Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 824 (718219)
02-05-2014 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
02-05-2014 2:44 PM


Re: Ham did fine
It's time that ridiculous accusation that Creationists are opposed to "Science," which was the pre-debate quote from Bill Nye, was put to rest, because it's ONLY the untestable unprovable sciences about the unwitnessed past that Creationists have a problem with and that was what Ham kept emphasizing.
But that historical stuff is testable and provable and it really is science, so if you're against that then you really are against Science.
And you have to be, because Science shows that your beliefs are ridiculous, and you just cannot let go of your beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 2:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 3:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 824 (718220)
02-05-2014 2:56 PM


Again, yes, creationists are in the same position with respect to the prehistoric past EXCEPT that we DO have a written witness that constrains our theorizing, and again it's all a war of interpretations and plausibilities.
1) It's crucially important that this insane accusation stop that says creationists are opposed to Science as such. That's the BIG lie that's promoted here and that Bill Nye perpetuated. There is no problem whatever for creationists in appreciating and engaging in the normal sciences that are testable.
2) Since it's all a war of interpretations all the Old Earth has on its side really is establishment belief, consensus, because its interpretations are ridiculous, a shared aggressively affirmed group insanity.
3) The Flood has the actual evidence of the strata and the enormous abundance of fossils on its side. Right now the OE sciences are blind to this obvious fact. Too bad.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Diomedes, posted 02-05-2014 3:31 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 51 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-05-2014 3:47 PM Faith has replied
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 02-05-2014 6:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 77 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-06-2014 12:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 48 of 824 (718221)
02-05-2014 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
02-05-2014 2:51 PM


Re: Ham did fine
You all are very good at asserting blindly that the historical sciences are testable and provable, though half a minute's thought should show you that's wrong.
So what's your proof that, say, the Supergroup beneath the Grand Canyon was actually once a mountain range? Remember you have to demonstrate this, you can't just interpret it into Fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2014 2:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2014 4:56 PM Faith has replied
 Message 58 by TrueCreation, posted 02-05-2014 5:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 49 of 824 (718223)
02-05-2014 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
02-05-2014 2:56 PM


Again, yes, creationists are in the same position with respect to the prehistoric past EXCEPT that we DO have a written witness that constrains our theorizing, and again it's all a war of interpretations and plausibilities.
Who precisely was the written witness to the story of Genesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 2:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 50 of 824 (718224)
02-05-2014 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
02-05-2014 2:44 PM


laws of convenience
The point about the prehistoric past is not that you can't formulate ideas about it, even sensible ideas, but that you cannot test them and verify them.
You have an idea that Smith is guilty of murder. It's a sensible idea because the victim, Jones, owed Smith a lot of money and had been sleeping with Smith's wife.
Investigators find Smith's fingerprints on the gun used in the murder.
They find powder residue under Smith's nails. They find Jones' blood on Smith's shirt. Would this not be considered testing and verifying our hypothesis that Smith is guilty is true?
Would you agree that if Ham's thesis is true: That historical science isn't real science, and its all worldview and starting assumptions and interpretive methodologies - would you agree he was largely arguing that creation is not a viable modern notion?
It's time that ridiculous accusation that Creationists are opposed to "Science," which was the pre-debate quote from Bill Nye, was put to rest, because it's ONLY the untestable unprovable sciences about the unwitnessed past that Creationists have a problem with and that was what Ham kept emphasizing.
So, are the laws of nature reliable and the laws of logic immutable? Ham seems to think so. And that being the case we should be able to take current information and work backwards to partially reconstruct the past just as we can work forward and predict the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 2:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 3:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(3)
Message 51 of 824 (718225)
02-05-2014 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
02-05-2014 2:56 PM


Faith writes:
Again, yes, creationists are in the same position with respect to the prehistoric past EXCEPT that we DO have a written witness that constrains our theorizing, and again it's all a war of interpretations and plausibilities.
No...get this portion correct. Creationists have a human written and translated witness to the unseen past, whereas scientists have the what is written into nature itself. Only one is lying and my guess would not be the evidence. It's not a war of interpretations, creationists have incorrect interpretations becuse they force themselves into these very constraints you mention. Scientists, on the other hand, are unconstrained and must go where the evidence points. Neither is proven, which you are correct on, it's just that one area (science) has loads of evidence and does not discount any of it when formulating theories while the other (Creationism) is forced by its constrained worldview to discount evidence that does not agree.
This was even shown in the debate by Ham stating that nothing would change his mind, while Bill said simply that evidence would do so for him.
Faith writes:
It's crucially important that this insane accusation stop that says creationists are opposed to Science as such. That's the BIG lie that's bandied about here and that Bill Nye perpetuated. There is no problem whatever for creationists in appreciation and engaging in the normal sciences that are testable.
I will give you that creationist scientists can do actual science and have done so in the past. The funny thing is that these discoveries aren't based on the ever-changing model of science that is required for creationism, but rather on the hard, testable sciences based on the physical laws of nature. There is no difference between historical science and observational science, this is simply a red herring made up by the creation movement to confuse the believers into denying that which they could observe for themselves. All science is testable, even the long age of the Earth, it is tested by disproving that which does not work, such as a young Earth.
Example: You know there must be a past, correct? There is no guarantee that it is any length in time, I claim it began last Thursday. You return this with, well I have a receipt for an item purchased on January 7th. Now, I am forced to retreat further back to stating that it was actually the Thursday before the 7th of January. We continue to gather evidence that forces my beliefs on when the past began further back, we are testing a longer past through the disproving of a short one.
This is similar to what the original individuals calculating the age of the Earth went through, albeit on a much smaller scale. They started with an age of 6,000 years, just as you did but the evidence forced them to consistently push this further and further back. You are now left with, as Bill Nye put it, an extraordinary claim because the evidence all points a different way (unless you posit changing laws of nature which would also require extraordinary evidence). And as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Yet, creationists simply say, "The Bible" (Such as Ken Ham did all night), as their extraordinary evidence. This is not sufficient to deny the reality and evidence we can witness with our own eyes, which is why Bill Nye asked individuals to actually look at their world, which would be a powerful motivator against creationism.
Ken Ham's description required, as shown by Bill during the debate, an enormous adjustment to the laws of nature, such as 11 new species every day to equal that which is extant (33 new according to Ham's revised "Kinds" list), 170 summer-winter cycles each year to account for snow-ice patterns, and for the trees about three growth rings per year, plus surviving underwater....Where is the evidence of these changing laws, outside of just assuming God told us right? Whereas, science has evidence of the laws of nature staying constant, so much so that they are able to make predicitions about theories such as where individual species may turn up (Tiktaalik), how radioactivity will work (smoke detectors/Nuclear fission), or how long sediments take to lay down and become lithified and the process that occurs (Reading the rocks and anticipating future findings). Even the creationist scientists have to use these natural laws when they are actually doing science, instead of just trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the other believers to keep them deluded.
Faith writes:
Since it's all a war of interpretations all the Old Earth has on its side really is establishment belief, consensus, because it's interpretations are ridiculous, a shared aggressively affirmed group insanity.
Wrong! Science also explains ALL the evidence, something that creation science is woefully unprepared to tackle. Again, this was shown in last night's debate by Ken Ham simply repeating his "I trust in God and he said it is this way" argument. If science isn't sure about something yet, no answer is shoehorned in, but rather it is determined more information is required and the current answer is we do not know. It is not a matter of interpretation until your creation scientists can show how the natural laws were adjusted and how no human being was able to notice any of these extreme patterns of natural activity that changed pace throughout a communicative period of human existence. Why did no human notice these new species that had to be popping up all over the place to make the flood work?
Faith writes:
The Flood has the actual evidence of the strata and the enormous abundance of fossils on its side. Right now the OE sciences are blind to this obvious fact. Too bad.
I agree that a large flood could lead to a mass burial and future fossilization.... for your flood, of course, removing the fact that fossilization takes a very long time according to the processes (current evidence) we now have. Yet, it cannot arrange the organization of those fossils and you must deny this portion of the evidence, an example of evidence creationism forces you to ignore unless you create a new hydrological method of sorting items. You have yet to answer why the large animals are not at the bottom, followed on up until you reach the tiny multicellular creatures. This is how water sorts objects and the size of the flood would not change this one bit. The onus is on you show a mechanism that would create a new hydrological sorting system. Until you can do so, this is merely an assertion supported with no evidence, thus not science.
On a side note, did anyone else notice that individuals who side with Answers in Genesis still asked the stupid question about the Second Law of Thermodynamics to Bill Nye during the QandA section, even though even AiG says not to use that argument! Come on, people. At least come up with a consistent story between one another before trotting your ridiculous ideas out in front of the public. Scientists tend to come to similar conclusions as one another because of the whole repeatable requirement they operate under, something creationism avoids by claiming God's miracles are a one time thing. I can make up magic stuff too, it is just not nearly as satisfying as an accurate picture of things around me.

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 47 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 2:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 3:56 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 4:19 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 52 of 824 (718226)
02-05-2014 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Modulous
02-05-2014 3:39 PM


Re: laws of convenience
The crime forensics model, which Bill Nye also falsely claimed for historical science, operates in the PRESENT where there are all kinds of witnesses. To compare this with investigations about events in the absolutely unwitnessed prehistoric past won't work. The fact that it is known that Jones owed Smith money and had been sleeping with Smith's wife and that Smith's fingerprints were found on the gun is already based on tons of witness knowledge you can NEVER have with the prehistoric past. This too ought to be evident on a few moments' thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 02-05-2014 3:39 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Modulous, posted 02-05-2014 4:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 53 of 824 (718227)
02-05-2014 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
02-05-2014 3:47 PM


No...get this portion correct. Creationists have a human written and translated witness to the unseen past, whereas scientists have the what is written into nature itself. Only one is lying and my guess would not be the evidence.
What YOU think about our witness is irrelevant. And WE have "what is written into nature" too, but what you guys always fail to understand is that the evidence of nature is NOT an open book, you do NOT have "what is written in nature itself," what you have is YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of what is written in nature, and that is what science is about and has always been about, or it wouldn't have taken all those centuries to acquire any useful knowledge about it at all. But the hard sciences are subject to tests that the historical sciences are not. Again this ought to be obvious on a moment's thought.
I will have to come back to the rest of your post later.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-05-2014 3:47 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 54 of 824 (718228)
02-05-2014 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
02-05-2014 3:50 PM


Re: laws of convenience
The crime forensics model, which Bill Nye also falsely claimed for historical science, operates in the PRESENT where there are all kinds of witnesses.
Who witnessed Travis Alexander's murder?
To compare this with investigations about events in the absolutely unwitnessed prehistoric past won't work.
You'll have to do some work if you want to convince me that the absence of humans on the same planet alters the way nature works. Otherwise the same reasoning that allows me to conclude the cat caused the mess in the kitchen, that Jodi Arias is a murderer etc allows us to reason that life has changed on earth over time.
The fact that it is known that Jones owed Smith money and had been sleeping with Smith's wife and that Smith's fingerprints were found on the gun is already based on tons of witness knowledge you can NEVER have with the prehistoric past.
How are fingerprints anything to do with witnesses?
I agree that we have less evidence about the distant past than we do about yesterday so we can make much more detailed conclusions about recent history than ancient history. Which is reflected in the state of knowledge about the ancient past which is very general.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 3:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 55 of 824 (718229)
02-05-2014 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
02-05-2014 3:00 PM


Re: Ham did fine
You all are very good at asserting blindly that the historical sciences are testable and provable, though half a minute's thought should show you that's wrong.
But its not wrong. You're just saying that because you want to maintain your belief in your interpretation of the Bible, which happens to be contradicted by historical sciences.
So what's your proof that, say, the Supergroup beneath the Grand Canyon was actually once a mountain range? Remember you have to demonstrate this, you can't just interpret it into Fact.
I don't know anything about that. But here's something I know: In the distant past there used to be water on Mars.
There haven't even been people on the planet and we can still practice historical science and yield useful results that are accurate.
quote:
Lab science can replicate its empirical findings to corroborate them. One time events in the past have nothing whatever to corroborate whatever interpretation you decide to lay on them UNLESS you have witnesses from that past.
False. Heck, you don't even have to be on the same planet:
NASA Curiosity rover discovers evidence of freshwater Mars lake
The mars rover found some interesting rocks:
Those rocks formed in the past. Scientists compared them to processes that happen today that form rocks like that. They concluded that water was included in the process.
So therefore, in the past, there must have been water on mars. It isn't there today.
So there you have it, using physical evidence from the past to make conclusions about things that must have happened even though there were no witnesses to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 3:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 4:38 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 824 (718230)
02-05-2014 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
02-05-2014 2:36 PM


Re: Disappointing
No, he's quite right, historical science is not subject to testing and verification as the hard sciences are ...
This is, of course, not true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 2:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 824 (718232)
02-05-2014 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
02-05-2014 2:48 PM


Re: Disappointing
No, this accusation that Creationists are opposed to Science needs to be put down because THAT's the lie ...
But it is manifestly true. Ken Ham couldn't have displayed more contempt for the scientific method if he'd burned it in effigy, and as for the results of science, he rejects any that conflict with his preconceived dogma.
... because you all refuse to recognize that there IS an important difference between the historical sciences about the unwitnessed past and science that can be subjected to testing in the present.
That is not a difference. All the historical sciences can be tested in the present. That's how they're done.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 2:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 824 (718234)
02-05-2014 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
02-05-2014 3:00 PM


Re: Ham did fine
quote:
You all are very good at asserting blindly that the historical sciences are testable and provable, though half a minute's thought should show you that's wrong.
So what's your proof that, say, the Supergroup beneath the Grand Canyon was actually once a mountain range? Remember you have to demonstrate this, you can't just interpret it into Fact.
Science uses observations to constrain what is unobserved. This is the fundamental task of science, and you simply deny that it is possible. The distinction between historical and observable science is, in reality, merely the distinction between science and observation, and you have contempt for the former.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 3:00 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Phat, posted 02-05-2014 5:42 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 59 of 824 (718235)
02-05-2014 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by TrueCreation
02-05-2014 5:10 PM


Re: Ham did fine
TC, are you still a creationist in any form or way? Do you believe God to be a possibility, or are you more science minded now?
(upgrade your avatar by the way...you must be at least 25 by now)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by TrueCreation, posted 02-05-2014 5:10 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2014 4:55 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 60 of 824 (718239)
02-05-2014 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
02-05-2014 2:56 PM


quote:
Again, yes, creationists are in the same
position with respect to the prehistoric past EXCEPT that we DO have a written witness that constrains our theorizing, and again it's all a war of interpretations and plausibilities.
Except that the empirical evidence is very solidly against the YEC position, would be more accurate. And calling a collection of myths a "written witness" is stretching the truth somewhat. I find it somewhat telling that you prefer to attempt scientific argumetn(and fail miserably because critical thinking is beyond your capabilities) rather than arguing for your theological views which are really the core of your arguments. It strongly suggests to me that you know that your dogmas are indefensible, even by your low standards.
And as you have been demonstrating, even if it were merely a "war of interpretations and plausibilities" you would lose, and badly,
quote:
1) It's crucially important that this insane accusation stop that says creationists are opposed to Science as such. That's the BIG lie that's promoted here and that Bill Nye perpetuated. There is no problem whatever for creationists in appreciating and engaging in the normal sciences that are testable.
Since it is quite obvious that you ARE opposed to the conclusions of science, and because the science that leads us to conclude an old earth and evolution IS testable it is an obvious fact that creationists are anti-science.
If I said that I wasn,t against Christianity, but I opposed Creationism because it was an idolatrous and anti-Christian cult how would you react?
quote:
2) Since it's all a war of interpretations all the Old Earth has on its side really is establishment belief, consensus, because its interpretations are ridiculous, a shared aggressively affirmed group insanity.
Even if it were that simple, viable interpretations still beat bullshit rationalisations that rely on not looking closely at the evidence hands down, and that's all you see able to offer.
quote:
3) The Flood has the actual evidence of the strata and the enormous abundance of fossils on its side. Right now the OE sciences are blind to this obvious fact. Too bad.
Neither of which are evidence for the Flood - as should be obvious to any honest person in a position to judge. And just because you dismiss the evidence you cannot account for - such as angular unconformities, the order of the fossil record, the numerous dating methods which prove you wrong - does not mean that that evidence does not exist or should be ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 2:56 PM Faith has 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