Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(5)
Message 388 of 824 (719341)
02-13-2014 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Jaf
02-13-2014 4:48 AM


Re: This debate was Mind = Blown for me.
Jaf writes:
His points on the intentional switching of meanings of the word science and the word evolution (which is patently pernicious and intentionally misleading at worst.
The problem Mr Ham has is that science owns the definitions of what science is and what is not; not Mr Ham. And the definition is pretty clear:
Science
noun
1.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
It makes no distinction about what can be observed and when. In fact it can't do so because science is the study of reality and reality doesn't have a statute of limitations on when it can be studied and when it can't be.
All your Mr Ham is trying to do is prevent science looking at things that he knows will provide answers which contradict his beliefs and therefore jeopardise his business model which is to extract cash from gullible donors to his institute.
This little sidestep by Mr Ham is simply a riff on the older lie that because no-one was there to witness [the big bang/evolution/rocks forming] we can know nothing about them. He's patently wrong.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 4:48 AM Jaf has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 527 of 824 (719669)
02-16-2014 4:29 AM


It's an odd thing creationists try to do with evolution; attempting to discredit the theory by discrediting the discoverer. They need a way of establishing in their minds a reason - any reason - to dismiss it. It's even odder when its known that Darwin was a very decent bloke from a good and respectable, Christian family. And as for his alleged racism, his views were extremely enlightened for his time:
He learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who had accompanied Charles Waterton in the South American rainforest, and often sat with this "very pleasant and intelligent man".[21]
But I often wish that he been a murderer and child rapist that eat black babies for breakfast so that we could put aside this silly prejudice.
The discovery is independent of the discoverer.
"Ohm's law states that the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the potential difference across the two points."
This would remain true even if Lucifer himself had told us about it.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 556 of 824 (719724)
02-17-2014 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 554 by Faith
02-17-2014 2:51 AM


Re: Trashing Darwin?
Faith writes:
Well, I've already indicated what I see in the paragraph that suggests Darwin has an evolutionary explanation for the differences between the races as he has for the differences between the species.
And so what if Darwin was a racist? This would have as much effect on the theory as it would if he was a transvestite. It's irrelevant, and, as it happens, untrue.
And, bye-the-way, some elements of racial differences *are* evolution driven, the obvious one being skin colour.
Human skin color ranges in variety from the darkest brown to the lightest pinkish-white hues. Human skin pigmentation is the result of natural selection. Skin pigmentation in human beings evolved to primarily regulate the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, controlling its biochemical effects.[1]

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Faith, posted 02-17-2014 2:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024