|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024