Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Hey, Faith? Remember how you don't know anything about genetics?

No need to "know" anything when you have scientific imagination.HBD

Encouraging Faith by boasting about yourself. That is a new one. That may have applied if you had provided an argument, which you did not. Even so these are not epithets. I did not say 'Mike the Arrogant Buffoon and Ignoramus' which would be an epithet. Instead, these are assessments of your post attempting to "encourage" Faith. Ad hominem only applies if you provided an argument, which you did not. I do not even know what your argument in this debate is. I was ridiculing your ridiculous post defending Faith not a post by you defending YEC. What argument!?! What are you talking about. You only posted twice in this thread. Both have nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Why do you NEED to mention the person's knowledge? Did you know that a lunatic in an asylum can state a correct thing about genetics? Did you know an expert in genetics can state an incorrect thing about genetics?As long as a person states something sound, that is all that counts, which means that in debate, you actually have to address what was said, rather than saying something about the person's character, which is either ad hominem or an ad hominem allusion.In debate, to appeal to scientific knowledge indirectly, is an appeal to authority. This is ultimately your argument, though it is not stated explicitly. You state her lack of knowledge in order to prove your own, as though this settles something.Please be aware, I have not read her argument, nor yours, I have only highlighted your extremely basic logical error.Go back and ACTUALLY ADDRESS something she said or do not speak at all.

I am not interested in the official definition, I want to know how you are using the phrase.And although you want me to accept official definitions I simply don't. For instance I think "speciation" is misnamed. All that's happened is that ability to breed with the former population has been lost; it's an artificial criterion. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your post is an indirect attack on another person, an ad hominem, personal reference, Paul K also used my post to get at Faith with a character attack, whereas this time you use your pal's post to imply something derogatory. It's a, "we all agree with eachother" display.I'm sure that comforts you greatly if you are all with eachother, but from the outside? Pretty lame, a bit like chimps throwing scat.I believe I am suggesting the correct course in agreement with the rules of the forum and of debate.

It's become accepted here to attack the person, but I'm glad someone is making an issue of it. Thanks, Mike.

The genome of any species originally had plenty of variability built in, enough for all the breeds and varieties we see in the fossil record, and many more, and the genetic variability on the ark would still have been enough for all the variety we see today. Mutations are not only unnecessary they are an interference. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Correct. All we can do is speculate about the past. However, there is blind speculation and informed speculation. Faith and other Creationists practice blind speculation whereas geologists practice informed speculation. Creationists like to pretend they are one in the same, but they are not.Faith knows absolutely NOTHING about the rocks she is discussing. All she looks at are cartoon diagrams on the internet of one location on the planet, and takes it at face value, applying it to the entire planet. Why? Because she is smart enough to realize that by ignoring the details in the rocks, she can make whatever unsupported assertion she needs to make to defend her position.What Faith's geology looks like: What real geology looks like: You take any of the geologic formations in the Grand Canyon and construct detailed stratigraphic sections of them, and you will see the same types of details in the images above. There is NO way a flood of epic proportions could have created all these little textural and compositional differences that Creationists insist. None. It is impossible. But as long as Faith can present the rocks as massive, homogenous, gray or brown or pink horizons on a cartoon, she can say whatever fool thing she wants and the ignorant masses -- like you -- will think she is making good points.Use you god-given brain, man, and question everything.

I've been through that thought, but I am so certain about a few of the points I make I really don't get shaken. I may get some things wrong but once I know I'm right about others, I know it's just a matter of time before someone gets the whole picture right. Of course that might not be until Judgment Day... Well, thanks for coming by.

I'm sorry, Rox, but all those minuscule variations in the rock strike me as accidental, though you seem to have to have a very precise explanation for all of them. I see no reason the whole thing couldn't have been caused by the Flood although you claim it can't be so. Excuse me but what comes to mind is finding a picture of Jesus on a piece of toast.Or like looking for meaning in a garbage heap.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh I've been there a thousand times already, I've even determined to quit and never come back. But things get said I just can't resist answering, lost cause though it is. Maybe if I say it THIS way... But I keep finding out that it IS futile, and I do agree with you. I always have my sights on the time when I will leave.

Don't worry Faith, I know that you insist on being massively wrong on the genetics, and I agree that you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how invalid it is. Reality doesn't care what you think.Remember you are postulating in the deep unknowable past according to your own argument. Evolutionists say we can use human anatomy and our knowledge of art to hypothesis\approximate where the hands go.Creationists say that you cannot know for sure where the hands go, you weren't there when the puzzle was made; they could be up-side-down or over her head or side-wise ...And it won't matter as more pieces are fit into place.

Actually, knowing where the hands go is more what a creationist would get right than an evolutionist.

Lots of variation of course, but it may not look like a direct line between wolf and pug, as I've been explaining.