DescentBB

There's really just one question I have, but considering that we debate all of the time at a certain level here on the DBB I'll make it two. Before I do, I propose a voluntary format to this topic, as an experiment--follow 3 guidelines...

#1) Make your first post as accurate and exhaustive an expression of your feelings, opinions, and general criticisms of the debate as possible, accepting everyone else's initial replies as just that.

#2) Make any following replies as concise as possible, and directed only at perceived, specific logical or factual errors with regard to the debate. i.e. - "Ken Ham never answered Bill Nye's request for evidence of any predictive nature to his approach to science". When replying to such a post, quote the person who's concise argument you're replying to, make a concise assertion about their argument, and give a concise counter-argument.

Final) Whenever you feel the need to give a less than concise reply, either start a new, related topic, or specifically end that argument with a concise reason.

If you're not interested then get your kicks in now and try not to derail the rest of the topic.


My First Post
I think Ken Ham is operating with a great deal of clarity when he makes his foundational argument that observational science and historical science are not the same thing, and furthermore that science education and various proponents of the theories of naturalistic origins and macro evolution are content to glaze over the difference. My primary question is, do you acknowledge any logic to his premise? I am border-line dumbfounded when I read reviews and watch interviews (and at Bill Nye's own treatment of the debate), and find that they don't even seem to acknowledge the premise at all. I've only seem it dealt with by a few people who have managed to entirely misrepresent it. People can't be this dumb. Do you grasp it (do you understand the argument), and do you think there is any logic to it?

One thing I will say for the premise, is that it sheds light on the few arguments we have had here on this BB, where proponents of macro-evolution and naturalistic origins have bizarrely accused myself and others of not believing in the kind of science which stands behind technological invention, innovation, and discovery. This is absurd. Surely the disconnect there would lead anyone looking on to allow that there may be two different matters being addressed, with the differences lost somewhere in assumption/translation/communication.

2nd Question) Obviously the DBB continues to have problems with the exercise of debating, evidenced by debates leading nowhere, being derailed, getting personal, ... This is the only BB I've spent much time with, but if YouTube and various other forms of feedback and mini-debate are any indication we've got a leg up on the rest of the net. What do you guys think of the debate itself? Did they manage to even debate? Were they underhanded? What were their goals? I'll keep my opinions to myself for now, but for me the debate spoke volumes about the intellectual honesty and intentions of the debaters.

IMO the tenor of Bill Nye's arguments was a plea for emotional acceptance of a premise and conclusion which he did little to support. I think we now know his feelings on the matter expressed in very eloquent and scientific-sounding terms, utilizing the accepted theories of the day to showcase the fact that his opponents positions are not accepted. He also had a surprisingly poor grasp of his opponents positions, probably gleaned what he may have from opponents of the creation museum rather than from the creation museum's readily-available material. I would think if you were going to debate against a position you would want to be sure you know what it is first.

I won't attempt to criticize Ken Ham, because I'm in agreement with him. I think his argument is very enlightened, and strikes right to the heart of what becomes a very convoluted subject in which people know a great deal more than they understand, and the true ignorance and religious fervor of people separated from the dark ages only by time, elementary learning, nuance of civilization, and a shallow grasp of extraordinarily deep subjects explored once upon a time by great minds with a great deal more humility than is shown in our day becomes apparent. This is what our society has been reduced to. The question in my mind is, has "science" in the sociopolitical arena ever been anything more, notwithstanding the sacrifice and vision of men who evidently and iconically push the boundaries of understanding?


Here is the full debate for reference...
[youtube]z6kgvhG3AkI[/youtube]

The debate comes down to this Thorne. Climate change, natural or man-caused, takes generations, perhaps even on a geological time scale, to become evident as to the course it's taking. Neither man in that debate can make an agrument with any hard proof one way or another because of this very fact. All the information we can gleen is from short term obseravtion, and what I mean by "short term" is the human time scale short term, and it's thoroughly incomplete at best. We can't tell what's going to happen because it takes too long to see what direction that change is taking to become apparent to an observer. And since changes in the atmosphere takes so long to become fully evident, fixing things by then will be too late for any future process to remedy, unless of course, we develop the ability to control the weather and clean up the entire atmosphere in the future, which we shouldn't be banking on as salvation anyway.

That said, even if we can or cannot prove that man is causing climate change, why fight over it or ignore it at our peril at all? We have only this one planet to exist on right now and one atmosphere to breathe. Why not attempt to find better ways to NOT pollute it for future generations, who by the way, WILL have to live in the chemical soup we're now creating? What are conservatives fighting so hard against, when a cleaner atmosphere is best for all the life on the planet? Are conservatives so determined to live for today and so anti-environment, that they don't care about tomorrow?

I didn't watch the full debate. But I don't see any reason to distinguish between what Ham calls "historical" science and what he calls "observational" science. Science is just practicing the scientific method. And the scientific method is just testing a theory's predictions against observations. And if a theory makes a lot of risky but correct predictions, then we like it. That's science. The only reason why you would give up on a theory that's continuing to make risky but correct predictions is if you have an agenda.

I would have taken notes last week had I known there would be a thread like this.

You might find this surprising coming from a science-minded atheist, but I thought Ken Ham won the debate. However, I think he won because Nye did not take him to task. Thorne's recap is accurate. The two men seemed to be having separate conversations. One possible reason for this is that neither really knew enough about their opponent's material. It also might be because of fundamental differences in the way they look at the world. Nye seemed genuinely perplexed by some of Ham's comments (as was I). Another reason might be related to the new-atheist practice of not engaging creationists because doing so creates the impression their arguments are worthy of scientific debate (they are not, and I'll explain why later). However, I don't think Nye would be swayed by, or cater to, new-atheism. His agenda is science education, not religion, except where they intersect. A third reason Nye might not have engaged Ham is that he perceived a greater good, in this case, the opportunity to promote science literacy. He wasn't out there to convert anyone to science, he simply wanted to speak directly to those who influence school policy. Of course, a fourth reason the two men didn't engage might be because Nye sucks at debating. Though I'm not sure about this.

Bill Nye is very charming. I think one of the reasons he is a tremendous promoter of science is because his enthusiasm makes people curious. What is it about science that made this guy so in love with it? But I think his charm can work against him when in a hostile environment as his politeness can be misinterpreted for lack of conviction. He has a fantastic knowledge of many scientific fields, but perhaps not deep enough in certain areas to solidify some of his points. Of course, someone who could dive very deep and create rock solid arguments might be too obscure for this debate, as well as being a complete mis-match for Ham's clearly limited understanding of science. It was a good idea to put Ham and Nye together, they created a rather light and entertaining event. But on to my review...

Ken Ham is good at what he does. He made me want to explore his creationist ideas. That is no easy feat! Some of them were interesting, but others were laughably bad.

The first issue I have is with his view is the arbitrary distinction between observational and historical science. Ham briefly defined them at the beginning of the debate, but as the night went on he seemed to tack the terms onto situations with no clear pattern. I felt like he was using it as a way to separate scientific claims that supported his view and those that didn't. Of course, I would have to read his book to find out more about his definition and usage, but that is how it felt while watching the debate.

I think Ham's finest argument is that of "Kinds" and how he coupled it with the observational/historical science distinction. But strangely, his idea of Kinds actually reinforces the argument for evolution and I'm not sure that is his intention. Many Christians disregard evolution altogether, but not only do the Kinds provide an interesting framework for observed evolution, it makes it even more believable than the current model because it removes the hotly contested macro-evolution! Still, I think this is a sign the fringe of Christianity is ready to start accepting what we know of the world, especially since the number of kinds is expected to dwindle as to fit them all on The Ark. Speaking of which...

This is one place where Nye had Ham on the ropes. Ham's inability to provide a good argument when pressed on the details of Noah's Ark exposed a big weakness. A more forceful debater would have crushed him and likely won the day. To believe Ham's account, one requires an extraordinary amount of faith. And if you already have that much faith, you have no need for "Kinds" or any creationism movement. Another place Ham would have been easily destroyed is his argument that we can't know the past.

This is the reason why the perceived scientific elite discourages debate with creationists, though I don't know enough about creationist literature to know if this is a widespread belief or just Ham's. The idea we cannot know the past is completely absurd. If anyone but Nye was on that stage they would have hammered Ham on this point over and over. Ham brought it up every time scientific findings opposed his personal creation story (just like the observational/historical science trick). And if neither of those two tricks were appropriate, he threw in a few red herrings. His most popular herring was the inaccuracy of dating, but he never went into convincing detail on it (probably because his argument is hollow). He would also occasionally throw in some dubious scientific paper but provided no details to argue.

I could say almost as many things about Nye's flat performance, but Ken Ham was the star that night, so I'll just finish this much too long review right here.

I didn't watch the debate, maybe I should before I post anything else, but I will just say that the Bible itself endorses the idea of Evolution. The mentioning of 'Kinds' and the fact that the Bible itself says that God told the Earth to bring forth all the different animals and birds from the Earth, makes me think the whole idea of Evolution actually sprang from the Bible. Add the Cambrian Explosion on top of that and it adds even more weight to the idea. Now, as far as humans are concerned, it says he was formed from the ground, which makes me think a direct link will never be found. I'll watch the debate sometime today, but in my experience, I can find nothing contradictory from the Bible that we have not proven through science. Christians seem to feel threatened by the idea, but it's really their lack of knowledge or understanding on the subject that causes that fear. To their shame and the destruction of others I might add.

tunnelcat wrote:

That said, even if we can or cannot prove that man is causing climate change, why fight over it or ignore it at our peril at all? We have only this one planet to exist on right now and one atmosphere to breathe. Why not attempt to find better ways to NOT pollute it for future generations, who by the way, WILL have to live in the chemical soup we're now creating? What are conservatives fighting so hard against, when a cleaner atmosphere is best for all the life on the planet? Are conservatives so determined to live for today and so anti-environment, that they don't care about tomorrow?

TC stop with the liberal talking point that conservatives want dirty air and water. You're starting to sound like slick. If you want to help the environment then people like John Kerry have to stop making comments like, "“We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts,” . Yeah John, with you trying to muzzle anything opposing your wet dream, I'm sure we will find the correct way to deal with it.

Also TC if we cannot prove man is the cause, if climate change is indeed natural...then why ruin our nations economy fighting it? It's like thinking you can do something to prevent a volcano from erupting or a hurricane from coming on shore. If we only follow the promoters, we may wind up doing more harm than good. Hard science is developed when the skeptics are part of process as much as the promoters of any hypothesis. If we didn't have skeptics we'd still think the sun revolved around the earth (as apparently 25% of the American public does)

Bill Nye won the debate.....no contest whatsoever. If I had to distill it to one moment it would be this: when asked if anything would change their minds, Nye stated: proof in the form of facts. Ham stated: nothing. A closed mind is antithetical to science, and since science was the subject of the debate, Ham loses right there on a TKO. Overall, Ham brought nothing to the table by way of proven fact, Nye ate him alive.

callmeslick wrote:Bill Nye won the debate.....no contest whatsoever. If I had to distill it to one moment it would be this: when asked if anything would change their minds, Nye stated: proof in the form of facts. Ham stated: nothing. A closed mind is antithetical to science, and since science was the subject of the debate, Ham loses right there on a TKO. Overall, Ham brought nothing to the table by way of proven fact, Nye ate him alive.

From what I heard of the debate (I didn't watch it) was that Ham was a slick salesman for his point of view and Nye was a fumbling, rambling fuddy duddy.

I like Bill Nye and all- but he isn't much of a debater. It's too bad Christopher Hitchens passed away. He would have destroyed Ham within two minutes.

callmeslick wrote:Bill Nye won the debate.....no contest whatsoever.

I disagree solely because Ham kept me interested in his viewpoint. I think debates are won on the ability to persuade, even if one uses fallacious or underhanded tactics in doing so. Of course, facts are facts and Ham has some of them dead wrong, so he can't ultimately win without fancy wordplay. However, it was fun watching Ham's approach to defending the Bible. It is much less frustrating than listening to William Lane Craig who perpetually pushes God outside the physical world and into the safe-haven of philosophical concepts whenever the situation gets too hot. Ham's God is more present and more engaged.

One thing I would love to see is an unmoderated discussion between Ken Ham and an opponent. The debate format doesn't allow for good exchanges. The question and answer part of the debate was fantastic, but left a lot to be desired since neither man could really counter attacks from his opponent.

If something like this is ever scheduled, someone please bump this thread with the date/time/location.

A strong debate consists not in the debater.

woodchip wrote:TC stop with the liberal talking point that conservatives want dirty air and water. You're starting to sound like slick. If you want to help the environment then people like John Kerry have to stop making comments like, "“We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts,” . Yeah John, with you trying to muzzle anything opposing your wet dream, I'm sure we will find the correct way to deal with it.

Also TC if we cannot prove man is the cause, if climate change is indeed natural...then why ruin our nations economy fighting it? It's like thinking you can do something to prevent a volcano from erupting or a hurricane from coming on shore. If we only follow the promoters, we may wind up doing more harm than good. Hard science is developed when the skeptics are part of process as much as the promoters of any hypothesis. If we didn't have skeptics we'd still think the sun revolved around the earth (as apparently 25% of the American public does)

Like it or not, this IS a conservative vs liberal argument. Liberals believe we are affecting the climate, conservatives hate the whole idea because it MAY negatively impact their beloved free market economy. Liberals believe we should be proactive and make the sacrifice NOW to change our ways to hopefully protect the planet in the future. Conservatives don't care about the long term impacts of industry and mobility as long as the economy is good, money can flow, products can be made, people can travel freely and the free market can proceed unimpeded by such trivial nonsense like man-caused pollution and climate change. It's been this way since the 1960's as far as I can remember. We STILL haven't learned any lessons, nor changed our ways. Money and progress are king. Any worries of tainted air and water because of that progress is still being shoved to the back burner of our priorities.

I personally believe man IS contributing to changes in the earth's atmosphere. We are dumping too much carbon into it to be healthy for the planet in the long run. BUT, I can't PROVE the assertion beyond a reasonable doubt that the amount of carbon we are dumping into the atmosphere WILL cause long term negative effects. The atmosphere is such a large volume of air that will take quite some time for any changes to really show up as permanent or irreversible. We can look at temperature records from the past and present, we can look at old tree rings for droughts or ice periods, we can look at the present dwindling glaciers and polar ice caps, we can look at rising ocean temperatures and levels, we can look at the record in the rocks, but none of that will show specifically WHY these changes occurred, which are muddled by the very long geologic period of time involved and the fact we weren't even around during most past changes to make good observations. A lot of things can happen during those thousands of years. We don't even know for sure what caused the last ice age. We have an idea through ancillary evidence in the geologic record, but that record is HUGE and only shows us little tantalizing clues, but not the actual cause in most cases. Man just wasn't around at the time, or wasn't able to record good data like we can today.

But back to the economic impact of climate change. Instead of fighting the issue of climate change over sematics, why not use it as impetus to embrace a new thinking and new economy for the world, one that promotes conservation, not waste, one that promotes cleaner ways to travel and produce electricity, not continuing pollution in our water and more carbon and chemicals being dumped into the atmosphere like one giant trash can, one that promotes the manufacturing of less wasteful and cheap products in favor of more repairable and reliable products that are less likely to end up in landfills or polluted Chinese and third world recycling dumps, and one that promotes maintaining a steady, stable economy, instead of the constant growth that Wall Street and the world markets demand? Maybe I'm dreamer, maybe I'm deluded. But we will eventually hit the wall on our love of monetary constant growth. We will run out of resources and we will run out of clean air and water because the earth is a closed system and human populations are still growing. And if the climate is changing and we ignore it because many people thought it was an inconvenience to the market and the economy, we're short sighted and we'll be screwed as a species. What should be our priority as a race? A good economy in the short term, or a good climate to live in for the long term?

I didn't watch the entire debate, but was part of it on climate change or something?

ThunderBunny wrote:From what I heard of the debate (I didn't watch it) was that Ham was a slick salesman for his point of view and Nye was a fumbling, rambling fuddy duddy.

I like Bill Nye and all- but he isn't much of a debater. It's too bad Christopher Hitchens passed away. He would have destroyed Ham within two minutes.

Nye's only issue was his all-around nice-guy politeness. He mopped the floor in terms of facts and defenses, with Ham. The salesman analogy is a good one, but(and I suffered through the whole thing)he was clearly dodging the serious questions and falling back on faith, in a science debate.

vision wrote:You might find this surprising coming from a science-minded atheist, but I thought Ken Ham won the debate. However, I think he won because Nye did not take him to task. Thorne's recap is accurate. The two men seemed to be having separate conversations. One possible reason for this is that neither really knew enough about their opponent's material. It also might be because of fundamental differences in the way they look at the world. Nye seemed genuinely perplexed by some of Ham's comments (as was I). Another reason might be related to the new-atheist practice of not engaging creationists because doing so creates the impression their arguments are worthy of scientific debate (they are not, and I'll explain why later). However, I don't think Nye would be swayed by, or cater to, new-atheism. His agenda is science education, not religion, except where they intersect. A third reason Nye might not have engaged Ham is that he perceived a greater good, in this case, the opportunity to promote science literacy. He wasn't out there to convert anyone to science, he simply wanted to speak directly to those who influence school policy. Of course, a fourth reason the two men didn't engage might be because Nye sucks at debating. Though I'm not sure about this.

I don't come at it from an atheist's standpoint, but I agree with the concept that engaging an individual like Ken Ham in open debate dignifies his position as one worthy of consideration, which it is not. I understand why Bill Nye chose to do this: he's devoted his whole life to promoting science education, and to him I'm sure this looked like an opportunity to reach out to a new audience, but it was just never going to work out. Ham's line about "nothing" being able to change his mind really says it all: there's no point getting into a discourse with someone who's coming to the table in such bad faith.

I think the important thing to take away from all this is that the scientific process isn't something that's founded on one's oration skills. It's based on making hypothesis, experimenting and gathering evidence to test them, and using the outcomes over time to build up theories that describe how the universe works. Ham's belief system is not something that can make testable predictions, so from a scientific viewpoint it is essentially useless. And his attempts to draw some sort of artificial distinction between "observational" and "historical" science show that he doesn't have a good grasp on how science actually functions. Data are data, no matter where their original sources are. Hell, the entire field of astronomy is founded on the study of light that was released thousands, millions, or even billions of years ago.

Jeff250 wrote:I didn't watch the entire debate, but was part of it on climate change or something?

As far as I'm aware, no, which is why I'm not sure what TC is going for with this tangent.

The debate was played here the day after it was originally aired (approximately two weeks ago now), and from what I saw, it seemed rather one-sided. Ham kept using the same answer for every question while sounding like it was different answers.

And by reading Nye's facial expressions, he seemed genuinely dumbfounded at the fact he kept hearing the same thing over and over again.

Nye had a distinct and clear answer to every question asked, and was willingly able to express that there was a few things that we just didn't know. Unlike Ham who kept saying something akin to "it's in the bible, therefore it's true".


Like vision said, we should have kept notes.

Top Gun wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:I didn't watch the entire debate, but was part of it on climate change or something?

As far as I'm aware, no, which is why I'm not sure what TC is going for with this tangent.

Yeah, there was almost nothing about climate change in the debate. Most of the event was based around evolution, the bible, and scientific credibility. I'm not sure where TC's post came from.

Let me start by saying I think Evolution was a biblical idea that a man used to make a name for himself. It plainly says that God called the ground to bring forth animals. Well, there was this discussion about the improbability of Noah's Ark, and I kind of stayed out of the conversation, but then it occurred to me. Every dog on this Earth is descended from the Wolf. So, really all you needed to do was take 2 of the same 'kind.'

19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

98% of everything that has ever lived in now extinct.

*Bump*

Linked to full debate in the OP above.

flip wrote:... Every dog on this Earth is descended from the Wolf. So, really all you needed to do was take 2 of the same 'kind.' ...

Good thought, Flip, and it was one of Ken Ham's arguments in the debate. That's science, but apparently it's not the kind of "science" the opposition are listening for, since I hear people saying Ken Ham didn't debate any science. I'll consider that one of the first "concise arguments", and I second it. What do you creationism opponents say to that?

however, since dogs originated well before 'Noah's Ark' supposedly took sail, that argument with the wolves is pretty weak. You telling me that old Noah rounded up two ants, two mosquitoes etc, and could determine gender? I begs any intelligent person's credibility.

callmeslick wrote:however, since dogs originated well before 'Noah's Ark' supposedly took sail, that argument with the wolves is pretty weak.

The young-earth creationist assumptions put the earth at < 7000 years old. That's ~2000 years before the flood, and ~4000 years since. Which means we're looking at twice the amount of speciation/evolution now based on only the animals which would have been preserved at that point. You're welcome to hold onto your opinion, Slick, but I would say the weakness of it is pretty speculative. Logically it would have been possible to get a lot closer to the original dog then than even the wildest most undisturbed wolf population in our day. [/counter argument]

callmeslick wrote:You telling me that old Noah rounded up two ants, two mosquitoes etc, and could determine gender? I begs any intelligent person's credibility.

I'm not telling you any such thing. All the Bible says is that he was commanded to do it by God, and he did it. How he did it is a matter of speculation, but placing a naturalistic requirement on any aspect of an explicitly supernatural event is logically absurd. [/counter argument]

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

flip wrote:... Every dog on this Earth is descended from the Wolf. So, really all you needed to do was take 2 of the same 'kind.' ...

Good thought, Flip, and it was one of Ken Ham's arguments in the debate. That's science, but apparently it's not the kind of "science" the opposition are listening for, since I hear people saying Ken Ham didn't debate any science. I'll consider that one of the first "concise arguments", and I second it. What do you creationism opponents say to that?

Before we even get to the science, I thought your claim was that science cannot be used to explain what happened in the past? So then how can we even know that all dogs evolved from wolves? We weren't there! And, even if there were such an event as a worldwide flood, how could we ever use science to show that it happened? We can no longer witness it! You've made your bed--now lie in it.

Well, not to mention there is no way to know exactly how long ago that actually was. Could have been on the super continent Pangaea. There's no way to know but young-earth creationism is debunked by science alone. How do we know there was a huge extinction of man? Because Mitochondrial Eve and Chromosomal Adam cannot be traced back to the same time, so, maybe science has found us an approximation after all. Oh and slick, ant's and insects probably could have survived on drifting debris, but you have made a wrong assumption. Noah didn't gather them, they were sent.

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is a hypothetical name given to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal or male lines of their family tree). However, the title is not permanently fixed on a single individual (see below).

Y-chromosomal Adam is named after the biblical Adam, but the bearer of the chromosome was not the only human male alive during his time.[1] His other male contemporaries could also have descendants alive today, but not, by definition, solely through patrilineal descent.

The age for the Y-MRCA has been variously estimated as 188,000,[2] 270,000,[3] 306,000,[4] and 142,000 years[5] A paper published in March 2013 reported an older estimate of 338,000 years.[6] Then two simultaneous reports in August 2013 provide younger estimates, one suggested 180,000 to 200,000 years,[7] and another, based on the genome sequence of nine different populations, indicated the age between 120,000 and 156,000 years.[8]

Analogous to Y-chromosomal Adam, Mitochondrial Eve is the woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally, who lived about 140,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. The estimate is based on inherited mtDNA though mothers. Theoretically, it is not necessary to believe that Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve should have lived at the same time.[9][10] However, latest findings in 2013 give the possibility that the two individuals could have been contemporaneous

JERUSALEM — Israeli archaeologists said Monday they may have found the earliest evidence yet for the existence of modern man, and if so, it could upset theories of the origin of humans.

A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, found in Israel. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half as old.

pop,pop,pop

dogs evolved from wolves over 12,000 years ago, at least.

Jeff250 wrote:Before we even get to the science, I thought your claim was that science cannot be used to explain what happened in the past?

Did I say that?

Sergeant Thorne in the OP wrote:I think Ken Ham is operating with a great deal of clarity when he makes his foundational argument that observational science and historical science are not the same thing, and furthermore that science education and various proponents of the theories of naturalistic origins and macro evolution are content to glaze over the difference.

The claim is that observational science is nothing but a clear window to the present apart from assumptions about how it got that way. My assertion, specifically (per Ken Ham and company), is that there is a difference between observational science and historical science operating on a naturalistic assumption for this reason. [/counter argument]

the entire distinction between 'historical' or 'observational' science is ludicrous. ALL science is observational and experimental by definition. History is just that, history. What the hell does 'historical science' really mean to a scientist? To this trained scientist, those words have no real meaning.

actually, now there is proof of evolved canines to 33,000 years ago. Goodbye, biblical literalism:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... evolution/

I don't see how you could say that Slick, because the numbers I get, that leaves even more room on the Ark

EDIT:Why don't you give up and give praise to the God of all creation. His testament is true and His love is great!

It's awesome what all the Lord has done for us. At His baptism, He won the Spirit of God for everyone, at His resurrection, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, and after every enemy of God is destroyed, the Son, who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, is stepping down and handing all authority and the Name above all names back to the Father and will receive a new name. Then we will sit on His throne the very same way He now sits on the Father's throne. What great love! He is being subjected for our sakes! 1 Corinthians 15.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The claim is that observational science is nothing but a clear window to the present apart from assumptions about how it got that way. My assertion, specifically (per Ken Ham and company), is that there is a difference between observational science and historical science operating on a naturalistic assumption for this reason. [/counter argument][/counter argument]

There's no reason to think that the scientific method magically becomes less useful when dealing with theories about the past versus theories about the present. Theories about the past can still make predictions about the future. For instance, the theory of evolution predicts which fossils we will find in which layers of rock before we even dig them up. But we're supposed to throw out a theory as powerful as that even though it keeps working so well for us just because it's about the past? I just can't make any sense of that.

Science doesn't make any "naturalistic assumption" either. For instance, people have tried to scientifically show the healing power of prayer. It seems plausible that if prayer has healed people that one might be able to scientifically show it. (No one has come up with a study that can show it yet though.)

flip wrote:I don't see how you could say that Slick, because the numbers I get, that leaves even more room on the Ark

EDIT:Why don't you give up and give praise to the God of all creation. His testament is true and His love is great!

It's awesome what all the Lord has done for us. At His baptism, He won the Spirit of God for everyone, at His resurrection, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, and after every enemy of God is destroyed, the Son, who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, is stepping down and handing all authority and the Name above all names back to the Father and will receive a new name. Then we will sit on His throne the very same way He now sits on the Father's throne. What great love! He is being subjected for our sakes! 1 Corinthians 15.

don't agree with this theological reading at all, but that is another debate for another day.

Yes, you probably don't, but all your arguments concerning scripture are full of fallacy that I know you like many others have not searched it out yourself. Otherwise, you would have found the leaven.

flip wrote:Yes, you probably don't, but all your arguments concerning scripture are full of fallacy that I know you like many others have not searched it out yourself. Otherwise, you would have found the leaven.

I know the scriptures well, understand a good bit about a lot of different religions. My disagreements are based on searching and knowledge, and it's too bad you cannot accept that. Of course, that's the whole problem with religion. If others disagree with one's interpretation, they much have not studied enough, to some folks' minds. Religion requires absolutist thinking, and I have a big issue with that sort of thinking, finding it small-minded.

Paul calls God the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He says that the Son learned obedience and perfection through what He suffered then was given a Name above all names. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says that it is clear that when he says all things were put under His feet, it is clear that that does not include God, who put everything under his feet. He then goes on to say that after He has defeated all enemies of God, he hands the Kingdom back over so that God is all in all. In Revelations, it says He is given a new name and that the victorious will sit with Him on His throne just like He sat on the Father's. This happens when He is subjected as Paul says in 1 Corinthians. He hands over the Kingdom and the Name.

What you must realize is that Jesus told Peter how he would glorify God. Peter denied the Lord 3 times, was fearful of man and withdrew from the Gentiles out of fear of the circumcision. So, when Paul confronted him, saying that he could see he was not living according to the truth of the Gospel, he sent Peter away with the circumcision. This fits exactly with the account in Acts. Jesus told Peter that when he was young he dressed his self and went where he wanted, but when he was old someone else would dress him and lead him where he didn't want to go. We both know how the Catholics have made him the head. I'm pretty sure they are the ones who killed him when he refused and then actually built that church right over his bones. He even demanded to be crucified head down. The leaven of the Pharisee's and Sadducee's went with Peter. They had to go somewhere, but Paul went to the third heavens and received the true Gospel directly from the risen Lord as He sat next to the Father.

At Jesus' baptism, John tried to prevent him from being baptized, but He had to be because the whole world was without God. The Spirit of God would only come on the prophet, priest and king of Israel, and then only for a moment. When Jesus came out of the water, the Spirit of God came down and remained on Him. Then when He was resurrected, He said He had to leave because if He didn't He could not send the 'promised' Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit of the Son that God sent into our hearts by which we cry ABBA, Father!.

wow, some very odd interpretations in there, Flip. Just sayin'........

a completely different interpretation:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/b ... ault-rifle


given a choice limited to the two, I'll go with Flip's.........

callmeslick wrote:the entire distinction between 'historical' or 'observational' science is ludicrous. ALL science is observational and experimental by definition. History is just that, history. What the hell does 'historical science' really mean to a scientist? To this trained scientist, those words have no real meaning.

I would say historical science is simply any branch of science when used to attempt to determine the way things were at some point in the past. [/counter argument]

Jeff250 wrote:There's no reason to think that the scientific method magically becomes less useful when dealing with theories about the past versus theories about the present.

The past is not directly observable, so I would say there is a very straightforward reason the scientific method becomes less useful. You can't test history, you can only test the present and make calculated guesses using assumptions of linearity.[/counter argument]

Jeff250 wrote:Science doesn't make any "naturalistic assumption" either. For instance, people have tried to scientifically show the healing power of prayer. It seems plausible that if prayer has healed people that one might be able to scientifically show it. (No one has come up with a study that can show it yet though.)

If science doesn't, and I'm pretty sure it does (how does one test something that is not natural?), the majority of people involved in science are certainly predisposed or even beholden to naturalistic hypotheses.

Only 2 to go with Slick. On the rock, where everything built there will fall to pieces, or under the rock, crushed and not going anywhere.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:There's no reason to think that the scientific method magically becomes less useful when dealing with theories about the past versus theories about the present.

The past is not directly observable, so I would say there is a very straightforward reason the scientific method becomes less useful. You can't test history, you can only test the present and make calculated guesses using assumptions of linearity.[/counter argument]

We can directly observe evidence from the past (e.g. almost the entire fields of both geology and astronomy), so why should we not be able to test it? Data one gathers from a rock layer that's millions of years old is no different than data one gathered in the lab yesterday.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:Science doesn't make any "naturalistic assumption" either. For instance, people have tried to scientifically show the healing power of prayer. It seems plausible that if prayer has healed people that one might be able to scientifically show it. (No one has come up with a study that can show it yet though.)

If science doesn't, and I'm pretty sure it does (how does one test something that is not natural?), the majority of people involved in science are certainly predisposed or even beholden to naturalistic hypotheses.

I know what you're trying to imply with the term "naturalistic," but you're barking up the wrong tree here. The only thing the scientific method concerns itself with is if a given hypothesis is testable and falsifiable..if it's not, then by definition it's not a scientific question. The easiest example would be the existence of God: there's no experiment you could design to prove or disprove it, so from a scientific standpoint the question doesn't really matter either way.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The past is not directly observable, so I would say there is a very straightforward reason the scientific method becomes less useful. You can't test history, you can only test the present and make calculated guesses using assumptions of linearity.[/counter argument]

You test theories about the past the same way you test theories about the present: by testing those theories' predictions.

You're right in that it's sometimes more difficult to test theories about the past. But this is just a practical matter, and it's not an issue that's unique to the past. In addition to "historical" science for theories about the past, should we also have "deep ocean" science for theories about things that are deep in the ocean and "far away in space" science for theories about things that are far away in space? As the topics of your theories get deeper in the ocean or farther way in space, they get more difficult to test too, just like when they get further in the past.

But even if you can't test your theory, then it's just that--you have a theory that you cannot test. But evolution doesn't fit in this category. We do have tests for evolution. It makes risky predictions that continue to be verified all the time.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If science doesn't, and I'm pretty sure it does (how does one test something that is not natural?), the majority of people involved in science are certainly predisposed or even beholden to naturalistic hypotheses.

Here are some more examples:

1) You can test if someone is a prophet by seeing if their predictions come true.
2) You can test if someone can heal any sick person by seeing if someone with HIV no longer has a trace of the virus.
3) You can test if the earth was created out of nothing 6000 years ago by seeing if everything is <= 6000 years young.

edit: Also see Top Gun's reply above.

You can test if someone is a prophet by seeing if their predictions come true.

That is why I believe in the authors of the Old and New Testament. I like to argue the congruence of the Bible with Science, not that it proves anything, just that it agrees. Yet, all of those books were wrote by over 40 different authors, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents over a period of around 1500 years, by men from all different walks of life. All of their predictions have or are coming true and though they even lived in different 1000 or more years apart, they all agree. Every single one, from the beginning to the end, and they all talk about the Son.