Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 76 of 824 (718363)
02-06-2014 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ramoss
02-06-2014 12:04 PM


Holy cow! Robertson is a loon of the first rank, I can't believe he said this:
Pat Robertson writes:
Let’s face it, there was a bishop [James Ussher] who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years, Robertson began. There ain’t no way that’s possible To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible.
We’ve got to be realistic that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that’s found in science, Robertson continued, and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.
Let’s be real, Robertson begged, let’s not make a joke of ourselves.
Is Robertson having an attack of sanity in his dotage?
--Percy

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

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 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

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


Message 78 of 824 (718367)
02-06-2014 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by TrueCreation
02-06-2014 5:12 AM


Re: FRAUD NOT SCIENCE
I don't think you know what it means "to test".
I don't think YOU know what I mean about testing. Stay out of the discussion if you are only going to shoot out accusations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2014 5:12 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by TrueCreation, posted 02-07-2014 9:36 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 79 of 824 (718370)
02-06-2014 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by JonF
02-06-2014 7:25 AM


Re: Geology HIstorical and Interpretive
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.
You didn't prove anything. That article is referring to the NATURE of Geology as interpretive and historical -- which isn't about simple physical Geology but about the speculations about the unwitnessed geological past. It IS interpretive and historical and there is no way around it.
Nobody said anything against the usefulness or veracity of Geology either. The point is that when you are dealing with the unwitnessed past you cannot ever have certainty about your theories, which should always therefore be couched in the language of hypothesis instead of treated as Fact and crammed down the throats of people who have a different idea about the unwitnessed past.
And that's true, period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by JonF, posted 02-06-2014 7:25 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2014 1:35 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 104 by JonF, posted 02-06-2014 3:16 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 80 of 824 (718376)
02-06-2014 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by PaulK
02-06-2014 7:30 AM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
1) Is a historical and interpretive science still a science?
Of course, although when dealing with the absurd claims that come out of it and are imposed on the rest of us as Fact I often doubt it. But it isn't science in the sense that sciences that can be tested in the present are science.
2) if a method has been tested, how can it be said to be untestable?
What are you talking about? What method has been tested and what does that have to do with what I'm talking about?
Take CS's example of the rocks on Mars. It looks like a reasonable guess, a hypothesis, that water was involved in that formation. But how are you going to test that to know for sure since there is now no water on Mars? The rocks look like they once flowed, had some liquid form to them, but the thick forward edge suggests something viscous to me, not water. So it's possible to have different interpretations and not be able to prove which is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2014 7:30 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2014 1:34 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 81 of 824 (718377)
02-06-2014 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by JonF
02-06-2014 7:30 AM


Re: Liddle on the "distinction"
Bring the argument over here if you want it addressed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 02-06-2014 7:30 AM JonF has not replied

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


Message 82 of 824 (718378)
02-06-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dr Adequate
02-06-2014 10:31 AM


Re: NO! Historical science is NOT the same as testable science
Sorry, sometimes I forget to qualify the word "past" with PREHISTORIC or UNWITNESSED. I certainly am not ever talking about the past living people have all shared or the historical past for which there are multiple written witnesses.
I've also acknowledged that some things about the past are knowable such as the sorts of creatures that once lived. ABE: You can point to their bones and reconstruct their bodies and know that nothing like that is living now. The objection is about all those theories about their age, when they lived and the imputing of time to a rock along with fanciful ideas about what that "era" was supposedly like, all determined from a few bits of things found in the rock, which are better explained in other ways. /ABE These things are all speculative and unprovable / untestable.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2014 10:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-06-2014 1:56 PM Faith has replied
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2014 2:53 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 83 of 824 (718379)
02-06-2014 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ramoss
02-06-2014 12:04 PM


Robertson is not reliable on a lot of things. There are unfortunately plenty of Christians who cave in to the claims of what they think is unanswerable science, sad but true. There are quite a few of them here.

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

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


(1)
Message 84 of 824 (718380)
02-06-2014 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
02-06-2014 1:26 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
quote:
Of course, although when dealing with the absurd claims that come out of it and are imposed on the rest of us as Fact I often doubt it. But it isn't science in the sense that sciences that can be tested in the present are science.
Well, you need to make a case for there being a major difference there. But OK, the "historical and interpretive" thing is a bit of a red herring.
quote:
What are you talking about? What method has been tested and what does that have to do with what I'm talking about?
Does it matter ? If something has been done then that proves that it can be done, doesn't it ? How could anyone say otherwise ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:50 PM PaulK has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 85 of 824 (718381)
02-06-2014 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
02-06-2014 1:18 PM


Re: Geology HIstorical and Interpretive
The point is that when you are dealing with the unwitnessed past you cannot ever have certainty about your theories, which should always therefore be couched in the language of hypothesis instead of treated as Fact and crammed down the throats of people who have a different idea about the unwitnessed past.
When I deal with the past, as an archaeologist, I can learn a great many things, whether creationists say Yea or Nay!
The principal thing we can learn about the past is the dating. That lets us put the everything that we find into a chronological perspective. And from a single dated skeleton I can learn a great deal, including age, sex, stature, pathologies, diet, and genealogy. Now that's a real witness whether creationists say Yea or Nay!
And we can put the data from a lot of archaeological tests and construct hypotheses. And then we can test those hypotheses. When successful predictions are consistently made, and there is no significant evidence to the contrary, we can elevate that hypothesis to the level of a theory. Whether creationists say Yea or Nay!
Creationists deny that our dating is accurate, but they have never been able to demonstrate why or how. The most they have is empty claims based on their a priori beliefs. You're a poster-child for this.
I'll leave the rest of the mistakes in your post to others to correct, if anyone wants to bother. (You wouldn't learn anything anyway.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:18 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 86 of 824 (718383)
02-06-2014 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by PaulK
02-06-2014 1:34 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
Well, you need to make a case for there being a major difference there. But OK, the "historical and interpretive" thing is a bit of a red herring.
No, this is a crucial and central issue in this debate and it needs to be recognized.
The accusations of creationists that we oppose Science are false and it's all related to the problem of the different kinds of science, the sciences of the PREHISTORIC UNWITNESSED past versus the testable hard sciences. This is a real and important distinction. Creationists have NO problem WHATEVER with the REAL hard sciences as I've said over and over and Ham argued in the debate as well, where he had video of creationist scientists who asserted their YEC beliefs although they do solid productive real science. THIS HAS TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED. It's a big fat lie to keep characterizing creationists as antiscientific.
As for making a case, CS's example of the rocks on Mars works. Water MAY explain it but you have no way of proving it.
The standard interpretation of the Supergroup beneath the Grand Canyon is an example I also brought up. You can't know or prove that it was ever the root of a mountain range and presenting that mere hypothesis as Fact is false science.
You also cannot prove that humans and apes are genetically related, and treating THAT as fact is fraudulent science.
You also cannot prove from a collection of different kinds of eyeballs possessed by a variety of different creatures that the human eye evolved, and to call it fact is fraudulent science.
When you have an hypothesis call it a hypothesis. Stop pretending you know things you can't know.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2014 1:34 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-06-2014 2:04 PM Faith has replied
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2014 2:11 PM Faith has replied
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2014 3:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(3)
Message 87 of 824 (718384)
02-06-2014 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
02-06-2014 1:31 PM


Re: NO! Historical science is NOT the same as testable science
Faith writes:
Sorry, sometimes I forget to qualify the word "past" with PREHISTORIC or UNWITNESSED. I certainly am not ever talking about the past living people have all shared or the historical past for which there are multiple written witnesses.
Then, back to the question of why has no one...in recorded history....pointed out these multiplying species? According to the flood model you would have 11 new species every day, all starting from the same geographical location (Mt. Ararat) throughout the entireity of human civilization(post-flood), where are the recorded mentions of this? Of course, now you'll say that it was commonplace so no one remarked on it, but com'n stop with your special pleading. Your method is not science because it refuses to predict future results, does not accept all the evidence, and showhorns in a placeholder for things we don't understand.
Your boy Ken Ham did the exact same thing you are doing throughout the debate and ignored evidence without trying to give a different explanation outside of "God tells me it's this way, so that's how it is." If you want a magic man in the sky who can change the laws of nature and have animals evolve at a rate that is completely unfathomable to modern evolutionary thinking, and a canyon carved by magic water that sorts items differently than every other example of water we have plus can carve an enormous canyon in ways that have never been observed then feel free to believe that and teach it within your church. But don't, for one second, consider it science because it spits in the face of everything that science is and that is pure disrespect for the individuals who have chosen honesty over blantant falsehoods and completed their jobs regardless of their beliefs. Enjoy your magic solutions, I'll trust in evidence.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 2:01 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

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


Message 88 of 824 (718385)
02-06-2014 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
02-06-2014 1:56 PM


Re: NO! Historical science is NOT the same as testable science
Then, back to the question of why has no one...in recorded history....pointed out these multiplying species? According to the flood model you would have 11 new species every day, all starting from the same geographical location (Mt. Ararat) throughout the entireity of human civilization(post-flood), where are the recorded mentions of this? Of course, now you'll say that it was commonplace so no one remarked on it, but com'n stop with your special pleading. Your method is not science because it refuses to predict future results, does not accept all the evidence, and showhorns in a placeholder for things we don't understand.
What "multiplying species" are you talking about?
I really didn't follow that part of the debate, sorry, so I have no idea what the issue is. Nye made a lot of remarks that didn't relate to anything I could see. If you want to make a case out of this, do so but you'll have to explain it all from scratch.
All I'm interested in here is the general principle that creationists are not antiscientific and have no problem with actual testable science and that the false accusation of antiscience is due to the failure to recognize that there is a real difference between the sciences of the untestable unwitnessed prehistoric past and the HARD sciences where you can replicate and test their claims. This really should be acknowledged.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-06-2014 1:56 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-06-2014 2:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(1)
Message 89 of 824 (718386)
02-06-2014 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
02-06-2014 1:50 PM


Re: Two Simple Questions for Faith
Faith writes:
where he had video of creationist scientists who asserted their YEC beliefs although they do solid productive real science.
They do this science based upon the known laws of nature and the ideal that these laws will act nearly identical no matter the circumstances, not on creationist hokum. Or, such as the astronomer he showed, they must posit a lying deity that would create light already in motion otherwise there is no way billions of stars should be visible to us.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 1:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 2:23 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(1)
Message 90 of 824 (718387)
02-06-2014 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
02-06-2014 2:01 PM


Re: NO! Historical science is NOT the same as testable science
Starting from the 7,000 kinds originally posited by Ken Ham, to get to the current number of species in the world from the ark, 4,500 years ago, these species would need to be micro-evolving at the rate of 11 new species every single day. Now Ham is claiming kinds only total 1,000, which brings the number of species every day up to 33 new species. How have no humans, who also would have started from the Ark landing spot same as the animals, seen these species multiplying and evolving at the rate required for your scenario. You claim Bill Nye made points that did not affect anything, but these directly shows the ludicrous insertions into known mechanisms that creationist must go through, completely on the base of zero evidence (during a time when humans could write, too). Simply Amazing!

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 2:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 7:06 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken 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