Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

We are expected to at least try to support our claims here. You made claims about what Ken Ham did. I asked you to support those claims.

He most certainly did. When faced with evidence that contradicted his beliefs he retreated to the argument of blind faith in his interpretation of the Bible. Even his own website says as much:"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
Statement of Faith | Answers in Genesis I am really curious as to why you think this is an impressive argument?

and the final question was "what would make you change your mind/"Nye: "evidence"Ham: "Nothing"Edited by RAZD, : ssubt

I think it more likely that Christian hope that what they believe is supported by scientific evidence leads them into expressions of certainty that have no basis in fact. They sincerely believe support somewhere exists for what they are saying, and they often become somehow convinced that they've found that support. Anyway, my only point is that "mistaken" and "lying" are not synonyms.--Percy

And therein lies the ultimate rub. Who is being close-minded? The individual indicating that something can alter their view and opinion or the individual that says nothing will alter their view or opinion?What do most church folks say? The Truth.
What is the motto of the Science Channel? Question EVERYTHING.Makes me wonder which is dogmatic and which is open to new ideas....

yeah, technically 'lying' includes intent to deceive, and without knowing intent all you can honestly say is "false" or "falsehoods" even when they are known falsehoods. Yes it is easy to deceive yourself when you have strongly held beliefs.

and Nye's karma catagorically ran over Ham's dogma

Yes I know that's what you're saying and I'm disagreeing. What you think is just a new tasty recipe is really rat poison. And again, although there is some confusion about it at the moment, on the Genetics thread it's been agreed that a gene codes for what it codes for, that alleles are different expressions of that code, if eye color then different colors, period, and that mutations don't change that basic function of the gene. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you. If this simple truth were recognized by more here this place would be a lot more pleasant.

"Superficially," yes, in their very form, their IDENTICAL FORM throughout the geologic column, apart from their sedimentary content and their fossil content they were all laid down OBVIOUSLY in an IDENTICAL MANNER. All originally horizontal and FOR THE MOST PART with extremely tight contact lines between them. ABE: HOW ON EARTH DO YOU EXPECT SUCH UNIFORMITY TO OCCUR OVER TWO BILLION YEARS??? /ABE I understand the principle, for pete's sake, there's no need to struggle to "get it across" to me. Nevertheless the strata are DATED according to the particular ROCK that identifies them. And the idea that they were actually deposited in a short period of time during that overall time period was just made up to answer creationist objections anyway since the way they are dated clearly implies that the sedimentary deposition itself spanned that whole period. Again, it's the ROCK that is dated from such and such millions of years to such and such millions of years. Supposedly by radiometric method?HOWEVER, "what else would they represent" is just questionbegging, since it IS ridiculous to impute long ages of time to a rock, no matter when during that period it was supposedly laid down. And it's WITHIN that rock is it not that the CLUES to that enormous time period are sought, in the supposed "landscapes" that are considered to be implied either by something in its formation or just the fact that it's a particular sediment containing particular fossils. As I realized when Rox posted all the details that are taken into account in studying the strata, it's really like reading tea leaves, finding some kind of meaning in a random assortment of stuff, or like seeing Jesus on a piece of toast. Yes, I know that certain arrangements of different sizes of grains imply known ways that occurs, and in some cases are like things that are found elsewhere, such as in river deltas or whatnot, but concluding from such facts that therefore the rock represents a former river delta, or comparing what happened in a worldwide Flood with ANY known Flood or other observable phenomenon, MAKES NO SENSE.IT'S A ROCK, NOT A LANDSCAPE! I SAID I DON'T KNOW! It's just that some such mechanical means are the only reasonable explanation, AND the Old Earth interpretations are ridiculous!Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's selection at work. You make random change to the recipe by adding more of or less of an existing ingredient, or you add a little of a new ingredient, and you try it. If you like it then that's positive selection and you save the new recipe. If you don't like it then that's negative selection and you throw it away. If you fall over dead then that's *really* negative selection. I haven't been following that thread, but I doubt that anyone but you accepts this. There are no boundaries to change. If you're considering a single point mutation, the tiniest possible change, then certainly we are agreed that the change would often be extremely modest, such as changing eye color and nothing else, as in your example. But changes can accumulate over generations, and there is no limit to change.--Percy

No Faith, the code is slightly different and the mutations (changes\divergence) do change the basic function of the gene by changing the eye color.

Then you don't understand what I'm saying at all. No need to bring up dating. Start by only considering the strata. The thickness only represents SOME time period. I'm am not saying what that time period is. It could be 5 minutes, 5 hours, 5 days, or 5 years. Whatever. It is just SOME time period. Well, yes, because I believe they were laid down over millions of years. But millions of years is not the starting point. That is not the starting assumption. The starting assumption is that they were laid down during SOME time period and that they were laid down sequentially, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top. No its not. That is exactly what a layer represents - a period of time when a particular sediment was deposited. maybe so ... OK How can that NOT make sense??? Remember, 4400 years ago IS in the OBSERVABLE past. We can know about it. We can apply know processes to understand the processes that happened 4400 years ago, can we not? Not only do you not know, but I think you realize that it is impossible that the layers of the GC were laid down in a mere 40 days and that's why you are kicking and screaming. I came to this realization myself at one time, but instead of lashing out at those who opposed me I listened and I began to realize that there was a better explanation. From there I had to accept that what I thought was true was actually not and I had to abandon those false teachings.HBD

The ultimate rub is actually much of the general public's conclusion about who is being more honest. Just because Nye "indicated" that something can change his view doesn't automatically mean it's the truth. Evidence indicates that evolutionists are just as closed-minded as Christians about their beliefs, despite their assertions about their open-mindedness. There is a difference between assertions and actual demonstrations.Bill Nye's honesty further comes into question because of one his main assertions, his main recap about the whole science versus creationism debate - that young people's secular scientific education in the U.S. is so very important in keeping the U.S. from falling behind other countries when it comes to new innovations and discoveries. History should tell him that when new innovations and discoveries are made anywhere in the world, the entire world benefits. That he is so adamant about promoting secularism and downplaying Christianity makes one wonder if he has other interests besides promoting science. A search of his political beliefs reveals the answer - he's a flaming liberal! A big contributor to Democrat candidates campaigns, including Obama's. No wonder he's big on secular science "education", the phrase "endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights" probably really bothers him.Now a dozen posters here will sputter with rage at me, but just remember, it's not my fault that not everyone completely trusts scientism/atheism.

Good grief, the Flood lasted a YEAR, not just 40 days. That's how long it RAINED.