Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Debate

[callmeslick]

Snoopy, you touch on one of science's great attributes. One NEVER knows, at the level of basic research, what will prove useful to mankind and how. When we explored outer space, no one thought that we'd be bringing the world PCs and satellite phone service.
So, I can't be specific, this stuff all works in concert and leads in a myriad of directions. To avoid going down certain pathways out of politeness to the religious beliefs of some does all of mankind a HUGE disservice.

[sigma]

We have a society which is dominated by extroverts. Therefore, they can stimulate the development of science only in their own interests. Real revolutionary scientific discoveries were made not because of, but in spite of the opinion of the conservative ruling elite and even the scientific community.

[snoopy]

Snoopy, you touch on one of science's great attributes. One NEVER knows, at the level of basic research, what will prove useful to mankind and how. When we explored outer space, no one thought that we'd be bringing the world PCs and satellite phone service.
So, I can't be specific, this stuff all works in concert and leads in a myriad of directions. To avoid going down certain pathways out of politeness to the religious beliefs of some does all of mankind a HUGE disservice.

That's fine....

But tell me about just one example of an advancement that's inseparably tied to evolutionary origins.

If you're telling me that our philosophy motivates our science, and you never know what will pop out, I agree.... but I can't think of any examples that must have been motivated by a naturalistic philosophy and couldn't have been motivated by some other philosophy.

[sigma]

I do not understand how I can talk further about God with the Americans after such news. http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=54703
Quote:
"On March 11, 2014, 17:19
Camerawork of the murderer of the Pskov priest won a prize in New York

Moscow. March 11. INTERFAX - the Murderer of the priest Pavel Adelgeym Sergey Pchelintsev became the owner of a prestigious prize on the international film festival in New York, is spoken on the official site of the Queens World Film Festival festival on Tuesday.

S. Pchelintsev received an award as the best operator for work on the documentary film "Katya" (director Anna Shishova). The movie was recognized as the best foreign documentary tape of a festival.

Earlier to S. Pchelintsev who admitted murder of the father Pavel, it was refused fight for the Russian award in the field of documentary cinema "Laurel branch". After multiple reproaches from the public the organizing committee "Laurel branch" withdrew S. Pchelintsev's candidacy from the nomination.

It was during the investigation established that on August 3, 2013 the man, knowing that the father Pavel is the theologian and the known priest, arrived to Pskov to ask the last about the help in healing. The victim out of compassion and mercy agreed to it and allowed to live in the house.

On August 5 S. Pchelintsev, having a mental disease in the form of paranoid schizophrenia, I took a knife in kitchen and I struck them blow in heart to the priest. From the got wound he died on a scene".

[Tunnelcat]

That's along the same lines of people's recognition of Roman Polanski and his films. He's a child rapist who's a genius of a film maker. But he's a pervert who pretty much escaped justice with a slap on the hand. So why do people still watch his films? They like to ignore the slime that covers the genius.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/30588 ... you-forgot

[sigma]

I do not see any other reasons justify perverts, murderers and rapists, (genius which a big question), except cases, when which freaks were acquitted by the same moral monsters.

[Spidey]

Well snoopy, just take solace in the fact that science hasn’t figured out how life began, and if it sticks to the rigid idea that life must consist of nothing more than chemical reactions, might never.

And I’m not talking about 6 million attempts at zapping a jar of organic material, and accidentally creating something alive…I’m talking about figuring it out.

[callmeslick]

Snoopy, my best example is gene sequencing. Much of the advanced technology for extraction and analysis of genetic material from intact sources was in part developed from research groups around archaeological genetics(genetics of origins, if you will). Yet, the technology also allows for breakdown and study of the genetic code for living persons, which in turn allows for medical research techniques around targeted gene clusters and the like.

[callmeslick]

Well snoopy, just take solace in the fact that science hasn’t figured out how life began, and if it sticks to the rigid idea that life must consist of nothing more than chemical reactions, might never.

what do you postulate is going on beyond a complex set of biochemical reactions and utilization of the energy produced therein?

And I’m not talking about 6 million attempts at zapping a jar of organic material, and accidentally creating something alive…I’m talking about figuring it out.

actually, what you SEEM to be aiming for is NEVER figuring much of anything out. That, at least, is the path you appear to argue for. Once again, I ask, what other viable theories can you postulate, are out there awaiting scientific testing?

[Jeff250]

...Or maybe it's a "beyond our technology, ability to measure." thing. The UFologists could be completely right... maybe their aliens have good cloaking and the ability to observe us without us noticing, so they choose to abduct us when the cameras are off and others aren't watching.

If you're willing to betray the simplest and most intuitive explanations in favor of less intuitive and more complicated ones, then how do you pick which one? For instance, if you're willing to abandon the theory that the universe is old, then why believe that the universe was created to look old 8000 years ago and not that the universe was created to look old 8000 seconds ago?

If you were consistent with your skepticism, then you would have to admit that it's not just the age of the universe that you don't know about but that you don't know anything at all, since anything we thought we knew about the universe could be God's illusion.

[Spidey]

Well snoopy, just take solace in the fact that science hasn’t figured out how life began, and if it sticks to the rigid idea that life must consist of nothing more than chemical reactions, might never.

what do you postulate is going on beyond a complex set of biochemical reactions and utilization of the energy produced therein?

If I knew the answer to that, I wouldn't be sitting here chatting to you.

Questions:

Do you believe in the non-corporeal?
Do you think the conscious mind has a physical form?

[Sergeant Thorne]

I find the statement "created with the appearance of age" to be odd. What is the "appearance of age" but assumptions of long-term behavioral or circumstantial linearity, or assumptions of original states? What Snoopy calls the "appearance of age" should not be confused with evidence of age. People are making assumptions to determine "appearance of age", which is not the appearance of age at all, but the assumption of age. Age is a theory built upon what people believe to be reliable indicators, only "reliable" is not reliable in a pure sense, since there is all kinds of hokey-pokey taking place to arrive at these numbers in the case of chemical dating methods.

I think maybe I'll start pointing out that a lot of "science" is "science" for much the same reason that a lot of "art" is "art"--it's at least 30% because you claim that it is, 50% franchised ostentation, and 10% because no one else thought to do it quite that way. The remaining 10% may or may not involve a high-school-level grasp of the scientific method.

[Top Gun]

I'm serious. Why are origins relevant to practical/useful science in the scale of human existence? I'm curious to see a good argument for it...

So if I'm understanding you right, are you essentially asserting that science should only concern itself with studying topics that serve some sort of practical purpose for modern-day human society? Because if that's what you're saying...man, that is such a sad, closed-minded way of looking at the world. Science as a whole doesn't exist merely to produce practical solutions to everyday problems; if anything, that's the purview of engineering (or at the very least what's called applied science), which applies scientific knowledge to technological solutions. Pure scientific research is concerned with learning more about the universe that we live in, whether or not the knowledge we learn serves any pragmatic purpose. That drive to learn and discover is a fundamental part of the human condition; people have been looking up at the stars and asking "Why?" ever since there were people in the first place. The scientific method is a framework of tools we can use to rigorously study the world around us, and answer the questions we ask about it. What we do with the results is a secondary point.

I think maybe I'll start pointing out that a lot of "science" is "science" for much the same reason that a lot of "art" is "art"--it's at least 30% because you claim that it is, 50% franchised ostentation, and 10% because no one else thought to do it quite that way. The remaining 10% may or may not involve a high-school-level grasp of the scientific method.

I think maybe I'll start pointing out how this statement is complete hokum, and that maybe you should consider sticking to topics about which you know even the slightest amount.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think maybe I'll start pointing out how this statement is complete hokum, and that maybe you should consider sticking to topics about which you know even the slightest amount.

The slightest "amount" of... "topic"? [/grammar nazi]

[Jeff250]

I find the statement "created with the appearance of age" to be odd. What is the "appearance of age" but assumptions of long-term behavioral or circumstantial linearity, or assumptions of original states? What Snoopy calls the "appearance of age" should not be confused with evidence of age. People are making assumptions to determine "appearance of age", which is not the appearance of age at all, but the assumption of age.

The universe was created 1 second ago. Prove me wrong without making assumptions of original state.

I think maybe I'll start pointing out that a lot of "science" is "science" for much the same reason that a lot of "art" is "art"--it's at least 30% because you claim that it is, 50% franchised ostentation, and 10% because no one else thought to do it quite that way. The remaining 10% may or may not involve a high-school-level grasp of the scientific method.

As a creationist, it must be hard for you to imagine how people could practice science any other way!

[Spidey]

I find the statement "created with the appearance of age" to be odd. What is the "appearance of age" but assumptions of long-term behavioral or circumstantial linearity, or assumptions of original states? What Snoopy calls the "appearance of age" should not be confused with evidence of age. People are making assumptions to determine "appearance of age", which is not the appearance of age at all, but the assumption of age.

The universe was created 1 second ago. Prove me wrong without making assumptions of original state.

Are we to presume god preloaded my personal experiences as well?

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think you might as well forget the argument if you're going to go there ("you" editorially speaking).

You took what I was saying, Jeff, and totally attributed another argument to it. I was saying that God did not create to make things "look old".

[snoopy]

If you're willing to betray the simplest and most intuitive explanations in favor of less intuitive and more complicated ones, then how do you pick which one? For instance, if you're willing to abandon the theory that the universe is old, then why believe that the universe was created to look old 8000 years ago and not that the universe was created to look old 8000 seconds ago?

If you were consistent with your skepticism, then you would have to admit that it's not just the age of the universe that you don't know about but that you don't know anything at all, since anything we thought we knew about the universe could be God's illusion.

Applying occam's razor (it was you that brought it up before) to origins is a tricky beast because ultimately you're choosing between massive, unverifiable assumption #1 or massive, unverifiable assumption #2... in the form of "In the beginning there was _____." I'll agree with you that young earth creationism isn't the simplest explanation. I think that if you reflect upon your own life, it's a lot more about what assumptions you're willing to accept, and how you rank them in terms of plausibility/simplicity... we just have different rankings.

As for the skepticism: you have to anchor your science in something which helps you organize and categorize your assumptions. We got here because I was proving the point that Slick's blanket statements aren't guaranteed to be true. Again, it's all about where you start & then building explanations around that starting point. If you start with the assumption that there's nothing out there other than matter and energy which started in a big mass, then Slick's right that the best conclusion is that the Earth is much much older than 8,000 years. If you start with a God that created the earth, then actual age of the earth and the apparent age of the earth don't have to match up. I'm not particularly skeptical, and don't care too much about all of the possible scenarios, I'm just making the point that at least some theories of origins can't be dis-proven because it can't be replicated and tested.... so don't act like they they are dis proven or they are ridiculous just because they don't fit your set of assumptions. Again, we can discuss & debate the assumptions, but ultimately you have to start with something, and that "starting with something" is ultimately the philosophical aspect that I'm talking about.

So, I can't disprove the theory that the universe was created one second ago... if you were really serious about that theory and wanted to talk about it, I'd try to dig into the assumptions that went into the theory but ultimately it would be a philosophical discussion.

On the practicality of science: I'm driving at exposing the philosophical motivation behind studies and teachings of origins which are (in my opinion) inseparable. I find the separability between science and philosophy (or maybe the common interest in philosophies) in practicality & usefulness - maybe because I'm an engineer. At the end of the day I'm looking for equal opportunity, and I'm trying to expose the lie that the naturalism/atheism found in evolutionary origins is devoid of philosophy. If we're going to claim that "religion" (read: philosophy) doesn't belong in the science class room, then stop pretending that teaching evolutionary origins isn't heavily rooted in philosophy. If we're going to argue that science and philosophy are inseparably intertwined (which I also believe) then lets teach about how they are intertwined and how different philosophies motivate scientific studies which lead to largely different conclusions about metaphysical questions (and ultimately where we come from) but (mostly) the same conclusion that we should be curious about our world and do science. Finally, I think that we should teach that the real enemy of science is complacency... and that rigorous study in general is a positive thing... no matter the topic or the motivation.

[Sergeant Thorne]

The universe was created 1 second ago. Prove me wrong without making assumptions of original state.

And another thing, is it really making assumptions of original state to say that you're wrong because I was here 2 seconds ago? I think it really hurts the discussion when people make such loose associations/analogies. This is not the same as measuring elements of a rock and concluding that it was formed however many millions years ago. I think personal account is the only absolutely reliable record of existence that we have. Now if I were to assume that men's original state was 5 inches tall, and that I can use today's average height in any certain area together with archeological data to determine how long there have been men living in that area, ruling out both short men today and tall men in archeological finds as inconsistent with my reliable theory which has "successfully" predicted shorter and shorter people going back, that's a little closer to an analogy of what is going on.

Also I'm going to teach your children that men used to be 5 inches tall, and if you have a problem with that then you're obviously opposed to science and as a society we can't afford to tolerate your views to the detriment of our technological advancement. If you don't believe that men were 5 inches tall it will retard your ability to make new discoveries which could save humanity. I can't believe you use a cell phone and don't believe men were 5 inches tall. Also many discoveries which I cannot detail have been and are dependent on the 5 inch tall theory and outer space somehow. [/tongue-in-cheek]

[callmeslick]

[On the practicality of science: I'm driving at exposing the philosophical motivation behind studies and teachings of origins which are (in my opinion) inseparable.

inseparable? Hardly. Sure, one can derive one's philosophy from science's findings, but the philosophy need not precede the findings or the research, only an open mind. Now, if you mean that one must, to follow such research, suspend religious assumptions, I suppose THAT could be seen as a philosophical act.

Finally, I think that we should teach that the real enemy of science is complacency... and that rigorous study in general is a positive thing... no matter the topic or the motivation.

can't argue with that sentiment, but forcing the embrace of the utterly ridiculous is past the point of rejecting complacency. It is a distraction, and a dangerous one at that.

[sigma]

Damn, the CMB (Cosmic microwave background) carries more information about the age of the universe than the principle of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor - it is a recommendation, not an axiom.

[Jeff250]

Are we to presume god preloaded my personal experiences as well?

Definitely!

And another thing, is it really making assumptions of original state to say that you're wrong because I was here 2 seconds ago?

Of course it is. I don't know why you think it's absurd that memories could be created recording events that have never happened but readily accept that light could be created displaying events that never happened. The only difference between your creation myth and mine is the date!

Applying occam's razor (it was you that brought it up before) to origins is a tricky beast because ultimately you're choosing between massive, unverifiable assumption #1 or massive, unverifiable assumption #2... in the form of "In the beginning there was _____." I'll agree with you that young earth creationism isn't the simplest explanation. I think that if you reflect upon your own life, it's a lot more about what assumptions you're willing to accept, and how you rank them in terms of plausibility/simplicity... we just have different rankings.

I think the best we can do is try to minimize the Kolmogorov complexity of our initial conditions. It would easily eliminate the universe being created one second ago at least.

[flip]

It depends on your definition of science Jeff. Science is just discovery to me. No agenda.

[snoopy]

inseparable? Hardly. Sure, one can derive one's philosophy from science's findings, but the philosophy need not precede the findings or the research, only an open mind. Now, if you mean that one must, to follow such research, suspend religious assumptions, I suppose THAT could be seen as a philosophical act.

I disagree. Your philosophy inherently proceeds your science in the path that you take to form hypotheses. Your ideal of an "open mind" is a philosophical requirement. Your requirement to "suspend [philosophical] assumptions" is an impossibility because they're intertwined into the formation of your hypotheses and motivation for making the hypotheses (and is also in itself a philosophical statement as you point out).

Your difficulty still comes from your conviction that naturalism is somehow less of a philosophy than theism. It's not about philosophy or not, it's about excluding some and allowing others in the "science circle."

[snoopy]

It depends on your definition of science Jeff. Science is just discovery to me. No agenda.

My argument is that there's no such thing as "no agenda." I'm willing to concede that we call science "neutral" when it's compatible with most philosophies, but in a strict sense it's all colored by our philosophies.

[snoopy]

I think the best we can do is try to minimize the Kolmogorov complexity of our initial conditions. It would easily eliminate the universe being created one second ago at least.

I tend to agree.... but that leaves you with "the philosophy that is most compatible with scientific principles is naturalism." It doesn't suddenly make naturalism less of a philosophy, or make the question of origins any more of a proven fact.

[flip]

I used to think that too Snoopy. Was I the only that just wanted to know truth. I think that is a perception you draw from the circle your in.

[Sergeant Thorne]

And another thing, is it really making assumptions of original state to say that you're wrong because I was here 2 seconds ago?

Of course it is. I don't know why you think it's absurd that memories could be created recording events that have never happened but readily accept that light could be created displaying events that never happened. The only difference between your creation myth and mine is the date!

I don't think so. The Bible says that God stretched out the heavens. I don't claim to understand what all that entails, but it's where I would look in exploring the assumption of a young universe.

Hasn't it been found that light slows down in water?

Also if you can't trust your memory then science is null because things could hardly be testable if we may have come into existence at any moment. That's why I would say it's a rabbit hole argument. I'm going to make the assumption that it's absurd. Criticize at your leasure.

[flip]

Why would God establish a law of physics and then transgress it? Sounds nothing like Him

[Sergeant Thorne]

You mean like someone being able to walk around in a fiery furnace untouched? The God of the Bible certainly does not suffer from the lack the forethought which would cause him to apparently work against himself as the tenor of some ideas seem to imply. I don't necessarily have a problem with an almighty God speaking the universe into existence in-transit light and all, though. I mean I assume that the stars were created reaction and all since God created the universe in 6 days... Is it so incredible to think that God created a universe in motion? Did God create baby animals or full-grown?

[flip]

It says he called the animals to spring forth from the ground, based on scientific finding, I'd say He started with single-cells. That then kept splitting, directed by a genetic code, that allows for changes dependent on conditions and environmental pressures. Who said being unburnt in a fire breaks the laws of physics? Have you ever seen the tiles on the space shuttle? There will never be a grand unified theory without accounting for the spirit. Thorne do you just dismiss all science in favor of your indoctrination? I ask this because, there is no way to prove that God made all that we see in 6 days, and there is overwhelming evidence against it in the Bible itself and observation. Yet, again, it's a moot argument because there is no reliable way to date it. But we can watch stars decay, we can dig in the ground, we can document written history. All of these things seem to suggest otherwise. Here's another thing, and I'm glad I stayed out of it even then. I remember when this young-earth thing got started. It was based on that ridiculous formula of yours and had nothing to do with the age of the earth at all, but with how long man had been on this Earth. People were saying "1 day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as 1 day" and they were saying it was the end of time. Since we were about 20-25 years away from the BIG 2K, everyone was saying we were in the 6th day and the end was about to come. Another case of dispensationalism!

[Jeff250]

Also if you can't trust your memory then science is null because things could hardly be testable if we may have come into existence at any moment. That's why I would say it's a rabbit hole argument. I'm going to make the assumption that it's absurd. Criticize at your leasure.

You think that one second ago is absurd, but that 8000 years ago isn't? The universe has 14 billion years of memories that we can witness at any time by looking out to the sky!

I tend to agree.... but that leaves you with "the philosophy that is most compatible with scientific principles is naturalism." It doesn't suddenly make naturalism less of a philosophy, or make the question of origins any more of a proven fact.

It doesn't imply naturalism. It just implies that as long as we can explain something using a simpler set of assumptions (e.g., physical laws), then there's no reason to bring in more complicated ones (e.g, God). For instance, if it really did look like life appeared out of nowhere on earth 8000 years ago, then God would be a kickass explanation.

[flip]

Hehe, being somewhat facetious, if in the primordial world everything started out single-cell, then with each change of the atmosphere an extinction occurred, and that same basis of life kept coming back more and more complex, until the Earth and the Universe finally reached stability (read:Very low radioactivity), it sure is grand that it decided to make us male and female All kidding aside, if you cannot see the perfect fit and coherency needed to achieve such balance, even if somebody came back from the dead, you would not believe. I learned the hard way how to recognize that

EDIT: Death is a state of decay.

[vision]

... even if somebody came back from the dead, you would not believe.

If someone came back from the dead I would want to collect data on that person. If the data showed there was no other explanation than divine intervention that would be a pretty compelling case. However, I would still need many people to rise from the dead, collect the data, and evaluate it before coming to a conclusion. So tell your god to get to work. Should be pretty easy for him.

[sigma]

Hehe, being somewhat facetious, if in the primordial world everything started out single-cell, then with each change of the atmosphere an extinction occurred, and that same basis of life kept coming back more and more complex, until the Earth and the Universe finally reached stability (read:Very low radioactivity), it sure is grand that it decided to make us male and female All kidding aside, if you cannot see the perfect fit and coherency needed to achieve such balance, even if somebody came back from the dead, you would not believe. I learned the hard way how to recognize that

EDIT: Death is a state of decay.

Flip, I think, you just need to get acquainted with scientific works Chizhevskogo on these issues.

[flip]

Vision, I'd rather talk about the extinctions and atmospheric changes.

EDIT: Interesting link Sigma. Thanks

[Sergeant Thorne]

... Thorne do you just dismiss all science in favor of your indoctrination?

Indoctrination? You must know something about me that I don't. Let's hear it.

I ask this because, there is no way to prove that God made all that we see in 6 days, and there is overwhelming evidence against it in the Bible itself and observation.

Losing respect here. It's on. Where is the overwhelming evidence in the Bible?

It was based on that ridiculous formula of yours and had nothing to do with the age of the earth at all.

Where is the age of the earth? But for me it goes Genesis creation account, Biblical genealogies, modern history. Pretty straight-forward. It's an inescapable account of man all the way back to Adam and Eve. Anyone who acknowledges the Bible can only hope to change the creation account. There's no room anywhere else, because you can't really manipulate the accounts of men's lives. I could make a good argument that anyone who believes the Bible's genealogies should use the popular scientific methods to date human remains and then dismiss them as useless. You've got to make a decision regarding who to believe, but you don't have to dismiss facts, only recognize assumptions.

[Sergeant Thorne]

You think that one second ago is absurd, but that 8000 years ago isn't? The universe has 14 billion years of memories that we can witness at any time by looking out to the sky!

I think that suggesting that our senses are not a basis for science as a scientific theory is absurd. Everything else is your straw-man. I think you temporarily lost your mind. That axe is made of ★■◆● steel, don't grind it, get rid of it.

[Jeff250]

It's obviously absurd, but if it's absurd that our memories were created for events that didn't happen, then why isn't it absurd that light was created for events that didn't happen?

[Sergeant Thorne]

That is absurd, but it's also a pretty big assumption. You assume that light must either be lying about its age in light of the account of the Bible, or in your case telling you it's Billions of years old. Could it be that it's the assumption or perception that's at fault? Is the passage of time uniform throughout the universe? What does it look like if light is slowing down? Could it have been instantaneous at some point? EDIT: And what are the physical implications of God stretching out the heavens at creation?