Evolution & Creationism Debate at Museum

[Bobmarine]

Never mind.

[Mandalore]

Interesting debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

After watching it all the way through, Bill honestly seemed to demolish Ken Ham in terms of science. Which is to say outside of theological claim. IMO, once you retreat back to your claim to cite it as evidence then you're already losing when this claim isn't backed by observable evidence that can't be tested. I would love for Yanoda to weigh in on this with technical jibber jabber though.

A few points I liked raised by Mr. Nye:
-The entire Ark story. This has always been a huge sticking point for me.
-Layers of rock and fossil groupings

A few points by Ham that stuck out
-Dating inconsistencies and different dating methods
-Mixed dated items being together the example being given of 45,000 year old trees being encased in millions years old basalt.

But my goodness, the complete retreats to the Testament during a scientific debate is honestly laughable in my own opinion although I'm sure others would disagree. He also blatantly states that there's nothing that would change his mind on the subject though where as conversely Bill Nye repeats throughout and stresses the fact that science embraces and honors change and challenges people to "bring it on."

[Hobo]

Faith-based v. Evidence-based is never a compelling debate. Everything boils down to:
"Well the Bible says this." "Yeah but the evidence tells us this."

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

Faith-based v. Evidence-based is never a compelling debate. Everything boils down to:
"Well the Bible says this." "Yeah but the evidence tells us this."

Actually, it boils down to "my interpretation of the evidence is this and yours is this."

Do you really think creationists just ignore the evidence? Nope.

We just interpret it differently. A different interpretation != ignoring, even if it is not your interpretation.

Sure, there is stuff we can't explain, but there are things evolution can't explain either (like why we haven't seen any new information generated genetically).

[Mandalore]

Not sure if you watched the debate Eagle, but Mr. Nye hit upon all those points as far as I remember. For a large part of the debate when Mr. Nye would ask a scientific question to Mr. Ham, Ham would retreat immediately to Biblical passages. Mr. Nye asks repeatedly what Ham's model can prove using the scientific method, which is a question not answered by Mr. Ham. Really the only scientific point that Ham raised would be the doubts about radioactive half lifes and carbon dating. Yanoda would have to weigh in on that though to give a better detailed answer to those.

I think the thing that most interested me in Nye's part though was the questions raised about the Ark though. Looked into ships of even larger size and there's just flat out no way in hell that the Ark would have been big enough considering the Titanic was a good two to three times the size of the ark in terms of carrying capacity space and still could only manage under 3,000 human passengers. Then of course his comments about how all the current species could have come out of all these "kinds" was a great point to hit on as well just as well as the sheer amount of inconsistency between what we know now and how the Bible claims and then how these claims would have to transpire in order to reach the current state. For example the fact that it would take 176 winter-summer cycles per year for the arctic ice layer to be where it is now if you believe in Creationism was especially eye opening.

To be honest by far the largest and most important point, to me at least, was when the moderator asked both people what it would take to change their minds. It was honestly the biggest difference that illustrates the difference between science and religion. Bill says, "Just one piece of evidence. That one fossil that swam up to the other fossil layer" where as Mr. Ham states that there is nothing that would change his mind.

[Hobo]

http://i.imgur.com/T7Zz0R2.jpg

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

Not sure if you watched the debate Eagle, but Mr. Nye hit upon all those points as far as I remember. For a large part of the debate when Mr. Nye would ask a scientific question to Mr. Ham, Ham would retreat immediately to Biblical passages. Mr. Nye asks repeatedly what Ham's model can prove using the scientific method, which is a question not answered by Mr. Ham. Really the only scientific point that Ham raised would be the doubts about radioactive half lifes and carbon dating. Yanoda would have to weigh in on that though to give a better detailed answer to those.

I think the thing that most interested me in Nye's part though was the questions raised about the Ark though. Looked into ships of even larger size and there's just flat out no way in hell that the Ark would have been big enough considering the Titanic was a good two to three times the size of the ark in terms of carrying capacity space and still could only manage under 3,000 human passengers. Then of course his comments about how all the current species could have come out of all these "kinds" was a great point to hit on as well just as well as the sheer amount of inconsistency between what we know now and how the Bible claims and then how these claims would have to transpire in order to reach the current state. For example the fact that it would take 176 winter-summer cycles per year for the arctic ice layer to be where it is now if you believe in Creationism was especially eye opening.

To be honest by far the largest and most important point, to me at least, was when the moderator asked both people what it would take to change their minds. It was honestly the biggest difference that illustrates the difference between science and religion. Bill says, "Just one piece of evidence. That one fossil that swam up to the other fossil layer" where as Mr. Ham states that there is nothing that would change his mind.

Couple things.

I haven't watched the debate yet, I do plan to eventually.

As far as the size of the ark goes, it is actually very doable. Do you know how huge it was (multiple football fields long for one thing) Also, you don't have to take every single species of animal, just the different "kinds." For every dinosaur, there are 10 animals the size of a mouse. Capacity is no problem if you do the math, which someone did, but I don't have the source at hand.

As far as "kinds" go, we believe that all of the genetic information present in todays world was contained in a smaller number of kinds which the process of natural selection (evolution, yes we believe in microevolution) caused the creation of all the species today. This is why I keep pressing the point of information creation, it has never been demonstrated to occur, only information loss and randomization.

As far as changing his mind goes, Bill Nye is not really telling you the truth. He would not change his mind if we showed him a fossil that contradicts his theory because we have been doing that for the past 20 odd years (carbon-14 in diamonds, old tree in massively older earth extending through millions of years of rock strata, etc etc etc). He is as set in his ways as we are, it is a big disingenuous to say he would ever change his mind. What he would change is the details of the theory, that's how any good theory works. You don't throw a theory away because of 1 piece of contradictory evidence, if you did, evolutionism and creationism would both be gone.

Here is my point: It is not my job or my wish to change your mind, that's your prerogative. I just want to point out the hypocrisy in many peoples' positions, namely, that they are pre-commited to evolution and then look for evidence to support it. Nothing wrong with this, we do the same thing. However, then people deny that they do this and accuse us of doing it. There is a reason we start with the conclusion: we believe the Bible. Everything we see we interpret with the Bible. We believe the BIble is God's infallible Holy word, so if a theory doesn't line up, we view it as wrong.

Since I was a little kid, I watched Bill Nye preach evolution as a fact for years on his program. Like many others, Bill Nye is commited to Evolution, it is almost a religious belief. Again, nothing wrong with this, but just be aware before you think about bashing a creationist for mixing faith and science. Don't try to invalidate our position, you can only do this by invalidating your own. Either we both stand or both fall.

Don't adopt a theory just because "everyone else believes it," that's never how science advances. Look at the evidence and make your own decision, whether creationism or evolutionism.

I feel someone should be able to follow whatever theory they like so long as they are not discriminating against someone with a different theory. Sure, I probably wouldn't be able to do research in ers related to evolution, but that's not a problem.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Couple things.

I haven't watched the debate yet, I do plan to eventually.

As far as the size of the ark goes, it is actually very doable. Do you know how huge it was (multiple football fields long for one thing) Also, you don't have to take every single species of animal, just the different "kinds." For every dinosaur, there are 10 animals the size of a mouse. Capacity is no problem if you do the math, which someone did, but I don't have the source at hand.

As far as "kinds" go, we believe that all of the genetic information present in todays world was contained in a smaller number of kinds which the process of natural selection (evolution, yes we believe in microevolution) caused the creation of all the species today. This is why I keep pressing the point of information creation, it has never been demonstrated to occur, only information loss and randomization.

As far as changing his mind goes, Bill Nye is not really telling you the truth. He would not change his mind if we showed him a fossil that contradicts his theory because we have been doing that for the past 20 odd years (carbon-14 in diamonds, old tree in massively older earth extending through millions of years of rock strata, etc etc etc). He is as set in his ways as we are, it is a big disingenuous to say he would ever change his mind. What he would change is the details of the theory, that's how any good theory works. You don't throw a theory away because of 1 piece of contradictory evidence, if you did, evolutionism and creationism would both be gone.

Here is my point: It is not my job or my wish to change your mind, that's your prerogative. I just want to point out the hypocrisy in many peoples' positions, namely, that they are pre-commited to evolution and then look for evidence to support it. Nothing wrong with this, we do the same thing. However, then people deny that they do this and accuse us of doing it. There is a reason we start with the conclusion: we believe the Bible. Everything we see we interpret with the Bible. We believe the BIble is God's infallible Holy word, so if a theory doesn't line up, we view it as wrong.

Since I was a little kid, I watched Bill Nye preach evolution as a fact for years on his program. Like many others, Bill Nye is commited to Evolution, it is almost a religious belief. Again, nothing wrong with this, but just be aware before you think about bashing a creationist for mixing faith and science. Don't try to invalidate our position, you can only do this by invalidating your own. Either we both stand or both fall.

Don't adopt a theory just because "everyone else believes it," that's never how science advances. Look at the evidence and make your own decision, whether creationism or evolutionism.

I feel someone should be able to follow whatever theory they like so long as they are not discriminating against someone with a different theory. Sure, I probably wouldn't be able to do research in ers related to evolution, but that's not a problem.

I love how you have ignore every legitimate detracting argument hurled at Noah's Ark and continue to stretch the boundaries of what is enumerated within the Bible to conform to what you know can't be true today. Every claim that proves without credible doubt that a Biblical story is metaphorical or fictitious, ex. Dating and tracing the development of language for thousands of years completely nullifies any possibility that there was one world tongue that was mixed up at a single time and place a few thousand years ago (Tower of Babel), you seem to ignore or rationalize - ex. God cannot be both immortal and omnipotent because those characteristics contradict one another (suicide). You say something like "Oh, God does not act within the constraints of what our mind can fathom," and when you do that, you basically say that human logic and God are not always compatible. If I'm willing to buy that, I can then turn around and ask you why you are trying to defend the fact that the flood existed with evidence (that doesn't exist, by the way), if God is so unfathomably great that nothing he does can be explained, that the impossible can be done on a whim. Heck, when the evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that some Biblical accounts are inaccurate, you might turn around and say, "The Devil laid the evidence there to sway our faith." Do you see the never-ending loop?

[Col. Hstar]

when the evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that some Biblical accounts are inaccurate, you might turn around and say, "The Devil laid the evidence there to sway our faith." Do you see the never-ending loop?[/color]

The evidence does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the flood of Noah's day didn't happen. You're talking about evidence that was compiled by imperfect humans. It is arrogant to think that the level of intelligence seen today is the end all answer Back in the 12 century many "intellectual" and "educated" people thought the world was flat and the universe revolved around it. Mankind's knowledge was incomplete then, are you so confident that there is nothing more to learn now that you can say it absolutely did not happen?

[Mandalore]

Science has already answered your argument on mankind's imperfection. It's called peer review.

And what absolutely boggles my mind Homestar is that you make these claims about mankind's imperfection and yet still make the logical leap that the Bible is God's word when you have no proof of this. You ask whether or not the evidence against the flood is beyond a shadow of a doubt yet don't turn these doubts upon your own beliefs apparently. The only proof you have of anything Biblical is your own faith. Faith is not evidence. Faith is the opposite of evidence.

And Eagle, Nye really destroyed the Ark story. Plus I looked into it a little further and basically every wooden ship even near the purported size of the ark broke up simply because wood isn't strong enough to build ships of that length. The wood bends, and because the wood bends then the water seeps into the ship. The only ship of similar length to have survived was a wooden ship that had a mechanical pump to take the water out. Not to mention the fact that none of Noah's family were shipwrights beforehand makes it even more implausible. While we can never definitively say that the Ark and flood never happened we can get as close as humanly possible which in practical terms....We can never definitively prove that most things didn't or did happen but at some point the evidence mounts up to say that "there is a 99% chance that this did/didn't happen"

Also, I find it extremely doubtful that real evidence has been as you have stated Eagle. If you would mind linking me some stuff that'd be great. The only true point of "faith" as you state it in the theory of evolution/the big bang would be the origin point. The Big Bang Theory and Evolution in particular are more theories about the mechanics of how things have progressed to the point they are now. Creation theory simply is implausible for its claims to be true when we consider how the world is around us.

To give an example...7,000 kinds? You'd have to regress all the way back up to order(generous estimate btw, might honestly have to go even further up for only 7,000) in the biological classifications to get that. Now in the time since the flood that would mean that species would be evolving at a rate of hundreds per day. Rationally speaking, we'd have someone down through history who observed this change and recorded it. "Dear diary, today we executed some Carthaginians. Also, my lynx had a litter today!" ....a year later " Dear Diary: Why the [m'kay] are my lynx kittens so damn small? They aren't even half her size! I bought this lynx for breeding! At least all the other lynxes in the city are doing the same thing...." Again not a specific scientific thought, but a philosophical broad stroke.

Then we have the logistical issues of the Ark. Firstly, the claim is that all these animals were vegetarian. Alright, let's bite on this "theory." Firstly, vegetarian organisms need far more fodder to eat because the vegetarian diet simply isn't very high in calories. So already we are way, way, WAY down on space. Now, they were at sea for over six months according to the Bible. Now, just an elephant will eat roughly 500 pounds of fodder a day. For two elephants this is a half ton every day of fodder. Now, 6 months x 30= 180 days roughly. This means you need 90 tons of fodder just for those elephants by themselves. And this doesn't even include what they need in fresh water! In terms of water, a single elephant drinks roughly 150 liters per day (on the low end). So for just two elephants we need 300 liters of water per day. So once again we do the math. 180 days x 300 liters per day=54,000 liters. JUST FOR THESE TWO ELEPHANTS!

Then we have to take into account other large animals that aren't remotely related to either the elephant or each other such as rhinos and hippos! Let's be super super generous and say they only eat a quarter of what the elephant eats. For both of these two "kinds" combined you're looking at another 45 tons of fodder and another 25,000 liters of water. Frankly, the Ark is just not mathematically plausible.

For the continents to be where they are now in comparison to where they were during the flood they would have had to move at hundreds of miles per hour. More to the point, they would have left absolutely massive trails to follow. Trails that simply aren't there in the capacity they would have to have been if creation theory was true.