Bill Nye the Science Guy vs Ken Ham Young Earth Creationist 'debate' (atheist, gospel)
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.
He clearly displayed an air of superiority--as if he was smarter than Ham.
LOTS of Christians display an air of superiority. Oh, mercy. Christians are MASTERS at doing that.
p.s. Nye is smarter than Ham. All I saw was the CNN after-interview and Ham started talking about modern-day crocodiles being evidence that man co-existed with the dinosaurs. I had to turn the channel it was so painful watching him display his ignorance.
Though he'll probably see an up-surge in people touring his museum. He's REALLY smart when it comes to separating people from their money. Give 'em what they want. A chance to photograph young Jim Bob next to the Fukuiraptor. Personally named by Adam himself.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 02-05-2014 at 02:35 PM..
It seems you haven't done YOUR homework. The site you provided is a blog by a YEC chemist. As you'll probably find out, we've looked and still have found no convincing evidence. Anecdotal evidence is NOT worthy of evaluation, so unless you have some other evidence we can only conclude that you are as delusional as YEC's.
I may well be as delusional as a YEC. You may well be as delusional as a YEC. It may be that the YEC's are not delusional at all, and won't we all be surprised then? I do not have the desperate psychological need to be "correct" at the expense of everyone else that seems to characterize fundamentalist wackos of all ilks ("ilk" being TVB's word of the day, just in case anyone had failed to notice).
But to address your scholarly post: I rather clearly stated that this was simply the first link generated by Google. I know precisely nothing about said "YEC chemist." What the link does contain are citations to articles in ostensibly peer-reviewed journals that are ostensibly critical of evolution, to wit:
REFERENCES
1. Stephen C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117:213-239, 2004. Return to Text
2. Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings 25(1):41-47, 2012. (available online) Return to Text
3. Charles Stewart Roberts, “Comments on Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings 25(1):48, 2012. (available online) Return to Text
Your statement that "anecdotal evidence is not worthy of evaluation" is a familiar howler. Anecdotal evidence is relied upon in everything from our everyday lives to the law (I'm a longtime lawyer) to scientific disciplines. When a body of anecdotal evidence reaches a sufficient size and a sufficient level of consistency over a sufficient period of time - which is true of some of the categories of anecdotal evidence suggestive of an afterlife - it is certainly entitled to considerable weight, if not conclusive weight, in any sane individual's thinking.
Moderator cut: Orphaned I'll say it again--evolution has never been observed.
I give you an open invitation - courtesy of my friend - to accompany her to the Cargill Laboratories to observe evolution in progress. And the patent work being done.
I give you an open invitation - courtesy of my friend - to accompany her to the Cargill Laboratories to observe evolution in progress. And the patent work being done.
You can lead a YEC to evidence but you can't make them open their eyes.
I give you an open invitation - courtesy of my friend - to accompany her to the Cargill Laboratories to observe evolution in progress. And the patent work being done.
I don't think that will be necessary. Changes within a kind of organism is not evolution.
The 'debate' between Bill Nye Science Guy vs Ken Ham Young Earth Creationist is starting right now. It can be watched live on various websites, google plus and youtube:
I may well be as delusional as a YEC. You may well be as delusional as a YEC. It may be that the YEC's are not delusional at all, and won't we all be surprised then? I do not have the desperate psychological need to be "correct" at the expense of everyone else that seems to characterize fundamentalist wackos of all ilks ("ilk" being TVB's word of the day, just in case anyone had failed to notice).
But to address your scholarly post: I rather clearly stated that this was simply the first link generated by Google. I know precisely nothing about said "YEC chemist." What the link does contain are citations to articles in ostensibly peer-reviewed journals that are ostensibly critical of evolution, to wit:
REFERENCES
1. Stephen C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117:213-239, 2004. Return to Text
2. Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings 25(1):41-47, 2012. (available online) Return to Text
3. Charles Stewart Roberts, “Comments on Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings 25(1):48, 2012. (available online) Return to Text
Your statement that "anecdotal evidence is not worthy of evaluation" is a familiar howler. Anecdotal evidence is relied upon in everything from our everyday lives to the law (I'm a longtime lawyer) to scientific disciplines. When a body of anecdotal evidence reaches a sufficient size and a sufficient level of consistency over a sufficient period of time - which is true of some of the categories of anecdotal evidence suggestive of an afterlife - it is certainly entitled to considerable weight, if not conclusive weight, in any sane individual's thinking.
What constitutes sane? In a court of law can I state the theory of creationism as evidence for anything? Anything this would apply itself to? Just creationism, Gods commands, the devil, etc. Would any of this stand alone in a court of law?
Most people see anecdotal evidence as a deceitful support of a claim; it is only accepted in light of more solid evidence. This is correct despite the veracity of individual claims.
Anecdotal evidence is thought to be the opposite of scientific evidence, and in no way would act as a basis for any conviction.
Even if large groups of people claimed they saw an alien craft and therefore burned down someones company to thwart it, they wouldn't get off. It may be a cool story but it is not the only evidence you'd have to have to prove you saw the alien, therefore burned down the building. It would not win on its own. Being a lawyer I'm sure you know that.
Here are how some animals are evolving to survive. 7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes | Cracked.com
Elephants are increasingly being born without tusks. Why do you think this is? Is it because those tusk get them killed? We have been killing them for their tusks for centuries. Or, do you think God has grown tired of elephants with tusks and now thinks they will be cuter without? Adaption is evolution in action. It's happening all the time, but it takes time because it's not magic, it's real life.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 02-06-2014 at 11:03 AM..
Do you get a flu shot yearly? Is God changing the flu virus so it survives to kill us every year? Or, maybe it's changing to avoid death? Which do you think is more plausible?
Here are how some animals are evolving to survive. 7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes | Cracked.com
Elephants are increasingly being born without tusks. Why do you think this is? Is it because those tusk get them killed? We have been killing them for their tusks for centuries. Or, do you think God has grown tired of elephants with tusks and now thinks they will be cuter without? Adaption is evolution in action. It's happening all the time, but it takes time because it's not magic, it's real life.
That's interesting about the elephants. One mutates so that it no longer has tusks. Elephants with tusks get murdered; those without do not and survive to reproduce. Meanwhile, they adapt to live without tusks. Neat!
Even if large groups of people claimed they saw an alien craft and therefore burned down someones company to thwart it, they wouldn't get off. It may be a cool story but it is not the only evidence you'd have to have to prove you saw the alien, therefore burned down the building. It would not win on its own. Being a lawyer I'm sure you know that.
Well, let's take the alien craft, since in 1971 my little gray VW was followed during daytime hours for about 45 seconds by a gray disk at a range of no more than 50 yards, and my passenger, a hard-boiled Chicagoan who believed in NOTHING, saw exactly what I did and was quite rattled. There were also certain after-effects that are not uncommon in UFO sightings but that I've never heard of in connection with a sighting of a conventional aircraft.
But anyway: Disk-shaped craft have been observed in the skies for literally millennia, although the modern era is often traced to Kenneth Arnold's sighting in 1947. Since 1900, literally tens of thousands of these sightings have been reported in all countries and all cultures. Some have been hoaxes and some of the observers have been crackpots. But many more of the observers have been pilots, military personnel, law enforcement personnel, astronauts, scientists and other highly credible observers. The only psychological studies of which I am aware have shown that UFO observers are basically just average people with no predisposition to see UFOs. In many cases, there have been multiple observers who independently reported the same thing. In many cases, there has been ground and/or air radar confirmation of what was being observed. In many cases, there have been photographs that have withstood all analysis. In many cases, there have been physical traces. In many cases, the disk-shaped craft have been observed and/or tracked performing maneuvers that no conventional aircraft could perform and/or that defy the known laws of physics. I can add that personally I have never raised the UFO topic in any group of five people (and I do it all the time) without at least one person who holds a responsible position and gives every appearance of being sane and intelligent stepping forward and relating a mind-blowing sighting that rivals anything you see in the movies - and I am talking about my fellow lawyers, engineers and other professionals with whom I routinely interact.
That is a body of anecdotal evidence. It fits the criteria of duration, quantity, consistency and credibility. Is it anecdotal evidence that reptilian creatures from Zeta Reticuli are visiting the earth? Hardly. It is anecdotal evidence that disk-shaped craft performing inexplicable maneuvers are appearing in our skies. Does it conclusively establish this fact? Perhaps not, but I am very familiar with the evidence and would say that it comes pretty close. It may tend to support what is called the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis, but there are other possible explanations (some weirder than the ETH). But what would it even mean to say that this is "not evidence" or is "entitled to no weight"? The only person who would say that would be a "fundamentalist" of some ilk who takes it as axiomatic that "There are no such things as aliens, and therefore any evidence that might tend to support visitations by aliens is, a priori, bogus." And some people with excellent credentials do take this position, often blatantly ignoring inconvenient facts in order to fit a case into their pet theory. This is no different in principle from the position of a Young Earth Creationist -- or, ironically, of the True Believers of Scientism who think the Young Earth Creationists are insane!
I pity those who can read a thread such as this and fail to see the Monty Pythonesque humor of the "discussion." If it didn't cause me to ROFLMAO at least five times per day, I wouldn't bother.
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.
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.
