Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Why is HBD speculating about it? How cheeky of you! *You* were the one who introduced hydraulic sorting into the discussion, he's merely responding to your mention.But even more cheeky, how can you claim hydrologic sorting had anything to do with "why no crab fossil has ever been found in the same rock as a trilobite fossil" (the question from Message 319 that you claimed it was the answer to) when you "don't know how hydraulic sorting would work."By the way, you don't really mean "hydraulic sorting," because that's just "the sorting of small particles (as of ground ore) by allowing them to settle against rising currents of fresh water of different velocities" (see Merriam Webster), which is precisely what we've been explaining happens in moving water, and which is also precisely the progression we don't see when we pan across the layers of the geologic column. The term you really meant to use was "hydrologic sorting," which is the type of sorting that Berthault worked on, and for which there is no evidence of its occurrence in the geologic column. Could you explain to us how "original location" could influence final resting place when carried along by violent Flood waters? What we observe is that the larger and more violent the flood the more destructive and more random the result, and yet you somehow manage to keep a straight face while claiming your Flood would sort material and fossils into neat layers according to original location, even maintaining entire dinosaur broods, footprints, burrows, etc. What is painfully obvious to everyone but you is that you have no idea how any of it happened. We're not asking you to explain everything, but just making a little sense about something every once in a while would be very, very welcome. No, Faith, you don't know this, because you've never studied a flood of the scale you imagine, and all the evidence we have says that the larger the flood the wider the destruction. Arguing that a huge flood could sweep across a landscape and organize it into neat layers is like arguing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and build a 747. What's insane is advocating an interpretation that has no evidence at the expense of an interpretation that has all the evidence. The layers we see in the geologic record are of the same type being deposited today all around the world. The fossils in the layers become increasingly different from modern forms with increasing depth, and there is no mixing. Radiometric dating of the layers indicates increasing age with increasing depth.--Percy

If you mean the distinction Ken Ham drew between observational and historical science, in case you're interested there's a thread discussing it over at SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science..Nice post!--Percy

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

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

I think this tells us much more about your paranoia that science is concocted to oppose Christianity than anything else. True, when someone somewhere invents something then the whole world can buy it, but...Bill Nye's (extremely obvious) point is that a country's quality of life depends upon its ability to compete with the rest of the world, and education is key to a country's competitiveness. The greater a county's flow of innovation the greater its wealth. I think we already knew you feel threatened by science, secularism and liberalism. Ignoring your "isms", science is the how we gain an understanding of our world. Trusting the method and following the evidence where it leads is what makes the modern technological world possible.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Left out a word.

The country of origin of an innovation doesn't have to pay for the products that result? Really? Except that what follows is not an example of the country of origin getting the resulting products for free. Rather, this is an example of why continuing innovation is so important. Patents have a lifetime and don't provide perfect protection anyway. The only way to stay ahead is to continue innovating, and that's why education is so important. You mean elaborated upon for this context. Yes, of course, but your point is orthogonal to the importance of education and innovation. Now you're inventing things Bill Nye never said. He never said that US innovation was the only thing that was important. Yes, of course there are other factors. Again, the presence of other factors does not detract from the importance of education and innovation. Assuming we're still talking about education, I'll venture a guess that there's just as much morality in science as there is in Spanish and math, and a bit more than in history and English. Well, yes, we do feel threatened by men like Ken Ham, but it has nothing to do with their honesty or Godliness. It has to do with the threat they pose to science education.--Percy

Evolution, like all science, is amoral. It is people who can be immoral. Such people will always employ whatever tools and excuses they find convenient.The important question for any theory isn't whether it is moral or honest or has integrity, because those are assignations for people. It makes no sense to apply them to atoms or the weather or the Krebs cycle or fission or mitosis. The important question for any theory is whether it is an accurate representation of reality.--Percy

I think we can all grant that people can read such anthropomorphic ideas into the theory, but the fact of the matter is that such things are not part of the theory. That sort of thinking is *not* in the theory, but it's a popular misreading of the theory that some life is more "evolved" than other life, and it is that idea that can be exploited. Yep.--Percy

Really? Here's what you said: I responded with skeptical sarcasm (not "closed-mindedness and haughtiness"). It was an invitation to explain what you really meant. Care to try again? You are again rebutting a claim not made. No one claimed that only education can promote innovation, but I'm glad you mentioned liberty. Would this be the same kind of liberty that would permit stem cell research? Why don't you point out for me where in that paragraph Bill Nye said that innovation was the only thing that was important. Mike, I think you're having trouble drawing a simple distinction. Saying a thing is important is not the same thing as saying it is the only thing that is important. Had Bill Nye said that only innovation was important then I would agree with you that he left out a few things, but he didn't say that. How is not mentioning things outside the focus of the debate being oblivious? Did Ken Ham mention tyrants and liberty in his summary? This is just you making false accusations again. Christianity is no more "trumped and downplayed" in science class than it is in Spanish and math class, and history class certainly leaves Christianity with a big black eye. And depending upon how much liberty exists in English class, that's where the biggest attack on Christian values lies. It's like you live on a foreign planet. Where do you get this stuff?I'm neither an atheist nor a liberal, but I see no reason they should feel threatened by Ken Ham. But I do see a Creation Museum in Kentucky that is miseducating kids. Seems like a threat to science to pretty much everyone but you.--Percy

Coyote appropriately notes that Darwin's theory did not spring fully grown from the womb, but Darwin did not "misread his own theory" in this case. He accepted prevailing thought that the African races were inferior to the white races, which has nothing to do with evolution. Believing this Darwin speculated how evolution might have produced such an outcome. Of course it turns out the black races are not inferior to the white races, rendering such speculation moot.As Coyote said, Darwin didn't get everything right, but he developed his theory in the 1840's and 1850's, well over 150 years ago when the fossil evidence was sparse and before the genetic mechanisms behind inheritance had been discovered.--Percy

Portraying anyone in a way that is both negative and wrong would be considered "trashing" them by most people. Darwin was not untypical of his time and probably a good deal better than most, such as Southern ministers of the time who would justify slavery based on negro inferiority and the necessity of white paternalism for their survival. Darwin abhorred slavery and would have been considered enlightened for his time.Another way of looking at it, if you don't consider it trashing Darwin, then you shouldn't consider it trashing all of 19th century Europe to mention their racist attitude.--Percy

Hi Faith,I didn't say Darwin didn't have racist attitudes. I said his racist attitudes were typical of his time and in fact better than most. To accuse Darwin of something that was true of almost all Europeans of his time makes no sense. You may as well accuse him of bathing only once a week.You are correct that Darwin believed the negro races (and a number of other races that he names in The Descent of Man) inferior to the white races, and that he believed there was an evolutionary explanation. He actually believed the white races so superior that they would outcompete and exterminate them at some point, and I see you quoted this portion.What I disagreed with most was the association of evolution with the Nazis. The Nazis were correct that a dominant race might be dominant because it evolved superior qualities, but evolution defines no inherently superior qualities. A trait is deemed superior if it allows an organism to better compete in a given environment, but that same trait may make an organism less competitive in a different environment. Move the blond fair-skinned Nazis to equatorial regions and watch them succumb to heat prostration and skin cancer.Even intelligence is not always a superior quality. The human brain carries a great price in energy demands, and an environment low in food resources would encourage a smaller overall body size, including the brain.--Percy

I don't know why people are arguing against you on this. It seems obvious to me, too, that Darwin believed the mental differences between races were real and not merely cultural. He was not afraid to draw comparisons between mental abilities.--Percy

Well said. I've been trying to make this point, but not successfully so far.--Percy

Hi Marc,The implications that you claim were there are just your own imaginings. You don't read for comprehension so much as you read looking for excuses you can make up for introducing hateful diatribes on your own favorite topics into a discussion.The facts remain the facts. Bill Nye never said or implied that only innovation was important to competitiveness. The debate was about science, and so Bill Nye appropriately confined his comments to be about science.--Percy