Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

I agree, Jaf is a troll. I think many of the so-called creationists who come here are really trolls.

You haven't said anything substantive in this whole thread that I've seen, just a lot of "Ken Ham is great."

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.

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.

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

How do you know it was a mutation and not simply a normally occurring but rare allele that happens to be possessed by the people identified?

I'll grant that it's possible for a rare mutation to occur like this, but I also don't see why that original person didn't simply have a rarely occurring allele that was yes an "original part of the human genome." Why couldn't this one person have simply inherited it and passed it on. What makes it HAVE to be a mutation? (Such a protective function by the way I'd expect to have been part of the original genome because people were so much more healthy in Noah's time, though very likely lost in the Flood bottleneck or through deleterious mutations later. Perhaps mutations sometimes reinstate a formerly lost sequence. just a thought.)In any case the occasional fluke of a beneficial mutation is no proof that mutations are normally beneficial at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are missing the point. It's not that people aren't moral, and that includes evolutionists with everybody else, because morality is built into us though it can be distorted in many ways, the point is that the theory of evolution itself promotes an anti-morality, and in its early years it did justify a very ugly racism and Nazism itself. The only reason it no longer does is that people's inherent moral sense saw the problem and corrected for it. But the theory itself does not promote morality, it still works against the morality that made civilization and still contributes to the downfall of the civilization for that reason.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I didn't say it should nor did anyone else here. Edited by Faith, :

God does not choose between races. You are probably thinking of His judgments on groups that so seriously violated His laws He finally wiped them out. Has nothing to do with race.

Yes, science is amoral. The thing about evolution is that the idea implies different levels of evolution between races, implying in those days inferiority versus superiority, at least it did to those who first encountered the idea right after Darwin, including Darwin himself. As I said, people have a built in moral sense and that's what finally did away with that sort of thinking, but it can't be denied that it's still there IN the theory itself if somebody decided to come along and exploit it. However, I'll agree that racist attitudes seem to be endemic to the human race in general so it doesn't take much for some new idea to come along and justify them for people who already think that way. And that includes Christians who are also liable to fall into such expressions of our fallenness. But the Bible itself with its clear indication that we all come from one parent couple would have to be twisted to justify racism. Not that people aren't capable of doing such twisting of course.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The problem is that apparently Darwin himself misread his own theory in this way, which rather gives credence to the others who did the same. I guess you could argue that Darwin himself didn't fully understand his own theory.

I don't consider it trashing Darwin to mention his racist attitude. It does say something about how he viewed his own theory, and does lend justification to the racist views that were pursued in the name of evolution up through Nazism; I don't think you should be trying to deny that.But overall I think Darwin's work was necessary, or at least inevitable, because there were a lot of silly creationist ideas he was able to expose. It's too bad that was necessary and the ToE didn't HAVE to be the result, but nevertheless as I read the Origin of Species he made a lot of valid criticisms of the thinking of his day. I even wrote an appreciation of Darwin on my blog along these lines. Just so you know.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.