Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 824 (718543)
02-07-2014 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
02-06-2014 4:38 AM


Re: FRAUD NOT SCIENCE
The explanation that the rocks on Mars were formed by water is simply a reasonable guess, a hypothesis. The hard sciences can TEST their hypotheses, that is the difference. You cannot test this one, it can only remain a hypothesis.
Except that water still makes rocks look like that today. That's how we know that rocks that look like that were in water.
When we find rocks from the prehistoric past that nobody witnessed forming, we apply the same knowledge of the processes that still occur today, to the ones that formed way back then, and come to the conclusion that they formed from the same processes that are still occurring today.
The hypothesis has been tested and we've come to a conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 4:38 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 6:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 107 of 824 (718567)
02-07-2014 4:27 PM


Some questions the audience would ask Bill Nye

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by roxrkool, posted 02-07-2014 5:34 PM ramoss has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 108 of 824 (718571)
02-07-2014 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by ramoss
02-07-2014 4:27 PM


Re: Some questions the audience would ask Bill Nye
The real zinger was:
"Because science by definition is a "theory" -- not testable, observable, nor repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?"
Oh my...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ramoss, posted 02-07-2014 4:27 PM ramoss has not replied

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


Message 109 of 824 (718594)
02-07-2014 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by New Cat's Eye
02-07-2014 12:32 PM


Re: FRAUD NOT SCIENCE
Except that water still makes rocks look like that today. That's how we know that rocks that look like that were in water.
As I said, this could be true, it's not a complicated problem and there may not be competing interpretations (except I still think it looks more viscous than liquid). That's going to happen in many cases and that's fine, but it's not a test of the sort I'm talking about, like laboratory testing that can be done by anybody. All you have is people agreeing that it was caused by water. If ALL agree, fine, it was probably caused by water but it's still only a hypothesis until you have actual proof. This is simply the kind of problem you can answer without such tests for proof. But again, only if you don't have competing interpretations.
When we find rocks from the prehistoric past that nobody witnessed forming, we apply the same knowledge of the processes that still occur today, to the ones that formed way back then, and come to the conclusion that they formed from the same processes that are still occurring today.
But that's still only a hypothesis, it's not a test and it's not proof as I'm using these terms and trying to get you to notice.
The hypothesis has been tested and we've come to a conclusion.
No, it has not been tested, that's not how the word "test" is used by me or in "laboratory test." You have people AGREEING on something SUBJECTIVELY, you do not have a test, you do not have proof.
This becomes an issue when, for instance, genetic relatedness is claimed between fossils based only on subjective judgment. Calling such untestable unprovable assertions Fact is what I mean by FRAUD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-07-2014 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-08-2014 10:12 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 110 of 824 (718601)
02-07-2014 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dr Adequate
02-06-2014 10:31 AM


Re: NO! Historical science is NOT the same as testable science
There is no contradiction whatever between creationism and the hard testable sciences based on the physical laws of nature.
Yes there is.
No, there isn't.
For example, geology is a hard testable science based on the laws of nature.
I refer you again to the article Rox posted that says Geology is an INTERPRETIVE HISTORICAL science, and that because of that its claims to knowledge are in doubt -- by NONcreationists.
I'd say PHYSICAL GEOLOGY may be a hard science, I certainly don't doubt most of your course in Geology for that reason. But where Geology presents hypotheses about the prehistoric past as if they were Facts, hypotheses that cannot be tested or proved but only argued subjectively, hypotheses that are subject to competing hypotheses, that's not hard science.
You cannot disprove anything about the past.
So if someone were to say that you died last Tuesday ... ?
Sorry, I'm talking about the PREHISTORIC past, way back before there were any human beings, where observation is impossible. As I've said, you can know some things about that past, such as what the bones can tell you about a kind of creature that is not living today, but you can't know such things as that any of those fossil creatures is GENETICALLY related to others, except of course those you already know ARE genetically related based on living creatures today. And you cannot know that a given rock represents a particular time period either. That's pure hypothesis for which there are no tests.
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE PAST THAT WE'VE ALL LIVED THROUGH, THIS IS ABOUT THE PREHISTORIC OR UNWITNESSED PAST.
OK, so if someone were to say that there were once living stegosauruses ... ?
Of COURSE you can tell that. I'm talking about the unprovable hypotheses. About what killed the dinosaurs. About what other creatures they were related to. THE THEORIES, that really don't even rise to the level of theory, but remain untestable unprovable hypotheses.
Bill Nye blathered on about a lot of strange stuff which Ham had not brought up and which Ham did not address at any point. That is not a debate ...
So we should ignore Nye's points ... because Ham was unable to address them?
Who says he was "unable" to address them? You can't answer everything that gets thrown at you in a debate, it takes up too much time. But all I was saying is that I wasn't following all that myself. If I listen back to the debate sometime maybe I'll have my own answers. But what interests me at the moment is the fact that the sciences of the UNWITNESSED, UNOBSERVABLE, PREHISTORIC past are untestable and unprovable and to pretend your hypotheses about such things are FACT is FRAUD.
We've seen this in your own half-baked attempts to debate. You seem to think that the only legitimate things to talk about are the things creationists want to talk about, rather than the things that make them want to run away and hide
I've never run from any of it, liar. And I've never said that what I choose to talk about are the only legitimate things to talk about either. What I've said is that I personally CHOOSE to focus on certain things, and I kept at them because I want them acknowledged as the good arguments I know they are . Until they are acknowledged, forget the other stuff. It's a waste of time.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2014 10:31 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 111 of 824 (718605)
02-07-2014 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
02-06-2014 2:07 PM


Re: NO! Historical science is NOT the same as testable science
Starting from the 7,000 kinds originally posited by Ken Ham, to get to the current number of species in the world from the ark, 4,500 years ago, these species would need to be micro-evolving at the rate of 11 new species every single day.
Since you're no doubt including plants and insects which propagate at a great rate, 11 new "species" a day may not be all that enormous a rate. Bacteria too perhaps?
But since I haven't given any of this any thought I really can't have an opinion anyway.
Now Ham is claiming kinds only total 1,000, which brings the number of species every day up to 33 new species. How have no humans, who also would have started from the Ark landing spot same as the animals, seen these species multiplying and evolving at the rate required for your scenario.
I haven't followed this stuff enough to have an opinion.
You claim Bill Nye made points that did not affect anything, but these directly shows the ludicrous insertions into known mechanisms that creationist must go through, completely on the base of zero evidence (during a time when humans could write, too). Simply Amazing!
Sorry, there are too many assumptions, undefined terms, etc., for me to have an opinion about this, except the one I ventured above.
First you'd have to say what all is included in "species."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-06-2014 2:07 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2014 10:41 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 112 of 824 (718606)
02-07-2014 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by PaulK
02-06-2014 3:02 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
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 ?
I didn't say you have to "conclude" anything, in fact I specifically said that acknowledging that the billions of fossils are "good evidence for the Flood" is not the same as saying it proves that the Flood occurred. Good evidence is simply good evidence. It's about time somebody acknowledged that there IS good evidence on the creationist side of this debate. Billions of fossils, the strata themselves, are GOOD EVIDENCE for the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2014 3:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2014 7:15 PM Faith has replied
 Message 124 by PaulK, posted 02-08-2014 3:25 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 126 by dwise1, posted 02-08-2014 4:10 AM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 113 of 824 (718608)
02-07-2014 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
02-07-2014 7:10 PM


One simple response for Faith
It's about time somebody acknowledged that there IS good evidence on the creationist side of this debate. Billions of fossils, the strata themselves, are GOOD EVIDENCE for the Flood.
Your problem with this claim is that the evidence shows that those fossils were deposited over hundreds of millions of years.
Pretty LONG flood, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 7:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 7:29 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 114 of 824 (718610)
02-07-2014 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by JonF
02-06-2014 3:16 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.
Oh they certainly are. For all you scientifically trained minds not to recognize this simple obvious point just makes this discussion futile. You're all tied up in your revisionist definitions of science I guess, that must be a product of thinking things that can't be proved are in fact proved, that hypotheses are really Fact. Not what I was taught in science classes, not what I read in science books. Weird.
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. d
Imputing motives to your opponents is very very very bad form Cut it out. You have no idea about how I feel about anything.
And I never said you can't know ANYTHING about the UNWITNESSED PREHISTORIC UNOBSERVABLE PAST, it's your THEORIES about how it all happened that you cannot possibly know about that you nevertheless act as if you could that I'm talking about.
Genetic relatedness of fossils.
Theory of Evolution
How old the Earth is, how old a particular rock layer is, how old a particular fossil is
All your radiometric dating (that's an untestable hypothesis too)
What killed the dinosaurs.
Etc
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by JonF, posted 02-06-2014 3:16 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-08-2014 12:08 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 115 of 824 (718611)
02-07-2014 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Coyote
02-07-2014 7:15 PM


Re: One simple response for Faith
Your evidence is also just untestable and unprovable hypothesis.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2014 7:15 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2014 7:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 116 of 824 (718613)
02-07-2014 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
02-07-2014 7:29 PM


Re: One simple response for Faith
Your evidence is also untestable and unprovable hypothesis.
Sorry, no.
You would be better to admit to yourself that your beliefs are contradicted by real world evidence.
By manipulating and twisting half of the evidence, and denying the rest, you just make the creationist cause look silly.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 7:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 117 of 824 (718621)
02-07-2014 8:36 PM


one point the debate made clear
creationists like ken ham will never change their minds about the age of the earth. never. their position comes from their assumptions about the bible, its origin, and its meaning. it is senseless to debate the science with them, because their worldview does not begin with a question for truth, but with the bible. ken ham said as much.
this affirms the stance i took more than a decade ago: debate the bible, not the science.
bill nye dodged it, mostly, and took a few jabs at, paraphrasing, "a book written 3,000 years ago, as translated into modern english". i think it really left a lot wanting in the debate. ken ham wanted to talk about the bible. a lot. and bill nye didn't. it would have been way more interesting to see someone knowledgeable about the bible slam into him on the topics of exegesis, interpretation, biblical history, linguistics, etc.
for instance, one "as translated into modern english" point was particularly overlooked: ken ham stated that the bible has an answer to where matter comes from. though his answer, "god did it!" is rather unsatisfying, it's interesting because it's only traditional english translations that say that "in beginning, god created the heaven and the earth". in hebrew, it says that "when god began to create the heaven and the earth, the earth was shapeless and empty" and covered by water. and it never tells us where the water came from. and this is a pretty common theme in ancient neareastern cosmologies and religious texts. in "unique" creation story in genesis shares this with the enuma elish, from sumeria. i think, probably due to his area of expertise, bill nye really struck out on this one.
on that topic, ken ham contradicted himself a few times. for instance, he noted (as above) that genesis was totally unique... and then said that we found similar creation stories in other cultures just as genesis predicted. he also liked to claim that consistency of natural laws was a creationist concept, and we get that idea from a christian worldview. except when we're talking about the past, then all bets are off. bill nye really should have called him out on this one.

אָרַח

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 824 (718630)
02-07-2014 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
02-06-2014 1:13 PM


Re: FRAUD NOT SCIENCE
quote:
I don't think YOU know what I mean about testing. Stay out of the discussion if you are only going to shoot out accusations.
It doesn't matter what you mean about testing, it matters what scientists mean.
Faith, what do you think about the hypothesis that, say, meteor impacts are responsible for the grand canyon? Can you think of a reason this is a bad hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:13 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 119 of 824 (718640)
02-07-2014 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
02-07-2014 7:06 PM


Re: NO! Historical science is NOT the same as testable science
Since you're no doubt including plants and insects which propagate at a great rate, 11 new "species" a day may not be all that enormous a rate. Bacteria too perhaps?
Not plants.
I haven't followed this stuff enough to have an opinion.
Always good to admit "I don't know" rather than make up stuff.
You claim Bill Nye made points that did not affect anything, but these directly shows the ludicrous insertions into known mechanisms that creationist must go through, completely on the base of zero evidence (during a time when humans could write, too). Simply Amazing!
Sorry, there are too many assumptions, undefined terms, etc., for me to have an opinion about this, except the one I ventured above.
The one where you said you have not followed this enough to have an opinion? Not sure what you mean here. What you say does not appear related to what you quoted. Can you clarify?

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 111 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 7:06 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 12:15 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 120 of 824 (718647)
02-08-2014 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
02-07-2014 7:15 PM


Re: Geology HIstorical and Interpretive
Oh they certainly are. For all you scientifically trained minds not to recognize this simple obvious point just makes this discussion futile. You're all tied up in your revisionist definitions of science I guess, that must be a product of thinking things that can't be proved are in fact proved, that hypotheses are really Fact. Not what I was taught in science classes, not what I read in science books.
Perhaps you shouldn't read "science books" by religious apologists, and read science books written by scientists instead. Then you'd know the same things about science that scientifically trained minds know. Wouldn't that be something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 7:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 2:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024