Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 61 of 824 (718262)
02-05-2014 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
02-05-2014 6:28 AM


Re: Disappointing
And you continue to fail because you really don't know what you're talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 6:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 62 of 824 (718263)
02-05-2014 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
02-05-2014 2:36 PM


Re: Disappointing
Saying it over and over again won't make it true, Faith. We test the veracity of Geology every time we apply it to the exploration and DISCOVERY of natural resources.
We find the gold, copper, and oil. What do Creationists find?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 2:36 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2014 1:51 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 63 of 824 (718314)
02-06-2014 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by roxrkool
02-05-2014 8:36 PM


Re: Disappointing
quote:
We find the gold, copper, and oil. What do Creationists find?
Glen Morton found that his Creationist teachers had lied to him. Does that count ? :-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by roxrkool, posted 02-05-2014 8:36 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 64 of 824 (718321)
02-06-2014 3:45 AM


Geology HIstorical and Interpretive
Unbelievable how you all deny the most obvious point. I just read through the latest posts and it's really amazing.
Here's a reminder from that article Roxrkool posted way back there:
Geological Reasoning: Geology as an Historical and Interpretive Science
Geology was also seen
as having a host of problems that undercut
its claims to knowledge: incompleteness of
data, because of the gaps in and the poor
resolution of the stratigraphic record; the
lack of experimental control that is possible
in the laboratory-based sciences; and the
great spans of time required for geologic processes
to take place, making direct observation
difficult or impossible.
Somebody back down the thread a ways made a big deal out of the "was" in that paragraph, but in context there's no implication that this view of Geology has changed, certainly there's no reason it could or would have changed, it is what it is, and the author doesn't say anything to change it. In fact all the author is interested in is taking the interpretive and historical science of Geology and deriving a philosophy from it.
All I want noticed here is that Geology, the part that's about the unwitnessed past, IS historical and interpretive, which is a different kind of science than the laboratory-based sciences, and because of that it has apparently had a reputation among NON-CREATIONISTS for being short on its claims to knowledge. If a non-Creationist can acknowledge that, why can't everybody here?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by JonF, posted 02-06-2014 7:25 AM Faith has replied
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2014 7:30 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 824 (718322)
02-06-2014 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
02-05-2014 3:47 PM


NO! Historical science is NOT the same as testable science
It's crucially important that this insane accusation stop that says creationists are opposed to Science as such. That's the BIG lie that's bandied about here and that Bill Nye perpetuated. There is no problem whatever for creationists in appreciation and engaging in the normal sciences that are testable.
I will give you that creationist scientists can do actual science and have done so in the past. The funny thing is that these discoveries aren't based on the ever-changing model of science that is required for creationism, but rather on the hard, testable sciences based on the physical laws of nature.
There is no contradiction whatever between creationism and the hard testable sciences based on the physical laws of nature. There is no "ever-changing model of science required for creationism." You are confounding the efforts of creationists to defend the Flood, which is the creationist approach to the INTERPRETIVE HISTORICAL PART OF THE SCIENCE, with the kind of work required in the hard sciences, which ought to be obviously a different kind of science. This is SO obvious for me to have to keep defending it among people who pride themselves on their scientific reasoning is ludicrous. But you go right on denying the obvious:
There is no difference between historical science and observational science, this is simply a red herring made up by the creation movement to confuse the believers into denying that which they could observe for themselves.
The difference is patent, and I just posted again that article that shows that NONcreationists recognize the difference. Funny you all here fight it when you should also acknowledge it.
All science is testable, even the long age of the Earth, it is tested by disproving that which does not work, such as a young Earth.
Sorry but you are very confused. You cannot disprove anything about the past. All you have is interpretations. Really, this ought to be obvious. The sciences of the unwitnessed past are NOT testable, certainly the age of the Earth isn't, nor even the age of any given formation as ought to be obvious in the constantly readjusting of dates given for this and that. It's ALL speculation.
Example: You know there must be a past, correct? There is no guarantee that it is any length in time, I claim it began last Thursday. You return this with, well I have a receipt for an item purchased on January 7th. Now, I am forced to retreat further back to stating that it was actually the Thursday before the 7th of January. We continue to gather evidence that forces my beliefs on when the past began further back, we are testing a longer past through the disproving of a short one.
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE PAST THAT WE'VE ALL LIVED THROUGH, THIS IS ABOUT THE PREHISTORIC OR UNWITNESSED PAST. There are tons of witnesses to all kinds of claims one could make within the historic past and certainly within the past that living people have experienced. You guys are just not thinking.
This is similar to what the original individuals calculating the age of the Earth went through, albeit on a much smaller scale. They started with an age of 6,000 years, just as you did but the evidence forced them to consistently push this further and further back.
No, the EVIDENCE did not push them back, their incredulity when faced with certain evidence caused them to push back. There is a huge difference. Hutton looked at Siccar Point and subjectively decided it had to be millions of years old. The evidence was the formation itself, the angular unconformity, but the idea of millions of years was an INTERPRETATION, a SPECULATION, his own idea of how it must have formed, that HE COULD NOT PROVE. It was argued for years in the science societies BECAUSE there is no proof that would be given, only his own thought process. THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I happen to think angular unconformities do NOT require a lot of time to form and I've argued that here many times. I can't prove that either, but it can be argued just as he argued for his view. THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE FOR THE UNWITNESSED PAST. Speculation, reasoning, argument, imaginative reconstructions, there is no laboratory test you can do. IT IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF SCIENCE.
You are now left with, as Bill Nye put it, an extraordinary claim because the evidence all points a different way
NO, THE RECEIVED INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE POINTS THE OTHER WAY, NOT THE EVIDENCE ITSELF. It contradicts the creationist interpretation, but it has nothing on the creationist interpretation except that it's come to dominate the minds of conventional scientists.
(unless you posit changing laws of nature which would also require extraordinary evidence).
Nobody is changing the laws of nature, this is just a ridiculous piece of evolutionist bias. And nothing extraordinary is required.
And as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Yet, creationists simply say, "The Bible" (Such as Ken Ham did all night), as their extraordinary evidence. This is not sufficient to deny the reality and evidence we can witness with our own eyes, which is why Bill Nye asked individuals to actually look at their world, which would be a powerful motivator against creationism.
Except he isn't looking at the world but at the world through his own interpretive biases. This is the part you all fail to see.
Ken Ham's description required, as shown by Bill during the debate, an enormous adjustment to the laws of nature, such as 11 new species every day to equal that which is extant (33 new according to Ham's revised "Kinds" list), 170 summer-winter cycles each year to account for snow-ice patterns, and for the trees about three growth rings per year, plus surviving underwater....Where is the evidence of these changing laws, outside of just assuming God told us right? Whereas, science has evidence of the laws of nature staying constant, so much so that they are able to make predicitions about theories such as where individual species may turn up (Tiktaalik), how radioactivity will work (smoke detectors/Nuclear fission), or how long sediments take to lay down and become lithified and the process that occurs (Reading the rocks and anticipating future findings). Even the creationist scientists have to use these natural laws when they are actually doing science, instead of just trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the other believers to keep them deluded.
Bill Nye blathered on about a lot of strange stuff which Ham had not brought up and which Ham did not address at any point. That is not a debate and you can't get away with just asserting such stuff either.
Let's not get off into other issues. The issue I brought up that you are supposedly answering is the fact that the sciences of the past are not testable. Stick with that.
You acknowledged SLIGHTLY that the Flood could account for the fossils but you need to do better than that. You need to acknowledge that the billions of fossils are in fact excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood. This isn't the same as saying it PROVES there was such a Flood, but it IS excellent evidence and to deny it is indefensible. Also the strata themselves are excellent evidence for the Flood. You need to acknowledge these things instead of prattling on about all the things you think disprove the Flood. FIRST the fossils and the strata ARE excellent evidence for such an event. Start there.
Then you can go on and acknowledge that the sciences of the past cannot be tested the way laboratory sciences can be, that their explanations must remain hypotheses for that reason. It's wacko to deny this.
Also acknowledge that there is NO problem for creationists with NORMAL TESTABLE SCIENCE, that it is ONLY the interpretive historical sciences of the unwitnessed past that creationists object to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-05-2014 3:47 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2014 10:31 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 66 of 824 (718323)
02-06-2014 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by New Cat's Eye
02-05-2014 4:56 PM


FRAUD NOT SCIENCE
CS, your example proves what I'm saying though you think you are answering me.
Those rocks formed in the past. Scientists compared them to processes that happen today that form rocks like that. They concluded that water was included in the process.
So therefore, in the past, there must have been water on mars. It isn't there today.
So there you have it, using physical evidence from the past to make conclusions about things that must have happened even though there were no witnesses to it.
The explanation that the rocks on Mars were formed by water is simply a reasonable guess, a hypothesis. The hard sciences can TEST their hypotheses, that is the difference. You cannot test this one, it can only remain a hypothesis.
It may be a very reasonable guess, but it cannot be replicated and tested to it can never be proved to a certainty.
Same with the Grand Canyon Supergroup. It is INTERPRETED to be the root of a former mountain range. There is no way to test this, no way to prove it, it is now and forever an interpretation, a hypothesis, except that as with all these claims that scientists ought to know better than to assert, they go right ahead and treat it as a fact. Presentations of the formation of the GC intended for the public simply describe it as a fact that there was once this mountain range that eroded down flat and then the strata were built above that and so on. THIS IS FRAUD. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.
Likewise with the claims about the genetic relatedness of various creatures. This cannot be proved but it is nevertheless asserted as FACT simply because you all want to believe it's true. You argue from mere similarities to genetic descent. THIS IS FRAUD, NOT SCIENCE.
Even the evolution of the human eye is asserted to be fact based on the examples from different kinds of animals of eyes that can be thought about in terms of stages of development although these animals are all from different parts of the Linnaean tree and no evolution was possible from one to another. It is this sort of cobweb-spinning hypothesizing interpretive castle-building that evolution is built from and yet it is palmed off on the youth of the world as FACT. THIS IS FRAUD, THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.
Speculate all you want, but since in the nature of the sciences of the unwitnessed past you can't test or prove any of it, at least have the humility to recognize that all you have is speculations and hypotheses. That would be honest. Calling your fantasies Fact is FRAUD, NOT SCIENCE.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2014 4:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2014 5:12 AM Faith has replied
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-07-2014 12:32 PM Faith has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 824 (718324)
02-06-2014 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Phat
02-05-2014 5:42 PM


Re: Ham did fine
Hi Phat. I am not a creationist in any form. I think the question of the divine or the godlike can be interesting in the philosophers toolbox, but I am not convinced it ever has or will become reified as a thing amenable to epistemologies of any sort. More to the point, I think the gods have always only been invented--but that's what makes them interesting, even useful for good things.
I haven't the energy to change my avatar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Phat, posted 02-05-2014 5:42 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 824 (718325)
02-06-2014 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
02-06-2014 4:38 AM


Re: FRAUD NOT SCIENCE
I don't think you know what it means "to test".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 4:38 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:13 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 69 of 824 (718329)
02-06-2014 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
02-06-2014 3:45 AM


Re: Geology HIstorical and Interpretive
Here's a reminder from that article Roxrkool posted way back there:
Geological Reasoning: Geology as an Historical and Interpretive Science
Geology was also seen
as having a host of problems that undercut
its claims to knowledge: incompleteness of
data, because of the gaps in and the poor
resolution of the stratigraphic record; the
lack of experimental control that is possible
in the laboratory-based sciences; and the
great spans of time required for geologic processes
to take place, making direct observation
difficult or impossible.
Somebody back down the thread a ways made a big deal out of the "was" in that paragraph, but in context there's no implication that this view of Geology has changed, certainly there's no reason it could or would have changed, it is what it is, and the author doesn't say anything to change it. In fact all the author is interested in is taking the interpretive and historical science of Geology and deriving a philosophy from it.
Both Percy and I pointed out and proved that the author was speaking of erroneous views such as yours, and went on to argue quite persuasively that those views are wrong. That quote is not evidence against the usefulness and veracity of geology.
All I want noticed here is that Geology, the part that's about the unwitnessed past, IS historical and interpretive, which is a different kind of science than the laboratory-based sciences, and because of that it has apparently had a reputation among NON-CREATIONISTS for being short on its claims to knowledge. If a non-Creationist can acknowledge that, why can't everybody here?
Reputations don't matter. Evidence matters.
You keep on telling we can't know what happened in the past and we''ll continue to do what you say we can't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 3:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:18 PM JonF has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 70 of 824 (718330)
02-06-2014 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
02-06-2014 3:45 AM


Two Simple Questions for Faith
1) Is a historical and interpretive science still a science?
2) if a method has been tested, how can it be said to be untestable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 3:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:26 PM PaulK has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 71 of 824 (718331)
02-06-2014 7:30 AM


Liddle on the "distinction"
Elizabeth has a very good post on the faux distinction that Ham and Faith are pushing: Historical vs Observational Science. Of course Faith won't have a chance of understanding it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:28 PM JonF has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 72 of 824 (718347)
02-06-2014 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
02-06-2014 4:19 AM


Re: NO! Historical science is NOT the same as testable science
There is no contradiction whatever between creationism and the hard testable sciences based on the physical laws of nature.
Yes there is. For example, geology is a hard testable science based on the laws of nature.
You cannot disprove anything about the past.
So if someone were to say that you died last Tuesday ... ?
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE PAST THAT WE'VE ALL LIVED THROUGH, THIS IS ABOUT THE PREHISTORIC OR UNWITNESSED PAST.
OK, so if someone were to say that there were once living stegosauruses ... ?
Bill Nye blathered on about a lot of strange stuff which Ham had not brought up and which Ham did not address at any point. That is not a debate ...
So we should ignore Nye's points ... because Ham was unable to address them?
We've seen this in your own half-baked attempts to debate. You seem to think that the only legitimate things to talk about are the things creationists want to talk about, rather than the things that make them want to run away and hide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 4:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 6:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 73 of 824 (718357)
02-06-2014 12:04 PM


Well, even Pat Robertson thinks Ham is bad, and wants him to SHUT UP.
Pat Robertson begs Ken Ham to shut up | Salon.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 02-06-2014 12:08 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 75 by Theodoric, posted 02-06-2014 12:35 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 02-06-2014 12:45 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:34 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 74 of 824 (718358)
02-06-2014 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ramoss
02-06-2014 12:04 PM


ramoss writes:
Well, even Pat Robertson thinks Ham is bad, and wants him to SHUT UP.
I'm reminded of a parakeet fighting with his own reflection in the mirror.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ramoss, posted 02-06-2014 12:04 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 75 of 824 (718360)
02-06-2014 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ramoss
02-06-2014 12:04 PM


Well as Faith is sure to show us, Pat Robertson isn't a real Christian.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ramoss, posted 02-06-2014 12:04 PM ramoss 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