Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,819 Year: 4,076/9,624 Month: 947/974 Week: 274/286 Day: 35/46 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 77 of 824 (718364)
02-06-2014 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
02-05-2014 2:56 PM


Again, yes, creationists are in the same position with respect to the prehistoric past EXCEPT that we DO have a written witness that constrains our theorizing, and again it's all a war of interpretations and plausibilities.
Ergo creationists are not dealing in science, but apologetics.
It's crucially important that this insane accusation stop that says creationists are opposed to Science as such.
But you just admitted this, see bolded portion above.
Since it's all a war of interpretations all the Old Earth has on its side really is establishment belief, consensus, because its interpretations are ridiculous, a shared aggressively affirmed group insanity.
Here we have a bit of projection. Just because this is how YECs think and reason doesn't mean that is how science functions.
The Flood has the actual evidence of the strata and the enormous abundance of fossils on its side.
So many in fact that they couldn't all be alive on the planet at the same time. And so many occupying the same environmental niches that they couldn't compete/survive alongside one another, like the hawk and the pterodactyl. And some like the giant dragonflies of the Carboniferous that require higher levels of oxygen in the atmosphere.
The strata is an evidence against the flood BTW. But you can't reason correctly because of the bolded part above.
If you were capable of accepting true constraints you would have to let go of your written witness.
Here is a written witness that also must constrain our theorizing about the past shape of the continents.
Real world constraints disprove your false written witness in this manner.
If evidence is found that contradicts a model then out goes the model. What possibilities are we left with? That is how objectively looking at the evidence works. There is no preconceived notion to which the evidence is shoe horned to fit as you claim in science, but that is exactly the methodological approach you take as shown above in bold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 2:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2876 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

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 178 of 824 (718884)
02-09-2014 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
02-09-2014 11:33 AM


Re: more geology
The strata suggest what the Flood would have done: lay down layers of sediments by precipitation or by waves the way the oceans lay down sand on beaches.
The oceans don't lay down sand on beaches.
quote:
where does beach sand come from?
In a most basic sense, the sand on our beaches comes from the erosion of the land. In our area the beaches rely on sand transported from the mountains by the rivers and from eroding cliffs near the shoreline.
The addition of new sand to the beaches is seasonal, occurring during rainy periods when the rivers flow and sediments are washed into the ocean. The Santa Clara river is capable of depositing huge quantities of sand during floods, but very little during dry years. For example, 52.4 million tons of sediment were discharged during the 1969 floods; floods that ended 30 years of relative drought when very little new sand was added to the beaches.
Today the supply of new sand to our beaches has been greatly reduced by human activity. Over the past 50 years river sand has been restricted by dams in the watershed areas and mining of floodplain gravels by private industry. About 42 percent of the Ventura River watershed is blocked by dams (at Matilija, 1948, and Casitas, 1959) and 37 percent of the Santa Clara River watershed is dammed (Bouquet, 1934; Piru, 1955; Pyramid,1971; Castaic, 1972). These dams trap river sediments and starve the beaches of their natural supply of sand. In addition, the erosion of coastal bluffs along the Rincon coast has been eliminated by the construction of seawalls for Highway 101, removing the other primary source of beach sand for our area.
Presently our beaches are eroding because of the of the reduction in the sand reaching the coast. However, Matilija Dam is no longer useful as a water supply because it is completely full of sediments; sediments that should be in the Ventura River and on our beaches. If obsolete dams like Matilija were removed our beaches would receive a much needed renewal of their rightful supply of sand.
http://matilija-coalition.org/point/growing/sand.html
So now where does beach sand come from in your model? Are you sure 4,000 years of erosion is enough to account for the amount of sand on the shores?
quote:
The most common natural process of sand formation is called weathering. Majority of sand comes from chemical and mechanical breakdown (weathering) of bedrocks. Such process can take hundreds or even millions of years depending on other mechanical processes such as temperature changes, wedging by plant roots or salt crystals, and ice gouging underneath glaciers. A waterfall continuously pounding on a huge rock would cause little bits and pieces of the rock to be detached.
How Sand is Formed - Tech-FAQ
Your flood didn't lay down the sand, it laid down the geologic column according to your model. Nice flat layers everywhere.
Here's another problem for your model. The sand found in the geologic column had to form prior to the flood. But you only have less than 2,000 years of time to create that sand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 11:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 12:38 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 361 of 824 (719243)
02-12-2014 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
02-12-2014 11:09 AM


Re: Transitional forms -- not
Finally, I saw that you have shrunk the evolution to modern forms from "kinds" down to approximately 1,000 years in your estimate. So, figuring this out similarly to how Bill Nye did, this would mean that your 7,000 "kinds" would have to turn into approximately 44 Brand-new species per day!!!
But maybe when the scriptures say that animals reproduce after their kind it really means transformers change after their kind. Or perhaps it was a typo and it stated animals reproduce after they're kind, a subtle reference to the sexual act.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-12-2014 11:09 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has seen this message but not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 475 of 824 (719601)
02-15-2014 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Faith
02-15-2014 5:50 PM


Curse of Cain?
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.
In contradistinction to a God who created races and favors one race over other races. That concept certainly lays claim to the moral high ground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 5:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 6:25 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 548 of 824 (719709)
02-16-2014 8:31 PM


What he promotes as important competes with other things that are important. He promotes science to a level that reduces other important things to almost nothingness.
Wouldn't it be cool if we could divide our country in two, those who side with Ham/marc and those who side with Nye. Let each side prosper and make progress in accord with their talents and abilities. This debate would finally come to an end along with the retarding religious influence that currently gets a free pass in the US.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024