Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 121 of 824 (718650)
02-08-2014 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by RAZD
02-07-2014 10:41 PM


what about the plants?
RAZD writes:
Not plants.
were you bothered, btw, about the "no death before man sinned" and "man was vegetarian before the flood" points?
aren't plants alive? do they like, not count?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2014 10:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by dwise1, posted 02-08-2014 1:34 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2014 7:39 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 5:59 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(4)
Message 122 of 824 (718655)
02-08-2014 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by arachnophilia
02-08-2014 12:15 AM


Re: what about the plants?
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Fit the Fifth, if I'm not mistaken. They are at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Arthur Dent wants a steak, so they wheel to the table a genetically engineered intelligent cow designed to want to be eaten and who makes recommendations of which cut would be most delicious -- in the TV series, that part was played by Peter Davison, the Fifth Doctor, and also a large mammal veterinarian in "All Creatures Great and Small", the primary inside joke to casting him as the cow.
Quite naturally, Arthur Dent is appalled at conversing with his intended meal, so he changes his order to a salad. The cow confides with him, "I know some carrots who would have something to say about that." To which Arthur Dent changes his order yet again, to a glass of water.
Aye, death is death is death. Be it animal or vegetable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 12:15 AM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 123 of 824 (718657)
02-08-2014 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dr Adequate
02-08-2014 12:08 AM


Re: Geology HIstorical and Interpretive
I was talking about science classes and science books I read BEFORE I became a Christian. Everybody here is claiming to know things for sure they couldn't possibly know for sure because they concern the untestable past, and that sort of thinking would have been laughed at by scientists fifty to sixty years ago.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-08-2014 12:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by dwise1, posted 02-08-2014 3:35 AM Faith has replied
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-08-2014 10:41 AM Faith has replied

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


(2)
Message 124 of 824 (718659)
02-08-2014 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
02-07-2014 7:10 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
quote:
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.
Since I didn't use the phrase "have to" or claim that you were offering a proof thus defence relies on misrepresentation. In fact without good reason to think that at least the vast majority of fossils were produced by a single event your claim is false.
quote:
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.
It is not sensible to agree with false or indefensible assertions. Since you can't defend these claims it is time that you stopped demanding that people agree with you.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 7:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 125 of 824 (718660)
02-08-2014 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
02-08-2014 2:30 AM


Re: Geology HIstorical and Interpretive
I was talking about science classes and science books I read BEFORE I became a Christian.
I was wanting to start a topic on that and will hopefully get around to it. What I see as possible problems are ones that continue to exist and hence are essential to science education.
The high school you attended. Was it in a big city or a small one or even in a small town? The answer might indicate whether your science teacher actually knew what he/she was talking about. The sad fact is that in small towns the schools have a much smaller faculty which results in many teachers having to teach subjects that they know very little about. One example is Catalina Island off of Southern California ([song]26 miles across the sea. Santa Catalina is a-waiting for me ... [/song]). The high school on that island needed a biology teacher, so the PE teacher, John Peloza, got assigned to teach that class. Later, he transferred to the mainland to the Capistrano School District where he filed a creationist lawsuit which got dismissed as frivolous. It turns out that his own education included the absolute minimal amount of biology to be able to graduate (he held an MS Education with a thesis in coaching softball). I heard him speak at the time and everything he said was pure ICR.
I grew up like Slartibartfast, a big fan of science. For me, science offered explanations for how the world and universe worked. It was a fascinating integrated whole in which, when confronted with any question, I could find the answer. Both my sons grew up with the same view of science (when my elder son was 4 or 5, we watched a show about the formation of the North American continent; as the presentation of the plate tectonics proceeded, he would say, "I knew that", but then after the subduction of the Pacific plate was being presented, "I didn't know that", after which he became silent. My younger son was much more interested in the bugs he could find beneath stones (like I was); he wanted to be the kind of scientist "who studies everything!".
But then my nephew told me that science was his most hated class because it was nothing but memorization. To be honest, I was shocked to hear that, given the science experiences of myself and my family. That made me realize that different students were getting very different experiences.
I assume that a large part of the differences depends on the teacher. Based in retrospect on John Peloza, some teachers have received training in the discipline they are teaching while others have merely been assigned the task. I would expect a teacher trained in science to be able to not only present the findings of science but also to explain how science had arrived at those conclusions. But a teacher without that training could do no more than to present the conclusions and then not be able to explain how those conclusions were arrived at.
Even today, I have to ask how many science teachers have actually been trained in science education and how many were just assigned the job. For example in my younger son's middle school, the home economics teacher was assigned to teach science. In that class, the students kept going to my son with their questions, because he seemed to know more than the teacher did.
Has anyone here watched the Stanley Kubrik movie, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb? The War Room dialogue was sprinkled with "gap" terminology. The Soviets were ahead of us in missile technology so we had to close the "missile gap". The Doomsday Device would obliterate all life except those hiding in mines, so now we had a "mine gap" with the Soviets to fill!!!!!! BTW, the next time you watch that movie, please notice the title music: "Try a Little Tenderness". "Oooh, she gets weary. Young girls do get weary. Wearing that same old dress. When she gets weary, weary, try a little tenderness."
In your own timeframe, Faith, Sputnik hit suddenly and the USA flew into a panic, frantically trying to close the "science education gap". A couple years ago, I retired from the Navy Reserve. In my time (29 years of service in the Navy Reserve; six in active duty Air Force), we would suddenly have to stop everything for a training stand-down. The last one was regarding gays openly serving in the military (about time!).
In the "Giant Leap Forward" (totally inappropriate) that you experienced because of Sputnik, what actually happened? I'm sure that many teachers were given new material that they were not familiar with to present. How could they work with that?
In short, there are a lot of questions to be asked about that era.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 2:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 6:14 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 126 of 824 (718661)
02-08-2014 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
02-07-2014 7:10 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
Good evidence is simply good evidence.
That is true.
Whenever you can present good evidence, then do please do so.
It's about time somebody acknowledged that there IS good evidence on the creationist side of this debate.
Where? Please present that evidence.
You know, I got involved in this "discussion" circa 1981 because creationists claimed to have evidence. Though I had first encountered creationist claims back in 1970 with these two claims:
  • A NASA computer calculated the positions of the moon back through the centuries and back to the present only to find a "missing day", which was "Joshua's Missing Day".
  • Living freshwater molluscs had radiocarbon dates of thousands of years.
Back in 1970, computers were pure magic. But even back then, I knew for a fact that the magical properties that claim was applying to those NASA computers were totally and completely bogus. As it turned out, that claim is a complete fabrication that most Christian websites themselves deny. That 1970 claim was enough for me to totally reject creationist claims at that time.
It wasn't until the 1980's that I got around to researching the fresh-water mollusc claim, part of which required me to actually find a reference to follow. The freshwater molluscs in question were in a stream fed from a limestone source. So basically it was a reservoir problem in that the carbon that the molluscs were using to make their shells was all "old carbon" from the dissolved limestone in the spring water.
Circa 1970, I had dismissed the creationist claims out of hand because the NASA computer claim was obviously bogus and I was skeptical about the fresh-water molluscs. Later research clearly demonstrated that my skepticism about the fresh-water molluscs was very well founded.
Then circa 1981, the ICR "snake-oil travelling medicine show" made its way to the local university in North Dakota where I was stationed. Since I was on duty that night, I could not attend the show. But that got me thinking that, since they were still around a decade later, maybe there's something to their claims after all.
So I started investigating their claims and I found that, no, there is nothing to their claims.
It's about time somebody acknowledged that there IS good evidence on the creationist side of this debate.
WHERE??? I've been asking since 1981. I haven't seen any answer yet!
Edited by dwise1, : "reservoir", not "resource". Though what had delayed me was waiting for a creationist to include a reference to the article so that I could read the original article instead of the lies the creationists were saying about it.

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 136 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 6:00 PM dwise1 has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 127 of 824 (718667)
02-08-2014 7:35 AM


Ken Ham Bingo Cards
http://ncse.com/files/Ham%20Bingo.pdf (download)
Wish I'd known about them before the debate ....
Again this may be the way to attack "debates" -- with humour

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)

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 128 of 824 (718668)
02-08-2014 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by arachnophilia
02-08-2014 12:15 AM


Re: what about the plants?
aren't plants alive? do they like, not count?
No worse for the marine animals that are also ignored as if they didn't exist (or were known about?)
But yes the plants that are buried under water for a year and then magically spring anew once the floods have receded ... and that still show the same biodiversity pattern as the animals that dispersed after the flood ... magically without leaving traces of their passage ... and some with diets specific to specific plants that are on the other side of the earth.
Nye should have used the koala bear, not the kangaroo -- slow moving and only eats eucalyptus leaves.

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 121 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 12:15 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 4:50 PM RAZD has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 129 of 824 (718682)
02-08-2014 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
02-07-2014 6:34 PM


Re: FRAUD NOT SCIENCE
The Mars Rover is a lab. They sent the lab to Mars and did the testing.
The testing provided results, and they came to a conclusion.
That's tested and proven.
If you want to use those words in your own different way, while I suppose that's your prerogative, you're going to continue to be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 6:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 5:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


(1)
Message 130 of 824 (718684)
02-08-2014 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
02-08-2014 2:30 AM


Re: Geology HIstorical and Interpretive
I was talking about science classes and science books I read BEFORE I became a Christian.
So I suppose quoting some of them would be out of the question?
Everybody here is claiming to know things for sure they couldn't possibly know for sure because they concern the untestable past ...
Like your claim that there were once living stegosauruses?
... and that sort of thinking would have been laughed at by scientists fifty to sixty years ago.
Even fifty to sixty years ago, scientists knew that there were once living stegosauruses. Also that the Earth was more than 6,000 years old. Are you going to try to change the history of science now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 2:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 5:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 131 of 824 (718713)
02-08-2014 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by RAZD
02-08-2014 7:39 AM


Re: what about the plants?
RAZD writes:
No worse for the marine animals that are also ignored as if they didn't exist (or were known about?)
marine animals? their habitat just got bigger! clearly there weren't fresh water species until after the flood. if t. rex ate coconuts before the flood, surely that's no big deal.
But yes the plants that are buried under water for a year and then magically spring anew once the floods have receded ...
well, no, i mean... if there's no death before man's sin, man couldn't have been eating plants either, since those are alive. let's not even get into bacteria and such required for digestion!

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2014 7:39 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2014 5:06 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 132 of 824 (718721)
02-08-2014 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by arachnophilia
02-08-2014 4:50 PM


Re: what about the plants?
so everybody ate sand then?

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 131 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 4:50 PM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 133 of 824 (718734)
02-08-2014 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dr Adequate
02-08-2014 10:41 AM


Re: Geology HIstorical and Interpretive
I would have thought I'd made it quite clear that there are some things one CAN know from the prehistoric past, such as the former existence of some creatures no longer living today, because all that requires is finding a good skeleton from which to recreate their body. That doesn't require confirmatory tests of any sort. Of course I have said this many times by now and you still prefer to pretend I haven't.
That the earth is older than 6000 years, however, is one of those hypotheses that does need the kind of confirmatory test that is not available from the prehistoric past. It's just a speculation, a wild guess, and so are all the dating methods inconclusive, nothing that can be known for sure, as the existence of many now-extinct animals can be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-08-2014 10:41 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 134 of 824 (718735)
02-08-2014 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by New Cat's Eye
02-08-2014 10:12 AM


Re: FRAUD NOT SCIENCE
As I said, some things can be known, if that is known for sure, fine, no contest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-08-2014 10:12 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-08-2014 7:58 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 135 of 824 (718744)
02-08-2014 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by arachnophilia
02-08-2014 12:15 AM


Re: what about the plants?
Plants are given as food and not considered to be living in the sense "flesh" is living, yet of course many survived and probably many on the ark too, perhaps many as seeds.
Marine creatures could not survive on the ark so obviously some would have been preserved in the Flood waters though others would have died. The ark protected land animals, creatures with "the breath of life" in them, that could not survive at all without protection. Sure seems obvious to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 12:15 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 6:23 PM Faith 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