|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: It has no bearing on the question of whether geology is science.
quote: Then why do you keep proving that they are true ?
quote: OK, creationists are only against science that contradicts their false religion.
quote: 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: 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: The genetic evidence that we have seems pretty conclusive. It's not absolute proof, but no science can offer that.
quote: You don't even understand the argument or the conclusion here.
quote: I don't. I don't believe that I can say the same about you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So OK you are going to misrepresent everything now. Goodbye.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I didn't misrepresent a single thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ooh-child Member (Idle past 372 days) Posts: 242 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Why should we conclude that fossils were all created by a single event ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... 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. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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."
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined:
|
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. |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024