Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 136 of 824 (718745)
02-08-2014 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by dwise1
02-08-2014 4:10 AM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
The strata are evidence for the Flood; the billions of fossils all over the earth are evidence for the Flood. You have to be willfully blind not to recognize this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by dwise1, posted 02-08-2014 4:10 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Coyote, posted 02-08-2014 6:13 PM Faith has replied
 Message 146 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 7:13 PM Faith has replied
 Message 149 by dwise1, posted 02-08-2014 7:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 137 of 824 (718747)
02-08-2014 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
02-08-2014 6:00 PM


One Simple Question for Faith
The strata are evidence for the Flood; the billions of fossils all over the earth are evidence for the Flood.
The oldest one-cell fossils go back somewhere over 3 billion years.
Burrows and tracks from invertebrates go back a billion years, and fossils of the invertebrates themselves date to about 600 million years.
The end of the flood is generally placed about 4,350 years ago.
These numbers don't add up--they are impossibly long for a single flood, but that's what you are claiming. And Noah et al. have to be right back there at the beginning, hundreds of millions or billions of years ago.
How can you support any of that with scientific evidence?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 6:25 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 138 of 824 (718748)
02-08-2014 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by dwise1
02-08-2014 3:35 AM


Re: Geology HIstorical and Interpretive
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.
I went to three different high schools, the first, Freshman year in my small town, the second a year in the LA area, big city school, in fact the three year high school had 3000 students, half again the population of the whole small town; and last two years in a medium sized city school, four hundred in my graduating class. It was the Sputnik era and science was king. I got a lot of indoctrination in the value of science, and my best friend from LA went on to get graduate degrees in biological science. I was interested in writing, not science.
But I was somewhat interested in the philosophy of science and read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Karl Popper, forget his titles, it was a long time ago. The idea that science is empirical and has ways of testing and knowing, the ultimate test being that rockets do fly where you want them to fly and medicines can cure diseases and the like, I always considered to be its hallmark. Evolution and the Old Earth, however, cannot be subjected to that sort of testing and yet you all defend it as if it could.
I never even heard of creationism or creation science until after I became a Christian in my mid forties (in the late 80s).
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by dwise1, posted 02-08-2014 3:35 AM dwise1 has not replied

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


(2)
Message 139 of 824 (718749)
02-08-2014 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
02-08-2014 5:59 PM


Re: what about the plants?
faith writes:
Plants are given as food and not considered to be living in the sense "flesh" is living
this seems pretty arbitrary.
i admit, of course, that this is entirely consistent with the bible, which describes all creatures (and man) as "living", and never once mentions plants as being alive also. but creationism, at least as ken ham described it, is a mixing of "science" and faith. do creationists reject the scientific fact that plants are alive, to justify the religious idea that there was no death before man sinned?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 5:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 6:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 140 of 824 (718750)
02-08-2014 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Coyote
02-08-2014 6:13 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
You are blinded by a bunch of irrelevant stuff you think is Fact but is not and it prevents you from seeing the obvious. The strata just as strata, because of their horizontality, their being separated sediments stacked neatly one on top of another usually with very tight contact lines between them, and their widespread occurrence, are great evidence for the Flood. The billions of fossils are too, because the Flood would have killed billions upon billions of living things, and provided the ideal conditions for their burial and fossilization. ABE: These simple observable facts are excellent evidence for the Flood for anyone who can see things clearly, without the brain cramp caused by theory bias.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Coyote, posted 02-08-2014 6:13 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Coyote, posted 02-08-2014 6:34 PM Faith has replied
 Message 145 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-08-2014 7:07 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 150 by roxrkool, posted 02-08-2014 7:54 PM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 141 of 824 (718752)
02-08-2014 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
02-08-2014 6:25 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
We have heard that argument before, but you need to:
1) show, using evidence, that all of those layers are of the same age (within a year or so),
2) explain how some three billion years worth of fossils are all occurring at the same time, and
3) show how all scientific dating methods are wrong. This includes such simple methods as counting tree-rings and varves to radiometric dating, as well other forms of dating, such as thermoluminescence, paleomagnetism, superposition, and estimating the life spans of the fossils in those deposits.
You up to the challenge?

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 140 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 6:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 6:38 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 142 of 824 (718753)
02-08-2014 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by arachnophilia
02-08-2014 6:23 PM


Re: what about the plants?
Plants are given as food and not considered to be living in the sense "flesh" is living
this seems pretty arbitrary.
i admit, of course, that this is entirely consistent with the bible, which describes all creatures (and man) as "living", and never once mentions plants as being alive also.
Yes, but I would think it intuitively obvious as well.
but creationism, at least as ken ham described it, is a mixing of "science" and faith.
I didn't hear him say anything that implies that. There is no mixture. We believe there was a Flood because the Bible says so, but beyond that creationists think about the physical world exclusively in the effort to prove the Flood scientifically.
do creationists reject the scientific fact that plants are alive, to justify the religious idea that there was no death before man sinned?
What an odd question. I think not only creationists but most of the human race do not consider plants alive in any such sense as you are implying. Plants are predominantly food, and not just in the view of creationists. It wouldn't even enter a creationist's mind to include them in the idea of death. The Biblical idea of death clearly relates only to creatures "in whom is the breath of life." which doesn't include plants, which were given as food.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 6:23 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 7:19 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 143 of 824 (718754)
02-08-2014 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Coyote
02-08-2014 6:34 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
I reject your whole dating obsession so am not interested in your challenge. You need to clear your head of that obsession, which is just blinding you to the simple observable facts of the strata and the fossils as terrific evidence just as they are for the Flood. Obviously.
ABE: Your dating obsession allows you to accept unbelievable absurdities about the strata and the fossils.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Coyote, posted 02-08-2014 6:34 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Coyote, posted 02-08-2014 6:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 144 of 824 (718755)
02-08-2014 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
02-08-2014 6:38 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
I reject your whole dating obsession so am not interested in your challenge. You need to clear your head of that obsession, which is just blinding you to the simple observable facts of the strata and the fossils as terrific evidence just as they are for the Flood.
Actually scientists have a lot of evidence for those strata, and how and when they were laid down. Those are simple observations supplemented with scientific dating techniques.
That you refuse to accept evidence from the real world shows quite a bit about obsessions, and who possesses them.
Why do you even bother with science, as you reject the scientific method?

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 143 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 6:38 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 7:23 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(3)
Message 145 of 824 (718762)
02-08-2014 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
02-08-2014 6:25 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
Faith writes:
The billions of fossils are too, because the Flood would have killed billions upon billions of living things, and provided the ideal conditions for their burial and fossilization. ABE: These simple observable facts are excellent evidence for the Flood for anyone who can see things clearly, without the brain cramp caused by theory bias.
Who was it that God was angry with again? Oh yes mankind. Perhaps you would enlighten us on the location of the hoards of human fossils that resulted from Noah's flood? Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 6:25 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 146 of 824 (718763)
02-08-2014 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
02-08-2014 6:00 PM


geology
Faith writes:
The strata are evidence for the Flood;
i've always had a problem with this argument. it's actually going the other way around, like many creationist arguments. you start with the assumption of a flood, and find a way to fit the geological evidence (layers of strata) with the assumption. this itself is a big problem; science seeks to go the other way. start with the evidence, and draw conclusions.
the other big problem is that it ignores the details. we know what flood strata look like. this is not a foreign concept to geology; considering that many fossils are, in fact, deposited by flooding events. here's a rather famous instance:
photo credit: insapphowetrust via wikimedia commons
that's dinosaur national monument, in utah/colorado, which features alluvial fossil beds, deposited by repeated flooding events. that's what flooding does to fossils. it doesn't do this:
photo credit: jonesblog
that's the berlin specimen of archaeopteryx lithographica, so named because the details were so fine in the feather impressions that it might have been a lithograph. most of the 7 specimens of archaeopteryx were from the solnhofen lagoon limestone, preserved by extremely fine grained silt drying out. this is what fossils formed by water receding look like.
and even without big obvious beds of jumbled dinosaur bones, the kind of rock laid down by flooding, evaporation, or other water-related events is very different than rock created in other manners. that there are strata that are laid down in other manners is pretty solid evidence that strata in general are not evidence for the flood.
if there was a global worldwide flood, we would expect to see one massive layer of extremely turbulent sedimentary rock, followed by another layer of sedimentary rock showing signs of settling and evaporation. followed by whatever's formed since. that is the reasonable and testable hypothesis you could make from the assumption, based on our knowledge of geological laws about sedimentation, lithification, and superposition. but this is not what we see. instead, we see a myriad different layers, flood plains on top of rock formed by evaporation. we see all kinds of other rock formations interspersed.
flood plains from a single event do not stratify, and they certainly do not stratify in a way that suggests many hundreds of thousands different lithification events many of which are not related to water. you cannot arrive at this statement by studying the geological record, or even knowing the first thing about geology. you have to arrive at it by trying to fit what little of the evidence you're aware of to your preconceptions, while being unaware of the details of the field of study, like what a flood plain looks like.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 6:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 02-09-2014 7:21 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 11:42 AM arachnophilia has replied

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


(1)
Message 147 of 824 (718765)
02-08-2014 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
02-08-2014 6:35 PM


Re: what about the plants?
Faith writes:
Yes, but I would think it intuitively obvious as well.
that plants aren't alive? they grow and reproduce. i'd think it's intuitively obvious that they are?
I didn't hear him say anything that implies that. There is no mixture.
he described the bible as "historical science". did you watch a different debate than i did?
I think not only creationists but most of the human race do not consider plants alive in any such sense as you are implying.
i feel like we should take a survey.
The Biblical idea of death clearly relates only to creatures "in whom is the breath of life." which doesn't include plants, which were given as food.
i'm not debating that. clearly, the bible only regards things that have "breath" or "souls" (same concept) to be alive. but science has progressed a little bit since 900-500 BCE, and i didn't think the question of whether or not plants count as life would be at all controversial. i mean, if we found something like plants, or even fungi on mars, the scientific community would be ecstatic at discovering life on another planet.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 6:35 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 148 of 824 (718767)
02-08-2014 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Coyote
02-08-2014 6:43 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
Coyote writes:
Those are simple observations supplemented with scientific dating techniques.
let's leave the dating aside for a minute, and just talk about the order (and the law of superposition). i feel like the dating methods are kind of a red herring here that will just get her off track on the standard creationist objections to dating methods. it might be better to just discuss the different kinds of lithification, the difference between sedimentay and other kinds of rocks, and how the geologic column doesn't match what we'd expect to see from one massive flood event. after we've established that these layers were laid down separately, by different events and in different manners, we can talk about how the dates for those layers are determined.
Why do you even bother with science, as you reject the scientific method?
probably because it's very hard to live in today's world and totally reject science.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Coyote, posted 02-08-2014 6:43 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 149 of 824 (718771)
02-08-2014 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
02-08-2014 6:00 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
DWise1 writes:
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.
Faith writes:
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!
Faith writes:
The strata are evidence for the Flood; the billions of fossils all over the earth are evidence for the Flood. You have to be willfully blind not to recognize this.
No, seriously!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 6:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(4)
Message 150 of 824 (718772)
02-08-2014 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
02-08-2014 6:25 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
The billions of fossils are too, because the Flood would have killed billions upon billions of living things, and provided the ideal conditions for their burial and fossilization. ABE: These simple observable facts are excellent evidence for the Flood for anyone who can see things clearly, without the brain cramp caused by theory bias.
Oh yes! All those "billions" of fossils in the rocks today would make for an excellent argument in favor of a global flood 4300 years ago... if those fossils actually represented organisms alive 4300 years ago.
A very simple observation that can be made by anyone on the planet and requires zero interpretation is that there are no modern horses, camels, oxen, kangaroos, bears, cats, dogs, cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, humans, trees, grass, wheat, corn, tools, houses, carts, settlements, or ANYTHING from an iron age world present in the rocks.
There are fossils that resemble today's animal and plant life, but these examples occur at the top of the rock record. In fact, they occur withing tens of feet of the surface of the earth, when, if there truly was a global flood, they would occur at the bottom. Settlements don't run up hill.
On top of that, the deeper you go into the fossil record (i.e., move stratigraphically lower), the more bizarre the life forms. With the exception of a few organisms, they only resemble today's life forms in the most superficial ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 6:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 8:33 PM roxrkool has not replied
 Message 153 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 8:33 PM roxrkool has replied
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2014 9:45 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024