maybe that's good that we are not as smart as the other countries. So then we can just import all of our products and then we don't have to spend all of our money on the parts for the goods. It appears that today that little kid is all grown up. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But there are other factors - what are the trade-offs? 50 years ago, when science classes consisted of at least some more creationism and a lot less atheism, kids were bringing squirt guns, realistic-looking toy guns, and in some cases, real guns to school, and no one raised an eyebrow, and no one got shot. This is, of course, not true. Some school shootings prior to 1964 can be found on this list, which I suppose is not comprehensive because that would be extremely difficult. Do tell us more about "godly honesty". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024