|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, this is the theory, that it "can create an entirely new allele (trait),".
Actually any mutation or change in the DNA is a "new" allele since an allele is defined as an alternate form of a gene (a sequence of DNA on a chromosome that code for the production of one or more proteins). In other words a mutation causes a change in the DNA sequence through insertion, deletion, frameshift or by point mutation, which in turn changes that gene/allele. So bottom line is, all mutations create new alleles. However, not all changes in alleles cause phenotypic trait (exhibited) changes to that organism or its offspring (depending on whether the mutation was germinal or somatic). This is kind of like saying that you can substitute rat poison for the beef in a recipe for beef stew and it's still beef stew. Having said that I'm now too tired to finish answering your post. Maybe tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
That's called specialized vocabulary. Every single profession and discipline has it, even biblical literalist apologists. Even creationists. You might know it as "jargon". Every single profession and speciality has it and uses it and needs it. To understand anything that's being said, you need to know its context. That's a simple basic fact of life. Get used to it.
Now what creationists frequently do is that they take something written in "jargon" and lift it out of context to make it appear to say something entirely different. I won't be able to watch that debate until this weekend, but I'm sure that that is exactly what Ken Ham tried to do, because that is what I have seen creationists do repeatedly for the past three decades. BTW, that creationist practice is a form of lying. What does Christian doctrine say about lying?
Well clearly the fact that the whole event blew my mind is substantive in itself.
Yes, but it only speaks to the sad state of your mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaf Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
No this isn't jargon at all. Let me aware you in yet again on the point, Ken Ham has ALREADY scientifically proven before our very eyes IE by supplying evidence the intentional AND CLEAR deceptions and twisting of meaning of words employed by atheist evolutionists, you can not ignore this fact and It would be remiss of me not to keep reminding you of this fact. You really have all got huge amounts of egg on your faces chaps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
I'm sorry, but the only possible response to that is derisive laughter. Not appropriate, but still the only possible response.
If you really and truly and honestly believe that nonsense you just posted, then could you please support it? You would do so by quoting Ken Ham. Those quotes would supply the examples you believe that he had cited. Then demonstrate that his examples do indeed exist; you would do so by finding examples of scientists saying and doing exactly what he claims. Analyze those examples and demonstrate conclusively that they are exactly what you and Ken Ham claim them to be. Then engage in constructive discussion of those examples. If you are unwilling to do any of that, then you will have demonstrated that you are indeed a troll. BTW, Faith is a fully committed YEC. So why were you trashing her?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 802 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
You are the strawman atheists create when berating hypothetical creationists. You are literally everything wrong with the evo-creo debate, what with being a complete charicature of a creationist. if I was going to write a comic strip about a bumbling creationist that gets as much wrong as possible while claiming victory, I'd name said character Jaf. If we combed this site for all the wrong, fallacious and straight wacky shit creationists say, you'd be the end result. We should have a new subforum called "crazy shit creationists say" and you'd be the only poster.
And that's how I know you be trollin brah. Lay off the extreme stupid and you might fool more people. Is EVC really this hard up for creationists that you're still here? I guess since faith is taking it ALL on her chin (pun very much intended) and could use a reach around. I just figured there are more actual serious creationists out there. I know you're a dying breed, but come on. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given."Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaf Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
Deletion notice | Scribd
I Just uploaded this, no idea why its published under this persons name as I'm the Author of this draft/work in progress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaf Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
I'm not to be evasive here, the OP assume one has already done ones research and watched the debate, I don't need to quote the debaters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPAwrtm-JK8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
You are the one singing Ham's praises. I've been honest about not having seen this particular performance, but I'm familiar with creationist debates over the past three decades. I also remember when Ken Ham came over from Australia to join the ICR and agitated them to strike out at other creationists who appeared to have strayed even one bit from the hard party line.
You still need to support your wild claims of Ham's arguments. Of course, you will inevitably shirk your duties, since you are a creationist. I asked a question:
DWise1 writes:
Oddly, in about two decades of asking that question on-line, I have yet to find a creationist who will respond to it honestly.
What does Christian doctrine say about lying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaf Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
Where did I trash Faith?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaf Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
If you make any money I expect a cut there homie, at the end of the day the evolution debate is ripe for a sit com comedy, friends, flat mates, close, with a history from early youth but with very different backgrounds and world views, each given a full airing but none spared the relentless attacks/banter of the others. I think it would fly. Let's start writing. We would introduce a comedy "supernatural angle", were an angel keeps appearing to an atheist and he is really annoyed about this and keeps to himself for the whole series until the end....RAZD? COPYWRITE JAF 2014.
Surely every character we need is here, we must include the mad but ever so lovable catholic scientist as the flag holder for theistic evolution, who do you vote the exceedingly well informed scientist in our mist? It would be so easy to pod cast this with voice we could be the new goons? Just live recorded audio streaming debate, is there a forum format for that? Warmest regards the deluded Creationist whacky conspiracy theorist ranting looney fundy who spies on builder burger meetings and builder burgers around the world as a Documentary maker some of course turn out indeed to be lizard people who do morph? And David Icke is right the moon is a manned space station, sorry, alien controlled space station. COPYWRITE JAF 2014.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaf Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
How dare you accuse me of lying. Thats low pal, very low. Surely thats below par for the etiquette of the forum, anyone?
Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaf Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
I repeat, this is a thread discussing the debate. Would it be correct mods that I'm not required to quote and site parts of the debate, free to discuss the debate with assumption the contributers have watched the debate?
Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3101 days) Posts: 1548 Joined:
|
This is kind of like saying that you can substitute rat poison for the beef in a recipe for beef stew and it's still beef stew. Yes, this is the theory, that it "can create an entirely new allele (trait),". Actually any mutation or change in the DNA is a "new" allele since an allele is defined as an alternate form of a gene (a sequence of DNA on a chromosome that code for the production of one or more proteins). In other words a mutation causes a change in the DNA sequence through insertion, deletion, frameshift or by point mutation, which in turn changes that gene/allele. So bottom line is, all mutations create new alleles. However, not all changes in alleles cause phenotypic trait (exhibited) changes to that organism or its offspring (depending on whether the mutation was germinal or somatic). That is precisely the opposite of what I am saying. I am saying that the recipe for beef stew will change into something else, i.e. a recipe for beef stroganoff for example. However this would require many changes to the recipe and thus an evolution between these two recipes occur with many beef stew/beef stroganoff intermediates. In short order the beef stew recipe can be adapted and changed just like in your kitchen. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given."It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined:
|
jaf writes: How dare you accuse me of lying. Thats low pal, very low. Surely thats below par for the etiquette of the forum, anyone? First off, DWise was accusing Ken Ham of lying, which he made a point to do within the debate, and it was a moment where Bill Nye could have slammed into him for it and Bill missed it. The example I speak of was when Mr. Ham discussed the fact that a portion of the strata was dated to a long age (can't remember exactly what it was, pretty sure millions of years) by one form of radiometric dating (I believe Uranium/Thorium dating) and a piece of wood in the rock was Carbon dated to 45,000 years. Well, Mr. Ham was lying with a lie of omission. He failed to mention 45,000 years is near the end of the accuracy of Carbon dating and items over this date come back with simply a >45,000 years. Bill could have called him out on this lie on stage, but missed the opportunity. And Dwise is asking how you can defend someone who blatantly lied like that for Jesus? As for calling his behavior low....first, you misinterpreted what he said, second telling someone they are lying when they are (Ken Ham, not you) is not low, it is called honesty. If I tell you you are lying to yourself about real world evidence to prop up your belief, I am not stooping to low shots. I am giving you my honest opinion about the situation. Plus, with the behavior you have displayed in this forum since your joining, you have no right to request anything of anyone in regards to etiquette.
jaf writes: I repeat, this is a thread discussing the debate. Would it be correct mods that I'm not required to quote and site parts of the debate, free to discuss the debate with assumption the contributers have watched the debate? I am still wondering if you even watched the debate? From all of your posts, it seems like you watched a portion, perhaps Ken Ham's first thirty minutes, and then declared victory without even listening to what Bill had to say. Asking you to use evidence from the debate to defend your statements is an acceptable request to make and should be complied with, otherwise it simply shows that you have no leg to stand on for your opinion. I watched the debate twice now, yet still don't understand what you think were good points made by Ken Ham, because I did not see any good points that he made throughout the entire thing.....twice! So, please point me to the direction where I can find these wonderful comments. If all you are saying is that his point that the words science and evolution have been conflated, then I have to disagree that he adequately defended this point. Rather, he made an assertion that he could not defend and simply continued to restate. He could never point to a difference between observational and historical science, because all science is required to be based on observation...even those that deal with historical facts..The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
How dare you accuse me of lying.
I did no such thing. What I said was that deliberately lifting a word out of context in order to misrepresent it as meaning something else would be lying. That just happens to be a very common creationist tactic. While such actions could simply be due to the creationist's own ignorance and stupidity, I find it difficult to believe that anyone could be that stupid. Though I could be wrong about that. Since lying seems to be an integral part of "creation science", the form of creationism in question, that naturally raises the question of what Christian doctrine teaches about lying, even if it's for the Lord. I have to ask, since creationist use and dependence on lying and deception runs completely contrary to what I was taught in my own Christian upbringing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024