U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-06-2014, 07:02 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,089,205 times
Reputation: 6081

Advertisements

... although he can't articulate exactly what the alternative is. Apparently many Christians found Ham's performance in the debate with Bill Nye disappointing.

Christians Can Do Better Than Ken Ham - Brad Kramer reacts to last night's debate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2014, 06:34 AM
 
39,172 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5092
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
... although he can't articulate exactly what the alternative is. Apparently many Christians found Ham's performance in the debate with Bill Nye disappointing.

Christians Can Do Better Than Ken Ham - Brad Kramer reacts to last night's debate
I don't want to dance on his grave, because I though he was sincere and articulate and his presentation would have been very persuasive if I wasn't aware of what he was overlooking in the need to make the Bible -literalist creationist beliefs stand up.

I almost thought that Ham came across better than Nye, and that is quite an achievement since there is nothing that makes my breakfast revolt more than Creationist garbage presented in an Australian accent.

The point is whether Nye's arguments were better than Ham's. I have to say that I didn't see it all - just the intros and the first thirty -minute exchanges, but really, Nye's take on the grand canyon made more sense and the point about the evidence for sequential stratified fossils is a killer for Ham's Creationist micro -evolved orchard of species -lines from basic 'kinds'.

Similarly, Ham's efforts to make belief in the bible- account as valid in belief in the long -term evolutionary picture were done as well as anyone, but you only have to be told that the same kind of forensic back-tracking that is part and parcel of police work (tho poster who was dismissing Nye because of his argument from CSI was missing the point) is surely reliable for reconstructing what happened in the past - in archaeology, palaeontology and Geology.

And what it tells us completely refutes the YE Creationist picture, and the flood.

If Nye got that point over clearly enough, then Ken Ham, good though he was, is a dead duck. And perhaps Prof. Dawkins' misgivings are answered. Debating like this does not give creationism undeserved credibility. It is a much - needed recognition that, uncontested in a vey public and effective way, this sort of cult -stuff can do great damage.

If Christians can at least take the view that religion is the stuff of the Spirit and science is the stuff of fact and agree to keep religious Bible -literalism, dressed up in the tinsel robes of non -science OUT of the science class, we can consider this debate a job well done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,046 posts, read 18,583,829 times
Reputation: 18687
From the linked article:
Quote:
Yet until the middle voices in the public sphere, both secular and religious, can both have the humility and the courage to disown the dogmatism of Nye and Ham, we will be stuck with the polemics of last night’s debate.
This seems like a mushy, emotionally driven approach, as in we need to reach a compromise because the author is tired of listening to either/or debates. I wonder what sort of compromise the author has in mind. That scientists will continue to reject the view that the earth was created in six days and is 6000 years old in favor of agreeing that it was created over a course of three weeks and is actually 10,000 years old?

It is evidence of a mentality which is embarrassed over how weak the creationism case is, yet isn't drawing the proper conclusion and instead thinks the answer may be something along the likes of "creationism-lite."

Compromise is vital to social life, but has no place at all in the field of science where things are not determined by popularity polls and thus subject to adjustment to please the majority.

This is a matter of science vs mythology and I do not think that "scientific mythology" or "mythological science" are viable concepts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,089,205 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
And perhaps Prof. Dawkins' misgivings are answered. Debating like this does not give creationism undeserved credibility. It is a much - needed recognition that, uncontested in a vey public and effective way, this sort of cult -stuff can do great damage.
It's a bit of a tap dance, a double-edged sword, because you don't want to give creationism a platform to put its message in front of the gullible and gain from the faux legitimacy of taking part in a debate that they aren't honestly engaging with. However, in this case, it was not tantamount to the President of the United States giving the time of day to any of the wild conspiracy theories on offer. The topic of the debate, the independent moderation, required them to steer clear of most baseless assertions that Ham could bring up, and to simply consider which "model" -- Ham's or Nye's -- is the better one for investigating reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
If Christians can at least take the view that religion is the stuff of the Spirit and science is the stuff of fact and agree to keep religious Bible -literalism, dressed up in the tinsel robes of non -science OUT of the science class, we can consider this debate a job well done.
Yes, and that, too, is Nye's purpose ... he is not primarily a debater of origins, but a promoter of science's value and utility in the world and an advocate for quality science education. Sticking to that focus is why he did so well.

I find it amusing that both Nye and Ham ultimately are salesmen and not so much scientists. I mean, neither have particularly impressive academic credentials and both have carved out a niche for themselves as cheerleaders for their respective points of view. But Nye has something at least to cheerlead FOR ... he can point to empirical evidence and real world accomplishments. Ham is all about circling the wagons and defending dogma in the face of evidence. It's much easier to defend evidence from dogma than the inverse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 10:57 AM
 
39,172 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5092
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
It's a bit of a tap dance, a double-edged sword, because you don't want to give creationism a platform to put its message in front of the gullible and gain from the faux legitimacy of taking part in a debate that they aren't honestly engaging with. However, in this case, it was not tantamount to the President of the United States giving the time of day to any of the wild conspiracy theories on offer. The topic of the debate, the independent moderation, required them to steer clear of most baseless assertions that Ham could bring up, and to simply consider which "model" -- Ham's or Nye's -- is the better one for investigating reality.

...
I agree, and it was a valid point, though I always thought (bearing in mind the legacy of Von Daniken, which we are STILL struggling with and which has given an extra pile of 'evidence' to Creationism AND the Muslim fundamentalists are now jumping on the YE -evolution is rubbish bandwagon) that science (never mind us) couldn't afford to ignore the creationists.

The Dover trial which was a determined effort to get Creationists teaching in the Science class (we know what 'teaching Creationism "Alongside" evolution' would look like - we saw Ken Ham doing it the other night) and that should have been a wake - up call to science that these people have to be taken on.

It isn't about seeing whether they have a case, of course. We have been looking at it for the last quarter century and they have no real case. It is now a question of making sure that they do not have a free field to claim that they do have a case, because, as I said, it can be made to look VERY convincing - if you don't hear the other side of the argument.

I'd say the tap dance or concerns are now put to bed and there is no doubt in my mind that, if you can get a fair hearing, even on the enemy turf (and all credit to Ken Ham and the Genesis people, they put on a totally fair show. I have no complaint on that score at all) it should be done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,366 posts, read 2,980,420 times
Reputation: 2032
What's really beautiful, is this wonderful section at the end, where Ham quite successfully shoots himself in the foot, and Bill Nye responds like the most charismatic of politicians.


Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham: What Would Change Your Mind? - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 03:38 AM
 
39,172 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5092
Thanks for showing the end bit - I haven't had the chance to look at the rest of the debate, but, essentially, Ken Ham is saying that nothing would change his Christianity, but he hints that he would change some of his idea about it, though clearly faith in the literal correctness of Genesis is a big article of faith with him.

I think he could perhaps be honest with himself and come to see that Genesis -literalist creationism is not valid or viable and he could still remain a Christian - as many theist evolutionists do.

Bil Nye on the other hand said that a piece of evidence that the creationists model was correct would convince him immediately. If Genesis -literalist Creationism is correct, there should be this evidence in heaps. In fact it should ALL be evidence that confirms a young earth, Flood and bioforms created all in one go.

There is not. There is not one single real piece of evidence that supports creationism. Nye said it - it is all about 'explanations'. It is about explaining why the evidence that ALL points to deep time evolution could be presented to look like it fitted the creationist belief.

But only by ignoring parts of the evidence or by misrepresenting or denying what the evidence seems to be saying.

This ought to be clearly understood by both sides, that there is no sound evidence for Genesis -literalist creation and that it all indicated evolution.

There have been in my time, some remarkable finds made that might have been at least an indication that the evolutionary model could be questioned. The T Rex 'soft tissue' shocked me when it first appeared. It turned out later that it was more like a mineralized fossil soft tissue than organic material. The 'Hadrosaur mummy' wasn't a problem as it was stone. A stone fossil plaster -cast.

The NAMI Ark was a stumper when it first appeared but it is looking more and more like a fraud. Irreducible Complexity was the best attempt to make Creationism scientific and it did what Bil Nye said - convinced one skeptic: Anthony Flew, though he never became a Christian, because accepting creation doesn't necessarily make one a Christian and accepting evolution does not necessarily make one an atheist.

In any case Behe's irreducible complexity was shown to be unsound science and I wonder whether Flew ever realized how he'd been fooled.

The arguments from Diamonds and Polonium haloes and (of course Polystrates) do not actually provide evidence for a Young earth or a flood.

The MacMurdo ankylosaur fossil that I came across just in the last few days while debating Flood evidence is a surprise and might be the nearest to evidence for a Flood, but it was found just 200 feet off shore, and is just the one fossil. There could be other explanations how it ended up in the sea, so that is not quite the One Piece of evidence that would prove Genesis and disprove evolution. I'm not entirely convinced that the reason it was in the wrong place is that it was brought in to make sunCorp look good, but We shall see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 03:42 AM
 
39,172 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5092
Thanks for showing the end bit - I haven't had the chance to look at the rest of the debate, but, essentially, Ken Ham is saying that nothing would change his Christianity, but he hints that he would change some of his idea about it, though clearly faith in the literal correctness of Genesis is a big article of faith with him.

I think he could perhaps be honest with himself and come to see that Genesis -literalist creationism is not valid or viable and he could still remain a Christian - as many theist evolutionists do.

Bil Nye on the other hand said that a piece of evidence that the creationists model was correct would convince him immediately. If Genesis -literalist Creationism is correct, there should be this evidence in heaps. In fact it should ALL be evidence that confirms a young earth, Flood and bioforms created all in one go.

There is not. There is not one single real piece of evidence that supports creationism. Nye said it - it is all about 'explanations'. It is about explaining why the evidence that ALL points to deep time evolution could be presented to look like it fitted the creationist belief.

But only by ignoring parts of the evidence or by misrepresenting or denying what the evidence seems to be saying.

This ought to be clearly understood by both sides, that there is no sound evidence for Genesis -literalist creation and that it all indicated evolution.

There have been in my time, some remarkable finds made that might have been at least an indication that the evolutionary model could be questioned. The T Rex 'soft tissue' shocked me when it first appeared. It turned out later that it was more like a mineralized fossil soft tissue than organic material. The 'Hadrosaur mummy' wasn't a problem as it was stone. A stone fossil plaster -cast.

The NAMI Ark was a stumper when it first appeared but it is looking more and more like a fraud. Irreducible Complexity was the best attempt to make Creationism scientific and it did what Bil Nye said - convinced one skeptic: Anthony Flew, though he never became a Christian, because accepting creation doesn't necessarily make one a Christian and accepting evolution does not necessarily make one an atheist.

In any case Behe's irreducible complexity was shown to be unsound science and I wonder whether Flew ever realized how he'd been fooled.

The arguments from Diamonds and Polonium haloes and (of course Polystrates) do not actually provide evidence for a Young earth or a flood.

The MacMurray (Sorry nor McMurdo) ankylosaur fossil that I came across just in the last few days while debating Flood evidence is a surprise and might be the nearest to evidence for a Flood, but it was found just 200 feet off shore, and is just the one fossil. There could be other explanations how it ended up in the sea, so that is not quite the One Piece of evidence that would prove Genesis and disprove evolution. I'm not entirely convinced that the reason it was in the wrong place is that it was brought in to make sunCorp look good, but We shall see.

P.s I hope you will forgive a digression, but the Creation Ministry site that trumpeted the Macmurray Ankylosaur was where I was checking up a claim that dinosaurs and birds and mammals were all mixed up together. This astonishing claim was associated with evolutionary biologist Carl Werner.

I checked him up and there is nothing to say that he finds any serious objects to evolution theory and of course I was unable to get any more than a loose claim to check up.

In fact it is the Creation museum (s?) that ignore the fossil evidence ..in fact proof...that some dinosaurs were feathered, and it is they who fake up dioramas of Prediluvian kiddies riding raptors and feeding grass to T -rex.

Ken Ham came across as a nice guy playing a thin hand fairly. But they do not act fairly. Thar site shows what they do. Misrepresentation, polemic and projection.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-09-2014 at 04:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 05:08 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 12,227,966 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
... although he can't articulate exactly what the alternative is. Apparently many Christians found Ham's performance in the debate with Bill Nye disappointing.

Christians Can Do Better Than Ken Ham - Brad Kramer reacts to last night's debate
Even Pat Robertson said Ken Ham made Christians look like a joke. When even a looney tunes like Pat says that, you know you're in serious trouble.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/pa...selves-114063/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 05:22 AM
 
39,172 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5092
I was looking for that Creationist site with the reference to Carl Werner's supposed claim that fossil animals were all jumbled together, (1) but can't google it up.

But I did find this.
And no wonder even Fundamentalist Christians are seeing these people as an embarrassment.

Why Don
Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?

Their answer....

(after some rather pointless translation -shopping) "it is possible that human fossils from the Flood could still exist but just haven’t been found yet."
This idea is repeated later "This is strong evidence that the pre-Flood civilizations probably were not evenly distributed on the landmass. If man wasn’t evenly distributed, then the pockets of human habitation possibly were buried in places that have not yet been discovered." There are a few problems with this but essentially, it is explaining away why there is not the evidence there ought to be.

"Fossilization is a rare event, especially of humans who are very mobile. Since the rains of Noah’s Flood took weeks to cover the earth, many people could have made it to boats, grabbed on to floating debris, and so on. Some may have made it to higher ground. Although they wouldn’t have lasted that long and would have eventually perished, they might not fossilize."

Explaining away why the evidence isn't there. And Veloceraptors and Dromosaurs were, by all accounts, just as mobile as humans. Sorry, but if all creation was drowned in a month and a half, that not one single human amongst all the mammals, reptile, birds, dinosaurs and fish has been found is hard to explain away. There are museums full of prehistoric animal fossils and quite a lot of human fossils, too, but not together. I have not even seen a credible justification of the claim that fossils of dinosaurs, fish, mammals and birds have been found 'jumbled up together' as would be required in a flood - level laid down by a deluge that obliterated all creation in a year..

Next explanation "It seems doubtful that there were many hundreds of millions of people before the Flood. If the world was indeed bad enough for God to judge with a Flood, then people were probably blatantly disobedient to God’s command to be fruitful and fill the earth. Moreover, the Bible says that violence filled the earth, so death rates may have been extraordinarily high."
Flood or Godless murders - we still do not the find the fossil bones of these humans in with the fossil dinosaurs.

Sorry, this is just hilarious. I have to repeat it

"people were probably blatantly disobedient to God’s command to be fruitful and fill the earth." These people were so evil that they disobeyed God and did not breed like rabbits.

"In fact, based on human nature, we can assume that humans probably chose not to live in the same place with dinosaurs."
So much for the creation museum kiddies riding on Triceratops or feeding Grass to T -rex.
In fact, if dinosaurs were so dangerous, you wouldn't all live together in one place where they would come and find you. And farming communities would be a place labelled 'Eat' for the herbivores. But even given that humans kept their distance from dinosaurs, we still don't get humans in the flood -levels and so back to 'we just haven't found them yet' - explaining why there is no evidence.

We then get :

"What Can We Conclude?

If human and dinosaur bones are ever found in the same layers, it would be a fascinating find to both creationists and evolutionists. Those who hold a biblical view of history wouldn’t be surprised but would consider several logical possibilities, such as human parties invading dinosaur lands for sport or for food, or merely humans and dinosaurs being washed up and buried together.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, who believe the geologic layers represent millions of years of time, would have a real challenge
."

That is what they conclude? That IF the evidence was there evilooshunists would be in real trouble, yeah, laugh that one off Dawkins! Checkmate atheists. That is not a conclusion but a faith -based wish - fulfillment fantasy, Because the evidence is NOT there and the REAL conclusion is that, if there is not a smidgeon (2) of valid evidence that man was buried in a flood along with all creation, then there is no good reason for anyone to believe it.

And staggeringly, after the usual dismissal of evidence and suggesting that both views are merely based on how you look at it, this impudent final claim in total contradiction to what evidence there is - or rather, as they have to admit, there is not.

"The fossil record itself is an incredible testimony to the truth of God’s Word and His promise to “blot out” all land dwelling, air-breathing animals and humans in a worldwide catastrophe."

What a sauce. What staggering denial of evidence. What an embarrassment to Christianity.

(1) In fact what I read does not indicate that he has any problems with the case for evolution, even if he does believe that the largest Pterosaurs couldn't fly. (The hollow bone structure and 'wings' must suggest they did get airborne at times).

(2) a pigeon that is roadkill. Not Kosher.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-09-2014 at 05:55 AM.. Reason: Better italicise the quotes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top