Evolution vs. Creationism. Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham.

[Nungali]

Robert Broom seems to have held a variant opinion. I agree with much of what he wrote.

 

But not this; "Much of evolution looks as if it had been planned to result in man, and in other animals and plants to make the world a suitable place for him to dwell in."

 

^{But perhaps his ideas are closer to a 'Vedic archetypal ' type of view more than a "Platonic Form' one ?}

[zerostao]

[Immortal4life]

Yeah this whole thing is sooo 10 years ago

[Marblehead]

Much older than that actually.

[thelerner]

Yeah this whole thing is sooo 10 years ago

 

Much older than that actually.

I hear Clarence Darrow is going to be debating William Bryan about it next week.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

[Nungali]

Since I never got an answer to post # 139 do I assume.... fishyness ? .... made up fake quotes ? .... misquotes ? .... mistakes ? ....

surely the creationists wouldn't stoop to that .... just to try to 'prove' their point ???

 

Or perhaps that is 'so 10 years ago' too ?

[Andrei]

Neti neti

 

http://youtu.be/pe6DN1OoxjE

[Marblehead]

I think it is Mr. Pye who is deluded.

 

Speaking on a subject that he has no formal education in.

 

Sure, he used fancy words. All bullshit artists do that.

 

 

I saw something I found interesting on TV last night.

 

It is established that the lemur family all evolved from primates although only a couple of the species look only a little bit like modern day primates.

 

There is an animal of Southeast Asia, the Colugo, that could be mistaken for a Flying Squirrel, that is an excellent glider and has perhaps the best developed membrane (skin) for this purpose. It is not, however, of the rodent family, it is of the primate family.

[Nungali]

I saw some pics of what I thought was a gigantic bat ( 'flying fox' type - we call them here) but it was a flying lemur ... is that the crritter?

[Marblehead]

I doubt it was a lemur as they are limited to Madagascar. I don't know of any flying (gliding) lemurs but they can really jump great distances making it look like they are somehow flying.

 

Yes, there are some very large bats where you live. But then it might have been some other form of "glider".

[Unlearner]

See? Hehehe. The theory of Bigfoot. No facts, just speculation.

 

That is why I like:

 

Hypothesis: Speculation

 

Theory: Explanation based on a few facts

 

Fact: What can be proved.

 

Evolution has been proved again and again.

 

Creationism has never included one single undisputable fact.

 

Science does not prove facts, it provides evidence for theories. That's why, while the rest of non-scientific society uses words like "science has proven" or "this is a scientific fact", the actual scientific community uses words like "hypothesis" and "theory" and "evidence". Proofs are for math, let's keep it that way.

 

On the other hand, creationism is based on a story written in an old book, so take that for what it's worth.

[Marblehead]

Science does not prove facts, it provides evidence for theories. That's why, while the rest of non-scientific society uses words like "science has proven" or "this is a scientific fact", the actual scientific community uses words like "hypothesis" and "theory" and "evidence". Proofs are for math, let's keep it that way.

Fair arguement but I will stick with my understanding and to the Carl Sagan quote: "Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact."

 

Facts exist on their own. They do not need be proven. They do not need a theory to explain them. They are simply facts. We sometimes call these "truths".

 

A fact is observed. A hypothesis is the initial wondering of its truth. A theory is the initial attempt to explain the fact. If the theory stands true in every test you have proved the fact.

 

On the contrary, I believe the math proves nothing. Well, maybe it proves that one's hypothesis is possible. But observations and tests are still needed in order to state that it is a fact.

[Unlearner]

Fair arguement but I will stick with my understanding and to the Carl Sagan quote: "Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact."

 

Facts exist on their own. They do not need be proven. They do not need a theory to explain them. They are simply facts. We sometimes call these "truths".

 

A fact is observed. A hypothesis is the initial wondering of its truth. A theory is the initial attempt to explain the fact. If the theory stands true in every test you have proved the fact.

 

On the contrary, I believe the math proves nothing. Well, maybe it proves that one's hypothesis is possible. But observations and tests are still needed in order to state that it is a fact.

 

Well, I suppose it's just a matter of how you choose to define it for yourself, so it's up to whatever you believe. Personally, I don't believe in the concept of a fact, because there really is no way to prove anything, scientifically or otherwise. The best we can do with science is create a model that imitates the true reality, which is itself unfathomable. Our understanding of the model, from which we derive such "facts", can and has changed throughout history as we continue to play around with and observe the world we live in. However, these models are always based on a set of assumptions that we invariably must accept in order to increase our understanding and improve our model of the universe. The theories that make up the model can always get closer and closer to the truth, but they will never touch it, because a theory can always be disproven based on new evidence; a theory can never be proven in it's own right. That's why we stopped calling things "laws" after we realized that we keep disproving the "facts" that we thought were facts, but ended up falling apart before our eyes.

 

As for math, it is simply a language through which we can understand our universe, nothing more. It has the same properties as any other language, it just tends to be more precise with how it defines and measures things. "Proof" is a term used solely in mathematics for the use of mathematics, people just decided to carry it over casually into science because they misunderstood the concept of what math is. Math can prove things within mathematics using mathematics, but that's it; it can't prove anything outside of itself. And if you think I'm just making it up, you should probably do some research on Kurt Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems, which quite literally prove that you can't prove anything with mathematics outside of itself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem

 

But, as I said before, if you believe it the other way, that's entirely up to you, and I can't change that. I used to think that way as well, but I've just found that this perspective is much more open to new possibilities, that's all.

[Marblehead]

Now understand, I'm not talking about "absolute truths" here. Just talking about functional facts.

 

Fire is hot. I put my hand in fire my hand gets burned.

 

I don't have wings. I shouldn't try to fly.

 

But, on the other hand, I don't just accept what someone says just because they say it is true. I want to see some proof.

 

Einstein's math suggested that space gets curved because of gravity. It took a number of years waiting for the right conditions before the suggestion was proved true and accepted as fact.

 

Yes, we are constantly refining our understanding of the 'facts'. That's good. If we hold to dogma that is unproven regardless of new information that contradicts our dogma then we are living with our eyes partially closed, seeing only what we want to see.

 

I am always open for new possibilities. But there are limits to my acceptance. New information about Bigfoot is unacceptable so far because the new information is nothing but BS.

 

To live our life based on BS is rather wasteful, in my opinion.

 

And to your closing statement, you are always welcome back in my world any time. Hehehe.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Marblehead

[ralis]

Ken Ham is building an Ark for an estimated cost of 73 million which is the first phase of the project. He raised around 14.4 million privately and the city of Williamstown KY is offering 62 million in securities to build this thing. Definitely a separation of church/state issue. KY is a very poor state and this makes no sense at all!

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-14/noah-s-ark-depends-on-faith-in-default-plagued-debt-muni-credit.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/01/kentucky-noahs-ark-ken-ham_n_4876282.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

 

 

Creation Museum founder Ken Ham announced Thursday that enough money had been raised to begin construction of a 510-foot "replica" of Noah's Ark as part of a multimillion-dollar Ark Encounter project.

The Ark Encounter will sit on 800 acres of land in Williamstown, Ky., and will be developed “in phases over many years,” according to a press release from Ham's Answers in Genesis organization. The first phase alone will cost an estimated $73 million.

The project had stalled over funding. But according to Answers in Genesis, it received the needed boost after Ham engaged in a widely viewed television debate on creationism and evolution with Bill Nye “The Science Guy.”

In addition to more than $14.4 million in private donations, a municipal bond offering by the city of Williamstown has cleared the way to start construction in May.

“God has burdened AiG to rebuild a full-size Noah’s Ark -- as a sign to the world that God’s Word is true, and as a reminder that all men are sinners, and we all need to go through the 'door' to be saved,” Ham wrote in August 2013.

But perhaps God's message could be spread by means other than building a really big boat. Here are five ways Ham's $73 million might have otherwise served the people of Kentucky:

Edited March 4, 2014 by ralis

[Marblehead]

What can I say? I am at a loss for words.

[thelerner]

Ken Ham is building an Ark for an estimated cost of 73 million which is the first phase of the project. He raised around 14.4 million privately and the city of Williamstown KY is offering 62 million in securities to build this thing. Definitely a separation of church/state issue. KY is a very poor state and this makes no sense at all!

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-14/noah-s-ark-depends-on-faith-in-default-plagued-debt-muni-credit.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/01/kentucky-noahs-ark-ken-ham_n_4876282.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

You'll be singing a different song when it starts raining. Then you'll be happy he built a 73 million dollar (at phase 1 & before interest on bonds) ark (that may not float or be water proof) because it'll save your sorry life and allow you to hang out with your animal friends (before you have to eat them, dooming a whole species).

 

If there's a god of Irony he must certainly be smiling at the thought of Ken Ham building an ark to honor Noah. Since biblically Ham is the big villain of the story. In some translations he oogles his drunken naked father, in others (ye olde Jewish translations) he sodomizes him.

 

In either case he's told he's considered the lowest of the low and his children are cursed. Thus you'd think a guy named Ham would concentrate on other parts of the bible. Though it'll interesting to see how the life size diorama on that episode works out.

[Nungali]

He ... sodomises ...his ...drunken father ? ? ?

 

Okay ... thats it!

 

< takes book off the top shelf and hides it under the mattress >

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. I suggest that you may be over-reacting.

 

I actually still have my Bible that was given to me upon Confermation when I was 15 years old. (The book might actually be a collectable - the old King James version.)

[Andrei]

Speaking of Neandertals and religion:

 

[Marblehead]

Speaking of Neandertals and religion:

Yeah, lots of stuff like that on TV now-a-days.

 

People searching for more meaning in life beyond their unsatisfying reality.

[ralis]

When will these people stop whining? The problem is she is blinded by faith and fails to understand the scientific process.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/12/creationist-slams-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-for-blind-faith-in-scientific-theories/

 

 

Creationist slams Neil deGrasse Tyson’s ‘Cosmos’ for ‘blind faith’ in scientific theories

 

 

 

A creationist has reviewed the new “Cosmos” reboot, featuring astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, and it may come as no surprise that she wasn’t terribly impressed.

“If the first segment is any indication, [“Cosmos”] will attempt to package unconditional blind faith in evolution as scientific literacy in an effort to create interest in science,” said Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, a physician and Answers In Genesis researcher.

She praises some aspects of the program, such as its “colorful” graphics and “charismatic” storytelling, but Mitchell complains that the program spent too much time describing phenomena that contradict biblical teachings.

 

“We hope that future segments will spend more time showing actual scientific observations — such as the brief part of this episode showing where earth is in relation to the rest of the universe,” Mitchell said.

She said that segment reminded her of the “Created Cosmos” feature at the Creation Museum, in Petersburg, Ky.

“In Created Cosmos we see how we as people of earth stand in relation to the immensity of God’s Creation,” Mitchell said. “So seeing the enormity of what God in His power created, we get a better perspective on God’s great love for us.”

Mitchell ironically dismisses some of the theories presented by Tyson on the program as unscientific dogma.

“The ‘observational evidence’ to which Tyson refers is not, however, observations that confirm big bang cosmology but interpretations of scientific data that interpret observations within a big bang model of origins,” she said. “The big bang model is unable to explain many scientific observations, but this is of course not mentioned.”

The creationist was particularly troubled by the theory explaining the origin of life presented by Tyson.

“Abiogenesis — the origin of life from non-living elements through natural processes — is essential to naturalistic evolutionary dogma,” Mitchell said. “Yet abiogenesis has never been observed in science. Moreover, abiogenesis violates the natural laws that govern everything known to chemical and biological science.”

“Invoking blind faith in evolutionary principles, Tyson therefore says, ‘We still don’t know how life got started. For all we know it may have come from another part of the Milky Way. The origin of life is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of science,’” Mitchell said.

Creationists believe that mystery has already been solved and explained thousands of years ago in the Bible, she said.

“We maintain that God our Creator was the only eyewitness to the time of origins and that He has given us the truth about how He created everything in His Word,” she said. “He is the one that created the natural laws that govern the physical world and make science possible.”

Mitchell said Tyson had overlooked the only relevant source to the universe’s origins by scanning the galaxy and studying its physical properties.

“Drawing correct conclusions about the unobservable past requires evaluating ideas about the past within the framework of the Creator’s history,” she said. “Drawing correct conclusions about our own nature, how we should live our lives, and what will happen to each of us when we die also requires that we get our information from the Word of the Source of life, the One who created the cosmos.”

Edited March 12, 2014 by ralis

[Marblehead]

I watched that first episode. It kinda' followed the original by Carl Sagan. I think the computer graphics were way over-done and during that time nothing was being said. (Directorial preferrences.)

 

But I will agree that this new series, at least this first episode, was more anti-creationism than was Carl's original.

[Aaron]

You'll be singing a different song when it starts raining. Then you'll be happy he built a 73 million dollar (at phase 1 & before interest on bonds) ark (that may not float or be water proof) because it'll save your sorry life and allow you to hang out with your animal friends (before you have to eat them, dooming a whole species).

 

If there's a god of Irony he must certainly be smiling at the thought of Ken Ham building an ark to honor Noah. Since biblically Ham is the big villain of the story. In some translations he oogles his drunken naked father, in others (ye olde Jewish translations) he sodomizes him.

 

In either case he's told he's considered the lowest of the low and his children are cursed. Thus you'd think a guy named Ham would concentrate on other parts of the bible. Though it'll interesting to see how the life size diorama on that episode works out.

 

Hah... my last name is Hamm and I don't even read the bible.

[KenBrace]

Evolution is a fact. (I just had to point that out.)

 

There is only proof in mathematics.