Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

No need to "know" anything when you have scientific imagination.HBD

Except that these words are not really synonyms. That are used in distinctive ways. Actually, the only classification rank below species officially used for animals is subspecies. Breed is also used when referring to domesticated animals. Variety is typically a legal term used for plants that have been selectively bred. subspecies typically refer to two or more groups of organisms that are inter-fertile but posses significant morphological differences. race is similar to subspecies except that the differences are not significant enough to warrant a separate classification rank.The best way to think about species is that they are distinctive populations of organisms that a separate classification enables more effective communication about that population. Inter-fertility is usually considered a criteria of separating species, but it is not always set in stone. For example, lions and tigers are, for the most part, inter-fertile, but they are different enough in their habits and morphology that they warrant a classification as two separate species. That classification enables us to talk about them more efficiently. You mean that you want your cake and eat it too. A speciation event creates two sub-populations that are significantly different from each other so as to require separate classification. You realize that you need to acknowledge that amount of change but don't want to have it recognized as any sort of evolution.HBD

This is something I posted on another forum about this idea of rapid diversification after the flood. I will just cut-N-paste it.

quote:

---

Let's start by assuming a very conservative estimate that there is 1.2 million species on earth. This number can take into account that some species are split into separate species when they shouldn't be, but those numbers are offset by species that have not yet been cataloged.

​

Next let's assume that each originally created species has undergone 2 speciation events on average. This seems rather reasonable since speciation is not doubted only the extent to which it occurs. Two speciation events on average would take into account kinds that diversified rapidly and others that remained rather static. I personally think the estimate should be much higher, but this is an extremely conservative value. This would mean that there were 400,000 original created kinds and 800,000 speciation events.

​

Now if these speciation events have occurred in only 6,000 years that would average to 133 speciation events per year. Call this hypothesis A

​

(Note if you included all extinct species and increased the current species to recent estimates the average estimate would be considerably higher. In addition if you figured this from the time of the flood - 4400 years ago, the average is again significantly increased. Also estimates say that there were only 50,000 animals on the ark, so 1.2 million species needed to diverge from that 50,000)

​

[ABE: Using these numbers, the speciation rate would be 260 speciation events per year. ]

​

Now let's plug in the numbers that scientists suggest.

​

8,700,000 species on earth. An estimated 99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct. This yields 870,000,000 species (and thus speciation events). These speciations are supposed to have occurred over at least the last 3 billion years. This yields an average of .29 speciation events per year. Call this hypothesis B.

​

Now, one of the supposed evidences against evolution is that we have observed thousands of generations of breeding experiments and have never seen one type of creature become another type of creature. Now we certainly have observed speciation events, but what I take this to mean is that we don't see multiple speciation events that lead to the formation of new kinds.

​

So ... which hypothesis fits the observation better?

​

If hypothesis A were true we should be observing all kinds of speciation events. When we breed fruit flies for generation upon generation, we should see new species emerging all the time. Speciation would be extremely rapid.

​

If hypothesis B were true, speciation should be a rare event. We would not be observing speciation events even after a couple of hundred generations.

​

Which hypothesis fits the observations better?

---

The idea for this came from creationist complaints that we don't observe evolution happening right in front of our faces. When in fact, if this idea of rapid diversification were true we should be seeing hundreds of speciation events, but we don't. Speciation events are rare, which is more in keeping with a slow, gradual progression of evolution.HBD

Hydraulic sorting is just non-sense. Why would giant sauropods like Apatosaurus be found towards the middle of the column and smaller, lighter animals like trilobites be found lower in the column? Why does fine sediment drop out of solution before coarse grains?Original location means little because all the original land surfaces were scoured off by the flood.Level of the currents still doesn't explain how extremely large animals were lifted to the upper portions of the column. Now we are getting somewhere!HBD

Speak for yourself. I know the principals behind how hydraulic sorting would work.An object will require a certain amount of energy to cause it to be suspended in water. How much energy is needed will depend on the mass of the object, its buoyancy and its "hydraulic drag". So an animal such as an Apatosaurus, which is one of the largest land animals that ever lived, would take a tremendous amount of energy to get it suspended in the flood waters. Let's say it will take 1000 units of energy (uoe) to suspend an Apatosaurus. Let's say a grain of sand will take 10 uoe to get it suspended, gravel takes 100 uoe and a trilobite takes 90 (because it is flat and can easily be carried by currents due to hydraulic drag).Note these numbers are arbitrary and only used for illustrative purposes, but it should be clear that it would take more energy to suspend an Apatosaurus than it does to suspend gravel or sand.So now the flood waters come upon the earth with a force never before seen and the energy level quickly rises to 1200 uoe, which means all of our objects are suspended in flood waters and swirling this way and that. The waters reach their peak and begin to subside, which means their energy level begins to fall. When the energy level falls below 1000 uoe the Apatosaurus carcasses begin to fall out of suspension because there is no longer enough energy to keep them suspended. However, everything else is still suspended because energy levels are still high.As the waters slowly calm, and the energy levels slowly fall, there are places the finally fall below 100 uoe and the gravel begins to fall out of suspension. But sand and trilobites are still suspended until energy levels fall again then the trilobites fall out next and finally the sand. So what we have is Apatosaurus on the bottom, then a layer of gravel, then the trilobites and then finally they are covered by sand.You can try this yourself by doing the mason jar experiment I suggested way back in Message 85. Swirl the jar to simulate the energy input of currents. But it won't have much to do with where it ends up vertically in the column. Only very, very superficially. They follow none of the rules of hydrodynamic sorting that should be expected. What else would they represent. I tried to get this across to you in the other thread. They could have been formed in 5 minutes, 5 days or 5 years, but what they represent is a period of time that that particular sediment was being deposited. I will accept the assumption that they were laid down 4400 years ago in a 40 day flood - no old time frames. Now explain how they follow ANY of the principals of hydrodynamic sorting.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Ahh yes, I was thinking something didn't look right about the word "hydraulic", but I couldn't place why."Hydrologic sorting" ... oooh ... sounds so sciency ... there must be something to it HBD

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

Good grief, remember we had to constrain the deposition of everything below the Coconino to 40 days because there are footprints in the Coconino that showed LIVING animals? They all have to be dead at the end of the 40 days ... they don't get a whole year to scamper around underwater.HBD

I am not clear on this... is AIG being denied 501(c) status or are they only being denied incentives to build the park? It does seem as if the park should qualify for 501(c) status.It seems, from the article you referenced, that what the state had a problem with is that AIG would not pledge to not discriminate against hiring non-Christians, which would put AIG at odds with receiving public monies. However, their are ways around this, like having employees sign an agreement that you will support the institution's "mission." In other words, you don't have to BE a Christian, you just have to pretend to be one (I mean act like one) as long as you work there. There are plenty of non-profit Christian institutions that hire only "Christians" yet still meet federal guidelines.I guess I don't get what the problem is and why AIG thinks they are entitled to tax rebates if they won't follow the rules.I suspect that Ham is having trouble getting this project launched and is trying to make it out to look like it was the Big Bad Wolf who has blown his house down.HBD

Religious organizations are NOT required to hire people who do not share their beliefs. That is religious organizations that do not accept public money. Once you accept public money, whether a religious organization or not, you cannot discriminate.I attended a local Christian liberal arts university. At one time, you had to sign a personal confession of faith to either attend as a student or work as an employee - whether faculty or staff. However, at that time they did not receive federal money; for example, you could not get a Pell Grant while attending there. Then about the same time they made the transition from a college to a university, they began accepting federal money. After that point they could no longer require a statement of faith. What they did was to declare their mission - something to the effect of "providing a Christian liberal arts education and helping students make their faith relevant in our world." Something to that effect.So in order to work there you had to sign a statement that you would agree to support the university in their mission and that you would abstain from behavior that was deemed inappropriate; you know, the 20 commandments. That's it. You didn't have to be a Christian - you could be Muslim, atheist, whatever, as long as you agree to support the mission and have "good" behavior.That's all Ark Park needed to do. Obviously they shouldn't have to hire someone who would say "Now over here you can see this completely ridiculous recreation of a human riding a dinosaur, which we all know is utterly absurd." But if you accept public money you cannot exclude someone for working for you because of their association with a particular religion or ethnic group, and assorted other things. That's the law. Of course Ham and his lawyer are going to read that law differently... that's what they do...HBD