Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 91 of 824 (718388)
02-06-2014 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
02-06-2014 1:50 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
quote:
No, this is a crucial and central issue in this debate and it needs to be recognized.
It has no bearing on the question of whether geology is science.
quote:
The accusations of creationists that we oppose Science are false
Then why do you keep proving that they are true ?
quote:
t's all related to the problem of the different kinds of science, the sciences of the PREHISTORIC UNWITNESSED past versus the testable hard sciences. This is a real and important distinction. Creationists have NO problem WHATEVER with the REAL hard sciences as I've said over and over and Ham argued in the debate as well, where he had video of creationist scientists who asserted their YEC beliefs although they do solid productive real science. THIS HAS TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED. It's a big fat lie to keep characterizing creationists as antiscientific.
OK, creationists are only against science that contradicts their false religion.
quote:
As for making a case, CS's example of the rocks on Mars works. Water MAY explain it but you have no way of proving it.
WIthout evaluating the evidence and the arguments you have no idea how strong the conclusion is. Not that it is relevant. What you need to do is to show that the BEST evidence for the conclusions of science that you disagree with is inadequate.
So far, you've not done anything that even comes close.
quote:
The standard interpretation of the Supergroup beneath the Grand Canyon is an example I also brought up. You can't know or prove that it was ever the root of a mountain range and presenting that mere hypothesis as Fact is false science.
But we have a very strong case, and you haven't even got a viable explanation of how the unconformity could exist. Simply extrapolating from the observed tilt of the strata is better than anything you've offered. And, of course, mountain building is occurring in places today, it's not an unobservable process.
quote:
You also cannot prove that humans and apes are genetically related, and treating THAT as fact is fraudulent science.
The genetic evidence that we have seems pretty conclusive. It's not absolute proof, but no science can offer that.
quote:
You also cannot prove from a collection of different kinds of eyeballs possessed by a variety of different creatures that the human eye evolved, and to call it fact is fraudulent science.
You don't even understand the argument or the conclusion here.
quote:
When you have an hypothesis call it a hypothesis. Stop trying to pretend you know things you can't know.
I don't. I don't believe that I can say the same about you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 2:25 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 92 of 824 (718390)
02-06-2014 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
02-06-2014 2:04 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
They do this science based upon the known laws of nature and the ideal that these laws will act nearly identical no matter the circumstances, not on creationist hokum. Or, such as the astronomer he showed, they must posit a lying deity that would create light already in motion otherwise there is no way billions of stars should be visible to us.
I don't know how to deal with Astronomy. Stick to physics, basic chemistry, what rocks are made of and where they are likely to be found, how DNA works, all the observable testable stuff. Astronomy is also testable because observations can be repeated and we can send rockets out there and know that the formulas work. Leave it at that. We don't have to reconcile it with the Bible. I just figure that time on that scale is a strange thing and that both the Biblical account and the astronomical calculations are true in different meanings of the idea of time. God is infinite and eternal, we are finite and can't understand eternity. He speaks to our weakness.
But we do have to reconcile the age of the earth with the Bible.
Let's just stick to this planet, where there is an important difference between historical interpretive sciences of the prehistoric past and testable sciences of the present.
Also acknowledge that the billions of fossils and the form of the strata are excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-06-2014 2:04 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Theodoric, posted 02-06-2014 2:32 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 96 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-06-2014 2:41 PM Faith has replied
 Message 99 by ooh-child, posted 02-06-2014 2:59 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 93 of 824 (718391)
02-06-2014 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by PaulK
02-06-2014 2:11 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
So OK you are going to misrepresent everything now. Goodbye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2014 2:11 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2014 2:28 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 94 of 824 (718393)
02-06-2014 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Faith
02-06-2014 2:25 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
I didn't misrepresent a single thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 2:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 95 of 824 (718395)
02-06-2014 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
02-06-2014 2:23 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
But we do have to reconcile the age of the earth with the Bible.
Maybe you do, but "we" don't.
Also acknowledge that the billions of fossils and the form of the strata are excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood.
That would be no. They are evidence against a worldwide flood.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 2:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 96 of 824 (718397)
02-06-2014 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
02-06-2014 2:23 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
Also acknowledge that the billions of fossils and the form of the strata are excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood.
If you were honest, you would have to acknowledge that the billions of fossils and the form of the strata are absolute evidence AGAINST a worldwide flood. In fact, there is not a single shred of evidence anywhere on this planet for your mythological flood. As far as anyone can tell there are only 2 people on this whole planet that believe in your childish fable, you and Ken Ham.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 2:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 2:49 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

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


Message 97 of 824 (718400)
02-06-2014 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Tanypteryx
02-06-2014 2:41 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
Also acknowledge that the billions of fossils and the form of the strata are excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood.
If you were honest, you would have to acknowledge that the billions of fossils and the form of the strata are absolute evidence AGAINST a worldwide flood.
How utterly ridiculous. The worldwide billions of fossils are terrific evidence for a worldwide catastrophe that buried them all at one time; the strata could only have been formed in water, and their immensity and existence throughout the world suggest an immense and worldwide catastrophe. This is so obvious it takes dishonesty to deny it. Or stupidity. Which is it in your case?
In fact, there is not a single shred of evidence anywhere on this planet for your mythological flood.
Unbelievable denial in the face of fact. Unbelievable.
As far as anyone can tell there are only 2 people on this whole planet that believe in your childish fable, you and Ken Ham.
The childish fable is clearly the cobweb-weaving you have to do to make anything out of the strata and the fossils OTHER than a worldwide catastrophe.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-06-2014 2:41 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2014 3:02 PM Faith has replied
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2014 3:08 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 98 of 824 (718401)
02-06-2014 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
02-06-2014 1:31 PM


Re: NO! Historical science is NOT the same as testable science
I've also acknowledged that some things about the past are knowable such as the sorts of creatures that once lived.
OK, so you agree in principle that it's possible to learn about the unwitnessed prehistoric past by looking at evidence in the present.
The objection is about all those theories about their age, when they lived and the imputing of time to a rock along with fanciful ideas about what that "era" was supposedly like, all determined from a few bits of things found in the rock, which are better explained in other ways. /ABE These things are all speculative and unprovable / untestable.
But obviously we can test those ideas in the same way, by looking at the evidence that remains to us in the present. And this is, in fact, how these things are known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
ooh-child
Member (Idle past 344 days)
Posts: 242
Joined: 04-10-2009


(1)
Message 99 of 824 (718403)
02-06-2014 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
02-06-2014 2:23 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
But we do have to reconcile the age of the earth with the Bible.
If 'we' don't accept your interpretation of the Bible telling you the earth is young, then we don't get to the great meet-up in the sky when we die, correct?
Heaven must be pretty empty, since so few people agree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 2:23 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2014 3:08 PM ooh-child has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 100 of 824 (718404)
02-06-2014 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
02-06-2014 2:49 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
quote:
The worldwide billions of fossils are terrific evidence for a worldwide catastrophe that buried them all at one time
Why should we conclude that fossils were all created by a single event ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 2:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 7:10 PM PaulK has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 101 of 824 (718405)
02-06-2014 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
02-06-2014 1:50 PM


engineering is not science
... Ham argued in the debate as well, where he had video of creationist scientists who asserted their YEC beliefs although they do solid productive real science. ...
Curiously all I saw was engineering being produced. A PhD in engineering doesn't make you a scientist -- you become a scientist by doing science.
Just so you know.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 102 of 824 (718406)
02-06-2014 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by ooh-child
02-06-2014 2:59 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
The atheist died and went to heaven, where Peter met him: "You have been a good person and helped fellow humans and you were kind to animals, you may enter heaven." Atheist looks around "What's that little walled in enclosure over there?" Peter: "That's where we keep the fundamentalists - they like to think they are the only ones here."

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ooh-child, posted 02-06-2014 2:59 PM ooh-child has seen this message but not replied

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


(3)
Message 103 of 824 (718408)
02-06-2014 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
02-06-2014 2:49 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
How utterly ridiculous. The worldwide billions of fossils are terrific evidence for a worldwide catastrophe that buried them all at one time; the strata could only have been formed in water, and their immensity and existence throughout the world suggest an immense and worldwide catastrophe. This is so obvious it takes dishonesty to deny it. Or stupidity.
Or geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 2:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 104 of 824 (718412)
02-06-2014 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
02-06-2014 1:18 PM


Re: Geology HIstorical and Interpretive
when you are dealing with the unwitnessed past you cannot ever have certainty about your theories, which should always therefore be couched in the language of hypothesis instead of treated as Fact and crammed down the throats of people who have a different idea about the unwitnessed past.
To a certain extent that's true of all science; all theories are provisional.
But historical science theories are no more provisional than any other theories. No matter how many times you assert otherwise or how uncomfortable it makes you feel, we can learn and have learned a lot about the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 7:15 PM JonF has not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(3)
Message 105 of 824 (718431)
02-06-2014 4:07 PM


The unwitnessed past
Hi Faith,
If it is so hard to know about the "unwitnessed" past ,then it should be easy for you ,or anyone, to show where RAZD's Correlation thread goes wrong. So why has no one done so? In the debate with Mindspawn, once the evidence became apparently unanswerable, Mindspawn disappeared.
Why don't you have a go at disproving the ice core counts of tens of thousands of years? They are checked by several different means to confirm the counts are annual, and can show deposits of known volcanic eruptions where expected in the count, and ditto for lead at the times human used it.
The Greenland Ice Core Chronology 2005 studied 5700 metres of three cores in concluding they showed 60,000 years, with the testing including 180,000 isotope and 1,000,000 chemical measurements, so there is plenty of scope for showing where they got it wrong.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024