|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I was glad that Ken Ham hit the "you weren't there" theme as hard as he did, which is basic to the very important distinction between testable science and the sciences of the past which are purely interpretive, which I've been trying to get across here forever. It is indeed one of the foundational stupidities of creationism. But as Modulous points out, deploying this bit of idiocy in this debate is shooting himself in the foot. He was meant to be pretending that creationism is good science, instead he pretended that there can be no good science of the past. For this debate, it was absolutely the wrong lie to tell.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, he's quite right, historical science is not subject to testing and verification as the hard sciences are ... This is, of course, not true.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, this accusation that Creationists are opposed to Science needs to be put down because THAT's the lie ... But it is manifestly true. Ken Ham couldn't have displayed more contempt for the scientific method if he'd burned it in effigy, and as for the results of science, he rejects any that conflict with his preconceived dogma.
... because you all refuse to recognize that there IS an important difference between the historical sciences about the unwitnessed past and science that can be subjected to testing in the present. That is not a difference. All the historical sciences can be tested in the present. That's how they're done. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I've also acknowledged that some things about the past are knowable such as the sorts of creatures that once lived. OK, so you agree in principle that it's possible to learn about the unwitnessed prehistoric past by looking at evidence in the present.
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. But obviously we can test those ideas in the same way, by looking at the evidence that remains to us in the present. And this is, in fact, how these things are known.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
How utterly ridiculous. The worldwide billions of fossils are terrific evidence for a worldwide catastrophe that buried them all at one time; the strata could only have been formed in water, and their immensity and existence throughout the world suggest an immense and worldwide catastrophe. This is so obvious it takes dishonesty to deny it. Or stupidity. Or geology.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh they certainly are. For all you scientifically trained minds not to recognize this simple obvious point just makes this discussion futile. You're all tied up in your revisionist definitions of science I guess, that must be a product of thinking things that can't be proved are in fact proved, that hypotheses are really Fact. Not what I was taught in science classes, not what I read in science books. Perhaps you shouldn't read "science books" by religious apologists, and read science books written by scientists instead. Then you'd know the same things about science that scientifically trained minds know. Wouldn't that be something?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I was talking about science classes and science books I read BEFORE I became a Christian. So I suppose quoting some of them would be out of the question?
Everybody here is claiming to know things for sure they couldn't possibly know for sure because they concern the untestable past ... Like your claim that there were once living stegosauruses?
... and that sort of thinking would have been laughed at by scientists fifty to sixty years ago. Even fifty to sixty years ago, scientists knew that there were once living stegosauruses. Also that the Earth was more than 6,000 years old. Are you going to try to change the history of science now?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That would be where we should expect the greatest changes, but even the change from generation to generation due to sexual recombination ought to produce identifiable change over a few thousand years. And since sedimentary rocks were caused by the flood, all the intermediate forms would be in unlithified sediment, correct? And not in the rocks?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
What? It seemed simple enough. You and Ham suppose that there was quite a lot of evolution packed in to the few thousand years after the flood, as in this picture from AiG:
Unless you and Ham are extreme saltationists, who think that one day a lion gave birth to a tiger, etc, then there must have been intermediate forms. Since sedimentary rocks were formed at the Flood, they were formed before this burst of evolution. Consequently, if the Floodists are right, we would expect to see intermediate forms, but not in the rocks; rather, we would expect to find them in the sediments laid down post-Flood by non-magical processes. Correct?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There were no post-Flood STRATA. My post did not contain the word "STRATA". I said "sediments laid down post-Flood by non-magical processes."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Which wasn't clear which is why I emphasized that there are no post-Flood STRATA. What sediments you have in mind and why this is relevant I have no clue. * sigh * You know the sediments in which we find, for example, Roman coins? Babylonian pottery? Anglo-Saxon beadwork? The ruins of Pompeii? Those sediments would be post-Flood, would they not? Now, since you and Ham believe that superduperevolution happened after the Flood, the intermediate forms should be in these post-Flood sediments, correct? And not in lithified sediment, which the two of you ascribe to the Flood, right?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But I'm suspicious of the word "sediments" although I'm sure it's technically correct enough ... Perhaps on this one occasion you could get over your lifelong suspicion of correct things long enough to answer the question.
I don't know what Ham said about this but I certainly don't believe anything "super" happened after the Flood, just that there was enough genetic variability in the pairs of the Kinds to produce all the varieties or breeds or races since then. Well, I call it "superevolution" because it would be much faster than ordinary evolutionists say evolution can go. Call it what you like, "mega-evolution", perhaps, or "hyperevolution"?
Here's where you lose me. I have NO idea of "intermediate" forms of anything. Do you propose, then, that the superevolution (or whatever you want to call it) was so fast as to be actually saltational?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I call it ordinary microevolution, there's nothing "super" about it. Er ... the speed. The speed would be "super" and not "ordinary". Especially if you hold that the evolution was actually saltational. Do you?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The speed only seems "super" because of the weird expectations promoted by evolutionism that it has to take a long time. Because of the non-weird expectations promoted by observation, Faith. Evolution observably doesn't go that fast.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024